Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/11/08 08:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

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?

I'm just going to let this cute girl say everything for me. She sounds stupid but I'm not wasting my time.

And I went to Florida, disney down south, Religion up above. We treked around the place.

Besides, everyone knows the south east is the bible belt and the deeply religious part of the US.

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?

Just making conversation and adding to the post.

At 1/11/08 08:57 PM, Memorize wrote: How will science itself ever disprove some sort of higher being?

I said what Science will find out, not disprove.

At 1/11/08 07:46 PM, Brick-top wrote:

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.

'Enjoy myself'

Do you know how truly depressing that is...

I'm going to take in as much stimulus as possible before i cease to exist because that was how i was programmed to think.

Humans are slaves to god, the creator, and they are also slaves to evolution, the creator; and both cases are highly unsettling.

At 1/11/08 09:34 PM, Grammer wrote:

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

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.

WRONG. I'm talking about why we're here, what's our purpose, how everything came to be. These are philosophical questions which can be answered one of two ways:

1.) Philosophically
2.) Religiously

I'll tell you how everything came into being, this and this and this shows the origins of life.

And to be honest, do we even need the why?

You supposedly follow science because you want to know the answers. Is it wrong to take a path that picks up where science leads off?

So you're basically saying it's filling in the blanks regardless of their credibility? That's definatly scientific.

At 1/11/08 09:46 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Humans are slaves to god, the creator, and they are also slaves to evolution, the creator; and both cases are highly unsettling.

How are we slaves to evolution?

At 1/11/08 10:59 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/11/08 09:46 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Humans are slaves to god, the creator, and they are also slaves to evolution, the creator; and both cases are highly unsettling.

How are we slaves to evolution?

Nature is your God.

At 1/11/08 10:17 PM, Brick-top wrote:

I'll tell you how everything came into being, this and this and this shows the origins of life.

Oh look. Brick-Top can search YouTube. I think he's come a pretty long way. Let's give him a big round of applause.

Hey look, I can search YouTube as well.

At 1/11/08 11:29 PM, Memorize wrrote:

Hey look, I can search YouTube as well.

So you try and refute those 3 videos with another video about 9/11?

Correct me if I'm wrong but.....you're a fucking idiot.

At 1/11/08 10:59 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/11/08 09:46 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Humans are slaves to god, the creator, and they are also slaves to evolution, the creator; and both cases are highly unsettling.

How are we slaves to evolution?

You are bound to behave in manners which are self oriented, constantly at competition with your fellow specie; which is great for you when you are the only one doing it...

Unfortunately that is not the case. It's like being born in the colluseum [sp] of Rome, you might enjoy the endless battles, but you will lose; inevitably, and thus ending your fruitless fight for survival. You'd have to have a seriously easy going life to not see this.

At 1/11/08 09:31 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 08:46 PM, Drakim wrote: 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.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Well, it's not very plesant, since science, when it comes to my whole life, is a pretty minor issue.

Would you like to be labeled a money-ist simply because you use money? Meat-ist because you eat meat? Those terms really tells nothing about you.

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.

It's only childish to you because that view forces you to think that we science and religion can co-exist peacefully, which apparently gets your panties in a bunch.

No, it's childish not because science and religion can co-exist peacefully, I think that is perfectly okay if it's doable. What I think is childish is that it's assigned like some divine order of things. No explanation about it, it's just the way it is. Which sounds like the explanation you would give a child. It's just the way it is.

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.

But science can't give me the "why". Religion does.

Science and religion has equal solving power in the terms of "why". Both have absolutely zero. However, there is a large difference yet. Religion still attempts to answer, despite this lack of power to do it, while science doesn't even attempt. But that, in my view, does not make the answer of religion likely. It's more like the dumb father who makes up shit when his child asks hard questions, instead of admitting that he doesn't know.

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?

I don't believe in anything that contradicts any evidence you can put before me.

But that is the problem. There is no evidence for they "why" at all. None.

Thus, the "Why" question has turned into a game of guessing, and somehow people think that is okay.

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.

I hate it how you use the word "yet". Science will never be able to tell me why I'm here, how everything started, or what my life purpose is. To equate religion with "making bullshit up" is bigoted, and really shows howo much disrespect you have for opposing viewpoints.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that this "yet" was for science. In fact, I tried to make a point of that. When I say "We simply don't have a real way yet" I mean exactly that. We don't have a way. I did absolutely not say "Science hasn't come that far yet".

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.

Concerning why we're here, science doesn't have an answer period, so it's not even factored into the equation. What "other options"? Religion or philosophy are your only two pathways in contemplating these answers.

No, they are just as out in the dark as science, as they have nothing to back up their ideas with. It's wild guessing. Science could do wild guesses too, but there would be no point in it.

Look, I could give you another answer into the equation, and now you suddenly have religion, philosophy and Drakim's answer. You have absolutely no way to verify which one is right, so you either pick one at random, or pick the one that you like best (wish thinking).

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.

Well, that's perfectly fine if you want to believe them, but I believe you're wrong.

Put this problem in ANY other example and you'll see how flawed it would be to assume that because X is wrong, Y is more likely.

At 1/11/08 09:04 PM, Brick-top wrote: I'm just going to let this cute girl say everything for me. She sounds stupid but I'm not wasting my time.

If you're not going to waste your time making your own argument, then I'm not going to waste an hour of my time downloading that movie to watch it. Whatever point you intended to make has been rendered void by sheer fact that you're a lazy bastard.

And I went to Florida, disney down south, Religion up above. We treked around the place.

Biased Sample. Florida is not typically included as part of the Bible Belt, it's in its own little world culturally due to the fact that it's a popular vacation destination for people.

Just making conversation and adding to the post.

A point that added nothing to the topic.

At 1/12/08 08:59 AM, Brick-top wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but.....you're a fucking idiot.

What he's saying is that ANYBODY can post what they want on youtube and have it taken as Gospel. Lonelygirl15, anyone?

But of course, far be it from us to point out a flaw in using youtube as a trusted source of information.

At 1/12/08 08:46 PM, Proteas wrote: What he's saying is that ANYBODY can post what they want on youtube and have it taken as Gospel. Lonelygirl15, anyone?

ANYONE can post ANYTHING on the INTERNET not just youtube. Every single website is potentially inacurate. And saying Youtube is an unreliable source then you're basically saying that EVERY website is unreliable.

But the guy in those videos I posted showed what he was saying. You try and refute it.

At 1/12/08 08:52 PM, Brick-top wrote: And saying Youtube is an unreliable source then you're basically saying that EVERY website is unreliable.

Package Deal Fallacy (if one internet site can't be trusted, none of them can by default). Youtube is an entertainment website that is not intended to be used for academic purposes and has no peer review system in place to ensure that the points brought up are in fact the truth.

But the guy in those videos I posted showed what he was saying. You try and refute it.

I'm on dial-up, I'm not waiting an hour to load some movie that somehow "proves" a point you yourself are not willing to actually argue or defend on here. So either humor me and make your own argument, or shut up already.

At 1/12/08 09:08 PM, Proteas wrote: Package Deal Fallacy

My bad, it's actually Destroying the Exception.

At 1/12/08 09:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

My bad, it's actually Destroying the Exception.

Wah but Wikipedia is unreliable do you automatically fail.

At 1/12/08 09:41 PM, HaloKing336 wrote: Wah but Wikipedia is unreliable do you automatically fail.

I've already addressed this. But just for you my trolling alt account friend, here's three different site detailing the logical fallacies I just sited; Biased Sample and Accident fallacy on Fallacy Files and False Dilemma on Nizkor.

At 1/12/08 10:12 PM, Proteas wrote: I've already addressed this. But just for you my trolling alt account friend, here's three different site detailing the logical fallacies I just sited; Biased Sample and Accident fallacy on Fallacy Files and False Dilemma on Nizkor.

Awww, c'mon. Don't fall back on those damned fallacies!

Prove him wrong using your skills, not, "OMGZ falliciez u r wrong!"

At 1/12/08 10:23 PM, Christopherr wrote: Prove him wrong using your skills, not, "OMGZ falliciez u r wrong!"

... are we reading the same topic? Because it seems to me as though I've already addressed several of his points without bringing up the fallacies he has committed.

And besides that, in a debate, a fallacious argument is one that is based on erroneous logic and has no merit. Either he can refine his point or he can concede that he doesn't have the foggiest clue what he's talking about. At this point he can either refine his points, or concede them.

At 1/12/08 10:42 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/12/08 10:23 PM, Christopherr wrote: Prove him wrong using your skills, not, "OMGZ falliciez u r wrong!"

... are we reading the same topic? Because it seems to me as though I've already addressed several of his points without bringing up the fallacies he has committed.

... Then why are you even bothering with quoting fallacies?

And besides that, in a debate, a fallacious argument is one that is based on erroneous logic and has no merit. Either he can refine his point or he can concede that he doesn't have the foggiest clue what he's talking about. At this point he can either refine his points, or concede them.

It's always easy to see any argument as "fallacious" when you don't agree with it, so you're going to be the only person agreeing with yourself a lot of the time.