Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Oh hey! You're back. Now we can pick up where we left off...

At 3/25/10 02:07 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I understand it fine... it all depends on what you're willing to except as proof. You are not willing to except anything as proof.

So you've been ignoring because you think it's the same argument you've been replying to from others. It's not. Whether I accept the proof you've given is irrelevant to the question I'm posing. In fact, the question I'm posing is far closer to accepting your evidence than not, as it's hypothetically assuming the evidence is conclusive.

Step off the high horse, throw out the talking points. And read.

Reincarnation is: a rebirth of a particular individual.

Even if we assume the proof you've given us is good, all it is proof for is one individual remembering things from a life that may or may not be a past incarnation of themselves. That is a broader phenomenon than reincarnation.

I am asking you to point me to where in the evidence you have a basis for saying that the past life is or isn't a past incarnation.

At all... you're asking for the improvable. Which is no diffrent then someone asking for undeniable proof of evolution. It's just something you can't do. Even if you had every fossil from every creature to ever walk the earth you'd still never be able to completly prove that one life changed into the other life form. In the end, it's all about what you preceive to be the truth.

So you're arguing against the validity of empiricism on a whole?

Saying I have to prove God or there is no God does not disprove Gods existance.

That depends what kind of existence you're talking about.

Your close mindedness to accept other possibilities is no diffrent then a thiests close mindedness to accept other possibilities. Do you understand that?

It is considerably different. Do you remember the stove analogy?

If you where as open-minded as you claim, you'd admit that there is some crazyness here and that reincarnation, although not proven, could be a possibility.

Which is a wholly different thing than believing in reincarnation or operating by it. And if you don't believe in reincarnation or operate by it, then it is disingenuous to claim it a possibility in any more than a very narrow philosophical context.

At the very least, you should at least argue a case beyond "nuh uh, prove it more"....

Does this fall under the context of 'feeding us our own medicine'? Because we've very clearly made a more nuanced and deeper argument than "nuh uh, prove it more." However, I could see that, if you're attempting to emulate what you perceive to be our ignorance of contrary evidence, that you might purposely ignore contrary evidence in return.

the only leg you have to stand on is that 'mabye there's another explination'

The fact that the author of the study himself felt that his work was not proof of reincarnation - not even with the weight of all three thousand together - isn't a leg to stand on?

but nobody knows what that would be. "Maybe" doesn't work... remember... infinitie posibility and such. If you can say "maybe" here, then thiests can say "maybe" elsewhere... like in evolution, for example.

You're still misusing infinite possibility.

An empirical maybe is distinct from the theist's maybe.

Either ask me to explain it to you, or stop using it.

It's now up to you to prove what that other explination is...

No it's not, because there are consequentially disparate conditions. You understand how such conditions work, as you've expressed as much in describing why the Elvis issue is not the same as the reincarnation issue. Well. The reincarnation issue is not the same as the God issue. And, more finely, the position by which evidence is regarded or disregarded on one side is consequentially distinct from the other.

At 4/6/10 03:00 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 4/5/10 11:40 PM, drDAK wrote: Evolution is a proven fact.

Lies. Your sources are biast and full of shit. All of them. It's been proven that people can lie so it's obvious that your sources are lying here. You'll have to prove to me evolution is real or just shut the fuck up and leave this forum you stupid twat.

what the hell are you talking about? Evolution was proven to happen when people experimented with mayflies because each generation of them lives for only 24 hours. The mayflies evolved over the course of several generations in accordance with the environment they were kept in. Evolution happened.

Of course people can lie, what does that have to do with anything? If people lied and made a huge cover up about evolution, why can't people do the same thing about religion? The pope systematically moved molesting priests around so the catholic image wouldn't be hurt. That doesn't sound like a man who talks to God to me.

At 4/6/10 03:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh hey! You're back. Now we can pick up where we left off...

Lies, it's all lies. Everything you said was lies and bullshit. Any evidence you presented is biast and full of shit and everything else you said was anticdotal and doesn't hold any value in this debate because anybody can just say anything they want at anytime.

Oh wow, a bunch of people who all believe the same thing agree on something... yeah that really means a lot </sarcasm>. Suposably atoms are everywhere, but I don't see any of them. Somebody tried to show me a picture of an atom once but I just said "how do I know that's an atom?" and then spit in his face because he's a stupid asshole for believing in that stupid shit.

It's really convienant that atoms are invisible. Don't know how something works? It's just 'the mysteries of physics'... yeah, good fucking answer faggots! It's so obivious you're all full of shit. You know how many people have died at the hands of science? The world would be better off without it.

Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but isn't 'kill' in "Thou shall not kill" a mistranslation from the Hebrew word meaning murder.

I bet you all should know that there is a big difference between killing somebody and murdering someone.

At 4/6/10 03:35 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You know how many people have died at the hands of science? The world would be better off without it.

Cuz you know, no ones died at the hands of religion or anything ;)

Looks like he finally cracked. I'd stay clear from clocktowrs if I lived near him.

Also, I love how all science is lies. Because, you know, those nerd "scientists" don't have anything better to do thaan sit around and write a ridiculously ellaborate fantasy about atoms and genes and evolution, just to fuck with religious people.

At 4/6/10 03:49 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but isn't 'kill' in "Thou shall not kill" a mistranslation from the Hebrew word meaning murder.

I bet you all should know that there is a big difference between killing somebody and murdering someone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that put all the texts under heavy scrutiny and scepticism because it could be mistranslated and therefore, misinterpreted?

At 4/6/10 04:38 PM, Petro355 wrote: Anyone here ever heard of a cama?

I don't know about the rest of you, but that just screams "evolution is true" to me.

Those who do not accept evolution have a great misunderstanding of it and it is best not to fill your mind with falsehoods and waste perfectly good effort because of their ignorance. With the vast supply of information on multiple sources, if they are unwilling to learn, why should you be willing to teach?

But then again, pwning can be amusing and it burns time until your favourite show comes on.

At 4/6/10 03:35 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Lies, it's all lies.

You know, becoming a caricature of what you think we are...

... despite being unable to convincingly argue that we are in fact that ridiculous (since your arguments themselves were caricatures at the expense of relevance)...

... and in response to a set of reasonable objections that in only the most remote way could involve the charges you lay against us in your caricature...

... kind of does a good job of making just you look silly and uncooperative.

You seem wholly unconcerned with understanding us, and entirely concerned with mimicking what you thought we were doing long before you ever wandered into this thread.

At 4/6/10 03:00 PM, CacheHelper wrote:
Lies. Your sources are biast and full of shit. All of them. It's been proven that people can lie so it's obvious that your sources are lying here. You'll have to prove to me evolution is real or just shut the fuck up and leave this forum you stupid twat.

It is to my great pleasure I can now refer you to what I will call Poxpower's "Superman defense".

If all evidence is to be accepted, then you have no reason to not believe in Superman.
If no evidence to be accepted, then everything is a lie.

I know, it's confusing, having to actually think about what does and does not constitute evidence.....
Isn't it just easier when we can generalize and say "everything is true" or "everything is false", and avoid all that brain-hurting thinking stuff?

It's ok though. You just go relax and watch some cartoons, Uncle Impy will take care of existential theories for you. Milk and cookies are in the kitchen if you wan them dear.

At 4/5/10 10:35 PM, Exonerate wrote: There clearly isn't a God, I don't know why people bother with religion, it's pointless.

NOT HELPFUL.

At 4/6/10 12:43 AM, amaterasu wrote: Going full circle again are we? Are you guys really that bored?

NOT HELPFUL.

At 4/6/10 03:49 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but isn't 'kill' in "Thou shall not kill" a mistranslation from the Hebrew word meaning murder.

I bet you all should know that there is a big difference between killing somebody and murdering someone.

For the point I was making, it actually doesn't matter. In fact, it goes further to show many Christians would use the Bible to justify killing.

Then they could say "I'm not disobeying the Bible, I'm only 'killing' people, not 'murdering' them".
But I like my swing set analogy, so I'll stick with that.

Is it my fault the swing set got put together backwards if all I did was follow the instructions that came with it?

Course not. The instructions were fucked up. Whoever made them screwed them up. So whoever follows the fucked up instructions produces fucked up swing sets.

The example earlier follows as much. Should I go out and kill everyone who takes the Lord's name in vain, AS THE BIBLE INSTRUCTS?

Which instruction do I follow? Do not murder, or go out and put to death anyone who takes the Lord's name in vain? What's the pecking order for which instructions I should follow, and which ones I shouldn't? Is there a cheat sheet I can get?

This is why I wholeheartedly encourage people to read and study the Bible in depth. I've yet to see a surer path to disbelief than that of someone sitting down to fully appreciate and understand the holy bible......in all it's wonderful inconsistencies.....

For anybody who doesn't understand, this is why a religion (such as Christianity, Islam, ect.) can be said to have caused killing and death, and a non-religion like atheism cannot.

Imagine you were taken to court. Previously, you had ordered someone to commit a series of murders, and they complied. Although you yourself did not carry out the killings, and although the person who actually did is responsible for them as well, you can rightly and justly be held guilty. For example, we say that dictators (such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao), cult leaders (such as Charles Manson and Jim Jones) and crime bosses (such as Al Capone) are murderers, and often are held legally responsible for their crimes, even though they didn't actually physically carry out the deed.

Now imagine you were taken to court and charged with conspiracy to carry out and accessory to homicide. The person who actually carried out the crimes you barely knew, and had never talked to. "This is unfair," you protest, "I told the killer absolutely nothing!"
"Exactly!" the prosecution says. "You should have explicitly told them not to commit any murders, or else you are responsible for them."
Would this be fair? Obviously not.

This is the difference between, say, Christianity and atheism.
The Bible, the holy book of Christianity, specifically and explicitly commands acts of cruelty and violence to be carried out numerous times.
Atheism, however, does not. It has nothing to do with morality/immorality. It simply is the lack of belief in deities.

At 4/6/10 05:58 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You seem wholly unconcerned with understanding us

What's there to understand... you're a fucking retard who believes in magic invisible balls that are mysteriously responsable for creating the entire universe out of nothing for no reason at all... and then did so without giving womens vaginas contractable shark-teeth to help prevent rape.

You know what else you could believe in... a spaghetti monster... that would be far more plausable. At least you can see spaghetti. Fucking idiots.

At 4/6/10 06:36 PM, CacheHelper wrote: What's there to understand... you're a fucking retard who believes in magic invisible balls that are mysteriously responsable for creating the entire universe out of nothing for no reason at all... and then did so without giving womens vaginas contractable shark-teeth to help prevent rape.

LOL.
*raucous laughter*
Do me next, do me next!!

At 4/6/10 06:36 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Fucking idiots.

Dumping your feigned or genuine rage on the person who's been the most civil to you so far doesn't help either.

At 4/6/10 03:20 PM, TheSongSalad wrote:

what the hell are you talking about? Evolution was proven to happen when people experimented with mayflies because each generation of them lives for only 24 hours. The mayflies evolved over the course of several generations in accordance with the environment they were kept in. Evolution happened.

There is a difference in a macro and a micro organism evolving. For one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. That is a long shot for us to have evolve.

The pope systematically moved molesting priests around so the catholic image wouldn't be hurt. That doesn't sound like a man who talks to God to me.

You can not hold God accountable for man's actions. The pope is wrong here of course, but God gives us free will. That is what makes us people and not machines. Blame the man, not God.

At 4/6/10 07:22 PM, PepperJoe wrote: There is a difference in a macro and a micro organism evolving. For one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. That is a long shot for us to have evolve.

So because the odds are against it that makes the "magical" explanation seem more feasible? Really? This is really the road you want to go down...oh no man...this won't end well for you if it is.

You can not hold God accountable for man's actions.

I can here, and I'll bet you don't know why.

The pope is wrong here of course, but God gives us free will.

He also according to the Catholic Religion annointed the Pope as his representative on earth who can add to and is the supreme authority upon God and his laws. The Pope is supposed to be, like God, infallible as I understand it.

That is what makes us people and not machines. Blame the man, not God.

But again, supposedly God is putting this man in charge, God annointed the office with temporal as well as divine power, and God is not doing anything to clean out the corruption from his "true" church.

At 4/6/10 07:22 PM, PepperJoe wrote: There is a difference in a macro and a micro organism evolving.

Exactly what do you mean when you say "macro evolution"?

At 4/6/10 07:47 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/6/10 07:22 PM, PepperJoe wrote: There is a difference in a macro and a micro organism evolving.

Exactly what do you mean when you say "macro evolution"?

A complex organism. Humans, primates, etc.

At 4/6/10 07:22 PM, PepperJoe wrote:

At 4/6/10 03:20 PM, TheSongSalad wrote:

what the hell are you talking about? Evolution was proven to happen when people experimented with mayflies because each generation of them lives for only 24 hours. The mayflies evolved over the course of several generations in accordance with the environment they were kept in. Evolution happened.

There is a difference in a macro and a micro organism evolving. For one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. That is a long shot for us to have evolve.

Exactly. I wasn't trying to say the evolution occurred to us, the OP was just saying that evolution itself didn't exist, which it does. Whether or not it is the cause of us is still debatable, I was just saying evolution has been proven to exist in some form.

If your statistics are accurate, than that means the odds of that happening somewhere are actually pretty good. There are around 10 to the 21st stars in the known universe (a star being something approaching at least our own sun in magnitude), and we have no idea the number of planets per star, but assuming it's around 8 like our solar system has, that would mean that there are 8.0 × 10^21 stars in our observable universe. Considering the universe isn't old enough for the light of most of it to have reached Earth, the odds that life happened somewhere are pretty damn good.

The pope systematically moved molesting priests around so the catholic image wouldn't be hurt. That doesn't sound like a man who talks to God to me.

You can not hold God accountable for man's actions. The pope is wrong here of course, but God gives us free will. That is what makes us people and not machines. Blame the man, not God.

I do blame the man, I'm just stating that anyone that fucked up couldn't be talking to God, or he wouldn't be that fucked up.

At 4/6/10 07:52 PM, PepperJoe wrote: A complex organism. Humans, primates, etc.

Evolution: Process.
Complex organism: Product.

You distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. What do you consider the difference between the two processes? Complete sentences would be helpful.

At 4/6/10 07:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So because the odds are against it that makes the "magical" explanation seem more feasible? Really? This is really the road you want to go down...oh no man...this won't end well for you if it is.

The odds are against both religion & science. I chose my path and that has made all the difference.

I can here, and I'll bet you don't know why.

I can see were this is going, please continue good sir.

He also according to the Catholic Religion anointed the Pope as his representative on earth who can add to and is the supreme authority upon God and his laws. The Pope is supposed to be, like God, infallible as I understand it.

But again, supposedly God is putting this man in charge, God anointed the office with temporal as well as divine power, and God is not doing anything to clean out the corruption from his "true" church.

First off, I do not believe in the Catholic Faith. If the Pope is supposed to be like God, then why would God say "Do not put other Gods before me." To finish of with calling Intelligent Design "Magic", I have a feeling you believe in the Big Bang Theory. Two protons hitting each other at high speeds; an explosion; Earth was born. That is magic to me. I believe that for a complex design, there has to be a designer.
P.S. I'm not a christian, I'm just a spiritual believer.

At 4/6/10 07:56 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Evolution: Process.
Complex organism: Product.

You distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. What do you consider the difference between the two processes? Complete sentences would be helpful.

The process is slightly different. With single cell organisms, they can rapidly evolve. Now, humans are made more of than one single cell. Now humans can adapt to their surroundings. That is not evolution as I see it. People say that one creature can evolve into another species. I find this false and I said why with my last statement. I just don't see this happening.

At 4/6/10 08:11 PM, PepperJoe wrote: The process is slightly different. With single cell organisms, they can rapidly evolve. Now, humans are made more of than one single cell. Now humans can adapt to their surroundings. That is not evolution as I see it. People say that one creature can evolve into another species. I find this false and I said why with my last statement. I just don't see this happening.

Yes...but we are composed of millions of single cells, all with the same DNA. Evolution is not like pokemon. You can't press B to cancel. The tree of life is a continuous as opposed to a discrete spectrum, with little mutations and adaptations here and there adding up over time. Bacteria strains can evolve within hours to days. Now extend that amount of time into the millions upon millions of years. Do you see the big picture yet?

Also why are you guys even humoring CacheHelper, an obvious troll, with responses? Ignore him and he will go away.

At 4/6/10 08:11 PM, PepperJoe wrote: The process is slightly different. With single cell organisms, they can rapidly evolve. Now, humans are made more of than one single cell. Now humans can adapt to their surroundings. That is not evolution as I see it. People say that one creature can evolve into another species. I find this false and I said why with my last statement. I just don't see this happening.

You may want to google these things you talk about... namely...

Microevolution, Macroevolution, Adaptation, and Speciation.

As I can't give you a lesson on evolution, here's some basic problems with what you just said. There are known examples of speciation. And no one has ever said macro-evolution had to occur at the same rate as micro-evolution, or that it even had to be 'fast' - in fact by definition it doesn't and isn't.

At 4/6/10 03:35 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Lies, it's all lies. Everything you said was lies and bullshit. Any evidence you presented is biast and full of shit and everything else you said was anticdotal and doesn't hold any value in this debate because anybody can just say anything they want at anytime.

oh hai! i seez wut u doingz, lulz!

At 4/6/10 08:23 PM, amaterasu wrote: Yes...but we are composed of millions of single cells, all with the same DNA. Evolution is not like pokemon. You can't press B to cancel. The tree of life is a continuous as opposed to a discrete spectrum, with little mutations and adaptations here and there adding up over time. Bacteria strains can evolve within hours to days. Now extend that amount of time into the millions upon millions of years. Do you see the big picture yet?

Nobody really sees the big picture yet because they still debate on that. Some say 10,000, some say millions. And even though single cells have similar DNA, they all have to go through the same "process". That is another reason why the probability is so low, that some say it would take a "miracle".

At 4/6/10 08:01 PM, PepperJoe wrote: The odds are against both religion & science. I chose my path and that has made all the difference.

The odds are against anyone winning the lottery too, yet some people do. How do I know? Because we've all seen the reports of the winners existing. That's the same thing with science vs. religion on the whole evolution or creationism as the process whereby we get the life forms we have now. One has evidence to back up what they're saying, which helps them prove the other guy wrong. The other has none and just keeps making excuses for why they don't need it and the other guy is wrong. When we're talking about trying to find out "how we got here" as a fact, it's not a philosophical question where you "pick" the explanation you like best...you keep looking till you find the explanation that is right.

First off, I do not believe in the Catholic Faith.

I didn't think you would, but it's a great one for the overall point I have that while you can TRY to separate the religion from the organizations, you can't because the organizations use and twist the faith to justify themselves, also if The Pope is full of it, why doesn't God do something to dissolve the office or end the man? It seems to me it's either because God doesn't exist, doesn't care, or the Catholics are actually correct.

If the Pope is supposed to be like God, then why would God say "Do not put other Gods before me."

The Pope isn't a God. He isn't worshipped as a God, he's God's temporal representative. He's basically like the official White House Speaker for The President. Or The President of a company, the owner relying on him to make rules and policy and help steer the company with the owner's blessing.

To finish of with calling Intelligent Design "Magic", I have a feeling you believe in the Big Bang Theory.

It makes more sense then "Intelligent Design" to me because I think Intelligent Design is a dishonest theory because a) It's not truly a theory and b) It's just Creationism under a different name. It's like a compromise to the fact that Evolution is all but proven, so instead of hardlining and denying and denying it, you just kind of accept that "ok, that's PROBABLY what happened...but...but...there could still be God!". We'll sure, there absolutely could still be God. Evolution doesn't eliminate God or a creator, it just eliminates Genesis as a historically accurate text. The Big Bang Theory doesn't eliminate a creator, it just (once again) eliminates Genesis as the historically accurate starting point of the universe. Anyone who says that either thing completely proves there's no creator is not being honest. The lack of evidence for a creator as modern religion (and even the ancient stuff) paints such a being(s) is what one can lean on to say "nope, not true". But still, we don't 100% know. But yeah, I'm not a fan of Intelligent Design because it's a dishonest attempt by Evolution denying Christians to look like they can use science to legitimize a belief they've got no evidence for.

Two protons hitting each other at high speeds; an explosion; Earth was born. That is magic to me. I believe that for a complex design, there has to be a designer.

It's not magic because we can explain and prove how such a process could happen. A being that is all knowing, all powerful, and outside the universe saying "let there be light...and other shit" and it was? That's magic.

Let's take David Copperfield. David Copperfield is a practioner of illusions and "magic". But David Copperfield could explain ever trick he does to you (he probably won't because then you wouldn't want to see his act anymore most likely) and therefore it isn't really magic anymore is it? But if Copperfield could prove he just waves his arms, or says some words, or simply wills something to disappear and it does? That's magic.

In short: If something can be explained in logical, understandable terms, it isn't magic. If it can't, or it can be proven that something is done in spite of all logical and understandable terms, it is.

Just because YOU don't personally understand how something works doesn't mean it's magic.

P.S. I'm not a christian, I'm just a spiritual believer.

You sound pretty Christian to me since only Judeo-Christians as I know it tend to write "God" with a capital "G". Also they're the ones positing Intelligent Design.

At 4/6/10 08:23 PM, amaterasu wrote: Also why are you guys even humoring CacheHelper, an obvious troll, with responses? Ignore him and he will go away.

The next 3 days don't count though ;)

At 4/6/10 08:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: The next 3 days don't count though ;)

You lost me there

At 4/6/10 08:38 PM, amaterasu wrote: You lost me there

Banned for that long for the repeatedly shitty posts in this thread.