Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/8/07 08:53 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:

If you dont believe me then look it up yourself, I dont give a fuck if you take my word for it.

The shut the fuck up, troll. If you're too goddamned fucking lazy to pull your own sources out, do not expect other people to hunt down your argument and argue it for you. Lazy fucker.

At 1/8/07 12:16 PM, qygibo wrote: The shut the fuck up, troll. If you're too goddamned fucking lazy to pull your own sources out, do not expect other people to hunt down your argument and argue it for you. Lazy fucker.

I dont mind argueing.

ARRGG!!

At 1/8/07 11:43 AM, Imperator wrote:

We should live our lives based on what we know to be true, as opposed to some delusion that we can never prove.

You don't see where that's a very very pessimistic outlook on life and where it might turn some people off? What you know to be "true" will change daily. When you were a kid, you knew Pluto was a planet. Now you know otherwise.....

That's a very bad example... It's just a definition that has changed. In any case, change in science is progress. I'm very happy that we no longer talk about phlogiston or think of the earth as the center of the universe. Those were truths in 1700 and 1600, but now we know better.

And sure that outlook on life might turn people off. I think everyone prefers an outlook on life where they get whatever they want when they die, regardless of what they have done. But no matter how badly you want something to be true, it doesn't change anything about its "truthiness" or lack thereof.

What you call delusions I call visions. And nearly every great scientist, leader, warrior, and humanitarian throughout history has had to dream of something great before achieving that dream.

That's true. But they didn't go about exclaiming "my dream is true" before they had attained it.

I would honestly be more depressed when I would believe in a god, and thing would go the way I want it to go, I would see this as constant punishment of god, and the fear that every mistake I would make would end me up in hell, but that just an theoretical opninion too

And which religion would that take adhere to? Being Roman Catholic, I can tell you that that's not what my religion is about. It seems like you've made up your opinions on religion based solely on stereotypes and hearsay, instead of actually researching your opinions.......Fire and Brimstone went out before the turn of the last century.

In about every thread about religion there's at least one post of "burn in hell". There are so many different opinions within each religion. In any case the Bible is pretty clear on what should happen to sinners, and it isn't pretty. It's the interpretation that differs.

science is limited, and we cannot debate everything. but why can a religious people be of more importance on the subject god then a atheist?

If your view of religion is based solely on the stereotypes of 300 years ago, then the answer would be YES.

Why can... ? Answer: yes. English might not be my mother tongue, but I think something went awry there.

Besides, religion doesn't really change. The words of the Bible have been the same for 2000 years already. Only the interpretation changes, leading to different sects and separations. The core is still the same. The difference is that the influence of religion in wordly affairs has been greatly reduced. No more inquisition, hooray!

what has your unseen world got to do with how nations should be run? only morals and ethics are of importance and that YOU claimed atheists have.

History's lessons ignored.....

History's lessons? If you're talking about communism, plenty of Polish priests and cardinals that supported it, besides, the church supported the fascist regimes in WWII and encouraged people to fight in the SS when the east front opened. To top it off, the crusades weren't really a shining example of morality either. Nor is burning people alive because someone says they're a witch, nor is burning people alive because they have a different worldview.
History's lessons ignored indeed.

I have another question: would you rather vote on an atheist or a theist that believes in fairies unicorns and mighty trolls??

And there's another stereotype associated with religion. And you say there's persecution against atheists......I'm seeing it against theists, coming from your own words......

Persecution against theists? Prejudice from him as a single person, sure, but to use that to claim that there is a persecution of theists? One can only take induction that far...

And there are how many God sightings? Thats right none.

Look up angel, saint, miracle sightings. There's a few hundred thousand. With 2.1 billion believers btw (Catholics alone).

But no sightings of God, since you can't see God. In any case, plenty of people claim to have seen UFOs too. All that it proves is that there are more people believing in angels, saints and miracles, than there are people believing in UFOs.

At 1/8/07 07:14 AM, Tomsan wrote:
I dont see how this is insulting. Atheism is not a religion, still you act like it is.

I know Atheism is not a religion, but atheists don't "believe in nothing," they solidly believe that THERE IS NO GOD. Saying "no preference" would be more proper for someone who is agnostic. I do have a preference, and that is that there is no religious attachment to my burial. Although, I will agree that its funny that atheism is listed as a religion.

At 1/8/07 12:39 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 1/8/07 11:43 AM, Imperator wrote:

We should live our lives based on what we know to be true, as opposed to some delusion that we can never prove.

I don't know if I agree with that. I'm happy to live my life based on the maxim "Torturing innocent people is always wrong", even though I don't know if that's true or not.

History's lessons? If you're talking about communism, plenty of Polish priests and cardinals that supported it,

Here's some incontrovertable backup for your point. A newly-appointed Polish archbishop turned out to be a Communist spy. Sorry the source isn't that reptable - it was the first I saw.

At 1/8/07 12:16 PM, qygibo wrote:

At 1/8/07 08:53 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:

If you dont believe me then look it up yourself, I dont give a fuck if you take my word for it.

The shut the fuck up, troll. If you're too goddamned fucking lazy to pull your own sources out, do not expect other people to hunt down your argument and argue it for you. Lazy fucker.

Hey hey hey. It had to be said, but I seem to remember you being more well-mannered.

Ok, i need to clear something up Atheism is the disbelief of the existance of any dieteis, and people in america that say they are being discrimnated against, for the most part ( i will not be so ignorant as to say all ) are just low-life fuckers looking out to get thier share of the quick dime, i find it digusting that discrimination of any sort should be turned into a lawsuit, even if its true, america has turned into such a sue-happy society its rediculous. Invariably there will be discriminators in the world, that will NEVER change. Although i hate to say it, people who use the excuse of them being discriminated agaisnt for being a minority, absolutly do "need to be beaten with a crowbar" . Alright, im done ranting =)

That's a very bad example... It's just a definition that has changed. In any case, change in science is progress. I'm very happy that we no longer talk about phlogiston or think of the earth as the center of the universe. Those were truths in 1700 and 1600, but now we know better.

Eh, example might have been bad, but I think the point struck home. Perhaps the flat earth/round earth "truth" is even better. Given recent archaeological digs, we know that 2000 years ago people knew the Earth was round. Then that knowledge was lost, and people "knew" the Earth was flat. Then a few visionaries came along with a theory, and the result was that people now "know" that the Earth is round. To quote MLB: "Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow".

Truth is not absolute, that was my main point. Truth is a social construct. Although what we perceive as the Earth may never change (that being of a round large planet), that is our CONSENSUS of what it is. Other people may not interpret it as any of those things, due to their own perception. A person born blind may not have the same perception as "round" as you or I, therefore, the "truth" that the Earth is round is based upon our consensus of what we perceive as the Earth to be (given our ability to see).

But no matter how badly you want something to be true, it doesn't change anything about its "truthiness" or lack thereof.

Again, open to interpretation.

That's true. But they didn't go about exclaiming "my dream is true" before they had attained it.

Well, yes, they usually do have to believe in their theories in order to test them. The papers they write as a result usually state more or less "my dream is true, AND HERE'S THE PROOF!".

In about every thread about religion there's at least one post of "burn in hell". There are so many different opinions within each religion. In any case the Bible is pretty clear on what should happen to sinners, and it isn't pretty. It's the interpretation that differs.

And in every thread about religion there's at least one post of "Christian scum, hypocrites, etc".

In ANY interpretation, what happens to sinners is they are absent from God's presence (through their own rejection I might add). But correct, interpretations of what the lack of God's presence would be like differs.

Why can... ? Answer: yes. English might not be my mother tongue, but I think something went awry there.

I might have misquoted something or misread something. I'll drop it for now.

Besides, religion doesn't really change.

Religions change very much so. Just as governments, societies, and politics do. You can't possibly sit there and tell me that the religion founded by Jesus' 12 disciples is the same as today's Christianity.

The words of the Bible have been the same for 2000 years already

False. That's why there are several versions of the Bibile, in English alone. Translation is not an exact science, and things get lost. Which is why over a 2000 year period we STILL can't agree on the correct translation.

The difference is that the influence of religion in wordly affairs has been greatly reduced. No more inquisition, hooray!

Instead we've replaced it with racial/ethnic genocide. Hooray!

If you're talking about communism

Actually I was talking about the ancient role of religion in government policies. And then the lack of religion in ancient government policies. History's lessons teach us that religious people were considered shining examples of culture and civilization (Athenians, Romans), and at the same time are considered evil incarnate (Crusades, Inquisition).

I was also talking about History's lessons of persecution from the minority. You scoff at the idea that atheists are persecuting Christians, because we are the majority, correct? Yet history is full of such examples. If you want a recent example, I'll bring up the Rwandan genocide again. It started due to Tutsi (minority) persecution of Hutu (majority).

Late Empire attempts to persecute Christians are also examples of such.

I also am not real appreciative of the complete indiffernce to the other religions of the world, both ancient and modern, and their own faults. Christians haven't been the only ones to persecute and slaughter.

I left it at that to let your minds wander as they were, in the hopes you would look back in history and see where history is being ignored in light of our current debate. Sadly, that hasn't happened.

Persecution against theists? Prejudice from him as a single person, sure, but to use that to claim that there is a persecution of theists? One can only take induction that far...

You mean like just as the claims that Christians believe non-believers are "going to Hell", that we are trying to convert the world, and that we believe only religion dictates a person's morality? Each of those stereotypes have been thrown around in this thread alone, but there is no public outcry that Christians are being stereotyped and persecuted........

But no sightings of God, since you can't see God.

I see God everywhere. I see fuzzy video of clouds that people believe are aliens as well....I don't see UFO's.....

All that it proves is that there are more people believing in angels, saints and miracles, than there are people believing in UFOs.

Which is precisely why this comment: "And there are how many God sightings? Thats right none" means bubkus to me.

At 1/8/07 05:42 PM, Imperator wrote:

Which is precisely why this comment: "And there are how many God sightings? Thats right none" means bubkus to me.

Except those sightings written in the Bible. And of course, if you knew anything about the Bible, you'd know that it states God saying why he won't and doesn't show himself in the New Testament age.

At 1/8/07 05:42 PM, Imperator wrote:

Truth is not absolute, that was my main point. Truth is a social construct. Although what we perceive as the Earth may never change (that being of a round large planet), that is our CONSENSUS of what it is. Other people may not interpret it as any of those things, due to their own perception. A person born blind may not have the same perception as "round" as you or I, therefore, the "truth" that the Earth is round is based upon our consensus of what we perceive as the Earth to be (given our ability to see).

Yup, we agree then. Truth and knowledge is relative to the time. Only through falsification and scientific research can we try to guarantee a relative progress in knowledge. Clinging onto an old truth without any attempts to falsify it isn't smart, given the relativity of truth.

But no matter how badly you want something to be true, it doesn't change anything about its "truthiness" or lack thereof.

Again, open to interpretation.

Really? The "facts" don't change. The earth has always been round, wanting it to be flat won't make it flat.

That's true. But they didn't go about exclaiming "my dream is true" before they had attained it.

Well, yes, they usually do have to believe in their theories in order to test them. The papers they write as a result usually state more or less "my dream is true, AND HERE'S THE PROOF!".

Indeed. They offer proof, and test their theories by making predictions and checking those. The theory only has merit if the proof and correspondence to reality is sufficient. "God exists" is not a theory which has any proof. Due to the very nature of the transcendence of God.

In about every thread about religion there's at least one post of "burn in hell". There are so many different opinions within each religion. In any case the Bible is pretty clear on what should happen to sinners, and it isn't pretty. It's the interpretation that differs.

And in every thread about religion there's at least one post of "Christian scum, hypocrites, etc".

In ANY interpretation, what happens to sinners is they are absent from God's presence (through their own rejection I might add). But correct, interpretations of what the lack of God's presence would be like differs.

I didn't say rabid atheists aren't as bad as religious fundamentalists, I merely attempted to refute your point of the threat of fire and brimstone being history.

Besides, religion doesn't really change.

Religions change very much so. Just as governments, societies, and politics do. You can't possibly sit there and tell me that the religion founded by Jesus' 12 disciples is the same as today's Christianity.

The actual implementation of the religion varies, but it has the same core throughout the ages.

The words of the Bible have been the same for 2000 years already

False. That's why there are several versions of the Bibile, in English alone. Translation is not an exact science, and things get lost. Which is why over a 2000 year period we STILL can't agree on the correct translation.

Haha, you're right of course. Let me put it this way then: the core message hasn't changed. The Bible in all its versions is still an attempt to translate the original scrolls. No new knowledge is going to come from that, only what's already in the old version. That doesn't mean we can't get better translations to get a better view of the original meaning, but no new data will be added.

The difference is that the influence of religion in wordly affairs has been greatly reduced. No more inquisition, hooray!

Instead we've replaced it with racial/ethnic genocide. Hooray!

At least racial/ethnic genocide is better than racial/ethnic genocide AND inquisition :). I hope you're not saying that the removal of the inquisition is bad in any way?

Actually I was talking about the ancient role of religion in government policies. And then the lack of religion in ancient government policies. History's lessons teach us that religious people were considered shining examples of culture and civilization (Athenians, Romans), and at the same time are considered evil incarnate (Crusades, Inquisition).

That much is true, religion has always been a great part of culture, even for the cavemen. But that doesn't mean that religion is morally better than no religion.

I was also talking about History's lessons of persecution from the minority. You scoff at the idea that atheists are persecuting Christians, because we are the majority, correct? Yet history is full of such examples. If you want a recent example, I'll bring up the Rwandan genocide again. It started due to Tutsi (minority) persecution of Hutu (majority).

I scoff at the idea because no persecution of that kind is taking place in a modern secular society.

Late Empire attempts to persecute Christians are also examples of such.

Yes, quite an interesting part of history. In any case, that was those in power persecuting a perceived threat to their power. Resistance to change. Established versus newcomers. Hardly a "minority" versus the widespread christianity.

I also am not real appreciative of the complete indiffernce to the other religions of the world, both ancient and modern, and their own faults. Christians haven't been the only ones to persecute and slaughter.

Indeed not.

I left it at that to let your minds wander as they were, in the hopes you would look back in history and see where history is being ignored in light of our current debate. Sadly, that hasn't happened.

I fail to see how this all refutes "what has your unseen world got to do with how nations should be run? only morals and ethics are of importance and that YOU claimed atheists have.".

The people that have commited atrocities were not moral. Since religious people have commited atrocities (crusades, inquisition), it follows that it is not religion that protects against immoral acts, but a sense of morals and ethics. Hence religion is not a prerequisite for moral and ethical conduct.

You mean like just as the claims that Christians believe non-believers are "going to Hell", that we are trying to convert the world, and that we believe only religion dictates a person's morality? Each of those stereotypes have been thrown around in this thread alone, but there is no public outcry that Christians are being stereotyped and persecuted........

There's no persecution taking place in America. During Nero, that was a persecution. Now christianity is a major world religion, and even more important in America.

But no sightings of God, since you can't see God.

Which is precisely why this comment: "And there are how many God sightings? Thats right none" means bubkus to me.

It means "there's no direct evidence for the existence of a God". Of course, as many have said, absence of evidence and so on. Accepting a theory without any evidence is strange though. "We're all being controlled like puppets by purple aliens with yellow dots" is also a theory without any evidence, and without any evidence to the contrary. It is strange that the existence of God is readily accepted, but the existence of purple aliens with yellow dots isn't.

In the end it all simply boils down to belief though. To an atheist, it's more likely that God doesn't exist, and to a believer it's more likely that he does.

At 1/8/07 06:21 PM, Reconstruct wrote:

At 1/8/07 05:42 PM, Imperator wrote:

Which is precisely why this comment: "And there are how many God sightings? Thats right none" means bubkus to me.

Except those sightings written in the Bible. And of course, if you knew anything about the Bible, you'd know that it states God saying why he won't and doesn't show himself in the New Testament age.

There are sightings of elves described in Grimm's tales and in Lord of the Rings. Sightings of Zeus, Athena and more have been described in both the Illias, Aeneis and the Odyssea.

What does this all prove? Jack shit. An old book is not a source. The Bible is no more evidence for the existence of God, than the Illias is for the existence of Zeus.

At 1/8/07 06:48 PM, Togukawa wrote:

It means "there's no direct evidence for the existence of a God". Of course, as many have said, absence of evidence and so on. Accepting a theory without any evidence is strange though. "We're all being controlled like puppets by purple aliens with yellow dots" is also a theory without any evidence, and without any evidence to the contrary. It is strange that the existence of God is readily accepted, but the existence of purple aliens with yellow dots isn't.

In the end it all simply boils down to belief though. To an atheist, it's more likely that God doesn't exist, and to a believer it's more likely that he does.

You refuted most of imperetor's arguments allready, in better words I could have done, but there were some points in the discussion I want to re-inforce, for the conversation was about some of my stated arguments.

I used to think this was true, but christianity is again gaining popularity, not only in america also in european nations the church is gaining members again. maybe this is due to the threathing behavior of the muslims, but unfortunatly they are growing in numbers.

Why unfortunately? Do you associate Christians with "Bad" and atheists with "Good"?

Although I don't denie the possibilty of an omnipotent being, I ofcourse, being an atheist, see bad things in (strong)religion. I dont mean to say that religious people are 'bad', but that religion on itself can do destructive things. I dont discriminate between religions (with some examples) but Although I cannot prove that history would have been more peacefull when religion wasnt of importance, I think that now in this new age the secular 'mindset' should atleast be used by goverments. This is an purely political opinion.

science is limited, and we cannot debate everything. but why can a religious people be of more importance on the subject god then a atheist?

If your view of religion is based solely on the stereotypes of 300 years ago, then the answer would be YES.

not my view, but scientists who have also though long about god. Why cant they debate on the subject. why must the debate about god always be between "theologen" (I cant translate it, theists that studied it in university).
Science is always hold away by theists, because it falls out of the realm god is in. So no prove science provides will ever help the theists to change there ideas (and alot of those tests are done, for example: a scientific prayer test) the outcomes, always confirming the researchers hypothesis, are never taken seriously by theists. BUT lets say we would find the body of maria, and the scientific outcome would conclude that she did bear a child, but she never had intercourse. theists would grab this scientific fact and wave it around! So why does science not have any impact on this. jesus maria the 3 kings mozes.. there all pretty material and scientific research objects.
I dont know if I am making any sense but I hope so.

I have another question: would you rather vote on an atheist or a theist that believes in fairies unicorns and mighty trolls??

And there's another stereotype associated with religion. And you say there's persecution against atheists......I'm seeing it against theists, coming from your own words......

alright togukawa excually said the same, in better chosen words. I am not stereotyping you, I dont mean to. It was a double question, because one way I was serious: would you earlier vote on someone who 'atleast' believed in some form of higher power (fairy etc) or an atheist.
but also, that since there is no real evidence of god except for a book, it doesnt make my comparison strange. fairy's are also described in ancient books they are powerfull so that idea is just as likely, as described above.

In a way every one is an atheist, I only go one god further.

===================

At 1/8/07 12:53 PM, MightyMightyKirk wrote:

At 1/8/07 07:14 AM, Tomsan wrote:
I dont see how this is insulting. Atheism is not a religion, still you act like it is.

I know Atheism is not a religion, but atheists don't "believe in nothing," they solidly believe that THERE IS NO GOD.

I strongly disagree.
Saying an atheist "believes that there is no god" is very much different as saying: "atheist do not believe that there is a god"

if you are an atheist and feel like the first phrase you didnt 'get it' in my opninion.

Yup, we agree then. Truth and knowledge is relative to the time. Only through falsification and scientific research can we try to guarantee a relative progress in knowledge. Clinging onto an old truth without any attempts to falsify it isn't smart, given the relativity of truth.

No, no we don't. If there is no "truth", then falsification and scientific research are also relative to time and perspective. My point about what you will "know" tomorrow is that some day the idea that the Earth is round may be refuted, even SCIENTIFICALLY.

Think about all the records, transcripts, manuals, and artifacts that have dissolved, been censored, destroyed, or lost. Our perception of those will be vastly different than an ancient culture's perception of those. Does that mean that through science we will somehow discover the "truth" about an ancient civilization. No. Because my perception may be totally different than someone else's.

But if enough people agree (scientific community), then they label it as "fact" and "truth". Unfortunately that phrasing completely negates the possibility of another interpretation, another perception of what is visible.

It's the age old paradox of your sense of self just being a character in another person's dream. Or the world being in YOUR dream. Perceptions of the world, both of which can be considered "truth". Some people actually see and hear things, is that to say that because we do not perceive them as normal that they are not? Perhaps they perceive us as mentally challenged or having a mental disability? Which version is the "truth", which is "fact"?

As already stated, there is a re-surge of theist belief, especially Christianity. If science is supposed to be the end all, then why are people still adhering to these religions? Maybe that's a question all atheists should ask themselves (just as all theists should ask the opposite).

Really? The "facts" don't change. The earth has always been round, wanting it to be flat won't make it flat.

Your perception of what is round is not what someone else's perception of what is round. Therefore, which perception is the "truth"? Which is "fact", and who is "wrong"?

If you've ever taken a psych class you would know that no two people experience the same situation the same, meaning that the actuality of the situation, the "truth" of what actually happened, will always, ALWAYS be open to interpretation. "Facts" are things YOU, I, and WE believe. Those terms are not all-inclusive, nor is there a guarantee that if the whole world experienced something that we'd ever reach a conclusion on all the "facts" of what actually happened. You'd have 6 billion interpretations for an event, ALL of which might not be 100% accurate.

Indeed. They offer proof, and test their theories by making predictions and checking those. The theory only has merit if the proof and correspondence to reality is sufficient. "God exists" is not a theory which has any proof. Due to the very nature of the transcendence of God.

No, but it has lots of supporting evidence. Evidence does not equal proof, and nowhere did I state as such. When I said "I see God everywhere", I wasn't being funny, facetious, sarcastic, or sly in any way. How YOU interpret that statement will NOT be the same way as I, which is why it would be difficult for you to believe in God.

I didn't say rabid atheists aren't as bad as religious fundamentalists, I merely attempted to refute your point of the threat of fire and brimstone being history.

It's a very specific history. Early Christians believed all sorts of things, including polytheism. I'm saying it's not relevant in today's world, therefore I hate hearing it from people who think they understand my religion.

I don't claim to understand egghead scientists, but you don't see me making comments of such....oops! ;)

The actual implementation of the religion varies, but it has the same core throughout the ages.

Says who? More importantly, how do you know he/she/they're correct?

The Bible in all its versions is still an attempt to translate the original scrolls.

We don't have Jesus' words in an original scroll. And what we have of the original scrolls are copies, which may (and most likely) have been altered over the course of 2000 years. History is constantly erased, changed, and re-written throughout time. Nazis burned books and re-wrote others to change German history. They weren't the first, and they certainly won't be the last to do so. Ever read Orwell's 1984? Same philosophy, and scary enough, it's actually been attempted a few times.

No new knowledge is going to come from that, only what's already in the old version.

No new knowledge will come unless we find words recorded by Jesus himself. The old version is the 32,956 copy of the 19,028 copy of the 18,284 copy of the original. Even today we're coming out with more copies, and they all don't match up (this is also why only idiots take the Bible literally).

That doesn't mean we can't get better translations to get a better view of the original meaning, but no new data will be added.

If we find new scrolls, new data will be added. Not only due to the new scrolls themselves, but in their comparison to the other scrolls. You have to remember that the Christian canon was SELECTED. The reason the Bible is as it is is because someone MADE it that way, which means we really DON'T know at what we're looking at all.

At least racial/ethnic genocide is better than racial/ethnic genocide AND inquisition :). I hope you're not saying that the removal of the inquisition is bad in any way?

Not at all. I'm simply saying whether a government be secular or religious does not indicate whether or not they will do inhuman things. You associate the Inquisition with Christians in power, yet I've given examples of similar acts with seculars in power. I'm saying religion is not the cause of violence. I'm saying all wars attributed to religion should be attributed to something else, as religion is simply a tool being used by the powers that be.

That much is true, religion has always been a great part of culture, even for the cavemen. But that doesn't mean that religion is morally better than no religion.

I hope I didn't insinuate that. If I did I apologise, not my intention.

I scoff at the idea because no persecution of that kind is taking place in a modern secular society.

According to your perception......The Hutu and Nazis didn't think they were the oppressors either. They considered themselves the victims of persecution........again, perception, and "truth" and "fact" in quotes for their subjectivity.

Given the growing resentment of Israel (some members even have Israeli flags mixed with swastikas in their sigs), who's to say the Nazis weren't correct in what they were doing? Considering Israel's stance in the Mid East, and their influence in the states, maybe the Nazi's really WERE the persecuted? In 50 years, the following may be the "correct" "fact" and "truth" of the Holocaust and World War II. 150 later it might revert. Science is not an exact science, fact is not absolute, and truth is as subjective as beauty, violence, altruism, and pleasure.

. It is strange that the existence of God is readily accepted, but the existence of purple aliens with yellow dots isn't.

I've already stated that there IS evidence of the existance of God. Creation being one miracles being others. Compassion and altruism being others still. Just because the scientific community and you don't accept these forms of evidence doesn't mean 2.1 billion others accept that PERCEPTION...........

At 1/8/07 06:53 PM, Togukawa wrote:

What does this all prove? Jack shit. An old book is not a source. The Bible is no more evidence for the existence of God, than the Illias is for the existence of Zeus.

Haha, wow you little kids are so amusing.

At 1/9/07 12:22 AM, Experiment wrote:

At 1/8/07 06:53 PM, Togukawa wrote:

What does this all prove? Jack shit. An old book is not a source. The Bible is no more evidence for the existence of God, than the Illias is for the existence of Zeus.

Haha, wow you little kids are so amusing.

Prove him wrong, then. I've read this entire thread and have yet to find conclusive evidence coming from a non-biased source that what the bible says has any basis in reality.

At 1/9/07 12:22 AM, Experiment wrote:

At 1/8/07 06:53 PM, Togukawa wrote:

What does this all prove? Jack shit. An old book is not a source. The Bible is no more evidence for the existence of God, than the Illias is for the existence of Zeus.

Haha, wow you little kids are so amusing.

If you're going to make theists and Christians look bad, do it in another thread. Togukawa has a point you nitwit.......Apaprently your actual age is two years older than your maturity......

BTW, first time I noticed the spelling of your name Togu. I spelled it Tokugawa and then had to erase it because for some odd reason it didn't "look" right.....

At 1/8/07 12:53 PM, MightyMightyKirk wrote:

At 1/8/07 07:14 AM, Tomsan wrote:
I dont see how this is insulting. Atheism is not a religion, still you act like it is.

I know Atheism is not a religion, but atheists don't "believe in nothing," they solidly believe that THERE IS NO GOD.

I strongly disagree.
Saying an atheist "believes that there is no god" is very much different as saying: "atheist do not believe that there is a god"

if you are an atheist and feel like the first phrase you didnt 'get it' in my opninion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...but it doesn't really matter. I was just not stating my point eloquently enough. The point I was making was that "no preference" is different from "atheist" because "no preference" says 'do what you want with my body,' while "atheist" says 'I do not want any religious attachment to my burial because I do not believe in any god.' (The religion listed on dog tags is mainly for burial purpsoses.) I'm just not good at getting things from my brain to my fingers, sometimes. It's all moot now, anyway, since I converted to satanism several years ago.

At 1/8/07 03:17 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 1/8/07 12:16 PM, qygibo wrote:

At 1/8/07 08:53 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:

If you dont believe me then look it up yourself, I dont give a fuck if you take my word for it.

The shut the fuck up, troll. If you're too goddamned fucking lazy to pull your own sources out, do not expect other people to hunt down your argument and argue it for you. Lazy fucker.

Hey hey hey. It had to be said, but I seem to remember you being more well-mannered.

I lack patience when it comes to cold as hell, who is becoming more and more of a troll. He barely contributes, and now he expects to make an argument and then have other people do the research for him? I could have been barely mannered, but frankly, I do believe he's been warned before about such BS tactics in debate.

At 1/9/07 12:05 AM, Imperator wrote: No, no we don't. If there is no "truth", then falsification and scientific research are also relative to time and perspective. My point about what you will "know" tomorrow is that some day the idea that the Earth is round may be refuted, even SCIENTIFICALLY.

Falsification and scientific research ARE relative to time. To perspective, that depends. When we gather more knowledge, it is possible to diminish the effect of perspective. For example: the sun revolves around the earth from east to west, the earth revolves around the sun from west to east, both depend on the perspective. But "in the frame with the earth as the center and with fixed axises, the sun describes a path of an ellipse from east to west", that is a statement that is seperate from the perspective.

Falsification and science don't give absolute truth, since that doesn't exist for natural sciences. It does guarantee that relative to time, our knowledge is best. If tomorrow we find out that the earth is actually flat and appears round due to some relativistic space-time distortion, we have gained knowledge, we have progressed. The idea may have been around before, and found wrong, given all our other current knowledge. But then with the new idea of spacetime distortion and other sciencefiction blahblah, we'll come to the same old conclusion of the earth being flat. With the difference that in the second case, the earth being flat is the only reasonable conclusion given everything we know about reality. As far as we know now, relative in this time, there's no such thing as spacetime distortion that causes flat objects to appear round, hence given all that we know, the earth is round. Even if we later find out that it is in fact flat :)

But if enough people agree (scientific community), then they label it as "fact" and "truth". Unfortunately that phrasing completely negates the possibility of another interpretation, another perception of what is visible.

I disagree there. Because of the falsification, we are always looking for other interpretations. Labeling things as absolute facts is an outdated idea from the 17th century. Modern science works with the idea of relative truth.

As already stated, there is a re-surge of theist belief, especially Christianity. If science is supposed to be the end all, then why are people still adhering to these religions? Maybe that's a question all atheists should ask themselves (just as all theists should ask the opposite).

Indeed, the why of religion is a very interesting question. I think it's got more to do with human nature than anything else though.

[...], meaning that the actuality of the situation, the "truth" of what actually happened, will always, ALWAYS be open to interpretation. [...]

Maybe they don't experience it exactly the same, but largely they do. I'm not talking about emotional experience, just sensory. Throw something into the air, everyone with eyes will see it falling. Whether you interpret it as the object wanting to return to its rest state, ie on the earth, or as gravitational force exerted by the earth, that differs, given the knowledge of the person. But sensory input is the same for most people.

[...] When I said "I see God everywhere", I wasn't being funny, facetious, sarcastic, or sly in any way. [...]

I know. Someone who believes in phlogiston, will "see" it when looking at burning wood. Someone who believes in God will "see" God when looking at good things in the world. Someone who believes in the earth revolving around the sun, will "see" it when looking at the movement of the sun. It's all interpretation.

It's a very specific history. Early Christians believed all sorts of things, including polytheism. I'm saying it's not relevant in today's world, therefore I hate hearing it from people who think they understand my religion.

Christianity is monotheistic. If you believe of polytheism, you don't classify as christian. I agree that it's not relevant anymore, but sadly there are quite a lot of people that use the argument.

Says who? More importantly, how do you know he/she/they're correct?

It's my opinion. Christianity is founded on love for God, Jesus and the fellow man. In early days, that meant secretly gathering to perform the eucharist. In medieval times, it was still christianity, but it held a lot more sway, no secret gathering, but burning of unbelievers. Both are christianity, but implemented in a very different way. The characteristics that define a certain religion as being christianity, don't change.

I don't know whether I'm correct, I'm looking forward to your counter arguments :)

If we find new scrolls, new data will be added. Not only due to the new scrolls themselves, but in their comparison to the other scrolls. You have to remember that the Christian canon was SELECTED. The reason the Bible is as it is is because someone MADE it that way, which means we really DON'T know at what we're looking at all.

If the scrolls are accepted that is. The dead sea scrolls certainly didn't make the cut :). In any case, those scrolls will at least be 2000 years old, and hence not contain any data from that period. In the ideal case, we would find the literal words spoken by God and Jesus, but 2000 years old. Society and earth has changed a lot in this time. Whether God said "slay", "stone" or "maim" adulterous women, the message is still not relevant for this time anymore, no matter what the literal words may have been. Gods' stance on genetic modification will also remain unknown, speculation is the best we can do.

Not at all. I'm simply saying whether a government be secular or religious does not indicate whether or not they will do inhuman things. You associate the Inquisition with Christians in power, yet I've given examples of similar acts with seculars in power. I'm saying religion is not the cause of violence. I'm saying all wars attributed to religion should be attributed to something else, as religion is simply a tool being used by the powers that be.

Religion can be a cause for violence, as evidenced by the great islam expansion. Though actually it's more fundamentalism than religion. Any sort of fundamentalism is bad and can lead to inhuman things. Religion just has a tendency of leading to fundamentalism. (As evidenced by all the "burn in hell"-criers).

Given the growing resentment of Israel (some members even have Israeli flags mixed with swastikas in their sigs), who's to say the Nazis weren't correct in what they were doing? Considering Israel's stance in the Mid East, and their influence in the states, maybe the Nazi's really WERE the persecuted? In 50 years, the following may be the "correct" "fact" and "truth" of the Holocaust and World War II. 150 later it might revert. Science is not an exact science, fact is not absolute, and truth is as subjective as beauty, violence, altruism, and pleasure.

The nazis were the ones in power, and the ones killing jews. Whether it was for a good cause or not, maybe that will change, though I doubt it. Even so, claiming that the jews were persecuting the nazis is quite simply, false. Nazis grabbed jews and gassed them for being jew, not the other way around. Unless we would some time in the future find evidence to the contrary, but I think it's more likely that pigs will fly :)

I've already stated that there IS evidence of the existance of God. Creation being one miracles being others. Compassion and altruism being others still. Just because the scientific community and you don't accept these forms of evidence doesn't mean 2.1 billion others accept that PERCEPTION...

Indeed, it's perception.

At 1/9/07 12:05 AM, Imperator wrote: No, no we don't. If there is no "truth", then falsification and scientific research are also relative to time and perspective. My point about what you will "know" tomorrow is that some day the idea that the Earth is round may be refuted, even SCIENTIFICALLY.

Umm... the Earth ISN'T round. It's slightly pear-shaped. The weight of the ice cap in Antarctica is actually heavy enough to depress the south pole... add to that the "centrifugal force" (momentum) pulling out at the equator and the Earth is in no way "round"... it's round-ish... but not round.

:P

And my only comment on this whole truth relativity semantics debate you've got going on is this:

Truth IS absolute. Our ability to comprehend that truth is what changes over time. Pluto has always been what it is. Our calling it a planet or not did not change it's nature, only our label of it. The Earth has always been pear-shaped... that we thought it was flat or round didn't change that. Don't think that our limited comprehension changed the nature of what is in any way. Uncertainty principle aside, of course. ;-)

As already stated, there is a re-surge of theist belief, especially Christianity. If science is supposed to be the end all, then why are people still adhering to these religions? Maybe that's a question all atheists should ask themselves (just as all theists should ask the opposite).

Because science ISN'T the end-all. It doesn't answer all the questions. And for some, it's just too difficult to understand the answers it does give.

Your perception of what is round is not what someone else's perception of what is round. Therefore, which perception is the "truth"? Which is "fact", and who is "wrong"?

When "round" can be measured, yes it is. Is the blue sky that I see the same blue that you see? Yeah, because we can measure the lights' wavelengths. Do we PERCIEVE it the same? Maybe, but that's not a question we can yet answer. It doesn't change the nature of what we percieve, though. Otherwise, LSDers really COULD fly.

if the whole world experienced something that we'd ever reach a conclusion on all the "facts" of what actually happened. You'd have 6 billion interpretations for an event, ALL of which might not be 100% accurate.

Actually none of them would be 100% accurate, as I doubt even the most photographic of memories to be perfect. However, were it a repeating event, several people could observe it several times, compare notes, and come up with an explanation damn close to what actually happened, even if some straggler "saw" the same event and interpreted it different.

In short, perception alone does not a truth define.

Says who? More importantly, how do you know he/she/they're correct?

Read all the texts, they pretty much all boil down to the same thing: don't be a dick to people.

But as they say, the devil's in the details, and that's where they all go wrong.

And I don't think they're correct (except for the whole don't be a dick bit... that's a pretty decent idea)... nor do I think you are (about deities, etc). I don't know what exactly IS right... but I'm as sure as I can be that all current religions (of which I know) aren't.

Not at all. I'm simply saying whether a government be secular or religious does not indicate whether or not they will do inhuman things. You associate the Inquisition with Christians in power, yet I've given examples of similar acts with seculars in power. I'm saying religion is not the cause of violence. I'm saying all wars attributed to religion should be attributed to something else, as religion is simply a tool being used by the powers that be.

Except for the basic tenet of all religions: It's the truth. Other religions are incorrect.

As such, a religious government (not necessarily a theocracy, mind you) would be (heavily) inclined to limit the freedoms and/or practice of other religions. Hell we do it already with the limiting of what sacred religious symbols can bve placed on soldiers' graves, swearing in on a Bible, attempts at stopping homosexual unions. Granted they are, in comparison, trivial to what has gone on in the past, but that single feature of a religious government is what makes it more dangerous than a secular one. This isn't to say they would commit atrocities (or that a secular government would not) but it is an added risk factor.

At 1/9/07 04:48 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Umm... the Earth ISN'T round. It's slightly pear-shaped. The weight of the ice cap in Antarctica is actually heavy enough to depress the south pole... add to that the "centrifugal force" (momentum) pulling out at the equator and the Earth is in no way "round"... it's round-ish... but not round.

Hehe, it can be approximated by a geoid or an oblate ellipsoid, but still not quite there yet. The Earth is exactly Earth-shaped, I'd think :)

And my only comment on this whole truth relativity semantics debate you've got going on is this:

Truth IS absolute. Our ability to comprehend that truth is what changes over time. Pluto has always been what it is. Our calling it a planet or not did not change it's nature, only our label of it. The Earth has always been pear-shaped... that we thought it was flat or round didn't change that. Don't think that our limited comprehension changed the nature of what is in any way. Uncertainty principle aside, of course. ;-)

Heh, you're right. It's what we see as truth, and knowledge, that's relative. But there's no way of figuring out the absolute truth of reality. I wouldn't calling it "comprehending" the absolute truth, because that's unknown. Well, there are absolutely true statements in logic of course, but I'm talking about the understanding of the universe. We don't know the absolute truth of the shape of the earth, but the relative truth in this time is that it's something like a geoid.

And I don't think they're correct (except for the whole don't be a dick bit... that's a pretty decent idea)... nor do I think you are (about deities, etc). I don't know what exactly IS right... but I'm as sure as I can be that all current religions (of which I know) aren't.

Same here. It's impossible to find out the truth about deities. One of the current religions might accidentally be right, but that's sheer luck then. There's no objective reason to pick one religion over the other.

I agree with the rest.

At 1/9/07 03:32 AM, qygibo wrote: I lack patience when it comes to cold as hell, who is becoming more and more of a troll. He barely contributes, and now he expects to make an argument and then have other people do the research for him? I could have been barely mannered, but frankly, I do believe he's been warned before about such BS tactics in debate.

I said fucking nothing about people doing research for me. I said if you want proof they can either look it up themselves or take my word for it.

So stop whinning.

At 1/9/07 06:38 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 1/9/07 03:32 AM, qygibo wrote: I lack patience when it comes to cold as hell, who is becoming more and more of a troll. He barely contributes, and now he expects to make an argument and then have other people do the research for him? I could have been barely mannered, but frankly, I do believe he's been warned before about such BS tactics in debate.

I said fucking nothing about people doing research for me. I said if you want proof they can either look it up themselves or take my word for it.

So stop whinning.

That is called people doing research for you. If people ask for proof from you, YOU provide it. You do not tell people to look it up themselves if they want proof, that's not how debating works.

At 1/9/07 11:09 AM, qygibo wrote: That is called people doing research for you. If people ask for proof from you, YOU provide it. You do not tell people to look it up themselves if they want proof, that's not how debating works.

Debating? Your talking too teenage dumbfuck assholes around the world who probably hates you and chat about shit that you cannot change. Thats debating?

You want a real debate. Click 'shut down' and go outside.

Otherwise shut the fuck up and live with it.

Except for the basic tenet of all religions: It's the truth. Other religions are incorrect.

I think that's a stereotype. Most normal Christians, Jews, and Muslims know damn well they believe in pretty much the same thing. And they are very accepting of Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions which teach the Golden Rule.

I think this is the main reason which turns people off from religion, and it's a damn shame that that statement isn't really true.

The basic tenet of all religions (present AND past) is: Treat others the way you want to be treated. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me.

At 1/9/07 01:19 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 1/9/07 11:09 AM, qygibo wrote: That is called people doing research for you. If people ask for proof from you, YOU provide it. You do not tell people to look it up themselves if they want proof, that's not how debating works.

Debating? Your talking too teenage dumbfuck assholes around the world who probably hates you and chat about shit that you cannot change. Thats debating?

You want a real debate. Click 'shut down' and go outside.

Otherwise shut the fuck up and live with it.

Yes, that's basically what debating is. Action is where you do something about what you have just debated about. Now, whether action can happen is one thing, but you can always debate about it.

Please do take upon your solution, though, you've been quite worse as a poster as of late.

At 1/9/07 05:55 PM, Imperator wrote: I think that's a stereotype. Most normal Christians, Jews, and Muslims know damn well they believe in pretty much the same thing. And they are very accepting of Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions which teach the Golden Rule.

My own experience has not been such, so perhaps I speak from personal bias (or a slight lack of faith in most people's intelligence and tolerance... wouldn't be the first time).

It seems to take a remarkably intelligent and well-adjusted sort to believe that not only is his religion correct, but so is (if only for the most part) most other peoples'. It is, to my experience very rare to find someone like that. It just so happens that all of my religious friends are of that sort... my circle of friends is small.

not bragging or complaining, just allowing it to be an indication of my experience with religious folk.

The basic tenet of all religions (present AND past) is: Treat others the way you want to be treated. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me.

I agree. It's just too bad so many people get so hung up on the rest of the fluff that fills them out.

Several of our presidents were atheists.

Since America doesn't have as many atheists as most Europeans, I don't find it all that surprising that people ignorantly vote from someone solely because they have the same belief system. I don't think that highly of people, anyway.

Nonetheless, beliefs are too looked down upon. And we certainly should not mix politics and beliefs. In fact, I think it should be taken out of presidential debates altogether. Bush played the Christian card, I believe. But I'm not going to blame one man.

At 1/10/07 10:37 AM, 0peth wrote: I don't find it all that surprising that people ignorantly vote from someone solely because they have the same belief system.

That should be for not ''from''.

At 1/9/07 11:54 PM, qygibo wrote:

Please do take upon your solution, though, you've been quite worse as a poster as of late.

Sue me im just back from a month long holiday. And it was...different.