Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I do not believe in god literally, but science and mathematics being responsible for all of the unanswered questions such as "who created the universe and life". Well I personally believe that this question is not well thought out to ask someone who is an atheist, because the idea of atheism is that there is no creator. The theory of life is quite complicated, and in a way beyond our knowledge. A theory of how life came to be is an asteroid hit the world with organisms, and earth provided the best habitat for the anaerobic organisms to maintain homeostasis. Plausible. However, the question is, "how did the organisms get onto the asteroid?" I'm open to hear any of your ideas on this. I still do not believe they were created.

My ideas on religion are that it should be appreciated due to the fact it keeps many people under control. The idea of a god and heaven is still widely accepted because it's much more fulfilling than the complicated truth.

I also believe that if there would be a god, he would be understanding, not damn me to hell for eternity. If that's what god is like, I can say, that is a fairly human concept, holding a grudge. I do think the Buddhist god may exist, but only in theory, I do not take it literally and I do think reincarnation is fairly plausible, as in the idea of the spirit living on. The idea behind the Buddhist god is that god is inside of us. I see this as a power and the reason for energy. Like the reason why prayer does help things to occur in a more favorable outcome. My own personal idea is that there are also different dimensions.

I am really an Atheist, Buddhist.

I'd also like to read about the Norse beliefs.

At 11/24/07 09:40 PM, 0peth wrote: My ideas on religion are that it should be appreciated due to the fact it keeps many people under control.

In theory, yes, but so many times it does the opposite.

I do think reincarnation is fairly plausible, as in the idea of the spirit living on. .

I don't really get the reasoning with reincarnation, like, if you can't remember your former lives then what's the point?

Also, on the subject on cyborg human things, it will at least make the WWE bearable.

At 11/25/07 01:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

I don't really get the reasoning with reincarnation, like, if you can't remember your former lives then what's the point?

You do, but it's like that dream you had a week ago. In your mind, but not being thought about anymore in a way.

For example, it is said that if you're bad in one life, you can be reincarnated as a cockroach, then stepped on. You will remember this, but not be completely aware of it.

Not that I believe that particularly, but that's the idea behind it.

At 11/24/07 04:09 PM, Rarusu wrote: Lol, what's wrong with cyborg immortality? Imagine uploading our consciousness into an machine, that would most likely enhance our brain capabilities and make us all to Einsteins. Neat! And becoming a posthuman "god" would be kewl. Besides what do ya got against immortality? I for one would like it, i could read all i want, play all the games i want, in short: Do whatever the fuck i like! Except killin' people.....

Firs of all, If you want to discuss Transhumanism you should post here, (can someone post plz?)

And seconed, I dont like the Idea of radicaly changing humanity (its a bad idea waiting to happen)
Also i dont think things like the singularity can exsist (as well as quite a few other futurist ideas) but some things like gennetic manipulation are possible.

But I still like some future tech ideas.

Oh God I'm so fucking bored today.

I hurt my back weight lifting and was told to take it easy. Obviously I ignored it and made matters worse.

So now I'm stuck here on my arse not able to do anything physical. Which may be normal but I want the damn option to move around!

ARRRGG I'm angry right now GGRRRRR.

I wanna panda!

At 11/25/07 05:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I wanna panda!

I think a polar bear is enough for someone in your condition >:(

I know most of you probably hate him, but you have to watch 'The Amazing Atheist''s new video. Just go to like 2:48, fucking over flow of lulz.

At 11/25/07 10:52 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/25/07 05:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I wanna panda!

I think a polar bear is enough for someone in your condition >:(

BUT I WANNA PANDA!!!

At 11/25/07 11:05 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I know most of you probably hate him, but you have to watch 'The Amazing Atheist''s new video. Just go to like 2:48, fucking over flow of lulz.

You know, I've found someone MUCH better than TheAmazingAtheist.

This guy refruits statements made my VenomfangX (aka shawn) and kent Hovind (which is the same arguement) and he seems like he knows his stuff.

At 11/26/07 12:31 AM, Brick-top wrote:
You know, I've found someone MUCH better than TheAmazingAtheist.

Did you see his insane outburst though? I only suggested you watched for the lulz.

At 11/26/07 12:31 AM, Brick-top wrote:
This guy refruits statements made my VenomfangX (aka shawn) and kent Hovind (which is the same arguement) and he seems like he knows his stuff.

Oh yeah, he's the english bloke right?
He is very intelligent, but not quite as entertaining as the amazing atheist ;_;

At 11/26/07 02:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/26/07 12:31 AM, Brick-top wrote:
You know, I've found someone MUCH better than TheAmazingAtheist.

Did you see his insane outburst though? I only suggested you watched for the lulz.

Yeah but he's a bit of a jackass.

Swaering and ranting is ok but when it's done constantly it gets irritating.

If any of you guys are on Facebook, join this group and invite all your friends (if you're anti-religion)

http://lancs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=
5494567031

At 11/26/07 01:39 PM, Earfetish wrote: If any of you guys are on Facebook, join this group and invite all your friends (if you're anti-religion)

http://lancs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=
5494567031

Aww shit.

I closed my facebook account last month.

bollocks.

At 11/26/07 02:14 PM, Brick-top wrote:

bollocks.

Lol Britain.

At 11/26/07 11:53 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/26/07 02:14 PM, Brick-top wrote:

bollocks.

Lol Britain.

Because Australians never say bollocks.

At 11/27/07 06:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/26/07 11:53 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/26/07 02:14 PM, Brick-top wrote:

bollocks.

Lol Britain.

Because Australians never say bollocks.

We have an advanced form of swearing which isn't considered swearing anywhere else so it doesn't get *Beeped* when shown at 2 O'clock in the afternoon.

Especially the Scottish and Irish, they're masters at it lol

At 11/27/07 11:13 AM, Brick-top wrote: Especially the Scottish and Irish, they're masters at it lol

Feck the fecking feckers.

It's amazing what you can get away with on UK TV.

Smeg.

At 11/27/07 11:48 AM, Earfetish wrote: Smeg.

Alright dudes!

lol smeg head.

At 11/24/07 09:40 PM, 0peth wrote: I'm open to hear any of your ideas on this. I still do not believe they were created.

There are many theories on 'abiogenesis'; I believe the most popular one is that very simple cell-like replicators were created through the layering of naturally-occurring amino acids. I don't consider the origin of life one of the biggest questions, because it doesn't seem to me that unlikely for occasionally-mutating replicators with some small chemical reactions going on inside to be created accidentally, somewhere in the vast universe.

My ideas on religion are that it should be appreciated due to the fact it keeps many people under control. The idea of a god and heaven is still widely accepted because it's much more fulfilling than the complicated truth.

Firstly, I don't think the belief in God and Heaven would be called 'religion' persay, I think the word 'religion' carries a lot more to it than that. I also don't think it is actually beneficial to keep people under control with some old books, in today's enlightened times; I really do think we can discard it, and that would be beneficial.

The idea behind the Buddhist god is that god is inside of us. I see this as a power and the reason for energy. Like the reason why prayer does help things to occur in a more favorable outcome.

Well if you've found your own personal God, I don't really think it's helpful to label yourself with a religion, unless you are totally Buddhist; other than that, Buddhism seems far more interesting than a lot of religions, but I can't really buy it. I do know a few people who flick about between some irreligious theism and Buddhism, too.

At 11/27/07 12:38 PM, Earfetish wrote:

:I also don't think it is actually beneficial to keep people under control with some old books, in today's enlightened times; I really do think we can discard it, and that would be beneficial.

How does it keep people under control? If religion kept people under control than the Paple medieval ban on cross-bows would have worked. May I remind you that at that time and place relligion was the most powerful force in europe. Contrary to what you may like to think relligion is surprisingly week at controlling people

Look at the crusades, the causes are thus...
1) Starvation in europe (France in particular) was causing unrest.
2) European countries were fighting with each other in bloody wars.
3) The Byzantine Empire was being invaded by the Turks.
4) Lesser sons of nobels had no inhearetance of land.

Food, Wealth, and Glory could be found in the holy land, not to mention the trade and cultural exchange that happened that realy helped bring europe out of dark times and into the high middle ages.

My Idea, the crusades would have happened anyway with or without relligion (it just gave it flavor)

At 11/27/07 05:24 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: How does it keep people under control? If religion kept people under control than the Paple medieval ban on cross-bows would have worked. May I remind you that at that time and place relligion was the most powerful force in europe. Contrary to what you may like to think relligion is surprisingly week at controlling people

I was commenting on 0peth's point.

My Idea, the crusades would have happened anyway with or without relligion (it just gave it flavor)

People would have been less likely to fight if they didn't think there was some divine purpose. And screw the Crusades specifically, do you completely disagree with the proposal that religion causes conflict?

At 11/27/07 06:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Because Australians never say bollocks.

No Australian born Australians I know have said it.

At 11/27/07 05:24 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: My Idea, the crusades would have happened anyway with or without relligion (it just gave it flavor)

Because recapturing sacred holy ground has nothing to do with religion.

At 11/28/07 07:26 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: "Those dark skinned folk sure do have a lot of treasure and land."
"You thinking what I'm thinking?"
"Get out your Bible...we're going to justify this."

"King William is telling us to go and kill Muslims."
"Well fuck him."
"The Pope is telling us to go and kill Muslims, saying it's our divine will and that Muslims are less than human, and the Pope has papal infallibility, and is telling us to do it for Christianity."
"K."

You do have to appreciate, btw, that if the Pope has Papal infallibility, the Crusades were commanded by God, and if the Pope doesn't have Papal infallibility, much of your dogma has no basis.

If war dares to cross sectarian lines, it gets a little more ingrained.

At 11/28/07 08:08 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: In my humble opinion, money is the cause of all wars. Religion is just the best excuse.

Money may start a lot of wars, but religion continues them. If wars were solely about money, that would be lovely and simple, but when ideology gets mixed up with it the war seems prolonged and unwinnable.

There have, of course, been ideological battles fought that weren't about religion, like the cold war, but there have been a lot more that were about religion.

No-one has ever said 'religion is the cause of all wars'.

The civil war in Iraq at the moment can trace its roots back to Western imperialism, cutting up the Middle East and sharing it out with no regard to the sectarian divides, but the sectarian divides have always been there, as an inevitable consequence of organised religion, and were just waiting to flare up.

I just had a very interesting conversation about Atheism with this guy on Youtube.

He was suprised at what I was saying. He thinks that all Atheists are angry and hatful.

What a prick lol

At 11/28/07 10:27 AM, Brick-top wrote: I just had a very interesting conversation about Atheism with this guy on Youtube.

He was suprised at what I was saying. He thinks that all Atheists are angry and hatful.

What a prick lol

Some guy leaves me messages saying that atheists are like spoilt little rebel brats and are don't want to do what god says we should.
Funny bloke that.

At 11/29/07 12:18 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/28/07 10:27 AM, Brick-top wrote: I just had a very interesting conversation about Atheism with this guy on Youtube.

He was suprised at what I was saying. He thinks that all Atheists are angry and hatful.

What a prick lol

Some guy leaves me messages saying that atheists are like spoilt little rebel brats and are don't want to do what god says we should.
Funny bloke that.

I'm sure you sent him lots of love back lol.

This guy removed his video. But luckely someone re-posted it for the lulz.

This one made me laugh.

And this is just plain stupid. However the video was removed by the user, so naomi94 kindly reposted it just so we can all point and laugh.