Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

hello i saw this and thought wow
so like her it is
god does exist but he does very little i believe that the big bang happened and that it formed earth but how was the combustian created to do that? chemicals don't just burst to flame with a heating element it needs combustion and according to the theory of the big bang thier was no solids just very loose and basic gasses which some one (supposed "GOD") had to make but other than that god has no other help in events in nature i am what some people call a scientific buhddist a person seeking enlightenment through science ponder this.

or flame it i'm wearing flame retardent undies

I'm single-minded when the argument I'm presented with is stupid and lame. In the thread "NG's Largest Debate", made in 2003, that guy had a good argument. He used a bunch of cool science to prove God existed. He temporarily made me believe in God. At least he had something good to say instead of you just using the stupid Bible.

At 12/23/06 01:36 PM, Kaabi wrote: I'm single-minded when the argument I'm presented with is stupid and lame. In the thread "NG's Largest Debate", made in 2003, that guy had a good argument. He used a bunch of cool science to prove God existed. He temporarily made me believe in God. At least he had something good to say instead of you just using the stupid Bible.

Look, if your not going to fucking listen.

Why should he explain it to you.

I mean, you argue to change ideas, your not going to change your idea.

Thus it's null and void.

You may not have quoted the Bible, but that's why you believe everything you do. It's all because of a fucking book you have absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, no idea is true. NO FUCKING IDEA. The idea of Jesus dying for our sins is so fucking stupid. I'm tired, I'm not posting anymore. I don't have to deal with you fucktards.

yeah religion is pointless there is no proof of a god or anything religious so yeah....

At 12/23/06 04:24 PM, Kaabi wrote: You may not have quoted the Bible, but that's why you believe everything you do. It's all because of a fucking book you have absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, no idea is true. NO FUCKING IDEA. The idea of Jesus dying for our sins is so fucking stupid. I'm tired, I'm not posting anymore. I don't have to deal with you fucktards.

Thank god, it's a miracle.

Someone seems to have problems with other people believing what they want

why are Christians allowed to force their crap on us and when we try and tell them to shove it they fucking just wanna fuck with us more? and then when you just ignore them, they bug you till you explode and then when you do they are like "I told you so!" you can't reason with the western mind!!!

At 12/23/06 04:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Someone seems to have problems with other people believing what they want

And yet, as a professed theist, you continue to post in a club called "The Atheist Army".

At 12/23/06 07:43 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 12/23/06 04:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And yet, as a professed theist, you continue to post in a club called "The Atheist Army".

It's fun seeing people get mad because I believe in an almight.

At 12/23/06 08:48 PM, XmasBurger wrote: I'll join. I have been baptized as Christian, but I don't believe it. I believe in science.

I said I wouldn't post again but I lied. It's nice to see some more atheists in here. That's right, put your faith in science! Sweet, sweet science.

At 12/24/06 09:43 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: Awww, has the big logical atheist gone in a huff because the stupid "fucktard" Catholic has beaten him in debate countless times? Well, that's okay champ - you're right! Why should you be challenged?!?! You should be free to spout alot of intolerant crap about banning people from choosing their way of life, because you like My Chemical Romance! You don't have to take this! Hurroo for you!

The rest of your post was fine, but this is just a poorly veiled ad-hominem attack. You can do better than that.

You're saying that you don't think the Old Testament is true, but you think the New Testament is? That is fucking bullshit. Jesus TAUGHT the Old Testament! He must have believed it is true, but you don't. If he was the son of God, he should know what is true and isn't true. You keep saying that there is proof the Gospels wrote the New Testament and other things saying it's true, but you really have no proof. The bottom line is you have no idea if the New Testament is true or not, and you're ignoring the 99% chance that it's all crap.

Let me start with telling you to stop calling me emo. I don't do any of that stuff, and I don't even know who My Chemical Romance is. I'm Jewish, and I consider myself Jewish even though I don't believe in God or that any of the stories happened. It's the ideals that matter, and with that, Judaism and Christianity are basically the same. I'm not criticizing that, you should live by those things, I'm just saying that doing all that other stuff; communion, baptizing; I think that is stupid, because it's pointless if Jesus having powers and all that is untrue, which there is a 99% it isn't true. So much time and money is put into religious things, and all that. It would be better if it just went away.

I said earlier that a just God would remove all pain, and you said it would make life boring and pointless if that happened. Well I think millions of people would kill for a boring and pointless life in exchange for no more pain. Was that you who said that? Somebody said it.

At 12/24/06 08:59 PM, Kaabi wrote:

I said earlier that a just God would remove all pain, and you said it would make life boring and pointless if that happened. Well I think millions of people would kill for a boring and pointless life in exchange for no more pain. Was that you who said that? Somebody said it.

Why, Why should he have to remove the pain, misery and failrue in the world, when all of these things are on our own cause and effect. God gave us the power to create these miseries, and he also gave us the power to fix them.

At 12/25/06 01:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Why, Why should he have to remove the pain, misery and failrue in the world, when all of these things are on our own cause and effect. God gave us the power to create these miseries, and he also gave us the power to fix them.

How do you account for natural disasters?

I consider myself Jewish because I follow Jewish ideals, and you know what? I just like calling myself a Jew because there aren't a lot of us and it's kind of distinguishing. Yeah, that's right! But you could call me a Jewistian, because I'm all about the ideals, not the God, and Jews and Christians have it the same there, as I said before. Fuck you.

Kaabi, I'm sorry but you're an embarrassment to atheism. Get a grip.

Can I join? Religion irritates me.

I read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins recently. It makes the premise of religion seem rather unfounded, tbh. But we all know the good arguments; Dawkins articulates them well and throws in a few I hadn't heard too.

At 12/26/06 08:14 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Richard Dawkins is an arsehole, he should try being brought up in a Catholic house. I guarantee his views on Religion would be 100% different.

Your views on religion would be 100% different if you were brought up in a Buddhist house. And Dawkins was brought up in an Anglican household anyway.

Muslims tend to disagree with that statement from my experience btw.

At 12/26/06 08:34 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

Muslims tend to disagree with that statement from my experience btw.

Wha?

Usually, when I've gotten into a religious debate with a Muslim and I pose them that question, they respond with, "I would have found Islam anyway," or, "Islam would be the religion for me no matter what, even if I was a catholic until I was 12 once I'd touched the Qu'ran I would've changed my mind." I dunno why. Muslims obviously, on average, have greater religious conviction, or are worse at having their faith challenged, than everyone else. To my experience.

At 12/26/06 08:02 PM, Earfetish wrote: I read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins recently. It makes the premise of religion seem rather unfounded, tbh. But we all know the good arguments; Dawkins articulates them well and throws in a few I hadn't heard too.

I agree with a lot of Dawkins' points. However, he fails to realise, on a number of accounts, the social importance of religion.

"People need to believe in things that aren't there." -poorly veiled quote of Terry Pratchett

Plus, I think he's better suited to Biology, myself. Anti-religion crusades aren't really his thing. I hear The God Delusion is his worst book.

At 12/26/06 08:02 PM, Earfetish wrote: I read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins recently. It makes the premise of religion seem rather unfounded, tbh. But we all know the good arguments; Dawkins articulates them well and throws in a few I hadn't heard too.

I read a few exerpts myself. What I don't seem to understand is how people can claim humanity evolved a conscience level of morality via al genes when the cases of morality in difference cultures were so different and not as universal as they are today.

W00T god sucks
what proof do they have that he dont!
W00T god sucks

At 12/27/06 12:38 AM, BanditByte wrote: I read a few exerpts myself. What I don't seem to understand is how people can claim humanity evolved a conscience level of morality via al genes when the cases of morality in difference cultures were so different and not as universal as they are today.

Every culture has similar morals but it moulds itself to the surroundings. Like we didn't think slavery was bad. Not harming your own tribe seems to be the basic moral code, but that'd be shit in modern day society so our morals have adapted to function better. Like monkey morals compared to captive monkey morals.

I've not explained Dawkin's ideas at all properly there, but he does. He says we're moral to protect similar genes and he explores morality pretty well, but alas I can't remember the exact gist of his argument. But anyone who says that morality only exists because of religion can turn their attention to bees, protecting the mother bee for clearer reasons in regards to DNA protection, or monkeys, or any other animal that behaves with altruism when the cards are down.

At 12/25/06 04:04 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 12/25/06 01:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

How do you account for natural disasters?

Uncontrollable enviromental changes.

At 12/27/06 08:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/25/06 04:04 PM, Peter-II wrote: How do you account for natural disasters?

Uncontrollable enviromental changes.

Oh well wasn't that witty.

I meant in terms of God and suffering, fool. Free will has nothing to do with suffering as a result of natural disasters. So how do you account for them in terms of God and suffering?

At 12/27/06 08:41 AM, Earfetish wrote: Every culture has similar morals but it moulds itself to the surroundings. Like we didn't think slavery was bad. Not harming your own tribe seems to be the basic moral code, but that'd be shit in modern day society so our morals have adapted to function better. Like monkey morals compared to captive monkey morals.

An anthropologist or history would tell you many cultures are not the same. Let's look at many ancient cultures. The egpytians had no qualms with men killing eachother in order to take something they covetted from the deceased or the assyrians who not only idolized the act of genocide, but loved torture so much they included scenes of them torturing a prisoner in their artwork. Or we could look at the chinese, who had a similar outlook as the egyptians.

Now, compare our modern civilization to theirs. The only reason we have alot of the morals we do today is due to the diffusion of Judeo-Christian principles into the Middle Ages,
Awakening and Reformation period. In turn the europeans traders spread these same morals as they traded with foreigners who adopted them into their own cultures.

The tribesmen comparison is also inconsistant. A bushman of an African tribe might not kill a fellow members, but has no problem pillaging, marauding and raping women of another tribe as well as sell them into slavery. Certainly something someone of modern times would do commit.

But anyone who says that morality only exists because of religion can turn their attention to bees, protecting the mother bee for clearer reasons in regards to DNA protection, or monkeys, or any other animal that behaves with altruism when the cards are down.

Protecting a mother bee is not an issue of good an evil. It is only natural-selection and only that. What Mr. Dawkins fails to realize is his morality is subjective.

At 12/27/06 11:04 AM, Peter-II wrote:

At 12/27/06 08:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/25/06 04:04 PM, Peter-II wrote:

I meant in terms of God and suffering, fool. Free will has nothing to do with suffering as a result of natural disasters. So how do you account for them in terms of God and suffering?

I see it as a challenge of faith and good will.

A test of humanity so to speak.

At 12/27/06 06:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I see it as a challenge of faith and good will.

A test of humanity so to speak.

Well how is that in context of your theory that all the miseries in the world are a result of people's own "cause and effect"? Saying that all suffering in the world happens because of free will is gross oversimplification.