Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/11/08 04:55 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 04:48 PM, Brick-top wrote: But there's the thing, this is why Science will always be superior to Religion because Science will always seek answers.

So does religion. Religion seeks the spiritual answers that science cannot find. What's my purpose in life? What happens when I die? How did everything come to be? Science can't find these answers, and religion is more than happy to fill in the gap for science. Science and religion don't compete, they're on the same side - the side of finding answers.

But religion does not offer any way to verify the answers, nor even test if they are correct.

I could just give you random spiritual answers, and they would be just as supported of that of all the religions combined.

It's simply a game of guessing. There is no other way to describe it. Guessing does not replace reason just because there is no evidence around. Guessing will always be flawed, no matter how open the playing field is.

At 1/11/08 04:53 PM, Drakim wrote:

So, atheism has to be the default position. People, when they are born, does not start with a belief in God. They don't even know what God means, making them completely atheistic. They do not hold a belief in God, and is therefore not theists.

When people are born, they also have no disbelief in God or a god, as they have not been presented with "there is no God" or "there is a God".

So by that logic: Agnostic would be the "default".

Man, you sure showed those evil atheist how bad they are. With our smug arguments and attitude, we sure put those suicide bombers to shame, don't we?

See what you just did?

You believe that no persons/groups/particular beliefs should be held accountable for certain people's actions.

Yet here you are. Haha, making that statement. And when someone brings up Stalin, what do you do? "Well, he didn't do it mainly for atheism", but he did kill because he believed religion brought individual thought.

Damn, inconsistant hypocrite.

they just took the same as their parents, and now believes it.

Irrelevant. As some do and some don't

At 1/11/08 04:58 PM, Drakim wrote:

But religion does not offer any way to verify the answers, nor even test if they are correct.

Spiritually, no.
Historically, yes.

I could just give you random spiritual answers, and they would be just as supported of that of all the religions combined.

See above.

It's simply a game of guessing. There is no other way to describe it. Guessing does not replace reason just because there is no evidence around. Guessing will always be flawed, no matter how open the playing field is.

See above.

You wearing a pink hat is plausible. Pink hats have been observed before. Religion postulates the existance of some superbeing that defies all logic, all physical laws and generally everything we know about the universe.

Besides, not many people will make important decisions like the morality of using a concom based on the color of your hat. Important decisions shouldn't be made based on ideas for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

At 1/11/08 04:07 PM, Grammer wrote: Many people here claim God doesn't exist, which is a conclusion. Evidence?

Atheists are just as wrong as theists. There should be no denial of that fact.

Or because you'll never figure it out. But if you can, I'll become an atheist. Until then, fuck off and let people believe what they want without idiots like you telling me what to believe.

I'm not telling you what to believe and I don't take kindly to shitheads calling me an idiot. I was merely clearing up something because you didn't seem to understand. You were suggesting that because Dawkins couldn't explain existence, his argument was weak. Which someone then excellently compared to a vegetarian, rather than atheistic beliefs, using exactly the same logic. The truth is that neither the vegetarian or the atheist should be able to tell you where the universe come from. But by not assuming the existence of a deity, they're unbias... Although, that isn't true. An atheist is just as bias as a theist. The non-bias and seemingly most logical belief is agnosticism.

To assume God doesn't exist is a conclusion without supporting evidence.

That is also true. I should have mentioned that also. I didn't because I was replying to a post in which you appeared to be missing a massive point. I'm glad you get it, though.

Also, I realise I double posted back there. I can only apologise. My browser was having a fight with Newgrounds while I had a fight with the refresh button to get it to load... Very sorry for that.

At 1/11/08 04:55 PM, Grammer wrote: So does religion. Religion seeks the spiritual answers that science cannot find. What's my purpose in life? What happens when I die? How did everything come to be? Science can't find these answers, and religion is more than happy to fill in the gap for science. Science and religion don't compete, they're on the same side - the side of finding answers.

But Religion doesn't back up it's claims. That's probably why they're "more than happy" because they give no evidence. That's why Science and Religion can't come together.

Spiritual answers? If you need moral justicification for existing then you would need Religion.

At 1/11/08 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/11/08 04:53 PM, Drakim wrote:

So, atheism has to be the default position. People, when they are born, does not start with a belief in God. They don't even know what God means, making them completely atheistic. They do not hold a belief in God, and is therefore not theists.

When people are born, they also have no disbelief in God or a god, as they have not been presented with "there is no God" or "there is a God".

Atheism is divided into two parts.

Strong atheism is the kind you speak of. It's when somebody has disbelief in God or gods.

However, weak atheism is when you simply do not have the belief. The lack of belief, not the counter-belief like strong atheism is.

Thus, it seems pretty clearly that weak atheism is the default starting position.

So by that logic: Agnostic would be the "default".

Absolutely not. You are mistaking Agnostic as neutral simply because it's in the "middle". Agnostics actually need to take the stance that "we cannot find out". That is absolutely NOT the default, you can hear that instantly.

Man, you sure showed those evil atheist how bad they are. With our smug arguments and attitude, we sure put those suicide bombers to shame, don't we?

See what you just did?

You believe that no persons/groups/particular beliefs should be held accountable for certain people's actions.

Yet here you are. Haha, making that statement. And when someone brings up Stalin, what do you do? "Well, he didn't do it mainly for atheism", but he did kill because he believed religion brought individual thought.

Damn, inconsistant hypocrite.

Haha, you completely missed that I made a joke. Nice. I'll try to limit my humor to your level in the future. LOL @ YOU MUST ALL BE GAY.

they just took the same as their parents, and now believes it.

Irrelevant. As some do and some don't

you don't even read what I'm arguing against, do you? Read the claim that the guy who I quoted said.

At 1/11/08 04:58 PM, Drakim wrote:

But religion does not offer any way to verify the answers, nor even test if they are correct.

Spiritually, no.
Historically, yes.

give me an example of an spiritual answer being verified by historical means.

Also, Grammar. You've contradicted yourself.

You say that Religion and Science are compatible, then you say Religion doesn't have to have Scientific standards when answering questions.

So, if Religion and Science have different levels of standard when answering questions how the hell can they come together?

At 1/11/08 05:11 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 04:58 PM, Drakim wrote: But religion does not offer any way to verify the answers, nor even test if they are correct.

That's because religion isn't a science. You can't think in terms that everything has to be proven.

But people are talking like religion offers an valid alternative to science in many areas. That is what the entire evolution thing is about these days!

Hey, I'm wearing a pink hat. But wait, you can't prove it scientifically, so therefore it's wrong. But what if I really am wearing a pink hat? I guess you'll never know, and you'll just believe whatever you want. I'm sure I could find some users who believe I'm wearing a pink hat, but are you going to call them illogical because they can't prove it?

We can observe the hat, and thus establish it logically and resonably very fast.

But, you can't just point to God. Even if he exists, you have to admit it's a bit hard to get ahold of him. Thus, if you are going to make claims about him, and put him in school in the form of education in "Creationism", then you need to pull out proof.

Personally, I couldn't give less of a fuck about what people believe personally. But it never works that perfectly. People try to do stupid things, and make decisions that affects everybody else because of their beliefs, and therefore I have no choice but to argue back.

The questions that religion seeks to answer, why am I here, what is my purpose in life, how did it all come to be, can not be proven any way or the other, which leads me to believe that you have some sort of problem thinking that religion tries to disprove science. They don't Conflict.

What is the evolution controversy about today? Why is creationism trying to be put in school?

YOU may not attempt to do these things, but some of your fellow Christians aren't so nice.

At 1/11/08 12:54 PM, Grammer wrote: I'm not in with that group of Christians who think God put dinosaurs on the Earth to confuse everybody, k? I follow what the mainstream scientific community says.

Well those people are wrong for even more differenter reasons. As I mentioned in the first post, I'm talking about people who think that they have any sort of evidence for the supernatural events in the bible.

If you do think there are inherent flaws in atheism, I'd like to hear them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRqu vI

Richard Dawkins vs. O Reilly

O Reilly asks Dawkins how everything came to be, how everything just came into existence. Look at his answer to that, kinda weak I might add.

How is this an inherent flaw in atheism? We don't claim to have all the answers because we don't have all of the answers. The truth is, nobody knows the real answer to that question right now, and it's presumptuous to assume that you do.

As far as I can tell, the only flaw here is that atheism is an incomplete solution, which seems appropriate given the incomplete evidence.

At 1/10/08 11:37 AM, Elfer wrote: Handsome Dan chastises them for their closed-mindedness.
Handsome Dan claims a conspiracy.

I LoL'ed on those parts cause...
there are people here on NG who are 100 percent like this.

They don't need any introductions...

Most people don't understand how fun Atheism really is.

At 1/11/08 06:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Most people don't understand how fun Atheism really is.

Sleeping in on Sundays, getting to grips with life after realizing there's nothing after death, no prayer and we can make jokes about abortion with trying to put in a hidden message.

At 1/11/08 06:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: Aand we can make jokes about abortion without trying to put in a hidden message.

Whoops. Fixed.

NO ONE QUOTE MY LAST POST!

At 1/11/08 06:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Most people don't understand how fun Atheism really is.

Sleeping in on Sundays, getting to grips with life after realizing there's nothing after death, no prayer and we can make jokes about abortion with trying to put in a hidden message.

1) Saturday mass still pwns you :P
2) You weren't intended to get to grips with death, you were intended to fight and prolong death for as long as you could possibly acheive, what's the saying 'Go down kicking and screaming'
3) Humans always need to point fingers at each other, and vest their trust in those when we are too lazy ourselfs to do so, whether it be god or your mom or the empanado.
4) Fetuses, Criminals, Disabled people, and the elderly are all worthless.

Haha grammer you're a fucking moron. You're assuming that because science doesn't have all the answers yet, that this somehow automatically makes the answers presented by religion correct.

At 1/11/08 06:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/11/08 06:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Most people don't understand how fun Atheism really is.

Sleeping in on Sundays, getting to grips with life after realizing there's nothing after death, no prayer and we can make jokes about abortion with trying to put in a hidden message.

1) Saturday mass still pwns you :P

I'll get to sleep in on a Saturday then too.

2) You weren't intended to get to grips with death, you were intended to fight and prolong death for as long as you could possibly acheive, what's the saying 'Go down kicking and screaming'

No that's what I meant. It's inevitible. So instead of waiting for eternal happiness I'm going to enjoy myself because this is all I have. And to be honest, who wants to live a very long life? I don't want to spend the last years shiting in a bag, getting treated like an involid by my family and smelling like piss.

3) Humans always need to point fingers at each other, and vest their trust in those when we are too lazy ourselfs to do so, whether it be god or your mom or the empanado.

Yeah probably.

4) Fetuses, Criminals, Disabled people, and the elderly are all worthless.

Isn't it foetus not fetus? And don't forget the dangerously unqualified lol

I found some interesting videos.

History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1)
History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 2)

And all these other videos.

At 1/10/08 08:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: If I started talking about places like Birmingham, Wellingborough or Bristol you're not going to know what the hell I'm talking about. And those two states are a better example.

Have you actually been to this so-called "Bible Belt" that you speak of, or are you merely guilty of slander against it? I've lived here all my life, and traveled frequently across the states that comprise the "Bible Belt," and I sincerely question your version of what goes on here, regardless of how fair it is.

Respect each others beliefs and opinions? If we did that this forum would have about 3 people using it.

That's my entire point. How often do you see religious individuals on here playing to the stereotype of a religious whackjob foaming at the mouth because of topics like this? Now how often do you see the exact opposite, so-called "tolerant" individuals of either an atheist or agnostic lean foaming at the mouth about how intolerant the religious people are?

At 1/11/08 08:21 PM, Proteas wrote: Have you actually been to this so-called "Bible Belt" that you speak of, or are you merely guilty of slander against it? I've lived here all my life, and traveled frequently across the states that comprise the "Bible Belt," and I sincerely question your version of what goes on here, regardless of how fair it is.

Shit, I've met more Satanists in Memphis than I have Atheists. IN MEMPHIS, THE GODDAMN BUCKLE OF THE SO CALLED "BIBLE-BELT"

Why do people assume that just because you live in a certain geographic location you're an idiot? Oh, wait, probably because they're yankees and faggot californians.

That's my entire point. How often do you see religious individuals on here playing to the stereotype of a religious whackjob foaming at the mouth because of topics like this? Now how often do you see the exact opposite, so-called "tolerant" individuals of either an atheist or agnostic lean foaming at the mouth about how intolerant the religious people are?

Damn straight. I'm so southern baptist it hurts, but you sure as fuck couldn't tell from my posting habits. I've never proselytized on here... EVER. Most english speaking people already know about christianity, and have already made their decision on it. I respect that, despite people screaming in my ear that no religious people do.

At 1/11/08 08:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/10/08 08:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: If I started talking about places like Birmingham, Wellingborough or Bristol you're not going to know what the hell I'm talking about. And those two states are a better example.

Have you actually been to this so-called "Bible Belt" that you speak of, or are you merely guilty of slander against it? I've lived here all my life, and traveled frequently across the states that comprise the "Bible Belt," and I sincerely question your version of what goes on here, regardless of how fair it is.

Yeah, of course. And I've seen a few videos on youtube about Atheists living in deeply Religious area's. Such as the states I've mentioned.

In one of them she had a huge American flag on the wall, that seemed a little extreme.

Respect each others beliefs and opinions? If we did that this forum would have about 3 people using it.

That's my entire point. How often do you see religious individuals on here playing to the stereotype of a religious whackjob foaming at the mouth because of topics like this? Now how often do you see the exact opposite, so-called "tolerant" individuals of either an atheist or agnostic lean foaming at the mouth about how intolerant the religious people are?

I'm not sure this is the most posting I've done here in over a year and I didn't use this user.

But, i'll say again. If NG was tollerent. Your job here would be over ;)

At 1/11/08 08:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/10/08 08:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: Respect each others beliefs and opinions? If we did that this forum would have about 3 people using it.

That's my entire point. How often do you see religious individuals on here playing to the stereotype of a religious whackjob foaming at the mouth because of topics like this? Now how often do you see the exact opposite, so-called "tolerant" individuals of either an atheist or agnostic lean foaming at the mouth about how intolerant the religious people are?

To be completely honest, I find the biggest assholes here Mez and Cell, and they just happens to be Christian. And it was Dre, who was also a super asshole, but then suddenly changed his worldview completely, not being a fundy Christian anymore, and became nice. We even had an interesting talk over PMs, which I never would have expected.

I'm not trying to defend atheists. In my google news, I have stuff like "intelligent design" up as a custom tab. That means, I'll get the news of anything related to intelligent design on that tab. On just about each and every article's comment section, there is a bunch of atheist/agnostics who troll and flame all the time. A lot of atheists are complete assholes.

But, that is one point most of us stress all the time. The actions of a few does not define a large group. Just because Mez is an idiot, I won't assume that all Christians on newgrounds are idiots. To do so would be completely stupid.

The absolute majority of atheists won't even talk to you about religion since it invites trouble. Heck, I doubt not even any of the atheist long term posters here on newgrounds would start a religions debate unless the situation is called for (such as being in a forum made for debate, as now).

On an unrelated sidenote, I hate when the argument is turned. When I put out a real problem with a group, and it's blamed on a few individuals, almost like scrape goats. Things like discrimination, it isn't something a few few Christians have been handling bad. It's something Christianity itself has been terrible with for along time, and Christians need to work for this to improve.

At 1/11/08 08:35 PM, Brick-top wrote:

But, i'll say again. If NG was tollerent. Your job here would be over ;)

If people practiced what they preached, then I would roll over in joy.

At 1/11/08 08:35 PM, Grammer wrote: Science doesn't have all the answers, and it's impossible for it to have all the answers. Science will tell me why the apple tastes good, but it won't tell me why the apple exists.

It doesn't mean God put it here, which time and time again you have advocated.

At 1/11/08 08:35 PM, Grammer wrote: See, this is why atheists like you, Drakim, and others are absolutely pathetic excuses for people who supposedly follow science. If you knew anything about science (which you and Drakim apparently don't)

Follow science? I think that is part of the problem. Simply by supporting basic biology, I'm often labeled as an "evolutionist", which sounds like some kind of cult.

I'm not crazy in love with science. I think it's awesome in the same way I think good books are awesome. If somebody started criticizing one of my favorite books over things that simply isn't true, I would defend it equally as I do science now. It's nothing special really.

it's that science answers the "How", and religion/philosophy answers the "why".

That is a very childish and shallow way to look at it. Tell me, what eternal power made it this way? God himself? Science is used for "How" simply because we use it in our everyday lives. Right now, you are living in a live of scientific thigns, surrounded by constant products of science. In lack of better words, science has "earned" it's spot. And equally, if we stop using it, it will lose that spot.

Religion, and even Philosophy however, is given a free ride. If somebody has faith about something, and I have evidence about something, then why does his faith overule me when it comes to the "why"? What set that rule?

As I see it, the "Why" it still quite open since we pose no real way of dealing with it. We simply don't have a real way yet, and instead of admitting it, we start making bullshit up. Somehow, you can "feel" that something is true. Never mind that people "feel" they are Napoleon with all their heart, for somehow, you "feel" that this "feeling" is correct.

Science doesn't have all the answers, and it's impossible for it to have all the answers. Science will tell me why the apple tastes good, but it won't tell me why the apple exists.

But the lack of answers in science does not mean that other options are more likely. It's true that science lacks the power to answer why, and I personally think it never will, but that does not make the answer of religion of philosophy one inch more likely.

At 1/11/08 08:35 PM, Brick-top wrote: Yeah, of course.

So where exactly is all this Jesus talk I'm supposed to be hearing? Why is it that I am just now hearing about this saturation of religious value in the media of the Bible Belt from someone in the U.K. when I myself have never once viewed it in my entire life?

And I've seen a few videos on youtube about Atheists living in deeply Religious area's. Such as the states I've mentioned.

15% of adults polled in 2001 identified themselves as atheists. Out of 360 Million people, that's right around 54 million. So tell me... why the hell does it surprise you that atheists would live in the Bible Belt?

In one of them she had a huge American flag on the wall, that seemed a little extreme.

.... and that has what to do with this topic?

At 1/11/08 08:35 PM, Grammer wrote: Science doesn't have all the answers, and it's impossible for it to have all the answers. Science will tell me why the apple tastes good, but it won't tell me why the apple exists.

But there's the thing, you're not talking about Science. You're talking about spirituality. You're talking about moral justification and having an emotional crutch.

And to be honest, do we even need the why? Does it even matter? Do we even need a specific purpose for existing?

At 1/11/08 08:48 PM, Proteas wrote: 15% of adults polled in 2001 identified themselves as atheists. Out of 360 Million people, that's right around 54 million.

360 Million? Are we talking about the US?

At 1/11/08 08:48 PM, Brick-top wrote:

And to be honest, do we even need the why? Does it even matter? Do we even need a specific purpose for existing?

Congradulations. You finally figured out what he was saying... I think.

I can never tell if you ever understand that much.

At 1/11/08 08:35 PM, Grammer wrote: Haha SadisticMonkey you're a fucking moron. You're assuming that because science has helped us find some answers that they'll be able to figure out questions that science never can.

Also, I never said that. Who are you or I to say what science will/won't find out?

At 1/11/08 08:55 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Also, I never said that. Who are you or I to say what science will/won't find out?

You tell us.

How will science itself ever disprove some sort of higher being?

Besides, you're one to talk considering all of the pointless religion threads you keep making to needlessly make people angry.

At 1/11/08 08:53 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 360 Million? Are we talking about the US?

Okay, so it's 303 million, which equals out to 45 million atheists. My question still stands.

*scratches head*

where did I get 360 from?