Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/15/06 05:35 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

At 6/15/06 02:56 PM, kidray76 wrote: Can anyone explain to me the purpose of atheism. Seems like they are just extremist based on lack of proof.

You could turn that argument right around...

"Can anyone explain to me the purpose of religion. Seems like they are just extremist based on the alleged authority of some sacred text."

The text is based on alleged evidence. At least someone claimed this and that about religion. Do atheist have any allege evidence outside of no evidence?

At 6/15/06 03:06 PM, Hydra9 wrote: Ok im an atheis and im going to awnser your question.
us atheists seem to find flaws with religions take this argumant:
if god exists then is he/she a force or a being bcause
1. if hes a being he cant be pure or everywhere
2. if hes a force why bother praying

So basically all you do is find flaws in religions that have absolutely no effect on you, tell people you're smart, give illogical scientific evidence of absolutely nothing, and walk away? Pitiful. Seriously. Get a life, man.

At 6/15/06 06:12 PM, kidray76 wrote: The text is based on alleged evidence. At least someone claimed this and that about religion.

ok then, i wrote an essay for my english homework about what i did last summer, the essay was based on alleged evidence, that i went undersea hunting. At least i claimde this and that about my previous summer

(lol)

At 6/15/06 02:56 PM, kidray76 wrote: Can anyone explain to me the purpose of atheism. Seems like they are just extremist based on lack of proof.

I'll tell you why :

So I don't have to listen to a bunch of hate monging fools trying to guide me in their paths. Plus, I just really don't give a shit if there is a god or not, he can send his son down to earth all he wants to burn on a crucifix all he wants, it doesn't matter to me.

the defintion of athiest is a person who only belives in things that are observable and scientificly provable. saying athiests are extreamists are like saying muslums are extreamists. but i think alot of people that are athiests just dont belive in god. this is coming from a buddhist, by the way.

At 6/15/06 06:37 PM, -dELta- wrote:

At 6/15/06 06:12 PM, kidray76 wrote: The text is based on alleged evidence. At least someone claimed this and that about religion.

ok then, i wrote an essay for my english homework about what i did last summer, the essay was based on alleged evidence, that i went undersea hunting. At least i claimde this and that about my previous summer

(lol)

An essay. Your comparing that to a bible? If your going to be sarcastic, at least make sense. Hell, your paper was probably no more than 5 pages with big font. The bible has detailed stories and alleged evidence, its a little different than you saying you went fishing on a dock and caught a fish and then threw it back.

At 6/15/06 03:27 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: You start with the premise:
1) Anything that cannot be proved to me beyond reasonable doubt can be classed as "incorrect"

The lack of proof would lend itself better to agnosticism rather than atheism.

At 6/15/06 07:24 PM, bucher wrote: the defintion of athiest is a person who only belives in things that are observable and scientificly provable. saying athiests are extreamists are like saying muslums are extreamists. but i think alot of people that are athiests just dont belive in god. this is coming from a buddhist, by the way.

And who says god isnt observa le and scientificily proveavble. Do you have any evidence suggest that its impossible? Have you ran any test to say there is no god or a god isn't proveable? So athiests are pretty much clinging on to the fact that a god hasn't been discovered yet and hoping that one hasn't been proved true. If that day does come, what are they giong to say next, the tests are flawwed in a manner or is impossible to analyze the tests because of logic? At least your a buddhist and stand for something, I applaud you for your opinion on the matter, at least you shine light on the meaning and try to give an analogy and reason behind it.

At 6/15/06 08:00 PM, kidray76 wrote: An essay. Your comparing that to a bible? If your going to be sarcastic, at least make sense. Hell, your paper was probably no more than 5 pages with big font. The bible has detailed stories and alleged evidence, its a little different than you saying you went fishing on a dock and caught a fish and then threw it back.

I don't want to misrepresent you, so I'd like you to clarify. Are you saying that his essay is less reliable because it is written in a larger font and requires fewer pages than the bible which is composed of many pages with small font?

At 6/15/06 08:03 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

At 6/15/06 03:27 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: You start with the premise:
1) Anything that cannot be proved to me beyond reasonable doubt can be classed as "incorrect"

The lack of proof would lend itself better to agnosticism rather than atheism.

Good. I like that better than just there is no god. At agnostics are open for change.

At 6/15/06 08:08 PM, kidray76 wrote: Good. I like that better than just there is no god. At agnostics are open for change.

I mean no disrespect towards theists and atheists, but I just don't see any conclusive proof one way or another.

I'll gladly read holy books and refutations of holy books, but the concept of god is, it would seem, beyond human understanding.

"I don't want to misrepresent you, so I'd like you to clarify. Are you saying that his essay is less reliable because it is written in a larger font and requires fewer pages than the bible which is composed of many pages with small font?"

Sorry for that, but im out of replies for the half hour lol. What I'm saying is, his little essay is probaly no more than a few minutes of actual observance. It's a litlte different from the bible which is observance from millinuems ago. sorry for the spelling. Put it to ya like this, you and I wrote a term paper. You spent years collecting data, analyzing, getting peoples ideas, thoughts, experiences. You also maybe walked the walked on the subject. And for my paper, i spent 10 minutes on it and was really vague with pretty much useless and worthless words. Now giving those two scenarios, which would be more reliable, believeable, trustworthy and for most, true? Think people would follow a bathroom bowel movement worth or time or centuries? Don't know about you, but im giong with the one thats has a little more effort into it.

At 6/15/06 08:08 PM, kidray76 wrote: Good. I like that better than just there is no god. At agnostics are open for change.

Atheists are open for change. If compelling evidence in favor of the existence of God were revealed, I'm sure many Atheists would revise their beliefs.

At 6/15/06 06:10 PM, kidray76 wrote: A better place to be an atheist than in church? WTF? Thats like saying a better place to a phedophile than a kindergarten class.

So an Atheist can't enter a church?
Only a certain people can enter?

Mmm...
Seems like I have a better grasp of your religion than you--

Oh wells.

You go to church on your free will for spiritual relief and salavation. Atheism allowed you to go church? Your one sick kid. Disbelieving in god made u want to church? Thats new.

Atheism allowed me to see what Christianity is about and it's a nice thing. (Although assholes like you are the clear exception...)

Didn't make me bitter or anything like it. Just honest and open.
I mean, there was a time when I said, "Yes, I believe." But this was when I was a kid... infront of my parents.

Now I'm an adult. I've learnt to be true to my ownself. I never believed in God, but I think a few people who believe in God are genuinely good folk. Including my family, and my spouse.

Spurn me as you like.
I give you my other cheek as you will.

At 6/15/06 08:13 PM, kidray76 wrote: Sorry for that, but im out of replies for the half hour lol. What I'm saying is, his little essay is probaly no more than a few minutes of actual observance. It's a litlte different from the bible which is observance from millinuems ago. sorry for the spelling. Put it to ya like this, you and I wrote a term paper. You spent years collecting data, analyzing, getting peoples ideas, thoughts, experiences. You also maybe walked the walked on the subject. And for my paper, i spent 10 minutes on it and was really vague with pretty much useless and worthless words. Now giving those two scenarios, which would be more reliable, believeable, trustworthy and for most, true? Think people would follow a bathroom bowel movement worth or time or centuries? Don't know about you, but im giong with the one thats has a little more effort into it.

I think you are making a mistake in your method of determining the truth of an idea. Lysenkoism is an alternative to Mendeleyev's theory of genetics. It has had a great deal written about it and at one point was the official theory of a world superpower. None of this affected the validity of the theory, it was completely bogus and led to mass starvation.
Similarly, there is a great deal of literature in Scientology and Dianetics, they have dozens of books that all look very official. This results in many people being tricked into believing that Scientolgy has a shred of truth to it.

At 6/15/06 06:12 PM, kidray76 wrote:
The text is based on alleged evidence. At least someone claimed this and that about religion. Do atheist have any allege evidence outside of no evidence?

Yes, Logic.

The existance of the god described int he bible (either testament), Torah, Qu'ran, and Hindu texts is a logical impossibility. Only if the universe and god are not bound by logic can they be true, and all evidence currently points to logic being the way things work.

If you want the full rundown on the logical impossibilities, feel free to peruse my post history... there's plenty of them in there.

"Yes, Logic.

The existance of the god described int he bible (either testament), Torah, Qu'ran, and Hindu texts is a logical impossibility. Only if the universe and god are not bound by logic can they be true, and all evidence currently points to logic being the way things work.

If you want the full rundown on the logical impossibilities, feel free to peruse my post history... there's plenty of them in there"

Still out of replies, damn time. Well, logic only goes as for as the facts, people and evidence allows it. People years ago said we would run out of oil in the next century or decade. It was logical considering how fast they were using the oil compared how fast new sites were being found and how fast the currents are giving up. Well, its 2006 now and look. We still have oil. Atheist can use logic, and basically, using logic to explain something illogican, is just, logical. But what foundation does it boil down to. "Because there is no proof a god can't exist, or is the idea just so much off the wall that its theoritically impossible? And thx, going to review your post now, you have alot of them.

At 6/15/06 06:10 PM, kidray76 wrote:

" So an Atheist can't enter a church?
Only a certain people can enter?

Mmm...
Seems like I have a better grasp of your religion than you--

Oh wells. "

Let's see. Why would an athiest not enter a church? How about because they believe a god doesn't exist. So why would one go to a church which praises a god. So your saying you don't think a god exist, but hey, im willing to tag along just in case? Like i said, a hypocrit.

"Atheism allowed me to see what Christianity is about and it's a nice thing. (Although assholes like you are the clear exception...)

Didn't make me bitter or anything like it. Just honest and open.
I mean, there was a time when I said, "Yes, I believe." But this was when I was a kid... infront of my parents.

Now I'm an adult. I've learnt to be true to my ownself. I never believed in God, but I think a few people who believe in God are genuinely good folk. Including my family, and my spouse.

Spurn me as you like.
I give you my other cheek as you will "

Well, I might as well go outside and just kill the first person I see. Why, because then I'll appreciate living more. Sounds messed up now doesn't it? Basically your saying you go to church to feel better and more secure about being a athiest? That's like a pro team playing against a highschool just to appreciate how good everything is. You should be able to like atheism without the teachings of the lord. Hell, i was a great football player in highschool and little big in college, but I'm not going to go back and play against some middle schoolers just to boost self. I understand your background and all. My parent's made me go to church also. I don't go now, or at least not as much as I should. Saying your friends and family make u go now that your adult even though your an atheist sounds fishy. Just because i'm eating a hamburger, and everyone is eating one, I dont think I can make a grown adult vegan chomp down on a double cheese burger. Make up your own mind and appreciate who and what you are without the aid of something you don't even believe in.

At 6/15/06 08:47 PM, kidray76 wrote:

Let's see. Why would an athiest not enter a church? How about because they believe a god doesn't exist. So why would one go to a church which praises a god. So your saying you don't think a god exist, but hey, im willing to tag along just in case? Like i said, a hypocrit.

Because maybe an atheist was invited to church?
maybe because that community actually... enjoys his or her presence?

Maybe because an atheist enjoys the ambiance, the stories, the advice?
Church is, after all, suppose to be a place where everyone is accepted, which only exemplifies the principles which Jesus advocated.

Well, I might as well go outside and just kill the first person I see. Why, because then I'll appreciate living more. Sounds messed up now doesn't it? Basically your saying you go to church to feel better and more secure about being a athiest? That's like a pro team playing against a highschool just to appreciate how good everything is. You should be able to like atheism without the teachings of the lord. Hell, i was a great football player in highschool and little big in college, but I'm not going to go back and play against some middle schoolers just to boost self. I understand your background and all. My parent's made me go to church also. I don't go now, or at least not as much as I should. Saying your friends and family make u go now that your adult even though your an atheist sounds fishy. Just because i'm eating a hamburger, and everyone is eating one, I dont think I can make a grown adult vegan chomp down on a double cheese burger. Make up your own mind and appreciate who and what you are without the aid of something you don't even believe in.

Why do you have problems with an Atheist who can appreciate a religion... but not want to be part of that religion?

I made up my mind.
Remain openly atheist. Go to church with my friends. With my husband. Not take the sacrament (which is a sacred act which I respect, thus the reason I decline...)

No religion is without some merrit that we can learn.
As for me,
I grew up in a Roman Catholic household and I liked the fact that the Roman Catholic Church, despite its rather stark reputation as of now, as always been an active part of the Latino community to which I belong.

I can't severe that just because I don't believe God.
It's who I am.

Mmm...
People have it confused when they say that Jesus died because he believed he was the son of god. it was opposite. He died because he believed that you and I were the son of god.

So really, brother, don't fuss about me--
You seem to need help because you're truly baffled that not all atheists have an aversion to religion. Perhaps asking questions about yourself?

Only advice I can offer: explore.
Just as I did.

Take a religious class. Take different ones too (I studied Buddism in theology in SCU...)
You should live life comfortablely with different views of life which may not be your own.

I'm an atheist. Mostly because I haven't really taken a fancy to any particular religion. I keep an open mind to everything I hear and if I like what I see, I might become religious myself but in the meantime I wont really worry about it. There might be a supreme being and there might not and I'll worry about that when I'm dead, if I still can. I think religion is so widely popular because it gives people a sense of purpose and helps them come to terms with their own mortality. Thats just me though. I don't really care if people are religious and some of the people I have come to respect the most are religious.

At 6/15/06 08:36 PM, kidray76 wrote:
Still out of replies, damn time. Well, logic only goes as for as the facts, people and evidence allows it. People years ago said we would run out of oil in the next century or decade. It was logical considering how fast they were using the oil compared how fast new sites were being found and how fast the currents are giving up. Well, its 2006 now and look. We still have oil.

That was logic based on faulty conclusions and incorrect data. This logic only uses information we know. The funny thing is that if only one of the features of God were changed, the logic would fail, and our point would be null and void... but it's the ONE feature that people cling to with all their might.

Atheist can use logic, and basically, using logic to explain something illogican, is just, logical. But what foundation does it boil down to. "Because there is no proof a god can't exist, or is the idea just so much off the wall that its theoritically impossible? And thx, going to review your post now, you have alot of them.

Shouldn't take you long... it seems that this is my "thing" on here. It's not about not having proof... because as people like to quip left and right "absence of evidence is not evidence of absense". It's the simple logical progression from the featuires of god clearly stated in the holy scriptures, namely her/his/its omnipotence. And no its not the burrito-so-hot-he-can't-eat-it one either... it's even more fundamental than that. It has to do with the fact theat omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. And, following that, if free will is an illusion, upon who lies the blame for evil.

I'll let you mull that over a bit.

we have had 2000 years to prove that god is correct,we have not a single speck of proof that he is real. The bible is horrible proof that there is a god, so don't even say that

At 6/15/06 04:18 PM, kidray76 wrote:

At 6/15/06 04:11 PM, ReiperX wrote: My reason for being an Athiest is simple.

To me I don't believe there is a God, its not logical to me.

Maybe not logical to you, just because the facts aren't precise enough to make you believe. Which is understandable, seeing is believing. I was playing basketball with a friend not to long ago. He said he could make a shot. I didn't think he could do it given the current situation and circumstances. but he proved me wrong. Same situation with god. Just has to be proven.

To most believers they don't need it to be proven to them. Its called faith. Religion is all about faith. I have faith in science and things I can see. Others have faith in religion, some have faith in both.

You could turn your question around to why is there religion? To some people, having a God is logical.

True, having a god is logical and illogical. Just depends on what facts you are willing to accept.

Depends more on what are you going to accept as a fact.

I am a buddhist atheist

Budhism without the belief on godly powers

At 6/15/06 02:56 PM, kidray76 wrote: Can anyone explain to me the purpose of atheism. Seems like they are just extremist based on lack of proof.

There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God, so why can't you just accept that some people's opinions are different from yours?

At 6/16/06 06:17 AM, lconoclastic wrote: There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God

I disagree, do you have any evidence to back up that statement?

At 6/15/06 02:56 PM, kidray76 wrote: Can anyone explain to me the purpose of atheism. Seems like they are just extremist based on lack of proof.

Yet you beleive in god? right. Was he the one that told you we were all extremists. I, and many other athiests, are athiests because we are able to think for ourselves and question our own beleifs and live our own life rather than being told how to live because you can't think for yourself.

At 6/15/06 04:55 PM, Dinodoode wrote:

At 6/15/06 04:21 PM, Hydra9 wrote: but he is the gun!!!!

Christ you are fucking thick, the guy ISN'T THE GUN, he is weilding the gun giving him the power to kill you or spare you. The same goes for god, he could send out a car to kill you, or something to that effect, and people pray to him, almost like a beg, a plea, or a thanks for life. Your metaphors suck Hydra.

I personally don't believe in religion because I choose to, is that so fucking hard to comprehend?

Listen here if u were seeing my previous mesages u wld see tht i was talking about if god is a force or a being if hes a force its like having a gun held to you with no1 holding it. wld u pray to it? no because it cant hear u!

At 6/15/06 06:20 PM, afrodave wrote:

At 6/15/06 03:06 PM, Hydra9 wrote: Ok im an atheis and im going to awnser your question.
us atheists seem to find flaws with religions take this argumant:
if god exists then is he/she a force or a being bcause
1. if hes a being he cant be pure or everywhere
2. if hes a force why bother praying

So basically all you do is find flaws in religions that have absolutely no effect on you, tell people you're smart, give illogical scientific evidence of absolutely nothing, and walk away? Pitiful. Seriously. Get a life, man.

what flaws wld these be? and i didnt walk away i went offline and look thts the reason im an atheist its a flaw is the thought of god. thts all.

Don't you love it when people ask a question but then dont except any answers other than what they want to hear?