Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/17/12 06:59 PM, Raab wrote: Religion is a tool used by the simple-minded to explain the unknown, essentially giving up the search for knowledge.
Science accepts the fact that there are things we do not know, and attempts to discover and/or learn them.

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

I guess I'm agnostic. Basicly I believe that the creation of our universe and our purpose in life is currently not comprehendable.

I also feel that declaring something exists/does not exist is a task best left to irrational retards.

At 6/17/12 08:18 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

At 6/17/12 06:59 PM, Raab wrote: Religion is a tool used by the simple-minded to explain the unknown, essentially giving up the search for knowledge.
Science accepts the fact that there are things we do not know, and attempts to discover and/or learn them.

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

Religion and the scientific method cannot be followed/respected by the same individual without some degree of hypocrisy, simply because the scientific method leaves no room for "fairy tale" explanations.

Here is a first grade-style chart of the scientific method.
When you get to the testing phase.... you don't stop until you reach your conclusion.

Existence and/or function is questioned until it is proven or unproven.

When it comes to the matters with with religion deals... the theories which religion poses are either untested, or proven false.

There is never a true religion hypothesis, merely an unproved or false one.

At 6/17/12 07:32 PM, Yert wrote: anyone who believes in a god is fucking stupid and should be killed

religion should be considered and treated like a mental disorder

Yup, we're going the wrong direction already. Because of people like this.

This was destined to fail.

Well, I've never been to church. Never read the bible. All I know about religion is what I've been taught in school.

Who here knows what Deism is? Pretty much, it says that a God (higher being) created the universe, and everything in it, and then just stepped back and didn't take part anymore. Many of the Fathers of America believed this, and (personally) I believe that it sounds reasonable.

I also believe that there isn't much of a difference between one God and another (say Christian and Muslim) because they are both an all-powerful being. There are differences in the beliefs, but I do believe that it is the same God.

The people who are saying "Science is everything" are going to burn in hell anyways.
So it doesn't really matter. You "internet trolls" Don't get to me.

God is an omnipotent bathrobe made of cotton candy.

*flame-baiting comment goes here*

At 6/17/12 09:03 PM, Powerage wrote: *flame-baiting comment goes here*

How dare you, sir.

Unsurprisingly This degraded into a flamewar.

Bravo General, Bravo.

At 6/17/12 08:35 PM, Raab wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:18 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

At 6/17/12 06:59 PM, Raab wrote: Religion is a tool used by the simple-minded to explain the unknown, essentially giving up the search for knowledge.
Science accepts the fact that there are things we do not know, and attempts to discover and/or learn them.

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

Religion and the scientific method cannot be followed/respected by the same individual without some degree of hypocrisy, simply because the scientific method leaves no room for "fairy tale" explanations.

Here is a first grade-style chart of the scientific method.
When you get to the testing phase.... you don't stop until you reach your conclusion.

Existence and/or function is questioned until it is proven or unproven.

When it comes to the matters with with religion deals... the theories which religion poses are either untested, or proven false.

There is never a true religion hypothesis, merely an unproved or false one.

You do realize that some of the basic fundamentals of the method you have described was developed by Muslims, yes? Besides, limiting scientific discovery and theory into a single end-all, rigid process is ineffectual in of itself.

Superstition does not equate to anti-intellectualism or anti-science. The Chinese once believed that a solar eclipse was a representation of a dragon eating the sun, but still held incredibly accurate astronomical calculations. The Mayans were one of the same-- an extremely superstitious society that also held highly accurate mathematical calculations. The Muslims made countless contributions to mathematics, medicine, and science. In fact, Muslim mathematicians developed trigonometry in order to determine the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer. The point is, societies have been built on the coexistence of religion and science, and believing that the two cannot be respected at once is an incredibly simplistic assumption.

At 6/17/12 09:49 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: FUCK YOU ALL, GOD IS A BADASS N*GGA AND THE UNIVERSE ORBITS THE EARTH!

lolol xDDDD u so funni

At 6/17/12 09:42 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:35 PM, Raab wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:18 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

At 6/17/12 06:59 PM, Raab wrote: Religion is a tool used by the simple-minded to explain the unknown, essentially giving up the search for knowledge.
Science accepts the fact that there are things we do not know, and attempts to discover and/or learn them.

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

Religion and the scientific method cannot be followed/respected by the same individual without some degree of hypocrisy, simply because the scientific method leaves no room for "fairy tale" explanations.

Here is a first grade-style chart of the scientific method.
When you get to the testing phase.... you don't stop until you reach your conclusion.

Existence and/or function is questioned until it is proven or unproven.

When it comes to the matters with with religion deals... the theories which religion poses are either untested, or proven false.

There is never a true religion hypothesis, merely an unproved or false one.

You do realize that some of the basic fundamentals of the method you have described was developed by Muslims, yes? Besides, limiting scientific discovery and theory into a single end-all, rigid process is ineffectual in of itself.

Superstition does not equate to anti-intellectualism or anti-science. The Chinese once believed that a solar eclipse was a representation of a dragon eating the sun, but still held incredibly accurate astronomical calculations. The Mayans were one of the same-- an extremely superstitious society that also held highly accurate mathematical calculations. The Muslims made countless contributions to mathematics, medicine, and science. In fact, Muslim mathematicians developed trigonometry in order to determine the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer. The point is, societies have been built on the coexistence of religion and science, and believing that the two cannot be respected at once is an incredibly simplistic assumption.

While nothing you have stated is not true, you are completely failing to see what I am saying, or you are taking things a little too far out of context.

I can say I believe in pink monkeys that created life and watch over us, and turn around and create an elaborate theory about time and space and relativity.

Why?

The two are entirely unrelated.

Math, astronomy, physics <> Where you believe human life originated.

Perhaps it may not be correct to claim that it is hypocritical to have any religious beliefs and have a religious background, since in actuality they may simply be very poor scientific theories...

However, this may simply be due to the fact that said person(s) may have never attempted to analyze religious theory.

To believe in these "pink monkeys" without any scientific evidence (where the scientific method enters) does not at all influence my opinions on mathematics or the formal sciences.

Also.... the gentleman which you felt necessary to reference was born circa 965. A long time ago, religion seemed like a helpful thing to use in order to "explain the unexplained."

Now that we have answers to questions like "Where did humans, as a species, originate?" and people continue to choose a religious answer with absolutely no supporting evidence is where my argument begins.

Believing that there is a celestial dragon, in today's world would be foolish, since there has never been any such a creature proven to exist in all of history.

If you get to this point and you still do not understand what I have tried to convey, just forget it all and please comprehend the following.

Applying to today's standards: Choosing an entirely unproven and unsupported"fantasy theory" over a proven and tested theory, is foolish. Religious beliefs (as with all beliefs) are merely theory until proven reality. Since religion is never proven (as it pertains to the unexplainable) it is just a way to pretty much cheat, and is silly.

Religion is like...
Taking a sudoku puzzle.... writing in all the numbers randomly..... then claiming the puzzle is the correct solution.
When someone (science) comes along and attempts to tell you that the answer is wrong you reply...
"If this isn't the answer what is?"
"I don't know yet, but I'm going to work on it until I find out." (science)
"I already have the answer, and I don't need you to prove it to me."

I don't know what post is on top of me, but I'll take a safe bet and say it's something hateful and ridiculous.

This thread has been horribly derailed and I'm not sure if there'll ever be a day Newgrounds will have the self-control to manage a calm theological discussion.

In the mean time, please enjoy this adorable GIF.

At 6/17/12 10:53 PM, T3XT wrote: I don't know what post is on top of me, but I'll take a safe bet and say it's something hateful and ridiculous.

This thread has been horribly derailed and I'm not sure if there'll ever be a day Newgrounds will have the self-control to manage a calm theological discussion.

In the mean time, please enjoy this adorable GIF.

Actually, on my old account, I made a thread attempting to dispel some common misconceptions about true Bible believers and the Christian church, and it got up to about 5 pages before it went downhill. Everyone simply ignored the flame-bait and continued in discussion, but eventually of course it did degrade into a flame war. I requested the account deleted later on though, so the thread is gone.

The real question is, did the thread ever exist in the first place? It can't be proven! Let's fight about it.

At 6/17/12 10:17 PM, Raab wrote:

At 6/17/12 09:42 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:35 PM, Raab wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:18 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

At 6/17/12 06:59 PM, Raab wrote: Religion is a tool used by the simple-minded to explain the unknown, essentially giving up the search for knowledge.
Science accepts the fact that there are things we do not know, and attempts to discover and/or learn them.

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

Religion and the scientific method cannot be followed/respected by the same individual without some degree of hypocrisy, simply because the scientific method leaves no room for "fairy tale" explanations.

Here is a first grade-style chart of the scientific method.
When you get to the testing phase.... you don't stop until you reach your conclusion.

Existence and/or function is questioned until it is proven or unproven.

When it comes to the matters with with religion deals... the theories which religion poses are either untested, or proven false.

There is never a true religion hypothesis, merely an unproved or false one.

You do realize that some of the basic fundamentals of the method you have described was developed by Muslims, yes? Besides, limiting scientific discovery and theory into a single end-all, rigid process is ineffectual in of itself.

Superstition does not equate to anti-intellectualism or anti-science. The Chinese once believed that a solar eclipse was a representation of a dragon eating the sun, but still held incredibly accurate astronomical calculations. The Mayans were one of the same-- an extremely superstitious society that also held highly accurate mathematical calculations. The Muslims made countless contributions to mathematics, medicine, and science. In fact, Muslim mathematicians developed trigonometry in order to determine the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer. The point is, societies have been built on the coexistence of religion and science, and believing that the two cannot be respected at once is an incredibly simplistic assumption.

While nothing you have stated is not true, you are completely failing to see what I am saying, or you are taking things a little too far out of context.

I can say I believe in pink monkeys that created life and watch over us, and turn around and create an elaborate theory about time and space and relativity.

Why?

The two are entirely unrelated.

Math, astronomy, physics <> Where you believe human life originated.

Perhaps it may not be correct to claim that it is hypocritical to have any religious beliefs and have a religious background, since in actuality they may simply be very poor scientific theories...

However, this may simply be due to the fact that said person(s) may have never attempted to analyze religious theory.

To believe in these "pink monkeys" without any scientific evidence (where the scientific method enters) does not at all influence my opinions on mathematics or the formal sciences.

Also.... the gentleman which you felt necessary to reference was born circa 965. A long time ago, religion seemed like a helpful thing to use in order to "explain the unexplained."

Now that we have answers to questions like "Where did humans, as a species, originate?" and people continue to choose a religious answer with absolutely no supporting evidence is where my argument begins.

Believing that there is a celestial dragon, in today's world would be foolish, since there has never been any such a creature proven to exist in all of history.

If you get to this point and you still do not understand what I have tried to convey, just forget it all and please comprehend the following.

Applying to today's standards: Choosing an entirely unproven and unsupported"fantasy theory" over a proven and tested theory, is foolish. Religious beliefs (as with all beliefs) are merely theory until proven reality. Since religion is never proven (as it pertains to the unexplainable) it is just a way to pretty much cheat, and is silly.

Religion is like...
Taking a sudoku puzzle.... writing in all the numbers randomly..... then claiming the puzzle is the correct solution.
When someone (science) comes along and attempts to tell you that the answer is wrong you reply...
"If this isn't the answer what is?"
"I don't know yet, but I'm going to work on it until I find out." (science)
"I already have the answer, and I don't need you to prove it to me."

This topic is beginning to get redundant, and I'm becoming tired, so this will be my last post here for today.

The initial point I made was that religion and science do not need to conflict. You've stated that religion and science are independent from one another, which is what I agree with, but this is also a justification as to why they do not conflict. You state that the issue is that individuals pick religious explanations over scientific ones, but this isn't entirely true either. Several denominations reject scientific explanations in favor for religious ones, yes, but religious explanations do not need to conflict with scientific explanations. For example, many Christians believe that much of the Bible is metaphorical and not to be taken literally. Alternatively, others believe that God set the laws of science into motion. The point is is that an individual does not need to select religion and reject science, and vice versa. There are plenty of religious individuals who accept evolution and other like concepts, but do not feel that accepting this conflict with their beliefs.

Also, your claim that religion is used solely to explain the unknown isn't necessarily true either. Religion, for many, can also be philosophical and act as a guideline for living life. Buddhism, for example, has sects that do not believe in a God. Religion does not entirely boil down to explaining unknowns-- it is also used to set moral practices and beliefs.

I generally agree with these guys.

Religion easily has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that thereâEUTMs an invisible manâEU¦living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesnâEUTMt want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

-George Carlin

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

-Friedrich Nietzsche

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. âEU¦ Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A manâEUTMs ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

-Albert Einstein

The most henious and the must cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.

-Mohandas Gandhi

We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society.

-Thomas Jefferson

If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.

-Voltaire

I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.

-George Bernard Shaw

But what do they know anyway, right? The bible states the bible is true, these stupid people just don't understand the glory that is God.

At 6/18/12 12:33 AM, Sanch wrote:

But what do they know anyway, right? The bible states the bible is true, these stupid people just don't understand the glory that is God.

This is not actually scriptural. The Bible says that reading books makes you smart, not that the Bible itself is holy writ.

The concept of holy writ is used by denominations as a matter of determining heresy, because otherwise there would be nothing stopping the religion dividing into infinite individual sects and denominations with no real communal power, and in all likelyhood, competition with one another.

Therefore we find ourselves with a religion that stalwartly declares itself completely literally following a written document, much like a corporation or country or business. 2,000 years ago the only other organizations that homogenous were military, and that gave christianity enough civil power to fund the domination of most of the known world.

Now of course chartered entities are quite common in the legal world, which is why only religion has tax free status, and that out of a grandfather clause because religion predates constitutional government.

I highly doubt this is possible, not even religion forums can stay calm.
We as humans argue.

At 6/18/12 02:22 AM, UItra wrote: I highly doubt this is possible, not even religion forums can stay calm.
We as humans argue.

Arguing is just a form of discussion. It's not the same as flaming/baiting/trolling.

I think this thread has stayed pretty decent actually.

At 6/17/12 08:18 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

you don't know shit about history, son

I honestly don't give a damn if people believe in god or some kind of supernatural being.No one forced me to be agnostic atheist, neither should I force someone into Atheist. You want to know why I'm not christian anymore? I read the bible. In my Opinion the christian god couldn't possibly exist, but I can't disprove or prove that the universe was made by a supernatural being.

At 6/18/12 12:33 AM, Sanch wrote: I generally agree with these guys.

Religion easily has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that thereâEUTMs an invisible manâEU¦living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesnâEUTMt want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

-George Carlin

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

-Friedrich Nietzsche

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. âEU¦ Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A manâEUTMs ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

-Albert Einstein

The most henious and the must cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.

-Mohandas Gandhi

We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society.

-Thomas Jefferson

If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.

-Voltaire

I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.

-George Bernard Shaw

But what do they know anyway, right? The bible states the bible is true, these stupid people just don't understand the glory that is God.

I tend to hold these men in high regard

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect."
-Freeman Dyson

"All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives."
-Dalai Lama

"The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
-Newton

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
-Galileo Galilei

"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life."
-Siddhartha Gautama

âEUoeScience investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.âEU
-Martin Luther King Jr.

"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power."
-Nikola Tesla

Clearly, though, they must be religious fanatics that despise learning and science.

Also, Einstein considered himself an agnostic. He did, after all, say "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

And Jefferson was arguably a Deist. And Ghandi himself, as you are well aware, was a Hindu. The quote indicates that religion is used as an excuse for heinous acts, not necessarily the cause.

At 6/18/12 04:02 AM, psychopathy wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:18 PM, KeyserSozed wrote:

Because religion and science are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, and if history has told us anything, there have never, ever been religious individuals who have been influential in any field of science whatsoever.

you don't know shit about history, son

Irony, son.

Sounded much more like sarcasm than irony but whatever.

At 6/17/12 05:37 PM, dragonsyr510 wrote: Here is a place where we can (hopefully) discuss matters of religion without too much hate.
Anyone can start.

Oh fuck no! It sure as fuck will not be calm.

I have no strong thoughts about religion but I do read the Bible sometimes. I'm half way through it.

Some asshole spoiled the book for me and told me that Jesus dies.

I'm not funny am I

At 6/18/12 12:25 AM, KeyserSozed wrote: This topic is beginning to get redundant, and I'm becoming tired, so this will be my last post here for today.

The initial point I made was that religion and science do not need to conflict. You've stated that religion and science are independent from one another, which is what I agree with, but this is also a justification as to why they do not conflict. You state that the issue is that individuals pick religious explanations over scientific ones, but this isn't entirely true either. Several denominations reject scientific explanations in favor for religious ones, yes, but religious explanations do not need to conflict with scientific explanations. For example, many Christians believe that much of the Bible is metaphorical and not to be taken literally. Alternatively, others believe that God set the laws of science into motion. The point is is that an individual does not need to select religion and reject science, and vice versa. There are plenty of religious individuals who accept evolution and other like concepts, but do not feel that accepting this conflict with their beliefs.

Also, your claim that religion is used solely to explain the unknown isn't necessarily true either. Religion, for many, can also be philosophical and act as a guideline for living life. Buddhism, for example, has sects that do not believe in a God. Religion does not entirely boil down to explaining unknowns-- it is also used to set moral practices and beliefs.

You are right.... religion does have its place in society especially when it comes to morals and actions and all that... but the whole spirituality portion of religion is where I find myself thinking "this is make-believe"

I was raised as a Catholic Christian, have experimented with different religions, and no longer practice religion at all. The morals from church, the ten commandments, all that has stayed with me. The story telling, on the other hand, has not. I outright reject creationism as a viable explanation, and instead choose scientific explanations.... but who is to say that the stories which bring about creationism are not just metaphors describing actual scientific phenomena?

That is why I cannot disagree with you.

FUCK YOU ATHEISTS BURN IN HELL YOU PIECES OF SHIT MOTHERFUCKERS.