Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why is it everytime I see this shit, atheists are the 12-17 year old kids, and the theists are of the older generation?
My theory that atheism is simply a phase kids go through is becoming truer and more accurate.
Gah! Kids these days!
If they're not hardline atheists who think all theists are morons, they're hardline theists who think everyone else is a product of the devil. There's just no middle ground with you people is there?

Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......

If it can be made to happen, I am SO there.

To be able to dealv into the divisions of the christian faith, as well as religions NON-christian without a Dre or an afliXXion or the others who all post the same bull would be a damn relief.

I mean, I dare any of us to try and start a discussion into the manifold versions of hinduism without it immediately dropping off the charts or getting all borked up by the kids...

Wait... maybe that's what we should do... create a religion topic about (initially) a religion noone in here is familiar with... like Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Druid(ism?), Hinduism... probably the only ones who'll reply are those actually interested in the discussion... and maybe we can keep out, through their own ignorance and apathy, the retards usually drawn to religion threads...

Just an idea.

At 3/9/07 03:02 AM, BlueEyesWhiteDevil wrote:

At 3/7/07 12:17 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: a whole lotta bullshit...

Nice alt.

I see. So what your saying is your unable to respond to my post in any constructive fashion, and have to resort to what amounts to name calling.

At 3/9/07 03:51 AM, Imperator wrote: Why is it everytime I see this shit, atheists are the 12-17 year old kids, and the theists are of the older generation?
My theory that atheism is simply a phase kids go through is becoming truer and more accurate.

I've noticed that too. Having talked to a few people about it, I think it's a combination of 12-17 years olds wanting to be nonconformist and rebel and the younger generation being less afraid of the idea of death.

It may well be connected to the fact that when people realise that there's no point in rebelling as it'll get them nowhere, they seek to find, I suppose, a "quiet spirituality" to keep them going.

Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......

Now THAT would be awesome.

These threads, they're like magnets of stupidity...

Wait... maybe that's what we should do... create a religion topic about (initially) a religion noone in here is familiar with... like Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Druid(ism?), Hinduism... probably the only ones who'll reply are those actually interested in the discussion... and maybe we can keep out, through their own ignorance and apathy, the retards usually drawn to religion threads...

I like it.....I like it a LOT.....
I.....just need to brush up on my theology......
My preference (for obvious reasons) would be to look at ancient Greek and Roman cults and practices, and how they dealt with the idea of "adding" and incorporating gods into the mix.

How's your Buddhism?

I've noticed that too. Having talked to a few people about it, I think it's a combination of 12-17 years olds wanting to be nonconformist and rebel and the younger generation being less afraid of the idea of death.

I think it's more the inability of kids to take a middle ground on issues. They don't have the capacity to put things in perspective, therefore if they notice one inconsistency in the Bible, Christianity is instantly deemed wrong. Conversely you have radical Christians like Dre-Man.

It applies elsewhere too. A flaw in democracy = instant socialist/communist (since it's rare the two are separated). The US makes a mistake and we've got "US is Fascist" threads. Think about Begoner's stance towards Israel; his complete disregard for the larger perspective is why he will shoot down any evidence of Israeli virtue, and disregard any evidence of Palestinian fault.

It's all or nothing for kids these days.

Now THAT would be awesome.

Take a look at Rav's idea. I like it, but I'm not really knowledgable about much else. Maybe we could give it a shot anyways and see where the rabbit hole leads.........

At 3/9/07 05:00 PM, Peter-II wrote: I've noticed that too. Having talked to a few people about it, I think it's a combination of 12-17 years olds wanting to be nonconformist and rebel and the younger generation being less afraid of the idea of death.

Probably.I think it might also have something to do with the fact that while you're 12-17 you've got your parents to watch over you, you're in a relatively protected environment. It isn't until you're released into the "real world" that you start to really feel the need for someone to protect you.

It may well be connected to the fact that when people realise that there's no point in rebelling as it'll get them nowhere, they seek to find, I suppose, a "quiet spirituality" to keep them going.

I think it's a good thing though, that people have some maturity and education before becoming religious. It makes the religion more meaningful, as it's an actual educated choice instead of something that's just assumed to be "normal". Also, it takes some education, experience and maturity to be able to understand and deal with religion. Otherwise you get little kids like Dre that claim that Adam was created after mankind and other nonsense... Or "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" fundamentalists. Or on the other side of the spectrum the "Jesus walking on water, that's not physically possible, this must mean the Bible is worth less than toilet paper" atheists...

Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......

Now THAT would be awesome.

These threads, they're like magnets of stupidity...

Ain't it the truth.

At 3/9/07 03:51 AM, Imperator wrote:

Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......

What? Im not good enuf for you?

lol

At 3/9/07 06:07 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 3/9/07 03:51 AM, Imperator wrote:

Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......

What? Im not good enuf for you?

lol

Nope! It's more an "old guys in charge" kinda thing. I'm sure my colleagues (and I) would have nothing against letting you in though.....

At 3/9/07 05:19 PM, Imperator wrote: It's all or nothing for kids these days.

I'm a firm believer in the theory that as people grow older, they see things in less and less black and white terms. In a non-debating context, you get all the social cliques that young'uns attribute to each other and, even more depressingly, themselves.

You also see it in voting patterns...young voters tend to be more idealistic than old voters, I'm told. And as your post exemplified, political stances in kids is very interesting indeed....good thing they're not allowed to vote.

Now THAT would be awesome.

Take a look at Rav's idea. I like it, but I'm not really knowledgable about much else. Maybe we could give it a shot anyways and see where the rabbit hole leads.........

I think the idea should be invoked - but rather than any non-Judeo Christian religion in particular, we should have a pagan religion discussion thread.

We could discuss Greek and Roman mythology, Sikhism, Hinduism, maybe even Satanism. I can't say I'm that knowledgable about pagan religions either, but we could damn well give it a shot.

Of course, what should really be interesting is whether or not it'll turn into a creationism / evolution debate or, even more worryingly, a theism / atheism debate. This trend of religion and philosophy threads turning into science vs. theism debates is similar to Godwin's law, kinda.

Peter's law - as an online discussion about either religion, science or philosophy grows longer, the probability of it descending into a poor quality dispute about atheism vs. theism / science vs. religion approaches one.

At 3/9/07 05:19 PM, Imperator wrote: I like it.....I like it a LOT.....
I.....just need to brush up on my theology......

Well, at first it can be an exploratory thing... finding out what's out there, and how to discuss it. Later on we can meld into how they relate to the Abrahamic religions, and the vagaries therein.

My preference (for obvious reasons) would be to look at ancient Greek and Roman cults and practices, and how they dealt with the idea of "adding" and incorporating gods into the mix.

How's your Buddhism?

Basic at best. Been probably 4 or 5 years since my last comparative religion class. I'll have to raid the library.

Take a look at Rav's idea. I like it, but I'm not really knowledgable about much else. Maybe we could give it a shot anyways and see where the rabbit hole leads.........

Consider it done... (well... give me like 20 minutes to put together a decent discussion starter).

You're an idiot.

At 3/10/07 12:24 AM, TheSovereign wrote: You're an idiot.

Um... who? Every post on this page is by the intellectual elite of this board (minus maybe Zoraxe... j/k :P).

At 3/9/07 04:22 AM, Ravariel wrote: If it can be made to happen, I am SO there.

don't you have AIM?
AIM me sometime

At 3/9/07 04:22 AM, Ravariel wrote: If it can be made to happen, I am SO there.

don't you have AIM?
AIM me sometime

It is interesting how people try to stand up for the worldviews with such anger and frustration.

I would never assert that I can prove the existence of God. Perhaps, I can prove it for myself but asserting such a notion for others seems inappropriate.

Evolution is based upon observable and inferable information gathered and collaborated. The truth is science may one day say man evolved from something else. We can only base science on what is scene. Gravity cannot be seen nor can electricity. Science says it is caused by a force which can only be diagrammed. Yet, if we deny these claims we deny what we can calculate and demonstrate such as rockets working computers etc. Does it mean we have to look at evolution as more then a theory no. Micro evolution can be proved and even many creationists will agree it has happened. For example, human color variations which observably make perfect sense. Africans live in hot climates so they have dark skin. Yet, macro evolution makes much larger leaps and says millions then billions without much factual evidence to back up such information. The only reason why it is so simple to believe is because it is taken for granted as fact. Not that it could not be true but there is no evidence besides someone educated and observable guess.

Religion goes to the unobservable so thus it cannot be proven within the bounds of science. Infinite does not exist in science only finite. Yet, science cannot infer "the beginning" either. It cannot explain how it began because even the big bang theoretically would have something before it. A universe, planets, species etc? Who knows. Religion serves to create something from nothing whether paganism, Judeo-Christian and Islam, or even Hinduism. All start with chaos. Yet, science can only fit with the observable and not faith.

Science is a collection of knowledge based upon and guided by observable and tangible objects.

Religion or faith require believing in the unseen and infinite which cannot be fathomed by science.

Evolution is FACT!

The only thing that's a theory about evolution is the MECHANISM of evolution. Meaning HOW evolution occurs, not whether or not it occurs. The mechanism of evolution is uncertain, Darwin believes it that is caused by natural selection, but there is little evidence for that. The mechanisms of evolution are "just a theory." But the actual evolution is not. Ever heard of Embryology? The study of organisms at embryonic stages shows similarities. Humans, fish, salamanders, rabbits, all share very similar embryonic stages of development. Or what about Homology? Appendages with different function appear to have similar internal structure. A whale's flipper, a bird's wing, a human arm, all have similar bone structure. Also don't forget the fact that ALL cells use ATP, produce proteins, and use the same genetic code. Fossil record, geographic distribution, etc. Evolution is the backbone of the whole field of biology.

Actually take a course in biology before you argue about it. You hear the word theory and you grab onto it, without understanding what the theoretical part is.

I am the image of God.

At 3/10/07 10:01 PM, TonioMiguel wrote: It is interesting how people try to stand up for the worldviews with such anger and frustration.

Interesting, and frustrating ;)

I would never assert that I can prove the existence of God. Perhaps, I can prove it for myself but asserting such a notion for others seems inappropriate.

Proving it for yourself? My my, what axioms and premisses do you start with then?

Evolution is based upon observable and inferable information gathered and collaborated. The truth is science may one day say man evolved from something else. We can only base science on what is scene. Gravity cannot be seen nor can electricity. Science says it is caused by a force which can only be diagrammed. Yet, if we deny these claims we deny what we can calculate and demonstrate such as rockets working computers etc. Does it mean we have to look at evolution as more then a theory no.

Only on what is seen? The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round long before we got into space and actually saw it. Besides, you can perfectly deny those claims and not deny the calculation. The Newtonian gravity force started out as just a mathematical tool, as did the heliocentric worldview. The Lewis model for molecules today is just that. We KNOW it's wrong, but it can still be used to calculate the behaviour of many molecules, because it does predict a large class of them correctly, and because the more correct theories are a hell of a lot more complicated.

We don't deny those claims because as far as we know, given all knowledge we have on this day, and all evidence and experience, they're the most logical conclusions about the way the world probably works.

More than a theory? Of course not, there is nothing "more" than an accepted scientific theory...

Micro evolution can be proved and even many creationists will agree it has happened. For example, human color variations which observably make perfect sense. Africans live in hot climates so they have dark skin. Yet, macro evolution makes much larger leaps and says millions then billions without much factual evidence to back up such information.

There's no fundamental difference between micro and macro evolution. It's all just evolution. The difference is that small scale changes can be observed in our lifetimes, and large changes can't because we simply don't live long enough to do so. "Macro evolution" is just "micro evolution", but on a far longer timescale. They're not different things...

The only reason why it is so simple to believe is because it is taken for granted as fact. Not that it could not be true but there is no evidence besides someone educated and observable guess.

No evidence? You even called "micro evolution" "proven", even though it isn't. Evolution is evolution. The only difference is that the so called "macro evolution" doesn't fit with your preconveiced notion of what the world should be like.

Religion goes to the unobservable so thus it cannot be proven within the bounds of science. Infinite does not exist in science only finite. Yet, science cannot infer "the beginning" either. It cannot explain how it began because even the big bang theoretically would have something before it.

No, the big bang doesn't need to have something before it. Besides, the Big Bang is the start of the universe as we know it. I'm not really worried about which completely different thing there was before ours. Whether it was a simply nothing, or a world filled with flying pink unicorns, I don't care. As for what caused the big bang itself, plenty of research still being done.

A universe, planets, species etc? Who knows. Religion serves to create something from nothing whether paganism, Judeo-Christian and Islam, or even Hinduism. All start with chaos. Yet, science can only fit with the observable and not faith.

Yes, religion creates something from nothing. I can create answers to arithmetic questions from nothing too. I'll answer '42' to every single one of them and have "faith" it's correct. No need for religion.

Science is a collection of knowledge based upon and guided by observable and tangible objects.

Religion or faith require believing in the unseen and infinite which cannot be fathomed by science.

Pff, science actually gives workable answers. The scientific answer as to "what's lightning" has given us a way to avoid damage by it. What exactly has the "God did it" answer given us in the past, except for (misguided) comfort?

Science and religion are two seperate things, with two seperate domains. A religious answer as to the nature of lightning or the origin of man is about as useful as a scientific analysis of the different ways Jesus could have walked on water. You don't use a spoon to cut meat, so why do you try to use religion to try and answer questions about reality?

At 3/9/07 03:51 AM, Imperator wrote:

My theory that atheism is simply a phase kids go through is becoming truer and more accurate.

atheism is a phase? great redenation behind it too.

If they're not hardline atheists who think all theists are morons, they're hardline theists who think everyone else is a product of the devil. There's just no middle ground with you people is there?

Dude if you wish to argue with 'grown-ups' with people who have somewhat more interesting to say, go to another forum, and not the forum of a game site! its ridiculous that some people here tend to feel themselves better then the rest just because they just stoppped being an teenager or entered the first year of college. it seems to me that you still find it neccesary to post on NG so just stop complaining about others.

Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......

yes plz do and keep your whining there.

At 3/2/07 07:27 PM, pixelz wrote: The truth is everyone knows God exists, its just they choose not to "believe in him".

everyone has heard of santa claus. they just choose not to believe in him.
by your logic, just the existence of an idea proves its veracity.

At 3/11/07 05:58 PM, JunkyCow wrote:

At 3/2/07 07:27 PM, pixelz wrote: The truth is everyone knows God exists, its just they choose not to "believe in him".

everyone has heard of santa claus. they just choose not to believe in him.
by your logic, just the existence of an idea proves its veracity.

Your comparison is bad. Perhaps it's the product of human development that led to religion. Isolated humans all over the earth, with virtually no contact with eachother, came to the conclusion there must be a higher power.

Santa Claus has only been spread by western culture to encourage commerce.

At 3/10/07 08:27 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/9/07 04:22 AM, Ravariel wrote: If it can be made to happen, I am SO there.

don't you have AIM?
AIM me sometime

Uh, actually, I don't. Best I got are PMs on this board or a few others.

At 3/11/07 06:31 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Uh, actually, I don't. Best I got are PMs on this board or a few others.

aw jeez that sucks

Thing is, I have always thought in the possibility that God isn't an actual being, but instead some kind of (unconscious) element, which primary purpose is to further energize the Big Bang, which is furthering creating the universe, new planets, and new civilizations.

Given the previous theory, it is highly possible that a "benevolent, caring God" doesn't actually exist, because it is not even a conscious entity.

At 3/12/07 01:56 AM, SomeNick wrote:
Given the previous theory, it is highly possible that a "benevolent, caring God" doesn't actually exist, because it is not even a conscious entity.

In my opinion an unconscious entity (a natural force) cannot be considered as a god.

At 3/11/07 12:15 PM, Tomsan wrote:
atheism is a phase? great redenation behind it too.

Thanks! Great retort!

Dude if you wish to argue with 'grown-ups' with people who have somewhat more interesting to say, go to another forum, and not the forum of a game site! its ridiculous that some people here tend to feel themselves better then the rest just because they just stoppped being an teenager or entered the first year of college. it seems to me that you still find it neccesary to post on NG so just stop complaining about others.

That's quite a long rant simply to tell me to fuck off......
Oh btw: This would be my 3rd year in college. I'll be legal to drink by the end of the month.

yes plz do and keep your whining there.

Don't be surprised if we don't send you an invite. :(

At 3/2/07 08:41 PM, Dakurus wrote: It also said on this coffin that Jesus had a wife, Mary, and they had a son together. Relgion doesn't metion this because it would make Jesus seem less godly.

how would that make him less godly?

At 3/12/07 08:58 AM, Imperator wrote: Don't be surprised if we don't send you an invite. :(

Judging from how the topic is going thus far, I don't think we'll need invites