Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/31/07 07:35 AM, Drakim wrote: Sigh. Atheism is the lack of theism. It's like saying not being an alcoholic is an addiction.

Hardly. It's saying that a dude who drinks every night and an alcoholic are two different things!

"undertoning" a moment is far from BEING the moment. It was said Atheism = Humanism, which is a pretty bold statement compared to "Humanism has atheistic roots" or something like that.

Humanism is a philosophy which is directly related to athiesm. All humanists are athiests and vice versa,

What I was arguing against, was that it appeared the person I was quoting was saying that "Christians donate more money, and that proves that Christians are more moral".

That was me, and was hardly what I was saying. You're just trying to justify.

What? You are saying Christianity invented the golden rule?

Yes. There was never anything like it before Christianity.

I don't see how you can have a hard time understanding this. I, as a person, want a nice and caring society. If I fuck society, I am not working for a nice and caring society, but exactly the opposite. Thus, I'm am really just working against myself long term.

Hardly. Why would you donate blood? Or an organ? This doesn't coincide with your argument.

If I help make a society that doesn't help anybody, then I will reap what I sow when I get sick and get no help.

Bull. One only has to look to welfare to disprove you.

If there is Gods, then morality is what Gods decide it is. At the very best, I could see that you could be arguing that we humans aren't smart enough to make a good morality. Otherwise, I don't give jack shit where the morality comes from, as long as it works, and people wish to follow it.

Which....argues my original point?

What are you too stupid to read teh previous arguments?

Offer me one reason why morality is different because it's origin is divine. How does an idea become better depending on who makes it?

The sheer numbers. If X produces more than Y than X is superior. X (Christianity) produces more good people than Y (athiesm)...therefore it is superior.

And the Christians used many post-christian religions to make their beliefs. We are all moral thieves. Your point?

Like what? Show something. Anything.

That is one heck of a claim you are making there. You saying the God of Islam and the Gods of other religions don't care about your motivation, but only your actions?

Islam only cares about your actions to other believers. Hinduism doesn't mention motivation. Nor does Buddhism. They only talk about action.

You don't realize that most atheist don't believe in an afterlife, and therefore the so called "live for the moment" becomes more a "live for life" thing? This is your life. Enjoy it. There is a large possibility that there is no afterlife, so you better live this life to the fullest.

Which is what I said. Are you too stupid to read my words?

first of all, Christianity has changed a lot over those 2000 years.

In some aspects. In others no,.

secondly, yes, my values does have Christian origins (which has origins in other religions before Christianity). So what?

The fact that you are trying to use a Judeo-Christian worldview to argue AGAINST a judeo Christian world view, says alot.

At 12/31/07 07:37 AM, Earfetish wrote: Wolvenbear, it's not that hard for people to understand the Golden Rule. People feel guilty for hurting another, or doing something against their will. Motivation for not doing bad things is, not feeling guilty, and falling asleep at night, and not wanting to kill yourself.

Yet that is based on two things:
1. Your upbringing.
2. Your natural god given morality.

I think it's fair to say atheists could easily find your line of arguing offensive. Not that I personally do, but seriously, atheists are moral, everyone is moral, only psychopaths aren't, don't be stupid.

Why should I care if someone else is offended? Before Christ, there is nothing like the golden rule in any literature. The golden rule is Christian. And anyone who uses it is arguing Christian tenets. If athiests get offended by me pointing that out...too damned bad.

---

At 12/31/07 09:45 AM, Togukawa wrote: SadisticMonkey said "Earth not designed with humans in life", and you disagreed. Now we've argued for pages, about life in general and whether Earth is the only planet and whether that would imply God or not.

And I stand by my point. He said Earth wasn't designed for life. I said that, at the least, that was a dogmatic belief. All the great minds of our time have disagreed with him.

There's a big difference between "being suited for life" and being "perfectly adapted to life". Earth is suited for life, but it is definitely not adapted to life. Earth supports life, which means that due to a whole shitload of big coincidences, there can be carbon based life. The fact that complex lifeforms like humans are widely spread around the Earth means that we have adapted to it. The vast majority of the Earth surface is very hostile to humans.

If you count water yes. However, water is essential to our survival.

I stand by the original points I made. It's not surprising that we as a concious entity are noticing life on our planet, it's not surprising that we are the only planet in a huge area capable of supporting life at all, complex lifeforms adapted to Earth and not the other way around, and last but not least: the Earth is definitely not finetuned to human life.

Yet your belief is dogmatic. "We exist, but..." is not an argument against me.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Besides, the chance of blahblah is NOT zero. Nor is any of this even remotely relevant to the existence of a god.

The chances of us being the only planet with life in a random universe is absolutely zero. Every part of our world has life on it. From the deepest sea to the mountains, we have life there. Different life that adapted to those conditions. IF we are the only life in the universe, we are proof of God.

You're just postulating that it is impossible. You haven't given a single reason why that would be impossible. Besides, considering the vastness of the universe, it's highly unlikely that we would ever be sure that we are in fact the only place with life.

Simply given. If life is random:
There is no reason life couldnt spring up on a different world under different circumstances. There is simply no reason that life would spring up on only one world in the universe, unless a divine being ruled it so.

No, then you misunderstood me. Heaven is undoubtedly better than Greek Hades, but in Christian mythology you've got to obey a lot more rules, or else you go to Hell. In Greek afterlife, you've got to fuck up pretty badly before you get send to their equivalent of Hell. And regardless of what happens, I think eternal life has to get pretty boring after the first couple of gazillion years.

No, you said you hoped the Greeks were right. Yet, Hades (teh equivalent of purgatory) is pretty damned bad. Almost as bad as some Christian beliefs of hell. Hades is not a good place, yet over 90% of people go there when they die. Going to the Fields is based not on what you did, but how you were born. If you were a child of a god, or blessed by a god at birth.

Let me repeat myself yet again: "I think X is true because I like it to be true" is not a valid reason.
Nowhere have I said that God is fake because I didn't like him. The fact that I think the Christian God is portreyed sick and twisted scripture, has nothing to be with my beliefs on his existence.

Yet it is completely based on your opinion. scientific reasons to believe in God are greater than athiestic ones. The big bang's a huge reason to believe. Just to give an example.

Clearly his belief is superior. Sure, whatever.

On a purely "make the most people do good system", his wins everytime.

What's this about ideas then? I am comparing a fictional story told by deluded ancient Greeks, and the actual truth. Unless of course Jesus/God being one person, read the Greek story, said "hey that's actually a pretty good idea" and then created Hell. But I thought God created everything at the beginning of time, in 7 days, which is approximately 6000 years ago.

First, biblical creationism didn't happen 6000 years ago. That is a ridiculously new concept.
If we take Adam and Eve as the only people (though they clearly weren't), i would've taken dozens, if not hundreds, of generations to get to the next story in Genesis. After the flood it would've taken at least a thousand years to repopulate the Earth. The idea of a 6000 year old Earth is an athiestic idea latched onto by foolish Christians.

Of course, saying that the Bible has nothing to do with the truth, but is written by humans, and that the writers just stole the idea from the Greek/Roman afterlife, makes far more sense.

Yet the Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell are different. The idea that one determined their own fate was an idea that had never been brought before humanity before the Christians.

So on one hand you claim that we have some universal inner morality so we know that killing is wrong without Jesus saying it, but on the other hand I need to use to use his moral rules to judge morality? Doesn't make sense. It's not because Judeochristianity writes down some obvious moral rules too that they suddenly become theirs.
According to Judeo Christian codes you need to kill people that work on sunday. Yet I hope we agree that this is not moral. We judge it by the same standard we use to say that this is not moral. Our inner moral compass.

By Christian codes,Christ said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. No reason to kill people.

me: Not having heard of Gods message => undoubtedly commiting violations of Gods rules => Hell
you: Not having heard Gods message => not necessarily Hell.
me: message, do not ki

Exactly. Just becuase you don't know not to work on the Sabbath doesn't mean you burn. Deliberately plotting to murder your neighbor (for whatever reason) means you burn in hell.

Not hard to understand really.

---

At 1/8/08 07:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Yet your belief is dogmatic. "We exist, but..." is not an argument against me.

So what is the dogma that we base our belief on?

This is fundamentally incorrect. Besides, the chance of blahblah is NOT zero. Nor is any of this even remotely relevant to the existence of a god.

The chances of us being the only planet with life in a random universe is absolutely zero. Every part of our world has life on it. From the deepest sea to the mountains, we have life there. Different life that adapted to those conditions. IF we are the only life in the universe, we are proof of God.

You can repeat this as many times as you want, but you give no arguments for your claims. The chance of there being no life in a random universe in any finite distance from the Earth is not zero. If you divide the universe in parts and give each part an equal chance of containing life, the chance of c parts having life and n-c parts not having life is perfectly defined. Should be something like binomial(n,c)*p^c*(1-p)^(n-c), but don't quote me on the exact expression. Point is, it is not 0, unless p would be 0, and that's not the case since we are here.

Whether we are the only life in the entire infinite universe is a more complicated matter, but it's impossible to ever get to know that anyway.

And there's no connection between a god of any kind, and us being alone.

You're just postulating that it is impossible. You haven't given a single reason why that would be impossible. Besides, considering the vastness of the universe, it's highly unlikely that we would ever be sure that we are in fact the only place with life.

Simply given. If life is random:
There is no reason life couldnt spring up on a different world under different circumstances. There is simply no reason that life would spring up on only one world in the universe, unless a divine being ruled it so.

If you toss a coin four hundred times, there's also no reason why it would only show heads once, in fact it's extremely unlikely. But it's possible, with our without intervention of a divine being. If you make the coin a dice with a billion sides, and throw it a billion times, the odds of one specific side showing up only once are small too. But they are not zero, and there's no reason to require a divine being.

No, you said you hoped the Greeks were right. Yet, Hades (teh equivalent of purgatory) is pretty damned bad. Almost as bad as some Christian beliefs of hell. Hades is not a good place, yet over 90% of people go there when they die. Going to the Fields is based not on what you did, but how you were born. If you were a child of a god, or blessed by a god at birth.

Almost as bad is a stretch. Tartarus is comparable to hell, it's where people like Tantalus went. Regular Hades, (Asphodel plains) was worse than life, but nowhere near hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphodel_Me adows.

Let me repeat myself yet again: "I think X is true because I like it to be true" is not a valid reason.
Nowhere have I said that God is fake because I didn't like him. The fact that I think the Christian God is portreyed sick and twisted scripture, has nothing to be with my beliefs on his existence.

Yet it is completely based on your opinion. scientific reasons to believe in God are greater than athiestic ones. The big bang's a huge reason to believe. Just to give an example.

Scientific reasons to believe in God? Are we talking about the same science, you know, the one that deals with the natural world? And what atheistic reasons could there possibly be for believing in God? The Big Bang is not a reason to believe, according to M theory it's just a collision between two membranes. That doesn't instill a lot of belief into me. In any case, the origin of our universe is clearly outside of our perceptible reality. We're not interacting with our 'creator' in any way.

Clearly his belief is superior. Sure, whatever.

On a purely "make the most people do good system", his wins everytime.

Yeah sure. Except for "good" has become quite relative before, to the point of good being what the priest/pope says is good. Whether it is sharing, or killing heretics. If the rules said "be evil and you will land in heaven", most people would be made to do evil. I just don't think that the invisible carrot and stick is a good motivation for a current day society.

What's this about ideas then? I am comparing a fictional story told by deluded ancient Greeks, and the actual truth. Unless of course Jesus/God being one person, read the Greek story, said "hey that's actually a pretty good idea" and then created Hell. But I thought God created everything at the beginning of time, in 7 days, which is approximately 6000 years ago.

First, biblical creationism didn't happen 6000 years ago. That is a ridiculously new concept.
If we take Adam and Eve as the only people (though they clearly weren't), i would've taken dozens, if not hundreds, of generations to get to the next story in Genesis. After the flood it would've taken at least a thousand years to repopulate the Earth. The idea of a 6000 year old Earth is an athiestic idea latched onto by foolish Christians.

Lol, an atheistic idea? A moronic idea yes, but atheistic? Anyway, Adam was the first man, and his age is apparently given in the Bible. When lunatics bend over the Bible and add all the mentioned ages and birthdates together, they arrive at 6000 years. Of course every sane person knows that there's no possible way Adam ever became 930 years old, Genesis must be wrong, but on the other hand if Genesis says that God created the world then it must be right. It's the Bible, literal word of God after all.

Yet the Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell are different. The idea that one determined their own fate was an idea that had never been brought before humanity before the Christians.

It would be pretty damn sad if they stole everything and didn't come up with a single new thing.

So on one hand you claim that we have some universal inner morality so we know that killing is wrong without Jesus saying it, but on the other hand I need to use to use his moral rules to judge morality? Doesn't make sense. It's not because Judeochristianity writes down some obvious moral rules too that they suddenly become theirs.
According to Judeo Christian codes you need to kill people that work on sunday. Yet I hope we agree that this is not moral. We judge it by the same standard we use to say that this is not moral. Our inner moral compass.

By Christian codes,Christ said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. No reason to kill people.

"Exodus 31:14
Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people."

Either way, that was just an example, my point is that simply taking some moral codes from different sources, adding some of your own and calling them the JudeoChristian codes, doesn't mean that they came up with the idea that not whacking your neighbour in the head at every opportunity might be a pretty sensible idea. Nor is anything moral simply when there's a passage in a book that it says it is or isn't.

Conclusion: Either Gods message is redundant since we should already know the rules, or the rules don't apply if you don't know them, or you're bound to end in hell if you don't know His message.

Which is it?

Exactly. Just becuase you don't know not to work on the Sabbath doesn't mean you burn. Deliberately plotting to murder your neighbor (for whatever reason) means you burn in hell.

Not hard to understand really.

So sometimes when God says "if you do this you shall be killed" he actually means it, and sometimes he doesn't? And not knowing that working on the Sabbath should result in death or exile in the LORD's eyes, and doing it regardless, is no big deal. What about if you have read the Bible and still decide to work on the Sabbath?

There's no reason to assume that you will burn for one thing and not for the other, based on the Bible.

---

I'd like to start off by saying Wolvenbear is almost entirely arguing for deism or pantheism here. If he's not satisfied with my arguments against God, that's fine. Maybe he should become a deist.

Jesus never died for your sins, bro.

At 1/8/08 07:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: And I stand by my point. He said Earth wasn't designed for life. I said that, at the least, that was a dogmatic belief. All the great minds of our time have disagreed with him.

All the great minds of long-gone times. The Great Minds of nowadays believe the exact reverse: life is perfectly 'designed' for the Earth. Y'know, evolution.

If you count water yes. However, water is essential to our survival.

OUR survival. If early life formed on a completely different planet without water, it would evolve in such a way as to not need it. We have no idea if water is essential for life.

Yet your belief is dogmatic. "We exist, but..." is not an argument against me.

Dogmatic?
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
maybe you'd like to say how it's dogmatic.

The chances of us being the only planet with life in a random universe is absolutely zero. Every part of our world has life on it. From the deepest sea to the mountains, we have life there. Different life that adapted to those conditions. IF we are the only life in the universe, we are proof of God.

No we're not. It's just proof that life happened on Earth, and life is good at adapting.

Y'know, evolution.

And there could be many many planets that happened to have life forming on them, too. And consider how long Earth has had intelligent and appreciative life on, compared to the aeons of prehistory.

Simply given. If life is random:
There is no reason life couldnt spring up on a different world under different circumstances. There is simply no reason that life would spring up on only one world in the universe, unless a divine being ruled it so.

Y'know when religious people say 'you can't dismiss God until you've explored the whole universe'? You're doing the same thing, but with extraterrestrial life. If we found life on Jupiter's moon Europa, would you change your opinions?

Supposing there are aliens, too, do you reckon they have religion? Do you reckon they had Jesus?

Yet it is completely based on your opinion. scientific reasons to believe in God are greater than athiestic ones. The big bang's a huge reason to believe. Just to give an example.

No it's not. Have you done any study of the Big Bang, or what may have preceded it, at all? How come scientists are dramatically less likely to be religious than the general populace, if it's not that science doesn't need God?

On a purely "make the most people do good system", his wins everytime.

I do think, everyone is good, everyone wants to treat other people nicely. Any morals religion adds to our innate moral code are bad. Study after study has shown religious people to be just as bad, or worse, than the irreligious.

First, biblical creationism didn't happen 6000 years ago. That is a ridiculously new concept.

No it's not. It was literally taken as true for centuries; geology and evolution did it a lot of damage, of course.

If we take Adam and Eve as the only people (though they clearly weren't), i would've taken dozens, if not hundreds, of generations to get to the next story in Genesis. After the flood it would've taken at least a thousand years to repopulate the Earth. The idea of a 6000 year old Earth is an athiestic idea latched onto by foolish Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth _creationist#Origins

I don't see how you can say 'the Old Testament is incorrect but Christianity isn't', either.

Yet the Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell are different. The idea that one determined their own fate was an idea that had never been brought before humanity before the Christians.

And one that Christian scholars still aren't sure about. Because the Christian God is all-knowing, and if He knows what happens in the future, which He does, then destiny is predetermined. And whatever your response is, you know theologians have argued about this for millennia.

Not that I believe you when you say that Christianity invented the concept of free will, anyway. Prove the Native Americans or Buddhists or Hindus didn't believe in free will.

By Christian codes,Christ said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. No reason to kill people.

Moses said you should. Moses is an important Christian character and you're selectively choosing what to believe if you ignore the rules of Moses. Especially if you don't ignore the Ten Commandments.

Exactly. Just becuase you don't know not to work on the Sabbath doesn't mean you burn. Deliberately plotting to murder your neighbor (for whatever reason) means you burn in hell.

Y'know who deserves an eternity of torture? No-one. However many millions of years of punishment you reckon Hitler deserves, after enough zeroes you do eventually have to say 'that's enough'. If you're at all loving.

Not hard to understand really.

I thought all you had to do to stay out of Hell was accept Jesus as your personal saviour. Where did you get your afterlife-specific information from?

---

Wolvenbear, there's another point I really want you to answer.

You say 'the Big Bang is a reason to believe in God', and you say 'I am a Christian', and 'Genesis is incorrect'. What is the big reason to believe in Christianity, if it's not the origins of the universe, which you accept your holy book gets totally wrong?

---

I am dissapointed in you WolvenBear, you usually post well enough, but this was just crap.

At 1/8/08 06:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/31/07 07:35 AM, Drakim wrote: Sigh. Atheism is the lack of theism. It's like saying not being an alcoholic is an addiction.

Hardly. It's saying that a dude who drinks every night and an alcoholic are two different things!

Who ever here claimed that atheist and theism isn't different? I completely agree that it's different.

What I'm saying is that atheism isn't a religion. It's can be a lot of things, like a philosophy, or a worldview, but absolutely not a religion. It just doesn't make sense to say that it is, as it holds no doctrine or common beliefs other than that one thing that they don't believe in God. It's pretty much like saying vegetarianism is a religion too, because vegetarians "believe" that eating meat is wrong.

you can look at it this way:

Theism is color
Atheism is lack of color
Christianity is a color, like blue, while Islam is red.

"undertoning" a moment is far from BEING the moment. It was said Atheism = Humanism, which is a pretty bold statement compared to "Humanism has atheistic roots" or something like that.

Humanism is a philosophy which is directly related to athiesm. All humanists are athiests and vice versa,

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I know lots of people who are humanists who aren't atheists. Humanism is just about you value human life. It has nothing to do with belief in God at all.

It's simply that Humanism is very popular among atheists, just like how republicanism is popular among Christians. It doesn't mean that it's the same, and anybody should be able to see this.

What I was arguing against, was that it appeared the person I was quoting was saying that "Christians donate more money, and that proves that Christians are more moral".

That was me, and was hardly what I was saying. You're just trying to justify.

Okay then, explain exactly what you were saying, so we can clear it up then.

What? You are saying Christianity invented the golden rule?

Yes. There was never anything like it before Christianity.

LOL... You are turning into one of those Christians who wears ignorance like a badge of pride.

"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you."
-- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India
circa 3000 B.C

While, the first instance of the Christian version of the golden rule appears in the book of Leviticus dated to about 1400 B.C

Sorry there sonny, you are off by 1600 years. Just 400 years short of how long Christianity has existed, lol.

I don't see how you can have a hard time understanding this. I, as a person, want a nice and caring society. If I fuck society, I am not working for a nice and caring society, but exactly the opposite. Thus, I'm am really just working against myself long term.

Hardly. Why would you donate blood? Or an organ? This doesn't coincide with your argument.

Obviously, I want to be able to get blood when I need it, or a new organ when I grow old. Thus, I should promote such values, which is easily done by setting an example.

No matter how you look at it, helping others is a good way to ensure help for yourself.

If I help make a society that doesn't help anybody, then I will reap what I sow when I get sick and get no help.

Bull. One only has to look to welfare to disprove you.

Who pays the taxes for that welfare? Me?

I pay taxes so others get welfare now, and they will pay taxes some other time so I can get welfare when I need it. It's exactly the same as above, and you should be able to see this.

The Golden Rule isn't that "you have done 5 nice things to me, therefore I shall do 5 nice things to you". It's about doing nice things to each other always, even if the other person hasn't done anything nice for you yet.

If there is Gods, then morality is what Gods decide it is. At the very best, I could see that you could be arguing that we humans aren't smart enough to make a good morality. Otherwise, I don't give jack shit where the morality comes from, as long as it works, and people wish to follow it.

Which....argues my original point?

You were arguing that morality is needed from God or religion. I'm clearly here arguing that the origin of the morality doesn't matter as long as it works. Come on, is this really hard to see?

What are you too stupid to read teh previous arguments?

lol

Offer me one reason why morality is different because it's origin is divine. How does an idea become better depending on who makes it?

The sheer numbers. If X produces more than Y than X is superior. X (Christianity) produces more good people than Y (athiesm)...therefore it is superior.

Didn't you just claim that you didn't want to argue this?

And, besides, Christians may donate more than atheists, but they are also more likely to become criminals, divorce, and get teen pregnant (so much for abstinence education).
This is no comparing battle, but you are only looking on half the truth because the other half doesn't fit.

I'll dig out sources for all this if you like, but we both know that when I do, you will either just ignore that part of the post or completely deny that the sources are valid.

And the Christians used many post-christian religions to make their beliefs. We are all moral thieves. Your point?

Like what? Show something. Anything.

For example, as I showed above, Christianity took the golden rule from other religions?

Otherwise, the whole holy man walking around with 12 followers and then dying and resurrecting 3 days later was a very common theme for religions back then, including many who was before Christianity.

That is one heck of a claim you are making there. You saying the God of Islam and the Gods of other religions don't care about your motivation, but only your actions?

Islam only cares about your actions to other believers.

I've never absolutely ever heard any Muslims even remotely suggest this, nor does the Quran say anything about it. I'm pretty sure Muslims will tell you that Allah does care about how pure and devoted your thoughts are.

You are just wanting that Christianity look special. Can't you give arguments without outright lying?

Hinduism doesn't mention motivation. Nor does Buddhism. They only talk about action.

Buddhism isn't all about action. For them, it's about your state of mind, about getting rid of your desires and pains, so you get closer to Nirvana. That means, having lots of nasty intentions won't work at all, even if your actions are pure.

first of all, Christianity has changed a lot over those 2000 years.

In some aspects. In others no,.

In enough aspects that Christians of the old would grasp in horror to Christianity today.

Remember, it wasn't long since they burned women for being witches. This wasn't some few wacky followers. This WAS Christianity for a while, but fortunately, it changed.

secondly, yes, my values does have Christian origins (which has origins in other religions before Christianity). So what?

The fact that you are trying to use a Judeo-Christian worldview to argue AGAINST a judeo Christian world view, says alot.

No, it doesn't. Not even remotely. Are you trying to say that Christianity promotes things like freedom of speech, but I shouldn't dare use it?

Also, I'm not arguing against Christian values. I think being kind is a good nice thing, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept it together with wish thinking and blind faith. Also, it's not like Christianity has copyright for all it's values. Various religions has many overlapping values, and Christianity is hardly the oldest one around.

Why should I care if someone else is offended? Before Christ, there is nothing like the golden rule in any literature. The golden rule is Christian. And anyone who uses it is arguing Christian tenets. If athiests get offended by me pointing that out...too damned bad.

Does Jesus really approve of you when you lie? Seriously? Does he think being a liar is a good tool for promoting Christianity.

---

Didn't even notice this

At 1/8/08 06:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/31/07 07:37 AM, Earfetish wrote: Wolvenbear, it's not that hard for people to understand the Golden Rule. People feel guilty for hurting another, or doing something against their will. Motivation for not doing bad things is, not feeling guilty, and falling asleep at night, and not wanting to kill yourself.

Yet that is based on two things:
1. Your upbringing.
2. Your natural god given morality.

I'll tell you why I'm moral. It's because I'm not a psychopath. If I stabbed someone today, I would spend a long time afterwards wanting to kill myself. When I treat people badly, or offend people unnecessarily, I feel bad about it. If I were to analyse further, I'd say it's because I don't want to bruise my ego or damage my self-esteem, and it's good for both of them if you feel moral.

Other animals show evidence of primitive and undeveloped morality, anyway. Like apes, or dogs.

I think it's fair to say atheists could easily find your line of arguing offensive. Not that I personally do, but seriously, atheists are moral, everyone is moral, only psychopaths aren't, don't be stupid.

Why should I care if someone else is offended? Before Christ, there is nothing like the golden rule in any literature. The golden rule is Christian. And anyone who uses it is arguing Christian tenets.

Drakim's already commented on this, but did you actually research before saying this? 'Do unto others' is a direct plagiarism from earlier religions, I've known this for years. However, of course, if you're saying we have innate moral codes because of God, surely there's a contradiction if this rule only appeared 2000 years ago.

It's the simplest way of scolding a child. "Think of how that other person feels." It's the way to define the emotion 'empathy'. It's definitely not a Christian concept.

Whether it is societally enforced or innate is a far better question, which has nothing to do with religion.

---

At 1/8/08 01:13 PM, Earfetish wrote: I'll tell you why I'm moral. It's because I'm not a psychopath. If I stabbed someone today, I would spend a long time afterwards wanting to kill myself.

Wait, so you're telling me all of those stories of yours are just made up!?

---

At 1/4/08 01:56 PM, 200monkeys wrote: So you choose god, a story with no proof? I could say a Unicorn farted out the universe and in his mystical uni-fart life existed and founded itself on Earth. It is JUST as proven as the Biblical version and makes just as much sense.

And you have every right to believe what you want to believe. I have no qualms with you believing different than me. It's within your rights and your free will to do as you see fit. IF there is a god and he is going to deal judgement out on you, I'll leave it to him, as I should. I pass no judgement on you for your beliefs, nor should I. Perhaps, it would be nice to be returned that respect. Also, miracle does not imply God, nor did I claim it did. It is miraculous that any of this occured in the first place, and that it all continues to work that there are even laws to govern it all working which science has discovered (not created), and which atheists can choose to believe in, but don't have to. Atheists don't have to accept science. They could believe in any number of other explinations, such as it just is that way and for now it conveniently fits science's explination, but tommorow it might change. So, when you define your beliefs, please realise they are your own personal beliefs and don't define a majority group, I would also appreciate some respect from you, perhaps a "see it as you will, but I'll disagree".

I believe in neither of these stories, but I can humble myself and say "I don't know" how the universe started. I know, difficult, but you could try it.

When did I say that I know? I never said I did. Did you know that Israel means "to struggle with god" and that much of Judaism is centered on discussion and struggle and never quite being sure if you believe in god or accept him? Judaism teaches that God created the world sure, but there are many rabbies that also teach that these are just stories and that the stories are good for their moral messages, not their hard truth value. Not ALL rabbis but some.

I think you need to do a little more research before you reply to me again with accusations you can't back up because you don't understand me. Have a good day.

---

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/6413 04
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8251 25

Name one good reason to hijack my thread when these already exist?

How come a hypothetical non-existence of god is so offensive when a hypothetical existence of god is treated differently?

---

At 1/8/08 08:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Name one good reason to hijack my thread when these already exist?

Yeah, I'm really sorry to see such a good thread ruined, it's just that so many theists around here are to thick to respond to it properly, and we have to respond to whatever crap they can manage to reply with.

How come a hypothetical non-existence of god is so offensive when a hypothetical existence of god is treated differently?

Ugh, you tell me.

---

Prosper and live long reason your provided are simply behavioral adaptation that all things in nature has adopted to adapt to competition. All life which did not desire (if only instinctively) to compete would have had no energy to survive. Now why does life even compete in the first place? Well actually that is the real question of why are we here. The question you addressed is how are we here.

I think it is the nature of the universe to be in equilibrium as a lot of things in the universe are disorderly so must there things that are orderly, like life. Life is a weak opposition force for disorder. Only through competition will life become stronger force, as more inefficient forms of life can't compete with more efficient ones.

But why do WE still do this? I think the answer is that our genes do not know that we no longer need to go hunt our food. But our instincts still tell us to thrive, our brains though know different we still listen to the thrive instinct but wealth has translated into wellbeing for our brains. Our artificial environment has disrupted this natural equilibrium as we have lost our role in nature.

Basically I'm saying life is in existence in an attempt to establish order in the universe, but civilization is right now is causing disorder in nature, maybe as we mature as a species we will understand that civilization has a parasitic relationship with nature and realise that if a parasite get too greedy it kills its host and has nothing to eat.

Sorry if I got a bit off topic its really hard to establish a collective thought on something as complex as the reason of existence.

---

At 1/9/08 12:28 PM, bobomajo wrote: Prosper and live long reason your provided are simply behavioral adaptation that all things in nature has adopted to adapt to competition. All life which did not desire (if only instinctively) to compete would have had no energy to survive. Now why does life even compete in the first place? Well actually that is the real question of why are we here. The question you addressed is how are we here.

I think it is the nature of the universe to be in equilibrium as a lot of things in the universe are disorderly so must there things that are orderly, like life. Life is a weak opposition force for disorder. Only through competition will life become stronger force, as more inefficient forms of life can't compete with more efficient ones.

But why do WE still do this? I think the answer is that our genes do not know that we no longer need to go hunt our food. But our instincts still tell us to thrive, our brains though know different we still listen to the thrive instinct but wealth has translated into wellbeing for our brains. Our artificial environment has disrupted this natural equilibrium as we have lost our role in nature.

Basically I'm saying life is in existence in an attempt to establish order in the universe, but civilization is right now is causing disorder in nature, maybe as we mature as a species we will understand that civilization has a parasitic relationship with nature and realise that if a parasite get too greedy it kills its host and has nothing to eat.

Sorry if I got a bit off topic its really hard to establish a collective thought on something as complex as the reason of existence.

No, you are very on topic. The topic is about how human instinct influences Action. The Instinct to 'thrive' makes the cruel human actions logical from a temporary standpoint; We can point at it and say it's wrong, but we have no reason to think this; No mammal specie on planet earth exists where all animals are completely accommodated and free of danger from other competing animals as well as predators. [Humans are predators to them selfs for natural reasons]

Congratulations for taking the cake.

---

At 1/9/08 07:07 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/9/08 12:28 PM, bobomajo wrote: Prosper and live long reason your provided are simply behavioral adaptation that all things in nature has adopted to adapt to competition. All life which did not desire (if only instinctively) to compete would have had no energy to survive. Now why does life even compete in the first place? Well actually that is the real question of why are we here. The question you addressed is how are we here.

I think it is the nature of the universe to be in equilibrium as a lot of things in the universe are disorderly so must there things that are orderly, like life. Life is a weak opposition force for disorder. Only through competition will life become stronger force, as more inefficient forms of life can't compete with more efficient ones.

But why do WE still do this? I think the answer is that our genes do not know that we no longer need to go hunt our food. But our instincts still tell us to thrive, our brains though know different we still listen to the thrive instinct but wealth has translated into wellbeing for our brains. Our artificial environment has disrupted this natural equilibrium as we have lost our role in nature.

Basically I'm saying life is in existence in an attempt to establish order in the universe, but civilization is right now is causing disorder in nature, maybe as we mature as a species we will understand that civilization has a parasitic relationship with nature and realise that if a parasite get too greedy it kills its host and has nothing to eat.

Sorry if I got a bit off topic its really hard to establish a collective thought on something as complex as the reason of existence.

No, you are very on topic. The topic is about how human instinct influences Action. The Instinct to 'thrive' makes the cruel human actions logical from a temporary standpoint; We can point at it and say it's wrong, but we have no reason to think this; No mammal specie on planet earth exists where all animals are completely accommodated and free of danger from other competing animals as well as predators. [Humans are predators to them selfs for natural reasons]

Congratulations for taking the cake.

These are ALL STILL JUST THEORIES. You cant prove somebody right or wrong SmileyzRoyale. You know what I say? I'm just gonna play devils advocate here because honestly I don't know what I believe in so I'll just thrive to show you there's always a counterargument just as powerful.

Ok, think about our brains. Everything in our bodies is so complex. I'm just talking about one thing here, the brain, I'm gonna prove you wrong without having to even refer to the COMPLEX immune system, the repoduction of cells on both an asexual and sexual level (which both occur in humans), the complex veins, and organs, I'm only refering to the brain. The brain is the most powerful computer in history. It may not be as "fast" in terms of ghz like processer speed, but the way the brain connect 10,000 neurons to every single neuron just allows us to compute much faster. Whatever formed our brain has created the most complex computer known to the known universe. And you can't tell me it's more logical to think that the only things that formed the most complex computer is Primordial Soup and time. So now I've proved it is basically the same level of insanity to think god created life as to think life was always here or spontaniously formed; if not it may even be MORE logical to think there's a god. God created the most powerful computer in the world, and the most complex "ROBOT" ever concieved. HUMANS CANNOT CREATE A ROBOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS POWERFUL AS A HUMAN ITSELF. Therefore whatever created us is more powerful. We have created a car to use as transportation, and hearts that you can put in place of a natural one... but the artificial ones only last a year or so... and the creator incorporated the human body with a form of transportation, it can run, and is powered only by food on the ground, no pollution, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WE CAN'T CONQUER. Maybe he is smarter than you, and he doesn't want to let you know he exists, he wants you to believe, because atheism is exactly what the creator told you to stay away from. What is the devil? It is VERY attractive, but in reality it's evil. That's what science may be. Science is only allowed to learn what it is permitted by the creator to learn. He established the laws of the world, and we figured them out. We're the students and he is not only the teacher, but he can change the laws all together, so it's like a teacher that's never wrong. He can make gravity push instead of pull, and it will be done.

Keep in mind I'm just playing devils advocate I don't believe this necessarily. But talk to me Smileyz. You think you're so smart, but maybe God is just laughing at you.

---

At 1/9/08 10:41 PM, T-W-I-D wrote: These are ALL STILL JUST THEORIES.

Just for a record, god is less than a theory.

The brain is the most powerful computer in history.

Haha no it's not.

So now I've proved it

You've proved nothing. That was was merely opinion.

is basically the same level of insanity to think god created life as to think life was always here or spontaniously formed;

Evolutionists don't believe it always existed or spontaneously formed.

if not it may even be MORE logical to think there's a god.

A deistic god? Perhaps. But there is absolutely no reason to assume it was, say, the Christian god. If you look in the bible, there's actually reason to assume it wasn't god.

HUMANS CANNOT CREATE A ROBOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS POWERFUL AS A HUMAN ITSELF.

This is completely irrelevant, If our current understanding of evolution is accurate, then there is no reason to assume we should be able to create something so complex.

Therefore whatever created us is more powerful.

That's your opinion.

and hearts that you can put in place of a natural one... but the artificial ones only last a year or so...

No they don't.

and the creator incorporated the human body with a form of transportation, it can run, and is powered only by food on the ground, no pollution, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WE CAN'T CONQUER.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand how evolution works, because if you did, I'd expect you to realise evolution accounts for all of this.
And pollution? Um, been to the toilet lately?
The reason we don't have smoke pouring out of our asses is because we rely on chemical reactions to obtain energy from our 'fuel', not combustion.

Maybe he is smarter than you, and he doesn't want to let you know he exists, he wants you to believe,

That's stupid. And pointless. Why wouldn't he reveal himself?

because atheism is exactly what the creator told you to stay away from.

What the fuck are you talking about?

but in reality it's evil. That's what science may be.

So, evil is smart, but goodness is stupid? Wtf.

He established the laws of the world, and we figured them out. We're the students and he is not only the teacher, but he can change the laws all together, so it's like a teacher that's never wrong. He can make gravity push instead of pull, and it will be done.

Oh will it now? You're a fucking moron.

Keep in mind I'm just playing devils advocate.

No you're not you dumbfuck. You're trying to push your own bullshit views on us.

You think you're so smart, but maybe God is just laughing at you.

Don't worry, atheists and anyone with half a brain is laughing at you.

---

Your arguments don't prove anything. You just said "no you're wrong." you moron.

At 1/9/08 11:03 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/9/08 10:41 PM, T-W-I-D wrote: These are ALL STILL JUST THEORIES.

Just for a record, god is less than a theory.

God is not less than a theory? That doesn't make sense lol, our world is so weird, we just exsist, that's so fucking weird. You think you know all, and trust me i used to think that i knew just as much as you, that I knew everything, but this universe is so crazy, anything MAY be true.

The brain is the most powerful computer in history.

Haha no it's not.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_is_more_
powerful_computer_or_human_brain
http://www.s8int.com/article5-brainpower .html

So now I've proved it

You've proved nothing. That was was merely opinion.

Which brings back the reasoning to my side

is basically the same level of insanity to think god created life as to think life was always here or spontaniously formed;

Evolutionists don't believe it always existed or spontaneously formed.

They believe there must've been a point where non organic life (ie. elements) turned into organic life. Or that life was always around. One of the two.

if not it may even be MORE logical to think there's a god.

A deistic god? Perhaps. But there is absolutely no reason to assume it was, say, the Christian god. If you look in the bible, there's actually reason to assume it wasn't god.

you basically agreed with me on that one.

HUMANS CANNOT CREATE A ROBOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS POWERFUL AS A HUMAN ITSELF.

This is completely irrelevant, If our current understanding of evolution is accurate, then there is no reason to assume we should be able to create something so complex.

No this is very relevant. It shows how ridiculous it is to believe that the elements, over time, turned into life for no reason. Whatever made us, since our brains are so complex, relating back to my first point, obviously is more powerful than us, because we can't create computers as powerful as whatever created us. So there must be something higher. It's either a God that created the greatest computer ever, or the elements over time evolving into a supercomputer for no reason.

Therefore whatever created us is more powerful.

That's your opinion.

No I just proved it's kindof logical to think that actually.

and hearts that you can put in place of a natural one... but the artificial ones only last a year or so...

No they don't.

ok, you just assumed I was wrong and obviously didn't do any research.
http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com/Apg -Ban/Artificial-Heart.html
the guy survived for like 620 days.

and the creator incorporated the human body with a form of transportation, it can run, and is powered only by food on the ground, no pollution, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WE CAN'T CONQUER.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand how evolution works, because if you did, I'd expect you to realise evolution accounts for all of this.
And pollution? Um, been to the toilet lately?

Cows shit? Makes fertile soil.

The reason we don't have smoke pouring out of our asses is because we rely on chemical reactions to obtain energy from our 'fuel', not combustion.

You're a fool. I'm not saying God created us step by step, I'm saying god planted the seeds of life and set up evolution, he created natural selection, because he has worlds like ours all over the universe, and he can't watch them all at once and monitor. Why do you think there's a cosmological speed limit? The speed of light prevents us from reaching those far off planets. Maybe you're just a little ity bitty pawn in God's much larger plan.

Maybe he is smarter than you, and he doesn't want to let you know he exists, he wants you to believe,

That's stupid. And pointless. Why wouldn't he reveal himself?

Why should he? Maybe it's a test to root out true believers.

because atheism is exactly what the creator told you to stay away from.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Evil is what God tells you to stay away from. And he says the devil will be very attractive and seem the better option, but in reality it's evil. Atheist theories may seem attractive but maybe it's just a test.

but in reality it's evil. That's what science may be.

So, evil is smart, but goodness is stupid? Wtf.

"smart?" you're so naive. Look up theories like the M-Theory. Science can't explain SOOO much about the universe. It hasn't jack shit of a clue about a lot of things. The most recent theory of the universe suggests that 11 dimension may exist. 11! We only live within 4. Science lives within those 4 boundaries and we as humans can't sense anything in those other 7 dimensions. All we know is x axis, y axis, z axis, and time. Those are the only 4 dimensions we can sense. So science can NEVER find out what is going on in the other 7 because our minds just simply can not concieve it. Thats right, the only way the universe makes sense is if we don't have the capacity to know what is going on in most of it. A big blow to science right?

He established the laws of the world, and we figured them out. We're the students and he is not only the teacher, but he can change the laws all together, so it's like a teacher that's never wrong. He can make gravity push instead of pull, and it will be done.

Oh will it now? You're a fucking moron.

Who is to say you're all knowing? You're the real moron.

Keep in mind I'm just playing devils advocate.

No you're not you dumbfuck. You're trying to push your own bullshit views on us.

Once again you haven't proved me wrong once, you just said I was wrong without showing any proof at all and called me a dumbfuck. I am playing devils advocate, I'm just trying to show you that you aren't as right and smart as you think you are.

You think you're so smart, but maybe God is just laughing at you.

Don't worry, atheists and anyone with half a brain is laughing at you.

No I think i pretty much just owned you because I proved you wrong at every point there buddy.

---

At 1/10/08 05:44 PM, T-W-I-D wrote:

The brain is the most powerful computer in history.

Haha no it's not.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_is_more_
powerful_computer_or_human_brain
http://www.s8int.com/article5-brainpower .html

These links show that a brain is more powerful than a computer, but nowhere does anyone state a brain IS a computer like you do. A bear is stronger than a mouse, therefore bears are the strongest mice in history. FLAWLESS VICTORY.

The rest is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on it.

---

It's obvious that human society and it's progress is constantly reflecting the interests of ITA which is why things are that they are, the human brains complexity in terms of it's structure does not change the fact that it is impossible in the eyes of an atheist to argue that the human brain was created for something vastly more than what it's survival required of it; especially since in the eyes of an atheist there is no REASON for things to be created for REASON other than to survive and show themselfs off to those who have the intelligence to interpret it. You can't have a nonsensically designed bio-life form existing and [consequently] being observed since it would FAIL to survive and thus be destroyed.

This is why the norms of Western society must be rejected as Adamant law, and rather be looked down upon as hindrances created by disgruntled creation alliances of society.