Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/31/13 01:12 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

I ain't a damn anti-theist just because I'm realistic and don't believe in fairy tales.

Isn't that a kind of dickish way to put it "fairy tales." I mean I'm fine with people believing or not believing whatever they want but to call someone's most personal beliefs "fairy tales" seems kinda rude.

Perhaps you're right. My bad.

At 7/31/13 01:12 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

I ain't a damn anti-theist just because I'm realistic and don't believe in fairy tales.

Isn't that a kind of dickish way to put it "fairy tales." I mean I'm fine with people believing or not believing whatever they want but to call someone's most personal beliefs "fairy tales" seems kinda rude.

Fairy tales. That is quite literally what religions are. They follow the exact same formula, and they share all the same characters.

At 7/31/13 07:08 PM, 24901miles wrote:

Fairy tales. That is quite literally what religions are. They follow the exact same formula, and they share all the same characters.

Except the Bible is true :^)

At 7/31/13 09:01 PM, Ononymous wrote: Except the Bible is true :^)

I fail to see the explaination of time in that chart.

At 7/31/13 09:01 PM, Ononymous wrote:

At 7/31/13 07:08 PM, 24901miles wrote:

Fairy tales. That is quite literally what religions are. They follow the exact same formula, and they share all the same characters.

Except the Bible is true :^)

The first column is misrepresented quotes from the bible taken completely out of context without explanation as to how bible scholars translated from the original Hebrew.

The second column is just a bunch of unsourced quips about "scientific knowledge" in an unnamed culture 2,000 years ago.

Yeah, I guess the Bible is true, if you squint really hard and take the most optimistic approach to translating it. And better than "science" if you cherry pick for cultural assumptions instead of scientific discoveries.

Lol the scientific community changes as more knowledge comes about therefore god.

It should be noted the guy who posted that silly picture is almost certainly a troll, judging from his posts in the past that just had to have been stupid on purpose. A good example is the retarded rage comics he's posted.

At 7/31/13 09:21 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: silly picture is almost certainly a troll

I think it's Saen playing bullfighter. No need to call him out.

At 7/31/13 09:52 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 7/31/13 09:21 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: silly picture is almost certainly a troll

I think it's Saen playing bullfighter. No need to call him out.

Eh? I meant Ononymous.

At 7/31/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Eh? I meant Ononymous.

Ononymous' only fan is Saen.

At 7/31/13 10:22 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Eh? I meant Ononymous.

Ononymous' only fan is Saen.

Oh, so you think he might be his alt?

At 8/1/13 03:14 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:22 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Eh? I meant Ononymous.

Ononymous' only fan is Saen.

Oh, so you think he might be his alt?

Oh, because if I disagree with an atheist, I must be an alt?

Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

At 8/1/13 10:14 AM, Ononymous wrote:

At 8/1/13 03:14 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:22 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Eh? I meant Ononymous.

Ononymous' only fan is Saen.

Oh, so you think he might be his alt?

Oh, because if I disagree with an atheist, I must be an alt?

Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

I didn't say it. I think he may have implied it.

But you are either a troll or you're stupid judging by those ridiculous rage comics you posted.

At 8/1/13 10:16 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 8/1/13 10:14 AM, Ononymous wrote:

At 8/1/13 03:14 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:22 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Eh? I meant Ononymous.

Ononymous' only fan is Saen.

Oh, so you think he might be his alt?

Oh, because if I disagree with an atheist, I must be an alt?

Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

I didn't say it. I think he may have implied it.

But you are either a troll or you're stupid judging by those ridiculous rage comics you posted.

I like how neither of you can refute a lot of what my graph says, so you resort to calling me a "troll" or an "alt".

I thought atheists were logical and reasonable, and not just childish name-callers.

I'm pretty sure Miles and Light already pointed out the problems in your arguments and your stupid picture. No toll for you. Back under the bridge.

At 8/1/13 10:33 AM, Ononymous wrote: I like how neither of you can refute a lot of what my graph says, so you resort to calling me a "troll" or an "alt".
I thought atheists were logical and reasonable, and not just childish name-callers.

Well, actually I went through the bible looking at the passages you cited, soon after you posted them. Then, instead of ticking down the list one by one (since I know you didn't write it yourself, you were just sharing someone else's opinion), I just made a response which explains how I would examine it.

If you're NOT a troll, read what I wrote. If you're NOT an alt, why do you act like a dumbass?

At 8/1/13 10:33 AM, Ononymous wrote:

At 8/1/13 10:16 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 8/1/13 10:14 AM, Ononymous wrote:

At 8/1/13 03:14 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:22 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 7/31/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Eh? I meant Ononymous.

Ononymous' only fan is Saen.

Oh, so you think he might be his alt?

Oh, because if I disagree with an atheist, I must be an alt?

Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

I didn't say it. I think he may have implied it.

But you are either a troll or you're stupid judging by those ridiculous rage comics you posted.

I like how neither of you can refute a lot of what my graph says, so you resort to calling me a "troll" or an "alt".

I thought atheists were logical and reasonable, and not just childish name-callers.

If you're talking about that picture that supposedly proves the Bible's peculiar knowledge of scientific facts in a time when such knowledge should not have existed, I can easily disprove that. All I need is just one counterexample(NOt that there is only one that I can supply, though) that shows the Bible didn't know what the hell it was talking about.

You know what? I'll supply loads of examples.

1. “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20).

I didn't know birds came from the water.

2. “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30)

Didn't know carnivorous animals could "herbs" now.

3. "There were giants in the earth in those days.” (Genesis 6:4)

No there weren't, lol. In general, Archaeology disproves biblical claims far more often they prove.

Let's not even get started on the absurd tale that is Noah's Ark.

In addition, the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and doesn't move. Obviously, that is wrong.

So yeah, the Bible was probably written by a bunch of Jewish farmers to justify their subjugation of women, conquered peoples, and immoral practices, not by men inspired by God in any way, shape, or form.

At 7/31/13 12:33 PM, Ononymous wrote:

At 7/30/13 06:27 PM, Light wrote:
I don't know how it logically follows that the cause must be spaceless, timeless, etc.

Well the cause of the Universe must have been outside of the 4-dimensional Universe in the standard model of the Big Bang.

Thus it's outside of any definition of time and space.

I'm fairly certain scientists still believe the cause was physical.

Can you get any serious physicist on record as saying anything to the contrary?

At 8/1/13 10:14 AM, Ononymous wrote: Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

This. A million times this. I've tried explaining this to them before... but just like fundamentalists, they won't listen.

At 8/1/13 06:10 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 8/1/13 10:14 AM, Ononymous wrote: Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

This. A million times this. I've tried explaining this to them before... but just like fundamentalists, they won't listen.

I don't post too often in this thread, so forgive me if I don't know what's going on here.

Mind explaining to me your viewpoint and why you hold it? I'd be more than willing hear it and judge it as fairly as I can.

At 8/1/13 10:14 AM, Ononymous wrote: Oh, because if I disagree with an atheist, I must be an alt?
Arguing with you guys is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians.

No. You being a buffoon makes you an alt. You have the same arguments with everyone because you absolutely reek of stupid.

At 8/4/13 06:38 PM, Ron-Geno wrote: Theism believes at least one deity exist.
Atheism reject the belief that any deities exist.

K, got it.
What's the problem again?

Well, it does seem to influence legislation, which is a problem. But it does help people cope with death, thinking their loved ones are in heaven.

If you're gonna bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics please make sure you know what it says. it only applies to ISOLATED systems, say with me, ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

At 8/5/13 01:24 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: If you're gonna bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics please make sure you know what it says. it only applies to ISOLATED systems, say with me, ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

Because the Earth doesn't count as an isolated system, creationists are wrong to assert that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes the theory of evolution untrue.

Ya gotta love it when creationists try to use science to disprove science. It's the perfect example of ass-backwards logic.

At 7/30/13 02:51 PM, Ononymous wrote: I can prove that God exists;

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the Universe began to exist (otherwise it's current state would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
3. therefore, the Universe has a cause

That cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and powerful, rather like God.

This seems like a poor rehashing of some of Aristotle's 'prime mover' idea expressed in his works 'physics' and 'metaphysics', except you add in some thermodynamics mumbojumbo. The gist of your 'proof' seems to be something had to cause the universe which was external to it, otherwise we cant explain how the universe came to be.
Epicureans, Sceptics, and lots of other philosophical schools identified reasons why this kind of cosmology stupid.
1. How do you explain what prompted God in the timeless/spaceless/preuniverse to create the universe? If everything has a cause, what caused god?
2. Its pretty ad hoc to suppose that because everything needs a cause, and we dont know the one which produced the universe that it must be God. Isnt the more reasonable suggestion to say 'we dont know', instead of saying we dont know therefore God did it.
3. It begs the question. So your trying to prove God exists, but you presuppose that there is already a God which is spaceless/timeless.... which is capable of creating things.

All Im saying is your an Aristotle ripoff

At 8/5/13 06:55 PM, C0dY911 wrote: 1. How do you explain what prompted God in the timeless/spaceless/preuniverse to create the universe? If everything has a cause, what caused god?
2. Its pretty ad hoc to suppose that because everything needs a cause, and we dont know the one which produced the universe that it must be God. Isnt the more reasonable suggestion to say 'we dont know', instead of saying we dont know therefore God did it.
3. It begs the question. So your trying to prove God exists, but you presuppose that there is already a God which is spaceless/timeless.... which is capable of creating things.

All Im saying is your an Aristotle ripoff

Now for Thomas Hume! Everything we know comes from Cause and Effect. As babies we learned that touching a hot stove burns because we touched the hot stove, we didn't already reason it out beforehand and figured it out. Similarly babies don't understand gravity when they're born, so when someone throws something in the air they look up as thought it kept going rather than go back down. It isn't until they see that it goes down that they understand what gravity is. Therefore we only see the effect, we don't see the cause. We see that the universe is created, but we given how we acquire knowledge there's no way to figure out how it started.

Atheists are always hateful and snobby.. the religious people i know are kind-hearted towards others, but the atheists just.. idk they have spite for everything. Im not in either boat but if i had to pick I'd go with the possibly wrong nice people.

At 8/5/13 09:28 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/5/13 06:55 PM, C0dY911 wrote: 1. How do you explain what prompted God in the timeless/spaceless/preuniverse to create the universe? If everything has a cause, what caused god?
2. Its pretty ad hoc to suppose that because everything needs a cause, and we dont know the one which produced the universe that it must be God. Isnt the more reasonable suggestion to say 'we dont know', instead of saying we dont know therefore God did it.
3. It begs the question. So your trying to prove God exists, but you presuppose that there is already a God which is spaceless/timeless.... which is capable of creating things.

All Im saying is your an Aristotle ripoff

Now for Thomas Hume! Everything we know comes from Cause and Effect. As babies we learned that touching a hot stove burns because we touched the hot stove, we didn't already reason it out beforehand and figured it out. Similarly babies don't understand gravity when they're born, so when someone throws something in the air they look up as thought it kept going rather than go back down. It isn't until they see that it goes down that they understand what gravity is. Therefore we only see the effect, we don't see the cause. We see that the universe is created, but we given how we acquire knowledge there's no way to figure out how it started.

Huh thats a pretty interesting application of Hume's argument against casual inferences. So Hume argues that all ideas that humans ideas are derived from impressions which are found in experience (e.g. we only learn the stove is hot when we touch it or something. The point is this sort of knowledge is definitely NOT granted a priori). The problem is that there isnt an objective connection which justifies the belief that a particular cause will always be accompanied by the same effect. He blames it on our imagination.
I love Hume but honestly dont think it applies well to the case of creation/theism. Hume wouldnt claim that humans are in a position to infer about creation, since we werent around at the beginning of time how would we know what cause has always preceded the effect (which you say is creation of the universe?). The sort of examples and cases hes speaking towards are those which we can observe many times over and test, like gravity for instance, where we seem to be able to draw constant connections between a cause (say dropping a ball) and an effect (its falling); the creation of the universe, on the other hand, was only a one-time deal. Also I buy Kantian metaphysics more than Hume's skepticism any day so Im biased anyways i guess

At 8/6/13 03:58 AM, NightmareWitch wrote: Atheists are always hateful and snobby.. the religious people i know are kind-hearted towards others, but the atheists just.. idk they have spite for everything. Im not in either boat but if i had to pick I'd go with the possibly wrong nice people.

You'd pick them over the more-than-likely-to-be-right people?

I've known nice atheists and asshole theists. So what?