Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"All of these people use their personal situations as the basis for their points of view (rather than even attempting real objectivity)"

So I take it you have polls showing that most of the people in those groups argue based on emotion.

Because if not then you'd basically be committing the sin you accuse them of doing.

At 8/3/10 04:10 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: "All of these people use their personal situations as the basis for their points of view (rather than even attempting real objectivity)"

So I take it you have polls showing that most of the people in those groups argue based on emotion.

Because if not then you'd basically be committing the sin you accuse them of doing.

Too true my man.

The worst and best argument someone has ever told me that was against the legalization of pot was:
"It would make my Dad unhappy."

I didn't even know what to say, hahaha.

I've heard all sorts of terrible arguments, but the worst I ever heard was "You're just a liberal."
It is off topic name calling that shows up every now and then, and it is annoying.

Me: I'm atheist. I don't believe in god, and frankly don't understand what a person in the proper state of mind sees in religion. And by proper state of mind, I mean old enough to mount sophisticated arguments, and not in grief, or some tragic point in your life. Further more, I think that religion/belief in god(s) is actually detrimental in some ways to progressing, as it is perfectly possible to be moral without religion, and religion tends to be amoral in practice.
You're free to practice your beliefs, but I quite frankly don't understand it, and don't see it as logical until these questions, and many more, are sufficiently answered.
Him: I'll pray for you.

"Gun control works."

Me: Why is Glenn Beck an idiot?
Him: Because he is.
Me: Oh really? Good, I definitely don't want the government to be as shitty as he claims. So where exactly does he start lying or being dumb?
Him: You're stupid.
Me: Um... okay... and why is that?
Him: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks of Beck as anything less than an idiot.

Repeat 10x times.

At 7/1/10 04:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: That the oil spill in the Gulf is the fault of environmentalists for not allowing drilling on land or in shallow water.

Well it obviously isn't the "cause" of the problem, but theoretically if the spill had happened in shallower water, they probably would have been able to stop it. I bet that's what the person you were talking to actually was saying; and you misunderstood them.

At 7/8/10 09:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: 9/11 was a inside job and other dumbass conspiracy theories.

Absolutely! Pending further anyone asinine enough to make a connection between conspiracy theorists and the rest of us who are perfectly sane who just so happen to have a penchante for the unexplained. "What's the difference" you may ask. Here's the difference:

Conspiracy Theorists are only doing this to be famous to get their name/face/voice on TV/Radio/Movies/The internet.

The rest of us have a genuine interest in the Unexplained.

Another one

prostitution = rape that you pay for

Yes some people are literally forced into prostitution but some aren't and to argue that it equals rape is akin to saying

Farming = Slavery.

There is a user on Youtube called ShockOfGod who has a bunch of amusing little followers. These band of lunatics are generally Nephilimfree, TruthfulChristian, FranksVoice etc.

Shock has a challenge, which the simplified version is "prove that atheism is accurate and correct", while having absolutely no idea what atheism is, what constitutes as evidence and his challenge doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Oh well, I guess stupid can't be reasoned with.

At 8/7/10 04:35 PM, The-universe wrote: Shock has a challenge, which the simplified version is "prove that atheism is accurate and correct", while having absolutely no idea what atheism is, what constitutes as evidence and his challenge doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Somebody here doesn't understand irony...

You know why he phrased it like that? Because a great deal of athiests pose the following challenge to the religious:

"Prove that your religion is accurate and correct."

I've heard an argument from a Creationist that stated that we should still "be fruitful and multiply" as the Bible states. He said the reason people are being discouraged from breeding like rabbits is because of the liberal propaganda that is influenced by Satan. Apparently Satan wants to wipe out humanity by telling us not to have 10 children at a time where our population is approaching 7 billion.... I'm not even kidding about this.

At 8/7/10 04:35 PM, The-universe wrote: There is a user on Youtube called ShockOfGod who has a bunch of amusing little followers. These band of lunatics are generally Nephilimfree, TruthfulChristian, FranksVoice etc.

Shock has a challenge, which the simplified version is "prove that atheism is accurate and correct", while having absolutely no idea what atheism is, what constitutes as evidence and his challenge doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Oh well, I guess stupid can't be reasoned with.

I know that guy. He sent me a friend request for some reason. He challenged people to find an example of a species diverging. When someone brought up a fish species that branched off into two separate species he said something along the lines of, "What did the fish turn into? A bear? A cat? No it just turned into a fish. That's the same species!" He think FISH is a single species! That's like saying bats, humans and whales are the same species.

At 7/22/10 02:16 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: Are you sure he wasn't joking?

I mean really all you have to is point out that the Bible was written way before Obama or the Nazi party.

Look at this emote. That is what he looked like.

Anyone calling The Wilhelm Scream "The Lucas Scream" because they can't think of any picture shows that have that scream other than George Lucas's movies. And in case you don't know what that is

Here's the Article
Here's the list

At 8/7/10 05:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Somebody here doesn't understand irony...

You know why he phrased it like that? Because a great deal of athiests pose the following challenge to the religious:

"Prove that your religion is accurate and correct."

I'm sure you have a list of names of the atheists who have said this exact quote. Surely it must be easy if there are "a great deal".

On the other hand, atheists don't have to prove anything until the point where they make a positive claim. If they do not and only adhere to disbelief, then their work is done. This is something Shock does not realise even after being told thousands and thousands of times.

At 8/7/10 05:45 PM, MrFlopz wrote: I know that guy. He sent me a friend request for some reason.

He sent me a friend request too. I think he does it so he can advertise his account and radio show.

He challenged people to find an example of a species diverging. When someone brought up a fish species that branched off into two separate species he said something along the lines of, "What did the fish turn into? A bear? A cat? No it just turned into a fish. That's the same species!" He think FISH is a single species! That's like saying bats, humans and whales are the same species.

I've seen this before. It's always amusing how creationists love to argue against evolution while not bothering to learn what it means, in shocks case using this example, he really needs to brush up on taxonomy and speciation.

A creationist trying to disprove evolution uses the same credible arguments as an idiot trying to disprove gravity by pointing at birds and helium balloons.

At 8/8/10 09:01 AM, The-universe wrote: On the other hand, atheists don't have to prove anything until the point where they make a positive claim. If they do not and only adhere to disbelief, then their work is done.

If you take a solid stance on anything (to the point where you draw a hypothesis), you have to bring forth evidence that either supports your claim or disproves the other claim. The only group that could maybe get away without showing evidence is the agnostics.

At 8/8/10 04:12 PM, Moarsauce wrote: If you take a solid stance on anything (to the point where you draw a hypothesis), you have to bring forth evidence that either supports your claim or disproves the other claim. The only group that could maybe get away without showing evidence is the agnostics.

Does that mean atheists have to provide evidence?

At 8/8/10 04:12 PM, Moarsauce wrote: The only group that could maybe get away without showing evidence is the agnostics.

PSA: Atheism does not preclude agnosticism.

At 8/9/10 06:31 AM, The-universe wrote: Does that mean atheists have to provide evidence?

Yes, the atheists would have to show evidence. The reason that I say this is because they are establishing a concrete theory explaining the order of the universe, as well as the role of mankind. In other words, their claim that "God does not exist" is absolute, and this would have to be tested the same way any one claiming the existence of God would have to test his/her claims. In reality, this is just as difficult to do as having a religious person defend their metaphysical claims, as these are inherently unfalsifiable.

At 8/9/10 09:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: PSA: Atheism does not preclude agnosticism.

Not at all what I said. I'm saying that agnostics are sort of immune from having to supply evidence to support their claims. A watered down agnostic philosophy (I know its simplistic): "God might exist, but you can't prove it." It's sort of stating the obvious.

At 8/9/10 11:24 AM, Moarsauce wrote:

At 8/9/10 06:31 AM, The-universe wrote: Does that mean atheists have to provide evidence?

Yes, the atheists would have to show evidence. The reason that I say this is because they are establishing a concrete theory explaining the order of the universe, as well as the role of mankind. In other words, their claim that "God does not exist" is absolute, and this would have to be tested the same way any one claiming the existence of God would have to test his/her claims. In reality, this is just as difficult to do as having a religious person defend their metaphysical claims, as these are inherently unfalsifiable.

Somebody missed "Why you can't prove a negative" day. Let's let our friend Bertrand Russel explain.

At 8/9/10 11:57 AM, Patton3 wrote: Somebody missed "Why you can't prove a negative" day. Let's let our friend Bertrand Russel explain.

It's a novel idea, but I'm not entirely sold on it.

At 8/9/10 11:24 AM, Moarsauce wrote:

At 8/9/10 06:31 AM, The-universe wrote: Does that mean atheists have to provide evidence?

Yes, the atheists would have to show evidence. The reason that I say this is because they are establishing a concrete theory explaining the order of the universe, as well as the role of mankind. In other words, their claim that "God does not exist" is absolute, and this would have to be tested the same way any one claiming the existence of God would have to test his/her claims. In reality, this is just as difficult to do as having a religious person defend their metaphysical claims, as these are inherently unfalsifiable.

At 8/9/10 09:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: PSA: Atheism does not preclude agnosticism.

Not at all what I said. I'm saying that agnostics are sort of immune from having to supply evidence to support their claims. A watered down agnostic philosophy (I know its simplistic): "God might exist, but you can't prove it." It's sort of stating the obvious.

I disagree. I think "there is no proof" is a completely acceptable reason to not believe in something. False until proven true. I shouldn't have to use proof to disprove an unsupported claim. However, if you back up your claim with factual evidence, a skeptic would need to use evidence to disprove it. For example, if there was a murderer in your area and someone pointed to you and said "you did it" without any evidence, you shouldn't need to prove your innocence because they have not made a credible claim. However, if there was something linking you to the crime scene you would need some evidence.

At 7/1/10 03:56 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Pretty much anything Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron have ever said.

Exactly! Heard! =))

At 8/9/10 11:24 AM, Moarsauce wrote:

At 8/9/10 06:31 AM, The-universe wrote: Does that mean atheists have to provide evidence?

Yes, the atheists would have to show evidence. The reason that I say this is because they are establishing a concrete theory explaining the order of the universe, as well as the role of mankind. In other words, their claim that "God does not exist" is absolute, and this would have to be tested the same way any one claiming the existence of God would have to test his/her claims. In reality, this is just as difficult to do as having a religious person defend their metaphysical claims, as these are inherently unfalsifiable.

You do realise that I'm only asking just so you can rehash what I've already said, right?

Atheism isn't inherently the assertion that a god or gods does not exist, it is the disbelief in it/them. The none acceptance of a claim that such a creature(s) exist.

Therefore, no burden of proof.

At 8/9/10 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: I disagree. I think "there is no proof" is a completely acceptable reason to not believe in something. False until proven true. I shouldn't have to use proof to disprove an unsupported claim. However, if you back up your claim with factual evidence, a skeptic would need to use evidence to disprove it. For example, if there was a murderer in your area and someone pointed to you and said "you did it" without any evidence, you shouldn't need to prove your innocence because they have not made a credible claim. However, if there was something linking you to the crime scene you would need some evidence.

You are allowed to believe in whatever you want, that's why it is called faith. You don't need evidence to support faith. Are you going to run around and champion atheism as the 'ultimate answer' to the universe? I expect some kind of supporting evidence. Generate a hypothesis and collect your evidence; instead of "proving atheism", you are demonstrating that the concept of a 'god-operated universe' does not overlap with our physical manifestation. This is harder than it sounds, and no one has done it yet... so keep searching for a method. To say "there is no proof" is not a selling point, at least it's not something you could get away with in scientific fields.

As for your example, there are nations of the world that still operate with a legal system in which you have to disprove your guilt, not defend your innocence (I believe France still has some semblance of this).

At 8/9/10 03:22 PM, Moarsauce wrote:

At 8/9/10 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: I disagree. I think "there is no proof" is a completely acceptable reason to not believe in something. False until proven true. I shouldn't have to use proof to disprove an unsupported claim. However, if you back up your claim with factual evidence, a skeptic would need to use evidence to disprove it. For example, if there was a murderer in your area and someone pointed to you and said "you did it" without any evidence, you shouldn't need to prove your innocence because they have not made a credible claim. However, if there was something linking you to the crime scene you would need some evidence.

You are allowed to believe in whatever you want, that's why it is called faith. You don't need evidence to support faith. Are you going to run around and champion atheism as the 'ultimate answer' to the universe? I expect some kind of supporting evidence. Generate a hypothesis and collect your evidence; instead of "proving atheism", you are demonstrating that the concept of a 'god-operated universe' does not overlap with our physical manifestation. This is harder than it sounds, and no one has done it yet... so keep searching for a method. To say "there is no proof" is not a selling point, at least it's not something you could get away with in scientific fields.

As for your example, there are nations of the world that still operate with a legal system in which you have to disprove your guilt, not defend your innocence (I believe France still has some semblance of this).

I think you have a misconception about what atheism is. Atheism is not an explanation. It is not an answer to anything. Saying "I am an atheist" says nothing about what that person believes in. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any Gods.

And you still haven't explained why you need to use proof to not believe in an unsupported claim. I need proof to not believe in God? Why? No one has given me proof that there is a God. If I made up some bullshit off the top of my head and told you it was true, you would be completely justified in not believing me. You wouldn't need to go do some research and run tests to disprove something that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

And I don't care if you are guilty until proven innocent in some places. That doesn't make it right. If you pick up a random person off the street and try them for a murder, they might have no way of proving their innocence. Does that make it a just conviction?

Going off of that last bit Flopz put up, I think a good way of explaining why philosphical burden of proof doesn't lie on atheists can be explained using a little bit of legal terminology. Here in the U.S. our courts operate on the principal that "You are innocent until proven guilty." Were it "Guilty until proven innocent", miscarriage of justice aside, that would be a basic example of how absurd it is to prove a negative.
So, what is absurd about it is this: Religion is making the claim that god(s) exists. Since they are making the claim, it follows that they would be expected to substantiate it. To place the shoe on the other foot, to expect atheists to prove a negative, is a bit like like trying to have a debate in reverse order. Rather than the person making the claim opening with evidence, it's asking the person in negation of the claim to begin.
I still think Russel puts it better with the Cosmic Teapot theory, but that's my interpretation of it.

At 8/9/10 04:14 PM, MrFlopz wrote: You wouldn't need to go do some research and run tests to disprove something that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

I think Moarsauce has a severe misrepresentation of what Atheism is and until he does realise his errors, all his efforts go to waste.

But I've discovered another problem, but his rationality for it seems reasonable.

From what I gather, according to him if someone makes a claim that a god does/doesn't exist, one needs to produce a hypothesis, produce observable and testable evidence and then present their work. For most things having this need for a claim to be backed up and researched is a good mentality to have.

But what he doesn't realise is he's trying to apply a method that has never and will never be able to be applied to the subject we're talking about. Most gods are generally supernatural creatures, so how can you apply a science (a method of explaining naturally occurring phenomenon) to proving/disproving a god?