Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I worship Lord Kromdar.

C.

Although I most definitely do care.

I belong to the church of the flying spaghetti monster

http://en.wikipedia...ng_Spaghetti_Monster

Seriously, i do it's a real religion. And my fat friend says he's a tofossi, whatever that means

A. I believe in one God

At 3/31/06 09:09 AM, madknt wrote: were all athiest.. and anyone who says otherwise is a jerk

i am A catholic

At 4/3/06 03:43 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 4/3/06 01:54 AM, perj wrote: Look at the higher ages... 19 has a bunch of atheists, including me, and I don't think I'm invincible. It's called logical thinking, not wild hormones.

No, it's called subjective thinking, as in: "I see no proof of the existance of god, therefore there is no god". A sound argument as far as it goes but a pretty weak one. Presently it's the middle of the night where I am, it's overcast and there's no moon out. I currently have no evidence to prove the existance of the sun. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

yes theer is proof because the plants areound your home would not exist without the sun showing up every once in a while duh!

"Younger" is a definition dependant on your own age. And I'm not the least surprised that the majority of the atheists are 15. I was on the bordline of atheist/agnostic when I was that age, there's a definitive apostatic slant in the 15-17 range, probably due to hormones and the feeling of ones own invulnerability.

I know what you mean. I was borderline atheist when I was their age. I questioned my faith for nearly 2 and a half years. In the end, when the hormones stopped controling me, when my hatred for authority died out, and when I basically just grew up, I remained Catholic, only now with a better understanding of my faith than I did before. In a way, going borderline atheist and questioning God and religion only ended up making me more religious, it gave me wisdom and and a new insight.

I think most of the kids here who claim to be atheists are just going through a phase. It's tied in closely with a disgust for any form of authority, cops, parents, schools, bosses, even God. Ah, they'll snap out of it, most of them anyway.

At 4/3/06 05:18 AM, soadsod wrote: yes theer is proof because the plants areound your home would not exist without the sun showing up every once in a while duh!

Says who? Those plants could have always been there, the idea they need sunlight to live could be a myth. I can't associate it because I can't see the sun. So if there's no proof the sun exists, it doesn't and therefore plants don't need sunlight to survive.

That may sound purile but when you get right down to it, that's about it for the case for atheists. Even Douglas Adams' famous man/puddle concept falls down once you realize it has more to do with the arrogance of the man/puddle than it does the existance/non-existance of god.

At 4/3/06 06:23 AM, capn_g wrote:

With the sun it's different. You already have prior knowledge that the sun exists. You know it still exists even if for 12 hours you lose evidence for it. For god, there has never been concrete evidence of his existence. In fact, the gods of most religions and especially Christian are designed to be unprovable.

Atheism to many is an act of over-simplification. They are stressed out in their lives, and thus many oversimplify existance in order to prvent themselves from thinking about it. Atheism is the greates oversimplification one can make. Many find it easier to go about your daily life without ever having to think there is any possible creater, purpose, fate, reason, karma, afterlife, ominescence, or reason. That why they can only think about things that are staring them in the face. Ofcourse, deep down most atheists believe in God but refuse to. Agnostics on the other hand are neutral on the matter, and thus they are more likely to be real nonbelievers. But militant atheists are easy to tell that deep down, they believe in God, they are just afaid of him or don't agree with him. It's like closet homosexuals who constantly talk about how much they hate gay people, they are really only bullshitting themselves so they don't have to think about whether or not they could be gay.

Some say that atheists are closer to God than most people, for he is NEVER off of their minds.

At 4/3/06 06:23 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 4/3/06 05:18 AM, soadsod wrote: yes theer is proof because the plants areound your home would not exist without the sun showing up every once in a while duh!

Says who? Those plants could have always been there, the idea they need sunlight to live could be a myth. I can't associate it because I can't see the sun. So if there's no proof the sun exists, it doesn't and therefore plants don't need sunlight to survive.

when the plants die that is the proof they need the sun
and there is proof that god exists because, if a "big bang" started "everything", sometihng had to ahve made that big bang and if there was nothing before that, something had to have made that nothing in order for something to come about from the nothing

B.

I ascribe to the Douglas Adams view of the world.

Whoops, and as for my age - 18.

At 4/3/06 06:37 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Some say that atheists are closer to God than most people, for he is NEVER off of their minds.

Those people who say that are, of course, idiots. Atheists don't constantly remind themselves that god doesn't exist, the same way that normal people don't constantly remind themselves that the boogeyman doesn't exist. By those people's standards every religious person would strive to be atheist in order to become closer to god, and the pope is the most atheist of all people.

At 4/3/06 06:50 AM, soadsod wrote: when the plants die that is the proof they need the sun
and there is proof that god exists because, if a "big bang" started "everything", sometihng had to ahve made that big bang and if there was nothing before that, something had to have made that nothing in order for something to come about from the nothing

Just because you don't know what caused it doesn't mean god did it. It just means you don't know what caused it.

The same arguement can also go against religion. So what made god? he can't just simply "always have existed" simply because you said so. Where's the proof that he always existed?

At 4/3/06 06:28 AM, HeinousDude wrote:

At 4/3/06 06:23 AM, capn_g wrote:

With the sun it's different. You already have prior knowledge that the sun exists. You know it still exists even if for 12 hours you lose evidence for it.

Imagine I was a newborn. I have never seen the sun. Until it actually arrives, I have no proof of it's existance, merely cirumstantial evidence and the assurances of others. God could work like that, what we percieve to be "death" could in fact be "dawn".

For god, there has never been concrete evidence of his existence. In fact, the gods of most religions and especially Christian are designed to be unprovable.

That's true but only in so much as we have the ability to percieve things. Imagine you lived in a world that was entirely 2D and you met some guy rambling on about a 3rd dimension he'd seen in a vision. You'd think he was mental. The reality would be that the third dimension DID exist but you'd lack the ability to percieve it, as all your senses would be geared to your 2D world. God could work like that too.

The fact of the matter is we don't know and we may never know. Which is, of course, why it's a matter of belief.

At 4/3/06 07:41 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 4/3/06 06:28 AM, HeinousDude wrote:

At 4/3/06 06:23 AM, capn_g wrote:

With the sun it's different. You already have prior knowledge that the sun exists. You know it still exists even if for 12 hours you lose evidence for it.

Imagine I was a newborn. I have never seen the sun. Until it actually arrives, I have no proof of it's existance, merely cirumstantial evidence and the assurances of others. God could work like that, what we percieve to be "death" could in fact be "dawn".

Yeah, so with no proof of god's existance, you only have circumstantial evidence and assurances of others that god exists.

That's true but only in so much as we have the ability to percieve things. Imagine you lived in a world that was entirely 2D and you met some guy rambling on about a 3rd dimension he'd seen in a vision. You'd think he was mental. The reality would be that the third dimension DID exist but you'd lack the ability to percieve it, as all your senses would be geared to your 2D world. God could work like that too.

Whoa, you just changed the setting. In your analogy you have made the 2D world the reality, and 3D world an imaginative one. Therefore some guy rambling on about a 3rd dimension would be just that, a rambling.
Let's flip that around. We're in the real world right here. If I told you there's a 2D world, would you have believed it?

The fact of the matter is we don't know and we may never know. Which is, of course, why it's a matter of belief.

That and the concept of god was designed to be unprovable. Christians even went so far as to deter any attempts to it.

just reminding you guys, the topic starter didn't want this to turn into an argument.

At 4/3/06 07:54 AM, HeinousDude wrote: Whoa, you just changed the setting. In your analogy you have made the 2D world the reality, and 3D world an imaginative one. Therefore some guy rambling on about a 3rd dimension would be just that, a rambling.

No, no, that wasn't my intention. The 3D world is the reality but it has to contain a 2D world (and I suppose a theoretical 1D world as well). The point is that the inhabitants of the 2D world would have no inkling of the 3D world.

For the sake of clarity, imagine the 2D world as a piece of paper. Now, if I were to put a small box on the paper, the inhabitants of that world would only be able to percieve it as a square, namely the side in contact with the paper itself. The rest of the box still exists but lies quite literally beyond their experience. Get it?

At 4/3/06 08:58 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 4/3/06 07:54 AM, HeinousDude wrote: Whoa, you just changed the setting. In your analogy you have made the 2D world the reality, and 3D world an imaginative one. Therefore some guy rambling on about a 3rd dimension would be just that, a rambling.

No, no, that wasn't my intention. The 3D world is the reality but it has to contain a 2D world (and I suppose a theoretical 1D world as well). The point is that the inhabitants of the 2D world would have no inkling of the 3D world.

For the sake of clarity, imagine the 2D world as a piece of paper. Now, if I were to put a small box on the paper, the inhabitants of that world would only be able to percieve it as a square, namely the side in contact with the paper itself. The rest of the box still exists but lies quite literally beyond their experience. Get it?

Now your analogy just becomes so abstract and imaginative that you are simply limiting the conditions to suit your needs. It's just back to the old argument of "I have super powers" "My super powers beats your super powers" "But my super powers prevents your super powers from working in the first place" little kiddie shit.

C- i'm mainly atheist, but i accept a slight possibility of a god or whatever, or at least some type of spiritual force. i'm dead against organised religion though. no one should be dictated their beliefs and be expected to honestly believe and follow every last word. people should discover their own ethics, morals and opinions.
if one of the main religions are true, i'd rather go to hell because god must be one complete whiney bitch

At 4/3/06 09:05 AM, HeinousDude wrote: Now your analogy just becomes so abstract and imaginative that you are simply limiting the conditions to suit your needs.

It has to be somewhat abstract to make it more accessable but I hardly consider it "imaginative". It's actually an idea that came to me based on some concepts a friend of mine (who's much better at math than I am) was explaining to me regarding the idea of tesseracts. The idea is fairly simple, other dimensions are arranged tangentally to this one, so we are only partially aware of them because we're limited by the scope of our own senses. Any beings living in a higher form of existance would be nigh-imperceptible to us. Since there are limits on the 3D world we inhabit it follows that greater limits would exist in a 2D world.

Sorry about being late with this one. Classes, im sure most of you college goers will understand

Results:
As of Page 4

Beilive in God (religious) - 51 (44%)
Atheist (No god)- 35 (30%)
Agnostic (not sure/dont care)- 29 (25%)

Now for the age stats

13
A. 5
B. 1
C. 4

14
A. 7
B. 3
C. 2

15
A. 11
B. 12
C. 7

16
A. 3
B. 2
C. 3

17
A. 8
B. 4
C. 4

18
A. 4
B. 2
C. 2

19
A. 3
B. 3
C. 3

20
A. 0
B. 1
C. 1

21+
A. 3
B. 1
C. 1

?
A. 7
B. 5
C. 3

I belong to church but I really don't believe any of that bs in bible.
And the god story is also on very thin waters so I'd say I'm C

Answer = C :o

Why are people even arguing about religion in this thread? I thought it was just a poll...

i believe in God

(A) i believe in god.

At 4/3/06 11:42 AM, Placebo wrote: Why are people even arguing about religion in this thread? I thought it was just a poll...

Becuase they cant read the first damn post. The worst part is that the culprits are veterens.

Also remeber that this poll is essentially divided into two parts Beilivers (religous folk) and Non-belivers (atheists and agnostics). So while it may look like their are more religous individuals, their really arent when the non religious are combined

Here.
I am Christian.
I'm 18.

I don't think that people should fight for religions, because it's only beliefs. Accept them, and then live with it.

Tada

B. No, I am not just some 16 year old religiously impared boy, in Russia they taught my mom that religion was just a bunch of bullshit, a sort of false-hope that people cling on to for an after life, and that all it did was cause inter country wars, and god damnit (no pun intended) I agree.