Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So even if I want to start a meaningful discussion, then I won't be allowed to because of rumors of what I did in the past? Have you not the slightest idea of repentance? God loves me, and if I do wrong then I repent.

At 11/8/09 05:21 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: but still respect the moral values of the bible? Is that right?

This is where Secular Humanism came from. We don't need the bible to have morals or a sense of reason. Those are innate and instinctual.

At 11/13/09 08:04 AM, PabMo wrote:

At 11/8/09 05:21 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: but still respect the moral values of the bible? Is that right?

This is where Secular Humanism came from. We don't need the bible to have morals or a sense of reason. Those are innate and instinctual.

Who are you to say that we don't need it? You're no better than a fascist if you're trying to tell people how to live their lives.

I believe he's saying that the Bible simply took innate human morality and claimed it was from a god being.

Pretty much I'd say, MultiC. Humanism, as I mentioned earlier, is the idea that you don't need religion as a guide to live a moral life. But, you know, it's just such a fascist idea of course.

At 11/13/09 03:27 PM, ph0ne wrote: Who are you to say that we don't need it? You're no better than a fascist if you're trying to tell people how to live their lives.

What? This is confusing. Perhaps research the terms I mentioned before inventing definitions for them.

Make sense next time.

At 11/13/09 10:09 PM, PabMo wrote:

Don't bother with Phone, he is the biggest retard/troll/thing, in the club! He say's nothing of value, never backs up his arguement, never wins an arguement, never contradicts an arguement, and never supports any of his claims with anything that can be transcribed as 'evidence'. Ultimatly he is one of them brainwashed folks, and his purpose in an Atheist club is fuitile.

Also he looks like a douche. LOL

Jesusbukkake's authority is my authority

At 11/14/09 11:27 AM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/13/09 10:09 PM, PabMo wrote:

Don't bother with Phone, he is the biggest retard/troll/thing, in the club! He say's nothing of value, never backs up his arguement, never wins an arguement, never contradicts an arguement, and never supports any of his claims with anything that can be transcribed as 'evidence'. Ultimatly he is one of them brainwashed folks, and his purpose in an Atheist club is fuitile.

Also he looks like a douche. LOL

No need to rage. Calm down and think of more constructive things to say other than "douche."

At 11/17/09 04:27 PM, ph0ne wrote: No need to rage. Calm down and think of more constructive things to say other than "douche."

Douchebag

At 11/17/09 04:52 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Douchebag

Now I know the true face of Atheism. It is defiant, rude, immature, and childish.

If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

At 11/28/09 02:52 PM, Patton3 wrote: If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

are you going to be debating this professor? if so what is the topic of the debate? in any case I usually find it helpful to write out what I want to say before hand so that I don't forget get it latter on.

At 11/28/09 02:52 PM, Patton3 wrote: If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

I'm going to do a quick nuttshell here.

Be objective when addressing his argument, don't be an idiot! Don't be a phone! He'll be somewhat clever, and will stratify when approaching the argument. I suggest you do the same. Look over some Theist, and Atheist debates.

As a matter of fact I had a theist lecture the last week. You may see that all Theists argue god from an emotional point of view, rather than a mechanical one. You must approach the argument mechanically, not to let any emotions get involved in the thinking process, otherwise the conclusion becomes subject to opinion.

If he starts babbling on about the beauty of nature remind him why he isn't an accepted member of the scientific community for me will you. There is no pro-theist theory to date which has not been disproven scientifically, or logically. You know you have won when he finally explains. God exists outside the realm of all space and time.

That is the final defensive status. Even then that infers his non-existence in our ultimate existence.

So debating and talking is all about winning now? I don't consider myself a Theist, but it always strikes a nerve when people debate about it. See that nutshell? That's what it ALWAYS turns into, nothing more and nothing less.

The Theist uses personal experience and uses logic to deduce from that experience the existence of a higher being, and the non-Theist tell him/her that he/she is delusional. Why, that's how it goes, right?

Well... considering it was posted here, I thought that it was obvious the topic. Anyway, thanks for the points. It's been an e-mail back and forth for a while. and yes, Griffin, you're right in the regard that he likes to take an emotional point of view.
However, a point that the only logical explanation for the universe's existence is god... Any points anyone here would like to make on this.

I've found people reluctant to call themselves atheists because too many people [like the ones in this club] take it as an ideological position rather than just a personal belief.

Do you think it's right that atheists are becoming anti-Religious by default?

At 11/28/09 09:55 PM, Patton3 wrote: Well... considering it was posted here, I thought that it was obvious the topic. Anyway, thanks for the points. It's been an e-mail back and forth for a while. and yes, Griffin, you're right in the regard that he likes to take an emotional point of view.
However, a point that the only logical explanation for the universe's existence is god... Any points anyone here would like to make on this.

No, God, has the IBE, the inference of the best explanation, which means that it is the simplest way of explaining the fundimental logic of the universe. That does not necessarily mean that he is the best explanation for the universe. Has he ever watched the matrix!

Also watch out for this trap, it's called the arguement for irruducable complexity. The simple answer to that is science can explain everything. Without science there would be no fundimental logic to anything.

Here is some copypasta from something I wrote a long time ago, put it into context.

The commonly accepted answer before the 19th century was that God created the universe, all that is present was crafted by an almighty hand, somehow transcendent to the people we are today. Now this answer is rejected, and over the fluctuation of time and space mankind has evolved and unveiled countless findings; science does not attempt to disprove God, as it is commonly perceived, but only wishes to unravel the mysteries that have boggled our minds for practically countless years.

There is the argument for irreducible complexity, which suggests something like, the human eye is so complex that it must have been created, because it has been created perfectly and functions co-existentially with the human body; blahblahblah.

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is invalid, it simply claims that you do not understand the eye comprehensibly enough. You'll have to phrase that in your own words if it comes up, but basically; 1/2 does not = irreducible complexity. No, 1/2 = 0.5 / 2 = 0.25 .etc Its our understanding which defines the complexity of a structure.

Um. Just tell me what he says and I'll start pulling the guns out of my hat.

Ah! Here is what i'm looking for!

Hundreds of years ago we were unable to diagnose the common cold so we turned to God, once science had progressed when we were unable to diagnose the common cold we turned to the microscope.

That is a particularly good counter-arguement of the complexity crapola. Given a short space of time I quickly pulled some crap out of my box of wonders which is my computer. Hope it helps!

At 11/29/09 06:14 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

That is a particularly good counter-arguement of the complexity crapola.

I'm so close to stating that complexity is subjective I can taste it.

At 11/29/09 08:09 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 11/29/09 06:14 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

That is a particularly good counter-arguement of the complexity crapola.

I'm so close to stating that complexity is subjective I can taste it.

Oh you...