Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

anyone else?

At 1/22/07 12:42 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/21/07 08:31 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: because there is no god.

Evidence of why Christians are still more persecuted than atheists (seen in another thread).

Seriously, and WE'RE supposed to be the intolerant ones? Next jackass that brings up the Inquisition or Crusades gets my boot up their ass.

Saying "there is no god" is about as much persecution against Christians as saying "God exists" is persecution against atheists.

At 1/22/07 08:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There hasn't been anything in religion that sceince has disproven

It has as good as proven 6 day creationism is wrong, the flood could not have happened and that prayer does not affect the outcome of flipping a coin. I think if you deny this, you're using 'proof' in an incorrect way.

and no religion that can outwit science.

Science cannot offer a set of ethical guidlines for running your life, nor comment on the possibility of an afterlife.

At 1/22/07 04:01 AM, Imperator wrote:

thats because you don't know the meanings and uses of those words in context. (it would seem very, very few people do)

I hope you know this holds true for both sides of the debate.....

how does it apply for creationists? or just other people arguing against creationism don't know it either?

Don't tell me this thread is still going.

At 1/22/07 01:12 PM, Goldensheep wrote: It has as good as proven 6 day creationism is wrong, the flood could not have happened and that prayer does not affect the outcome of flipping a coin. I think if you deny this, you're using 'proof' in an incorrect way.

I think you misunderstood what I said when I said OMNIPOTENT. Gosh. So stubborn, you people. You are so arrogant to think that you can prove either side wrong. Well, maybe the 6 days were a metaphor for 6 six periods, just simplified to make it understandable to ancient human peasants. The flood could not have happened? Well thanks for telling me all of the scientists who have studied all the old texts and geological sample saying there was major flooding in the ancient world, but hey, PhDs don't teach jack shit. who ever said god had to listen to a prayer? It's LOGICALLY impossible to place the two agianst each other. They don't exist on the same plane.

At 1/22/07 05:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, maybe the 6 days were a metaphor for 6 six periods, just simplified to make it understandable to ancient human peasants

Maybe the whole, Bible is the word of God is just metaphor for Written by some people, just made to seem amazing by using the word God for ancient human peasents as an experiment to see how'd they react to it.

im christian, but i dont believe in all of the god made earth or adam and eve rubbish. how can one god be right if there is all of the other religions and all of the other gods?

its not like one religion can say that their god (or gods) is/are the only real ones. (even though most religions do that)

i think that a religion is just a reason to start causing wars for the sake of it.

At 1/22/07 11:16 AM, Peter-II wrote: Saying "there is no god" is about as much persecution against Christians as saying "God exists" is persecution against atheists.

"There is no God" is an attack on a belief. "God exists" is an affirmation of a belief. The difference isnt even subtle.

At 1/22/07 07:36 PM, Altarus wrote: "There is no God" is an attack on a belief. "God exists" is an affirmation of a belief. The difference isnt even subtle.

reverse it: "God exists" is an attack on a belief, "There is no God" is an affirmation of a belief. The difference isn't even subtle.

there is such a thing, as believing there is no god.

Its true, but both beliefs are still directly contradictory and offensive to one another, therefore they are in direct conflict.

Religion'll die eventually anyway.

At 1/22/07 07:36 PM, Altarus wrote: "There is no God" is an attack on a belief. "God exists" is an affirmation of a belief. The difference isnt even subtle.

lol, you aren't very good at this "logical argument" thing are you.

In the same respect, I could say that proclaiming God to exist as an attack on my lack of belief, and for proclaiming God to not exist to be an affirmation of my lack of belief.

At 1/23/07 01:08 PM, intrinsik2 wrote:

At 1/23/07 11:07 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Its true, but both beliefs are still directly contradictory and offensive to one another, therefore they are in direct conflict.

It's true they are contradictory, but they are not naturally offensive to one another. It is the personal motivation of a believer to attack that which detracts from his/her belief. They are in direct conflict because they are put in direct conflict (and this conflict is often justified similarly to what you've done, replacing the personal with an absolute, as if absolutes implemented as a means to achieving belief are actually something other than subjective).

Ok ok. I'll r-phrase it then.
They are both "generally" in direct conflict. Its human nature to propel one's self above others.
And most people use religion or science to gain the supposed moral or intellectual high ground over one another.

No?

At 1/22/07 03:42 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/22/07 04:01 AM, Imperator wrote:

thats because you don't know the meanings and uses of those words in context. (it would seem very, very few people do)

I hope you know this holds true for both sides of the debate.....

how does it apply for creationists? or just other people arguing against creationism don't know it either?

CREATIONISTS? Is THAT what they were arguing about? Oh shit! I thought it was just the standard theists vs atheists debate again.

Well disregard my last post then, cause Creationists are OUT THERE......

At 1/24/07 12:28 AM, Imperator wrote: CREATIONISTS? Is THAT what they were arguing about? Oh shit! I thought it was just the standard theists vs atheists debate again.

Well disregard my last post then, cause Creationists are OUT THERE......

i just wanted to commented on how creationist argue against science using erroneously employed scientific terms to try and stump the science supporters (and it generally seems to work, i.e.: "well if its a fact shouldn't it be the law of the big bang/evolution")

If I told a room full of people that if I drop an apple and a watermelon at the same time, they'll hit the ground at the same time, how many people would interject with "GRAVITATION IS ONLY A THEORY!"

Yet creationists never hesitate to throw the theory card at the evolution.

At 1/24/07 01:28 AM, OptiPrime wrote: Yet creationists never hesitate to throw the theory card at the evolution.

Evolution is not so easily demonstrated...

Okay stop saying that science is on the side of Atheism, its realy not. think about when and where the bible was written and what could have influenced it. Historicaly at about the same time in places from china to americal, there are ancient text writing about a big flood, probly not to the same extent as in the bible but this could be the sea level rise for some reason, the hole ark this was proboble one small story that was way to big in the end.

At 1/24/07 12:21 AM, intrinsik2 wrote:

Couldn't have said it better myself. (also, sorry for being all intense earlier up there. Been a messy few days.)

Meh, thats cool.

;)

It is interestning to know that the word atheism, in greek originally ment being evil as acts against god like being immoral, not not believing in no god like todays meaning.

Plus atheists dont believe the univers was created with guidence, just bang and hears the world, very similer to the anchent greek myth that the world and the gods emmerged out of chaos, so atheism can be refered to as godless greek mythology (or if yoy want to insult the evil greek mythology), it also makes sence that the first recorded atheists were greek.

At 1/24/07 10:03 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It is interestning to know that the word atheism, in greek originally ment being evil as acts against god like being immoral, not not believing in no god like todays meaning.

Nice trivia, but that doesn't have any implication whatsoever on atheism in todays implementation. Hubris originally meant something different too, so what? Language evolves, and philosophical currents evolve.

A lot of the English language comes from the Greek language (trust me, I'm an english teacher), so thats not enough in itself to proclaim that athiests are greek mythologists.

Your other ideas are interesting though.

why thank you, i think long about things like this, i believe in god in similer way that Sir Iseac Newton belived.

facts that show all religiouns are false and that science is true.

1. the big bang has been proven. in religiouns they say the world started some odd years ago.

2. there is no god or gods. there is no proof that there is a god, just proof that there is no god

3. religioun is boring and stupid and science isnt.

there are way more, but these are the big three.

everything in religioun has been proven wrong by science. religioun was ok in the past when people were primative. but it is the thing of the past now. religioun is what is holding us back.

people that are religious dont want to go foward.
they dont want stemcell research done because they dont want cancer to be gone.

if you give a religious person a science book on anything, they will throw it away. to them everything is god's doing. they want everyone to think that way. their goal is to hold us back. and eventually they will try to kill us. because that is the only thing they know.
if you cant convert them, kill them.

there is no god, get over it.

At 1/24/07 12:42 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: facts that show all religiouns are false and that science is true.

Uhm, no. In fact, science aknowledges that it is wrong, but that it gets better all the time.

1. the big bang has been proven. in religiouns they say the world started some odd years ago.

There's a lot of direct evidence for the Big Bang, but you can't prove natural facts. That's just not possible.

2. there is no god or gods. there is no proof that there is a god, just proof that there is no god

There's no proof for either, not even evidence. God is inherrently outside of our physical world, so it's impossible to find evidence of the existence of a god.

3. religioun is boring and stupid and science isnt.

That's personal opinion.

there are way more, but these are the big three.

everything in religioun has been proven wrong by science. religioun was ok in the past when people were primative. but it is the thing of the past now. religioun is what is holding us back.

It has been said many times before, but religion and science can coexist, if they keep to their proper domains. Religion can't answer questions like whether evolution is real or not any more than science can answer why there's a universe as opposed to there not being a universe.
Religion doesn't hold us back, fundamentalism like creationism attempts to hold us back.

people that are religious dont want to go foward.

Bullshit. No matter how you wish to define "forward". Plenty of scientists are religious. There's no correlation between wanting to go forward and being religious...

they dont want stemcell research done because they dont want cancer to be gone.

First off, that's a generalization, and second, your reason is wrong. They have many objections against stemcell research, but not wanting cancer to disappear is not one of them.

if you give a religious person a science book on anything, they will throw it away. to them everything is god's doing. they want everyone to think that way. their goal is to hold us back. and eventually they will try to kill us. because that is the only thing they know.
if you cant convert them, kill them.

Another blatantly false generalization. My high school biology teacher, now doctor in biology, was highly religious and taught religion as well as biology.

There's a difference between religious fundamentalism like creationists and flat earthers, and sane religious people.

And the conversion by the sword you're talking about has long since passed. The implementation of religion changes over the years you know.

there is no god, get over it.

And what do you base that statement on? How do you know so certainly that there is no god of any kind?

The thing is that religion says the world was created by god with laws and rules governing it, but atheism says that god shouldnt be believed in, we now know that god doesnt cause things like lightning that it is is called electromagnetism and is protons atracted to electrons because one is positive and the latter negative, bu why does that happen? science doesnt have any idea why but relligion says that the world was created with laws governing it.
And atheism can only say by as far as we know its magic when relligion has origens.

I dont believe in magic or the world just settled out of Chaos without guidence or meaning.

I'll give you one word that explains all...

ALCHEMY

(wait..that's science vs. magic..)