Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/21/10 03:19 PM, The-universe wrote: I don't think he's trying to understand. He's still typing the exact same thing that has already been addressed. I think he's ignoring these while nit picking specific sentences and making the same argument against them.

Lol, and once again your stupidity shows.... blind to the obvious facts... under the assumption that you know something you don't for reasons that are no more justified then a thiests reasons for believing in god. Focusing on all the wrong aspects of what's being said... blind to the truth.

Let's do it this way.
Bible story proven true. So does this prove God? It carries about as much weight in the proof of God as a scientists idea that maybe it's possible for there to be more then one universe. Just because this is a possible explination doesn't make it a fact... and according to you athiests, if it's not a fact you can't believe it.

At 9/21/10 03:13 PM, Kwing wrote: it's extremely improbable that the answer is as simple as Atheism being right

Ok so according to you, it's EXTREMELY PROBABLE that a God exists?

The best explanation I can come up with for all of this is that everything exists inside perception.

Or that it's all bullshit.

You live in your own world and I live in mine.

What you have here isn't an explanation for anything.
It's as good as "a magical fairy goes around brainwashing people".

It's untestable and has 0 evidence for it other than people claiming different things. Yeah that's all you have, you can't understand why one person would say something exists when it doesn't so your solution is "well that thing must exist then!".

What I see here is an opportunity to make whatever you want out of your world,

Well do it then. In fact once you're done with that, why don't you come over to my world and show me how it's done? I'll accept you simply teleporting into my apartment as proof that you've succeeded.

At 9/21/10 11:58 AM, CacheHelper wrote: This means, that according to you, it's a fact the big bang only occured once.

No. That is a false dilemma. The option you're pursuing is not the only reasonable one (by effective standards). It is not proven that the Big Bang occurred once. It is not proven that the Big Bang occurred more than once. Your false dilemma is considering only one of these conditions.

And nobody here said God was a giant Tea Kettle hiding behind the sun... so your analogies don't work either. Once again, double standards from athiests.

God does not have to be a giant Tea Kettle to be cogently compared to one. Analogies are not literal - an anology does not fail if it is not literal. It fails when the mechanisms within the bracketed set of similarities are misapplied.

- Your analogy is wrong because x is not y.
- Your analogy is wrong because x does not behave as y.

Again. There is a difference between the two, and for the record I said: "Your analogy does not apply because the universe does not work like that." I did not say: "Your analogy does not apply because the universe isn't a program." And then ontop of that, I even entertained the analogy of a universe operating as a program.

Why? Who are you to imply that any one version of life is more valuable then any other? Disease has every right to exist..

In no way does my argument suppose that disease has no (or less) right to exist.

Why could disease be considered a glitch? Because... A program crash is a subjectively unintended set of operations. By this I mean... the logic gates did exactly what they should have. The result however, was something a particular user did not appreciate.

Are you familiar with logic gates?

At 9/21/10 04:10 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Let's do it this way.
Bible story proven true. So does this prove God?

No, because it didn't even prove the bible story. It simply proves that it's possible for the waters to part based on this research. Proving the possibility of a parting of the waters is not the same as "we have proven that the waters parted for the Biblical figure Moses in exactly the same manner and in the same geographic place the bible mentioned".

Not to mention Archaelogist Zahi Hawass who is the supreme head of Egyptian antiquities has said over and over Egypt had no slaves, and that the Jews came after the Pyramidic dynasties. Oh no, we just threw more evidence against the bible story.

All this on top of the nit picking you did to Bach's easy to understand statements so you could completely miss their import.

It carries about as much weight in the proof of God as a scientists idea that maybe it's possible for there to be more then one universe. Just because this is a possible explination doesn't make it a fact... and according to you athiests, if it's not a fact you can't believe it.

The problem is that you confuse evidence and proof. Either because you're just not capable of understanding the difference, or you remain willfully ignorant of comprehension. Then you act like you're arguing the same things in the same way, but you absolutely aren't.

At 9/21/10 12:33 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Those two questions don't seem to be asking the same thing to me. Could you clear up the grammar in the first?

Sure.

One important (at least, in my view and probably you'll agree with this) aspect of religion is this idea of human spirituality. This idea of finding oneself and how to live in this world is probably one of the reasons why religion became popular: it can explain one's inner self.

Do you think that this is a good idea?

At 9/21/10 07:53 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: One important (at least, in my view and probably you'll agree with this) aspect of religion is this idea of human spirituality. This idea of finding oneself and how to live in this world is probably one of the reasons why religion became popular: it can explain one's inner self.

For the sake of clarity, I'm using the term spirituality as existentialism-with-reference-to-a-soul-
or-God. Where as objectively, I would describe finding oneself and how to live as existentialism alone - not spirituality. That said, the next paragraph should make sense...

It's sort of a catch 22 - as any means apart from a 'spiritual' one employed to judge the adequacy or cogency of the spiritual finding 1) renders the spiritual part of it irrelevant, 2) finds the specific spiritual method one constricted avenue to an answer reached by many others, and/or 3) exposes an inadequacy or fallacy. Meanwhile, such judgment founded in a spiritual basis presumes its basis, circularly.

A means of affirmation alone is not inherently good. So while "finding your inner self" sounds wonderfully romantic, the means is something distinct from it, and cannot be judged solely on one positive implication. And that's assuming that the answers you find are even correct, which, if you're employing the supernatural, become more arbitrary. Returning to the point, people find themselves through less than wonderful means all the time.

So... I've never argued that religion or spirituality have no utility (and I'm not accusing you saying that I did), and the argument for existential growth certainly identifies utility. But I don't think that let's us call spirituality a good thing, full stop. It lets us identify that spirituality is good for something. And that's a very different sentiment, I think.

At 9/21/10 04:10 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Bible story proven true.

No.

All that thing proves is, that if there was an unusually strong, consistent wind for 12 hours in a very specific location, the water would move. That does, in fact, not prove anything. There's no prooof the event ever happpened, it just said it could have happened.

At 9/21/10 01:53 PM, CacheHelper wrote: The evidence is all theoretical... nobody has proven it. Theroretical evidence doesn't count remember?

The nice analogy I can make to counter it, though is the cake on the table. There is no direct proof that anyone baked the cake, cause we were not there when someone made it. Can we thus say that claiming the cake has materialized from nothing is as equally valid a theory as claiming the cake was baked by someone at some point in time?

At 9/22/10 04:24 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Can we thus say that claiming the cake has materialized from nothing is as equally valid a theory as claiming the cake was baked by someone at some point in time?

do i sense an excuse for a certain someone minterpretting that to mean seeing the universe is a valid reason for which to theorize someone made it?

At 9/21/10 04:10 PM, CacheHelper wrote: if it's not a fact you can't believe it.

Address my reply on the previous page or don't bother replying at all. You're just spouting the same thing over and over again and I'm not willing to put effort into something you're unwilling to understand.

At 9/21/10 06:20 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: No, because it didn't even prove the bible story.

It's a shame you understand this, but completly missed the point I was making. In fact, if you actually read what I said... you should have noticed the line "Just because this is a possible explination doesn't make it a fact... and according to you athiests, if it's not a fact you can't believe it."

The relation being, just because it's possible the waters might have parted doesn't mean that they did. Since we can't prove that they did, you can't believe the bible story. So just because it's possible multiple universe might exist, you can't prove that they do... so you can't believe in their existance.

If you, as a logical scientific athiest, has the ability to choose to believe some hypothetical possibilites then why can't I, as a religious person, choose to believe other hypothetical posibilities? Double standards much?

At 9/22/10 02:04 PM, CacheHelper wrote: ...according to you athiests, if it's not a fact you can't believe it."

See, that's where you're wrong. None of us has ever said this. Though it is a handsome man of straw, I do admit.

So just because it's possible multiple universe might exist, you can't prove that they do... so you can't believe in their existance.

There is a difference between "believing in their existence" as a positive claim, and accepting the possibility that they could.

If you, as a logical scientific athiest, has the ability to choose to believe some hypothetical possibilites then why can't I, as a religious person, choose to believe other hypothetical posibilities? Double standards much?

Not at all. There is a difference between a hypothetical which has zero evidence behind it and one which has zero + X evidence behind it. When you get enough evidence it ceases to become a hypothetical and reaches the realm of theory. Noone here has said that multiple universes EXIST. We have merely given you evidence that they could. These evidences are based in mathematics and observations which are verifiable and repeatable. And when we find evidence that a multiverse theory cannot be true then we will throw that theory out. And that is the difference you're failing to grasp. Evidence, Proof, Theory, Hypothesis. You are using these words incorrectly. So either use words that actually mean what you want to say, or learn what these ones mean and use them correctly. Because until you do, no one will take you seriously.

At 9/22/10 02:58 PM, Ravariel wrote: See, that's where you're wrong. None of us has ever said this. Though it is a handsome man of straw, I do admit.

Aww hell no, Aview says this shit all the time. "I'd like to believe, and I would believe, but I can't because their isn't any proof yadda yadda yadda"....

Not at all. There is a difference between a hypothetical which has zero evidence behind it and one which has zero + X evidence behind it.

Except god has zero + x evidence behind it. You just refuse to accept the + X. Everytime somebody says "this is why I believe" you just say "that's fucking stupid" and act like you've proven something you haven't. Refusing to listen doesn't mean that the thiests don't have their +X.

And that is the difference you're failing to grasp. Evidence, Proof, Theory, Hypothesis.

And Theists have all of that except proof. Just like the multi-verse theory has everything except proof. Yet you somehow think it's completly diffrent of you to say "I think there could be multiuniverses" then it is to say "I think there could be a God".

You're setting double standards and your blind to your own ignorance.

At 9/22/10 03:16 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Aww hell no, Aview says this shit all the time. "I'd like to believe, and I would believe, but I can't because their isn't any proof yadda yadda yadda"....

Because you don't understand what "evidence," "proof," or "fact" mean.

Except god has zero + x evidence behind it. You just refuse to accept the + X. Everytime somebody says "this is why I believe" you just say "that's fucking stupid" and act like you've proven something you haven't. Refusing to listen doesn't mean that the thiests don't have their +X.

Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.

And Theists have all of that except proof. Just like the multi-verse theory has everything except proof. Yet you somehow think it's completly diffrent of you to say "I think there could be multiuniverses" then it is to say "I think there could be a God".

Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.

Either use the words correctly, or change the words to mean what you are actually trying to say. Because you're creating these false dilemmas by conflating multiple meanings of a word for your own purposes. It hasn't worked yet and it will not work ever in any discussion with the majority of the skeptics on this board. Step up your game or you will be ignored.

Next time you reply to Cache, imagine you're replying to this guy: NephilimFree

At 9/22/10 03:45 PM, poxpower wrote: Next time you reply to Cache, imagine you're replying to this guy: NephilimFree

That's actually pretty funny.

But let me ask you, who's the worse person? The tard in the video crying over his video game buddies or the guy that wrongfully calls him a pedophile and lets the whole world laugh at his expense?

Say what you want, but I'd rather be the nice guy crying over my friends the the dickhead who thinks that he's so much better then everybody else that he can go around making fun of others for no reason at all.

At 9/22/10 03:44 PM, Ravariel wrote: Because you don't understand what "evidence," "proof," or "fact" mean.

Nobody has proven there are multiple universes. It is not a fact that there are multiple universes. Your evidence is vague at best... it's just people saying "Well, I don't understand how this works... so I pretend that maybe there's another universe here".

This has all the same flaws as believing in God. Lack of understanding, no real definition on where it came from, how it was formed, how it functions... and no real proof. Nobody can find it, and nobody can see it. It's just imaginary at this point.

It's no diffrent then me saying, instead of lots of universes there's only one other universe... and it's made entirely out of speghetti. We can't see it because it's hiding in a giant, invisible tea kettle

But hey, it's totally cool to believe that. But don't consider the idea that there is a realm in which a god exists... that's just fucking stupid.

At 9/22/10 03:55 PM, CacheHelper wrote: But let me ask you, who's the worse person? The tard in the video crying over his video game buddies or the guy that wrongfully calls him a pedophile and lets the whole world laugh at his expense?

who is a worst person is a moot point when one discusses the claims the "tard" is making, but i shall indulge you.
"tard" states that Christians hold a monopoly on a special kind of love that non-Christians cannot achieve or feel (theists and atheists alike); holding himself and Christians above others. no one, including the video editor, makes that claim or would dare say thatevenpedophiles are beyond the ability to love in the noble Christian sense. who now is a worst person?

At 9/22/10 04:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: who is a worst person is a moot point

Not really... because this video was suppose to be an insult towards me. But anybody who thinks that I'm going to offended for being a helpless victem is an idiot.

If anything, this just makes athiests look worse. The bad person in this video is the guy who made the captions, not the Christian crying over his video game friends. PoxPower just shot himself in the foot... and doesn't even realize it.

"tard" states that Christians hold a monopoly on a special kind of love that non-Christians cannot achieve or feel (theists and atheists alike);

You can't hold a monopoly on something like love. He just simply states that athiests don't know the love of God. And why would they? They don't believe in God. How can you be upset over the fact that you don't know something you willingly choose to ignore?

You're more then welcome to feel Gods love... that offer has been on the table for you since day one. But don't blame others for your lack of intererst.

who now is a worst person?

Still the guy who unneccessarily accuses the stranger of being a pedophile who engages in beastiality. That's a pretty fucked up thing to say about somebody when you think of it.

At 9/22/10 02:04 PM, CacheHelper wrote: If you, as a logical scientific athiest, has the ability to choose to believe some hypothetical possibilites then why can't I, as a religious person, choose to believe other hypothetical posibilities?

- X, therefore Y.
- If X, then Y.

Once again. These are two different statements.

Also Cache... you're ignoring me again. Am I not condescending enough?

At 9/22/10 05:22 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You can't hold a monopoly on something like love. He just simply states that athiests don't know the love of God. And why would they? They don't believe in God. How can you be upset over the fact that you don't know something you willingly choose to ignore?

I think you misunderstood. There is a popular argument among Christians that atheists don't know what real love is, along with the stupid "there are no atheist in fox holes".

At 9/22/10 05:22 PM, CacheHelper wrote: If anything, this just makes athiests look worse. The bad person in this video is the guy who made the captions, not the Christian crying over his video game friends. PoxPower just shot himself in the foot... and doesn't even realize it.

it makes athiests look worst that someone posts a video with someone expressing similarly indefensible positions?

You can't hold a monopoly on something like love. He just simply states that athiests don't know the love of God. And why would they? They don't believe in God. How can you be upset over the fact that you don't know something you willingly choose to ignore?

and i quote; "when somone becomes a Christian, they begin to care about people in a way they didn't before".

Still the guy who unneccessarily accuses the stranger of being a pedophile who engages in beastiality. That's a pretty fucked up thing to say about somebody when you think of it.

both those claims are terribly stupid and clearly without grounds, indicate a high lack of seriousness, whereas "tard" seems very convinced he is a better person than non-Christians (this isn't just about athiests) simply because he believes in Christ. conclusion; both the original poster and the editor are fucked up (or one of them has a terrible sense of humour), but only one of them is a bigot.

At 9/22/10 04:27 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 9/22/10 03:44 PM, Ravariel wrote: Because you don't understand what "evidence," "proof," or "fact" mean.

Nobody has proven there are multiple universes.

Nobody has ever claimed to. In fact, no scientist has ever claimed to "prove" anything outside of a mathematical formula. Do you know why this is?

it's just people saying "Well, I don't understand how this works... so I pretend that maybe there's another universe here".

Which you only believe because you don't understand the science. Evidence for a multiverse is, indeed, limited, but not for the reasons you claim.

This has all the same flaws as believing in God. Lack of understanding,

Nope. Wrong.

It's just imaginary at this point.

Apparently math is imaginary now.

It's no diffrent then me saying, instead of lots of universes there's only one other universe... and it's made entirely out of speghetti. We can't see it because it's hiding in a giant, invisible tea kettle

Except noone has ever made any claim as to the features of any universe outside our own. Do you know why this is an important item in this discussion?

Allow me to try a different tack. Cache, please define, in your own words, the following words. No copypasta from a dictionary, say it like YOU mean it. I want to understand how YOU define these words:

Proof/Prove

Evidence

Scientific Method

Theory (as related to the above)

Hypothesis

Define those words, and perhaps we can improve your understanding. Or don't, dig your heels in, and be a weepy guy with headphones who thinks he knows more love than me. I dare you to surprise me.

At 9/22/10 04:27 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 9/22/10 03:44 PM, Ravariel wrote: Because you don't understand what "evidence," "proof," or "fact" mean.

Nobody has proven there are multiple universes. It is not a fact that there are multiple universes. Your evidence is vague at best...

I don't understand why, no matter how many times people tell you, you can't understand no one here ever claimed there were definitely multiple universes.

You just keep repeating the same argument. "You think X thing is true ( which no one ever said ) therefore God is true or both are false!".

That's why I say you're INSANE.

People flat-out say "I don't believe X" and the very next sentence you go "You believe X, so blablabla".

That's exactly what Nephilim and his host of morons do. They say one thing, you prove it false, and they'll just say that thing again in 5 minutes. Things like "there's no mutations!" You prove it false. No reply. Next video: "So we know there's no mutations, therefore blablabla".

You don't seem to read what people write, you just assume they'll have replied to you in a certain way and then repeat your argument, assuming they just answered the way you thought they wo... never mind this is just too many words you will get confused.

At 9/22/10 06:08 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 9/22/10 05:22 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You can't hold a monopoly on something like love. He just simply states that athiests don't know the love of God. And why would they? They don't believe in God. How can you be upset over the fact that you don't know something you willingly choose to ignore?

I think you misunderstood. There is a popular argument among Christians that atheists don't know what real love is, along with the stupid "there are no atheist in fox holes".

Just to make the point that this is not a straw man argument, I point you to the 6th paragraph of the Pope's speech in Scotland just a few days ago.

At 9/22/10 02:04 PM, CacheHelper wrote: It's a shame you understand this, but completly missed the point I was making. In fact, if you actually read what I said... you should have noticed the line "Just because this is a possible explination doesn't make it a fact... and according to you athiests, if it's not a fact you can't believe it."

You made the title of the link "Bible story proven". Why would you make it "bible story proven" if you didn't fully believe it proved the story? Oh right...typical CacheHelper back pedal when he's proven wrong. The rest of what you said from it has been picked apart by others.

The relation being, just because it's possible the waters might have parted doesn't mean that they did. Since we can't prove that they did, you can't believe the bible story. So just because it's possible multiple universe might exist, you can't prove that they do... so you can't believe in their existance.

The relation is not a relation though. Because as I said, we've proven the MECHANICS of how such an event could occur. But the Bible story is very specific about the location, the mechanics (God) and the specific person involved. Just because we can prove the idea that the sea "could part" is does not prove the Bible story. But what it does do is it gives us a bit of EVIDENCE that the bible story could in fact be based on some culturally remembered event (remember, many many motifs appear across multiple mythologies of the ancient world, suggesting that there is perhaps some shared memory or shared information of what could have been an actual event, just exagerated).

There is EVIDENCE for a multiverse, however yes, there is not PROOF. So to say "a multiverse is fact" would be as erroneous as saying "God is fact". But the difference, and why the two cannot be put in the same realm is someone arguing for a multiverse has solid testable and observable evidence, someone arguing for God? Yeah...not so much.

If you, as a logical scientific athiest,

Which I'm not, please stop putting a label on me I don't claim just because I don't agree with you.

has the ability to choose to believe some hypothetical possibilites then why can't I, as a religious person, choose to believe other hypothetical posibilities? Double standards much?

Not really. You can certainly believe what you like. The problem is you don't have a true hypothesis. You obviously don't understand what the term means (as I've charged all alone). A hypothesis is formed by observable and testable evidence. It is looking at data and making an attempt to come up with a testable and verifiable explanation for that data. "God did it" does not even come near being a hypothesis.

You can have your beliefs sure, it's a free mother fucking country. Just don't act like you're beliefs are on par with all others...it's simply not true.

At 9/22/10 05:22 PM, CacheHelper wrote: You can't hold a monopoly on something like love.

Then tell all the Judeo-Christians and Islam to shut the fuck up acting like they're God is the only God and the only way to get that love is through joining his club.

He just simply states that athiests don't know the love of God.

Neither do Buddhists, Hindus, oh, also Jews, and Muslims...even though they're praying to the same God as he, the Christian, apparently they're just doing it wrong.

And why would they? They don't believe in God. How can you be upset over the fact that you don't know something you willingly choose to ignore?

That's a decent point...you forgot the part where this "feeling" is entirely subjective and is based in large part on the willingness of the believer to believe they feel the love of God. They also can't seem to quantify what that feeling is or what it's like...but they feel it!!!

You're more then welcome to feel Gods love... that offer has been on the table for you since day one. But don't blame others for your lack of intererst.

Yeah, we just have to do whatever God tells us to do and not break any of his rules, or piss off anybody that claims to represent him. God can't just give you that love for free after all, that love is the kind of love that's conditional...which if it's conditional...how exactly is it truly love again?

At 9/22/10 06:15 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Apparently math is imaginary now.

I don't think any human construct is more imaginary than math. Sure, we use it to pretty actually describe natural events, translating real concepts into mathematical ones. But in the end we only have a model. And with all the assumptions we make to force the theory to fit observations, we just get to state the obvious. Pur math is but a mind game.

At 9/22/10 06:20 PM, poxpower wrote:
You just keep repeating the same argument. "You think X thing is true ( which no one ever said ) therefore God is true or both are false!".

I don't think a conclusion has to be "Ah, but this means God is real." However, it just lets God exist as a hypothesis that i not forbidden to take, as long as for any practical use it doesn't interfere with the logical construction.

At 9/23/10 04:18 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Pur math is but a mind game.

but its also the mind game the most consistent with the natural world.

At 9/23/10 04:18 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Pur math is but a mind game.

I'm not a matemathician, or even really good at it, but I'm offended.

Mathematics is logical. That is its sole purpose of existance. It is something you can trust. Numbers can't change their meaning. Two and two won't make five if you put a stress on a different syllable, if you allow a linguistic analogue. Sure, when you get into more and more untestable grounds, there's ambiguities, but just dismissing maths because it's abstract is just mindnubmingly stupid.