Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/13/12 10:19 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 11/13/12 10:13 AM, w33zl wrote: Stupid people find refuge in their beliefs whenever they are outsmarted. Religion is entirely responsible for the delay of scientific, moral and otherwise intellectual progression of the human race.

Right. Living as we are is not a position. There is no position in not believing in other people's bullshit. Bullshit came after human life - not with it or before it.

You need the human race in order to progress it. I never said stupidity in humans came before humans themselves.

Stop making arguments which make no sense. This is why all your threads are being locked.

At 11/13/12 10:32 AM, w33zl wrote: You need the human race in order to progress it. I never said stupidity in humans came before humans themselves.

My point is that bullshit was inherited after we came into being.

Stop making arguments which make no sense. This is why all your threads are being locked.

Stop misinterpreting my arguments as if they were equivalents to your unhappy ejaculations on a winter night.

At 11/13/12 10:13 AM, w33zl wrote: Religion is entirely responsible for the delay of scientific, moral and otherwise intellectual progression of the human race.

I don't particularly disagree with this, but I do disagree with the supression of Athiesm impacting scientific progression, because the expression of Athiesm (remembering that the first people to refer to themselves as "Athiests" have been around since the 16th century, but the concept as its identified as today has been practiced as early as 1100 BC) has never specifically encouraged science, which I've always thought was a valid criticism.

I think a lot of the "discrimination" against Athiesm is because of one of two reasons;

1. They are assumed to be irreligious
2. They are assumed to be immoral

Now considering the long history of "holy wars" and the millions slaughtered because they belonged to another religion I'd argue that Christianity and Muslims are more irreligious then Athiesism could ever hope to be. As for the immoral criticism, most children are compassionate and affectionate before ever being introduced to the concept of religion, and Ive always agreed with the Dalai Lama's general thoughts on morality being independent of any laws. Neither of the complaints really hold any water.

Most of the people I know either don't believe in a God, and the ones that do either a: refuse to discuss the subject, or b: are only believing through the most tenuous of links. It's a funny old thing. I don't particularly care either way, and I doubt most people do either. It's a set of circumstances entirely out of our ability to affect and that doesn't warrant a whole lot of thought or concern being expended on them.

At 11/13/12 10:44 AM, Lintire wrote: I don't particularly care either way, and I doubt most people do either.

''Most people'' are complete, scientifically illiterate egits. Religion teaches you to lie, lie about lies, lie by lying with a truth that is a lie in disguise, by lying about the truth being a lie in disguise and using lies to lie about that one archetypal lie.

The masses of Americans believing that Christianity is the basis for our government law does discriminate against a lot of different races, religions, groups, and activities.

At 11/13/12 09:57 AM, w33zl wrote: An atheist is an atheist by choice.

I can't just choose whether or not to believe in the supernatural. It just happened. I can only choose to pretend to believe in the supernatural.

I wonder what reactions I get from this....

Atheism doesn't make sense to me. It sounds more irrational and impractical to the bigger picture than the goofs of major religions. I don't believe in the fairy tales of old books, yet the morals appear serendipitous. Strange....the belief of everything having a reason seems to be a unbreakable question. God for whatever is, must exist.

For the past decade I tried every falsifiable approached. I hit a contradiction. No matter how much I wanted to separate myself from faith and be devoted to reason. The inescapable idea of using faith devoured me. So by conclusion any amount of faith is first put into the reason, and in reverse reason had to be put into faith. The entire inspirational philosophy that there exists "faith and reason" made by the religious philosophers over half a thousand years ago appears wrong. We do not know what is called reason any more than what we call faith. So is a monism.

As Saint Aquarius vaguely once said "I do not know what God is, I only know what God is not." I cannot know what universals control my life, but I can sure hell conclude they're there.

At 11/14/12 12:18 AM, Tankdown wrote: I wonder what reactions I get from this....

I can't seem to understand what you said.

athiesm is wrong. satan is our true lord and master and if you deny him you will never ge tthe goodies in the afterlife

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6

This is a similar issue to that found in many UK (and I imagine US) schools. The teaching of religion remains compulsory, yet in most schools is very much from a Chrsitian standpoint. A good percentage of UK students are not Christian and yet continue to be submitted to this.

I am a science teacher. Last week I had to cover an RE class for a colleague. The lesson was on Jesus, but rather than discussing the reality of Jesus, or discussing the benefits and impacts of his stories, the lesson was set to be taught as if everything Jesus did was a stone cold fact. Who was jesus. What did he do. Why was he special. Why did people follow him.

This whole emphasis is utterly wrong to me. By all means discuss the morals and benefits of these stories, but teaching them as fact is utterly detrimental and contradictory to so much taught in other subjects, including science.

I totally hijacked the lesson, ignored the set plan and we discussed which things we thought were true about Jesus and which we didn't. I put no words into the students mouths (indeed if anything I portrayed myself as religious by playing devils advocate, when I am an atheist), but the majority of the 12 year old students were smart enough to know what they were being taught made no logical sense.

Which only further adds to the insult of how they are frankly indoctrinated with religion throughout their education. Thank goodness most of them have the intelligence and freedom of thought to ignore it.

At 11/15/12 04:17 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: I can't seem to understand what you said.

Story of my life....where is the confusion?

Oh, the last sentence in the paragraph "So is a monism" is a typo. It's suppose to have "So [b]it[/b] is a monism." It being the differences between faith and reason.

I believe in god, and it's irrational not too, that's my argument.

I think I'm cooler than everyone else because I look down upon all religious people as if they're intellectually inferior.

Tim Tebow 3:16

Atheism doesn't really effect other religions as long as people don't tell people with religions that they are atheist. I should know because i am sort of atheist.

At 11/15/12 04:02 PM, Tankdown wrote: I believe in god, and it's irrational not too, that's my argument.

irrational? How is it irrational?

At 11/15/12 04:28 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: irrational? How is it irrational?

Any system is in it self practical. Any system has conditions that are not questioned. A complete science must be one that reflects on conditions that are the least self contradicting and unquestionable/unfalsifiable facts. A universe operated by rules appears to have unquestionable laws. Most conditions on God are self contradicting; however given the circumstances of explaining everything said proposition is kept and change till new theories are develop. Stripping away most conditions on God are met, but still the underlining reason remains. Everything must have a purpose, despite my knowledge is incorrect about said purpose. It is impractical to assume otherwise.

So instead of choosing what's traditionally acceptable as practical for the bigger picture. I ignore and choose a new logical system.

What I said earlier reflects more thoughts.

At 11/15/12 10:05 PM, Tankdown wrote: Everything must have a purpose, despite my knowledge is incorrect about said purpose. It is impractical to assume otherwise.

I don't really see why there absolutely has to be a purpose to existence. A lot of people say that there does, but why? What if all there is to it is random chance?

At 11/16/12 10:30 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: I don't really see why there absolutely has to be a purpose to existence. A lot of people say that there does, but why? What if all there is to it is random chance?

Then randomness has to be it's own god. A platonic truth unchanged and unquestioned. I refuse to accept this as the only reason as the narrow. It is too self contradicting, and ignores all the other instinctive truths. Unless you meant the first cause is random, whatever the hell that absolutely means. Please note, randomness is disorder on the selected playground it has. Numbers cannot be random without first having numbers. If there is no truths to select, as in the first cause. Random justified it's own existence....somehow by selecting itself to create rules. *Head explodes*

The Jewish philosopher Spinoza said "Existence precedes substances." Now some of the things he thought is wrong, yet when he says god is mere existence. I can't escape it.