Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Lies or no, I like Saddam where he is - in Hell, instead of gassing Kurds and torturing dissidents

---

At 1/23/08 01:10 AM, dySWN wrote: Lies or no, I like Saddam where he is - in Hell, instead of gassing Kurds and torturing dissidents

Whoops, wrong thread.

---

At 1/23/08 01:04 AM, Memorize wrote: Truth is (since i'm assuming you're pertaining to the Bible): It says nothing about the earth literally being the center of the universe, or even flat.

there are some small bits that allude to the earth being flat, centre of the universe and not rotating, but generally they are single sentences for each and seem to serve more of a poetic purpose than actually making statements.

---

At 1/23/08 01:04 AM, Musician wrote: Why not just have an Official Politics Thread? I mean, that way we wont even have to have separate threads anymore, we can just all post in one topic! And every time someone has something interesting or original to say and decides to create a new topic, we can just lock it and direct them here, where their post will get nowhere near as much attention.

Woot! Woot!

Somebody who understands me and my arguments completely.

I feel loved. :'D

---

Just a quick and final warning:

Anyone complaining about the existence of this thread from here on out WILL BE BANNED!

This is a private forum and the mod and administration team are allowed to make whatever changes to policy they deem necessary to ensure the forum runs smoothly. This isn't a democracy and bitching about the existence of this thread in this thread or any others will be treated as spam and banned as such. If you don't like it, you can PM me, another mod, or anyone else with authority you feel needs to be contacted. Do not derail this thread with complaining that will frankly be ignored.

This warning takes effect immediately after being posted. Thank you, sorry to interrupt the discussion of those this warning dosen't apply to.

---

cba seeing if anyone has made the same comment but the thread should really be called 'secularists versus religious dogma'. There are plenty of agnostics and desits and people with personal belief systems (and Buddhists apparently too) who have major issues with dogmatic religion. Maybe 'is religion harmful' would be better.

The subject of God is completely irrelevant to the question and all of my political viewpoints, and maybe should be isolated in another thread, like 'The God Thread'.

These kinds of policies are hella lame anyway. The BBS got less entertaining thanks to the 'official video thread'. Am I the only person who thinks, if you don't want to discuss religion, then avoid the threads? There was never an 'official IWP discussion thread'.

You don't have to marginalise the debate. These kinds of projects are always retarded. I would like to think that at least one mod in the mod lounge agrees with me and has argued the same.

---

At 1/23/08 03:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Anyone complaining about the existence of this thread from here on out WILL BE BANNED!

rofl oops

it's still retarded

---

since I'm already in up to my neck, this thread is inevitably going to be a trainwreck, it seems rather unpopular and unwanted by the people who actually visit this site and provide revenue for it, and the title really couldn't be worse.

Like what's the big deal with the topic of religion - banned from the General Forum and now basically banned from politics - just allow it back in fucking General if the slow-moving Politics forum seems overloaded with religion threads.

---

I have a feeling earfetish will get a ban. Call it a hunch.

So, anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Can anyone provide me with any real criticism against atheism? I'm actually quite interested, because all the criticism I see tends to be criticism against science, naturalism and nillisism, which despite some people's opinions, is NOT the same as atheism, nor is it required in any way for atheism. It is merely common for a person to hold those stances together, but that doesn't make them the very same stance, or even linked stances. It's just how being a Christian doesn't automatically make you republican. Nor can you criticize Christianity for republican issues. (or vice versa)

---

Just a question on what are the limits of this topic? The title is not very specific. Does this topic include ID vs. Creationism vs. Evolution debates? I know the subject has already come up in thread, but technically you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, and evolution debates could be completely distinct from atheism vs theism debates. What about debates about the details of evolution, in a strictly scientific manner? Can you make topics about the Big Bang, or will they be redirected here? Or science threads in general?

Another problem is that religious views are bound to emerge in topics about abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, terrorism etc. and some of them can take an entirely religious flavor. It would be good to know to what extent we are allowed to talk about religion (and science) in other threads.

I know that whiners will be banned, but I will try to express my criticism constructively. To me, this topic seems way too large and generic to fit into one thread. If anything, it needs its own forum, or at the very least, several threads dedicated to different aspects of the debate.

---

I think that there should be no debate about Atheism vs Religion because everyone in the world should be able to belive in their own religion, belief etc without any harm coming to themselves or to others. All religions are in the right and wrong about all of the worlds problems from gay marriages to terrorism its just down to whether or not that person or group fell that their faith they believe in is working for them and people who are affected by their beliefe.
If people believe in something that may cause physical or mental harm the themselves or others such as the Islamic extremists who attacked America on 9/11 then their belief is wrong for themselves and the world. If a Buddhist meditates for enlightenment for themselves but leaves everyone else peacefully alone than their belief is right for them.
So I am, I guess, a form of Atheism in where I believe in the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin and that there is more than one "God" or spiritual being that created the earth. If any country for religious purposes i.e. Communist Chian invading Buddhist Tibet, invades another country thant they are in the wrong and their religion.

---

At 1/23/08 07:10 AM, Acidicnerd wrote: I think that there should be no debate about Atheism vs Religion because everyone in the world should be able to belive in their own religion, belief etc without any harm coming to themselves or to others. All religions are in the right and wrong about all of the worlds problems from gay marriages to terrorism its just down to whether or not that person or group fell that their faith they believe in is working for them and people who are affected by their beliefe.

So, you are saying these things are above criticism. Great.

How do you think society should hinder the free speech about atheism vs religion? An amendment in the patriot act perhaps?

If people believe in something that may cause physical or mental harm the themselves or others such as the Islamic extremists who attacked America on 9/11 then their belief is wrong for themselves and the world. If a Buddhist meditates for enlightenment for themselves but leaves everyone else peacefully alone than their belief is right for them.

It just so happens that religion is interwined with a LOT of things, including, but not limited to, politics, tradition, marriage, science and education. All these have hot issues, which religion is a large part of. Are we to just ignore this? When religious people wants evolution banned from school, are we to sit back and allow them because we shouldn't debate religion?

Search around, and try to find one single topic which addresses the religious people who has their fatih completely private. You'll see that what you ask for is already true.

So I am, I guess, a form of Atheism in where I believe in the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin and that there is more than one "God" or spiritual being that created the earth. If any country for religious purposes i.e. Communist Chian invading Buddhist Tibet, invades another country thant they are in the wrong and their religion.

...what?

Just to inform you sonny, you can't be an atheist and believe in Gods. It's like being an vegetarian and eating meat, or a pro-lifer who supports abortion. It's a contradiction.

---

At 1/23/08 08:49 AM, Grammer wrote: I think as long as what people doesn't conflict with common sense and modern science, they can believe whatever they want. But that's just me.

Exactly. And that is why religion should be held seperate from everything else. It doesn't matter if you really really believe that elves will reward you with large pots of invisible gold if you kill a baby, as long as you don't act on it, and don't make actual real world decisions based on that belief.

God might really exist, Xenu might really exist, or elves might really reward babyslaughter, there's no way to know. But it is clear that we shouldn't make decisions on what might or might not be true with no other basis. Which is why most civilized countries are secular.

That doesn't change the fact that we can agree that the elf-babyslaughter belief is a rather sick and twisted belief to have. So I dispute that beliefs are just something like colors, that you can't debate about.

---

At 1/23/08 08:49 AM, Grammer wrote: Okay okay, I take that back, you're not that stupid... in fact, not at all. You're a pretty smart atheist.

The benifits of The discovery channel and lots and lots of gin.

---

At 1/23/08 01:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/23/08 09:21 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 1/23/08 08:49 AM, Grammer wrote: I think as long as what people doesn't conflict with common sense and modern science, they can believe whatever they want. But that's just me.

Exactly. And that is why religion should be held seperate from everything else. It doesn't matter if you really really believe that elves will reward you with large pots of invisible gold if you kill a baby, as long as you don't act on it, and don't make actual real world decisions based on that belief.

No, if I want to say abortion is wrong because God says so, there's nothing wrong with that.

That's just a really cheap cop-out if you ask me. There are plenty of reasons to disapprove of abortion besides "an invisible man in the sky told me so".

This is exactly what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread. Why don't you grow a pair of balls and make up your own damn mind and stand for what you believe in, no matter what some hypothetical supreme ruler might think about of it.

---

At 1/23/08 01:41 PM, Grammer wrote: No, if I want to say abortion is wrong because God says so, there's nothing wrong with that.

Okay. If I want to say we should all randomly kill babies for shits and giggles because invisible elves say so, there's nothing wrong with that. Or if I say that doctors are abominations unto Nuggan, because people that get sick were clearly targetted by God and are hence supposed to die, there's nothing wrong with that?

Which is why most civilized countries are secular.

America is a nation founded mostly on Christian morals

No actually, it's goblin morals. It says in the book of Gob that we should love our fellow man and not go on killing sprees, so that means this is a goblin morality. Taking morals from somewhere else doesn't make it "your" morals. I'd be very interested to see what concrete "Christian" morals America was founded on, that weren't already present in far older religions or societies.

That doesn't change the fact that we can agree that the elf-babyslaughter belief is a rather sick and twisted belief to have. So I dispute that beliefs are just something like colors, that you can't debate about.

How are you going to debate one way or the other on God? How can you prove anything? It is exactly like debating colors, because there's never a winner. No one can prove anything.

So if I make up a God on the spot right now, you don't think that you can debate my mock religion? How is your religion worth anything, if it's equal to any mock invention anyone can come up with? Of course you can debate on God. If you call lightning a God while clearly we know that lightning is just a physical phenomenon, it's obvious that that God is inferior to a God that has been observed 2000 years ago, and has had people write about His accomplishments.

There's never a winner, and no one can prove anything. But just like in murder trials, we can offer enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, even if noone actually witnessed the murder. And based on that we can punish the one responsible. Even if we will never be 100% certain.

---

At 1/23/08 03:18 PM, Grammer wrote: I could vote for John Edwards because I think he has nice hair. What, who's gonna stop me?

And quite frankly, who would blame you? ;)

So pretty....

This is exactly what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread. Why don't you grow a pair of balls and make up your own damn mind and stand for what you believe in,

I believe, in God, and I follow his laws. I'm not surrendering what I believe to God.

Well, you're obviously not following ALL of God's laws, or you'd probably be in jail right now. Some of the laws outlined in the bible are not followed by that many Christians nowdays, but who are you to question the word of God? Who are you to decide which rules to follow and which ones to ignore?

---

At 1/23/08 03:40 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Who are you to decide which rules to follow and which ones to ignore?

Jesus felt like revising them.

---

The purpose of the thread is really to keep the arguements of like "atheism is correct" vs. "belief in God(s) is correct" in one place. Because it seems to me and others that we have way too many disparate threads where people are arguing why one side is ultimately correct, and it just seems to me that any reasonably intelligent person is going to say "why would we need fifty threads to discuss this point?"

Abortion, evolution, any other religious type issue to me is fine to discuss elsewhere, since that hasn't monopolized the forum to such a ridiculous degree as the atehists vs. religious people debates have. Everyone who's saying that lumping the issues I just mentioned into a thread like this is too unwieldy is right and I agree. That's why I was only trying to pick out the biggest issue there's a feeling among regulars and moderators that's the issue here, and corralling that, instead of doing something insane, dumb, and unworkable like calling it "the religion thread". If we were looking to move all religious topics out of Politics, I'd be among the first people to say you'd have to make an all new forum for that.

---

At 1/24/08 01:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: If we were looking to move all religious topics out of Politics, I'd be among the first people to say you'd have to make an all new forum for that.

That's what I've been saying. Make another forum about Religion and Religious related topics. Because I don't think Religion is totally connected with politics anyway regardless of it's influences in political dicisions.

No one listens to genius lol

---

I want to publicly state that I have nothing to do with this 8-)

Now let's make tons of agnostism vs voodoo threads. GO!

---

And also that I believe "official" topics are retarded when it comes to a debate matter because a debate is a person vs person scenario, not some giant ongoing conversation in which any douche can butt in randomly to give some input.

Might seem hypocritical of me to say this since I one re-made the official image gallery and I currently have the official video thread going, but those are extremely clear.

Anyways, banning people for complaining politely is just extra icing on the turd guys, do you wonder why people hate the mods some times? :O

I love talking about religion, I love the debates that rise from it and I think they're hilarious. Making an official Bush thread was probably a mistake but I didn't say anything back then because I don't give a shit about it and I wasn't there that much.

anyone can feel free to PM me to vent or talk or whatever.
======================

well, back on topic:

---

Pox does what no man could ever possily hope to do.

If there is a God, I hope that you are He, sir. *tips hat*

;

---

1. "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." ([22], p.19)

"The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

a. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between them are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

b. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

c. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminefera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997c).

d. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite, Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972, 1974).

e. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

f. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continous record of almost two million years, which includes a record of a speciation event (K. R. Miller 1999, 44-45).

g. Lake Turkana mollusk species (Lewin 1981).

h. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (T. M. Cronin 1985).

i. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

j. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about thirteen million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Backwelder 1975).

k. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968)."

continued below

2. "Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)

"The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders and classes:

...

c. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marin snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossils shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake related with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

d. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some othre skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; M.S.T. Lee et al.1999; Tchernov et al. 2000)."

also, see above.

3. "If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)

see above. (theres more in the book but retyping is driving me nuts)

4. There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.

see above or in book.

5. "All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)

without more specifications this point is difficult to answer, creationists enjoy these types of statements. once again, cahnces are the fossils are simply being ignored.

6. "There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)

the same lie once again. points 7-10 consist of the same statement.

11. "The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." ([18], p.33-34)

"1. Archaeopteryx is defined to be a bird (technically, an avialan). However it had many more dinosaurian traits than bird traits. Its main bird traits are

- long external nostrils

- quadrate and quadratojugal (two jaw bones) not sutured together

- palatine bones that have three extensions

- all teeth lacking serrations

- large lateral furrows in top rear body of vertebrae

Other birdlike traits of Archaeopteryx are found also on several non-avian dinosaurs. These traits include feathers, a furcula (wishbone) fused at the midline, and a pubis elongated and directed backward. The birdlike hallux (toe) attributed to Archaeopteryx may be an error due to poor preservation (Middleton 2002).
Dinosaurian traits include the following:

- no bill

- teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones

- nasal opening far forward, seperated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)

- neck attached to skull from the rear

- center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets

- long bony tail; no pygostyle

- ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum

- sacrum that occupies six vertebrae

- small thoracic girdle

- metacapals free (except third metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible

- claws on three unfused digits

- pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details

- bones of pelvis unfused

and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002a; Norell and Clarke 2001).
In addition, Archaeopteryx was intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds in the shape of the coracoid and humerus bones and the brain (Elzanowski 2002; Nedin 1999)."

12 is much like 1-10.

13. "Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."

as demonstrated above, the said lack of evidence is lacking.
macroevolution is a term not a theory, and at no point is there any mention of sudden change without transition.

---

forgot to mention that all my quotes come from The Counter-Creationism Handbook.

14 is based on the inexistant lack of transitional fossils.

15. The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time." ([11], p.57)

it would be nice if they could explain how so. since there is, as demostrated above, no problem with the support provided by fossils, i don't understand how the "problem" could be getting worst since fossils continue to be found.

there are many more pages of supposed evidence against evolution, but i'm done for now and from what i see on the top of page two, its an even fancier load of bullshit. for one they use the term "kind". unfortunatley creationists us this term to describe many different things from species to genera, and much more. so until they can use well defined scientific terms i find it hard to see why anyone would consider their views to be science or even science related.

it would appear that Mark Isaak's book is online and i just wasted my time typing all that.

---

I don't know who you're replying to, but that person sure got destroyed.

Anyways, it's funny how no scientists argue evolution, but then tons of self-proclaimed experts latch onto the same lies over and over again to bash their way through phantom arguments about how it's ok to ban gays from churches and/or marry your cousins.

Also I'm pretty sure creationists think the "missing link" if actually a half-man, half-monkey mutant. Like, his torso is a dude and he's got little monkey legs and a tail and eats bananas one week and at Olive Gardens the next.

---

At 1/26/08 11:21 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't know who you're replying to, but that person sure got destroyed.

Memorize had made mention of his doubts about evolution (though he made it clear he did not believe in creationism) and provided some links both to explain his doubts as well as point out some inconsitencies (the inconsitencies were dealt with in a previous post) within evolution.
the two posts were in response to this link which i said i would get back to whenever i could.

---

I'm an agnostic, I'm not atheist OR deity worshiping. I'll decide when I die.

---

At 1/27/08 01:24 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

Memorize had made mention of his doubts about evolution (though he made it clear he did not believe in creationism) and provided some links both to explain his doubts as well as point out some inconsitencies (the inconsitencies were dealt with in a previous post) within evolution.
the two posts were in response to this link which i said i would get back to whenever i could.

You didn't have to reply to it. Heh, I was looking at it on my own. I just brought it up because I like his/her objective point of view (which, in my opinion, is lacking in a lot of areas).

I just wish we had that same amount of objectivity and criticism as previous, famous evolutionists had decades ago. Basically, I wish people (the religious as well) had that mentality. But as time goes on, the next generation will lose it and instead of following the evidence, they'll instead just look for anything that would remotely prove "their" point.

People should always question their work. Scientists and the religious community. They should study and research, but they don't and most never will.

Many religious people have been wrong many times. Scientists have also been wrong many times. What we know now could just as well change decades from now. As stated, there was a relatively famous fossil that took over 30 years to figure out what it actually was. That's why i'm not going to waste my time listening to any of them (religious and non-religious) when their "best" isn't necessarily "good", especially when they've lost their criticism.

I'm a religious guy. I go to church every Sunday. But I don't believe in Holy Water, Exorcisms... or placing a hand on someone's head and "healing" them. I think it's absurd to think that when taking communion, the bread and wine turn into Jesus' actual flesh and blood (um... ew...).

It's just that when it comes to this particular subject of evolution; I think there are too many holes to fill before coming out and saying "this is how it is... mostly". Fossil records not matching up. Sudden massive amounts of differing species within the next fossil layer. Some of them being completely out of place.

That and i've gotten different terms from my science teachers as well as from science magazines. Sol here said that Macro-Evolution is just a term. But i've read that, and how it's an actual theory (from my biology teachers through high school anyway).

And Pox. Don't think i'm ever going to give a shit about what you say. Haha, I certainly could care less about your little mod-ship. At least you give me something to laugh at.

---

At 1/27/08 01:53 AM, Memorize wrote:

Many religious people have been wrong many times.

Religions are not allowed to be wrong.
That's they whole fucking point, that you trust them. If they go and admit they were wrong, that completely shatters any sort of credence to their organization.

Of course, religions being based on nothing, are wrong all the time about tons of shit, so this happens a lot.

Science, on the other hand, is allowed to be wrong as many times as it wants.

And Pox. Don't think i'm ever going to give a shit about what you say. Haha, I certainly could care less about your little mod-ship. At least you give me something to laugh at.

lol, what did I do now?
And clearly you care about my modship for some reason. Or else, why bring it up?
I didn't.