Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/22/07 09:34 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/22/07 06:51 PM, How-about-no wrote: Doesn’t anyone else find it funny how almost all the scientific discoveries that question Religion were religious themselves. LOLOLOL

you mean scientists?

Yes and no

At 2/22/07 09:38 PM, How-about-no wrote: Yes and no

how is that possible? scientists have religious beliefs. discoveries do not have religions seeing as they aren't people or living beings with the ability to think of anything.

At 2/22/07 09:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/22/07 09:38 PM, How-about-no wrote: Yes and no

how is that possible? scientists have religious beliefs. discoveries do not have religions seeing as they aren't people or living beings with the ability to think of anything.

I'm just saying the study of the Big Bang and shit is being done by religious people. I find that funny.

alright, it was just the wording that made it seem as though you were saying that the discoveries were religious.

At 2/22/07 09:52 PM, SolInvictus wrote: alright, it was just the wording that made it seem as though you were saying that the discoveries were religious.

Na thats stupid. Oh look a penny on the floor!

Richard Dawkins is a prick, personal oppinion, h, not just because he is very anti-relligion, but because every atheist says he is famose, he is not gona be remembered long after he is dead, he is just the Keven Federline of science.

"Richard Dawkins is a whore" -Addam Sessler, a wise man indeed.

At 2/23/07 01:59 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Richard Dawkins is a prick, personal oppinion, h, not just because he is very anti-relligion, but because every atheist says he is famose, he is not gona be remembered long after he is dead, he is just the Keven Federline of science.

That has to be the best reason to consider somebody a prick, ever.

At 2/23/07 01:59 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: "Richard Dawkins is a whore" -Addam Sessler, a wise man indeed.

Cuz who better to make wise observations about a well-respected scientist than the host of a TV show about video games!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1HrG960Lho

Addam says it at around 00:50 - 01:00.

funny!

At 2/23/07 02:44 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1HrG960Lho

Addam says it at around 00:50 - 01:00.

funny!

opps, he said stephan hawkins, i feel like a moron, its still funny.

Yesiree, Richard Dawkins is indeed an asshat. But he does a good job of restoring the balance between outspoken religious people and outspoken atheists, since you don't really get that many outspoken, evangelical atheists.

Plus, he's a respectable biologist and an excellent writer. So I take my hat off to Richard Dawkins, arrogant as he is.

Im logging out, maybe latter when i eat something i wont post stupid posts, but for now lets get back to the subject.

I think there is a god, this world was created with laws that govern it, if there was no God than the universe would have no laws such as gravity that made the world as we know it possible, also if there was no god than were would the energy and matter come from?

Moast people just dont see things through the eyes of some one els, and that proboble includes me, but what the hay, why not believe in god?

At 2/23/07 03:09 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Im logging out, maybe latter when i eat something i wont post stupid posts, but for now lets get back to the subject.

'kay, since Dre-Man isn't here maybe we can actually start an intelligent discussion here.

I think there is a god, this world was created with laws that govern it, if there was no God than the universe would have no laws such as gravity that made the world as we know it possible

Since god is an article of faith, I don't think that faith is needed to account for the laws that govern the universe. Denying these laws would be self-refuting since without them the universe would be in a chaotic state of flux, so why is any god needed here at all? I disagree that a deity is required to have a rational basis for laws and the nonrandomness of the universe.

also if there was no god than were would the energy and matter come from?

Ah, an interesting question. I assume you're talking about the Big Bang here with the energy and matter thing. The thing is, the Big Bang theory doesn't state that the universe exploded out from nothing, but rather a singularity. The singularity exploded into an incredibly dense, hot state (naturally) from which dust and gas flew and the universe formed.

Moast people just dont see things through the eyes of some one els, and that proboble includes me

It sure does - but hell, disagreement invites debate.

At 2/23/07 04:06 PM, Peter-II wrote:
'kay, since Dre-Man isn't here maybe we can actually start an intelligent discussion here.

His presence will NOT be missed I'm sure ;)

Yay for intelligence!

Since god is an article of faith, I don't think that faith is needed to account for the laws that govern the universe. Denying these laws would be self-refuting since without them the universe would be in a chaotic state of flux, so why is any god needed here at all? I disagree that a deity is required to have a rational basis for laws and the nonrandomness of the universe.

Actually science has done a good deal to explain the nonrandomness of life as well. Branches such as psychology have done wonders to show that not only aren't we as smart as we think we are, but that we are also very much results of electric signals. Aggression, pleasure, beauty, love, hate, and a plethora of other terms have all been explained in terms of psychology.

The question really is why did we develop this way? Why did we gain that 2% brain difference from chimps that allows us to fly, explore the deep sea, go to space, and build A-bombs?

Ah, an interesting question. I assume you're talking about the Big Bang here with the energy and matter thing. The thing is, the Big Bang theory doesn't state that the universe exploded out from nothing, but rather a singularity. The singularity exploded into an incredibly dense, hot state (naturally) from which dust and gas flew and the universe formed.

This rabbit hole is often way too deep for any sort of conclusion, and it's very circular. The religious minded will inquire where this singularity came from, where the dust and gas came from, etc.

It sure does - but hell, disagreement invites debate.

Learning is what it's all about baby! Shit, I've done this so much that I'm pretty sure I could argue from the atheist side and STILL give someone a run for their money......

Cocky, arrogant, conceited. IMPERATOR!

At 2/23/07 01:59 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Richard Dawkins is a prick, personal oppinion, h, not just because he is very anti-relligion, but because every atheist says he is famose, he is not gona be remembered long after he is dead, he is just the Keven Federline of science.

"Richard Dawkins is a whore" -Addam Sessler, a wise man indeed.

You are so goddamn stupid it bears pointing out.
1. You spell like you type with a dick.
2. Dawkins isn't loved by atheists because he is "famose", to use your spelling. And he isn't "famose" because people think he's a nice guy. He is "famose" because he is possibly the greatest champion for logic and reason in recent memory. He isn't trying to put a fatwah, if you will, on religion. He just pokes at it to see why people believe these things. In "The God Delusion," he states that he is worried when people try to teach certain things like creationism as scientific fact when it has no scientific basis whatsoever. He pulls things apart, analyzes them, and explains it to the reader in verbose, but simplified terms. That's why he is "famose." Also, seeing as how "The Selfish Gene" is in about its 30th year of printing, I think it's wrong to say he's "famose" like the former Mr. Spears.

At 2/23/07 05:13 PM, Imperator wrote: Actually science has done a good deal to explain the nonrandomness of life as well.

Damn you Imperator! I was inviting that kind of discussion with Zoraxe. In fact I was directly trying to lead him into asking how I accounted for this nonrandomness. Ah well, guess you ruined it for me. :(

The question really is why did we develop this way? Why did we gain that 2% brain difference from chimps that allows us to fly, explore the deep sea, go to space, and build A-bombs?

Well, why not? There's a hypothesis that where intelligent life can grow, it will. I agree with this in that intelligence gives creatures manipulative abilities over other creatures, and thus will ensure better rates of survival. In fact I wholly agree with the postulation that higher intelligence is favoured within natural selection over lower intelligence because of these manipulative abilities, along with the other advantages it allows.

Anyway, I think that the things that we've done that you name are byproducts of this intelligence. It's interesting to think about how such "unnecessary" (from a naturalistic standpoint) traits and abilities that we've grown to relate to natural selection, i.e., how does solving problems in quantum mechanics allow us to survive, etc. With intelligence, comes the all too human thirst for knowledge, with which comes curiosity...with which comes science and exploration, among many other things.

This rabbit hole is often way too deep for any sort of conclusion, and it's very circular.

Indeed. The specifics Big Bang theory aren't even complete yet. It's a very "difficult", very theoretical area of physics.

The religious minded will inquire where this singularity came from, where the dust and gas came from, etc.

Well since time is a characteristic of the universe that didn't exist before the singularity rapidly expanded, the singularity may well have always been there. There's even a speculation that if the singularity was always there, anything that could have possibly happened, did happen - even it exploding into this exact universe. It's a strange thing to consider, since time as such didn't exist - but then that opens a whole new area of discussion, such as whether time is an arena in which things are enabled to happen, or if time is just a name we give to what allows events to occur and doesn't actually exist par se.

It's all very confusing indeed.

As for the dust and gas, from what I've read, because of the nature of the expansion, the dust and gas formed just as a result of particles forming due to the Higgs mechanism or a similar mechanism. Then the particles would have attracted due to gravity, and so on and so forth.

(Somebody correct me on this, I'm no physicist and this is a rather difficult area of the Big Bang theory of which I am unfamiliar.)

Learning is what it's all about baby! Shit, I've done this so much that I'm pretty sure I could argue from the atheist side and STILL give someone a run for their money......

Same here, except for me it'd be the theistic side...heh, I'm probably coming off as arrogant as well. Whatever, I'm young and I'm allowed to be overconfident. :)

Shit, this is like a big breath of fresh air for the whole atheism vs theism thing for me. It's honestly been a while since I've had a remotely intelligent discussion regarding the subject.

At 2/23/07 05:25 PM, Snerd wrote: You are so goddamn stupid it bears pointing out.

Thank you Snerd, you've said what I was too civil to say...

At 2/23/07 05:46 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/23/07 05:25 PM, Snerd wrote: You are so goddamn stupid it bears pointing out.

Thank you Snerd, you've said what I was too civil to say...

I diddnt know that Peter-II held me in such a negative light, i respected him...

Also you say that particles made up the gas that made up the big bang that made the universe, but where did that come from?, you are not solving anything but turning one unsolved question into many smaller unsolved questions.

1. You spell like you type with a dick.

Haha! Oh man, that made my day!!

Damn you Imperator! I was inviting that kind of discussion with Zoraxe. In fact I was directly trying to lead him into asking how I accounted for this nonrandomness. Ah well, guess you ruined it for me. :(

Haha! neener neener neeener!!

Imperator= Assclown!!

Guess I ruined that one....

Well, why not? There's a hypothesis that where intelligent life can grow, it will.

Interesting.....
I'd be curious as to what that theory says as to why intelligence has grown in humans, but not chimps (as the opposite then holds true).
Wonder what factors they think are the right mix for the development of intelligence.....

It's all very confusing indeed.

Yup! Getting into Space and Time could take your whole life. Shit, there's enough (and growing) scholastic research into space, time, and memory to absolutely blow me away.....

As for the dust and gas, from what I've read, because of the nature of the expansion, the dust and gas formed just as a result of particles forming due to the Higgs mechanism or a similar mechanism. Then the particles would have attracted due to gravity, and so on and so forth.

I'm not even gonna pretend to understand that......

Also you say that particles made up the gas that made up the big bang that made the universe, but where did that come from?, you are not solving anything but turning one unsolved question into many smaller unsolved questions.

I think Higgs actually answers this question, but I'm not a physicist, so I don't understand it.

At 2/23/07 05:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I diddnt know that Peter-II held me in such a negative light, i respected him...

Aw I'm just kidding, besides I find it hard to hold someone over the internet in a negative light...

...unless that person happens to be Dre-Man....

Also you say that particles made up the gas that made up the big bang that made the universe, but where did that come from?, you are not solving anything but turning one unsolved question into many smaller unsolved questions.

See my post, I cited the Higgs mechanism which allows particles to attain a mass. As for where the particles come from in the first place, I don't really know the specifics that well so it'd be extremely difficult to explain it to someone else, however this wiki should be able to explain it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

For reference, the cosmic inflation state of the early universe was when the fundamental particles first formed.

At 2/23/07 06:08 PM, Imperator wrote: Interesting.....
I'd be curious as to what that theory says as to why intelligence has grown in humans, but not chimps (as the opposite then holds true).
Wonder what factors they think are the right mix for the development of intelligence.....

Hm, now that's definitely something to be considered...I have to admit, I really don't know about that one, or even if our current model of evolution has a coherent answer to it.

I'll have to think about it some more...

At 2/23/07 06:10 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/23/07 05:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I diddnt know that Peter-II held me in such a negative light, i respected him...

Aw I'm just kidding, besides I find it hard to hold someone over the internet in a negative light...

...unless that person happens to be Dre-Man....

Do you think Dre-man is gone for good?

Dre-Man, like Richard Dawkings, is a whore...

At 2/23/07 06:32 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/23/07 06:10 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/23/07 05:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I diddnt know that Peter-II held me in such a negative light, i respected him...

Aw I'm just kidding, besides I find it hard to hold someone over the internet in a negative light...

...unless that person happens to be Dre-Man....

Do you think Dre-man is gone for good?

Dre-Man, like Richard Dawkings, is a whore...

hahahaahahhah! He actually sent me a PM!!! Maybe I'll respond to him, or post up some of his BS here so we can laugh at him while he's unable to defend himself.....

then again, "block user" is much more tempting ;)

Seeing as though I was unfairly banned by Proteas for a month, I'm just going to take this to the PM's.

WHOOO HOOOO!
THANKS PROTEAS!
Proteas = MY HERO!

At 2/23/07 05:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/23/07 05:46 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/23/07 05:25 PM, Snerd wrote: You are so goddamn stupid it bears pointing out.

Thank you Snerd, you've said what I was too civil to say...

I diddnt know that Peter-II held me in such a negative light, i respected him...

Also you say that particles made up the gas that made up the big bang that made the universe, but where did that come from?, you are not solving anything but turning one unsolved question into many smaller unsolved questions.

Anytime, Peter.

As for you, Zoraxe... Science can't explain everything... yet. We're always learning things. I can use your argument on any god you can postulate. Where does a god come from? The only difference between my version and your version of your argument is that science can change over time. That's part of learning. The god you postulate can have all sorts of explanations for it's existence but when you die, so does the god, lest it be taken by heretics and corrupted to fit other needs. What I mean is this: Science is allowed to change and religion is not. If a scientist proclaims a theory and it turns out to be false, it's back to the drawing board. That's where we get that saying. Science is fallible at times because it has all sorts of variables and the biggest variable of all being human error. Take a math problem for an example. If you forgot to do a step and you later see that your answer is wrong, you can correct it. You wouldn't sit there, knowing full well that your answer is incorrect and how to correct it, and say "Nope. This is the one and only answer. Prove me wrong."

Snerd wrote:

As for you, Zoraxe... Science can't explain everything... yet. We're always learning things. I can use your argument on any god you can postulate.

So?

Where does a god come from? The only difference between my version and your version of your argument is that science can change over time. That's part of learning. The god you postulate can have all sorts of explanations for it's existence but when you die, so does the god, lest it be taken by heretics and corrupted to fit other needs.

Your making it sound like science contradicts relligion, it doesnt so your argument is irrelevent.

What I mean is this: Science is allowed to change and religion is not. If a scientist proclaims a theory and it turns out to be false, it's back to the drawing board. That's where we get that saying. Science is fallible at times because it has all sorts of variables and the biggest variable of all being human error. Take a math problem for an example. If you forgot to do a step and you later see that your answer is wrong, you can correct it. You wouldn't sit there, knowing full well that your answer is incorrect and how to correct it, and say "Nope. This is the one and only answer. Prove me wrong."

Why? All you said that science ideas can be wrong, but relligion can be wrong but not accept the other way of thinking... So?

At 2/23/07 06:41 PM, Imperator wrote: WHOOO HOOOO!
THANKS PROTEAS!
Proteas = MY HERO!

Keep us updated, dude.

I thought he might have left when he realised he couldn't fight against every freaking politics reg and win. Yet, he's just banned. Damn my wishful thinking.

At 2/23/07 07:08 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Your making it sound like science contradicts relligion, it doesnt so your argument is irrelevent.

Science doesn't particularly mesh well with religion. If you believe in creationism as scientific fact, you are misguided. If you believe that a man can build a ship big enough to house ALL of the earth's animals in such a timely manner that NONE of the animals died and the ENTIRE earth was flooded, you are misguided. If you think that a city's walls will fall down because a bunch of people marched around it for a few days, you are misguided. These are just a few examples of how science and the Bible don't go together. Whether you follow Christianity or not, that proves that science is incompatible with a religion. You are just too blind or too stubborn to see otherwise.

Why? All you said that science ideas can be wrong, but relligion can be wrong but not accept the other way of thinking... So?

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify what you mean here. What you have written doesn't make sense. I'll gladly give you the answer if you would please tell me what you are saying.

At 2/23/07 07:10 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/23/07 06:41 PM, Imperator wrote: WHOOO HOOOO!
THANKS PROTEAS!
Proteas = MY HERO!

Keep us updated, dude.

I thought he might have left when he realised he couldn't fight against every freaking politics reg and win. Yet, he's just banned. Damn my wishful thinking.

Do you know why he was banned?

At 2/23/07 07:25 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/23/07 07:10 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/23/07 06:41 PM, Imperator wrote: WHOOO HOOOO!
THANKS PROTEAS!
Proteas = MY HERO!

Keep us updated, dude.

I thought he might have left when he realised he couldn't fight against every freaking politics reg and win. Yet, he's just banned. Damn my wishful thinking.

Do you know why he was banned?

You'll have to ask Proteas, but from what I've gathered from the reg. lounge, he started telling one of the other members, having stalked them and found pictures of them on the internet, that they were fat and that it'd be good if they committed suicide.

I'm a little hazy on the info though.

A gift from Dre:

The rest of Newgrounds may not be intelligent enough to see how entirely idiotic you are, seeing as though most of them are atheists that don't know a flying fuck about the Bible, but there are the few people out there, such as me, that can see exactly how unbiblical you and your religion are.

I thought that was especially pertinent, since he makes the claim of being the end all expert on Christianity.

Shit, even the IRA is more tolerant than this moron........