Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/2/08 05:48 PM, 10nitro wrote:

Well it's time you learned what an actual religious miracle is.

I also know quite a few [religious] people who believe that all miracles can be scientifically explained, but many have not yet.

Yeah then ask them : Is God making the miracles happen?

If they say: No
Then: How is it a miracle? God's not doing it, and it can be explained scientifically. How's that different from a car battery or pop rocks?

If they say: Yes
Then ask: How do you know?

If they say: Faith
Then say: You're a moron

IF they say: I don't know
Then say: You're a moron

If they say: Anything else
Then say: You're seriously a moron, please stop talking.

Also be sure to ask the most important question:

What miracles? What are these miracles they talk about? Give examples.

At 9/2/08 05:51 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Einstein's religious views are a matter of constant debate.

It's printed black on white that he was a Deist who believed in Spinoza's God, i.e. nothing really concrete.

but I find it stupid everyone brings up his name in order to prove there side is the "smart side".

In my experience, from the debates I've seen, it's usually religious people who pop in "hey did you know that person XYZ was religious?" and then the other side has to refute the lie. If you watch any of these debates, you'll see how unfair it is.
The religious constantly lie. Constantly, they spew out tons and tons of "facts" that are just outright lies and there's simply no time to refute all of them, and when you do demolish one, they move on to the next, they won't acknowledge their defeat.
And next debate they're in, they start the routine up again.

Which is one of the reasons I maintain that shaggy isn't a troll. He operates exactly how religious people, even really high-ranking ones, debate. Just state tons and tons and tons of claims, then move on as soon as anyone refutes them.
Just talk talk talk, never respond, never learn, never concede anything.

At 9/2/08 05:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/08 05:51 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Einstein's religious views are a matter of constant debate.

It's printed black on white that he was a Deist who believed in Spinoza's God, i.e. nothing really concrete.

But he also claimed to not believe in a personal God. I don't know if that conflicts with Spinoza's God, but from some of Einstein's later statements he seemed more like an atheist or agnostic to me, but whatever.

but I find it stupid everyone brings up his name in order to prove there side is the "smart side".

In my experience, from the debates I've seen, it's usually religious people who pop in "hey did you know that person XYZ was religious?" and then the other side has to refute the lie. If you watch any of these debates, you'll see how unfair it is.

I do watch these debates, and participate in them occasionally, and I agree.

The religious constantly lie. Constantly, they spew out tons and tons of "facts" that are just outright lies and there's simply no time to refute all of them, and when you do demolish one, they move on to the next, they won't acknowledge their defeat.
And next debate they're in, they start the routine up again.

Which is one of the reasons I maintain that shaggy isn't a troll. He operates exactly how religious people, even really high-ranking ones, debate. Just state tons and tons and tons of claims, then move on as soon as anyone refutes them.
Just talk talk talk, never respond, never learn, never concede anything.

True. That's why I mostly just give my opinions and then leave, maybe stay around awhile to see if anyone replys to my post. Otherwhise I don't have the patience to sit around and try to make my point to people who are too stubborn to change their views even when it's obvious how stupid religion and creationalism is...

At 9/2/08 05:00 PM, 10nitro wrote: Dictionary: "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
Can I clarify "known when it happens"? Cuz that's how I interpret it.
If not, I just fall back on the alternate definition: "a wonder; marvel."

I don't meant to derail the thread, but I'd like to comment on, "all known human or natural powers".

And I think that aligns fairly well with what poxpower said, "you couldn't possibly ever explain it unless you were God yourself." (Well, you could explain it by saying God did it. But I know what you mean, that triviality aside.)

The thing here is. If you keep asking "why," you'll eventually hit something unknown. At this point you can say, well we just don't know, or you can attribute it to God. So, everything could potentially be a miracle. Now, that sounds funny to me as I'm an agnostic, and probably sounds blasphemous to an atheist, but I think it aligns itself very well with christian belief.

At 9/2/08 06:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

But he also claimed to not believe in a personal God. I don't know if that conflicts with Spinoza's God, but from some of Einstein's later statements he seemed more like an atheist or agnostic to me, but whatever.

As far as I know, he was Deist, i.e. believed that a vague, quasi-supernatural force was the creator of the universe and now doesn't interact with it in the least.

That means no prayers, no miracles, no chosen people, no sins, no "holy this and that" etc.

At 9/2/08 06:35 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:
At this point you can say, well we just don't know, or you can attribute it to God. So, everything could potentially be a miracle.

Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

At 9/2/08 06:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

I wasn't speaking in a timeless ideal. If you want to devote your life to tackling dark matter and beyond you're more than welcome to. Let us know what you come up with. But the fact of the matter is we don't have all the answers to the nth degree, not now, nor will we ever, concievably.

I was not exlucing the use of logic or science to explain a phenomenon. I was not advocating cognitive absence. I said, "If you keep asking "why". I felt that logic and/or explicit science were inherently built in to the question "why". The issue is that it is only built in to the question "why" to a certain extent.

Assuming science picks up where knowledge drops off is analagous within this context to assuming God picks up where knowledge drops off. 'I believe in science and logic, therefore I assume that the laws of science yet unknown to me continue to operate thusly.' 'I believe in God, therefore I assume that God's law yet unknown to me continues to operate thusly.'

At 9/2/08 06:51 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 9/2/08 06:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

I wasn't speaking in a timeless ideal. If you want to devote your life to tackling dark matter and beyond you're more than welcome to. Let us know what you come up with. But the fact of the matter is we don't have all the answers to the nth degree, not now, nor will we ever, concievably.

True, we don't know everything, but scientists still work tirelessly to find these things out. If everyone had taken your too options, either attribute it to God or say you don't know and give up, nothing would ever have been discovered.

I was not exlucing the use of logic or science to explain a phenomenon. I was not advocating cognitive absence. I said, "If you keep asking "why". I felt that logic and/or explicit science were inherently built in to the question "why". The issue is that it is only built in to the question "why" to a certain extent.

"Why" isn't really a logical question. To be a "why" everything has to happen for a reason, and I don't believe that's true. So really, "why" is a question that is completely irrelevant on the cosmic stage. To ask someone "why" something happened at the cosmic stage is biased because not everyone believes everything happens for a reason.

Assuming science picks up where knowledge drops off is analagous within this context to assuming God picks up where knowledge drops off. 'I believe in science and logic, therefore I assume that the laws of science yet unknown to me continue to operate thusly.' 'I believe in God, therefore I assume that God's law yet unknown to me continues to operate thusly.'

Exept science is far more likely and logical than God (completely so actually). There not comparitive, because science is based on already proven facts, and God is based on nothing.

Okay, my earlier post was rushed and after reading over it I found it could be kinda hard to understand, so I'm going try again. Sorry for the double post but I don't want to confuse anyone.

At 9/2/08 06:51 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 9/2/08 06:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

I wasn't speaking in a timeless ideal. If you want to devote your life to tackling dark matter and beyond you're more than welcome to. Let us know what you come up with. But the fact of the matter is we don't have all the answers to the nth degree, not now, nor will we ever, concievably.

Well, when you say stuff like "eventually" and "everything" it generally sounds like your speaking in universial truth or timless ideal. True, we don't know everything, but scientists still work tirelessly to find these things out. If when the apple fell on Newton's head, he could have taken your two choices: he could have "I don't know why this apple fell on my head" or "God made this apple fall on my head". But instead he decided to find out, using logic and science, why the apple fell on his head and discovered gravity.

I was not exlucing the use of logic or science to explain a phenomenon. I was not advocating cognitive absence. I said, "If you keep asking "why". I felt that logic and/or explicit science were inherently built in to the question "why". The issue is that it is only built in to the question "why" to a certain extent.

I don't quite follow, but I guess I misunderstood your first post. However, on the question "why": if we're talking about all these complex cosmic theories on this gigantic universial scale, the question "why" is silly, because not everything happens for a reason.

Assuming science picks up where knowledge drops off is analagous within this context to assuming God picks up where knowledge drops off. 'I believe in science and logic, therefore I assume that the laws of science yet unknown to me continue to operate thusly.' 'I believe in God, therefore I assume that God's law yet unknown to me continues to operate thusly.'

Belief in God and belief in Science and logic are very different things. Science has been tested, many of it's ideals (if not all of them) have been proven correct. Thus, when knowledge ends, you can logically assume the proven laws of science will continue. However, God is unproven. Why assume that when you don't understand something, it must be something that hasn't even been proven to exist. Lets use an example:

A line goes on and on, across a flat plane all the way to the horizon. You can logically assume the line goes on beyond the horizon, because it's been proven the line exists, and there is no reason why the line would stop at the horizan, it's perfectly logical to assume the line goes on. However, since you have no way of knowing for sure, you could just assume that a underground tunnel exists beyond the horizon. You have no proof an underground tunnel even exists in this area, but considering you can't see beyond the horizon, what's wrong with assuming a tunnel is there? So, which is more logical, the line, or the tunnel. Which is more logical, science, or God.

Saruman, I'm skipping alot because you've taken a false preface, and it's painted subsequent things that I've said in the wrong light... and caused further misinterpretation. Maybe i suck at communicating. I dunno. Anyway... here's the meat of what I'm trying to say.

Explain to me the mechanics or dark matter and energy and why er how er through what processes it behaves the way it does?

Hey. Alot of that stuff. We don't know. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking for the answer. it just means we don't know. It doesn't mean we should give up. It means we don't know. And it means people like you and me probably won't know until we're given some information from real scientists.

You can find out yourself if you're into it. That's not my career choice.

At 9/2/08 09:33 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Saruman, I'm skipping alot because you've taken a false preface, and it's painted subsequent things that I've said in the wrong light... and caused further misinterpretation. Maybe i suck at communicating. I dunno. Anyway... here's the meat of what I'm trying to say.

Well, if you hadn't skipped over stuff, you would have seen that I said I might be mistinterpreting your post :P.

Explain to me the mechanics or dark matter and energy and why er how er through what processes it behaves the way it does?

I can't, but if I work to become a scientist I may be able to.

Hey. Alot of that stuff. We don't know. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking for the answer. it just means we don't know. It doesn't mean we should give up. It means we don't know. And it means people like you and me probably won't know until we're given some information from real scientists.

Okay, I did misinterpit your post. To me, you sounded like you were saying we either don't know, or God did it. Guess I misread.

You can find out yourself if you're into it. That's not my career choice.

Not mine either. Sorry I misunderstood you. As I said, I was rushed.

At 9/2/08 09:39 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Well, if you hadn't skipped over stuff, you would have seen that I said I might be mistinterpreting your post :P.

Sorry. I didn't see your revision. I had the post window open for a while. Had a good 5 paragraphs of junk till I realized how offcourse I was from what I was trying to say. :P

At 9/2/08 02:11 PM, Pontificate wrote: We're not certain how the universe came about; it's not something scientists claim to know. It is, however, what creationists claim to know (burden of proof, anybody?). The big bang, which has a considerable amount evidence for it, is all the matter in the universe expanding rapidly but doesn't actually concern itself with the genesis of the universe.

EEEEH, Buzzer sounds.
The big bang theory is the theory of the origin of the universe. If you don't get this, you're really too stupid to debate...well...anything.

I don't blame Poxpower for ignoring me.
We both know he's going to lose in sny pen debate.

At 9/3/08 03:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote: EEEEH, Buzzer sounds.
The big bang theory is the theory of the origin of the universe. If you don't get this, you're really too stupid to debate...well...anything.

I don't blame Poxpower for ignoring me.
We both know he's going to lose in sny pen debate.

Incorrect; it's the theory of how the universe as we know it came to be. It was still arguably 'the universe' before it expanded; it does not cover where all the matter came from and as far as I know it doesn't posit a reason for the rapid expansion. If you're unable to see the difference then I shan't say you don't belong in debate because that would be both boorish pointless but I would suggest considering and researching your stance before posting and insulting others.

At 9/3/08 03:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I don't blame Poxpower for ignoring me.
We both know he's going to lose in sny pen debate.

He didn't ignore you, he replied to your post point by point. He quoted Brick-top first in that post, so maybe you missed it. It's on the previous page, go!

<---

At 9/3/08 03:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The big bang theory is the theory of the origin of the universe. If you don't get this, you're really too stupid to debate...well...anything.

No it's not, learn a bit of science before more foolishness tumbles from your mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. The Big Bang theory never attempts to explain why there was a singularity and it's sheer dumbness on your part to suggest it ever has.

Religion has been pwnd by science multiple times. I think we know who won the battle between the two.

At 9/3/08 11:21 AM, adanac wrote: Religion has been pwnd by science multiple times. I think we know who won the battle between the two.

people didn't realise that holy books talked about evolution and the Big Bang and the size of the universe and our place in it a couple of hundred years ago, but now they do

they've read it a bit harder now tho and apparently Christianity / Islam / Judaism / Hinduism / Shintoism and science still aren't mutually exclusive and evolution doesn't shit all over all of them

At 8/20/08 11:50 PM, LordJaric wrote: It is point less to reason with shaggy (obviously), I'm a christen and I find most of the stuff he says to be extremely stupid, so what is the point of even arguing with him.

sorry to bump an old thread, but i'm sure that this persons post has thrown out the remaining shreds of shaggy's incredibly slim credibility. If not even a christian is agreeing with him, then shaggy must have crossed a line that only the most pious and most idiotic can pass. I would love to see what happens when science has disproven all religion, and watch the most religious writhe. I am sure that religion can only make things worse, and for a so called "forgiving god" he says "and thou shalt treat thy masters as thou would treat thy" or something along those lines, in regard to slavemasters, and that he caussed mass genocide.

once again, sorry for the bump.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?
Because they have been believing it for a long time over 2,000 years and they don't want to give up their belief in that, it's hard to give up something people have believed was fact for thousands of years. Like when people said the world was round not flat people were pissed when they found out they were wrong.
And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?
Who knows if the big bang theory is right how did it happen? Where did the atoms that caused it come from? Other people could also ask on the contrary "Where did God come from?". The question how did life start have baffled people since the first man began to ponder existence. Since there is basically no way to discover how everything started man decided that there is only one possible way to answer these questions and that is some higher power did it. Though I doubt these questions will be answered correctly in my life or my child's or their child's life, so I won't bother myself with it.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Pretty much the same as question one, they believed it for so long that they find it hard to move on. Also there's the "if I don't believe I will be forever doomed to damnation" factor as well.
Any other questions?
Why would a God who loves all his children damn some of them to hell because they question life? If he loves us all why would he kill some of us?

:Some people believe scientology to be just a plot to make money, what if years and years ago the bible was thought in the same way? I mean if the bible is false wouldn't the original author have known it?
-no conspiracy theories please.

oh, btw somehow the the part thats marked as quoted above isn't all quoted by the maker of this thread the answers the questions were done by me, no confusion

I really dont care what your opinion is, im entitled to mine, now fuck off

You cannot disprove something with logic that you can't prove with logic....

At 9/8/08 10:05 PM, the1stguy1 wrote: I really dont care what your opinion is, im entitled to mine, now fuck off

In order to have an opinion you have to respect other people's opinions.

At 9/8/08 10:05 PM, the1stguy1 wrote: I really dont care what your opinion is, im entitled to mine, now fuck off

Dont come here if you cannot debate. Also to have a fair opinion you have to back it up with logic not just tell all disagreeres to fuck off. You are entilted to your opinion and people are entilted to question your logic.

At 1/18/07 10:55 AM, poxpower wrote: I'll tell you right now where 99% of all problems stem from: People HATE HATE HAAAAAAAAAAATE TO BE WRONG.

Being wrong SUCKS ASS.
Now imagine you've lived all your live believing something. Like fucking HELL you'll just change and go "oh right I guess it was pretty stupid".

Especially when there's still tons of people just like you out there, all believing the same stuff. Why should you admit you're wrong when you can still blend-in?
If there was like one christian left, he'd change his mind pretty fast, let me tell you that, because people HATE being wrong. So if everyone tells him he's an idiot douche, he's probably going to shut the hell up with his bible babble.

But as long as there's a million people believing something, and a million people believing something else, no one will admit to being wrong.

But do we really want to change the world here on the Newgrounds Political forum? I think not; I think we're here for the challenge of our personal convictions, allowing people to judge them and attack them. No one is here to be moved in his mindset, we're all here to be reaffirmed of what we already knew; that we're right.

Though I think it is good to hear what odd arguments the Christians (or other Theists) came up with now...

Science and religion are like oil and water, they will never truly mix. Thus, one will always go to faith or logic to prove an event like the Big Bang, which no one was around to actually see. Also, both are fundamentally different but provide a platform to understand with, and thus removing one would upset the other, which is why they are always intrinistically linked, even in conflict.

Actually science and religion is like water from one stream and another stream.

It's the same shit. There's just different people at the two locations.

Science VERSUS religion haha

you might as well say tomatoes versus apples.

must we really argue about this... some ppl belive in god others dont....i belive in him ....and if you dont alirght then respect my opinion and ill respect yours....and dont question us and we wont bitch....i mean no matter what we say its not gonna yuor mind so whatever you say wont change our mind ok?

At 9/23/08 06:42 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Actually science and religion is like water from one stream and another stream.

If reality is subjective, it's surely impossible to be incorrect, correct?

At 9/23/08 06:42 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Actually science and religion is like water from one stream and another stream.

It's the same shit. There's just different people at the two locations.

For the exception that they're two completely different things, with different methods, agendas etc.

Not comparing fruit but like comparing an bowing 747 to a book about santa claus.