Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/8/07 08:17 PM, Dre-Man wrote: And atheism is just completely based on logic and intelligence

Yes, it is. In fact that's all it is, logic and intelligence, but heres the really neat thing, so are some systems of belief. However atheism has two major points in its faveor:
1 – There is no empirical nature to god. That is god can not be seen felt or measured in any consistent and verifiable way.
2 – God it self is an inherently illogical construct. The argument against omnipotence is perhaps the most well known and is best quoted as “can god create a rock so heavy that he him self can't lift it?”. The answer is obviously no, he can't to do that is to be illogical, but then there's something god can't do, doesn't that make god, non omnipotent? Of course it dose, so god is now no longer omnipotent, but if god isn't omnipotent then why is god, God?

Heres where one of our arguments brakes down, if god isn't God, then why are you worshiping it, for that matter given the first point made, why even assume it's existence at all? But on the other hand if god is God, and therefore omnipotent then logic it self is incorrect. Now if logic is incorrect, then every thing flies out th window we no longer have any way to argue or to tell what is and isn't real. Think about what a world with out logic would be like, everything would be simultaneously possible and impossible. With out some form of logical frame work we can't even be sure we exist.

Now this all could be rectified with some new rule set out side the realm of logic, but with out it there's really nothing here to argue about. Many of you have said the atheist are close minded, but this is untrue, we simply need some evidence or at the very lest a decent argument for the existence of god. Personally I have never been presented with ether one.

Idiot

Insulting some one with out bring anything to the table simply shows ether your general lack of understanding or the poor state of your position.

At 4/8/07 03:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/8/07 01:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

What about feeding these animals for 2 months.

2 months is about 62 days. It was 40 days, a little over a month.

Actually according to Genesis it was 302 days from Gen 8:13 and Gen 7:11

Entered the arc on 600-2-17

Gen 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Opened the arc on 601-1-1

Gen 8:13 “And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.”

Dre, if is funny how you first accuse me of bashing just Christianity as if all the other religions are immune to critic. And, when I tell you that I don't think the other religions are immune to critic and show it by saying that their are silly, you accuse me of being elitist. Tell me, exactly what is it you want?

And how come I'm the idiot when all posts I see by you is nothing but hollow old statements and name-calling?

Seriously Dre, shape up. You are giving nothing to this thread.

Atheists, tell me how can the universe before and after the big bang exsist at all if there was nothing that created it? It doesnt take much effort to just say that reality has always exsisted and say it is logical to assume that.

Atheism, the lack of relligion, the lack of explanation of 'why', it is just too little of an Idea for my intellect to consider.

The vary concept of atheism destroys its credibility for its lack of explanation and low intelligence neaded to accept it.

At 4/9/07 04:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Atheists, tell me how can the universe before and after the big bang exsist at all if there was nothing that created it? It doesnt take much effort to just say that reality has always exsisted and say it is logical to assume that.

I'm not really an atheist.

Tell me how a God can always be? Tell me how someone can live and last forever? The big bang has a beginning and an end. God doesn't. That is why it is questioned. And the idea goes that microwave radiation and matter and anti matter cascades caused the big bang. Someone hasen't been doing his homework. Having the answer 'God did it' is just not enough in the eyes of many.

Atheism, the lack of relligion, the lack of explanation of 'why', it is just too little of an Idea for my intellect to consider.

The vary concept of atheism destroys its credibility for its lack of explanation and low intelligence neaded to accept it.

Zoraxe7:
Just saying God did it isn't much better. I'm no scientists, but, the main reason there isn't ONE definitive explanation for the origins of everything, is because scientists don't "jump on the wagon" for the first best explanation. They require lots of studies and reasoning.

But, you seem to have missed one point. Atheism does NOT equal science. Did you know it is perfectly okay to be an atheist and reject science? It is also perfectly okay to be an atheist and belive in an afterlife, or supernatural stuff like telekinetic or ghosts.

Atheism, by the definition, is lack of belief in God(s). It does not mean anything else. Sure, a lot of atheist place science very high, but it isn't any different from a lot of republicans being Christians. It doesn't mean that republican equals Christianity.

So, your criticism isn't directed at atheists, but science. I'm no scientist, and can't help you there. But, I'm sure there are lot of written stuff about it if you just search a little. But I have the feeling you don't really care about the answer, as long as you can use it as an argument.

At 4/9/07 04:34 PM, Drakim wrote:

But, you seem to have missed one point. Atheism does NOT equal science. Did you know it is perfectly okay to be an atheist and reject science? It is also perfectly okay to be an atheist and belive in an afterlife, or supernatural stuff like telekinetic or ghosts.

Your right, It takes both science and relligion to make each other work, the absence of either one results in fundementalists and anti-relligious bastards.

Atheism, by the definition, is lack of belief in God(s). It does not mean anything else. Sure, a lot of atheist place science very high, but it isn't any different from a lot of republicans being Christians. It doesn't mean that republican equals Christianity.

My arguments still applye.

So, your criticism isn't directed at atheists, but science. I'm no scientist, and can't help you there. But, I'm sure there are lot of written stuff about it if you just search a little. But I have the feeling you don't really care about the answer, as long as you can use it as an argument.

My criticism is not at science but at science without logic, there is a difference. It is also like relligion without logic, doesnt work well.

At 4/9/07 04:43 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Your right, It takes both science and relligion to make each other work, the absence of either one results in fundementalists and anti-relligious bastards.

I've often heard this argument, but never why. How does science need religion? And how does religion need science? (most people I talk to don't claim to have evidence or anything for their faith.)

Atheism, by the definition, is lack of belief in God(s). It does not mean anything else. Sure, a lot of atheist place science very high, but it isn't any different from a lot of republicans being Christians. It doesn't mean that republican equals Christianity.

My arguments still applye.

No, only if it is an atheist the belives in the Big Bang. An atheist could just as well belive in the infinitive theory, or the backwards theory, or the upside down theory for how existance came to be.

My personal answer is, I don't know. I don't claim to know how the universe started, anymore than I claim to know how magnetism works, or how light moves (it goes in particle form and beam form at the same time? Oo). I simply don't believe in God because there is not one good reason to do so (as I see it). I've simply yet to come over one good argument for why there is a God.

So, your criticism isn't directed at atheists, but science. I'm no scientist, and can't help you there. But, I'm sure there are lot of written stuff about it if you just search a little. But I have the feeling you don't really care about the answer, as long as you can use it as an argument.

My criticism is not at science but at science without logic, there is a difference. It is also like religion without logic, doesn't work well.

Well, okay. But, don't be so fast to judge what is logical and not. Why would so many scientists base their scientific theories on something that you claim is so super illogical. Wouldn't they see the stupidity of such a theory right away? Why do you have such an insight about it's flaws but they don't? There is always more then one side to it, and I think you should look into it before passing judgment.

At 4/9/07 04:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

Atheism, the lack of relligion, the lack of explanation of 'why', it is just too little of an Idea for my intellect to consider.

The vary concept of atheism destroys its credibility for its lack of explanation and low intelligence neaded to accept it.

Oh and I forgot, when you make a post and put tht is stuupit in it, it makes your arguement hold no ground to stand on. So saying your peace and leaving it as is would be the prefered option.

And saying 'God did it with POWERS' would seem stupid to other as well.

At 4/9/07 04:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Atheists, tell me how can the universe before and after the big bang exsist at all if there was nothing that created it? It doesnt take much effort to just say that reality has always exsisted and say it is logical to assume that.

Atheism, the lack of relligion, the lack of explanation of 'why', it is just too little of an Idea for my intellect to consider.

The vary concept of atheism destroys its credibility for its lack of explanation and low intelligence neaded to accept it.

If you look at theism from a scientific and logical point of view, what you'll find is that there is not adequate evidence to combat or to prove the existence of a God. It is entirely possible that there is a God. While religion is a manmade construct, the logical follies of religion do not disprove God as a concept. In regard to the "impossible to lift" paradox, you're thinking in human terms. Just because we have to follow the rules of logic and physics does not mean that there aren't possible higher beings who do not have to.

As for religion, when I look at it, many of them seem to say the same thing- "believe or you will suffer". And there doesn't seem to be much logical evidence to put one above the other in terms of which to believe.

So that's why I'm agnostic. :D

At 4/9/07 04:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Atheists, tell me how can the universe before and after the big bang exsist at all if there was nothing that created it? It doesnt take much effort to just say that reality has always exsisted and say it is logical to assume that.

You make the assumption that there was nothing before the big bang. Even if string theory turns out to be incorrect there would still be quantum fluctuations in the void before the big bang. These in of them selfs can cause the universe to form. Of course if string theory is correct then there was no void, and the M multivers existed before our universe did.

Atheism, the lack of relligion, the lack of explanation of 'why', it is just too little of an Idea for my intellect to consider.

But the question “why” doesn't make sense. By it's very nature “why” implies destine, there very well doesn't have to be. It's like standing at the bottom of a mountain and seeing a boulder suddenly start rolling down the hill, many would ask the question “why did the boulder roll down the hill?”. But this question only makes sense if there was some one, or something sentient at the top of the mountain to move the bolder. If it's fall was cause by pure natural forces, i.e. Gravity, wind, and erosion, then “why” doesn't make sense, only how.

The vary concept of atheism destroys its credibility for its lack of explanation and low intelligence neaded to accept it.

Again, lack of what explanation are you referring too? As far as I can see atheism, in addition to science answer's virtually every question I would like answered. I may not agree or like all the answers, but I do have them, and I can test them.

At 4/9/07 04:43 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

Your right, It takes both science and relligion to make each other work, the absence of either one results in fundementalists and anti-relligious bastards.

No it doesn't. Religion doesn't belong in science there's no place for it. Any time a form of empirical logic was formed religion would come in a muck every thing up. There's no way to measure god, and as such the concept must be ignored.

My criticism is not at science but at science without logic, there is a difference. It is also like relligion without logic, doesnt work well.

Science with out logic is an oxymoron. It doesn't make sense, the whole of science comprise two fundamental ideas, empiricism, and logic. Your insinuating that science with out religion is useless, or incomplete, on your own personal level, that might be so; But science can not acknowledge any religion with out empirical observation and evidence for the existence of it; To date there hasn't been a single religion to do this.

At 4/9/07 05:11 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

If you look at theism from a scientific and logical point of view, what you'll find is that there is not adequate evidence to combat or to prove the existence of a God. It is entirely possible that there is a God. While religion is a manmade construct, the logical follies of religion do not disprove God as a concept. In regard to the "impossible to lift" paradox, you're thinking in human terms. Just because we have to follow the rules of logic and physics does not mean that there aren't possible higher beings who do not have to.

Yes, but the lack of evidence implies that any theory with god in it must be thrown out. Remember science is empirical, if there aren't any observations or measurements that can be taken, then it isn't science. As for alternative to logic, I'm open minded enough to admit there very well could be, but with out any foundations or any frame work for them you contribute little (though not nothing) to the table.

As for religion, when I look at it, many of them seem to say the same thing- "believe or you will suffer". And there doesn't seem to be much logical evidence to put one above the other in terms of which to believe.

Personal note: this was the many reason I turned to agnosticism when I was 12, Though I'm no longer agnostic.

So that's why I'm agnostic. :D

Nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with being Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist or part of the church of the flying spaghetti monster; provided that you think your a better person, and are contributing something to the world who am I to complain?

I'm starting to think everyone is out to get Zoraxe7 at the minute.

At 4/9/07 06:29 PM, Brick-top wrote: I'm starting to think everyone is out to get Zoraxe7 at the minute.

Meh....all theists here get their lumps eventually. As long as he keeps an open mind about the things he is debating (regardless of how those he debates act), he'll do fine.

At 4/9/07 07:07 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/9/07 06:29 PM, Brick-top wrote: I'm starting to think everyone is out to get Zoraxe7 at the minute.

Meh....all theists here get their lumps eventually. As long as he keeps an open mind about the things he is debating (regardless of how those he debates act), he'll do fine.

Ok.

Has anyone else noticed that theres a lot of
"Open mind"
"Ignorent"
"Logic"
"Stupidity"
And general insults based on their own intellegence in posts? The main one's are

"The Universe was made from nothing so it must be logical"
OR
"God has always existed and made the Earth in a week so that must be logical"

Then they fire insults to each other.

Ironic, this thread is about theory and faith. If the evidence changes for the theory or the faith so must they.

At 4/9/07 06:23 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

You make the assumption that there was nothing before the big bang. Even if string theory turns out to be incorrect there would still be quantum fluctuations in the void before the big bang. These in of them selfs can cause the universe to form. Of course if string theory is correct then there was no void, and the M multivers existed before our universe did.

Strings and other primal coponents to energy and matter dont just wish themselvs into exsistance. And what about empty space? Empty space is space that has no matter occupieing it, where did that come from? how did empty space come by?

But the question “why” doesn't make sense. By it's very nature “why” implies destine, there very well doesn't have to be. It's like standing at the bottom of a mountain and seeing a boulder suddenly start rolling down the hill, many would ask the question “why did the boulder roll down the hill?”. But this question only makes sense if there was some one, or something sentient at the top of the mountain to move the bolder. If it's fall was cause by pure natural forces, i.e. Gravity, wind, and erosion, then “why” doesn't make sense, only how.

The question of "why" stems from the question of "how", but what you are describing is neither, what you are saying with the boulder is not 'Why" or "how" but the question of 'huh?'
If a boulder going down a hill you do not ponder what caused the boulder but just that you need to get out of the way and watch it go by.

No it doesn't. Religion doesn't belong in science there's no place for it. Any time a form of empirical logic was formed religion would come in a muck every thing up. There's no way to measure god, and as such the concept must be ignored.

But atheism has no explanation to replace that of relligions so it itself must also be ignored also.

But atheism has no explanation to replace that of relligions so it itself must also be ignored also.

Atheism isn't religeon, its the lack of religeon.

At 4/9/07 08:08 PM, aaron-god-of-thunder wrote:

Atheism isn't religeon, its the lack of religeon.

And just like religion, it's a "belief".

At 4/9/07 08:11 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 08:08 PM, aaron-god-of-thunder wrote:

Atheism isn't religeon, its the lack of religeon.

And just like religion, it's a "belief".

Religion is a system based on faith and rules. That is the main purpose of all religions.

Atheism the absense of religion where you follow no beliefs or rules.

At 4/9/07 08:11 PM, Memorize wrote: And just like religion, it's a "belief".

i believe what i see exists, is that a religion?

At 4/9/07 08:22 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Atheism the absense of religion where you follow no beliefs or rules.

No beliefs huh? Then what do you call them believing in no God. Allow me to simplify that: Belief-no God.

At 4/9/07 08:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 08:22 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Atheism the absense of religion where you follow no beliefs or rules.

No beliefs huh? Then what do you call them believing in no God. Allow me to simplify that: Belief-no God.

Well done, have a cookie.

At 4/9/07 08:49 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Well done, have a cookie.

I deserve one. You don't. You got it wrong.

belief is not religion.

At 4/9/07 09:01 PM, SolInvictus wrote: belief is not religion.

When did anyone make that connection?

At 4/9/07 09:03 PM, Memorize wrote: When did anyone make that connection?

by stating a no god belief is a religion.

At 4/9/07 07:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

Strings and other primal coponents to energy and matter dont just wish themselvs into exsistance. And what about empty space? Empty space is space that has no matter occupieing it, where did that come from? how did empty space come by?

Actually they do. The phenomenon is know as quantum fluctuations, and allows for matter and energy to come into existence for brief periods of time with out violating conservation of matter and energy. The only stipulation is that they need to fade from existence after a very short period of time (on the order of a plank second). But there are various phenomenon, and events in the universe in which they would be able to continue to exist. Basically it all stems from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: (delta x)(delta p) >= hbar/2, where delta is change, x is position, p is momentum, and hbar is the reduced plank constint. See: Quantum Fluctuation

Note: I've explained this before.

The question of "why" stems from the question of "how", but what you are describing is neither, what you are saying with the boulder is not 'Why" or "how" but the question of 'huh?'

The question why only stems from how in the case of a sentient entities interaction; Other wise the question becomes one of how and is purely mechanics.

If a boulder going down a hill you do not ponder what caused the boulder but just that you need to get out of the way and watch it go by.

I wasn't talking about pondering, I was talking about calculating its movement and initial cause. I was insinuating that all not sentient interactions in the world can be explained through mathematical analysis, and observation (i.e. Physics).

But atheism has no explanation to replace that of relligions so it itself must also be ignored also.

But again, the explanations of religion are inherently unprovable, untestable, and quite often illogical; As such I contend that the explanations of religion are irrelevant.

At 4/9/07 08:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 08:22 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Atheism the absense of religion where you follow no beliefs or rules.

No beliefs huh? Then what do you call them believing in no God. Allow me to simplify that: Belief-no God.

No Belief is not a belief, like Anti-matter isn't matter,

At 4/9/07 09:12 PM, aaron-god-of-thunder wrote: No Belief is not a belief, like Anti-matter isn't matter,

actually you're an idiot.

At 4/9/07 09:06 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

by stating a no god belief is a religion.

I didn't say it was a religion. I just said that like religion, it is a belief. Not that is actually a religion.

At 4/9/07 09:16 PM, Memorize wrote: I didn't say it was a religion. I just said that like religion, it is a belief. Not that is actually a religion.

fair enough, its just that everything we do is based on some form of belief or assumption but those are never likened to religions.