Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/8/08 09:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Then kill yourself.

You're just one out of 7 billion monkeys, the world will go on without you.

Have I ever told you that you're my favourite poster.

At 3/8/08 09:05 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/8/08 09:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Then kill yourself.

You're just one out of 7 billion monkeys, the world will go on without you.

Have I ever told you that you're my favorite poster.

No.

I've also always wanted to ask Richard Dawkins if he was uncomfortable doing his day to day activities because his scientific knowledge in human mental behaviour is analogous to watching your own food be digested in your bowels.

At 3/8/08 04:57 AM, Trampalite wrote

There are 3 million people incarcerated in the United States, .2% of them are atheists 75% are Christian.

I hope you know there are far more Christians than atheists in the US.

At 3/9/08 01:13 AM, Ansel wrote: At 3/8/08 04:57 AM, Trampalite wrote

There are 3 million people incarcerated in the United States, .2% of them are atheists 75% are Christian.

I hope you know there are far more Christians than atheists in the US.

i'm sure he can tell that- but statistically- atheists make up MUCH MORE than .2%

At 3/9/08 01:13 AM, Ansel wrote: At 3/8/08 04:57 AM, Trampalite wrote

There are 3 million people incarcerated in the United States, .2% of them are atheists 75% are Christian.

I hope you know there are far more Christians than atheists in the US.

Yes of course, Christians make up about 76% of the population and Atheist Agnostic or Unaffiliated make up about 14% When you inlude agnostic and unaffiliated in the prison poulation it makes up about .6%

Perhaps there are a lot of christians in jail in the US because finding religion is a good way to rehabilitate someone?

At 3/9/08 05:44 AM, Centripital wrote: Perhaps there are a lot of christians in jail in the US because finding religion is a good way to rehabilitate someone?

Or perhaps it's because christians are usually trained to be christians and never really figure out what it's like to be a good person. Sort of like how christians beat their children claiming that they're doing it to teach them, when in reality it's because they're getting off on hurting someone else because they're unhappy with themselves but don't know how to admit it. Dogs have a higher sense of morality.

I think alot of atheists (and probably agnostics including myself) dont really bother so much with this whole: "What does God or the lack thereof mean to me?" I dont believe in God or follow a religion, its basically something that just doesnt impact my life enough to concern me. Simply put: I dont care. Of course, we always see flamewars coming out of this subject because a zealous theist or a zealous atheist (but to be honest I think its the theists that bring it up more, this thread as an example) ask the 'atheist community*' what exactly they do.

This is met with hostility because non-believers tend to not feel a 'void' that is filled with religion in other people, and they (myself also included sometimes) feel confronted by people who cant get their head around the concept that 'lack of belief' is not synonymous with 'less in life.'

*about the atheist community, there is no organized group of people who get together and not believe in god. Plus, opinions vary, since there is no 'Book of Atheism' that dictates what opinions you should have regarding others.

At 3/8/08 08:20 PM, Bokushi wrote: No, it doesn't. Read the context of the passage.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I'd really like to hear you explain how the context of this passage makes it imply that faith without deeds in fact isn't dead. Like Drakim said, you can make either case. If you're Protestant and you want to make the case for sola fide you can quote Paul's letters, the Gospel of John and the acts of the apostles. If you're Catholic and want to make the case for faith without deeds/works being dead you can quote the Gospel of Matthew (like 19:16-21) and the letter of James.

Now I agree with you on disagreeing with KennyD, since we (unless we discard a significant portion of the New Testament, I personally tend to do that but that's not really relevant right now) can safely assume that Christianity teaches that faith is a basic requirement for salvation and that performing good works without faith in Christ is indisputably dead, while he seemed to say that basically anyone who acts responsibly can get into Heaven (while saying that that was what "we Christians" believe). But as for what Drakim said, there's a major disagreement within modern Christianity about faith without works being dead, and your opponents have as much of a Biblical foundation under their claims as you do.

At 3/9/08 05:44 AM, Centripital wrote: Perhaps there are a lot of christians in jail in the US because finding religion is a good way to rehabilitate someone?

Wait, are you assuming that they were Christian AFTER they went in?

And are you also assuming that Christianity is a good source of morality and ethics?

Once again, religion [Atheism included] Has nothing to do with keeping yourself out of incarceration. It's wealth.

It would only make sense that atheists can be found in largest numbers in the middle and upper class; their incentive to commit crimes are, as a result, lowest. Nothing in the universe is psychologically capable of keeping a person from committing a crime except for 2 things, heavy law enforcement, and money.

It is for that reason, why i also wager that jewish people are also incarcerated less [By percentage of their population to their ratio in the jails] , and asians, because both of those groups are also found in the upper and middle class.

When people are well fed, have their books, their suckling pigs, their cavalry horses and their manors and their harems, they have little reason to risk losing it by committing crimes.

yeah listen. I am atheist simply because i cannot logically believe the religious beliefs around me. just because i don't have a religion doesn't mean i am without morals. Morality shouldn't be defined by a religion, it should just be common sense that i shouldn't perform harmful and deceitful acts. I shouldn't need a book to tell me that. I'm sick of atheism instantly being associated with immortality. Yes some atheists are immoral, but that is a small minority. Many of us simply cannot justify the whole fabric of life around the evidence most religions provide. thats all.

At 3/9/08 11:10 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Nothing in the universe is psychologically capable of keeping a person from committing a crime except for 2 things, heavy law enforcement, and money.

You really think there are only two factors that matter in whether someone is going to commit crime or not?

I can see the arguments for both sides, and of course the statistics will be skewed due to class and intelligence, but I can imagine strength of religion being a factor to some extent.

here's your anwser: if your raised without a religion, but you have parents telling you not to steal and to hurt people, you won't.
in fact i know more religious people that commit crimes that athiest people i know.
so your talking bullshit.

At 3/9/08 11:10 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Once again, religion [Atheism included] Has nothing to do with keeping yourself out of incarceration. It's wealth.

It would only make sense that atheists can be found in largest numbers in the middle and upper class; their incentive to commit crimes are, as a result, lowest. Nothing in the universe is psychologically capable of keeping a person from committing a crime except for 2 things, heavy law enforcement, and money.

It is for that reason, why i also wager that jewish people are also incarcerated less [By percentage of their population to their ratio in the jails] , and asians, because both of those groups are also found in the upper and middle class.

When people are well fed, have their books, their suckling pigs, their cavalry horses and their manors and their harems, they have little reason to risk losing it by committing crimes.

But that would mean that you don't need religion, but wealth, and other material things, to stay moral, thus disproving the whole "atheist don't have an real source of moral and will do whatever they want" claim.

At 3/9/08 06:23 PM, Drakim wrote:

But that would mean that you don't need religion, but wealth, and other material things, to stay moral, thus disproving the whole "atheist don't have an real source of moral and will do whatever they want" claim.

Exactly; Of course wealth is also a corrupting force. For example, Wealth keeps a person from stealing or drug trafficking, because there are more legal and safer means by which a wealthy individual can attain money. However; This doesn't mean that they will shirk away from opportunities to increase their wealth even further at the cost of others.

As a result, it might require a bit of principal [Adherence to an unwritten social law code] to keep an individual from taking that path. Remember that you might go to jail for robbing somone's house, but you can't go to jail for raising the prices of your products to gain money.

But as has been stated before, Evolution is not a moral code for atheism, merely a tool that they used to battle against the archaic sun god of Abraham.

It might be wiser to say that

At 3/9/08 07:56 AM, lapis wrote: I'd really like to hear you explain how the context of this passage makes it imply that faith without deeds in fact isn't dead. Like Drakim said, you can make either case. If you're Protestant and you want to make the case for sola fide you can quote Paul's letters, the Gospel of John and the acts of the apostles. If you're Catholic and want to make the case for faith without deeds/works being dead you can quote the Gospel of Matthew (like 19:16-21) and the letter of James. :

Hi Iapis, I wasn't denying what the verse said. Faith without works is dead, I agree. I only said read the context because he was saying it went against the verses I quoted. The Bible does not contradict itself; God is not the author of confusion. Therefore when you have the majority of passages speaking of salvation through faith alone and one or two that sounds like its faith and works, go with the majority until you understand what the one or two are talking about.

What does this passage have to do with New Testament salvation? Nothing. It mentions how those in the Old Testament followed up their faith with works and its saying, if your faith doesn't follow up with works then your faith is dead. You seem to understand this as you mentioned it in your comment. I don't think you would argue salvation by works. The Bible clearly states that it's by faith in Christ and then after you are saved works will follow, but works do not save you. After all if you can earn it, why did he die?

=======
You are not ready to live until you are ready to die.

I'm not saying that more Christians necessarily get incarcerated because they're Christian, but when you have bullshit topics like this, and the general Christian population at large, make it seem as though Christians should be superior in terms of morality, it really doesn't make sense.

now i'm not really aethiest, i do believe in a higher power. Just not GOD. I believe that higher power is myself. What i mean is that i guide myself through hardships and i am responsible for my actions. I don't really believe in god but i don't run around doing what i want either. I do what makes me happy, as long as it doesn't harm other people. I drink, smoke, sleep around, and do occassional drugs but i don't hurt other people. I don't "behave" because of heaven or hell, i just live my life.

At 3/9/08 06:49 PM, Bokushi wrote:

The Bible does not contradict itself;

Are you talking about this particular passage, or the whole bible?

Because if it is the latter, you are horribly mistaken.

At 3/9/08 08:53 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/9/08 06:49 PM, Bokushi wrote:

The Bible does not contradict itself;

Are you talking about this particular passage, or the whole bible?

Because if it is the latter, you are horribly mistaken.

I'm talking about the whole Bible. Now you can go ahead and Google "contradictions in the Bible" and then post your findings here if you want. That would be sad if you did so. I've been reading the Bible for many years and have not found any yet. Also let me make it clear that I speak of the King James Bible, AV 1611. Other versions in the English language are corrupt and do contradict themselves.

=======
You are not ready to live until you are ready to die.

At 3/9/08 10:47 PM, Bokushi wrote: Other versions in the English language are corrupt and do contradict themselves.

You do know the KJV has been heavily edited, right?
I'm talking thousands and thousands of edits here.

And yes, on those contradictions, there are plenty.

At 3/9/08 11:26 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/9/08 10:47 PM, Bokushi wrote: Other versions in the English language are corrupt and do contradict themselves.

You do know the KJV has been heavily edited, right?
I'm talking thousands and thousands of edits here.

And yes, on those contradictions, there are plenty.

Please, these so called contradictions are weak. A false understand of the Bible.

At 3/9/08 11:29 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: A false understand of the Bible.

Your reply was unexpected.

At 3/9/08 11:36 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/9/08 11:29 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: A false understand of the Bible.

Your reply was unexpected.

I liked his overwhelming use of proof and evidence to support his faith-based 100% biased argument.

At 3/9/08 11:48 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 3/9/08 11:36 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/9/08 11:29 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: A false understand of the Bible.

Your reply was unexpected.

I liked his overwhelming use of proof and evidence to support his faith-based 100% biased argument.

So do you want me to post the counter argument for every single contradiction it mentions? When I do so will you look at every single contradiction mentioned? If not don't talk.

At 3/9/08 11:52 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote:
So do you want me to post the counter argument for every single contradiction it mentions? When I do so will you look at every single contradiction mentioned? If not don't talk.

Yes.

that was me talking.

Here you go.

Counter Argument

At 3/9/08 11:59 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: Here you go.

Counter Argument

Looks cool, but after skimming it the only 'proof' there is the bible. Bible is not reputable proof of anything. I find no cited sources in the bible except for people who may or may not have existed, and the various translations and editing of the bible, as well as the omission of various integral parts of said bible, leads this novel to be unworthy of being deemed evidence or proof.

At 3/10/08 12:02 AM, riemannSum wrote:

At 3/9/08 11:59 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: Here you go.

Counter Argument

Looks cool, but after skimming it the only 'proof' there is the bible. Bible is not reputable proof of anything. I find no cited sources in the bible except for people who may or may not have existed, and the various translations and editing of the bible, as well as the omission of various integral parts of said bible, leads this novel to be unworthy of being deemed evidence or proof.

Do you know what we're actually discussing? It doesn't have to do with the Bible being true or not. That isn't the discussion. The discussion is countering the so called contradictions someone else stated.

If you want proof of the Bible that depends what you are asking. The main thing the Bible wants is faith not belief through evidence. What comes first is faith then experience then proof.