Are You A Lukewarm Christian?
Are You A Lukewarm Christian?
Dude, I am NOT a neo-con.... If anyone thinks I'm a neo-con they have no understanding of what it means to be a neo-con.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Ragnarok.Ashman said: »
A "real" atheist wouldn't even care to go insofar as to say "i don't have religion".
What is a "real" Atheist?
What is a "real" Christian?
You're no-true scotsmanning here. There is no true anything, just labels and actions.
Quote:
They're the type of people who aren't even posting right now. The type of person who would even readily label themselves an atheist usually had "their no-no spot" touched by religion or adopted a way of thinking that reflected being anti-religion.
So people shouldn't speak up about their feelings? The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The only reason you're even mildly disgruntled about vocal atheists is because it yet again challenges your entrenched beliefs. Your comfortable little bubble is being poked by those pesky children and like any annoyed human you can't help but gripe about it.
Atheists have nothing to gain by keeping silent. Leaving religion to its own devices guarantees nothing but a return to the type of discrimination, oppression and violence that plagued Europe and America and still plagues many parts of the world today. Nausi's pathetic attempt to malign Jewish genocide with atheists is actually an excercise in hundreds of years of Jewish oppression caused by? You guessed it, religion. Those Jesus murdering scumbags. Let them handle money, that evil paper.
Right as the sun rises every day, it wouldn't be long before theists want their Christian utopia free of the disgusting filth that are nonbelievers. Any theists who disagree are free to leave with the filth or face severe punishment.
Open a book. Look at the news. Read some history. You may be old but that's no excuse to be such an ignoramus on the topic.
Quote:
Regardless of charizard's anecdote about 1 atheist meeting with "old jews" the majority of people who call themselves are young and impressionable college agers. The older generation just doesn't give a ***unless you stand to become more popular by your mudslinging (like that Gervais fella who made a movie that he thought was funny and then started to ride the wave of popularity afterwards). The young "atheists" are they type of people who would smoke to spite their parents. They'd embellish a story to get attention. If "atheism" were as simple as "people who disbewhateverjetcalls it" there wouldn't be a word for it, right? It would just be "normal people" or "non believers". The fact that there's a whole system of beliefs or "club" for them to be in makes them just as much sheep as they imply a religious person is. This is contradictory to the "cool kid" mask they're trying to wear. Since they're not the theist-neutral they claim to be, they get full on mad when you imply they share anything with someone of faith.
And these college-agers are free to think for themselves. Some might eventually become religious, some might remain neutral and others will go on to be vocal atheists. I don't see what your ranting against young people has to do with the idea of letting people think for themselves. You're a free market guy yet you seem to have a big problem with letting people peddle their ideas and leaving it to the consumer to decide.
Seems you want atheists to be silent because religion (as it's peddled wholesale) has some gaping flaws in its design. Flaws routinely called out by anyone with passing interest in the topic.
I no longer attend church or participate in any religious ceremony. I would say my "entrenched beliefs" are best worded as "spent too long saying this is right to jump right into saying im sure that no".
The only reason I'm mildly amused is because there's always a current of aggressive rage under someone verbally dismissing religion anywhere it's encountered. The "real" i used wasn't a label so much as saying that people who were genuinely indifferent to religion would just let people continue. Do you feel the need to intervene when someone says they believe premium gas gives them better mileage? Do you feel the need to call someone ignorant and give them a 10 point dissertation on why you don't agree with their opinion on veganism (or do you just ask with a mild interest why they picked that)?
Did it really never occur to you that there's a reason you feel compelled to put 1000% more energy into your need to be right on this (or your need to prove "them" wrong)?
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Dude, I am NOT a neo-con.... If anyone thinks I'm a neo-con they have no understanding of what it means to be a neo-con.
We're on a forum, the very concept of it is to intervene about everything just to pass the time.
@ash
@ash
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
We're on a forum, the very concept of it is to intervene about everything just to pass the time.
@ash
@ash
Don't i know it sugar. This is why you never see me post outside of 7-5 M-F.
I have no vested interest in any of this nonsense outside of making the day go by (as much as people would have you believe their post ROCKED MY BELIEFS DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION *makes fake shivering charade*)
[+]
That's the point Aman. Theories undergo constant revision to make them more and more accurate. The Big Bang Theory is our current estimate of the reality of things, up until a point that it is, currently, impossible to investigate further. That said, our theory on gravity and on the big bang are wrong, but the truth value is improving.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
You don't understand it because you keep using the phrase "something from nothing". The theory doesn't presume creation as something from nothing but "creation" the evolution of the current physical reality as a natural consequence of the rapid expansion of a singularity.
Edit: Replacing that word to avoid it being used as a point of argument
Edit: Replacing that word to avoid it being used as a point of argument
You believe then in a singularity that had no before and had no space, that rapidly expanded and evolved in to all the space, energy heat and matter in the Universe and also began time, yet religious people you view as crazy for believing in a singularity that "evolved" into all space and time? I really don't see the difference.
If you subscribe to the big bang theory then you probably also subscribe to the big crunch. You may even want to take it up a notch and subscribe to the oscillating universe aka the Cyclic Model proposed by Einstein.
Also Gravity is a law not a theory. It will remain a scientific law until it is disproven. That's how science works.
Also Gravity is a law not a theory. It will remain a scientific law until it is disproven. That's how science works.
[+]
What I mean is, atheists don't come here because it's important to tell others they're such, but because this is an internet forum and that's what people do here, on every topic. Post like our opinions matter.
still at Ash, quoting takes effort
still at Ash, quoting takes effort
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: »
fonewear said: »
kara said:
I'd like to know why people chose this (or whichever) specific religion. Why a monotheistic religion and not a polytheistic religion?
That is good question that probably won't get answered here. Lack of caring maybe ? Not informed enough on other religions. I'm not sure.
What do you think Kara ?
Several reasons:
1. I don't think most people look beyond their own upbringing, the culture that is normal to them.
2. It may provide them with comfort that something new or different does not since they may not "fit in" automatically.
3. There is also a stigma associated with belief systems outside the large modern religions. Even switching between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can create a lot of friction between families/friends/co-workers.
4. Older religions also had stronger female deities (Ishtar/Inanna was kickass) which don't exist anymore in most modern religions.
5. People tend to look at past civilizations as stupid or quaint, and this includes those belief systems.
My two cents: I like looking at history and some of the most interesting aspects deal in "old" religions. Babylonian, Sumarian, Egyptian, Norse, Roman, Greek, etc. It is also interesting to see the overlap in the Gods/Goddesses and the fables, then compare them to modern religions. But I'm odd and I like going to history museums when traveling
I think it's a matter of exposure. Mocking "old religions" seems silly to me, seeing as though how much paganism was adopted in early Christianity. It's still a part of our collective history that we should appreciate in some capacity.
My introduction and interest in the Pantheon came from something as simple as my grandfather and I breaking out the telescope when I was little. How can you not be tantalized by the stories behind the constellations while young?
[+]
Ragnarok.Ashman said: »
I no longer attend church or participate in any religious ceremony. I would say my "entrenched beliefs" are best worded as "spent too long saying this is right to jump right into saying im sure that no".
So basically an ego defense. Ok.
Quote:
The only reason I'm mildly amused is because there's always a current of aggressive rage under someone verbally dismissing religion anywhere it's encountered. The "real" i used wasn't a label so much as saying that people who were genuinely indifferent to religion would just let people continue. Do you feel the need to intervene when someone says they believe premium gas gives them better mileage? Do you feel the need to call someone ignorant and give them a 10 point dissertation on why you don't agree with their opinion on veganism (or do you just ask with a mild interest why they picked that)?
Might want to read my posts. You cannot remain indifferent to religion when every day there are people lobbying to have your rights stripped from you. Read it again. Slowly. Sound it out.
I suppose you can but closing your eyes and hoping that it doesn't happen in your lifetime is just wishful thinking. Reality says otherwise.
Quote:
Did it really never occur to you that there's a reason you feel compelled to put 1000% more energy into your need to be right on this (or your need to prove "them" wrong)?
Read up. That's why I'm compelled to discuss religion. To challenge people, to challenge myself, to call out the stupidity done in the name of God XYZ.
I'm not right, I just know for a fact that stripping rights and oppressing others ends no other way but bloodshed. The stupid, ignorant dumb *** that want to force (their) Jesus down your throat would be killing gays if cooler heads didn't prevail just as they once held slaves with Jesus taking the wheel.
Or maybe you haven't opened a history book in decades. Others have.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
If you subscribe to the big bang theory then you probably also subscribe to the big crunch. You may even want to take up a notch and subscribe to the oscillating universe aka the Cyclic Model proposed by Einstein.
Also Gravity is a law not a theory. It remain a scientific law until it is disproven. That's how science works.
Also Gravity is a law not a theory. It remain a scientific law until it is disproven. That's how science works.
The measurable are law, but the concept of what it actually is is not law. There are different concepts.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Also Gravity is a law not a theory. It remain a scientific law until it is disproven. That's how science works.
Uh... no that really isn't how it works, either.
Wikipedia said:
A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.
[+]
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
That's the point Aman. Theories undergo constant revision to make them more and more accurate. The Big Bang Theory is our current estimate of the reality of things, up until a point that it is, currently, impossible to investigate further. That said, our theory on gravity and on the big bang are wrong, but the truth value is improving.
The truth is you will always arrive at an origin. Which is everything in the universe created from nothing. Even this discussed singularity would have to have just appeared from nowhere.
Also, I love how people grip about atheists whining and getting militant on the internet. Oh no, the *** you barrages have breached our walls. We're being overrun by facts and information. Dawkins is skewering some creationist with words and a British accent. I miss smug, pretentious Hitchens already.
Meanwhile, in Syria people are getting blown to shreds. Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, you can't enter the countries without declaring religion. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia people are being flogged, beaten and executed on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, in America zealots want to strip the rights of LBGT citizens and impose a regime that'd make the Taliban blush. Oh and God has a few Katrinas up his sleeve.
So keep whining about atheists. Yes, keep on whining as the world burns thanks to idiotic zealots while some people trade words on the internet.
Meanwhile, in Syria people are getting blown to shreds. Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, you can't enter the countries without declaring religion. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia people are being flogged, beaten and executed on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, in America zealots want to strip the rights of LBGT citizens and impose a regime that'd make the Taliban blush. Oh and God has a few Katrinas up his sleeve.
So keep whining about atheists. Yes, keep on whining as the world burns thanks to idiotic zealots while some people trade words on the internet.
I wonder if I'll blow anyone's minds if I claim that there's no difference between a scientific 'law' and an accepted scientific 'theory'.
Laws are what they used to call it. Theory is what they call it now. There's a reason why there are no recently discovered scientific laws. At no point does a scientific theory 'graduate' and become a scientific law.
Laws are what they used to call it. Theory is what they call it now. There's a reason why there are no recently discovered scientific laws. At no point does a scientific theory 'graduate' and become a scientific law.
Incoming wall of text.
This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read in this forum.
You don't -know- a damn thing. You have faith and by extension cannot know, only believe. If you knew it wouldn't be called faith. Also, it's not defying logic to refute that, you haven't provided and cannot provide one single, logical source of evidence as to why you -know- God is real. There is literally 0 logic whatsoever in your claim.
I wouldn't be so critical normally, but the quoted statement is a large part of what is wrong in the world today. Everyone doesn't believe, they KNOW their god is the one true god, without having to rely on things such as logic or evidence.
Now on to what I was originally going to post.
I am a staunch atheist. I have come to the conclusion that the god of the bible does not exist through literal interpretation. I don't believe in god, allah, vishnu, rainbow sparkle, zeus, Odin (sadly), or neptune. If requiring that someone trying to tell me how to live show me a logical reason as to why I should give an amount of f*cks greater than zero about anything they say makes me an evil soulless individual that atheists are often portrayed as where I'm from, then so be it. If that combined with the fact I want to pick the brain of every theist I meet for details and search for some kind of logical reason (which I've personally yet to find) they believe what they believe makes me a militant atheist, then I'm the most militant motherf*cker you'll ever meet.
I don't want to be thought of as someone simply bashing others beliefs because I can, so I will provide my personal beliefs so that others can poke and prod in the same manner I would do to anyone else.
I believe in the complete opposite of Buddhism. Buddhism is completely viable in my mind, but I think it's an easy out for the weak to take.
Buddhism teaches one to achieve perfect happiness through the elimination of suffering. Suffering is eliminated by removing desire. This makes logical sense to me as becoming detached from all things can make it so nothing can cause you to suffer through loss. You become unattached to everything and everything is equally unimportant to you, even suffering. When suffering is just another thing that means nothing, there's no difference between suffering and not suffering, it doesn't cause pain.
I know this can work because I see a similar effect whenever I hurt myself and suffer severe pain. Given a moment to collect myself, I can think away the pain by first asking myself why it hurts, followed by what it means to hurt, and finally, asking why should this pain stop me. This is similar the the loosely Buddhist idea of eliminating suffering by identifying the source of it, understanding it, and then eliminating the source of it. Doing this I have been able to walk and lift unimpeded with moderate to severe injuries, such as continuing to finish my squat routine with a slight compression fracture.
However, my view differs from Buddhism in that I do not view desire and suffering as something to be eliminated. I embrace the transitory nature of things and the idea that desire leads to suffering, but running away from suffering is cowardly to me. I cling to my ever growing desires because I want to, not out of ignorance. I'm fully aware that having so many and such powerful desires can cause intense suffering, but I take it in stride. To me, I love it all. The act of striving to do better at everything is my source of happiness. Failure, and by extension suffering, isn't the end of happiness, it's a spice that makes my successes even sweeter. I've made suffering a part of my happiness, serving much the same result as Buddhism in that I no longer suffer from my desire because suffering itself has become a state of happiness.
What I have a hard time putting into words though is when people see me angry, sad, or just upset and want to ask me how I can say I'm always happy. All I can say is I feel as if I'm watching myself from outside of myself while simultaneously living out what I'm watching. If I had to put it in a way that'd be easier for some to understand: Outwardly I display the signs of suffering, but inwardly I'm smiling like Laozi at a vinegar tasting. If given the chance to go back and change anything I wanted, I wouldn't change a single thing at all.
The most important belief I hold onto is that I believe satisfaction has no place in life. I can always do better, and if I thought I could not improve in some aspect I would immediately kill myself, because if you're not improving you might as well be dead. Striving for unobtainable perfection is the most perfect life one can live. Striving endlessly until death is the only life worth living to me.
That being said, not being satisfied ever doesn't mean you have to be an ungrateful ***. You can be thankful for what you have and still want more. So I will continue my happy life of unsatisfaction and striving for unattainable perfection until I die.
With the mindset I have, I suppose it's little wonder I have no love for religions that teach meekness or submission. That's not to say I wouldn't love if God were real. A real god would make me even happier. What better goal is there than to become better than the absolute? Striving for an eternity to best god himself is something I can only dream of however. Long ago I learned that wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, and not wanting something to be true doesn't make it any less true.
So that's my beliefs in a fairly condensed state. Come at me bros!
Quote:
I don't "believe" there is a God. I KNOW there is a God. For me to refute this would be to defy logic, and I can't do that without lying to myself.
This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read in this forum.
You don't -know- a damn thing. You have faith and by extension cannot know, only believe. If you knew it wouldn't be called faith. Also, it's not defying logic to refute that, you haven't provided and cannot provide one single, logical source of evidence as to why you -know- God is real. There is literally 0 logic whatsoever in your claim.
I wouldn't be so critical normally, but the quoted statement is a large part of what is wrong in the world today. Everyone doesn't believe, they KNOW their god is the one true god, without having to rely on things such as logic or evidence.
Now on to what I was originally going to post.
I am a staunch atheist. I have come to the conclusion that the god of the bible does not exist through literal interpretation. I don't believe in god, allah, vishnu, rainbow sparkle, zeus, Odin (sadly), or neptune. If requiring that someone trying to tell me how to live show me a logical reason as to why I should give an amount of f*cks greater than zero about anything they say makes me an evil soulless individual that atheists are often portrayed as where I'm from, then so be it. If that combined with the fact I want to pick the brain of every theist I meet for details and search for some kind of logical reason (which I've personally yet to find) they believe what they believe makes me a militant atheist, then I'm the most militant motherf*cker you'll ever meet.
I don't want to be thought of as someone simply bashing others beliefs because I can, so I will provide my personal beliefs so that others can poke and prod in the same manner I would do to anyone else.
I believe in the complete opposite of Buddhism. Buddhism is completely viable in my mind, but I think it's an easy out for the weak to take.
Buddhism teaches one to achieve perfect happiness through the elimination of suffering. Suffering is eliminated by removing desire. This makes logical sense to me as becoming detached from all things can make it so nothing can cause you to suffer through loss. You become unattached to everything and everything is equally unimportant to you, even suffering. When suffering is just another thing that means nothing, there's no difference between suffering and not suffering, it doesn't cause pain.
I know this can work because I see a similar effect whenever I hurt myself and suffer severe pain. Given a moment to collect myself, I can think away the pain by first asking myself why it hurts, followed by what it means to hurt, and finally, asking why should this pain stop me. This is similar the the loosely Buddhist idea of eliminating suffering by identifying the source of it, understanding it, and then eliminating the source of it. Doing this I have been able to walk and lift unimpeded with moderate to severe injuries, such as continuing to finish my squat routine with a slight compression fracture.
However, my view differs from Buddhism in that I do not view desire and suffering as something to be eliminated. I embrace the transitory nature of things and the idea that desire leads to suffering, but running away from suffering is cowardly to me. I cling to my ever growing desires because I want to, not out of ignorance. I'm fully aware that having so many and such powerful desires can cause intense suffering, but I take it in stride. To me, I love it all. The act of striving to do better at everything is my source of happiness. Failure, and by extension suffering, isn't the end of happiness, it's a spice that makes my successes even sweeter. I've made suffering a part of my happiness, serving much the same result as Buddhism in that I no longer suffer from my desire because suffering itself has become a state of happiness.
What I have a hard time putting into words though is when people see me angry, sad, or just upset and want to ask me how I can say I'm always happy. All I can say is I feel as if I'm watching myself from outside of myself while simultaneously living out what I'm watching. If I had to put it in a way that'd be easier for some to understand: Outwardly I display the signs of suffering, but inwardly I'm smiling like Laozi at a vinegar tasting. If given the chance to go back and change anything I wanted, I wouldn't change a single thing at all.
The most important belief I hold onto is that I believe satisfaction has no place in life. I can always do better, and if I thought I could not improve in some aspect I would immediately kill myself, because if you're not improving you might as well be dead. Striving for unobtainable perfection is the most perfect life one can live. Striving endlessly until death is the only life worth living to me.
That being said, not being satisfied ever doesn't mean you have to be an ungrateful ***. You can be thankful for what you have and still want more. So I will continue my happy life of unsatisfaction and striving for unattainable perfection until I die.
With the mindset I have, I suppose it's little wonder I have no love for religions that teach meekness or submission. That's not to say I wouldn't love if God were real. A real god would make me even happier. What better goal is there than to become better than the absolute? Striving for an eternity to best god himself is something I can only dream of however. Long ago I learned that wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, and not wanting something to be true doesn't make it any less true.
So that's my beliefs in a fairly condensed state. Come at me bros!
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Ragnarok.Ashman said: »
I no longer attend church or participate in any religious ceremony. I would say my "entrenched beliefs" are best worded as "spent too long saying this is right to jump right into saying im sure that no".
So basically an ego defense. Ok.
Quote:
The only reason I'm mildly amused is because there's always a current of aggressive rage under someone verbally dismissing religion anywhere it's encountered. The "real" i used wasn't a label so much as saying that people who were genuinely indifferent to religion would just let people continue. Do you feel the need to intervene when someone says they believe premium gas gives them better mileage? Do you feel the need to call someone ignorant and give them a 10 point dissertation on why you don't agree with their opinion on veganism (or do you just ask with a mild interest why they picked that)?
Might want to read my posts. You cannot remain indifferent to religion when every day there are people lobbying to have your rights stripped from you. Read it again. Slowly. Sound it out.
I suppose you can but closing your eyes and hoping that it doesn't happen in your lifetime is just wishful thinking. Reality says otherwise.
Quote:
Did it really never occur to you that there's a reason you feel compelled to put 1000% more energy into your need to be right on this (or your need to prove "them" wrong)?
Read up. That's why I'm compelled to discuss religion. To challenge people, to challenge myself, to call out the stupidity done in the name of God XYZ.
I'm not right, I just know for a fact that stripping rights and oppressing others ends no other way but bloodshed. The stupid, ignorant dumb *** that want to force (their) Jesus down your throat would be killing gays if cooler heads didn't prevail just as they once held slaves with Jesus taking the wheel.
Or maybe you haven't opened a history book in decades. Others have.
i believe you have summed up your opinion pretty well. I don't take umbridge with much of what you say (other than the thinly veiled shots at my intelligence, but 1) you dont know me and 2) i took more than my share so its fair). The only thing I wanna point out is that I dont think anyone (at least in the us) is "lobbying to strip your rights based on you not having faith". That seems grossly exaggerated to me, even in a country where minority groups will cry victim to garnish support.
However, that's probably worth it's own thread in entirety. Either way the 5 o clock hour approaches and i dont have time to launch into that too.
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
What I mean is, atheists don't come here because it's important to tell others they're such, but because this is an internet forum and that's what people do here, on every topic. Post like our opinions matter.
still at Ash, quoting takes effort
still at Ash, quoting takes effort
I'm cool with them commenting here. I just don't like the way they go about it.
If someone made a thread about "why i love being born in jerusalem", and then i came into the thread going off about how "ignorant and obtuse" and "primitive minded" they were and how their opinion was the "source of every evil in the world" and blah blah other loaded statement originating in or around the vacinity of full on butt-angry, you would think i was out of line.
Hell, even if some jackass posts "it's my 10$ a month and i think that aurore is ok to tp in"... if i post calling them stupid i get 2 messages from cat-mod, a message from scrag, a pm from 3 members and a 2 page list of scoldings. Only in atheism, is it ok to be flagrantly rude without fear of incrimination.
[+]
Conditional logic is the best logic, it's impossible to justify and impossible to refute! A never ending paradox that I learned to step out of and ignore long ago.
[+]
Valefor.Prothescar said: »
Conditional logic is the best logic, it's impossible to justify and impossible to refute! A never ending paradox that I learned to step out of and ignore long ago.
Conditionals are FALSE only when the first condition (if) is true and the second condition (then) is false. All other cases are TRUE.
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Also Gravity is a law not a theory. It remain a scientific law until it is disproven. That's how science works.
Uh... no that really isn't how it works, either.
Wikipedia said:
A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.
Irony is we can't observe "strong gravitational fields" up close.
Oh man that's not condensed enough for an internet forum! We like short quick to read replies!
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
You don't understand it because you keep using the phrase "something from nothing". The theory doesn't presume creation as something from nothing but "creation" the evolution of the current physical reality as a natural consequence of the rapid expansion of a singularity.
Edit: Replacing that word to avoid it being used as a point of argument
Edit: Replacing that word to avoid it being used as a point of argument
You believe then in a singularity that had no before and had no space, that rapidly expanded and evolved in to all the space, energy heat and matter in the Universe and also began time, yet religious people you view as crazy for believing in a singularity that "evolved" into all space and time? I really don't see the difference.
Point being that these terms you're trying to describe as mystical phenomena are rooted in our current understanding of the physical nature of the universe. The t<0 era you seem to be concerned with is a mystery, but who knows what conclusions we'll be able to draw when we can firmly deduce the state of things at t=0. If we just threw our hands up in the air at every natural mystery and proclaimed 'God did it!', I highly doubt we would have progressed this far as a species.
[+]
If people think the posters on this site are "rude" for pointing out why they don't believe what you're selling then I implore you to cease using the internet now. The level of profanity in this thread is about as deep as a kiddie pool. People for the most part are still coherent and aren't typing out whatever diarrhea comes to mind.
Except that Holocaust reference. I burst out laughing there. Dunno how to feel when every time someone references death camps, nazi war criminals or gas chambers i start to giggle. Thanks, internet.
Except that Holocaust reference. I burst out laughing there. Dunno how to feel when every time someone references death camps, nazi war criminals or gas chambers i start to giggle. Thanks, internet.
Nausi's not just throwing rocks in a glass house, he's firing off cannons.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.