Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/18/07 03:34 PM, Matt1010 wrote:

At 8/18/07 03:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: That question next to the one "If God came and told everyone proves religion" is at the top of all the interesting questions.

If either question get's answered we'd get a big suprise in the news paper a day later,

I guess curiosity is what keeps humans going.

It's a bit cheap to quote South Park but Why are we here? how did we get here and wjere are we going? pretty much keeps the world working.

John Edward you douche.

At 8/18/07 03:29 PM, Matt1010 wrote:

Yes free speech but the government also has a lot of control over the media and if some how science disproves religion than do you really think the government would let it be shown all across t.v and radios?

Yes. They would.

At least, the US.

I mean really, have you seen our media towards our government?

At 8/18/07 03:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/18/07 03:29 PM, Matt1010 wrote:

Yes free speech but the government also has a lot of control over the media and if some how science disproves religion than do you really think the government would let it be shown all across t.v and radios?

Yes. They would.

At least, the US.

I mean really, have you seen our media towards our government?

The best thing about America is you don't trust your government. Where the problem is here we just hate them, which doesn't give a bigger effect if they fuck up.

In the end, all things come down two Faith vs. Science and Fact. Personally, I take Science and Fact, but I am not one to judge against people who believe the other choice. Mainly because of the OVER WELMING evidence whereas the Faith side only have a 2000 year old book written about a man saying he was the son of god. I apologize if I seem a bit bias.

This leads me on to think about what the world would be like without religion. Sure, we would lack some morals that we have today, maybe. But think of how many wars were starting because of it, the Crusades, WWII (The Jews), and others.

Many people in this thread have said that "Science" and "Fact" are the same. They are not. In fact, true science practically dictates that we will never have facts about, say, whether or not there was an Adam and Eve.

"Science" is a method. It suggests ways to find facts. As such, it deals primarily in theories, such as the Theory of Evolution. What is a theory? Dictionary.com says: 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. This description even points out that once it's beyond "theory", it's still not necessarily true. Which is a good thing, or Science would be static; instead, we find out new things all of the time and change our theories.

Now, don't get me wrong. The Theory of Evolution is well established, with a lot of corroborating evidence. But who says that nothing guided the "random" mutations of genetic code? Who says that nothing was around to push together the jumble of protoplasmic goo that started life in the first place?

No one, that's who. At least, no one with any scientific basis. Statements about whether or not God exists are totally unprovable thus far in science. COULD it have happened without God's help? We're actually not sure, but we think so (no one has been able to simulate the initial creation of life, yet, for instance). But COULD there have been a God guiding things? Yes, if He did it in such a way as to be "hiding" Himself from our scientific methods (or else His existence would have been proved already).

Many of the greatest scientists have been believers in religion. Einstein, for one. Are you going to say that Einstein didn't have the right scientific backing to understand that science precludes God? I'm certainly not.

I have no problem with people who believe either way. What I have a problem with is people forcing their views on others. And replies in this thread have been rife with comments to the effect of "anyone who believes in religion doesn't understand scientific fact". In effect, you're calling believers stupid, and attempting to force your view upon them. This gets no one anywhere.

It is true that those who have chosen to believe in God have done so without any real scientific backing (ie. "on faith"). However, it is also true that you who have chosen not to believe have made a choice in the same absence of any scientific data. There is no such data.

Does the Theory of Evolution fly in the face of some religious people's beliefs? Yes. Does it fly in the face of ALL religious people's beliefs? No. This is not "science vs. religion". Science does not preclude God (some have even stated that it argues FOR the existence of God). It precludes some people's understanding of things that God has done, and that is all.

About the only religious argument that bothers me more than "science proves there is no God" is "God did everything, science is a lie". People who say the latter things often back it up with stupid phrases like "is your uncle a monkey?". They obviously don't understand the Theory of Evolution, which does NOT say that your uncle was a monkey.

Agnosticism, the lack of any certain belief one way or the other about God, is the ONLY scientifically-backed option. Anything else is guesswork and faith.

If science does disprove religion and SOME how becomes publicly known (I'd like to see the government allow that) than all it will take is time, we will slowly through hundreds of years loose faith.

It has disproved so many times, you cant even count it!
But the relgious keep changing theyre believes! Now more and more people belive that god created the BIG-BANG And more stuff like this, You understand? It will just go further up the belives. Every discovery the belivers would say "GOD MADE IT".
Thats why it wont fade away! - --
The god belivers arent beliving in him because it makes sense, they are not logical they just need to know that theres something OUT THERE, when obviously there is not.

:This leads me on to think about what the world would be like without religion. Sure, we would lack some morals that we have today, maybe. But think of how many wars were starting because of it, the Crusades, WWII (The Jews), and others.

WWII was not started because of the Jews. It was started because Germany's severe war reparations after WWI dictated a massive depression in their economy and they were looking to anyone to pull them out of it. The hate against the Jews was mostly because the man in power at the time said they should hate Jews. If he'd chosen, say, blacks instead, it would have turned out the same way. Oh, wait. He did.

Similarly with the Crusades. Quoting Wikipedia, now: "[The First Crusade] started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos for western mercenaries to fight the Turks in Anatolia". It was a turf war, not a religous one.

I don't doubt that many atrocities were committed in the name of religion, or even in the absolute belief of the one who caused them that he was doing the "right thing" for God. But I think every single one of those was a mentally-unsound person. And being religious doesn't give you a corner on nutjobs. Anyone who says that "killing Saracens in the name of God" is following the teachings of Christ needs to reread the Bible. And yes, that does mean that I think the pope of the time was a nutter.

I do think it's good to think about what life would be like without religion, though. Honestly, I think it comes down to values. If you believe that the Bible teaches good values ("love thy neighbor as thyself"), maybe it's worth study whether or not the dogma of any the various churches has any merit. If you don't think the Bible has good values (have you READ the New Testament? It's not like some churches would have you believe...) then you're definitely better off without it. The nice thing is that it's your choice. And I'd hate to have that choice taken away from me by other people who say that the Bible should be banned. Even in the name of Science.

At 8/19/07 03:54 AM, zoolrule wrote: The god belivers arent beliving in him because it makes sense, they are not logical they just need to know that theres something OUT THERE, when obviously there is not.

<sarcasm>
Why do you persist in believing in this stuff you call air? You can't see it or touch it or feel it. It's obviously not there!
</sarcasm>

Science is the exact opposite of your statement. It is about postulating and then proving or disproving.

Science is the exact opposite of your statement. It is about postulating and then proving or disproving.

What was my statement exactly? You are absolutly wrong. What i said was that they take it down to pitiful levels.
Oh and heres something amusing - For answers like yours (Which alot of people use) -
Some GENIUS guy made up the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
Read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spag hetti_Monster

:What was my statement exactly?

Er... I quoted it. It should be obvious what your statement was, and which I was referring to.

I'm familiar with Pastafarianism. I think it's great. But Pastafarianism is about who has the burden of proof. I am saying that no side has any proof. I am saying "let people be". Let religious whackos believe what they want to believe (except for the monkey being your uncle thing. I can't stand that). And let Atheists believe what they want to believe.

As long as they realize that they have no proof.

well, i suspose that it would make sense for facts to be blindly ignored, if only for hope. i am in favor of science, but i will not discount that religion is something that is easy to fall back on for those who believe it. it represents hope, that no amtter how bad it is for you here, it will always be better after life.

At 8/18/07 12:26 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I believe it is possible to experience your reality & share it as you then share another's reality simultaneously.
I am speaking of when 2 people are making love , & while both are experiencing pleasure at the same time , in of themselves. There comes a point where the pleasure that one partner is experiencing, reflects/enhances the pleasure of the other partner.
Or it sure has happened with the girl I'm seeing.

Ah, the girl could be faking the orgasm. You don't really "share" reality in any way. You share an experience, and in your mind, you guess how she feels. Most often, you are right, which may lead you to think that you have some kind of connection, but in reality, it is simply just an educated guess. Faked orgasms prove this. ^^

If you were truly connected, you would know something like that instantly.

At 8/18/07 02:31 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/17/07 07:32 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

definitely. because you know how atheists are responsible for all heinous crimes like burning witches, abortion clinic bombings and honor killings.

2 words: Soviet Union.

Have fun.

You know, the Soviet Union didn't have an official religion, and was pretty atheistic/agnostic in acceptance, but, that doesn't prove the point you are trying to make. The deal is that atheism didn't cause the problems. It was simply part of the mess.

For example, think of the Iraq war. A country (USA) which is 90% Christian and has a Christian president went to war against Iraq. Yet, we do not blame the Iraq war on Christianity, because it wasn't the roof of the conflict. It was simply the religion that the invaders had, not the reason the invasion happened. To blame Christianity for that would be stupid and ignorant. It really had nothing to do with it, and I think most would agree with that.

Yet, in their drive to black paint atheism, people like you Mez, are quick to point to atheism whenever it is close to a problem, even though atheism really had nothing direct to do with it. Communism, and the cold war, did not happen because of the lack of belief in a God. And you know that. But, that doesn't fit with your quest to make atheism sound horrible, does it?

Just think about it. If you truly mean to argue that atheism is responsible for a conflict simply by being in it, then you are shoulder deep in your own mess. How many times has a country or leader been Christian when a war broke out? Christianity would seem like the very embodiment of war if we were to blame it for all those wars.

I don't really expect a reply (as pretty much all good points goes unanswered here on newgrounds), but I hope this makes you think a little more before you point your finger.

At 8/18/07 02:40 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 8/18/07 02:39 PM, tony4moroney wrote: wait.. wait.. so the soviet union is the embodiment of all evils ever committed on earth?

Your a fucking moron tony4moroney

probably not the best response ive given but considering my initial response was sarcastic and asserted the religious right believed problems were primarily attributable to secularism and illegal immigrants i'd say yes it was suitable. i dont know why im dignifying a third-rate troll with a response but personally i think it's quite clear you're the idiot here.

At 8/19/07 11:54 AM, tony4moroney wrote: probably not the best response ive given but considering my initial response was sarcastic and asserted the religious right believed problems were primarily attributable to secularism and illegal immigrants i'd say yes it was suitable. i dont know why im dignifying a third-rate troll with a response but personally i think it's quite clear you're the idiot here.

Im not a Troll, ive posted here a lot, This is a serious topic so you should at least put effort into your initial post on this thread.

I was just pointing out that you were wrong with a simple and short yet dirrect assesment of intelligence in your post.

So just think about what your saying before you click the post button, okay?

At 8/19/07 12:06 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

So just think about what your saying before you click the post button, okay?

Brace yourself and be prepared to be called a nazi.

Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
Francis Cardinal Spellman

If there's one thing I know it's God does love a good joke.
Hugh Elliott

What can you say about a society that says that God is dead and Elvis is alive?
Irv Kupcinet

If God lived on earth, people would break his windows
Jewish Proverb

Just shows what others think of God. He's a dead, unrealiable comic who keeps getting his windows broken lol

Ideaology is death.
Whether it be Islam, Communism, or Christianity, it is the surrender of freedom to faith.
Thought to mindlessness.
Reason to absurdity.

With faith comes obeidience, with obeidience comes certainty, and with certainty comes death.
Men mouthing the dead words of a hundred prophets as they march to war have spilled the blood of millions. The economic postulates of a German intellectual spawned thuggish death for 50 million peasents. An Arab's vivid fever dreams filled men with such pious rage that they broght the Grandest Edifices of Comerce the world had ever seen down in thunder and blood
I doubt not that religion has done good, just as Communism has built hospitals and the Klu Klux Klan has handed out food to the hungary. but this does not excuse the blank certainty of the religious in the rightness of their dictates, or of the consequences of their actions.
I resolve that the cancer of blind faith will continue to subsist on the human race for as long as unreason and narrowmindedness are man's companions in our endeavours, and that may be until the last little orange-brown star gutters and leaves the cosmos a dark and quiet graveyard.

What is a Ideaology? Is simple goals like seeking the truth a form of Ideaology? Because, you obviously can't remove all kinda of collective thoughts humans have.

At 8/16/07 07:27 AM, SevenSeize wrote: I'm NOT religious. But religion, in general, not a specific branch, has been around as long as science.
I think the two are more related than most think. But I digress. Cave men had sacred burials preparing deceased for the other side, before they even discovered fire.

No, religion is allot older than science. Back before science it may even of been logical. But with every step forward in science religion just looks more and more pathetic.

At 8/16/07 03:35 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 8/16/07 12:57 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Science has outlived the Greek and Roman gods. It has outlived the Norse gods, it has outlived paganism and it will outlive the Abrahamic religions.

Religion is nothing more than superstitious nonsense inherited from your parents.
Science is knowledge through reason and testing.

What a totally non-bigoted and open-minded statement.

Sarcasm is the lowest form is wit Grammer. Religion isa superstition, as is anything that promotes the supernatural whether for arguments sake it's true or not. It does not make any logical sense, therefore it is nonsense and a vast majority of religious peoples beliefs are passed down from their parents. Freethinking barely exists within religions.

At 8/20/07 11:57 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Freethinking barely exists within religions.

You're not exactly a beacon of brightness yourself.

Then again, you always were a dumbshit.

At 8/18/07 02:31 PM, Memorize wrote: 2 words: Soviet Union.

Have fun.

i'm not denying or trying to argue that atheists have not, do not and will not commit attrocities but there is a difference in the reasoning behind the Churches actions and those of the Soviet Union's.
the crusades, witch hunts, etc... openly used religion as an excuse for violence either because the ones calling for the violence truly believed their cause and means just or because they wished to gain weatlh and personal power. but in all these cases religion was clearly used as the tool to push these actions forward.
what is different from what the Soviet Union did is that at no point was atheism itself used as an excuse for the purges. the reasoning behind the oppression of religion was not to strengthen atheist influence in the USSR but to eliminate any possibility of organised subversion and to attempt to destroy anything that fell short of complete devotion to the state and its leaders. now of course at the end of the day, the result is that atheism (though it would seem to be more of a religion with human leaders as "gods") replaces religion simply because it is the only other option.

it's the difference between fighting "for God (or atheism)" and fighting "for Stalin/the motherland/the worker" etc...

a thread about ideology and it's uses would be an interesting one.

At 8/20/07 12:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote: what is different from what the Soviet Union did is that at no point was atheism itself used as an excuse for the purges.

I have to disagree. If Stalin's purpose was to destroy religion for any reason, then the way I see it, that is by definition an atheist pogrom. The lack of religion itself (atheism) was the reason for the action.

At 8/20/07 12:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

what is different from what the Soviet Union did is that at no point was atheism itself used as an excuse for the purges. the reasoning behind the oppression of religion was not to strengthen atheist influence in the USSR but to eliminate any possibility of organised subversion and to attempt to destroy anything that fell short of complete devotion to the state and its leaders.

Now could I, for example, just replace the word "leaders" or "motherland" with "God" and claim it was caused by religion?

Nah. In real life things like the crusades weren't about religion, they just used that to trick people into fighting for their cause.

At 8/20/07 02:02 PM, Elfer wrote: Nah. In real life things like the crusades weren't about religion, they just used that to trick people into fighting for their cause.

Crusades: "Convert or die. Oh and um... after you convert, we'll be leaving within a few days. But uh... yeah, choose wisely."

At 3/28/07 03:33 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/28/07 02:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

I truely cannot see anything more retarded than placeing your "Faith"

Alright, too easy. I'll let this one slide.
Sure. Can you explain why that's the case instead of just ranting?

Sure?
Sure what?
You can see that its an invention of man. -or- You cannot see a difference?

I can see the difference between the two expressed here "God did not create religions, mankind did.".

Can you answer why there is this difference of opinion?

I fear Dre-man or you as much as I fear being attacked by a puppy

Even Cujo started as a puppy..... ;)

Great answer one of your best so far.

Extra funny stuff that takes up way too much space...

:: : So answer this for me.

IF 1 billion of your religions members, all were instructed by the bible to climb to the highest building, bridge or mountain, and throw yourself off it on the same day. Would you do it without question?

No of course not, why would we?

If you answer yes ( and I'm sure you will ,if your the brainwashed religious puppy we all come to love)
You are retarded, as are your fellow believers.

Ahhhh. I think I've figured it out now.......

GO BACK TO GENERAL YOU ASSCLOWN!!!
ASCLOWN ASSCLOWN ASSCLOWN!!!!

AHAHAHAHA! LOL!

This is grade A+ comdey!
Anyways, everybody need to get over these stupied cultural bounderies, it's caused nothing but
problems!

Face it, A Christian is no different than a Buddist, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or an Islamic, or an Shinto,
or a Clock, or a Lock, or any other religon or cult!
We are all one people.
We are all the same!
Peace.

Oh, and Science is cool too.
And Atheists.
But not Satanists.

At 8/20/07 02:54 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/20/07 02:02 PM, Elfer wrote: Nah. In real life things like the crusades weren't about religion, they just used that to trick people into fighting for their cause.

Crusades: "Convert or die. Oh and um... after you convert, we'll be leaving within a few days. But uh... yeah, choose wisely."

Dont forget the crusades sparked the groth of western civilization.

Oh, and Kingdom of heaven is a great movie.

At 8/20/07 01:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Now could I, for example, just replace the word "leaders" or "motherland" with "God" and claim it was caused by religion?

to a certain extent, it was an attempt to deify (in the sense of garnering absolute power). i was by no means trying to insinuate that the USSR merely created another religion and that religion itself is the problem. though the country was intended to be absolutley everything for the worker, above God and divine commandments, as there should be nothing else to occupy the mind and soul of the worker than his duty to the state.

it was more a philosophy than religion but it does give to the leaders the same powers and influence as would a god, or a divine ruler of old.

At 8/20/07 02:02 PM, Elfer wrote: Nah. In real life things like the crusades weren't about religion, they just used that to trick people into fighting for their cause.

the leaders yes, but those fighting were either seaking salvation (since those who fought would supposedly be absolved of their passed digressions) or felt it was a good and proper thing to do, because of what they were told by their leaders.

What's wrong with Satanists, if I might ask?
They've never started any wars over their religion, nor have they attempted the transmission of their faith to others through force or coercion.
They're alright by me.
A bit odd, but not worthy of such casual disdain.