gametechmods
Off-Topic => Chatterbox => Topic started by: Skiitzzox220 on June 16, 2011, 03:12:06 PM
-
Forgive me if there's already a topic for this but I couldn't find one.
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
-
Reform Jew
-
Incoming Hell-fire. You have NO IDEA what you just started.
-
Agnostic Athiest.
-
Born to a Christian family. My beliefs are a kind of mix of scientific beliefs and religious ones
-
Agnostic Atheist.
-
Sparkey, calm down. People are mature enough to discuss this in a reasoned manner.
I'm an Aetheist, personally. I'm fine with thinking I emerged from a one in near infinity chance combination of events.
-
Sparkey, calm down. People are mature enough to discuss this in a reasoned manner.
I'm an Aetheist, personally. I'm fine with thinking I emerged from a one in near infinity chance combination of events.
We had another religion topic before........ didn't go to well.
-
Anti-theist
-
Oh well, a good flame war to keep the blood pumping XD
But anyways, atheist
-
I believe in Christianity and Communism. None of that "Christian Communism" nonsense, however.
-
I believe in Christianity and Communism. None of that "Christian Communism" nonsense, however.
How many of you didn't expect that? XP
-
I have a hard time believing in any religion because it just seems rather stupid to me
-
I believe in Christianity and Communism.
How is that even possible?
-
@SotG: *raises hand*
@Skiitz: That'll be Aetheist, then. =]
@Scorps: They do both share the "Love thy neighbour as you would love thyself" ideals.
I think, as long as people remain open and tolerant towards other peoples' opinions, then this thread should stay relatively clean.
-
I was born in a Christian family, but became agnostic like 2 years ago.
Or something like that...
-
Atheism combined with some anti-theism.
-
I believe in Christianity and Communism.
How is that even possible?
Easily possible. Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto did it say anything about religion being something to avoid.
-
NFX, why do you spell Athiest wrong all the time?
-
Communism, or atleast the kind we all think off, the kind seen in the USSR, was always at loggerheads with the church however.
Religion was strongly discouraged in communist russia and its empire.
-
I am curious Hydro as to why you support a philosophy (communism) that has so far failed to give any good results when implemented (or at least tried).
Anyways, apparently Christianity and Communism go quite well together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Christian_communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Christian_communism).
-
NFX, why do you spell Athiest wrong all the time?
No idea. It's just the way I'm used to. I sometimes do that with other words. I blame Standard Grade French.
-
At least two dictators (a common symbol of Communism) I know of are Christian
-
I am curious Hydro as to why you support a philosophy (communism) that has so far failed to give any good results when implemented (or at least tried).
Because I believe it can work in small scale (say, no more than 15 people) and has never actually been implemented properly.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people)
-
Epistemological Solipsism, Empiricism, Anti-Realism, Anti-Theism, and Supersitition.
-
Any Muslims on the forum? (I'm the type of person to throw myself into rants about religion A LOT)
-
Any Muslims on the forum? (I'm the type of person to throw myself into rants about religion A LOT)
I think ACAMS is.
-
Any Muslims on the forum? (I'm the type of person to throw myself into rants about religion A LOT)
I think ACAMS is.
:coolface
-
Any Muslims on the forum? (I'm the type of person to throw myself into rants about religion A LOT)
I think ACAMS is.
trololol.
As I said earlier, try to keep an open mind about this thing, people can get pretty touchy when there are debates about religion.
-
I believe in
CwutIdidthere
-
I believe in
CwutIdidthere
So you believe in God-by-proxy? :P
-
My religion is me. I am my god. I AM GOD! Look at my name.
-
My religion is me. I am my god. I AM GOD! Look at my name.
Oh Jesus, say that to non-Catholics.
I'm Catholic. :P
-
This thread is a ::badidea
-
There's like 16 of these threads already.
Anyway, my religion is Pinkiepieism. I follow the example of the enigma that is Pinkie Pie by spreading laughter and parties whenever and wherever I can.
-
I believe in Christianity and Communism. None of that "Christian Communism" nonsense, however.
What? Communism's a religion now?
Is democracy one too, then? Because if it is, I believe in that. :D
-
There's like 16 of these threads already.
Anyway, my religion is Pinkiepieism. I follow the example of the enigma that is Pinkie Pie by spreading laughter and parties whenever and wherever I can.
You should try to get as many people as you could converted to it, so it becomes an official religion. They did that with Jedi on the previous UK Census.
-
Convert to Pinkiepieism, we have cupcakes!
-
There's like 16 of these threads already.
Anyway, my religion is Pinkiepieism. I follow the example of the enigma that is Pinkie Pie by spreading laughter and parties whenever and wherever I can.
Damn dyslexia. >.>
I thought it said you followed my example.
If everyone did this world be in shambles by now... :P
-
Anti-theist
Are you also a fan of the Christopher Hitchens?
I'm agnostic atheist. I can't believe in something without some sort of evidence. At the same time, I'm not really sure what evidence would convince me that there are one or more gods. If I heard voices, I would assume hallucination. If my reality were distorted, I would assume I've gone crazy.
-
Anti-theist
Are you also a fan of the Christopher Hitchens?
I'm agnostic atheist. I can't believe in something without some sort of evidence. At the same time, I'm not really sure what evidence would convince me that there are one or more gods. If I heard voices, I would assume hallucination. If my reality were distorted, I would assume I've gone crazy.
*high-fives*
-
If I heard voices, I would assume hallucination. If my reality were distorted, I would assume I've gone crazy.
If you ever did get these, part of me would probably want to say "Welcome to my world"
-
This thread is a ::badidea
Your parents decision to have you was a ::badidea
-
This thread is a ::badidea
Your parents decision to have you was a ::badidea
No arguments please. kthx :3
-
I'm undecided if I'm agnostic or not.
Nah, I'm Agnostic Atheist.
-
This is on-topic, but only if you understand it
Frank was an agnosticinsomniacdyslexiac. He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.
-
Anti-theist
Are you also a fan of the Christopher Hitchens?
I'm agnostic atheist. I can't believe in something without some sort of evidence. At the same time, I'm not really sure what evidence would convince me that there are one or more gods. If I heard voices, I would assume hallucination. If my reality were distorted, I would assume I've gone crazy.
What if Jesus Christ jumped down from heaven and kicked you in the balls?
-
THIS HAPPENS
(https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4333.msg364604.html#msg364604)
-
THIS HAPPENS
(https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4333.msg364604.html#msg364604)
lolwut?
Anti-theist
Are you also a fan of the Christopher Hitchens?
I agree with most of his religious views yes, not his political views though...
-
Belief makes gods, right ?
Well then... I worship myself and believe only in myself, so that I might make myself a god !
-
Belief makes gods, right ?
Well then... I worship myself and believe only in myself, so that I might make myself a god !
I now proclaim... NARYISM
-
Belief makes gods, right ?
Well then... I worship myself and believe only in myself, so that I might make myself a god !
I now proclaim... NARYISM
A poor name to be honest. That religion of mine is obviously a religion for rampant egoists, and no rampant egoist would accept to have the name of another person on his religion.
Therefore we have two choices:
1-Call it [insert-your-name-here]-ism as you supposed, and plunge into confusion because every practitioner is using a different word for that religion.
2-Call it a standard name. Egotheism seems fine since it is focused on the self.
I therefore call it egotheism, and WILL proclaim it since I invented it. Though I hope this idea that I had way back (do any of you people remember a post of mine about this ?) is original and hasn't been called by someone else already.
-
Belief makes gods, right ?
Well then... I worship myself and believe only in myself, so that I might make myself a god !
I now proclaim... NARYISM
A poor name to be honest. That religion of mine is obviously a religion for rampant egoists, and no rampant egoist would accept to have the name of another person on his religion.
Therefore we have two choices:
1-Call it [insert-your-name-here]-ism, and plunge into confusion because every practitioner is using a different word for that religion.
2-Call it a standard name. Egotheism seems fine since it is focused on the self.
Good point and nice idea for a name
-
Well, some n00b beat me to it in this same thread. Too bad I already posted something about egotheism way back.
I don't seem to find it, I think it's on a religion thread... but i'm pretty sure it was on FULL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.
-
I do remember Nar attempting to kickstart a religion with himself as deity. If you did succeed in this, what style of teachings would you preach?
-
I do remember Nar attempting to kickstart a religion with himself as deity. If you did succeed in this, what style of teachings would you preach?
1. There is only one God and that is Nary
2. Do what he tells you or you'll suffer death by ragetoon
-
THIS HAPPENS
(https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4333.msg364604.html#msg364604)
WHY ME? :ouch:
-
I do remember Nar attempting to kickstart a religion with himself as deity. If you did succeed in this, what style of teachings would you preach?
1. There is only one God and that is Nary
2. Do what he tells you or you'll suffer death by ragetoon
You are mistaken, girl, yet again. I have no interest in shepherding other people, nor do I claim to be the only future god on there.
I do remember Nar attempting to kickstart a religion with himself as deity. If you did succeed in this, what style of teachings would you preach?
I have no interest in preaching. This is my own religion, and if it goes mainstream it'll lose all originality and I'll get bored of it, and especially the misinterpretations people make of it.
Plus, I am aware most people would not accept it.
I also did laid out the basis of that religion in my previous post.
-
Atheist
-
THIS HAPPENS
(https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4333.msg364604.html#msg364604)
WHY ME? :ouch:
But you saw Jesus. That counts for something, right?
-
Atheist
QFT.
-
On that fateful day Pinkie Pie will break through the 4th wall, and bring about a new era of peace and laughter for all of mankind. The heavens will open and ponies will rain from the sky. And on that day There will be party the likes of which has never been seen on the earth, with sugar cubes and sugar canes and sundaes and sarsaparilla!
Pinkamina 12:8-10
-
I'd follow her
If she wasn't PINK e_e
-
I'd follow her
If she wasn't PINK e_e
Wear some 3D glasses, then she goes black. =]
-
I'd follow her
If she wasn't PINK e_e
Wear some 3D glasses, then she goes black. =]
I'd follow that XD
(Unfortunately, 3D glasses give me a headache)
-
What if Jesus Christ jumped down from heaven and kicked you in the balls?
I would rationally conclude that it was just an ordinary human who kicked me in the balls.
-
This thread is a ::badidea
Your parents decision to have you was a ::badidea
Dude quit ragging on me. I never did anything to you. You will soon me moved from my "Don't know list" to my "I hate you list" Along with Sparkey. We dont want that.
-
This thread is a ::badidea
Your parents decision to have you was a ::badidea
Dude quit ragging on me. I never did anything to you. You will soon me moved from my "Don't know list" to my "I hate you list" Along with Sparkey. We dont want that.
I'm just defensive of my threads and I have an extremely short patience with people who can't grasp things quickly when I explain it to them..... Also I've heard and seen many bad things about you dude
-
Keep up what you have been and you're gonna seen my signiture post.
-
What if Jesus Christ jumped down from heaven and kicked you in the balls?
I would rationally conclude that it was just an ordinary human who kicked me in the balls.
Can ordinary human jump down from the sky? Yeah I thought so. There's nothing ordinary or rational about that.
-
You're lucky GTM has rules against cursing and flaming because you're really rallying me on to lash out
-
You're lucky GTM has rules against cursing and flaming because you're really rallying me on to lash out
Luckily, I break those rules. And lash at me all you want, Today's been a bad day, And i'm the perfect mood for Pulling a Garvin
-
You're lucky GTM has rules against cursing and flaming because you're really rallying me on to lash out
Luckily, I break those rules. And lash at me all you want, Today's been a bad day, And i'm the perfect mood for Pulling a Garvin
Piss off
-
You're lucky GTM has rules against cursing and flaming because you're really rallying me on to lash out
Luckily, I break those rules. And lash at me all you want, Today's been a bad day, And i'm the perfect mood for Pulling a Garvin
So why are you pulling at yourself again? Is that some X Rated stuff that I am unaware of?
-
You're mad because I stated an opinion and this thread is a ::badidea. Come to think of it last time this happened I was just stating an opinion. See you Kill's Ban Room(AKA HELL) Sucker.
-
You're mad because I stated an opinion and this thread is a ::badidea. Come to think of it last time this happened I was just stating an opinion. See you Kill's Ban Room(AKA HELL) Sucker.
<Expletive> off please.
-
6 ore minutes. My T.V. show is on at 9:00
-
I love how Garvin is trying to act like a badass.
-
BOT for a second after some research agnostic sounds pretty good to me.
But Garvin seriously it's 1:57 A.M. and I'm really beyond caring what I say to you
-
I love how Garvin is trying to act like a badass.
Never heard that one before. Thx
BOT for a second after some research agnostic sounds pretty good to me.
But Garvin seriously it's 1:57 A.M. and I'm really beyond caring what I say to you
Where do you live? Wait... What are you doing up at 1:57? Anyway later. My shows on.
-
Never heard that one before. Thx
Well it wasn't exactly a compliment.
-
I love how Garvin is trying to act like a badass.
Never heard that one before. Thx
BOT for a second after some research agnostic sounds pretty good to me.
But Garvin seriously it's 1:57 A.M. and I'm really beyond caring what I say to you
Where do you live? Wait... What are you doing up at 1:57? Anyway later. My shows on.
UK mate, I swear you're just on this forum to annoy the hell outta everyone and you really are the only person I know who would be proud to be the lowest repped person on the forum
-
Garvin, in all seriousness, shut up and stop trying to act tough, because it's not working at all. Skiitz, don't do something that you'll regret later. It's 2am, and I don't want to bother with anything like this.
-
Garvin, in all seriousness, shut up and stop trying to act tough, because it's not working at all. Skiitz, don't do something that you'll regret later. It's 2am, and I don't want to bother with anything like this.
I guess you're right.....
-
Can ordinary human jump down from the sky? Yeah I thought so. There's nothing ordinary or rational about that.
How can I be sure he jumped down from the sky? How can I be sure the guy doesn't have technology I don't know about? How can I be sure what I saw actually happened?
-
Can ordinary human jump down from the sky? Yeah I thought so. There's nothing ordinary or rational about that.
How can I be sure he jumped down from the sky? How can I be sure the guy doesn't have technology I don't know about? How can I be sure what I saw actually happened?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
Can ordinary human jump down from the sky? Yeah I thought so. There's nothing ordinary or rational about that.
How can I be sure he jumped down from the sky? How can I be sure the guy doesn't have technology I don't know about? How can I be sure what I saw actually happened?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Worst part is that somehow he can holds strong faith in Atheism.
These kind of logic only ends in epistemological solipsism. If you cannot be sure what you see ever happen, you cannot know the external world exist with certainty.
Some people like to compare God with spaghetti monster. If I saw a spaghetti monster jump down from the sky and kick Frezal in the balls, I will believe it exists. And I think Frezal will have much less problem accepting a spaghetti monster exist then Jesus.
-
Oh hey, looks like a flame war is brewing up.
*observes from a safe distance*
-
Oh hey, looks like a flame war is brewing up.
*observes from a safe distance*
We could be bunker-buddies. :D
-
Oh hey, looks like a flame war is brewing up.
*observes from a safe distance*
We could be bunker-buddies. :D
k
-
Worst part is that somehow he can holds strong faith in Atheism.
It isn't faith. I don't have an active belief in no gods; I have been given no reason to assume one or more gods exist. The same could be said about Sasquatch.
These kind of logic only ends in epistemological solipsism. If you cannot be sure what you see ever happen, you cannot know the external world exist with certainty.
Whether or not reality is real doesn't matter. Thus far, nothing has happened that cannot be adequately explained by science (even if it takes a while to find an answer that works). Not once has magic been the sole explanation, or the most logical.
Some people like to compare God with spaghetti monster. If I saw a spaghetti monster jump down from the sky and kick Frezal in the balls, I will believe it exists.
Even though it's far more likely to be a hoax or a hallucination? When you see a strange light in the sky, do you also assume aliens without considering explanations that we know to exist?
And I think Frezal will have much less problem accepting a spaghetti monster exist then Jesus.
I can make stupid statements as well: I think 123savethewhales will have much less of a problem licking his mother's cunt than accurately describing my beliefs.
Spaghetti monsters have the same inherent problems as Bronze Age zombies. Considering my stances whenever a supernatural subject is approached, why would you assume I would have different standards for different kinds of crazy?
-
Hmm...ignorance isn't bliss in 123's case.
-
Even though it's far more likely to be a hoax or a hallucination? When you see a strange light in the sky, do you also assume aliens without considering explanations that we know to exist?
But assuming you're perfectly sane and not under the influence of any drugs, the chances of it being a hallucination aren't all that high. There's a pretty big difference between seeing a light in the sky and being kicked in the balls. The latter is not so easy to hallucinate.
-
When you see a strange light in the sky, do you also assume aliens without considering explanations that we know to exist?
More often I comment to myself about how shiny it is.
-
Worst part is that somehow he can holds strong faith in Atheism.
It isn't faith. I don't have an active belief in no gods; I have been given no reason to assume one or more gods exist. The same could be said about Sasquatch.
Right because something floating down from the sky and kicking you in the balls is not a reason.
If I have an experience like that, I will need pretty good evidence to disprove what I see.
These kind of logic only ends in epistemological solipsism. If you cannot be sure what you see ever happen, you cannot know the external world exist with certainty.
Whether or not reality is real doesn't matter. Thus far, nothing has happened that cannot be adequately explained by science (even if it takes a while to find an answer that works). Not once has magic been the sole explanation, or the most logical.
Try dark matter, dark energy, superposition, entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, emergence of consciousness, complex systems, economics, etc. Yes we know so much that none of us can learn them all in one lifetime, but that does not mean science explain "everything".
Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it.
So if you live in Harry Potters world and you discover magical forces that you can quantify, calculate, put into books, and systematically channel, how is that differ from the 4 fundamental forces of gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak? We explain off the 4 forces as "property of space", as well as random particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum scale. So why can't we have a 5th force, or 6th force, if by adding them in can quantitatively explain a bunch of unexplainable phenomenon?
Things we cannot yet explain, such as dark energy, =/= supernatural. Even things that are fundamentally unexplainable, such as the world smaller then Planck size, or the universe beyond the Hubble sphere, also =/= supernatural.
Fortunately some scientists are more open minded. They are willing to accept new forces so long as they can be observed/quantified. They fight powerful social dogmas that used the "we can explain most things" argument to discredit their finding, and through their victory we have stuff like cellphones and GPS.
Some people like to compare God with spaghetti monster. If I saw a spaghetti monster jump down from the sky and kick Frezal in the balls, I will believe it exists.
Even though it's far more likely to be a hoax or a hallucination? When you see a strange light in the sky, do you also assume aliens without considering explanations that we know to exist?
And how many seconds does it take for you to come to this conclusion? Have you any similar experiences in the past in which to draw reliable conclusions on? Given that you don't, what scientific law do you use to calculate the likelihood of hoax, hallucination, or a living monster? Why is an unidentified living organism unlikely given we find new organisms in caves, rivers, and deep sea everyday? Please don't throw probabilities around. Probability testing is a pain staking process that takes time to calculating/plug into excel all those things, follow by statistical analysis. Your gut feeling does not equal logic.
Seeing some flashing light and literally seeing a spaghetti monster kicking you in the balls are 2 very different things. When I see flashing light, I assume I see flashing light. Any further assumptions are mere fantasies that can neither be verified by or hold relevant to me. As such I do not care.
Try having an alien mother ship beaming down green dudes shooting lasers at me. Yes, I will assume they are aliens without considering other explanations. Hey it might be a hoax too, but I think whoever just stands there and hope the laser is fake are retarded. I believe my eyes enough to not take that kind of chances.
I will not respond to the other 2 because you resort to personal attacks, which is a clear sign that you ran out of intelligent things to say.
-
I was going to bang Skiit and Garvy's heads together, but it looks like they've simmered down now
-
Hmm...ignorance isn't bliss in 123's case.
Well the context isn't "rather you are an Atheist now", but "rather you will remain an Atheist after you saw Jesus float down from the sky, kick you in the balls, and float back up into the sky".
I think that is enough experience for a serious investigation. And rather that is a hoax/hallucination/alien/military testing/God/etc remains to be observed, not assumed. Outright rejecting the experience because of Atheism is blind faith by any definition.
Edit: Yes this topic has always bothered me, so I am going to rant. People nowadays seem to just spam words like logic, chances, rational, real, really, truth, and all that other junk to reinforce their existing beliefs. They don't realize the the rational process takes
1. Time to process
2. Observation/test to confirm
You can't claim to use logic when you spend half a second and without any observations/test.
Believe it or not I spend a lot of time investigating the process of thinking and the use/limitations of logic. Logic isn't everything, it is a pattern recognition process that mixes facts with believe systems to predicts the future. It works only because the world we live in is relatively stable and functions under stable laws. If tomorrow the world suddenly changed a lot your logic will be useless unless it can also adopt. This is why people who use their pre-existing logic in gaming stays n00b and fail so hard, because game mechanics can deviates a lot from real life.
The worst is still the term "Common Sense": how much I hate that term and anyone who claims to rely on it.
I am just wondering, am I making sense to ANYONE here?
-
Yeah, for the 20% that I read. Then I realise that it's not particularly worth my time. (Sorry, but it isn't)
-
I am just wondering, am I making sense to ANYONE here?
I think so.
-
I am just wondering, am I making sense to ANYONE here?
Yep, I understand you perfectly
-
Ah, now that we have 123 versus Frezal the thread has become interesting.
Garvin versus Skiitzox, on the other hand...
And yes 123, you do make sense to me. Though Frezal does as well.
-
Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it.
I know this is Frezal's debate and all but this paragraph bugs me. Mysticism's definition is:
1.
a.Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b.The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2.A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
Definition number 1 and 2 seem inapplicable when dealing with gravity, so that leaves definition 3. Gravity is not vague or groundless. There are some aspects of it that are speculation, but that hardly makes gravity mystical. Gravity is the attraction between two bodies with mass. Its strength can be quantified using equations. It exhibits traits that can be observed and measured. The only speculation we have about gravity is why it is there at all.
Also, from what I can tell the LHC hasn't looked for the existence of the Higgs Bozon yet do to a technical fault. So the fact that gravity's origins remain unexplained does not make it mystical.
-
Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it.
I know this is Frezal's debate and all but this paragraph bugs me. Mysticism's definition is:
1.
a.Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b.The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2.A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
Definition number 1 and 2 seem inapplicable when dealing with gravity, so that leaves definition 3. Gravity is not vague or groundless. There are some aspects of it that are speculation, but that hardly makes gravity mystical. Gravity is the attraction between two bodies with mass. Its strength can be quantified using equations. It exhibits traits that can be observed and measured. The only speculation we have about gravity is why it is there at all.
Also, from what I can tell the LHC hasn't looked for the existence of the Higgs Bozon yet do to a technical fault. So the fact that gravity's origins remain unexplained does not make it mystical.
The problem is the second part, "groundless speculation", which is strongly cultural defined. One culture might accept certain evidence while another rejecting them.
So take this two examples that is commonly refer to as mysticism, witchdoctors and shamans. Most of them are not vague, they are past down through generations with rigorous rules and method of healing. They are also not necessary groundless. Natural herb can have healing properties and with generations of trial and error it is statistical that some of their methods should work. However, you will be hard press to find any western doctors who will accept any of it.
So even stuff like acupuncture took a long time to be somewhat accepted. It is heavily documented and not vague. The problem is how one culture translate the evidence of another. Stuff like 5 elements of the human body, fire/wood/earth/metal/water are surely not helping when directly translated. They can however mean entirely different things than the western view in that context/culture. So even now many western doctors will call that mysticism.
Think back to Newton's time, and what he claims. He said the force that pull us down to earth are the same force that keeps the stars together, and that it is a fundamental part of nature. Even with all the math and proper prediction of celestial objects, a "force that just is" is considered mysticism at the time. Newton being deeply religious also doesn't help, and the line between science and religious beliefs at the time are not nearly as define as today. As it turns out this notion has since been replaced by General Relativity. And we can expect that in the future, the unified theory will at least change some part of that. Suppose that the unified theory requires a radically different thinking of gravity then general relativity, would that make today's believe mysticism because we believe it completely knowing it cannot explain things in subatomic scales?
As for the Higgs Bozon, that is a prediction of the standard model. Regardless what is the reason preventing the LHC from working we cannot assume that Higgs exist at this point. After all if we can just assume stuff like that, who's going to pay all that money to build that LHC to begin with?
Basically, I am saying that most science, however defined and accepted now, starts out as ungrounded speculations. Likewise many science in the outer frontier now, like theoretical physics, are highly speculative and not well grounded. This is why many philosophers are still struggling with the distinction between mysticism and science, and such distinction isn't something you can simply pull out from a dictionary.
-
Once you realize this all started from the hypothetical situation of freZal being kicked on the nuts by Jesus, you realize how funny it all is.
-
After reading all of that I think I need to go to sleep..... My brain is just fried
-
Right because something floating down from the sky and kicking you in the balls is not a reason.
Has it ever happened in the past? No. Does it make sense for a physical being to fall from the sky without sustaining any damage? No. Does falling from the sky and kicking somebody in the balls prove divinity? No. At best, it proves the being has technology I don't know of.
If I have an experience like that, I will need pretty good evidence to disprove what I see.
In this scenario, all you saw was something fall from the sky and suddenly kick you in the balls. That is not proof of divinity, nor does it rule out the possibility of hallucination. If after getting your testicles examined, and a doctor determined that the damage is consistent with being kicked in the balls, that's still not proof of divinity. All you have is an unexplained mystery. If you want to rule out Earthly causes, it could still be an alien, a ghost, a time traveler, etc. The scenario proves nothing.
Try dark matter, dark energy, superposition, entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, emergence of consciousness, complex systems, economics, etc. Yes we know so much that none of us can learn them all in one lifetime, but that does not mean science explain "everything".
I didn't claim that we know everything. That's the problem with newagers and the religious. No we don't have all the answers, but history has taught us that the scientific method eventually leads us to said answers. Believing in the supernatural until an answer is found is just intellectually lazy.
Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it.
Gravity is internally consistent and works with our current understanding of the universe. One doesn't need to know how it works or why to measure its existence.
So if you live in Harry Potters world and you discover magical forces that you can quantify, calculate, put into books, and systematically channel, how is that differ from the 4 fundamental forces of gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak? We explain off the 4 forces as "property of space", as well as random particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum scale. So why can't we have a 5th force, or 6th force, if by adding them in can quantitatively explain a bunch of unexplainable phenomenon?
If we could measure magic, that would be different. Thus far, we haven't found any scenario that requires magic to be explained. (Well, aside from the iPad.)
Things we cannot yet explain, such as dark energy, =/= supernatural. Even things that are fundamentally unexplainable, such as the world smaller then Planck size, or the universe beyond the Hubble sphere, also =/= supernatural.
Fortunately some scientists are more open minded. They are willing to accept new forces so long as they can be observed/quantified. They fight powerful social dogmas that used the "we can explain most things" argument to discredit their finding, and through their victory we have stuff like cellphones and GPS.
That's my whole point! In the scenario presented, and in every scenario I have thought of, divinity cannot be observed/quantified. Too many variables exist to isolate the cause as being divine.
And how many seconds does it take for you to come to this conclusion? Have you any similar experiences in the past in which to draw reliable conclusions on?
I am relying entirely on the fact that no sane and honest person has ever claimed to have been kicked in the balls by a god. What experience in the past has led you to the conclusion that a god did it?
Given that you don't, what scientific law do you use to calculate the likelihood of hoax, hallucination, or a living monster? Why is an unidentified living organism unlikely given we find new organisms in caves, rivers, and deep sea everyday? Please don't throw probabilities around. Probability testing is a pain staking process that takes time to calculating/plug into excel all those things, follow by statistical analysis. Your gut feeling does not equal logic.
It very well could be a "monster." That doesn't make it Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can safely assume said creature is not made out of spaghetti, though, based on my knowledge of the pasta.
Seeing some flashing light and literally seeing a spaghetti monster kicking you in the balls are 2 very different things. When I see flashing light, I assume I see flashing light. Any further assumptions are mere fantasies that can neither be verified by or hold relevant to me. As such I do not care.
But how do you know it was a monster composed of spaghetti? You haven't had time to study the thing, so at this point, you're just speculating. (And your speculation is something that isn't consistent with what we know about living beings or spaghetti.)
Try having an alien mother ship beaming down green dudes shooting lasers at me. Yes, I will assume they are aliens without considering other explanations. Hey it might be a hoax too, but I think whoever just stands there and hope the laser is fake are retarded. I believe my eyes enough to not take that kind of chances.
Regardless of what it really is, the scenario is still scary. Fight-or-Flight kicks in, and I'd probably run. But again, just because I saw green men with laser guns, that doesn't mean aliens. Other earthly explanations (military testing, hoax, hallucination, etc.) and even supernatural explanations (ghosts, god(s), time travelers, vegetable monsters, etc.) exist.
I will not respond to the other 2 because you resort to personal attacks, which is a clear sign that you ran out of intelligent things to say.
When you insult my principles, I insult you. Sure, you insult with long-winded attempts to assassinate my character, but that doesn't mean you're taking any sort of high road.
(http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2008/08/spagett.jpg)
-
UK mate, I swear you're just on this forum to annoy the hell outta everyone and you really are the only person I know who would be proud to be the lowest repped person on the forum[/quote]Not sure what I messed up there.
To tell you the truth, that was not my intention on the forum. When I first joined I was actually very nice. Ask Madman.
Im workin on my bot now, Thanks
See. Not sure what happened since then.
Anyway, back on topic. You wanna know who the real god is?
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/2349GOD.jpg)
* Light shines down on him, everyone hails*
-
Anyway, back on topic. You wanna know who the real god is?
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/2349GOD.jpg)
You... You... YOU BRUCE ALMIGHTY FANBOY! O:
-
Well, we know frezal will never be kicked in the balls by God, because God knows it wouldn't do any good. And if being kicked in the balls isn't enough to convince someone then what is? amiright?
Also my face when my joke comment has inspired a massive wall of text argument. :coolface
-
Well, we know frezal will never be kicked in the balls by God, because God knows it wouldn't do any good. And if being kicked in the balls isn't proof enough, then what is? amiright?
I don't know what would prove to me that one or more gods exist. Richard Dawkins claims he knows what would convince him, but to my knowledge, he hasn't shared what this proof would be.
-
Now, what would I have to show you to convert you to Pinkiepieism?
-
Shut up, we already saw you the first time.
-
I'm tellin you guys, you have it all wrong, ITS HIM.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/87979GOD.jpg)
You... You... YOU BRUCE ALMIGHTY FANBOY! O:
Never post it again. kthx
-
I'm tellin you guys, you have it all wrong, ITS HIM.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/87979GOD.jpg)
Just go away...
-
Right because something floating down from the sky and kicking you in the balls is not a reason.
Has it ever happened in the past? No. Does it make sense for a physical being to fall from the sky without sustaining any damage? No. Does falling from the sky and kicking somebody in the balls prove divinity? No. At best, it proves the being has technology I don't know of.
See you are drawing random conclusions again.
"does it make sense for a physical being to fall from the sky without sustaining any damage?"
This is not a question in this scenario, it is an observed fact, hence a meaningless question. A more appropriate question would be
"how does a physical being fall from the sky without sustaining damage"
Obviously we lack the knowledge to know how this is done. So to assume technology is not rational because it is an assumption not grounded on anything. Likewise we have nothing to prove it's divinity, so both assumptions are equally as bad.
If they are both just as bad, why should "Jesus" take priority?
Because the religious reference point is the only existing complete explanation during the encounter. This does not necessary make it more true, but it does make it falsifiable. This is unlike unknown technology which you can keep making up on the go.
If I have an experience like that, I will need pretty good evidence to disprove what I see.
In this scenario, all you saw was something fall from the sky and suddenly kick you in the balls. That is not proof of divinity, nor does it rule out the possibility of hallucination. If after getting your testicles examined, and a doctor determined that the damage is consistent with being kicked in the balls, that's still not proof of divinity. All you have is an unexplained mystery. If you want to rule out Earthly causes, it could still be an alien, a ghost, a time traveler, etc. The scenario proves nothing.
All those requires me to make up stuff on the go. You can explain anything with anything as long as you can keep changing your theory. This is why a complete theory is qualitatively superior to a on the spot one, given a complete lack of reference point. It does not mean that you must stick to it/believe it once more information is gather. Nor should anything, even the existence of Jesus and God, be deem supernatural given we have the opportunity to investigation with observations. It is only supernatural now because we have no way of meeting them in person, but there's nothing supernatural about it once you can interact with them.
Try dark matter, dark energy, superposition, entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, emergence of consciousness, complex systems, economics, etc. Yes we know so much that none of us can learn them all in one lifetime, but that does not mean science explain "everything".
I didn't claim that we know everything. That's the problem with newagers and the religious. No we don't have all the answers, but history has taught us that the scientific method eventually leads us to said answers. Believing in the supernatural until an answer is found is just intellectually lazy.
Believing in Jesus as the entity you saw and believing in everything else the church/bible tells you are two very different things. I wasn't telling you to be religious here. What I am saying is that it is enough evidence to disprove that God or God like entity must not exist. Where they draw this power does not make the entity any less God like by any standards.
In a different sense, take "Jesus" as a label of the event, and it's property the ones you observed only. Because these properties matches the biblical beliefs, you have a reason to investigate if the other properties match, but you do not have any ground to believe anything more before investigation.
Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it.
Gravity is internally consistent and works with our current understanding of the universe. One doesn't need to know how it works or why to measure its existence.
Replace Gravity with God, and we have,
"God is internally consistent and works with our current understanding of the universe. One doesn't need to know how it works or why to measure its existence."
Unfortunately this fits. God can be internally consistent so long as they change the interpretation enough times. Likewise Gravity is currently not internally consistent because it cannot explain quantum behaviors, and must be updated. Also, a large majority of people still understand the universe through divinity.
The second part is far more problematic. Understanding how and why things works is essential for defining anything. If you see any new object without knowing hows or why, whatever label you give it has no meaning. So understanding the hows and whys are essential in claiming Newtons version of gravity or Einstein's version of gravity exist, because their versions included hows and whys.
So if you live in Harry Potters world and you discover magical forces that you can quantify, calculate, put into books, and systematically channel, how is that differ from the 4 fundamental forces of gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak? We explain off the 4 forces as "property of space", as well as random particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum scale. So why can't we have a 5th force, or 6th force, if by adding them in can quantitatively explain a bunch of unexplainable phenomenon?
If we could measure magic, that would be different. Thus far, we haven't found any scenario that requires magic to be explained. (Well, aside from the iPad.)
So we are in agreement here.
Things we cannot yet explain, such as dark energy, =/= supernatural. Even things that are fundamentally unexplainable, such as the world smaller then Planck size, or the universe beyond the Hubble sphere, also =/= supernatural.
Fortunately some scientists are more open minded. They are willing to accept new forces so long as they can be observed/quantified. They fight powerful social dogmas that used the "we can explain most things" argument to discredit their finding, and through their victory we have stuff like cellphones and GPS.
That's my whole point! In the scenario presented, and in every scenario I have thought of, divinity cannot be observed/quantified. Too many variables exist to isolate the cause as being divine.
If you try hard enough, you can find alternative explanations to anything and everything. This does not mean you have reasons to given a complete lack of reference point.
Likewise, everything in the world cannot be fully observed/quantified. Brain in a vat, matrix, philosophical zombies, and solipsism are all stuff that deals with the limitation of observations. So this is not an unique problem to divinity. The difference however is that you have an opportunity to investigate this "Jesus" you saw, and see how much/how little it match with pre-existing beliefs.
The one major thing I will investigate is rather he has the power to grant me eternal bliss or condemn me to eternal damnation. If he holds this properties then I will undoubtedly believe him, as he is "Godly enough" in my book.
And how many seconds does it take for you to come to this conclusion? Have you any similar experiences in the past in which to draw reliable conclusions on?
I am relying entirely on the fact that no sane and honest person has ever claimed to have been kicked in the balls by a god. What experience in the past has led you to the conclusion that a god did it?
I didn't claim God, I claim Jesus. This does not imply that this "Jesus" must hold each and every property of any given church. Even if divinity does exist, it does not mean the church has all the accurate properties of it. Accepting some properties that matches your observations does not imply accepting the whole thing.
A whale does not stop being a whale just because you discover some new properties about them. It does however imply that the older version of whale interpretation needs updating.
Given that you don't, what scientific law do you use to calculate the likelihood of hoax, hallucination, or a living monster? Why is an unidentified living organism unlikely given we find new organisms in caves, rivers, and deep sea everyday? Please don't throw probabilities around. Probability testing is a pain staking process that takes time to calculating/plug into excel all those things, follow by statistical analysis. Your gut feeling does not equal logic.
It very well could be a "monster." That doesn't make it Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can safely assume said creature is not made out of spaghetti, though, based on my knowledge of the pasta.
We have yet to define further properties of this monster you saw. So we have no ground at all on how much it actually matches real pasta.
Seeing some flashing light and literally seeing a spaghetti monster kicking you in the balls are 2 very different things. When I see flashing light, I assume I see flashing light. Any further assumptions are mere fantasies that can neither be verified by or hold relevant to me. As such I do not care.
But how do you know it was a monster composed of spaghetti? You haven't had time to study the thing, so at this point, you're just speculating. (And your speculation is something that isn't consistent with what we know about living beings or spaghetti.)
It composes of what "looks like" spaghetti, and eyes are one major observation tool.
Again, "what we know about" is not important because these are events specifically design to lack reference points. We have yet to define the detailed property of this monster yet.
Try having an alien mother ship beaming down green dudes shooting lasers at me. Yes, I will assume they are aliens without considering other explanations. Hey it might be a hoax too, but I think whoever just stands there and hope the laser is fake are retarded. I believe my eyes enough to not take that kind of chances.
Regardless of what it really is, the scenario is still scary. Fight-or-Flight kicks in, and I'd probably run. But again, just because I saw green men with laser guns, that doesn't mean aliens. Other earthly explanations (military testing, hoax, hallucination, etc.) and even supernatural explanations (ghosts, god(s), time travelers, vegetable monsters, etc.) exist.
So going back to the beginning, because the Alien theory is complete and can be falsified. All other theories are made up on the spot and continues to be reinvented on the go, so they are unfalsifiable.
-
In what way is the alien theory complete and falsifiable? We know as much about alien invaders as we do about ghosts, time travelers, gods, and vegetable monsters.
In what way is the Jesus theory complete and falsifiable? Jesus wasn't known to fly (unless you count his rise to heaven, wherever that is), nor was he known for kicking people in the balls. If he doesn't match what we know of Jesus, then he's not Jesus (even if that's his name).
A big problem with relying on what you saw is how easy it is to be deceived or to miss something. Magicians make their living by taking advantage of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDcARq8ty8# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDcARq8ty8#)
Based on the visual evidence, Penn and Teller caught each other's bullets in their mouths. Which is more likely: They're gods with super teeth --or-- Trickery was involved?
-
And likewise you can trick each and every one of your senses, so all your knowledge can be a lie.
This is a fundamental problem with experience and it's existence does not make one interpretation better then another on it's own. You see them "bite the bullet", here though you can reject superpower because you know Penn and Teller are human. You also know they are magicians. So you have more then enough reference points.
However, if I don't know they are human or magicians, then the assumption of super teeth will be just as neutral as trickery. As I would not know their physical limits.
-
I love how Garvin is trying to act like a badass.
Never heard that one before. Thx
BOT for a second after some research agnostic sounds pretty good to me.
But Garvin seriously it's 1:57 A.M. and I'm really beyond caring what I say to you
Where do you live? Wait... What are you doing up at 1:57? Anyway later. My shows on.
1:57 am isn't that late.
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
I'm human
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
I'm human
It's actually a joke to do with Britain and British people :3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svZ-OfV9JFI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svZ-OfV9JFI#ws)
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
I'm human
It's actually a joke to do with Britain and British people :3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svZ-OfV9JFI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svZ-OfV9JFI#ws)
I'm not stupid (But I am British :approve:)
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
Depends if you burn the other kind or not. =P
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
Depends if you burn the other kind or not. =P
Catholics burn Protestants? O_O
lolimbroughtuptobebaptist
-
Here you can just talk about religion in general and what your personal beliefs are.
"Am I Catholic? Or Protestant? God I don't know..."
Depends if you burn the other kind or not. =P
Catholics burn Protestants? O_O
lolimbroughtuptobebaptist
Ever done History in school :P
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
Since before then, actually
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
You have David Cameron. You are in no position to talk about grinning twits in positions of power.
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
You have David Cameron. You are in no position to talk about grinning twits in positions of power.
Blasphemy!
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
You have David Cameron. You are in no position to talk about grinning twits in positions of power.
*high fives*
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
You have David Cameron. You are in no position to talk about grinning twits in positions of power.
Blasphemy!
No, NFX is right XD
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
You have David Cameron. You are in no position to talk about grinning twits in positions of power.
Blasphemy!
And Clegg. =]
-
(http://bigdave44.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/conservative-logo.jpg?w=283&h=200)
Conservatives are the best! Conservatives FTW!
-
Oh, calm down and have some quail. =]
-
No, actually. Scottish History lessons tend to be limited to how witches got burnt at the stake and how Robert the Bruce was actually a cowardly b*st*rd
English history is not taught in Scottish schools. It is exclusively limited to the Battle of Bannockburn.
Ever since that grinning twit Salmond took over :P
You have David Cameron. You are in no position to talk about grinning twits in positions of power.
Still, could be worse.
Could be Labour or the BNP, I suppose :coolface
-
*ahem*
Conservatives suck. They're all "every man for themself". The rich can get richer, the poor can get poorer, for all the Tories care. They also sell off everything the country owns and bring us to our knees.
Could be Labour or the BNP, I suppose :coolface
"You're a Muslim, go back to Mecca"
"You're a Jew, go back to Jerusalem"
"You're not from here, go back to where you came from"
"You're black, go bury yourself"
They're the most racist scumbags I've ever seen
Now then, BOT before Skitty kills us
-
(http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0608/cpusaImage6.jpg)
They accept everyone for who they are ^^
Just so long as you're a communist. I think...
-
*ahem*
Conservatives suck. They're all "every man for themself". The rich can get richer, the poor can get poorer, for all the Tories care. They also sell off everything the country owns and bring us to our knees.
Could be Labour or the BNP, I suppose :coolface
"You're a Muslim, go back to Mecca"
"You're a Jew, go back to Jerusalem"
"You're not from here, go back to where you came from"
"You're black, go bury yourself"
They're the most racist scumbags I've ever seen
Now then, BOT before Skitty kills us
Biatches off topic eh? But on the subject I have no support for the BNP whatsoever, racist *Checks for junkyard* bastards, worse than me XD
-
Ya'll are discussing politics, not religion.
-
Politics are like religion
-
Ya'll are discussing politics, not religion.
Well they both just cause wars so they're alike in some ways
-
Ya'll are discussing politics, not religion.
Well they both just cause wars so they're alike in some ways
I think you could have chosen your words a bit better there.
They are similar, in some ways, they're both centered around beliefs of some sort. For example.
I'm still Atheist, though. (Thanks, GK. =D)
-
Ya'll are discussing politics, not religion.
Well they both just cause wars so they're alike in some ways
I think you could have chosen your words a bit better there.
They are similar, in some ways, they're both centered around beliefs of some sort. For example.
I'm still Atheist, though. (Thanks, GK. =D)
Probably could of but I just couldn't be bothered. *Thinks of a way to change the subject* So how about them suicide bombers?
-
...my, isn't praying tedious? =D
-
Oh Jesus..... I still think Heavy Metal should be a religion
-
Jedi is officially a religion now. After many people has the same idea of how to say "<expletive> you" to the census people.
-
Jedi is officially a religion now. After many people has the same idea of how to say "<expletive> you" to the census people.
Fair enough, on another note I can't wait for the inevitable flame war that will come from this thread (Unless people want to be mature about things)
-
Jedi and Sith are religions according to 2001 census.
I'm going to put Sumerian down come next census. That or Valantinian :D
-
Valantinian
PM me details?
-
No details as such, it's a meme I'm trying to get going
"Screw <something>, I'm a Valantinian!"
It's already my political stance on FB :3
-
No details as such, it's a meme I'm trying to get going
"Screw <something>, I'm a Valantinian!"
It's already my political stance on FB :3
Ok ^^