Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/29/07 05:48 PM, The-JefFlet wrote:

At 6/29/07 01:50 PM, jackoff123 wrote: Science actually has proof that it can explain the world and the universe. But religion doesn't really have much proof or explaination of why it can explain.

uh ok and tell me what is this "scientific proof"??

Seriously, why do people ask this? There are thousand upon thousands of sites explaining science, even for dummies. Why the heck do you need it copy pasted into a forum like this?

Just use Google:
Evolution
The Big Bang
ect...

At 6/29/07 05:48 PM, The-JefFlet wrote:
uh ok and tell me what is this "scientific proof"??

You won't find it in the new testament. Try google.

you won't get THAT on CBN

At 6/29/07 01:17 PM, The-JefFlet wrote: i for one am tired of people comparing a muslim Allah to God.
people keep saying that Allah and God (Jesus Christ) are the same.
islam and christianity are nothing alike.
muslims spread their beliefs through violence and hate.
while christians (should) spread their beliefs through caring and love.

i think that news story from a couple months ago is funny,
the pope publicly said that islam is a just a violent hate religion.
so, in response to that muslims all over europe starting rioting and even killing some people.
the muslims said they wouldnt stop rioting and killing until the pope apologized for calling muslims violent. hahahahaha
sorry no source im to lazy.

Christians and muslims would have been in reversed positions several years ago; islam was the religon of peace, and christianity was a barbaric religon. [and this is comming from a christian myself] what christians did to one another and to non christians was horrible, muslims were far more tolerant by compairison.

i understand what you mean, i just want to let you know that fact; between 700-1450 islam was the civilized religon.

At 6/29/07 01:17 PM, The-JefFlet wrote: muslims spread their beliefs through violence and hate.
while christians (should) spread their beliefs through caring and love.

and of course the "should" obviously doesn't apply to Islam. thank you for your wisdom professor asshat, your degrees in Islam and bigotry are not going to waste.

it's not about disprooving the existance of god, it's the desire to remove a system that causes fear in non beleivers based on the worry of a repetition of past happenings.

there will always be people who ignore the facts and believe what they want to beleive.

the problem is that right now too many of these people are in positions with political sway and too much power.

At 6/29/07 09:48 PM, Grammer wrote: You can never prove either way on God.

Hence why everyone should be agnostic.

At 6/30/07 07:21 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 6/29/07 09:48 PM, Grammer wrote: You can never prove either way on God.

Hence why everyone should be agnostic.

Yeah, why stop there? Shouldn't we be agnostic about everything then? Can you prove or disprove magical fairies? What about Unicorns? Should we be agnostic about all those things too since we don't have any way to prove or disprove them?

What about your life? Can you really prove that your eyes don't lie to you? Do you have any proof that your senses are really telling you correctly the world around you? Do you have proof that your loved ones really love you? Perhaps I should be agnostic to the existence of other people, since I ultimately don't have any proof that they are really there?

I have absolutely no proof that other people experience pain, they could be faking it. They could be little more than robots, pretending to have emotions and feelings. Should I be agnostic about this too?

Agnostics seems even more illogical to me than theism. It isn't applied to ANYTHING else in their lives. I've seen both sides of the God issue, and I chose to be an atheist because it presents the best case. I could be wrong, I could be right, but at this very moment, atheism seems more logical than theism. Does that make me ignorant and close minded? (like many agnostics claim I am, since I've taken a position on the debate, instead of just claiming ignorance).

At 6/30/07 10:35 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/30/07 07:21 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 6/29/07 09:48 PM, Grammer wrote: You can never prove either way on God.

Hence why everyone should be agnostic.

Yeah, why stop there? Shouldn't we be agnostic about everything then? Can you prove or disprove magical fairies? What about Unicorns? Should we be agnostic about all those things too since we don't have any way to prove or disprove them?

What about your life? Can you really prove that your eyes don't lie to you? Do you have any proof that your senses are really telling you correctly the world around you? Do you have proof that your loved ones really love you? Perhaps I should be agnostic to the existence of other people, since I ultimately don't have any proof that they are really there?

I have absolutely no proof that other people experience pain, they could be faking it. They could be little more than robots, pretending to have emotions and feelings. Should I be agnostic about this too?

Agnostics seems even more illogical to me than theism. It isn't applied to ANYTHING else in their lives. I've seen both sides of the God issue, and I chose to be an atheist because it presents the best case. I could be wrong, I could be right, but at this very moment, atheism seems more logical than theism. Does that make me ignorant and close minded? (like many agnostics claim I am, since I've taken a position on the debate, instead of just claiming ignorance).

Everything we know is based on the principal of stocicism; which so far is somewhat faithfull and dependable. We use scientific theorums to prove something correct, and the proof that it is correct is that if the theorum is correct, so should it's yeilds.

for example, there were theories in early times as to how one could acheive flight, You find one that 'sounds' right by using your existing knowledge of factors affecting flight, and then you experiment the idea by cutting off every variable except what you want to test. If what your testing yeilds the results that you desire for the 'thing' you wish to create; then you assume your correct, and even if your theory is wrong; repeating the process used to yeild the desired result should end in the same result.

If you really want a world where nothing make sense, try pondering about the end of physics in the universe.

the reason there is no god is history. history disproves god. think about it. at one point we didnt believe in god, then we believe in many gods, then one god. the fact that religions come and go show that theyre not right. not to mention the tons of religions throughout the world.

At 6/30/07 12:58 PM, Grammer wrote:
At least with Christianity I'm comforted in my low points, and have a sense of accomplishment for a greater good in my high points.

But if you want potential salvation, comfort and a sense of accomplishment I can make up a far better religion than Christianity!

At 6/30/07 12:58 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 6/30/07 07:21 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 6/29/07 09:48 PM, Grammer wrote: You can never prove either way on God.

Hence why everyone should be agnostic.

There's no potential salvation with "I don't know"

Yeah, but there is neither any potential that you have been lying to yourself or dedicating your entire life to wish thinking either. Who the heck would want God to be unprovable?

What if your life here on earth is the only one you had, and you spent a large part of it dedicating yourself to something that didn't exist? While others dedicated their lives to living life to it's fullest?

At least with Christianity I'm comforted in my low points, and have a sense of accomplishment for a greater good in my high points.

Are you saying that only Christianity can offer those things?

At 6/30/07 01:46 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/30/07 12:58 PM, Grammar wrote:
At least with Christianity I'm comforted in my low points, and have a sense of accomplishment for a greater good in my high points.

Are you saying that only Christianity can offer those things?

Yes it does. It also carries
1) rejection of science
2) blind devotion to an unproveable entity
3) Constant restriction on trivial, everyday things, such as masturbation.

All religions carry those things.

At 6/30/07 02:09 PM, SlithVampir wrote: 1) rejection of science

Which is dictated by?

2) blind devotion to an unproveable entity

Such as Science itself?

3) Constant restriction on trivial, everyday things, such as masturbation.

Your brain does the same thing. (With some aid of peer pressure.)

All religions carry those things.

Not all.

At 6/30/07 02:23 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 6/30/07 02:09 PM, SlithVampir wrote: 1) rejection of science

Which is dictated by?

Jerry Falwell

2) blind devotion to an unproveable entity

Such as Science itself?

Science is science because of the fact that it is proven.

3) Constant restriction on trivial, everyday things, such as masturbation.

Your brain does the same thing. (With some aid of peer pressure.)

What?

All religions carry those things.

Not all.

Example?

At 6/30/07 02:48 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Jerry Falwell

I meant what dictates science of what it truely is? Does a man with a few equations, or does it just happen?

Science is science because of the fact that it is proven.

Whats proven? Isn't it nothing more than an educated guess? A 'guess'?
Just because you can have a similar outcome on X amount of times does not mean you know what is happening, or better yet why it is. Your only answer for this is another Guess. Nothing, but guesses without truely knowing.

What?

Do you masturbate? If not why?

Example?

The problem with me giving you an example is the publicity of certain individuals generalizing 'blank' religion. Just because they say this = that doesn't mean to me that this cannot = this.
It's in the interpretation of the religion by the individual.

SuperDeagle, you seem to miss something basic here.

You seem to think that if something is 98.5% chance to be right, it isn't better than ANY guess, by anyone (such as religion). Yes, science can never be a 100% sure of anything. But that doesn't mean that what we find out with science is nothing but a random guess. The techology that you are using right now bases itself on discoveries science has done. The rise of humankind going into space and such bases itself on science.

Religion on the other hand, even if it can be right, does not prove any of it's claims. Everything is possible, Christianity or Islam or Hinduism CAN all be right, but, non of them gives us any reason to belive so. Instead of using reason and evidence to prove themselves, they are based on emotions, converting people when they need something to turn to, ect. People say they "know" it is true, but is unable to present ANYTHING for why their religion is right.

I don't think anybody here "belives" in science as they do a religion. We know that if science comes up with something, it will provide evidence for it. Evidence we can read and learn about, to understand exactly why science does the claims they do.

When religion comes up with something new, it is a person who randomly gets to talk to God, and we have absolutely nothing but his word for it. In the same way, we have absolutely nothing but the Bible to tell us that Jesus was the son of God. There is no evidence, no reasons, no nothing.

At 6/30/07 03:15 PM, Drakim wrote: You seem to think that if something is 98.5% chance to be right, it isn't better than ANY guess, by anyone (such as religion). Yes, science can never be a 100% sure of anything. But that doesn't mean that what we find out with science is nothing but a random guess.

My point is I read and hear all the time that following a religion is blind faith when really to people who get some inept into science are really just doing the exact same thing.

The techology that you are using right now bases itself on discoveries science has done. The rise of humankind going into space and such bases itself on science.

True.

Religion on the other hand, even if it can be right, does not prove any of it's claims. Everything is possible, Christianity or Islam or Hinduism CAN all be right, but, non of them gives us any reason to belive so.

I could go into a rant about faith, but there really is no need.
Hell I believe in a God and I do question a lot, but than I get into questioning on what I am questioning. Is it humans, or this divine figure.

Instead of using reason and evidence to prove themselves, they are based on emotions, converting people when they need something to turn to, ect. People say they "know" it is true, but is unable to present ANYTHING for why their religion is right.

Well I wouldn't say all of it is emotion based, but I will agree a good deal of it can be.
I know some people would say it's fact, but that is not me in my case. I can't prove to you anything about my religion because I can not prove to myself any of it, but I can't help, but think that all this around us could just happen, even if there was some divine being with/without reason for it.

I don't think anybody here "belives" in science as they do a religion. We know that if science comes up with something, it will provide evidence for it. Evidence we can read and learn about, to understand exactly why science does the claims they do.

Thats my point though does it make it anymore correct.

When religion comes up with something new, it is a person who randomly gets to talk to God, and we have absolutely nothing but his word for it. In the same way, we have absolutely nothing but the Bible to tell us that Jesus was the son of God. There is no evidence, no reasons, no nothing.

True, but yes thats why people would say faith blah blah blah.
You trying to prove human science 100% correct is the same as you trying to disprove God.
(I know you allready stated that science isn't 100% correct.)

It's good to have some degree of stubborn-ness, only enough to allow you to question what is said, but enough so to question what is questioned.

This ensures your neither neive nor absolutistic

the truth is that the only actual proof i can give of God is the absence of proof for any other theory.
i defy any of you to show me just one shred of evidence that says man came from cosmic goop.
think about it, the theory of evolution is and oxymoron. so in the beginning there was some kind of cell that survives without food water or air, and it "evolved" into pathetic humans with complex bodies that cant survive without food water or air.
yea, that would be devolving..

At 6/30/07 03:48 PM, The-JefFlet wrote: the truth is that the only actual proof i can give of God is the absence of proof for any other theory.
i defy any of you to show me just one shred of evidence that says man came from cosmic goop.
think about it, the theory of evolution is and oxymoron. so in the beginning there was some kind of cell that survives without food water or air, and it "evolved" into pathetic humans with complex bodies that cant survive without food water or air.
yea, that would be devolving..

So your basic argument is "Well, I don't know HOW it could have happened through evolution, so it must have been God"?

How does argument from incredulity sound?

At 6/30/07 03:48 PM, The-JefFlet wrote: the truth is that the only actual proof i can give of God is the absence of proof for any other theory.
i defy any of you to show me just one shred of evidence that says man came from cosmic goop.
think about it, the theory of evolution is and oxymoron. so in the beginning there was some kind of cell that survives without food water or air, and it "evolved" into pathetic humans with complex bodies that cant survive without food water or air.
yea, that would be devolving..

Come on, don't be stupid. If so, I could claim that evolution is true because you can't prove God.

Do you seriously think that evolution somehow became the most accepted scientific theory within biology, without any evidence at all? Scientist just accepted this wacky new theory that tossed their belief in the litteral Bible out the window? (which most people in the west had back then)

And schools just started teaching it without any reason, despite that there is no evidence at all for it? (like you claim)

Seriously, just, think a little. Just learn a little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evol ution

At 6/30/07 02:09 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

At 6/30/07 01:46 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 6/30/07 12:58 PM, Grammar wrote:
At least with Christianity I'm comforted in my low points, and have a sense of accomplishment for a greater good in my high points.

Are you saying that only Christianity can offer those things?

Yes it does. It also carries
1) rejection of science
[...]
All religions carry those things.

Not necessarily. It depends on the religion and the person practicing it. Take Buddhism for example, it as a religion it actually embraces sciences and discovery, it part of the nature of the religion, to find truth in this world.

When it comes down to it Christianity doesn't require or even suggest blind devotion, and blind faith; it's only when you take it literally that this becomes the case.

Religion can be ether good or bad, it just depends on both the person practicing it and the person leading it.

At 6/30/07 03:02 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 6/30/07 02:48 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Jerry Falwell

I meant what dictates science of what it truely is? Does a man with a few equations, or does it just happen?

Science is simply a methodology to find out the mechanics of the natural world. No single person, or groups of persons dictates anything, they are discovered by trial, and error, with a little creativity thrown in.

Science is science because of the fact that it is proven.

Whats proven? Isn't it nothing more than an educated guess? A 'guess'?

If something is a guess then it's not science. In order for something to be scientifically sound one needs both evidence and a logical construct around the evidence. A guess may have the logic, but will not have the evidence.

Just because you can have a similar outcome on X amount of times does not mean you know what is happening, or better yet why it is. Your only answer for this is another Guess. Nothing, but guesses without truely knowing.

The question of why is irrelevant in science. Why imply intent and perpous, nighter of these exist in a mehancical construct (namely the universe).

Now using your logic my saying the sun will rise tomorrow is just a guess, and I have no reason to believe it will. Obviously this is false, because I have evidence of the sun rising every day for the past 4.5 billion some odd years. I have a mechanical frame work which explains the movement of the sun, and predicts where it will be tomorrow. This is far more then just a guess, it's a logical frame work build with evidence.

Example?

The problem with me giving you an example is the publicity of certain individuals generalizing 'blank' religion. Just because they say this = that doesn't mean to me that this cannot = this.
It's in the interpretation of the religion by the individual.

What your saying here is the religion, and truth it self is subjective to the person experiencing it. If thats true then what dose religion actually give you? If the truth is subjective, how dose following a particular religious doctrine bring you closer to the truth, when no one is completely cretin of what that truth even is?

At 6/30/07 03:48 PM, The-JefFlet wrote: the truth is that the only actual proof i can give of God is the absence of proof for any other theory.

What field are you talking about? Something in cosmology, like the beginning of the universe, or the formation of the plaint? Or Something in biology, such as abiogenesis, or evolution? Cause each of these have evidence for them, the “weakest” or more precisely the one undergoing the most theoretical research is abiogenesis followed by the pre big bang era (The so called plank era) of the universe.

i defy any of you to show me just one shred of evidence that says man came from cosmic goop.

I take it you mean abiogenesis, and not evolution. At which point I would give the following links:

http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3b.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Arti cleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45KKS26-30&_coverDate=08%2F 21%2F1997&_alid=207952210&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig =search&_qd=1&_cdi=6932&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=
C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1 0&md5=b479dc1b44ba7db55790640aaf059006
http://www.physorg.com/news6293.html

think about it, the theory of evolution is and oxymoron. so in the beginning there was some kind of cell that survives without food water or air, and it "evolved" into pathetic humans with complex bodies that cant survive without food water or air.

No, in the begin there where strains of RNA, DNA, protein structures, and lipids. The very simple DNA and RNA strains had the capability to catalyze there own formation, some also had the ability to interact with the sounding elements. Over time they began to group to getter in cluster, allowing them to work more efficiently. They grew bigger and more complex, eventuality produced ways to interact with the lipids, allowing them to form very simple cell walls. This was the first cell like object to exist.

Note, this is a very simple explanation for what happened. I have nether the time nor space to write an intricate step by step explanation. If your interested I can explain a little better, but your proably just better off pick up a few college level books on biology.

yea, that would be devolving..

No, it wouldn't. Our given make up allows us to survive in the niche that bacteria and single celled organisms can not. It gives us a huge survival advantage, and as such here we are.

At 6/30/07 06:02 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: No, in the begin there where strains of RNA, DNA, protein structures, and lipids.

ok buddy and where did the RNA, DNA, protein structures, and lipids come from??

At 6/30/07 06:35 PM, The-JefFlet wrote:

At 6/30/07 06:02 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: No, in the begin there where strains of RNA, DNA, protein structures, and lipids.

ok buddy and where did the RNA, DNA, protein structures, and lipids come from??

They formed naturally, we can even see them form naturally today. While long DNA strands are unstable in the physical environment (i.e. Out side of any kind of protective system), short ones aren't. The same thing goes for protein, and lipids. They're naturally forming biochemicals, and they aren't very complex ether.

o and just to further prove christianity...
even if you dont believe the bible is the holy word of God, you still have to recognize it was written thousands of years ago.
well read the books Daniel, John, and Revelation. it describes in detail what has been going on in the world in the last couple centurys.
it describes the formation of the UN, the rebirth of israel, and even the fact that blaire is gonna be a representative of the UN.
yep all that is in the bible.

o and another thing i think is interesting, (not part of this argument,) in Genesis God refers to earth as "great sphere". it was just translated into "Earth". i just thought that was interesting because most ancient philosophers thought the world was flat.

At 6/30/07 06:39 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: They formed naturally, we can even see them form naturally today. While long DNA strands are unstable in the physical environment (i.e. Out side of any kind of protective system), short ones aren't. The same thing goes for protein, and lipids. They're naturally forming biochemicals, and they aren't very complex ether.

naturally?? what does that mean? they formed out of absolute nothingness??

Just curious..what would happen if there was no Big Bang? That'd imply no need for a Creator. If everything simply existed, then why would you need a Creator to make what was already there?

Some folks say that Religion is Humanity's security blanket, something to keep them content and feeling good about themselves when they had zero way of knowing anything. For decades it was "proven fact" that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. The perceptions changed over a fairly long period of time, yet change they did. ('Cept the Flat-Earth Society..they still joke about the Earth being flat :P).

However...a Theist has as much proof that a deity exists as an Atheist has proof that one does not exist. That is to say, they both have nothing, but the Theist is often compelled to give proof of the existence.

That being said, you need Freedom From Religion to go alongside Freedom Of Religion before progress can be made.