Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/6/08 12:08 AM, Brick-top wrote:

I demand a rewrite!

Because they aren't making the same mistake as Every other religion; in caring about what it said or why it is said.

At 2/11/08 03:57 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/11/08 03:44 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

Then wouldn't it make more sense that the vast majority of people like these instead of the vast, VAST minority?

It sort of is what you grow up with. People used to drink Moxie for Christs sake!
(it isnt bad, its just that awful aftertast)

I knew you'd run straight for that argument.

You set me up!, but you diddnt perdict my little alchohol or moxie bit did ya?

Don't you think it would have evolved in many more places if God made it so all the water was clean?

Wheres the fun in that? We have to have problems to make progress.

God lets us make our own choices

I can't choose that chocolate tastes good and I can't choose that it is bad for me. I can choose to not eat it, but why would he make it so delicious?

Only if your a pig and eat too much, isnt that a lesson to be learned?

Ah, I see you coming already:

Im coming all over

"because he wants to tempt you and test you!"

He wants us to make our own choices, thats what makes us uniqe and different people.

So then why also make good food that tastes great? Wouldn't that be "too easy" for us? Oranges are delicious, all humans like oranges. There is no particular challenge in getting them and eating them and they taste good.

It takes time and energy to grow them instead of stealing them or finding a wild orange tree.
Do you know how long it takes to grow a tree?

Im glad oranges exsist, I like oranges, but I hate the pulp in the Juice, have you ever had a blood orange? They give you free oranges if you visit florada you know.

At 2/11/08 04:18 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 2/6/08 12:08 AM, Brick-top wrote:

I demand a rewrite!

Because they aren't making the same mistake as Every other religion; in caring about what it said or why it is said.

It doesn't matter now. No regular brit says it anyway or even know it exists.

At 2/11/08 04:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

It sort of is what you grow up with.

No, it's a well documented fact that kids love fruits and chocolate as soon as you feed it to them for the first time, and yet they have an aversion towards vegetables and liver and many other great healthy things.
What adults like may be based on their habits, but kids don't have habits the first time they eat solid food.. obviously.

Wheres the fun in that? We have to have problems to make progress.

Ok so it's fun that people die because of contaminated water? I guess it's also a lot of fun when a kid falls into a pool and drowns. That's a great challenge for their parents, weee. Hey maybe you'd like to go blind, you'd have the time of your life struggling to cope with your handicap.

Where do you get this notion that it's better for us to all die of diseases like cancer and HIV just so that it motivates us to find a cure for it? That's insane.

Only if your a pig and eat too much, isnt that a lesson to be learned?

Ok first off, everything is a "lesson".
Second off, if he wanted to really give me choices, wouldn't all the foods be equal in some way?

He gave some foods both great taste and great health benefits. You just have to look to seafood, fish and fruits for that.
And yet he gave other completely unhealthy foods a great taste. It seems he's clearly trying to force us to eat one kind of food here, otherwise all food would he valued equally for their taste and their nutrients and we could then make our choice of which ones we like best with no detriment to our health.

Does that not sound like a much better system that would still allow you all the choice in the world to eat whatever you wish?

It takes time and energy to grow them instead of stealing them or finding a wild orange tree.
Do you know how long it takes to grow a tree?

The first humans would have found oranges in the wild. It was much easier to get an orange than to make chocolate. And yet we do both based on taste, wasting a lot of precious energy to make something that is delicious yet detrimental to our survival like Mr Big. bars when orange grooves are far easier to maintain and harvest, as evidenced by the price of oranges vs the price of chocolate.

Of course once again you're going to say things like "well that's the fun, God gives us the choice and there you go, there's purpose in the chocolate we have to spend effort to enjoy the taste blabla".

Truth be told, it is quite evident that this philosophy on god would work in any kind of world I could think of. It could be applied to a world where rain was replaced by mercury, making life impossibly hard for humans, and you would say "well that's the challenge, it's good for us" and yet now you would make a claim such as "see how the rain refreshes us, that's his great plan to save people from drought".

anyways you're just a kid and I was just bored, I know this is flying straight over your head, as it does people far more educated and older than you, though I surely would like to know why...

At 2/11/08 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote: No, it's a well documented fact that kids love fruits and chocolate as soon as you feed it to them for the first time, and yet they have an aversion towards vegetables and liver and many other great healthy things.

Oh, I guess thats just how we are wired, sugar in things like fruit are very important, so I guess your body is fooled into thinking chocolate is good for you because of the sugar, Cocolate was invented by the aztecs and it hade no added sugar, so it was extreamly bitter.

I guess thats why there are things that tast bad that are healthy.

Ok so it's fun that people die because of contaminated water? I guess it's also a lot of fun when a kid falls into a pool and drowns. That's a great challenge for their parents, weee. Hey maybe you'd like to go blind, you'd have the time of your life struggling to cope with your handicap.

I ment the alcohol (even though I dont drink).

Where do you get this notion that it's better for us to all die of diseases like cancer and HIV just so that it motivates us to find a cure for it? That's insane.

If it was never cold we wouldnt have clothes would we? Truth be told, in a perfect world nobody would nead to work and all would be lazy and stupid, if it aint broke dont fix it is the root of invention, why make a farm if that fruit tree is just fine? I dont nead to make that, everything is perfect for me. Why should I learn, it does me no good.

We would all be like Paris Hilton.

Ok first off, everything is a "lesson".
Second off, if he wanted to really give me choices, wouldn't all the foods be equal in some way?

No, not realy, for us anyway.

He gave some foods both great taste and great health benefits. You just have to look to seafood, fish and fruits for that.
And yet he gave other completely unhealthy foods a great taste. It seems he's clearly trying to force us to eat one kind of food here, otherwise all food would he valued equally for their taste and their nutrients and we could then make our choice of which ones we like best with no detriment to our health.

Dude, its chemistry, he diddnt make food for us, we took things he made and turned it into our food.
If it makes more sence to you, replace the word God in my last sentance with mother nature.

Does that not sound like a much better system that would still allow you all the choice in the world to eat whatever you wish?

This argument is pointless, what exactly are we trying to prove to each other? Is your point, if God was real than everything would be perfect?

The first humans would have found oranges in the wild. It was much easier to get an orange than to make chocolate. And yet we do both based on taste, wasting a lot of precious energy to make something that is delicious yet detrimental to our survival like Mr Big. bars when orange grooves are far easier to maintain and harvest, as evidenced by the price of oranges vs the price of chocolate.

Its the sugar, a substance found in food (like fruit) that is good for us, so we add that substance to something to make a new flavor, I dont see how this has anything to do with god.

God diddnt invent candy bars lol.

Of course once again you're going to say things like "well that's the fun, God gives us the choice and there you go, there's purpose in the chocolate we have to spend effort to enjoy the taste blabla".

Well, it tasts good, so good thing we found the coca bean, or els it just might be another endagered plant in the forrests nobody but a few tribsmen know of.

Truth be told, it is quite evident that this philosophy on god would work in any kind of world I could think of.

Thats just how good it is. : )

anyways you're just a kid and I was just bored, I know this is flying straight over your head, as it does people far more educated and older than you, though I surely would like to know why...

Dont underestimate me, have I not been making good arguments with you?

Im bored too, I tire of these discussions, I have colledge I have to figure out how to go to next year.
Any tips?

Have you ever seen a stone with a funny shape? I'm sure you have. You might have found one formed like a duck or whatever.

Surely, there must be a cause to these stones, since they would have to be made at some point of time. But does that mean there was a thought behind their creation? Or was it simply randomly made by waves of water on a beach?

Even though the stones clearly have a cause and can look very designed, they don't necessary have a purpose. We don't expect there to be a divine will that shapes rocks in the sea, and have no trouble accepting that they come about from completely natural processes. All you need is rocks, water in motion, and time, and you'll have funny shaped rocks.

Why is other things so hard to accept the same thing for? Having a solar system? All you need is matter, gravity and time, yet people seem to think there must be some kind of purpose behind it.

Given the number of planets and solar systems, it's not that strange that one of them is "fine tuned" for life, is it? That's just like finding a rock that's shaped like a duck. With the vast amount of rocks in the sea, is it that strange that one is duck shaped? Does it indicate a divine designer?

At 2/11/08 06:13 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: (even though I dont drink).

I have to be the first to tell you, it shows.

At 2/11/08 06:13 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/11/08 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote: No, it's a well documented fact that kids love fruits and chocolate as soon as you feed it to them for the first time, and yet they have an aversion towards vegetables and liver and many other great healthy things.

Oh, I guess thats just how we are wired, sugar in things like fruit are very important,

Yes but you see how you've completely taken God out of this now? This is just a pure survival mechanism, it stands to reason that animals that like high calorie foods will have a better chance at survival than the ones who like to lick bark or chew rocks.

Suddenly, god didn't "make the food delicious" but now it's actually a specific chemical contained in certain foods that we react to for a purely survivalist reason and nothing to do with "enjoying life" or "giving purpose".

Ok so it's fun that people die because of contaminated water? I guess it's also a lot of fun when a kid falls into a pool and drowns. That's a great challenge for their parents, weee. Hey maybe you'd like to go blind, you'd have the time of your life struggling to cope with your handicap.

I ment the alcohol (even though I dont drink).

No no, read what you replied again. You said it's so we are more challenged ( in response to why all water wasn't drinkable ).

If it was never cold we wouldnt have clothes would we?

So? What's the connexion between God and clothes?

why make a farm if that fruit tree is just fine?

It's called improving. You can easily survive without farming, as many tribes have done in the americas and africa. Farming just makes it far more convenient to get the food when you want it.

Anyways we're getting off track here, I was just showing you that your notion of imbuing a "logical" purpose is contradicted here, and should you not admit it, it is only because you can bend it at will so it adapts to any possible reality in which something living could survive long enough to start thinking about things like that.

Dude, its chemistry, he diddnt make food for us

So what did he make? You say he made the universe? He is benevolent? Imbued it with purpose? Again I see this very common religious idea to regress as science goes. "well whatever science can explain, God isn't necessary, but when science can't explain it yet, then it proves God".

4000 years ago, God created only the earth with it's black screen sphere with little stars stuck on it.
400 years ago, suddenly God created an entire solar system
40 years ago, now God has created an impossibly vast universe, billions of lightyears in lenght. He created the big bang also.

And I am quite sure that if string theory is ever accepted, God will regress again and suddenly will have created all the 13 ( or 11 or whatever ) dimensions and was not directly responsible for the big bang anymore.

You see how this operates here?

This argument is pointless, what exactly are we trying to prove to each other? Is your point, if God was real than everything would be perfect?

Well I assume that since you're saying there's pupose in everything, you believe a divine being made it so. I also assumed you would consider him rather intelligent, potent and benevolent ( I mean we're all here, right? ). So yes it's quite strange that he would create some substances, like certain wild extremely toxic mushrooms, that will taste and look similar to non-toxic ones. The way people have learned these mushrooms are not to be eaten is because someone DIED from eating them.

Doesn't that look like a cruel joke to play? What could we possibly gain from the existence of such things?

Thats just how good it is. : )

No, because you apply it to things that are specific to our planet, but that could be very different, and yet it would work no matter what, thus rendering it useless, like astrology.

mostly my point is this:

Anyone can make up a religious explanation for any phenomenon, but it takes actual work to provide a natural explanation.

At 2/11/08 06:42 PM, poxpower wrote: mostly my point is this:

Anyone can make up a religious explanation for any phenomenon, but it takes actual work to provide a natural explanation.

That is, even if perhaps too simplified, the reason why Intelligent Design fails so hard. They are simply saying that some kind of intelligence did it, not backing it up with anything. Like how this intelligence did it, when it did it, why it did it, what the intelligence is, etc.

The corresponding for evolution would be to say that "some sort of naturalistic process did it, but we don't know what, how and why", just that something in nature did it.

At 2/11/08 06:53 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/11/08 06:42 PM, poxpower wrote: mostly my point is this:

Anyone can make up a religious explanation for any phenomenon, but it takes actual work to provide a natural explanation.

That is, even if perhaps too simplified, the reason why Intelligent Design fails so hard. They are simply saying that some kind of intelligence did it, not backing it up with anything. Like how this intelligence did it, when it did it, why it did it, what the intelligence is, etc.

The corresponding for evolution would be to say that "some sort of naturalistic process did it, but we don't know what, how and why", just that something in nature did it.

Intelligent design is just another saying for creationism. It isn't actual science acording to the Kitzmiller trial of 2005

At 2/11/08 07:02 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/11/08 06:53 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/11/08 06:42 PM, poxpower wrote: mostly my point is this:

Anyone can make up a religious explanation for any phenomenon, but it takes actual work to provide a natural explanation.

That is, even if perhaps too simplified, the reason why Intelligent Design fails so hard. They are simply saying that some kind of intelligence did it, not backing it up with anything. Like how this intelligence did it, when it did it, why it did it, what the intelligence is, etc.

The corresponding for evolution would be to say that "some sort of naturalistic process did it, but we don't know what, how and why", just that something in nature did it.

Intelligent design is just another saying for creationism. It isn't actual science acording to the Kitzmiller trial of 2005

Yes, I know that, but no supporters of Intelligent Design will ever accept stuff like that. The court is biased or bribed or faulty or whatever. I think the only way is to use clear logic that they can't reject without losing the "we are doing real science" stance.

At 2/11/08 06:53 PM, Drakim wrote: That is, even if perhaps too simplified, the reason why Intelligent Design fails so hard. They are simply saying that some kind of intelligence did it, not backing it up with anything. Like how this intelligence did it, when it did it, why it did it, what the intelligence is, etc.

Yeah, I have a aunt that told me about something about a ice dome over eden or something and that dinosaurs were just lizards that grew to a very larg size. Weired stuf.

The corresponding for evolution would be to say that "some sort of naturalistic process did it, but we don't know what, how and why", just that something in nature did it.

There is no denying that.

At 2/11/08 07:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/11/08 06:53 PM, Drakim wrote: That is, even if perhaps too simplified, the reason why Intelligent Design fails so hard. They are simply saying that some kind of intelligence did it, not backing it up with anything. Like how this intelligence did it, when it did it, why it did it, what the intelligence is, etc.

Yeah, I have a aunt that told me about something about a ice dome over eden or something and that dinosaurs were just lizards that grew to a very larg size. Weired stuf.

Yeah, I've heard about that too. It's also the reason why Adam and Eve grew to be 900 years and so, because they didn't have the deadly sun beams. (the sun beams were filtered though the ice dome).

However, this should mean that humans should live for 900 years if we just stayed inside. lol.

The corresponding for evolution would be to say that "some sort of naturalistic process did it, but we don't know what, how and why", just that something in nature did it.

There is no denying that.

...

This was almost too simple, I was expecting an argument. ^^

At 2/11/08 07:20 PM, Drakim wrote: Yeah, I've heard about that too. It's also the reason why Adam and Eve grew to be 900 years and so, because they didn't have the deadly sun beams. (the sun beams were filtered though the ice dome).

That would make a cool video game, like Bioshock but with an Icedome and dinosaurs.

However, this should mean that humans should live for 900 years if we just stayed inside. lol.

Unless we have kryptonite inside, becasuse kryptonite and sunlight sap our superman powers.

This was almost too simple, I was expecting an argument. ^^

From...me? I hope not, Im too moderate for this fundamentalist stuf.

At 2/11/08 06:31 PM, Drakim wrote: Have you ever seen a stone with a funny shape? I'm sure you have. You might have found one formed like a duck or whatever.

Surely, there must be a cause to these stones, since they would have to be made at some point of time. But does that mean there was a thought behind their creation? Or was it simply randomly made by waves of water on a beach?

Moreover, how do ambiguous figures or impossible figures fit into this equation?

Huzzah, and Imperator throws a CURVEBALL into the whole debate!!!

For your amusement, an ambiguous figure for you to enjoy:

At 2/11/08 07:41 PM, Imperator wrote: Moreover, how do ambiguous figures or impossible figures fit into this equation?

Huzzah, and Imperator throws a CURVEBALL into the whole debate!!!

For your amusement, an ambiguous figure for you to enjoy:

That.....didn't make sense. I can't reply reasonable. You have destroyed my Vulcan legacy! D:

At 2/11/08 07:50 PM, Drakim wrote:
That.....didn't make sense. I can't reply reasonable. You have destroyed my Vulcan legacy! D:

Well if a rock were shaped like an ambiguous figure, would that be a sign of "creation" by a deity, or still a wave? Can water create such an intricate design on a rock, or would the presence of a "naturally" created ambiguous figure be a sign that God exists, and appears to the entire world (as each person would see one of the two figures, but two people may not agree on what they see, despite both figures being present in said rock)?

Wait.....I think I may have just confused the shit out of myself.......

At 2/11/08 07:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/11/08 07:02 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/11/08 06:53 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/11/08 06:42 PM, poxpower wrote: mostly my point is this:

Anyone can make up a religious explanation for any phenomenon, but it takes actual work to provide a natural explanation.

That is, even if perhaps too simplified, the reason why Intelligent Design fails so hard. They are simply saying that some kind of intelligence did it, not backing it up with anything. Like how this intelligence did it, when it did it, why it did it, what the intelligence is, etc.

The corresponding for evolution would be to say that "some sort of naturalistic process did it, but we don't know what, how and why", just that something in nature did it.

Intelligent design is just another saying for creationism. It isn't actual science acording to the Kitzmiller trial of 2005

Yes, I know that, but no supporters of Intelligent Design will ever accept stuff like that. The court is biased or bribed or faulty or whatever. I think the only way is to use clear logic that they can't reject without losing the "we are doing real science" stance.

I know. It's EVEN unconstitutional to teach Intelligent design in schools yet they wont listen.

This is a copy and paste job from wiki.
John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it

It's astonishing how these people behave.

At 2/11/08 07:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/11/08 07:50 PM, Drakim wrote:
That.....didn't make sense. I can't reply reasonable. You have destroyed my Vulcan legacy! D:

Well if a rock were shaped like an ambiguous figure, would that be a sign of "creation" by a deity, or still a wave? Can water create such an intricate design on a rock, or would the presence of a "naturally" created ambiguous figure be a sign that God exists, and appears to the entire world (as each person would see one of the two figures, but two people may not agree on what they see, despite both figures being present in said rock)?

Wait.....I think I may have just confused the shit out of myself.......

AH, I see exactly what you mean.

But it's not related to what I was talking about really. I was refering to the argument that you can see design in nature, not a specific object. Your example would be more akin to asking if the Bible could come about from earthly sources such as human writers.

At 2/11/08 07:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/11/08 07:50 PM, Drakim wrote:
That.....didn't make sense. I can't reply reasonable. You have destroyed my Vulcan legacy! D:

Well if a rock were shaped like an ambiguous figure, would that be a sign of "creation" by a deity, or still a wave? Can water create such an intricate design on a rock, or would the presence of a "naturally" created ambiguous figure be a sign that God exists, and appears to the entire world (as each person would see one of the two figures, but two people may not agree on what they see, despite both figures being present in said rock)?

Wait.....I think I may have just confused the shit out of myself.......

I know exactly what you're talking about. You're basically saying if you wrote a message in sand, it's obvious that it must of been made and didn't naturally form, giving you a good analogy for the universe and the world.

However that is a flawd arguement and is no better than pascal's wager which should have been forgotton by now.

At 2/11/08 08:27 PM, Brick-top wrote:

However that is a flawd arguement and is no better than pascal's wager which should have been forgotton by now.

I always found it fascination how religious people can only consider two possibilities in their mind, i.e. "either there is a god, and he's exactly as I think he is right down to the last detail, or there isn't one".

bah, religious people are not known for their education or their intelligence. In fact most "religious" scientists like Einstein and whatnot are really not religious at all, they are only labeled as such because of their upbringing or because they might have called themselves so at some point.

But when you check them, they will regress with their claims as far as possible and stick to "well I think there's something like a God that has created everything" Which is not any religion we know today.

At 2/12/08 02:25 AM, poxpower wrote: I always found it fascination how religious people can only consider two possibilities in their mind, i.e. "either there is a god, and he's exactly as I think he is right down to the last detail, or there isn't one".

I've never heard a religious person claim "either I know everything about God or he doesn't exist."

I call BS.

bah, religious people are not known for their education or their intelligence. In fact most "religious" scientists like Einstein and whatnot are really not religious at all, they are only labeled as such because of their upbringing or because they might have called themselves so at some point.

Einstein was a deist. While not explicitly Christian, there is no doubt whatsoever that he believed in a God. Newton was also a Christian. In fact, if you look at all the major scientists, 90% were either Deist or Christian. Christianity is the cradle for science.

This idea that religious people are a stupid lot who sit in their own stool is a myth told by lackluster athiests to make themselves feel better.

Deists aren't an organised religion.

Einstein was more of a pantheist, which is even less religious than deism.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Re ligious_views

It's a non-sequitur to go from 'I don't know what started the universe' to 'Jesus died for my sins (and Muhammed and the Buddha were charlatans)'.

At 2/12/08 05:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I've never heard a religious person claim "either I know everything about God or he doesn't exist."

Guess you never heard of Pascal's wager then

Einstein was a deist. While not explicitly Christian, there is no doubt whatsoever that he believed in a God.

A sorta form of God, yes. Not any God represented by any major religions.

Newton was also a Christian. In fact, if you look at all the major scientists

That's a pretty stupid claim considering idiot religious people, right up to not even 100 years ago, would ostracize, persecute and kill those who professed their non-belief. Galileo wasn't the only one who was threatened by the church. The catholic religion has effectively held the world back scientifically by a couple decades at the very least, if not more.

No respectable scientist today believes strongly in God, while there are many ( even atheists ) who still practice religious rituals like saying grace or getting married in a church.

At 2/12/08 05:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 2/12/08 02:25 AM, poxpower wrote: I always found it fascination how religious people can only consider two possibilities in their mind, i.e. "either there is a god, and he's exactly as I think he is right down to the last detail, or there isn't one".

I've never heard a religious person claim "either I know everything about God or he doesn't exist."

I call BS.

It's the whole basis for Pascals wager, perhaps the most popular argument for religion ever.

"If God exists, I go to heaven and you go to hell, if God doesn't exist, we both go to nothingness, thus, believing in God gives all the benefits."

This only accounts for ONE kind of God, and disregards the possibility for that you might have the wrong God.

bah, religious people are not known for their education or their intelligence. In fact most "religious" scientists like Einstein and whatnot are really not religious at all, they are only labeled as such because of their upbringing or because they might have called themselves so at some point.

Einstein was a deist. While not explicitly Christian, there is no doubt whatsoever that he believed in a God. Newton was also a Christian. In fact, if you look at all the major scientists, 90% were either Deist or Christian. Christianity is the cradle for science.

This idea that religious people are a stupid lot who sit in their own stool is a myth told by lackluster athiests to make themselves feel better.

Actually, there are studies which connects intelligence and atheism.

There's too many atheists here, it's boring.

Me and drakim should start arguing about something random. Maybe I feel like being a creationist... Yes it's all starting to make sense now...

At 2/12/08 09:58 AM, poxpower wrote: There's too many atheists here, it's boring.

Me and drakim should start arguing about something random. Maybe I feel like being a creationist... Yes it's all starting to make sense now...

Heh.

Who created the creationist?

At 2/12/08 05:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote: if you look at all the major scientists, 90% were either Deist or Christian. Christianity is the cradle for science.

You claim bullshit?

Dude, the only thing Religion has done for Science is hold it back, literally.