Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/4/09 05:59 PM, vgfa287 wrote: on a serious note ph0ne Evolution is the genetic frequency in a population over successive generations. it has nothing to do with the origin of life that my ignorant friend is abiogenesis. you keep saying that evolution goes against the fact that living things cannot come from non living things and yet you post creationist videos, creationists who believe that God created Adam form dirt.

Never have I ever stated directly or indirectly that I support Creationism, despite the fact that it may have been interpreted that way. The law which states that living matter cannot come from nonliving matter has not been disproven. Accepting Evolution as a Law, or even a Theory would be the equivalent of abandoning the scientific process.

At 11/4/09 06:05 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: In all truth, Science does not attempt to disprove Religion. Science only aims to find the answers...

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe very well in science as demonstrated, but I do not believe that Evolution has really demonstrated any acknowledgement for science in that respect.

At 11/4/09 04:13 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: And your an idiot who doesn't look at evidence.

Nice grammar, you godless swine.

Religious arguements don't stand a chance anymore. Creationism, still stands a chance, and suggests that there was an original superbeing which presented energy, but that energy won't drive itself.

As stated before, I do not support Creationism. Read more carefully throughout my posts.

There can not be a God. There can be an architect of the universe (only in the idea of the Matrix), but I believe that there can never, ever, be a supernatural God. I usually base my arguements on the science of energy transference, and idea's on time, and law.

I don't care what you say about God, because I believe in him. It's my way of life. It works for me. I am happy because of this. You're nothing more than a filthy troll if you seek to ruin this perfect balance that my life is structured upon. In scientific terms, whether God exists or not is not a testable hypothesis.

The creator can never exist in our very same existence. It's not possible, he would have to exist in another timeline altogether. I'm still trying to understand all this theory on it so bare with me if it's not always 50-100% accurate, but I will always cite my sources on anything I don't fully understand.

God can't exist because, if a creator were in our existence, he/she or it (lets make it a 'he') would have to create energy. Which means that that this energy would have to suddenly move along a still timeline.

Still going on babbling nonsense. I feel bad for you.

This suggests at one point, our universe was static. Something has to act as an engine to drive this static energy, and the creator can't do this because he would be in a standstill along with the rest of static existence. Like a way a battery conserves energy and uses current to drive the energy around the circuit. Something needs to act as the engine for time which dictates that energy can make matter move around the cosmos.

God acts as the engine for time. Can you disprove this? No. I just proved myself right. Nice job.

Logically the universe needs an engine that has been moving, and has therefore always been moving, and will never stop moving. Infinity is based upon this forever moving, and that the timeline of the past stretches on to infinity. Our present needs to have arisen from an infinite past, which leads to an infinite future; thus there never was a 'creation', so it is false to envision God as the creator of the universe.

Didn't I already make it evident that I am not a supporter of Creationism? The density of Atheists like you is what astounds me.

I will finish by quoting this from the video's description:

Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

GG. I win.

At 11/5/09 03:34 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 11/4/09 04:13 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: And your an idiot who doesn't look at evidence.

Nice grammar, you godless swine.

o sorri dus mai belief offend u?

At 11/5/09 03:34 PM, ph0ne wrote: I don't care what you say about God, because I believe in him. It's my way of life. It works for me. I am happy because of this. You're nothing more than a filthy troll if you seek to ruin this perfect balance that my life is structured upon. In scientific terms, whether God exists or not is not a testable hypothesis.

God's existence is stupid as far as I am concerned. Creationism however, is widely possible.

I'm not a troll, and nobody seeks to ruin your balance of life. If you want to be happy, why do you post in an Atheist club forum?

Interesting isn't it.

You may do it because you seek criticism, and therefore that criticism builds up a frustration, and you can't function in a world where religion and science co-exist. Frustration becomes an addiction, which comes from a mode of nostalgia, which compels you to attack other people. To me this means that you long for the happiness that once was and use God to defend that happiness, but whether that last sentence is true or false is 'not a testable hypothesis'.

Ideally, this makes you intolerant, but what you said has no justification in any way that it can in fact criticise my thesis scientifically. Therefore you are powerless, and this makes you react with violence instead of criticism. But it's a matter of fact that tolerance cannot exist without intolerance, and vice versa.

I understand that you feel in a mode of comfort that you believe in God's existence, and I respect that. What understand is that your argument automatically gives you the right to criticise my argument, and I respect that. What I do not understand is that your not criticising that, your definitively attacking my aim, to learn and gain knowledge, and that gives to me a mode of happiness.

So if you have the right to be happy, and you criticise the contradictions to your beliefs in subject to that happiness. You thus give the assumption that nobody has the right to criticise your beliefs because it will trespass in your mode of happiness. Your attacking my beliefs and my happiness only raises the question; why do you have the right to trespass on my beliefs, and therefore criticise my happiness-

-When I don't have sed rights?

Still going on babbling nonsense. I feel bad for you.

Go back to your remedial education. Honestly, Science can explain everything of this earth, and everything not of this earth. Theory's of time and relativity have been proven time and time again; and is something you should read up on. How can you possibly aim to criticise what you at first do not understand?

At 11/5/09 04:14 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: [Weak claims.]

I
I already won. You have no argumentative grounds left. Don't bother writing me a novel of a counterpoint because I already completely buried you.

GG.

Ooooooook, now that that's out of the way, did you watch the video AapoJoki linked to in the Politics forum in that "nothing" isn't really nothing, but elementary particles? I did a little search myself, and found a theory that states the beginning energy could have, essentially, arose out of nothing, as in absolute non-existence.

At 11/5/09 04:53 PM, ph0ne wrote: [Weak and Unreasonable claim, who are you to say I have none? I have many, many arguementive grounds left, which I don't want to discuss with your perpetual ignorence.]

So I'm going to follow the trend
Troll on Atheist Club, is troll.

Anyway.

At 11/5/09 04:59 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: energy could have, essentially, arose out of nothing, as in absolute non-existence.

I did! Can you link to this theory?

Non-existence sounds so impossible; i'm damn well interested in learning about it. We should compare and contrast the arguements. You know the format; Person A suggests, Person B suggests, contradictions.etc. It would be fun if we can ever reach a definitive, scientifical conclusion.

At 11/5/09 05:19 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/5/09 04:59 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: energy could have, essentially, arose out of nothing, as in absolute non-existence.

I did! Can you link to this theory?

Here you are.

I think it's a bit old, but it essentially states that there were quantum fluctuations before the universe came into existence. It mentions the ambiguity of "nothing," which is what I meant when I said "non-existence."

Non-existence sounds so impossible; i'm damn well interested in learning about it. We should compare and contrast the arguements. You know the format; Person A suggests, Person B suggests, contradictions.etc. It would be fun if we can ever reach a definitive, scientifical conclusion.

It would be fun, but at the moment, I'm no physicist and could very well end up not knowing in the slightest what I'm talking about :S.

At 11/5/09 05:37 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: [weak point]

Nice, you can create a website that spreads lies.
There is no evidence that something can come from nothing.

I already won.
GG.

At 11/5/09 05:37 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: It would be fun, but at the moment, I'm no physicist and could very well end up not knowing in the slightest what I'm talking about :S.

Neither do I, because it has not been explained to me, but I made a new post, on the Case of God arguement in the polotics forum, which states the exact same thing but in a more constructive way, and it is so much easier to understand if you ignore the first post timeline bit and only note the second, and again I'm looking for critisism, only because I really do want to expand my learning on the subject.

Physics is fascinating to me! So I think I am learning, and I found once I did enough reading, and asked around. Things definatly have become more clear to me, and I kind of understand a minority of the calculations.

I'm going to email a Cosmologist, a proffessor (for the lulz) and see how that goes.

Well you know what they say, I think therefore I am.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKT8IPdv zA

Very insightful video; it made me think.

As I said earlier, I already won.
You have no argumentative grounds left.

Has any one here read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman? I'm half way through it and its a fascinating read so far. He does a great job of going there a few of the inaccuracies in the New Testament and explaining there significance in good detail.

At 11/6/09 11:59 PM, ph0ne wrote: As I said earlier, I already won.
You have no argumentative grounds left.

WHAT did you defeat us in, exactly?

At 11/7/09 12:09 AM, vgfa287 wrote: Has any one here read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman? I'm half way through it and its a fascinating read so far. He does a great job of going there a few of the inaccuracies in the New Testament and explaining there significance in good detail.

I'm a fan of Bart Ehrman, and while I haven't read that particular book, I'm currently reading Why We Suffer by him. Have you read anything by Bishop John Shelby Spong? He's in the same league as Ehrman regarding Christianity and Christ. Also, I recommend Saving Jesus from the Church by Robin R. Meyers.

Well... there is something Christians would know, it's impossible to exist an omnipotent God... Omnipotence is just impossible, could him generate a rock so heavy that even him could not raise it, or could him make a so loudy noise that even him could not come deaf... this questions cancel his existence... Christians are so blind and dumb...

Could him kill himself? No... WHY? Because he don't exist...

At 11/7/09 04:02 PM, TheUnwisePoet wrote:

Woah woah, calm down there, Poet. One step at a time now.

it's impossible to exist an omnipotent God... Omnipotence is just impossible, could him generate a rock so heavy that even him could not raise it, or could him make a so loudy noise that even him could not come deaf... this questions cancel his existence...

This question has been refuted many times on the grounds that it's simply one of nonsense.

Christians are so blind and dumb...

Calm down there, Poet.

Could him kill himself? No... WHY? Because he don't exist...

This is officially getting silly.

At 11/5/09 03:25 PM, ph0ne wrote: The law which states that living matter cannot come from nonliving matter has not been disproven. Accepting Evolution as a Law, or even a Theory would be the equivalent of abandoning the scientific process.

Abiogenesis != Evolution.

Evolution has been proven to happen, on micro and macro level. Right, the scientists can't yet prove how life started. There are theories and hypothesis, but they are not, note not a part of the theory of evolution.

Oh Shit Guys, We are all fucked now!?

Oh yeh, here's a funny. What's the difference between a brick and God?

Wait to find out!

At 11/7/09 12:55 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 11/6/09 11:59 PM, ph0ne wrote: As I said earlier, I already won.
You have no argumentative grounds left.

WHAT did you defeat us in, exactly?

Everything.

At 11/7/09 04:43 PM, ph0ne wrote:

You have no argumentative grounds left.

You never had an arguementative ground to begin with! You've said nothing so far that actually disproves anything!

Loossseeeeerrrr

Let's make one thing clear. If you believe in God you support Creationism, but to support Creationism does not mean you believe in God.

At 11/7/09 04:48 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Let's make one thing clear. If you believe in God you support Creationism, but to support Creationism does not mean you believe in God.

actually you got it backwards man. believing that there is a God does not make you a creationist, there are plenty of folks out there that do believe in God but do not support creationism. however being a creationist does make you a believer in God, in this case "God" being the supernatural being that did the creating.

At 11/7/09 04:43 PM, ph0ne wrote:
Everything.

Correlation and causality; just because some who win an argument are arrogant and smug about it, doesn't mean that acting arrognat and smug means you won the arguement.

My sides hurt. A lot.

At 11/7/09 05:40 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: My sides hurt. A lot.

Mine too. Can't we just call a mod about phone?

At 11/7/09 04:09 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 11/7/09 04:02 PM, TheUnwisePoet wrote:

Woah woah, calm down there, Poet. One step at a time now.

it's impossible to exist an omnipotent God... Omnipotence is just impossible, could him generate a rock so heavy that even him could not raise it, or could him make a so loudy noise that even him could not come deaf... this questions cancel his existence...

This question has been refuted many times on the grounds that it's simply one of nonsense.

Probably if the question makes nonsense probably that mean omnipotence has nonsense too... Explain me, how is omnipotence possible, you always got to fail in something, God by his omnipotence can create a rock so heavy that he could not raise, but by his omnipotence too he could raise it anyway... how?... Omnipotence is failed idea, and if God exist he don't have omnipotence and then he is not that important but, he don't exist because he makes nonsense anyway... hard to explain... but I can't accept his existence without rational facts... I am God of myself... and everyone his God of themselves, and the "guy" that religious people pray to is just an imaginary friend... I can't understand why people still wasting their time... Jesus Christ was a true son of the bitch... yes her mother was a hooker... it's the only explanation.

Awesome, it's Sunday. another day where I get the privilege of being told what to worship and where. I feel so disconnected from my family because everyone else is religious except me, now I suppose I could just "come out of the closet" and tell my folks I'm atheist, but then I'd pretty much be kicked out to live on my own. Ah well, guess I just have to grin and bear it.

Praise the all powerful sky wizard!

At 11/7/09 05:25 PM, vgfa287 wrote: in this case "God" being the supernatural being that did the creating.

Which is Creationism, isn't it?

At 11/8/09 12:54 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 11/7/09 05:40 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: My sides hurt. A lot.

Mine too. Can't we just call a mod about phone?

I'm not sure. I mean, nobody will care if I start cranking up the abuse engine?

Can't he just go and be a dipshit in another club?

At 11/8/09 09:48 AM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/7/09 05:25 PM, vgfa287 wrote: in this case "God" being the supernatural being that did the creating.

Which is Creationism, isn't it?

I think you are quoting me out of context. my point was simply that believing in God does not make you a creationist. also to clarify in the United States a creationist is someone who believes the biblical book of Genesis to a literal truth. since not all those who do believe in a God do not nessecarily believe in the biblical God they cannot be creationists by the definition I provided. even those who do follow the biblical God cannot all be called creationists because not all of them take the book of Genesis to be a literal truth.

Hopefully everyone here will get a chance to read this, seeing as how I'm the only "Theist" here:

I am not religious. I don't go to Church, I don't "pray" in the traditional sense, I don't believe in the traditional "sky daddy" and/or "imaginary friend," I don't think Atheists are going to Hell, I don't believe in "Hell," I don't believe in "Heaven," I don't have "blind" faith, and I don't hate science.