New bible

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 15 May 2008 15:11

RawSko wrote:All I was getting at is that people have the right to belive in religion. Saying that religion is bad because it causes war is the same thing as saying Hindus are wrong because they belive in MANY gods. It's offensive to harsh on anyone's beliefs. Getting rid of all religions because they cause war would take away freedom and diversity (like in a communist regime, turnip). I'd rather have war than that...
I don't think anyone here has said people shouldn't have the right to believe in religion. People have merely argued why they think religion sucks. Sure its offensive and harsh on people's beliefs, so?

And I just disagree with your comment about communism. There have also been capitalist regimes that take away freedom and diversity, and you could also have a democratic government that is communist.
Oliver Adams

User avatar
Bringerofpie
Fearless
Posts: 508
Joined: 31 May 2007 13:12
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Post by Bringerofpie » 15 May 2008 15:15

No you can't. You're confusing communism with socialism.
"Fuck it man, you just gotta do it."

Joe Snyder

Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)

http://onlycountria.myminicity.com

RawSko
Green Footbag Ninja
Posts: 1386
Joined: 21 Nov 2005 16:44
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba

Post by RawSko » 15 May 2008 16:37

I know it's bad form, but I had not actually read all of Jeremy's post this morning. (I was in a rush.)
Jeremy wrote: Nations are obviously a way in which people are divided, and obviously leads to conflict. Much of the progress in avoiding conflict in the second half of the 20th century can be attributed to the growth in international relations and immigration, and the weakening of national borders. It's now inconceivable for two nations in Europe to start a war against each other, yet in the last 100 years we've seen the two biggest wars that have ever occurred in Europe (although that's in real terms, not relative terms). This clearly shows that we don't need an end to nations, we just need an end to nationalism, and in most countries, especially amongst the educated people, who are the ones to have influence over the country, the attitude of "My country is the best and other countries are inferior" has pretty much disappeared.


This sounds totally correct, and I agree with you. Very specific way of putting it. I'm also opposed to nationalism, I'd just never been able to explain my opposition this eloquently. Thank you :P
I'm not really sure what you're talking about, or how you've drawn those conclusions. The solution to racism seems to be integration and inclusion, rather than getting rid of all races. Like religion, it's the attitude of "us and them" that is the problem, not people's actual races. This is why places that are racially homogeneous (as in most of the people are of the same race) are much more racist than places with much more racial diversity. The Czech Republic, for example, has much stronger and more prevalent racial attitudes than much of Europe, and it's also 95% white people. Rural towns usually have stronger racist attitudes than cities, again because they're not exposed to people of different races so much. Some cities are more racist than others, and they're also usually racially separated - usually on economic reasons as well as racial reasons - ie. all the black people are poor and live in one suburb, and all the white people are rich and live in another. Cities with diversity of races and mixing of races have far less racial attitudes than polarised cities.
I agree with you here as well, in so far as discarding the aggressive belief that "not only does God exist, but he wants all the non-believers to be burned alive" --and other such off-shoots.

I just hear (read, rather) you talking (...writing, rather) about atheism and how it's the new thing. Whether it was your intention to sound preachy or not, I just felt that you had a bit o' the ol' "My belief is better than yours" going on, yourself. I felt that you were talking about how great it would be if everyone were atheist. I think it's from your discounting of religious beliefs that I got the idea that you feel there should be no religions. I decided to (try to) challenge this (I know what a cut-throat debater you are :P). If it was merely a passive statement of your atheist beliefs, then I apologize; I misunderstood you.

Sorry that I confuse statements like (Turnip's) "religion sucks" with "we shouldn't have religion." Generally, when you have a wart, you remove it. I would think that if you view religion as a wart on the body of humanity, you would want to get rid of it. Side-note: [ I see this as the same thing as viewing music, or literature (minus the "mine's better than yours" attitude) as a wart; but to each his own. ] Maybe you meant "religion sucks" in the same way that passive racists think minorities suck. "I hate'em, but I guess I'll put up with'em"

Closed mindedness is generally not far off from decided ignorance. I'm not trying to say that anyone's wrong (in the same way that people who don't like vegetables are not "Wrong"). I'm merely suggesting that everyone keeps an open mind. Stay flexible in your beliefs. When Jeremy brings in proof to support an argument against religion, that's very interesting. When Turnip says "religion sucks," that's ignorant.

REAL conclusions are retardedly scarce. Don't ask me to explain this unless you've read Rene Descartes' Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings. Crazy stuff...
Ben Roscoe

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 15 May 2008 16:48

RawSko wrote:All I was getting at is that people have the right to belive in religion. Saying that religion is bad because it causes war is the same thing as saying Hindus are wrong because they belive in MANY gods. It's offensive to harsh on anyone's beliefs. Getting rid of all religions because they cause war would take away freedom and diversity (like in a communist regime, turnip). I'd rather have war than that...
Firstly, the word is "believe" not "belive."

Secondly, as Ollie has pointed out, nobody has said that people don't or shouldn't have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Certainly if you were to read some humanist or rationalist literature, or the books like The God Delusion or The End Of Faith it's clear that even amongst the most vocal opponents to religion, they're only plan of removing the influence of religion is hoping to convince people with their words. Richard Dawkins on a number of occasions has made it very clear that he doesn't support any kind of force in stopping people from believing whatever they like.


Of course if religious people are allowed to believe whatever they like, and they are, then surely non-religious people should have an equal right to believe whatever they like too, and both groups should be absolutely free to express their beliefs. Religious people say and do many things that I find offensive. In fact they do and say many things that I find abhorrent. The Catholic church lying to people in Africa about condoms so that they have unprotected sex is beyond offensive. The spread of syphilis amongst male babies in fundamentalist Jewish communities where circumcised skin is sucked off the penis by the Rabbi (a completely legal practice that occurs around the world, including in Australia, Canada and America) is beyond offensive. The wars in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and in Africa where literally millions of people have been killed, fighting on sides separated by religious belief is beyond offensive.


If I'm not allowed to tell people my opinion on their religious beliefs, they shouldn't be allowed to tell me their opinions on their religious beliefs either. If nobody is allowed to criticise religion, nobody should be allowed to talk about religion or use it to divide people or make decisions because of it either.



Now lets imagine a world. This world is just like our world, maybe it's even identical. In this imaginary world, God and Gods really don't exist, and all religious beliefs are false. A small, but fast growing number of people have come to realise this and so they see all the damage caused by religion. They see from their own lives, and the lives of the other people who have realised this that the perceived benefits of religion don't exist, and that they can get the same things without religion. From a moral perspective, should these people say something about this, or should they remain silent, and allow the world to be controlled by beliefs in things that aren't real?

RawSko
Green Footbag Ninja
Posts: 1386
Joined: 21 Nov 2005 16:44
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba

Post by RawSko » 15 May 2008 17:32

I think it's the nature of online debates that discussion can never feel peaceful. I was trying to add to the conversation, but I always feel like you come back with "you're an idiot." Maybe that's not your intention, and I'm just being a baby.

Maybe you posted that before reading my post above. I'm not offended by you challenging religious beliefs. It is interesting.

You CANNOT say, with 100% certainty, (and scientific proof) that God (or a creator of some kind) does not exist. Technically, you could argue that it can't be proved the other way either -- but that's not the point. If you don't like religion and you want to convince people not to believe in it, challenge away! I happen to find theories about our origins/life after death/the purpose of life fascinating. I would hate for the world to be rid of them.

You say that you're not trying to say that the world should be rid of religion, but you want everyone to be convinced (peacefully) to be atheist? ...in your opinion, should the world be rid of religion?

I realize that some nasty stuff goes on in and because of religion, but I would be willing to give my life for it (if it came to that). IMO, some of (if not THE) most beautiful thing(s) stem from religion/spirituality. I also think it's natural and impossible to ignore.

feel free to challenge me on that. :P

PS: why are we still discussing this in a thread about "Lolcats" or whatever...
Ben Roscoe

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 15 May 2008 18:58

RawSko wrote:
You CANNOT say, with 100% certainty, (and scientific proof) that God (or a creator of some kind) does not exist. Technically, you could argue that it can't be proved the other way either -- but that's not the point. If you don't like religion and you want to convince people not to believe in it, challenge away! I happen to find theories about our origins/life after death/the purpose of life fascinating. I would hate for the world to be rid of them.
RawSko wrote: You say that you're not trying to say that the world should be rid of religion, but you want everyone to be convinced (peacefully) to be atheist? ...in your opinion, should the world be rid of religion?
Yes I believe the world should be rid of religion - but that is still very different to saying that people should not have the right to believe in a god.
RawSko wrote:
You CANNOT say, with 100% certainty, (and scientific proof) that God (or a creator of some kind) does not exist. Technically, you could argue that it can't be proved the other way either -- but that's not the point. If you don't like religion and you want to convince people not to believe in it, challenge away! I happen to find theories about our origins/life after death/the purpose of life fascinating. I would hate for the world to be rid of them.
Good to see you have that attitude. Regarding not being able to say with 100% certainty that god does not exist - fine. But consider this simple model:

Either God exists or God does not exist

There is a 50% chance that God does not exist, meaning 50% Chance atheists are right.

There's also a 50% chance god existing - thats chill, but what is this god?
He's kind and loving. Whoops, your chances just dropped to 25% because there are now 2 possible ways God can go in the 50%.

He is also the father of Jesus Christ (this is a reference to Christianity but a similar thing can be applied to any religion). Chances down to 12.5%

There exists 2 ways of going after death, heaven or hell: 6.25%.

Now this very simple god, who is king and loving and is the father of some person we havn't described yet, who resides within some existance where there is a heaven and hell, has only a 6.25% chance of existing. We've barely described him. If you live by the bible you get a lot more specific claims and stories etc. I'm not going to manually go through but it won't take long before the odds of this state of the world existing is very very very small.

Now its not as simple to apply the probability to other things we know regarding contradictions between what the bible says and what we witness (ie. dinosaur fossils and a large amount of evidence in favour of evolution). And its even more difficult when you consider God's motives when he puts people on earth and lets them become quadriplegics, lose their families and be tortured and discriminated against.

We can't say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but I don't see the logic in all the violence that has been caused over something so unlikely.

But you feel the touch of god, so that makes up for it more than enough.
Oliver Adams

Guest_1
BSOS Beast
Posts: 471
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 21:15
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by Guest_1 » 16 May 2008 06:48

Blue_turnip wrote: Either God exists or God does not exist

There is a 50% chance that God does not exist, meaning 50% Chance atheists are right.

There's also a 50% chance god existing - thats chill, but what is this god?
He's kind and loving. Whoops, your chances just dropped to 25% because there are now 2 possible ways God can go in the 50%.

He is also the father of Jesus Christ (this is a reference to Christianity but a similar thing can be applied to any religion). Chances down to 12.5%

There exists 2 ways of going after death, heaven or hell: 6.25%.

Now this very simple god, who is king and loving and is the father of some person we havn't described yet, who resides within some existance where there is a heaven and hell, has only a 6.25% chance of existing. We've barely described him. If you live by the bible you get a lot more specific claims and stories etc. I'm not going to manually go through but it won't take long before the odds of this state of the world existing is very very very small.

Now its not as simple to apply the probability to other things we know regarding contradictions between what the bible says and what we witness (ie. dinosaur fossils and a large amount of evidence in favour of evolution). And its even more difficult when you consider God's motives when he puts people on earth and lets them become quadriplegics, lose their families and be tortured and discriminated against.

We can't say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but I don't see the logic in all the violence that has been caused over something so unlikely.
This was a very poor way of arguing a theistic point. The way you phrase it and number it is so off it's unbelievable. It's difficult to understand this if you have no academic knowledge of religious studies, but there is a much higher likelyhood of G-d's existence than 50% and there is no chance whatsoever, according to Catholic sources, that Jesus is A) The son of G-d B) the messiah. This percentage formula you used is very flawed.

Now stop runing the lolcat discussion

User avatar
max
Australofrenchbrityorkus
Posts: 3751
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
Contact:

Post by max » 16 May 2008 07:17

but there is a much higher likelyhood of G-d's existence than 50%
So it's closer to what? 60%? 75%? 90%?

And what exactly is this likelihood based on? Who performed the study arriving at these results and where can I find it?

I'll agree with you on this: Oliver's statistical argument left me unconvinced.
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC

Frank_Sinatra
Avenging Disco Godfather
Posts: 1660
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by Frank_Sinatra » 16 May 2008 07:45

max wrote:Who performed the study arriving at these results and where can I find it?
And while they are at it, can they tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And how many deer there are in the world? Both are of crucial importance to me.

But seriously...

Logic and statistics are a potent combination for exploring an idea. However, absent empirical evidence, you can not generate any statistical data.

So you are left with logic (and here I'm talking Aristotelian [spelling?] logic). In other words, you can construct a valid argument with a premise with an unknown truth value, and come to a valid conclusion with an unknown truth value, about a thing which may or may not (or definitely does not) exist. You can construct a perfectly valid argument about Unicorns, for instance.

But how does one solve for the truth value of the premise without empirical evidence?

So on the one hand, we can clearly refute the assertions of various passages of sacred texts using empirical evidence. For instance, the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution refutes creationism as described in Genesis.

On the other hand, we must acknowledge a distinction between a sacred text and the existence of God in some form or another. In other words, refuting the bible's creation story might lead me to believe the god described in the bible does not exist. But that argument does not lead me to believe that there is no such thing as God.

Now, back to the Unicorns. There is no empirical evidence that Unicorns exist, and so it is pretty much widely acknowledged that there is no such thing as a Unicorn. Should God be treated any differently simply because it is a sensitive subject, a belief that so many people hold dear? Maybe in most social settings it is the polite thing to do. But where is this empirical evidence for God's existence, and in the event that none is found, don't we have to put God and Unicorns in the same category?

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 16 May 2008 08:38

MarvlMan wrote: This was a very poor way of arguing a theistic point. The way you phrase it and number it is so off it's unbelievable. It's difficult to understand this if you have no academic knowledge of religious studies, but there is a much higher likelyhood of G-d's existence than 50% and there is no chance whatsoever, according to Catholic sources, that Jesus is A) The son of G-d B) the messiah. This percentage formula you used is very flawed.

Now stop runing the lolcat discussion
Terrible. How can you possibly state that the likelihood of God existing is greater than 50% What's your phase space and how many different possibilities exist within that phase space?

Notice everybody how Josh attempts to turn this, again, into a claim that Christianity is false, but his religion (which gives little boys syphilis by sucking skin off their mutilated penises) is right.

Let's also for a moment examine his second claim. There is no chance that Jesus is the son of God or the messiah[/b] according to Catholicism. This isn't the atheist position. Atheists (or at least rational atheists) would claim that there is no reason to believe that this is true, but Josh doesn't just claim that, he claims that there is no chance that it is true. How can you possibly prove that? Isn't it relatively easy to come up with a hypothetical world that meets the Catholic view of the world. Obviously, just like with all religions, we have no reason to believe that it is true, but most importantly, we have no reason to believe it to be false either. If you're going to claim something has that has no evidence to disprove it (and what evidence could you have?) has no chance of being true, you're either really stupid, or you're dishonest. Somebody explain to me an alternative possibility please.

Guest_1
BSOS Beast
Posts: 471
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 21:15
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by Guest_1 » 16 May 2008 08:46

Hey Jeremy. I was responding directly to something he said. It wasn't anti-christian. I was arguing with his logic.

You on the other hand, keep making anti-semetic and anti-Israel comments. You keep seem to have a giant Jewish penis comlex. I'm not sure why you're obsessed with Orthodox Jewish penises, but maybe you can PM me and we can talk about it.

In a discussion of logical premises and conclusions about the founding factors of most religions and the existence of G-d, you keep bashing unfoundedly on a specific practice of Jews.

So, since it has nothing to do with the discussion, maybe you should keep your anti-semetism and Jewish penis obsession to yourself.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 16 May 2008 16:30

I think you should review what I've written in this topic. Let's have a look at my "anti-semetic and anti-Israel" comments. Let's have a look at how I "keep bashing unfoundedly on a specific practice of Jews.

Here is every post I've made in this topic. I'll bold the bits where I'm critical in anyway of anything Jewish.

Josh really demonstrates why I dislike religion so much. Because he's so sure that his religion is better than all the other religions and that his right while they're all wrong. There are people of all religions who have the exact same opinions, and that's why there is so much religious war and oppression in the world.
ORLY?

It's a joke at the expense of Christianity, and all of Josh's posts about religion attack Christianity. I have a strong dislike for Christianity as well, but not because I think my religion is better, but because I think all religions are false. When I do attack Christianity I try to attack it on it's merits, I don't just post meaningless trivialisations of the religion. Also lolcats are a few years old now. Repeating the same jokes over and over tends to lose humour fairly quickly.
That's irrelevant. How can you ascertain that any postulation is correct if the basic premise that postulate is based on has no evidence to support it. Instead of basing our morals and values on ancient fallible texts that have evolved and been reinterpreted to reflect changes in social values over centuries, I think it's far better to base our morals and values on our current understandings of humanity and ethics.

We don't need religion to decide how to treat people, and you can see that by the actions of many completely non-religious people who still maintain high moral values. If the basic premise of religion's are false and the morals they teach cannot therefore be supported, and good moral judgements can be made without religion; what is religion actually achieving?

I also think it's important to judge religion on actions rather than teachings. We should judge religion on how people's religious beliefs affect their behaviour, not solely on what their religious beliefs are. Most religions claim that it is wrong to kill people. Yet most religions still become involved in wars and killing people. The teachings aren't important, it's the behaviour of the followers that is important.
I agree with the posts above. I also think it's very important to note that unlike with the behaviour of many of the religious people mentioned in D'Souza's article, the so called atheists he mentions killed hardly any, if any, people specifically in the name of religion. There's obviously a great deal of evidence that suggests that Hitler was a Catholic, and not an atheist such as this quote;
Adolph Hitler wrote:My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
What I find interesting about that quote, is it comes from a section of the Richard Dawkins book mentioned in D'Souza's article called; "What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren't they atheists" and it outlines the significant evidence that Hitler was a Catholic and not an atheist. I find this interesting because D'Souza is very critical of Dawkins book, and also claims that Hitler killed in the name of creating a religious free society? Did he actually read the book? If he did, is he deliberately presenting material he knows is false, because he's aiming his article at people who won't read the book? Either way, it's hard to see how he's not being intellectually dishonest.


The fact of the matter is that neither Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. They killed religious people and atheists indiscriminately. It was not targeted killing of people for their religious beliefs, which is entirely different to events like the crusades.

It's also completely irrelevant as to whether they were atheists or not. In no way does it suggest that God actually exists or that atheism makes people do bad things. Atheism is not a philosophy that people live by. There are all kinds of different atheists with completely different views. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Most Western atheists could be described as either humanists or rationalists, two philosophical views that are intrinsically opposed to dictatorships, genocide and murder.

These kinds of attacks on atheism are ignorant and illogical, and completely miss the point of the criticism towards religion; which is that religious views are a significant direct factor in the violence and war that people attribute to it, while the so called atheists beliefs of the people they are attacking weren't the reasons behind their actions (in fact in all three cases it was nationalism, which is something many people think is essentially another form of religion - it's the irrational worship of a country instead of the irrational worship of imaginary friends).
What evidence do you have for that belief?

The reality is that a lack of religious belief is the fastest growing view on religion, and has been for centuries now. In that same time violent death has dropped enormously.

Think about this, in any conflict people are separated into different sides. What is that separates them? In almost all cases it is either race, religion or nationality. If people didn't distinguish each other based on those groups, what would separate them, giving them a reason to fight? It's not a question of what excuse would they find to fight, it's a question of how could you have 2 sides to fight at all?

If we look at Hitler, since he's a common theme. Hitler was really involved in two separate conflicts that weren't that strongly connected. He was involved in the holocaust (which I guess wasn't a conflict, or a very one sided conflict) where he separated people by race because he felt that a few races were to blame for his perceived oppression of his race. He was also involved in WW2 because he felt that his nation had been oppressed by other nations unfairly after WW1. In both these cases there is conflict because people are distinguished by race or nation.

An example relating to religion. Osama bin Ladin's grievance with America and the Western world isn't that we have different beliefs to him, his grievance is that he feels that Islam is oppressed by the world (especially America and especially Christianity). If the whole world was Islamic, or none of the world was Islamic, how could he feel like that, and what excuse could he come up with to fight?
Exactly. We can certainly say that religion has a direct influence on many conflicts. We could not possibly claim that the people would find something else to fight about if they didn't have religion.
*Could not claim with any surety that might be the case, but what evidence do we have to think that it would be? There are very few examples of groups that are expressly atheists fighting groups that are also expressly atheist (although I absolutely concede that this is pretty weak evidence either way).
wrote:Sure.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker0 ... index.html
Steven Pinker wrote:Yet, despite these caveats, a picture is taking shape. The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon, visible at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and years. It applies over several orders of magnitude of violence, from genocide to war to rioting to homicide to the treatment of children and animals. And it appears to be a worldwide trend, though not a homogeneous one. The leading edge has been in Western societies, especially England and Holland, and there seems to have been a tipping point at the onset of the Age of Reason in the early seventeenth century.
I also posted this article a while ago (sorry, I no longer have the direct link, although I'm sure it's really easy to find the mentioned UN report).;

http://modified.in/footbag/viewtopic.ph ... 64&start=0
Pamela Bone wrote:HERE is the news. Since 1992 the number of armed conflicts in the world has decreased by 40per cent. The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval for hundreds of years without a war between the major powers.
The percentage of men who died violent deaths last century - a century that held two world wars - was approximately 1 per cent, while the percentage of men who died violent deaths in hunter-gatherer societies is estimated at about 30 per cent.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about, or how you've drawn those conclusions. The solution to racism seems to be integration and inclusion, rather than getting rid of all races. Like religion, it's the attitude of "us and them" that is the problem, not people's actual races. This is why places that are racially homogeneous (as in most of the people are of the same race) are much more racist than places with much more racial diversity. The Czech Republic, for example, has much stronger and more prevalent racial attitudes than much of Europe, and it's also 95% white people. Rural towns usually have stronger racist attitudes than cities, again because they're not exposed to people of different races so much. Some cities are more racist than others, and they're also usually racially separated - usually on economic reasons as well as racial reasons - ie. all the black people are poor and live in one suburb, and all the white people are rich and live in another. Cities with diversity of races and mixing of races have far less racial attitudes than polarised cities.

Nations are obviously a way in which people are divided, and obviously leads to conflict. Much of the progress in avoiding conflict in the second half of the 20th century can be attributed to the growth in international relations and immigration, and the weakening of national borders. It's now inconceivable for two nations in Europe to start a war against each other, yet in the last 100 years we've seen the two biggest wars that have ever occurred in Europe (although that's in real terms, not relative terms). This clearly shows that we don't need an end to nations, we just need an end to nationalism, and in most countries, especially amongst the educated people, who are the ones to have influence over the country, the attitude of "My country is the best and other countries are inferior" has pretty much disappeared.
Firstly, the word is "believe" not "belive."

Secondly, as Ollie has pointed out, nobody has said that people don't or shouldn't have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Certainly if you were to read some humanist or rationalist literature, or the books like The God Delusion or The End Of Faith it's clear that even amongst the most vocal opponents to religion, they're only plan of removing the influence of religion is hoping to convince people with their words. Richard Dawkins on a number of occasions has made it very clear that he doesn't support any kind of force in stopping people from believing whatever they like.


Of course if religious people are allowed to believe whatever they like, and they are, then surely non-religious people should have an equal right to believe whatever they like too, and both groups should be absolutely free to express their beliefs. Religious people say and do many things that I find offensive. In fact they do and say many things that I find abhorrent. The Catholic church lying to people in Africa about condoms so that they have unprotected sex is beyond offensive. The spread of syphilis amongst male babies in fundamentalist Jewish communities where circumcised skin is sucked off the penis by the Rabbi (a completely legal practice that occurs around the world, including in Australia, Canada and America) is beyond offensive. The wars in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and in Africa where literally millions of people have been killed, fighting on sides separated by religious belief is beyond offensive.


If I'm not allowed to tell people my opinion on their religious beliefs, they shouldn't be allowed to tell me their opinions on their religious beliefs either. If nobody is allowed to criticise religion, nobody should be allowed to talk about religion or use it to divide people or make decisions because of it either.



Now lets imagine a world. This world is just like our world, maybe it's even identical. In this imaginary world, God and Gods really don't exist, and all religious beliefs are false. A small, but fast growing number of people have come to realise this and so they see all the damage caused by religion. They see from their own lives, and the lives of the other people who have realised this that the perceived benefits of religion don't exist, and that they can get the same things without religion. From a moral perspective, should these people say something about this, or should they remain silent, and allow the world to be controlled by beliefs in things that aren't real?
* OMG look, in the post above I criticise Judaism in a paragraph where I also criticise Catholicism, Islam, Christianity and Animism. Clearly anti-semetic and anti-Israeli.
Terrible. How can you possibly state that the likelihood of God existing is greater than 50% What's your phase space and how many different possibilities exist within that phase space?

Notice everybody how Josh attempts to turn this, again, into a claim that Christianity is false, but his religion (which gives little boys syphilis by sucking skin off their mutilated penises) is right.

Let's also for a moment examine his second claim. There is no chance that Jesus is the son of God or the messiah[/b] according to Catholicism. This isn't the atheist position. Atheists (or at least rational atheists) would claim that there is no reason to believe that this is true, but Josh doesn't just claim that, he claims that there is no chance that it is true. How can you possibly prove that? Isn't it relatively easy to come up with a hypothetical world that meets the Catholic view of the world. Obviously, just like with all religions, we have no reason to believe that it is true, but most importantly, we have no reason to believe it to be false either. If you're going to claim something has that has no evidence to disprove it (and what evidence could you have?) has no chance of being true, you're either really stupid, or you're dishonest. Somebody explain to me an alternative possibility please.


Oh look, I bring up the same point twice. This is an obsession now. Despite the sentence clearly targeting the religious beliefs of the person who I'm addressing, it's actually an example of just how much I hate Israel.




Hey Josh, instead of making ad hominem attacks that are largely baseless, why don't you address the actual criticisms that were levelled at you?

How can you state that there is a greater than 50% chance that God exists - what are using to make that calculation? How can you claim that constant with that claim, there is no chance whatsoever that Jesus is the son of God or the messiah?

In your response, see if you can see past two sentences I've made that mention Judaism and read all the text around those two sentences.

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 16 May 2008 17:39

MarvlMan wrote: This was a very poor way of arguing a theistic point. The way you phrase it and number it is so off it's unbelievable. It's difficult to understand this if you have no academic knowledge of religious studies, but there is a much higher likelyhood of G-d's existence than 50% and there is no chance whatsoever, according to Catholic sources, that Jesus is A) The son of G-d B) the messiah. This percentage formula you used is very flawed.

Now stop runing the lolcat discussion
I love the way you assume I have no knowledge of religious studies. Nine of my twelve years of schooling were spent at catholic schools.

How the hell is there more than 50% chance? There's simply NOTHING to suggest this. Its just flipping rediculous.

"The percentage formula you used is very flawed". Great insight, Mr >50%. Instead of just saying 'this is wrong', can you actually explain why? Instead of just being like "oh i'm not going to bother explaining why there is a greater than 50% chance of gods existance because you clearly know nothing about religion" actually tell us why. I want to know.

Also I want to know why the way I "phrase it and number it is so off its unbelievable".

I might as well just call yo mama fat because that argument would have about equal backing to what you're laying on me.
max wrote: I'll agree with you on this: Oliver's statistical argument left me unconvinced.
Frank_Sinatra wrote: Logic and statistics are a potent combination for exploring an idea. However, absent empirical evidence, you can not generate any statistical data.
I don't know where the idea that my argument was statistical came from. I never made a statistical argument, generated statistical data or even claimed to do anything statistical. My argument was purely probabilistic.

My model was meant to serve to illustrate how the odds of this very specific divine being existing, as people imagine, is extremely slim. And how assuming no bias, there is a 50% chance that there isn't a god. Instead of just saying 'no', can someone put forward a reason I'm so terribly wrong?
Frank_Sinatra wrote: So you are left with logic (and here I'm talking Aristotelian [spelling?] logic). In other words, you can construct a valid argument with a premise with an unknown truth value, and come to a valid conclusion with an unknown truth value, about a thing which may or may not (or definitely does not) exist. You can construct a perfectly valid argument about Unicorns, for instance.
Lol I love the way you say 'we are left with logic' and just dive into a random talk about truth values of premises in propositional logic.

And sorry but you're not even correct. The premise can't just have an 'unknown truth value'. It must be certian that it is zero. What happens in the instance that the truth value of the premise is 1 and it turns out your conclusion is false? No, if you want to make some random valid argument then you must be certain teh premises are always false (or in any scenario where they are true, so is the conclusion). The reason I can validly argue say, following your example, that if something is a unicorn, then it is made of tin-infused wood is because I know that something will NEVER be a unicorn. If it was just an 'unknown' value and then it turned out that something was a unicorn, and it was instead made of kryptonite, then it would be a counterexample of my argument and it would show my argument to be invalid.

Frank_Sinatra wrote: But how does one solve for the truth value of the premise without empirical evidence?
Well you can't, which means you can't create a valid logical argument which says god doesn't exist. It would be awesome if you could though.
Oliver Adams

Guest_1
BSOS Beast
Posts: 471
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 21:15
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by Guest_1 » 18 May 2008 14:52

Jeremy, not every post you make has to be anti-semetic to make you anti-semetic. Just when every post about Judaism is anti-semetic you are probably an anti-semite.

You're not asking me or questioning me on my logic or evidence. You're just attacking me. In fact, most of your posts in this thread are attacking me. You want older, more mature discussion? Let's have it. You need to stop attacking me with anti-semetism and start having a real discussion. It's getting old and you're looking silly.

You've got two options, start a new thread for a real theological debate, or PM me. If you continue to post anti-semetism and attack me baselessly in this thread, it'd be very pathetic.

Guest_1
BSOS Beast
Posts: 471
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 21:15
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by Guest_1 » 18 May 2008 15:27

Jeremy wrote:How can you state that there is a greater than 50% chance that God exists - what are using to make that calculation? How can you claim that constant with that claim, there is no chance whatsoever that Jesus is the son of God or the messiah?
Creator in the world? http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ ... fworld.htm

There is less of a mess to find out the truth for G-d existing than there is finding out whether or not the Torah and Judaism, which christianity is based on-is true. There are three conclusions that need to be reached before approaching the question of Christianity. A) Does G-d exist? B) validity of the written Torah? C) validity of the oral Torah?

If those three are true, than Christianity has a possibility of being true. If none of those are true, then Christianity is for sure not.

So, assuming there is a creator in the world, the torah is true, and the oral torah has its validity, we can than ask the question if Jesus is the messiah fortold in Jewish prophecy.

So the first big questino to ask is...

Why Dont Jews believe in jesus? Jews for jesus?






Jewish Beliefs about Jesus -
For 2,000 years, Jews have rejected
the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to understand why Jews don't believe in Jesus. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that's available, the better-informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.

JEWS DO NOT ACCEPT JESUS AS THE MESSIAH BECAUSE:
Intro: (What exactly is the Messiah?)
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:
5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah

MORE RESOURCES + JUDAISM & OTHER RELIGIONS (AT BOTTOM)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly is the Messiah? (back)

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES (back)

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH (back)

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David! (2)
SEE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS (back)

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

C. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.

From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nazianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

For further reading on the "suffering servant":
www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION (back)

Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.

Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):

The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

See "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai" for further reading.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY (back)

The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination.

A. GOD AS THREE?

The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God's One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.

In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry -- one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.

B. MAN AS GOD?

Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).

Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)

C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?

The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary -- i.e. confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)

D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD

Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.

By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.

The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don't retreat from life, we elevate it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) JEWS AND GENTILES (back)

Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a "House for all nations."

The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they'd never have destroyed it.

Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.

For further study of the Seven Laws of Noah:
The Seven Laws of Noah


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) BRINGING THE MESSIAH (back)

Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God's plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.

Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"

How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.

Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."

by Rabbi Shraga Simmons
Largely adapted from Aish.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jewish-Christian Disputations
Moses Nachmanides and The Debate in Barcelona, Spain, 1263

The most famous of all Jewish-Christian disputations was between the apostate Jew Pablo Christiani and Moses Nachmanides (the Ramban).

Nachmanides argued that the central issue separating Christianity and Judaism was not the issue of Jesus' messiahship, but whether or not Jesus was divine. There was no basis in Judaism, Nachmanides said, for believing in the divinity of the Messiah or, indeed, of any man. To Nachmanides, it seemed most strange "that the Creator of heaven and earth resorted to the womb of a certain Jewess and grew there for nine months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards... he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or any other person, cannot tolerate this." Nachmanides told the Spanish monarch, "You have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled with you because of that accustomed habit." Had King James heard these ideas propounded for the first time when he was already an adult, Nachmanides implied, he never would have accepted them.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm

Guest_1
BSOS Beast
Posts: 471
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 21:15
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by Guest_1 » 18 May 2008 15:29

By the way, this was supposed to be a lolcats discussion. I'm just responding to Jeremy's inquiries

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 18 May 2008 22:56

MarvlMan wrote:By the way, this was supposed to be a lolcats discussion. I'm just responding to Jeremy's inquiries
In instances like this I reckon its fine to change the course of discussion. Really, how much is there to say about lolcats? "Its funny" is about all that springs to mind.
Oliver Adams

User avatar
snafu1322
Multidex Master
Posts: 253
Joined: 04 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post by snafu1322 » 21 May 2008 00:24

Blue_turnip wrote:
MarvlMan wrote:By the way, this was supposed to be a lolcats discussion. I'm just responding to Jeremy's inquiries
In instances like this I reckon its fine to change the course of discussion. Really, how much is there to say about lolcats? "Its funny" is about all that springs to mind.
Maybe there is a deeper meaning in lolcats.

Maybe the misspelling and internet lingo is a commentary on how 12 year olds and such have made internet or text language so ridiculously stupid or maybe it is the future of the English language (x drppng vwls).


Image

The image above maybe commenting on how fast food is a big role in obesity in America since the cat looks kind of chubby. The artist maybe commenting on the fact that many people would rather have a cheeseburger than a more healthy meal.

There maybe much more to these "lolcats" than mets the eye.

It would be safe to say that lolcats have led to many disputes on the internet. There is also a chance that lolcats may not exist and they were all photoshoped to keep us internet users entertained. Maybe all internet users should not believe in lolcats anymore, but that i think will be impossible because no matter what some internet users will always find humor and entertainment value in lolcats.

It would seem that there will never be a clear cut answer, unless we can find the creator of lolcats, but that is if he/she/it only exists.
Dupuy Bateman IV

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 21 May 2008 05:37

Hahaha I like your thoughts. Its defs a microcosm for society or some shiz.

In ur reality:
Image
Oliver Adams

User avatar
snafu1322
Multidex Master
Posts: 253
Joined: 04 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post by snafu1322 » 21 May 2008 08:23

Did you make that comic by chance?

For it is one of the funniest things I have encountered on the internet in the past dew months.
Dupuy Bateman IV

Post Reply