00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

RYKEO just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

The Atheist Army

230,630 Views | 3,464 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-18 11:45:01


At 10/17/09 09:53 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: What up faith-cripples!

This is important for you to see.

This is important for you to see.
See, you're not the only one who can do that. Besides, I watched your link, and Kirk Cameron made the mistake in not investigating religion before becoming atheist. But that doesn't give him quarter to shit on other atheists.
Also, in my link, watch when Kirk says you have to "circumnavigate the persons intellect" to convince them of religion.


If life gives you lemons, read the fine print; chances are, there's a monthly fee attached.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-18 15:53:37


At 10/17/09 09:53 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: What up faith-cripples!

This is important for you to see.

I went to the website that video advocated, and it's the banana mans website! /discussion.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-19 21:04:06


At 10/16/09 12:43 PM, Joeyy957 wrote: Anti-Theist and athiest aren't the same thing are they?

Anti theist is saying that thiests are delusional , mad, etc (which they are not.)

And athiest's don't believe in God.

Am i Right?

In simple terms: "A" is a prefix meaning without/not

Theist meaning they believe in one or more gods (polytheism/monotheism)

So the word Atheist means "not a theist"

Context clues, man.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-19 22:19:06


I usually consider myself an athiest, but I think that gods are possible. So, am I really athiest?

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-19 23:53:56


At 10/19/09 10:19 PM, AdrianTrumbly wrote: I usually consider myself an athiest, but I think that gods are possible. So, am I really athiest?

No, I would say you're leaning more towards Agnostic.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 18:20:06


At 10/21/09 03:58 PM, ph0ne wrote: Sorry for the double post, but I recently found myself questioning Evolution.

This has fuck all to do with evolution, which can be defined as the change in the allele frequency in a population over successive generations, but I will say a few things.


In order for something to go past being a thesis it must first disprove, through experimentation, the laws already in place. That is the scientific process. So far, the "theory of evolution" conflicts with newton's law which states that "living matter cannot come from nonliving matter," and so far that law has not been disproven, so Evolution should have never progressed past a thesis.

Issac Newton studied physics not biology in fact he died before Charles Darwin published his "On the Origin of Spices" .


The fact that the whole scientific process has been thrown out when it comes to Evolution is completely bizzare to me, since most people I talk to, who believe in Evolution, claim to be "super atheist scientific rebel intellectual."

It has? can you show evidence to support this statement, you do know that you don't have to be an atheist to support the theory of evolution right?


"So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don't come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don't see 'em."

did you even bother reading the comments posted on the website you got the above paragraph from?

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 18:43:36


Aww phone. Evolution doesn't claim to have created living matter from non living matter. It just picks up from when the first life forms did arrive and explains how they became what they are today. You know this. I hope you is all know eh is be trolling.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 18:55:24


Here's a better idea: Read my post again.

I have, and it makes no sense.

It's obvious you're just one of those ignorant wannabe hipster liberal kiddies who wants to rebel against society.

it's nice to know that you are attacking me instead of addressing the points that I made.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 19:04:00


At 10/21/09 06:43 PM, michelinman wrote: Aww phone. Evolution doesn't claim to have created living matter from non living matter. It just picks up from when the first life forms did arrive and explains how they became what they are today. You know this. I hope you is all know eh is be trolling.

ah my fault I should have realized that he was just trolling.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 19:08:36


At 10/21/09 07:04 PM, vgfa287 wrote: ah my fault I should have realized that he was just trolling.

Go back to page 98 and see some of the posts he made. Most of them were deleted, but there's still enough back there to make you realize that he is never to be taken seriously ever.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 19:19:26


Evolution explains how single celled living matter became multi celled living matter over millions of years. That's it. It doesn't contradict with anything except for that part in the bible where it says God created everything as it is in a day. That's why people who believe the Old Testament don't believe it for the most part.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 19:21:31


At 10/21/09 07:15 PM, ph0ne wrote: Evolution conflicts Newton's law that living matter cannot come from non-living matter, and that law hasn't been proven wrong. How could that be misinterpreted?

Everything that has evolved has evolved from a living matter.

Spoons don't evolve. Spoons are non-living matter.
Apes can evolve. Apes are alive.

You're only strengthening my beliefs that atheists are just angry people living in their own little world.

We're only angry in your mind. You see the odd 'I hate religion' users in this place but you can tell the members with any sense are the ones who talk of tolerance and a to-each-their-own mentality.


Metal Hell ## Guitarists ## Stand Up Comedy

PSN: Look-a-Hill

Somewhere Over the Rainbow

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 19:28:20


At 10/21/09 07:15 PM, ph0ne wrote: Evolution conflicts Newton's law that living matter cannot come from non-living matter,

.......

The Atheist Army

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-21 19:52:26


At 10/21/09 04:18 PM, ph0ne wrote: Triple post, don't kill me.

I also wanted to add that the bigotry and prejudice in this thread is off the charts.

Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Sir, I believe I've found the source of it!


If life gives you lemons, read the fine print; chances are, there's a monthly fee attached.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-22 06:38:08


Newton's Laws were about motion, dipstick

everyone ignore him from now on

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-29 19:19:52


At 10/29/09 06:56 PM, ph0ne wrote:
At 10/21/09 07:21 PM, Nev wrote: Everything that has evolved has evolved from a living matter.
Where is your evidence?

It had to originate somewhere. Non-living things "advance" through human hands or due to nature. Life evolves on it's own in order to survive.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-30 21:20:25


At 10/30/09 09:16 PM, ph0ne wrote: It doesn't, and you can't prove me wrong.

Can you prove yourself right?


Metal Hell ## Guitarists ## Stand Up Comedy

PSN: Look-a-Hill

Somewhere Over the Rainbow

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-31 08:17:35


In my opinion God don't exist, we are Gods of ourselves, may I join?


Liberals defend the exploitation of man by man, Conservatives defend the reverse.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-31 15:05:54


At 10/31/09 08:17 AM, TheUnwisePoet wrote: In my opinion God don't exist, we are Gods of ourselves, may I join?

hmm I'm curious as to what you mean by "we are Gods of ourselves" can you expand on that a bit?

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-10-31 16:35:57


At 10/31/09 03:05 PM, vgfa287 wrote:
At 10/31/09 08:17 AM, TheUnwisePoet wrote: In my opinion God don't exist, we are Gods of ourselves, may I join?
hmm I'm curious as to what you mean by "we are Gods of ourselves" can you expand on that a bit?

We command our acts or attidudes, and there is no powerful element to say what you must do or believe, but also there must be ethics and rationalism, I am not saying there is no way to exist a powerful element, but I have no rational or scientific proof there is, so until someone can show me considerable proofs I just believe in myself like a God, so yes I am God, not your God, my God, and in my opinion you must be your God too. I know my opinion is similar to Satanic philosophy with a little bit of Agnosticism, so I find myself like an Agnostic Satanic. About a month ago I were a religious guy, and I was reading the Bible, I don't even had to finish it and I said, pure bullshit that priests say to us in a voice of kindness, and fuck I hate catholics and if God is like people always defend I hate him so much that I could stab him with a knife many many times, I could say I hate God.

But the guys I must thank a lot are Lamb of God, they helped me a lot to open my eyes, pure "Sacrament" they are, and was exacly that album which make my head change instantly, lyrics with pure truth, and they did not need a voice of kindness to make me change...

And I say with no fears, God don't exist, but we do.

Well but I'll not say we are good people.... we suck hard...

Liberals defend the exploitation of man by man, Conservatives defend the reverse.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-01 20:47:31


Let's all agree to completely ignore ph0ne. He's an obvious troll and isn't contributing anything to this thread.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-01 21:00:41


I'm not sure if it's been done before in this thread, but care to share some of your de-conversion stories?

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-02 19:32:53


I think I shared mine once, but it was at least 10 pages back, so...
I was raised catholic, even attending catholic school (k-8), for a number of years. i used to be a rather avid believer, one who would often pray, attend church with a fervor, etc. But as I grew older, 12 if I had to put a year on it, I began to doubt it... and on this, I think all theists do at some point. just not all make such a turn about as I did. Anyway...
At first it was just a gentle questioning: "Why does the Pope, a man, get to change and adapt God's law?". I rationalized this as something along the lines of "Well, this is just a man made law, something not condoned by God.". Yet, as I'm sure you see, this begs another question: "If this is god's church, which he established and St. Peter is it's rock, why does this all powerful God condone this pollution of his message?". Which was still on the whole a questioning of man's interpretation, but still slowly approaching a questioning of the concept of God.
As I grew older I began to question evermore. This particularly accelerated when I moved to public school, as a catholic school is very much a sheltered environment. Such as "Why does this loving god let utterly horrible things happen to what he has created, and what he loves?", or, "Jesus once said: 'He that does not abide in me is like a branch cut from the vine, and withers. And the branches are gathered and cast into the fire.'. Now, if this is the son of god, and the son of a loving all forgiving god, wouldn't he be forgiving of his creations, whom are in rebellion to their creator according to the bible?". Perhaps this is man's pollution of god's word, or some other rationalization like "He works in mysterious ways." which always struck me as a cop out. Another way I've heard it rationalized is "It's like trying to explain to an ant how a tv works.". However this implies that the ant (man) is worshiping something it doesn't understand (god). Is it because the ant fears it, or that it can't explain it, so places some sort of contrived explanation around it. And we as bystanders can see this, and know full and well the television isn't a god, and can be explained very easily. I have yet to come across a good explanation for this.
Then, there are contradictions within the bible itself. Take Genesis, the story of Cain and Able to be specific. The short version is that god created Adam and Eve, Cain, Seth, and able, and seven women. And by this, these are the only people in the world. Then of course, Cain kills Able, and for this, he is banished. But hang on a moment.... He is banished, to live with the people in the Land of Nod.
Or let's look at Soddom and Gommora. When two angels came to talk to Lot, the one godly man, a mob appears and tries to rape the angels. To prevent this, Lot, the godly man, offers to the mob his own daughters to rape.
Then, there are some general ones, such as "Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Put everyman a sword by his side, and slay everyman his brother.".
Now, let's get to the elephant in the room... The gospels, ie: the story of Jesus. There are inconsistencies within them. Such as, the virgin birth is only in two of the gospels. When he is crucified, in one before he dies he yells: "God! Why have you forsaken me!". In another, he yells: "Lord, into your hands I commend my spirit.". Not to mention the fact that these were written 150 or so years after Jesus died.
And then, there is the fact that this story, Jesus', was seen throughout the Mediterranean area for millenia prior to the gospels. Particularly in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Which it may interest you all to know predates the Bible by 14 or so centuries. Here's the short version of the story:
Written in 1280 b.c., it describes the Egyptian god Horus. Horus was the son of the god Osiris, born unto men of a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, Anup later being beheaded. Horus, before preaching and performing miracles, was tempted in the desert while alone, by the Egyptian god of the dead. He then gathered twelve disciples to him, and preached, and performed miracles across the land. He healed the sick, the blind, and cast out demons in the name of god (Osiris), and also walking on water was a noteworthy miracle. He also raised Asar from the dead. Asar, translated from Egyptian into Hebrew, means Lazarus. He was crucified on a hill, with two other men; 3 days after he died and was buried, two maidens announced that Horus, savior of humanity, had been resurrected.
This, in a nut shell, is why I unashamedly define myself as atheist. Doubt me as you will, hate me if you just. But if you've ever wanted to know why/how some people can be atheist... Here you are.


If life gives you lemons, read the fine print; chances are, there's a monthly fee attached.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-02 19:47:37


Chritans keep saying evolution is real by accident. For example, in christan public schools they won't outright talk about evolution, but instead they talk about "adaptions" animals and plants have when they enter a new enviornment or face a problem. That is pretty much a begining stage for evolution. Natural selection is almost evolution to.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-02 20:13:22


At 11/2/09 07:47 PM, Furturist wrote: Chritans keep saying evolution is real by accident. For example, in christan public schools they won't outright talk about evolution, but instead they talk about "adaptions" animals and plants have when they enter a new enviornment or face a problem. That is pretty much a begining stage for evolution. Natural selection is almost evolution to.

They're like, "NO EVOLUTION. PERIOD." Then they go on about "Natural Selection" and "Adaptations".

Christians are so silly.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-04 16:13:20


At 10/21/09 07:15 PM, ph0ne wrote: I came in here and made legitimate arguments, which you trashed and insulted, because you're just mad that you couldn't prove me wrong. Evolution conflicts Newton's law that living matter cannot come from non-living matter, and that law hasn't been proven wrong. How could that be misinterpreted?

You're only strengthening my beliefs that atheists are just angry people living in their own little world.

And your an idiot who doesn't look at evidence.

Religious arguements don't stand a chance anymore. Creationism, still stands a chance, and suggests that there was an original superbeing which presented energy, but that energy won't drive itself.

There can not be a God. There can be an architect of the universe (only in the idea of the Matrix), but I believe that there can never, ever, be a supernatural God. I usually base my arguements on the science of energy transference, and idea's on time, and law.

The creator can never exist in our very same existence. It's not possible, he would have to exist in another timeline altogether. I'm still trying to understand all this theory on it so bare with me if it's not always 50-100% accurate, but I will always cite my sources on anything I don't fully understand.
--
God can't exist because, if a creator were in our existence, he/she or it (lets make it a 'he') would have to create energy. Which means that that this energy would have to suddenly move along a still timeline.

This suggests at one point, our universe was static. Something has to act as an engine to drive this static energy, and the creator can't do this because he would be in a standstill along with the rest of static existence. Like a way a battery conserves energy and uses current to drive the energy around the circuit. Something needs to act as the engine for time which dictates that energy can make matter move around the cosmos.

Logically the universe needs an engine that has been moving, and has therefore always been moving, and will never stop moving. Infinity is based upon this forever moving, and that the timeline of the past stretches on to infinity. Our present needs to have arisen from an infinite past, which leads to an infinite future; thus there never was a 'creation', so it is false to envision God as the creator of the universe.


Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-04 17:59:06


At 11/4/09 03:38 PM, ph0ne wrote:
Despite the evidence in favor of Evolution it has not disproven the Law that living matter cannot come from living matter.

You lose.

well I must express myfeelings through thesevideos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw5 04&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_
2A&feature=related

to the people that watch that and go WTF let me just say that yes they are absolutely serious.

on a serious note ph0ne Evolution is the genetic frequency in a population over successive generations. it has nothing to do with the origin of life that my ignorant friend is abiogenesis. you keep saying that evolution goes against the fact that living things cannot come from non living things and yet you post creationist videos, creationists who believe that God created Adam form dirt.

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-04 18:05:36


In all truth, Science does not attempt to disprove Religion. Philosophy does that well enough. Science only aims to find the answers, and if you want to argue the creation of life to somebody, in the idea of Religion. Go talk to someone who teaches, better yet, go talk to a Proffessor of Cosmology; and don't come back to me when you feel buthurt.


Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-05 16:14:26


At 11/5/09 03:34 PM, ph0ne wrote:
At 11/4/09 04:13 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: And your an idiot who doesn't look at evidence.
Nice grammar, you godless swine.

o sorri dus mai belief offend u?

At 11/5/09 03:34 PM, ph0ne wrote: I don't care what you say about God, because I believe in him. It's my way of life. It works for me. I am happy because of this. You're nothing more than a filthy troll if you seek to ruin this perfect balance that my life is structured upon. In scientific terms, whether God exists or not is not a testable hypothesis.

God's existence is stupid as far as I am concerned. Creationism however, is widely possible.

I'm not a troll, and nobody seeks to ruin your balance of life. If you want to be happy, why do you post in an Atheist club forum?

Interesting isn't it.

You may do it because you seek criticism, and therefore that criticism builds up a frustration, and you can't function in a world where religion and science co-exist. Frustration becomes an addiction, which comes from a mode of nostalgia, which compels you to attack other people. To me this means that you long for the happiness that once was and use God to defend that happiness, but whether that last sentence is true or false is 'not a testable hypothesis'.

Ideally, this makes you intolerant, but what you said has no justification in any way that it can in fact criticise my thesis scientifically. Therefore you are powerless, and this makes you react with violence instead of criticism. But it's a matter of fact that tolerance cannot exist without intolerance, and vice versa.

I understand that you feel in a mode of comfort that you believe in God's existence, and I respect that. What understand is that your argument automatically gives you the right to criticise my argument, and I respect that. What I do not understand is that your not criticising that, your definitively attacking my aim, to learn and gain knowledge, and that gives to me a mode of happiness.

So if you have the right to be happy, and you criticise the contradictions to your beliefs in subject to that happiness. You thus give the assumption that nobody has the right to criticise your beliefs because it will trespass in your mode of happiness. Your attacking my beliefs and my happiness only raises the question; why do you have the right to trespass on my beliefs, and therefore criticise my happiness-

-When I don't have sed rights?

Still going on babbling nonsense. I feel bad for you.

Go back to your remedial education. Honestly, Science can explain everything of this earth, and everything not of this earth. Theory's of time and relativity have been proven time and time again; and is something you should read up on. How can you possibly aim to criticise what you at first do not understand?


Your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate.

BBS Signature

Response to The Atheist Army 2009-11-05 16:59:17


Ooooooook, now that that's out of the way, did you watch the video AapoJoki linked to in the Politics forum in that "nothing" isn't really nothing, but elementary particles? I did a little search myself, and found a theory that states the beginning energy could have, essentially, arose out of nothing, as in absolute non-existence.