Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/30/07 09:37 PM, Bearpigmanbearpig wrote: Alot of religion are just lies, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, And Jesus Being The Messiah, Jews already said he wasn't and they were there, Not us. Jesus was just some random crazy who ran around saying people are coming, That's something you tell the emperor or leader and lie saying you heard they were going to attack, Not something you scream out in a street and get killed for being a moron.

Well basically Religion makes the world revolve, it makes the world bicultural making people having different beliefs and languages. Without culture there would only be one language.
As for Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, those aren't even Religions, just false beliefs which is in some way religious to kids.

At 1/30/07 09:34 PM, MegaGold wrote: It will take another good couple of hundred years, but it will disprove a lot of religions soon enough,

how can you disprove something that exists relative to the mind of an individual?

At 1/30/07 10:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/30/07 09:34 PM, MegaGold wrote: It will take another good couple of hundred years, but it will disprove a lot of religions soon enough,

how can you disprove something that exists relative to the mind of an individual?

Truth is absolute.

At 1/31/07 04:54 PM, Draconias wrote: Truth is absolute.

and where we finally decide what is truth is the mind. all the proof you want will not make a person with no connection to reality believe what you believe. how do i know you really exist?

At 1/30/07 09:37 PM, Bearpigmanbearpig wrote:

Alot of religion are just lies, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, And Jesus Being The Messiah, Jews already said he wasn't and they were there, Not us. Jesus was just some random crazy who ran around saying people are coming, That's something you tell the emperor or leader and lie saying you heard they were going to attack, Not something you scream out in a street and get killed for being a moron.

Lol.....

Santa Claus is a fictional character based off a real life philanthropist named Nickolas (St. Nick).

The Easter Bunny has nothing to do with religion. It's a secularized character used by non-Catholics so that they can get in on the Easter fun.

2000 years ago, there was a group of 12 that believed Jesus was the Messiah. Since he started preaching that message, his followers now number over 2 billion. By comparison, the Jews that don't believe he is the Messiah number significantly less in today's world. The last part of that rant made no sense to me, so I won't comment on it.....

At 1/31/07 05:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/31/07 04:54 PM, Draconias wrote: Truth is absolute.

and where we finally decide what is truth is the mind. all the proof you want will not make a person with no connection to reality believe what you believe. how do i know you really exist?

It's an irrelevant issue. If the truth has been conclusively discovered and proven beyond a doubt, your inability to recognize it does not change anything. Eventually you won't be here anymore, and potentially more capable people will replace you.

At 1/30/07 09:37 PM, Bearpigmanbearpig wrote: JESUS SUX LOL

Age: 15
That pretty much wraps things up.

At 1/31/07 09:17 PM, Draconias wrote: It's an irrelevant issue. If the truth has been conclusively discovered and proven beyond a doubt, your inability to recognize it does not change anything. Eventually you won't be here anymore, and potentially more capable people will replace you.

i'm not trying to argue whether or not absolute truth is true or not simply the fact that truth still requires one to accept it as the truth. the problem with religion is it doesn't require anything science can or cannot prove all it needs is people to accept and believe it.

At 1/31/07 11:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/31/07 09:17 PM, Draconias wrote: It's an irrelevant issue. If the truth has been conclusively discovered and proven beyond a doubt, your inability to recognize it does not change anything. Eventually you won't be here anymore, and potentially more capable people will replace you.

i'm not trying to argue whether or not absolute truth is true or not simply the fact that truth still requires one to accept it as the truth. the problem with religion is it doesn't require anything science can or cannot prove all it needs is people to accept and believe it.

And that's why Science will win in the long term because Science does have things which can be proved or disproved. If Science fights for long enough, Religion will inevitably lose because it has nothing except belief to support it. You can fight belief, but you can't fight facts (easily).

Religion <(X.X)> O--('.'Q) Science. It's just the nature of the two things.

At 1/31/07 09:17 PM, Draconias wrote: It's an irrelevant issue. If the truth has been conclusively discovered and proven beyond a doubt, your inability to recognize it does not change anything. Eventually you won't be here anymore, and potentially more capable people will replace you.

i'm not trying to argue whether or not absolute truth is true or not simply the fact that truth still requires one to accept it as the truth. the problem with religion is it doesn't require anything science can or cannot prove all it needs is people to accept and believe it.

Wrong, blind faith is like that, dont confuse the 2 types of belife

And that's why Science will win in the long term because Science does have things which can be proved or disproved. If Science fights for long enough, Religion will inevitably lose because it has nothing except belief to support it. You can fight belief, but you can't fight facts (easily).

Science is on the side of relligion for me, heck, i proboble know more about the universe than you. So before you say your stupid generalizations about people, think before you type, and stop cunfusing science with atheism, if you read my posts you would know why im mad.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Any other questions?

Any answers?

Yes. I do have answers.

1. Their beliefs exist outside of logic, and NOTHING will EVER convince them that they are wrong.

2. Already happened.

3. Yes.

It makes me sad too. Seriously, what have we gained from religion? 1000 years of NO PROGRESS. They call it the "Dark Ages". And what has science given us? The computer that you are using to view this post, for starters!

Then I am also sad :(

If you truly think that science is the better answer, answer me these questions.

1.) Does science have a concrete fact that proves the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or any other theory that explains the physical and chemical universe. If yes, explain EXACTLY in concrete detail how that theory is a proven fact and why.

2.) You said that the bible has been proven wrong before, in what ways? I do not recall a biblical scripture ever have been proven wrong before, enlighten me.

3.) Many science inclined people keep referring back to Noah's Ark as a way to disprove the bible, but there isn't any fact to disprove either way of thinking. There is evidence to both prove and disprove Noah's Ark. So explain to me why most anti-religious people use this biblical story repeatedly to try and disprove the bible.

At 2/1/07 12:29 PM, Dre-Man wrote: If you truly think that science is the better answer, answer me these questions.

1.) Does science have a concrete fact that proves the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or any other theory that explains the physical and chemical universe. If yes, explain EXACTLY in concrete detail how that theory is a proven fact and why.

Nope, it isn't proven, just like the earth being round isn't proven. You can't "prove" theories of natural science. There are no "proven facts"... Which means it's perfectly OK to say the earth is a triangle, hey, it can't be proven anyway.

2.) You said that the bible has been proven wrong before, in what ways? I do not recall a biblical scripture ever have been proven wrong before, enlighten me.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.ht m.

Bible says Pi is some finite number. WRONG.

3.) Many science inclined people keep referring back to Noah's Ark as a way to disprove the bible, but there isn't any fact to disprove either way of thinking. There is evidence to both prove and disprove Noah's Ark. So explain to me why most anti-religious people use this biblical story repeatedly to try and disprove the bible.

Evidence to prove Noah's Ark? Entertain me. And just because Noah's Ark is one of the better known religious stories that are obviously not meant to be taken literally.

At 2/1/07 01:12 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/1/07 12:29 PM, Dre-Man wrote: If you truly think that science is the better answer, answer me these questions.

1.) Does science have a concrete fact that proves the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or any other theory that explains the physical and chemical universe. If yes, explain EXACTLY in concrete detail how that theory is a proven fact and why.

Nope, it isn't proven, just like the earth being round isn't proven. You can't "prove" theories of natural science. There are no "proven facts"... Which means it's perfectly OK to say the earth is a triangle, hey, it can't be proven anyway.

That is entirely untrue, we know for a fact that the earth is a semi-perfect sphere. If you're comparing that kind of an outrageous claim to religion then you're entirely incorrect. And as you said, you can't prove theories of natural science, thus you shouldn't discredit religion because of these theories that have been put into play.

2.) You said that the bible has been proven wrong before, in what ways? I do not recall a biblical scripture ever have been proven wrong before, enlighten me.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.ht m.

Bible says Pi is some finite number. WRONG.

Actually it is, we just haven't found it yet, just because we don't have the technology to perfectly determine pi doesn't mean that it isn't finite. And what scripture do you quote this to, I've never read that in the bible.

3.) Many science inclined people keep referring back to Noah's Ark as a way to disprove the bible, but there isn't any fact to disprove either way of thinking. There is evidence to both prove and disprove Noah's Ark. So explain to me why most anti-religious people use this biblical story repeatedly to try and disprove the bible.

Evidence to prove Noah's Ark? Entertain me. And just because Noah's Ark is one of the better known religious stories that are obviously not meant to be taken literally.

Read an article on how continental sediments are evidence of a worldwide flood, I don't have the time to draw it out into some long discussion but I'll give you the basic details. Surface continental sediments are extremely similar to ocean sediments, telling us that recent continental sediments around the estimated time of Noah's Ark were in fact probably formed underwater.

At 2/1/07 06:53 AM, plagueofthings wrote:

Yes. I do have answers.

no you dont, why does gravity work?

1. Their beliefs exist outside of logic, and NOTHING will EVER convince them that they are wrong.

Sir Issac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Albert Einstein, all believed in God, in fack Darwin wanted to be a minister befor he set out to discover how God's world works.
OH!...Im sorry...there once was a very smart man named Charles Darwin, and he went on this thing called a ship wich can float on water, and he went about on a biiiig jurney all over the world, and discovered evolution.

It makes me sad too. Seriously, what have we gained from religion? 1000 years of NO PROGRESS. They call it the "Dark Ages". And what has science given us? The computer that you are using to view this post, for starters!

Why... you have prooven that your a bumbass, they call it the dark ages because the barbarians ture apart the roman empire that was the center of learning and culture ( it was also christian by the way) so your logic failed.

Also can you realy blame relligion for the dark ages when it was the church that held the small kingdoms together and eventualy rediscover and advanced science do to the unity it gave. The medieval ages were a time of rebuilding science and culture and not a curse on humanity made by relligion.

Let me put it into simple turms for you...
If you break your leg, do you expect yourself to walk again soon because you now know what your leg bones are named and how you broke it?

Ok on one side is religion, and on the other is science.

Now (metaphorically speaking) these apposing forces are here. They will always be here, so there not much you can do.

We need science to discover, and create. And we need religion for a moral compass.

So everyone shut the fuck up, and live with it.

This has gone from a debate, to the embryo stage of a flame war, and all of you know it.

At 2/1/07 04:33 PM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote: Ok on one side is religion, and on the other is science.

Havent I made it clear that it is not science vs religion but Atheism vs relligion, you make it sound like im a stupid loser.

Now (metaphorically speaking) these apposing forces are here. They will always be here, so there not much you can do.

Science and relligion are two different things so they cant be opposing, it is atheism and relligion that is opposing, science is the study of how things work, relligion's are the explaination of why, or in atheisms case, lack of.

We need science to discover, and create. And we need religion for a moral compass.

If there was no relligion, discovery and creating would be pointless

So everyone shut the fuck up, and live with it.

This has gone from a debate, to the embryo stage of a flame war, and all of you know it.

At 2/1/07 02:27 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Actually it is, we just haven't found it yet, just because we don't have the technology to perfectly determine pi doesn't mean that it isn't finite. And what scripture do you quote this to, I've never read that in the bible.

It has been mathematically proven that Pi has an infinite number of decimal places.

Proof

At 2/1/07 04:25 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:
Also can you realy blame relligion for the dark ages when it was the church that held the small kingdoms together and eventualy rediscover and advanced science do to the unity it gave. The medieval ages were a time of rebuilding science and culture and not a curse on humanity made by relligion.

Perhaps you missed my point. What has humanity gained from religion, save for one more thing for assholes to be intolerant of?

At 2/1/07 05:31 PM, plagueofthings wrote:

Perhaps you missed my point. What has humanity gained from religion, save for one more thing for assholes to be intolerant of?

Um... i already asered that, THE END OF THE DARK AGES!

But not just that, relligion has allowed civilization beyond simple tribes to form, if you know anything about early peoples it is that common beleifs brought people together

Face it without relligion we would all be cavemen.

I thought you'd like to know (this is a great blow against the creationists)

Intelligent design can naturally occur if the initial conditions of an ecologycal system are very precisely put.

There is a bioinformatic who plotted the increasement in complexity of organisms if they associate instead of competing and very easily we arrive at evolutuion and other post-neodarwinistic principles.

Even if there is god....he was only there at the Big Bang!

At 2/1/07 06:38 PM, Keldtin wrote: I thought you'd like to know (this is a great blow against the creationists)

Intelligent design can naturally occur if the initial conditions of an ecologycal system are very precisely put.

If life wasnt supposed to happen than it must have happened by chance, but for that to happen the right amount of chemicals would have to have come together in the right amount of quantities, under the right amount of pressure and temp, and controlled for a length of time.

There is a bioinformatic who plotted the increasement in complexity of organisms if they associate instead of competing and very easily we arrive at evolutuion and other post-neodarwinistic principles.

Evolutionists agree that the probobillity of atoms and mollucules falling into place by random is less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (10 X 10, 50 times) or 1 followed by113 zeros (that is larger than the estimated number of atoms in the universe).

The chance that all 2000 proteins neaded for a cell that would come together to form a living cell is 1 in 10 to the 40000 power, mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probobility of less than 10 to the 50th power. So life being created like that is proboble how it happened, but not if there is no god, math is on my side.

At 2/1/07 06:57 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: The chance that all 2000 proteins neaded for a cell that would come together to form a living cell is 1 in 10 to the 40000 power, mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probobility of less than 10 to the 50th power. So life being created like that is proboble how it happened, but not if there is no god, math is on my side.

Can you calculate the probability of me sneezing at exactly 4:22:15 pm on January 17th, 2007?

Of all the factors that would have to come together at precisely the right moment in space and time, it would be at least as improbable as abiogenesis.

Guess what? The exact probability of anything that happened in the past is 1 in 1. It happened, I sneezed, the towers came down, you were born, all of these incredibly improbably events happened. Using probability to discredit the ocurrence of past events is a logical fallacy and indicitive of nothing.

At 2/1/07 06:57 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/1/07 06:38 PM, Keldtin wrote: I thought you'd like to know (this is a great blow against the creationists)

Intelligent design can naturally occur if the initial conditions of an ecologycal system are very precisely put.

If life wasnt supposed to happen than it must have happened by chance, but for that to happen the right amount of chemicals would have to have come together in the right amount of quantities, under the right amount of pressure and temp, and controlled for a length of time.

The right amount of basic, very common molecules. The quantities naturally arrange. Any pressure that would still allow hydrogen to be a gas works. Any temperature that still allows hydrogen to be a gas works. Any length of time above a minute works, but the longer it is the better the probability of life forming by then.

Evolutionists agree that the probobillity of atoms and mollucules falling into place by random is less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (10 X 10, 50 times) or 1 followed by113 zeros (that is larger than the estimated number of atoms in the universe).

Ah, no, they don't. And 1 x 10^50 has 50 zeroes, not 113. I'm not sure how you made that number up. By the way, particles don't act at random.

The chance that all 2000 proteins neaded for a cell that would come together to form a living cell is 1 in 10 to the 40000 power, mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probobility of less than 10 to the 50th power. So life being created like that is proboble how it happened, but not if there is no god, math is on my side.

It is very obvious that life did not form by the spontaneous creation of a cell. First of all, you don't need 2,000 proteins, only 20 amino acids for a full cell. Second, proteins are effectively irrelevant for the first life; only something equivalent to DNA (probably RNA) and a membrane of some sort is required.

Membranes of various sorts, especially lipids, are known to form spontaneously. All that is necessary for the DNA-equivalent is any organic chain that self-replicates. The primitive Earth environment, as far as we know, was full of organic molecules of all types forming in a volcanic broth. The odds of life were actually pretty good.

It's not that difficult for amino acids to form, people.

At 1/31/07 11:51 PM, Draconias wrote: And that's why Science will win in the long term because Science does have things which can be proved or disproved. If Science fights for long enough, Religion will inevitably lose because it has nothing except belief to support it. You can fight belief, but you can't fight facts (easily).

Religion <(X.X)> O--('.'Q) Science. It's just the nature of the two things.

no matter how much i agree with science in fact being more relevant and important i think you're greatly underestimating blind faith which i'm sorry to say will be with us for a long time. we're probably starting into a age of high religious fanaticism so whether this storm of ignorance and intolerance, buckle up. (damn cyclical nature of things)

At 2/1/07 12:29 PM, Dre-Man wrote: If you truly think that science is the better answer, answer me these questions.

1.) Does science have a concrete fact that proves the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or any other theory that explains the physical and chemical universe. If yes, explain EXACTLY in concrete detail how that theory is a proven fact and why.

does religion have any of the "concrete facts"?
dipshit: well the Bible and religions says...
wrong answer dipshit now shut the fuck up and stop confusing a book with science.

2.) You said that the bible has been proven wrong before, in what ways? I do not recall a biblical scripture ever have been proven wrong before, enlighten me.

the flood? the earth being 6000 years old? created in 6 days? give it up already, the Bible (Old Testament) is based on oral traditions from ancient semetic cultures and how these ancient cultures thought the world worked.

3.) Many science inclined people keep referring back to Noah's Ark as a way to disprove the bible, but there isn't any fact to disprove either way of thinking. There is evidence to both prove and disprove Noah's Ark. So explain to me why most anti-religious people use this biblical story repeatedly to try and disprove the bible.

there is evidence to prove a local flood and how Noah's ark may be based on an ancient story of a merchant surviving this flood on a boat. and because creationists often use "proof" of the flood to say "hey guys we found a boat, the Bible must be right!".

At 2/1/07 08:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/1/07 12:29 PM, Dre-Man wrote: If you truly think that science is the better answer, answer me these questions.

1.) Does science have a concrete fact that proves the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or any other theory that explains the physical and chemical universe. If yes, explain EXACTLY in concrete detail how that theory is a proven fact and why.

does religion have any of the "concrete facts"?
dipshit: well the Bible and religions says...
wrong answer dipshit now shut the fuck up and stop confusing a book with science.

Religion doesn't need any "concrete facts" that's why it's religion, dipshit. It consists of faith and belief, and that's all it needs. Science on the other hand, needs to have "concrete facts" in order to give it credit, but because it doesn't have any "concrete facts" religion therefore presents itself as the better explanation. Despite you atheist and agnostic idiots who think it's a primitive escape from reality, which it isn't.

2.) You said that the bible has been proven wrong before, in what ways? I do not recall a biblical scripture ever have been proven wrong before, enlighten me.

the flood? the earth being 6000 years old? created in 6 days? give it up already, the Bible (Old Testament) is based on oral traditions from ancient semetic cultures and how these ancient cultures thought the world worked.

The flood hasn't been proven to be impossible, the bible does not say that the earth was 6000 years old, and even if it did you couldn't prove otherwise. And who are you to say that the earth wasn't created in 6 days? You can't prove otherwise. So shut the fuck up until you have some decent facts to present your case.

3.) Many science inclined people keep referring back to Noah's Ark as a way to disprove the bible, but there isn't any fact to disprove either way of thinking. There is evidence to both prove and disprove Noah's Ark. So explain to me why most anti-religious people use this biblical story repeatedly to try and disprove the bible.

there is evidence to prove a local flood and how Noah's ark may be based on an ancient story of a merchant surviving this flood on a boat. and because creationists often use "proof" of the flood to say "hey guys we found a boat, the Bible must be right!".

Oh my non-existant god! We found a bible verse that may just discredit the bible! Let's make a big shit about it when we can only speculate on how this verse discredits the bible, without any concrete facts! Atheism works the same way dumbass, get used to it. And no, we don't have proof for just a local flood, we have proof of a worldwide flood.

for fucks sake, i hate pressing back in the middle of something. grah.