Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/21/09 02:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: The vast majority of the Bible is bullshit, I know this. What, you actually thought I believe in it and follow it? I'm not a Christian, I don't adhere to the Bible. The parables are what I like to think about, and the deeper meaning I attempt to derive from them. What we're currently arguing about, contradictions here and there with regards to Christ's everyday speech, I don't care for as much.

;;;
So you were what , devil's advocate there ?
As for the "deeper" meanings of the >B<ig >I<mbecillic >B<ook of >L<ies & >E<mbellishments
A work of fiction is just that, IMO.

You might as well look at the Star Wars Jedi religious practices & think about those 'parables' , you'll possibly gain a more entertaining as opposed to deeper meaning...& at least its current & for the most part the writers & developers are still alive !

At 10/21/09 05:32 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/21/09 02:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

So you were what , devil's advocate there ?

You could say that, at least with the Bible.

A work of fiction is just that, IMO.

To each his own.

You might as well look at the Star Wars Jedi religious practices & think about those 'parables' , you'll possibly gain a more entertaining as opposed to deeper meaning...

Ha, not a bad idea.

Filler text. More filler text. Wow. Seriously? C'mon, NG. FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU- It IS all relevant.

man is said to be created perfectly in the bible. so if we're perfect why are we able to kill, steal, and rape and do tons of immoral and wrong things? religion is simple, it's a way to teach people good morals and responsibility. I do believe in god and I don't think of it as when you're needy you pray and god gives you what you need. In fact in the bible it says god helps those that help themselves. So........ yeah

I wasn't under the impression that one needed to make a case for religious beliefs. You either ascribed to some form of God or not, but either way you would do so knowing full well that there was no evidence one way or another (hence the faith aspect).

Also, another religion thread, needed or not, etc.

At 10/21/09 12:03 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/20/09 07:03 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: So differentiate between the two. How is "does not believe in God" functionally different (e.g. 'less certain') than "believes God does not exist." ? What part of "does not believe in God" suggests that there's more wiggle-room for uncertainty (hence agnosticism being a sub-category thereof) than "believes God does not exist" ? Despite your attempt to differentiate those two phrases as being distinct by degree of certitude, simply moving the "not" from here to there doesn't actually make it so. There's no real change in the belief/existence relationship that suggests one phrase is more-or-less 'knowing' than the other.

You really don't see any difference between someone who isn't convinced of God's existence, and someone who's convinced of God's non-existence?

All I've been trying to get across is that belief in-and-of-itself does not make any presumption as to how or why the belief is held -- those are things auxiliary to the belief. As soon as you say "convinced of" or "not convinced of" you're assuming ancillary arguments to BE convinced-of. That's why agnosticism is not a sub-category exclusive to atheism, it's a parallel concept that can be included in EITHER theism or atheism. Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with whether one can or cannot be certain of something REGARDLESS of whether one actually accepts that something as being either true or false. There are people who believe God exists; some are certain they can know it, others are not. There are people who believe God does not exist; some are certain they can know it, others are not.

I kind of discount agnostic theism because it's ridiculous and doesn't really make any sense.

I think the phrase is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

That just gets more confusing the more your read it.

At 10/26/09 08:13 PM, poxpower wrote: I think the phrase is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

That just gets more confusing the more your read it.

Yes, well, I think the idea is more important than the exact clever phrasing.

What's going to end up confusing even MORE people is the fact that there are several important exceptions to that rule.

At 10/26/09 08:39 PM, Elfer wrote:

What's going to end up confusing even MORE people is the fact that there are several important exceptions to that rule.

For instance: Bigfoot.

The absence of evidence for him is PRETTY good evidence of his absence.
Sadly.

At 10/26/09 09:13 PM, poxpower wrote: For instance: Bigfoot.

The absence of evidence for him is PRETTY good evidence of his absence.
Sadly.

True. But that does not mean for a CERTAINTY he's absent, it just means we can find no evidence right now otherwise. Sure it's probably foolish to be convinced that he MUST exist without evidence, but if people aren't willing to keep looking and to just say "well, there's no evidence so..." then we wouldn't have made a lot of the discoveries we've made. Remember, it once was unchallenged fact that the Earth was flat, and the Earth was the center of the solar system. It takes somebody being willing to look for other explanations to change such ideas we now think are patently ridiculous in hindsight :)

At 10/28/09 03:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

True. But that does not mean for a CERTAINTY he's absent, it just means we can find no evidence right now otherwise.

Yes but you do understand why something like bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are exceptions to the rule of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" right?

At 10/28/09 04:57 PM, poxpower wrote:
Yes but you do understand why something like bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are exceptions to the rule of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" right?

I wonder...

At 10/28/09 04:57 PM, poxpower wrote: Yes but you do understand why something like bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are exceptions to the rule of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" right?

I get what you're saying in this case, yes. I think a good example of what I've been saying is the giant squid. Up until quite recently we dismissed the story of the Kraken as nothing more then a myth that sailors of a bygone era would tell each other. But since we've actually found the buggers, it now makes those stories truthful (or at least more truthful, since an element of exaggeration was still present). It's still within the realm of possibility we may find the root cause of the Bigfoot or Loch Ness legends, but perhaps not the actual creatures the stories claim.

At 10/10/09 12:21 PM, JustsTrollingAlong wrote: Well, I'm not too interested in convincing you of something but I do have a couple questions for you since you're a logic student.

What's the logic behind phobias? Why do people have irrational fears? (no, you are not allowed to use the fear of heights and say it's a survival instinct)

What is logical about love? How can some people love someone when they don't like them or they are upset at them, wouldn't it be illogical to care deeply about someone and want to hurt them at the same time?

What's logical about emotions? Why would people sometimes feel sad when it would make sense to be happy? What's logical about getting angry?
Why do so many people consider it "logical" to ignore their emotions/feelings in situations and instead think about the situation "logically"?
What's the logic behind people only using part of their abilities and ignoring others when trying to understand something obviously greater than they are?

What makes you think the world in which you live is simply a logical place, would it be logical to tie your right arm behind your back simply because you have chosen to exercise your left arm more and therefore made it "stronger and better" than your right arm?

Answer my questions with an open mind and I might not have to answer yours.

I will answer in your questions.Check the animals,they do bonds too.Flamingos stay with their partner their whole life.Wolves forms packs.We are animals too you know,a species of this planet.How believe that there is a god.In skies.Watching US.Our planet.Our tiny little fragile planet,in the thing called space...that holds trillions of trillions of stars and planets.Hmmm,big space,but god deals with only us,the humans.We are his favorite.It is called Evolution.This is the answer to your question.Life occured in our planet and therefore evolved through time,and we hopped in earth.And now we are destroying it.

I cant understand when religious people try to convince me for god.Never seem anything,just though they did.So many religions,so many gods,but you dont object about yours.He is the right,through the Hundreads.Nice god here,he suits me,i dont go to hell,AND I ACHIEVE ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVENS.I will take 2 please.

At 10/28/09 04:57 PM, poxpower wrote: Yes but you do understand why something like bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are exceptions to the rule of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" right?

But those reasons are evidence against that object's existence. Or there's a logical explanation for why they probably don't exist. For instance, reproduction and population size and the quality of reports of existence and encounters along with the number of people who see them and had the opportunity merely by being in the area.

All of these things are evidence which reduce the probabilistic likelihood of existence. But none of the guarantees they don't exist without an account of the entire habitat's contents at a particular time.

Strictly speaking that isn't an environment where there is an absence of evidence.

I've grown tired of the absence of evidence argument. I heard that a lot about WMD's in Iraq during the lead up to the invasion... and ever since then thought the arguement was bullshit.

The best defense against believeing in God is something like this to me, "Of all the ridiculous religious stories, which are all truly wonderfully ridiculous, by far the silliest one is, 'Yeah, there's this big Universe and it's expanding, and it's collapsing on itself and we're all here just cause...just cause. That to me, is the most ludicrous explanation ever". Trey Parker said that. I was actually going to make that my signature, but it was too long.

At 10/29/09 12:39 PM, Ericho wrote: Trey Parker said that. I was actually going to make that my signature, but it was too long.

Hey. I'm his demographic. Now I must believe you.

At 10/29/09 11:23 AM, awkward-silence wrote: I've grown tired of the absence of evidence argument. I heard that a lot about WMD's in Iraq during the lead up to the invasion... and ever since then thought the arguement was bullshit.

It works both ways, you can't truthfully dismiss God before you have any evidence of His existence. It's like dismissing Quantum Physics, because you have never seen any single atoms in your life. You can't however conclude that God exists because there is no evidence against him.

At 10/29/09 12:39 PM, Ericho wrote: The best defense against believeing in God is something like this to me, "Of all the ridiculous religious stories, which are all truly wonderfully ridiculous, by far the silliest one is, 'Yeah, there's this big Universe and it's expanding, and it's collapsing on itself and we're all here just cause...just cause. That to me, is the most ludicrous explanation ever". Trey Parker said that. I was actually going to make that my signature, but it was too long.

That's a fucking bullshit argument.

We really DON'T KNOW, so this is the best we have given the current evidence.

having a dumb answer is not better than having no answer at all.

"What is the square root of 637847.342374?"

Ericho: Hmm, well I think it's 100!

Me: Hmm, yeah I really don't have any idea.

Ericho: OMG you are SOOO stupid my answer is obviously right because you don't have an answer

I am not a religious man. My view toward religon is George Lucas hatred of Star Wars. Anywho way to each its own.

At 10/31/09 01:01 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: It works both ways, you can't truthfully dismiss God before you have any evidence of His existence. It's like dismissing Quantum Physics, because you have never seen any single atoms in your life.

Because evidence is only ever anecdotal eh?

At 10/29/09 12:39 PM, Ericho wrote: The best defense against believeing in God is something like this to me, "Of all the ridiculous religious stories, which are all truly wonderfully ridiculous, by far the silliest one is, 'Yeah, there's this big Universe and it's expanding, and it's collapsing on itself and we're all here just cause...just cause. That to me, is the most ludicrous explanation ever". Trey Parker said that. I was actually going to make that my signature, but it was too long.

I've elaborated on this point before (and never gotten a real response, mind you), but God does not actually solve that problem. It just abstracts it and then ignores the consequences.

It's like finding a computer on an alien planet, and having this conversation:
P1: Hmm, that's weird, I wonder why this computer is here.
P2: Well, obviously it was put here by a bigger, more complicated computer that existed before this one
P1: Well, where did that computer come from then?
P2: NOT IMPORTANT.

At 11/1/09 12:04 AM, Elfer wrote:

It's like finding a computer on an alien planet, and having this conversation:
P1: Hmm, that's weird, I wonder why this computer is here.
P2: Well, obviously it was put here by a bigger, more complicated computer that existed before this one
P1: Well, where did that computer come from then?
P2: NOT IMPORTANT.

Wow Elfer, you're so stupid! It's quite obvious that the bigger computer was always there! It makes sense because HEY LOOK OVER THERE A NAKED CHICK!

At 11/1/09 12:15 AM, poxpower wrote: Wow Elfer, you're so stupid! It's quite obvious that the bigger computer was always there! It makes sense because HEY LOOK OVER THERE A NAKED CHICK!

You're missing the point. The idea is that God is such a complicated thing humans would simply not be able to understand its (?) true origin. We are able to comprehend the existance of the Universe because it has a definite starting point (The Big Bang), but if there was in fact a being such as "God", don't you think it would simply be too complex for any human to understand?

At 11/1/09 10:36 AM, Ericho wrote: You're missing the point. The idea is that God is such a complicated thing humans would simply not be able to understand its (?) true origin. We are able to comprehend the existance of the Universe because it has a definite starting point (The Big Bang), but if there was in fact a being such as "God", don't you think it would simply be too complex for any human to understand?

Look, if it's true that we understand the Universe, then that's that. Problem solved. Why need God? We already know where everything came from.

And if we DON'T understand the Universe, then why explain it with God? We cannot understand God EITHER. Now we have TWO things we don't understand and we have no reason to assume the other even exists.

Either we understand the Universe or we don't; if we do, then we don't need God, and if we don't, then God doesn't explain anything anyway.

At 11/1/09 10:36 AM, Ericho wrote: You're missing the point. The idea is that God is such a complicated thing humans would simply not be able to understand its (?) true origin.

And sorry, but how is this now an argument in favour of God's existence?

All you've said is that the big bang is silly because it means stuff coming out of nowhere for no reason, which you say can't happen. You then create an exception to your own rule that conveniently fits your preconceived notion of the universe, namely, you say God is so complicated that we can't possibly understand it, so no rules whatsoever apply.

So basically, you've solved a problem with a theory by introducing an infinitely complicated one. Sure. Makes tons of sense.

Here's a thought: If we can have non-physical entities that originate from nowhere, why should the instigating entity even be a conscious being? Why not just some sort of pseudo-physical singularity that vomited a bunch of energy into the universe and then disappeared? This solves exactly the same issues as your theory, but it's many times less complicated.

I believe in God, I believe in big bang, I believe in evolution and I hate when someone comes and says that you have to choose science or religion. Religion teaches you how to get into heaven and science teches you ho this world look like and how it works. And ONE important thing...the Bible uses similitude, so...God created human=evolution from monkey to human (evolution =God`s tool)...you have to understand these words (have zou ever tried to read Dante`s Divine comedy? try it and you will know how hard it sometimes is to understand words written in books). One last thing: Einstein did not believed in God but he believed that some "greater power" created this world and is ruling it...

At 11/1/09 10:59 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Look, if it's true that we understand the Universe, then that's that. Problem solved. Why need God? We already know where everything came from.

Well, yeah, but don't you think that by not believing in God we become arrogant? By believing in God, I would think that a person would consider themselves to be more humble as they know there is something out there that is better than them.

Either we understand the Universe or we don't; if we do, then we don't need God, and if we don't, then God doesn't explain anything anyway.

I believe we can understand the Universe, but without God we may become arrogant.

At 11/2/09 09:58 PM, Ericho wrote:

Well, yeah, but don't you think that by not believing in God we become arrogant?

Do you think you're arrogant because you don't believe in Thor?

By believing in God, I would think that a person would consider themselves to be more humble as they know there is something out there that is better than them.

How is it humble to admit that the one person who's better than you has to be the creator of the universe?
Religious people are ultra-arrogant in their beliefs. Whether they think God speaks to them, cares about what they do, vanquishes their enemies, answers their prayers or ask favors of them.

Yeah, seriously. Can you imagine anything more arrogant than someone like Mother Theresa who thinks she's on a mission FROM GOD? Holy fucking shit, talk about delusions of grandeur.

Everything about religion is false humility and arrogance exemplified to the highest degree.

You know what's humble? To think you're a miserable spec of dust on a tiny rock in the middle of an expanse of space so vast, cold and uncaring that you could murder your entire race ruthlessly without anyone or anything giving a shit or ever knowing. To think that anything you do makes no difference in the long run. To think that your death is your ultimate end and no one above you cares or will do anything to save you.

That's true humility.