Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/12 06:30 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/26/12 06:17 PM, poxpower wrote:

OK are you seriously going to make me explain this?
??

Saying your arguments lack logic and are ridiculous is not an insult.

Yeah it pretty much is, especially since you're not even willing to defend it.
Not to mention the first thing you said "Oh you give atheists a bad name, shut up".

Just the very act of criticizing something without being willing to stand behind your criticism is insulting.

But don't take my word for it, enjoy some of it for yourself!

Your family is shitty. Everything you ever did in life was pointless and subpar. Your car is a piece of crap and your actions are typically mindless and not thought out.

WOAH MAN, NO INSULTS THERE, I AM MERELY STATING FACTS! AS I SEE THEM! WITHOUT DEFENDING THEM! THAT IS NOT INSULTING BECAUSE I BELIEVE I AM CORRECT, THEREFORE MAKING THESE FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS AND NOT INSULTS!

At 11/26/12 02:59 PM, poxpower wrote: No, one is wrong and one isn't.
And we can answer which one.

And that has what to do with anything? So what if every piece of religious mythology is false, how does that exactly make all who believe in religion stupid or bad people? Religion is about a heck of a lot more than merely the mythology.

Believing in false things isn't "nice".

You believe that religion provides no benefits at all. That is false. By your logic that makes you both stupid and enders your opinions worthless. Are you willing to do that to yourself?

You're a very typical person who thinks that being "open-minded" is the same as being "non-confrontational".

You can have a confrontational debate about whether religion is right about the universe or not. I don't care. I have my set beliefs, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree with almost all of them. So? This isn't about that. This is about someone being completely unable (read: unwilling) to see any of the positives that religion has brought to people in the past, people in the present, and will continue to bring to people for as long as the concept of religion lasts.

I wonder what on earth you'd tell a radical muslim if he said beating his wife was what he believed in. You'd have no leg to stand on because you've already granted everyone the right to believe whatever they want.

I'd tell him to go fuck himself. I never once gave anyone a pass for bad actions. I never once said that all parts ofpeople's beliefs are correct. I have only stated that the existence of religion has provided and still provides a net benefit to both the believers and their communities. I have also supposed that this benefit is completely independent of the religion being true or false.

At that point YOU would be the most intolerant and ignorant one because you'd outright have to say "Even though I believe in your right to believe this is what reality is, I will prevent you from acting out on it because it goes against my personnal morals and ethics".

I have never once even hinted at that. I would very much stop the guy from beating his wife, but I would not ever attempt to take his religion away. Frankly, if the guy would beat his wife at all, he doesn't need a religion to tell him to do it. Someone who wouldn't beat their wife wouldn't do it even if their religion told them it was OK.

Basically, your thinking: "Everyone is right about everything up until the point where I decide it bothers me, then I get to choose what I restrict and what I don't".

No. Everyone's personal beliefs are A-OK until they vetnure into the points of harming others, or judging others without proper grounds or reason.

Doesn't sound so open-minded and enlightened now, does it?

What you described does not. However, what you described is 100% a figment of your imagination.

Once again, there is a price to pay for ignoring reality.

And likewise to you. You have become a zealot. Your opinions mirror those of the fundies you claim to be so much above, yet try so very hard to emulate. Reality is staring you in the face. Try examining it once in a while.

At 11/26/12 06:42 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/12 06:30 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/26/12 06:17 PM, poxpower wrote:

OK are you seriously going to make me explain this?
??

Saying your arguments lack logic and are ridiculous is not an insult.

Yeah it pretty much is, especially since you're not even willing to defend it.
Not to mention the first thing you said "Oh you give atheists a bad name, shut up".

Just the very act of criticizing something without being willing to stand behind your criticism is insulting.

But don't take my word for it, enjoy some of it for yourself!

Your family is shitty. Everything you ever did in life was pointless and subpar. Your car is a piece of crap and your actions are typically mindless and not thought out.

WOAH MAN, NO INSULTS THERE, I AM MERELY STATING FACTS! AS I SEE THEM! WITHOUT DEFENDING THEM! THAT IS NOT INSULTING BECAUSE I BELIEVE I AM CORRECT, THEREFORE MAKING THESE FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS AND NOT INSULTS!

Well, the difference is, I'm saying your points are ridiculous because you haven't explained them. You haven't used any reasoning or logic to explain your viewpoint. My criticism is based on that. Your accusations about my family/car/etc further enforces my point. You're criticisms aren't backed by anything.

At 11/26/12 07:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

wah sadness

The more things about reality you reject, the stupider I get to call you.

You believe that religion provides no benefits at all. That is false.

I didn't say that.
It provides no unique benefits and certainly as a whole it's detrimental to humanity.

I have only stated that the existence of religion has provided and still provides a net benefit to both the believers and their communities.

No, you have ASSERTED this, regardless of it being true or not. I gave you many examples and figures backing this up, do I have to do it again? Meanwhile all you've provided me with is your "evidence" that you know good religious people.

I have never once even hinted at that. I would very much stop the guy from beating his wife, but I would not ever attempt to take his religion away.

You'd have too.
"Oh I respect your beliefs, but not enough to allow you to act on them".

How is that not taking his religion away exactly?

At 11/26/12 08:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Well, the difference is, I'm saying your points are ridiculous because you haven't explained them.

I have explained them at lengths. Meanwhile you have not asked a single question or clarification but have just decided that "they suck" basically.

Congratulations.

At 11/26/12 08:12 PM, poxpower wrote:

I have explained them at lengths. Meanwhile you have not asked a single question or clarification but have just decided that "they suck" basically.

Congratulations.

No you haven't. You've engaged in circular logic.

At 11/26/12 08:14 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

No you haven't. You've engaged in circular logic.

Oh shit, I have been owned.

It makes me wonder, if we discovered aliens, would they have their own religion? Would they have their own fundamentalists like we do? Would they try to convert us to their religion? Granted, they'd probably be a fan of a religion of ours that has actual aliens like Scientology in it. This begs the question: would more people become Scientologists if we discovered aliens?

At 11/26/12 05:44 PM, Profanity wrote: Students in Louisiana.

Yet another example of American Public Education.

pfft. that's the weakest argument yet, not to mention insanely elitist. go fuck yourself. Where I was raised has no bearing on my intelligence, which you cannot judge because you do not know me. Also, my faith has no bearing on my intelligence. if all you have is insults and mockery, then you belong in general forum along with Poxpower.

At 12/1/12 11:40 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/26/12 05:44 PM, Profanity wrote: Students in Louisiana.

Yet another example of American Public Education.

pfft. that's the weakest argument yet, not to mention insanely elitist. go fuck yourself. Where I was raised has no bearing on my intelligence, which you cannot judge because you do not know me. Also, my faith has no bearing on my intelligence. if all you have is insults and mockery, then you belong in general forum along with Poxpower.

Actually geographic location "where you grew up" has much to do with the level of intelligence and what kind and quality of intelligence in what discipline you will ultimately developed touché for the company you keep.

At 11/22/12 07:08 PM, poxpower wrote: If you dedicate your life to reading religious texts and you still don't think it's bullshit, how smart can you be, really?

It was a priest who worked directly for the Vatican who came up with the Big Bang Theory. This wasn't just someone who believed in God. Not just someone who was Christain. Not just someone who was Catholic. Someone who worked directly for the Church. His name was Georges Lemaitre. Everyone keeps whining and saying, "All important scientists are not religious!", but they're wrong.

Simply taking the Vatican into account (which also has a high ranked observatory), you destroy them, you destroy a significant part of the scientific community. Sorry, pox, but we're not going to let you slow down the progress of science.

At 12/2/12 11:22 AM, Ericho wrote:

It was a priest who worked directly for the Vatican who came up with the Big Bang Theory.
This wasn't just someone who believed in God. Not just someone who was Christain. Not just someone who was Catholic. Someone who worked directly for the Church. His name was Georges Lemaitre. Everyone keeps whining and saying, "All important scientists are not religious!", but they're wrong.

Haha first of all, he wasn't a theologian so he probably didn't give a shitfuck about holy book interpretations and doctrine.

Second off, I am mostly making fun of people who make a life out of defending religious texts against any and all logic, raving about how the Q'ran talks about quantum physics and the like.

It's really impossible to truly know if someone is religious or not, or was ( in the past ). The main point is that if you make it your life's work to study and interpret religious texts and still don't think it's bullshit, you are probably brain damaged.

At 12/1/12 11:59 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Actually geographic location "where you grew up" has much to do with the level of intelligence and what kind and quality of intelligence in what discipline you will ultimately developed touchÃf© for the company you keep.

that is so patently stupid it can only be seen as a joke. if that was the case, it would be impossible for any intelligent people to come from inner city schools and it would be impossible for stupid people to come from private schools. Both are untrue. If that were the case we would never see a congressman or senator come from a public school. we would never see a doctor come from a public school and we would certainly NEVER have a president who came from a public school. Not only do we, his stepfather was an abusive drunk.

It's not a matter of where you come from, it's a matter of your life choices and how you were parented early on. some genetics play into overall iq as well. even then, a pair of law school professors can raise a stupid child as well as a pair of factory workers can raise a future lawyer.

and the accusation that I'm stupid because I attended a Louisiana public school or have a faith that is not atheist is not only ridiculous, but a sign of defeat. Profanity has nothing to work with so he does what any true liberal would do and dug around looking for something else to attack me with which was completely off topic.

At 12/2/12 04:15 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/1/12 11:59 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Actually geographic location "where you grew up" has much to do with the level of intelligence and what kind and quality of intelligence in what discipline you will ultimately developed touchÃffÃ'© for the company you keep.

that is so patently stupid it can only be seen as a joke.

Than according to you a traditional Kalahari Bushmen would display the same kind of intelligence and practical life skills as a Wall Street Hedge fund manager. I will reiterate that geographic location has a monumental impact on every aspect of being such as genetics, cultural influence, economics, language/communication, and education/intelligence. Intelligence is an acquired faculty as per the demands associated with the geographic location/environment of the individual person not an inherent human characteristic.

At 12/2/12 04:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Than according to you a traditional Kalahari Bushmen would display the same kind of intelligence and practical life skills as a Wall Street Hedge fund manager.

Actually, in a way, yes. there is more than 1 way to measure intelligence.

I will reiterate that geographic location has a monumental impact on every aspect of being such as genetics, cultural influence, economics, language/communication, and education/intelligence.

depends on what you call intelligence, which I get the feeling your definition of intelligence is extremely narrow minded. a wall strees hedge fund manager might last a few hours in the Kalahari Desert and then would surely die. the Kalahari Bushman would see his pathetic attempts at survival and laugh at his stupidity.

Intelligence is an acquired faculty as per the demands associated with the geographic location/environment of the individual person not an inherent human characteristic.

Which is my point that intelligence can be defined in so many ways. Intelligence depends on your situation. a Lawyer who has never used a bow and arrow in his life is going to make a fool of himself trying to hunt with one. does that make him stupid? when it comes to hunting, yes. can a Kalahari Bushman manage your hedge fund? of course not. can he show you how to obtain food and shelter in the desert? yes. does that make him a genius? when it comes to living in the desert, yes.

Eurocentric book based 'intelligence' is not the only way to measure intelligence. Of course, you also have wisdom to think about. a smart man can still be foolish, just look at Bernie Madoff. Brilliant mind, but he was a fool to think he was going to get away with it. Anthony Weiner, smart man. damned fool who blew his political career by sending pictures of his namesake to a woman then lying about it.

your move.

At 12/2/12 05:06 PM, Korriken wrote:

Actually, in a way, yes. there is more than 1 way to measure intelligence.

Both the Kalahari Bushmen and Wall Street douche have their respective pros and cons however switch around there native geographic environments and they both become retarded due to their vastly different individual geographical environmental conditioning.

At 11/23/12 11:24 PM, Travis wrote: I always find it funny that atheists get on their high horses in religious conversations.

Sorry if what we're saying actually makes sense. But it's kinda necessary to prove someone wrong or to refute a point.

Seriously, what people believe in, is their own business.

It's not their own business when they indoctrinate others and impose their religious values on other people, dumbing them down to be subordinate. Which quite a few religious people do. Not just pushy religious pricks, either. Ordinary religious people, too.

But even if it's their own business, so what? Am I threatening someone or blackmailing them to stop being religious? No, we are simply pointing out the failures and dangers of religion and discussing in a forum peacefully. It's not a matter of "business" whatsoever. You are just trying to make us sound more aggressive than we actually are.

Quit acting like elitist fuckers

Quit acting like a generalizing asshole who calls other people "elitist fuckers".

The fact is that the possibility that the Bible is actually anything to do with the word of God is so small that atheists kind of think the argument is ridiculously easy. Unfortunately, it's hard not to be on your high horse when dealing with absurdities.

Other subjects, as to whether religion is a negative influence or whether there is a 'trigger' God, I feel maybe sometimes atheists can come across too strongly. But it took a while for me to be able to differentiate between the arguments. Like loads of Christians don't wholly believe in the New Testament.

And yeah, I also don't like that 'arguing on the internet' is condemned but religious people aren't like 'arrugh they're banging on my door to talk about Jehovah' or 'they're standing at my train station shouting that gay people go to Hell' or 'they're flipping a lid cos a man burnt the Qu'ran on YouTube'. Arguing on the internet is nothing, just consider the arguments and don't complain that we sound certain in our arguments.

At 12/2/12 06:41 PM, Earfetish wrote: The fact is that the possibility that the Bible is actually anything to do with the word of God is so small that atheists kind of think the argument is ridiculously easy. Unfortunately, it's hard not to be on your high horse when dealing with absurdities.

What do you mean "The Bible is actually anything to do with the word of God is so small"? And what "argument" are you talking about? There are many arguments about the Bible.

Other subjects, as to whether religion is a negative influence or whether there is a 'trigger' God, I feel maybe sometimes atheists can come across too strongly.

How so?

At 12/2/12 07:12 PM, 4761 wrote: What do you mean "The Bible is actually anything to do with the word of God is so small"? And what "argument" are you talking about? There are many arguments about the Bible.

Yes, there are many arguments about the Bible, and all of them can be resolved by saying that it is not the gospel. I mean, the argument that Christianity is correct is complete bollocks and should be treated as such, while the argument that 'there is a design behind the universe' may have more nuances than many atheists let on and could be more enlightening and not worthy of the ridicule some atheists give it. I speak as an atheist.

Other subjects, as to whether religion is a negative influence or whether there is a 'trigger' God, I feel maybe sometimes atheists can come across too strongly.

How so?

Well I hope I explained in the prior post.

Yes, there are many arguments about the Bible, and all of them can be resolved by saying that it is not the gospel. I mean, the argument that Christianity is correct is complete bollocks and should be treated as such, while the argument that 'there is a design behind the universe' may have more nuances than many atheists let on and could be more enlightening and not worthy of the ridicule some atheists give it. I speak as an atheist.

Well keep in mind, atheists don't usually that there is no design behind the universe whatsoever, just that there may be a design, but Christians and other religious people can't just pull it out as fact.

I have no problem with the notion that there may be a God or a higher power. I am open to this notion, all I need is a little more compelling evidence. However, the line is crossed when people take this hypothetical notion and create these absurd religions and made-up ethical codes.

At 12/2/12 05:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Both the Kalahari Bushmen and Wall Street douche have their respective pros and cons however switch around there native geographic environments and they both become retarded due to their vastly different individual geographical environmental conditioning.

you basically just restated my point.

At 12/2/12 08:28 PM, Korriken wrote:

you basically just restated my point.

that is so patently stupid it can only be seen as a joke.

At 12/2/12 08:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: that is so patently stupid it can only be seen as a joke.

your Troll Fu is weak.

At 12/3/12 08:56 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/2/12 08:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: that is so patently stupid it can only be seen as a joke.

your Troll Fu is weak.

In your first post to me you disrespectfully disagree with my standing by stating my ideal was "so patently stupid it can only be seen as a joke." then I prove my standing then you state you agree then I expose you as a hypocrite and you tell me to fuck off troll. I think you need to SAFK "Step Away From Keyboard" take a breather and then please apologies to me thank you.

The idea of extraterrestrial life, super-intelligent or microscopic, has always intrigued me as have many other subjects regarding outer space and the universe we live in. I consider myself very open minded, but I also take new information carefully, and will not often accept physical evidence as indicative of something completely subjective ("interpretational science").

I think it is important to understand that Genesis does not begin with the "Days of Creation". In fact, the period of time between the creation of the universe and Earth, and the forming/populating of Earth is unknown. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen. 1:1-2 NIV) From this, we gather that the universe existed prior to the formation of the Earth.

Genesis 1:1 is the ONLY PART IN THE BIBLE that takes place outside of Earth proper excluding other "universes" such as heaven and hell. Everything else following this verse cannot logically be in reference to the entire observable universe or it would have to be (unintelligently to the time period) mentioned from the perspective of Earth (besides the sun and moon), or return to the "establishing shot" of the universe.

I will have to try to keep myself brief since I have been known to digress on this subject matter (there is so much to learn!). In short, these two verses are separated by what could be a few seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, ages, epochs, eras, eons, and so forth. Genesis 1:1 allows for almost any extra-terrestrial discovery EXCEPT for lifeforms found on Earth - specifically humans. The discovery of human/intelligent life outside of Earth would invalidate the Bible (but, I have confidence this will not happen).

So truly, evidence of a living alien species does not even scratch the foundation of Genesis. However, I would need to re-examine the accounts were we to come in contact with an INTELLIGENT alien life-form (one capable of making moral decisions).

Atheists and Theists alike should all be open to objective discoveries. And, the more people mature enough to at least listen to an opposing theory, the better and more productive our human race will be. I do not think it is fair to demonize one group because they see evidence differently - that is what science is all about.

Chlorine compounds are not greater than religion.

At 12/3/12 03:38 PM, JMHX wrote: Chlorine compounds are not greater than religion.

;;;
I believe that depends ...are you attempting to purify water with the clorine ?

IF the goal is a safe source of water, chlorine's probably gonna work a lot better than a few verses from the ' Big Imbecillic Book of Lies & Embelishments '

I was actually hoping they discovered evidence of the all great & powerful Flying Spagetti Monster possibly some pasta pieces or sauce from his resting on Mars after creating life & mankind on Earth 6000 or so years ago !

At 12/3/12 04:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
I was actually hoping they discovered evidence of the all great & powerful Flying Spagetti Monster possibly some pasta pieces or sauce from his resting on Mars after creating life & mankind on Earth 6000 or so years ago !

You might be autistic, my Internet friend.

At 12/3/12 04:23 PM, JMHX wrote: You might be autistic, my Internet friend.

;;;
Helll, I ain't autistic !
I can't even draw too straight lines !

Not that I'm not special, that's why I always dress in a suit & tie.

Yep, ever since my doctor told me I was the most Impotent individual he'd ever seen !
I decide dright then & ther' .
If i'm impotent, I should dress accordingly ....
But he never mentioned anythin about bein' autistic .
Not that I don't have a liken for paintens & stuff .... I just can't do any of it.