Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/14/10 06:15 PM, AdamJack wrote: "i was gonna be nice and give you a 9 but you insulted jesus he died for us and this is how you repay him by insulting him you wouldn't even be alive if it was not for him you ungrateful lil bastard how dare you i pity you you deserve no votes you pissed me off when you did that"

People think this is a useless review.

This means that there are sane people on Newgrounds. I feel all soft and warm inside.

Regarding Pantheism, there isn't much I can add to it really. Since it's fairly straight forward there's not much to talk about.

Pantheism is linked to Taoism. It was Taoism that inspired the belief structure for George Lucas to create the Jedi, which became an official religion a few years ago. George Lucas congratulated James Cameron in 1998 for the movie Titanic, that very same director recently made Avatar which is being accused by some people to having a pantheistic viewpoint.

This means that movie directors are trying to force Religion down our throats and start a revolution. The evidence is there people!! *eats some happy pills and drools over 9/11 conspiracy porn*

Let's play a game. It's called "where's the baseball". You see, I have a baseball, or so it is claimed. I cannot produce this baseball, and it is somewhere inaccessible to you by any means whatsoever except (your own) death. I don't know where this baseball is, I've never seen/touched/heard/smelled/ or even tasted said baseball. But I will continue to think I have a baseball until you can prove that I don't given the above rules.
This is the course one must take to try and convince (most) ardent theists otherwise. Sounds impossible, doesn't it? It is, so long as said person sticks to this (metaphorical) set of standards for disproving the 'baseball', or god as I probably don't need to spell out for most of you. One way I've found is to try and make people see just how impossible and idiotic such standards for proof... or disproof at any rate, really are.
In a related story, I was recently discussing the existence of 'god'. What my friend kept coming back to was that there was no other explanation for the origin of matter, so... god did it. His proof also came down to "there are no other explanations for certain things so... god did it.". Circular and flawed logic aside, this is a textbook case of someone just using god to 'fill in the blank spots' so to speak. That the idea of god fills in the blank spaces of human knowledge due to humans being so profoundly curious. And as a result, we get absurd claims like the following: Science can't adequately explain how the Universe was first formed, so God must have done it. Granted, he would have had to break every law of science and nature, but he's god. True, we don't know where god is, but maybe he's on another, inaccessible plane of existence.
Yes, that is an actual argument, and one I've come across more than once. But here's the coup de gras: For proof of god we need look only to the angler fish. Science can't explain exactly how the fish developed and figured out how to use it's bio luminescent diode it uses to attract small fish, so god must have given it to the angler fish, and taught the angler fish how to use it.
You see, this is where my problem with religion comes from. It leads ordinary, often rather intelligent people... to accept things they know can't be true; without so much as a shred of evidence. Having such a mind set so widespread is a nursery for some the most ignorant, bigoted, and plain wrong ideologies. Could Innocent III have sent children to war without such a mindset instilled in vast numbers of people? Maybe it's just me, but I come to the conclusion of "no".
In closing, I fail to understand how so many people believe virulently in religion... and that I'm an odd man out for questioning such audacious claims. I think, that if more people really listened to Einstein when he said "Never stop questioning", religion would have a much shorter list of followers.

That's an interesting point Patton3, but I think you're never going to win arguing about the existence of God or not; it's more a tool for sharpening your wits. But, despite how interesting an argument it is, I don't think it's right to equate the existence of God with that of a potential baseball (Russel's Teapot as the argument is known). Because humanity has always believed in this kind of supernatural entity that is responsible for everything, whereas a teapot in space is completely arbitrary.

The most compelling evidence for the non-existence of a 'Trigger' God is how it looks like he isn't necessary. One has to compare that version of God with the 'Personal' God, who cares about you and answers your prayers and is actively involved, which is far more implausible.

And then one has to consider how much more likely that God / supernatural energy is than the interpretarions of a specific organised religion. On a gradient of philosophical likelihood, this has to be way at the bottom, yet people believe in it. And, disregarding the damage it seems to do, it is a falsehood. A falsehood that comes with a lot of tenents. And living your life with loads of arbitrary rules based on a falsehood is like spending every day aiming to go in a spaceship and visit Russel's Teapot.

God Hates the World - Westboro Baptist Church - hilarious

Westboro Baptist Church - Google Street View

hi ph0ne lol

I talked to a Dr. of Theology in college on Friday. All he could was recite me bumper stickers from a non reliable source of evidence when I wanted a good argument.

Lawl.

He couldn't even defend Hume's causation without pulling the Bible. Have mercy on his uneducated, circumscribed soul.

I once found a way to disprove God. But I can't remember what that is so I'm making it up as I go along.

I've noticed that the term "God" is rarely defined from Religion to Religion. Sometimes it even varies in denominations and certainly an individuals own interpretation.

But the fun doesn't stop there. It's not just "what" something is, but how it works, where it is, if it's thinking, if it has any control etc etc etc bla bla bla.

Here's the fun part. The Religious generally alter their belief structure if/when new knowledge arises. I've seen varying (but admittedly, not very reliable) studies suggesting about 77% of Christians globally accept evolution. There are obviously scientists such a Robert Bakker and Ken Miller who are both top notch but also deeply Religious.

But no one, not a single person who have interpreted their Religion to 'include' evolution prior to it's discovery. Prior to this happening people would have chosen a different explanation.

So it's basically, science is altering Religion based on what is known.

However the general public aren't academics and not everyone is a critical thinker. So not all Religious people will be able to incorporate all the discoveries into their ever interpreted beliefs. Some even deny the discoveries that they're aware of, however they have a massive misunderstanding of what it actually is.

So I put forward that someone's interpretation of their beliefs and (possibly) a God is dependant on their intellect. If someone has a lower intellect, their interpretation of what they define as 'God' is going to inevitably conflict with current knowledge.

If that individuals interpretation is contradicted with what is currently known, then the likelihood of that particular God existing is dramatically low and cannot exist.

Therefore, you have just managed to disprove a God. Maybe just a single interpretation of what a "god" is, how it works, where it is etc, but disproving nonetheless.

Food for thought.

Hey guys, your thread just lost a ton of posts. That would be my fault..well really it's your own fault. I guess you had a bit of a troll infestation. I cleaned it up and in the spirit of fairness and continuity and NOT FEEDING THE TROLLS I had to knock out a lot more than just the troll's posts.

In the future, if somebody is kicking up a fuss in this thread please contact a BBS mod as soon as you see it and do not reply to him.

This is a thread I am sure sees its fair share of attempts to rile you up, but when you react to a troll, he wins. No amount of whining and hurling insults at him is going to make him think he lost. Any reaction to what he says, especially the negative kind, is exactly what he wants. By replying to him you are only encouraging him to keep at it. If you ignore him, and continue to ignore him, eventually he will grow bored of it and move on to being retarded someplace else.

This has become an issue in other club threads and I've had to be heavy handed and hand out short BBS bans to repeat troll feeders. You know who you are, and you'll probably be pissed at the notion of getting banned for replying to a troll post, but if after so many times in a row you still can't learn that what he is doing is trying to get you to feed him some more, maybe a little "injustice" on my part could at the very least make you stop. Clearly, replying to him only makes it worse which means I have to do more work to clean the place up.

If you want, I can try to keep an eye on this thread during my normal browsing habits but otherwise please just PM me if you see somebody trying to start shit.

All this talk of baseballs and teapots has got me thinking... it's all a bit like the cat in the box theory... no wait, that's something very different. Maybe God exists in another paradox?

At 3/14/10 08:45 PM, Brick-top wrote: Food for thought.

Yum.

Thank you very much Mal; I think we're ok now. I second what he said. The only excuse for feeding the trolls is boredom, in which case, play one of the many flash games this site has to offer. You all knew what you were doing when you replied to him, and you all knew I had explicitly condemned it.

ph0ne had been controlling this thread for pages and pages and I was fucking sick of it.

If someone like him comes back again, please don't reply to him for months on end, for fuck's sake, seriously. You're actively encouraging them to shit up the thread by replying endlessly. If you want to argue, wait until someone interesting comes along. If any other thread (especially a religion one) had consisted of people replying to a troll for as long as you cunts insistently did, it would've been deemed useless and locked a long time ago, and probably rightly.

If ph0ne posts in here again, grass him up to a fucking mod. It's the internet; no-one can hear you snitch. And it's only a ban anyway, it's not like he's going to jail. And don't DARE respond to him.

On disproving god: most of the arguments have answers, if you ask a theologian, but really, most lay followers don't have these answers. They will believe in illogical parts of the religion without thinking twice. And in that, i find the failing of religion. You can't have levels of konwledge.

My my my, sounds like an interesting read! Shame I missed it. D:

At 3/14/10 09:25 PM, Malachy wrote: By replying to him you are only encouraging him to keep at it. If you ignore him, and continue to ignore him, eventually he will grow bored of it and move on to being retarded someplace else.

That's exactly what I said! Repeatedly.

I love being ignored.

anyone here interested in bokononism??

That's my one thing i hate about the religion. Where i live, if you say why about any part of the bible, it is blasphemy. I also don't like the bible. It was written by man but you are supposed to pretend it is perfect. Who was it that said man was not perfect?

At 3/15/10 07:38 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 3/14/10 09:25 PM, Malachy wrote: By replying to him you are only encouraging him to keep at it. If you ignore him, and continue to ignore him, eventually he will grow bored of it and move on to being retarded someplace else.

That's exactly what I said! Repeatedly.

I love being ignored.

That just made me LOL IRL.

of all the posts I deleted that were replying directly to or were related to ph0ne, yours were the most numerous.

Turns out he wasn't a Dr. Just your regular run of the mill theologist. Thank God for that!

Ohohoho.

At 3/15/10 05:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Turns out he wasn't a Dr. Just your regular run of the mill theologist. Thank God for that!

Ohohoho.

Who are you talking about?

Hello, I wish to join.

First, I would like to make it apparent that I am not an atheist, and that it is not my intention to disrespect those who are simply because they do not happen to share my point of view. My intention in joining this club is not to provocate arguments, but rather to aid in discussions with what I believe to be a fairly logical and rational religious belief system.

Atheism is a religion.

At 3/16/10 08:58 PM, Hybridization wrote: Atheism is a religion.

I agree, I see no difference between Atheism, and say, Christianity, besides the obvious. All the same components exist. I don't understand why it is widely regarded as a 'belief system.'

'A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs' - Wikipedia

Atheism fits the bill.

But its not though, is it?
Theres no structure or dogma that comes with atheism. All atheism is, is the lack of a theist view. Darwinism and all that jazz most atheists go along with isn't necessarily connected.

ain't no way athiesm is a religion
it's the lack of one

At 3/16/10 09:09 PM, Surreality wrote: 'A religion is

Lessee

creation of a supernatural agency or agencies

No, actually exactly th opposite

usually involving devotional and ritual observances

None.

and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

Atheism doesn't have an inherent moral code, Atheists derive theirs from somewhere else, like I do from Humanism.

Atheism fits the bill.

No, it doesn't. Religion requires belief in supernatural, and practise of devotion and rituals. It also would preferably have a holy figure, holy texts and clergy. Despite contrary claims, we don't worship Darwin, and Origin of the Species isn't a holy text.

If Origin of the Soecies were a holy text, all evolutionary bology would be based on reinterpreting the boook, and only the book, not, for example, doing experiments or questioning the word of Darwin. The fundamental difference between science and theology, is, that a scientist has to question even their own fundamental truths. For the record, parts of Origin of the Species have been, upon closer inspection, found to be wrong. Hence, why there is a whole field of evolutionary biology that produces new texts, based on experiments and deduction. Not reinterpretation.

There's many of things to show Atheism isn't a Religion. It's not accepting the assertion a God or gods exist. The reason for being an atheist is diverse and everything else is not related to atheism. It has almost nothing in common with Religion nor fits the criteria.

But there is one thing people sometimes forget to mention.

Atheism is not legally established as a Religion in any nation I'm aware of. But if it is a Religion, then people claiming it's a Religion can build us multi million dollar temples. They can get us Tax exempt status. They can go door to door for us to spread the good word of atheism. They can have the "Atheist holy book" put into the drawers at hotels. They can take all the donations and gifts and make sure we're very, very rich.

But until then, they can keep blowing smoke out their ass.

A common misconception I've found is that atheism is a religion. When really, beyond not believing in god, there aren't really a lot of shared beliefs. Hell, I've gone round and round on the politics forum with people I've seen as regulars on here. Sure, we gravitate to many of the same things, acceptance of well grounded scientific theories for example, and many might also define themselves as humanist. Yet there's not the same sort of cohesion as you'd find with Lutherans, Baptists, Jews, etc.

At 3/17/10 03:35 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: It also would preferably have a holy figure, holy texts and clergy. Despite contrary claims, we don't worship Darwin, and Origin of the Species isn't a holy text.

But what about Dawkins :P?

At 3/17/10 05:48 PM, Nev wrote:
But what about Dawkins :P?

Still no. There are many who disagree with his rhethoric. Sure, I'm not one of them, I love his and Hitchen's style (though i disagree with Hitchens in some other things). Also, a lot of atheists don't even know Dawkins, or any of them, many people just reach the conclusion by themselves, or by education.

That's another aprt of it, I doubt anyone converted to a religion without learning about it, while many peple reached the conclusion of there not being a god without ever reading a anyone telling them so.

At 3/17/10 12:50 AM, SapphireLight wrote: ain't no way athiesm is a religion
it's the lack of one

Thats agnostic.

At 3/17/10 06:12 PM, NinjaDonut wrote:
Thats agnostic.

No, it's not.

Actually, the opposite of religious is non-religious. That's more of an umbrella term, covering both Agnosticism, Atheism and non-religious Theism, deism, pantheism etc.

Agnosticism means you believe that the existance of god cannot be proven nor disproved. In that, I agree; we can't beyond doubt prove there is nothing supernatural, but on a practical level, the lack of proof points towards non-existance.

At 3/16/10 09:09 PM, Surreality wrote: 'A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies,

Atheism involves a supernatural theory of creation. The big bang without God would have been a random occurrence with the matter sitting there for an infinite amount of time before finally exploding because of? Magic? Apparently.

usually involving devotional and ritual observances

No.

, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs'

No.

Atheism fits the bill.

Atheism still fits the bill.