Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/1/07 04:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I'm a dillusional piece of shit that has been blinded by his own prejudices and stereotypes of religion and religious people.

This thread was going places until you came along. I really fucking hate people like you.

To think that such a limited being as man could comprehend the depths and intricacies of existence. What a farce. There is no need to be a bible thumping zealot to know and understand God. The force that animates our beings, that unknown energy that calls for us to push our boundaries and evolve beyond the pettiness of this world.. such is God. I for one am a believer who despises the man made institution of church, governed and frequented of too many hypocrites, and too few purists.

Atheists automatically label faith in the unknown a crutch to compensate for weakness.. Are you people not human beings? Can you so honestly and easily forsake your souls? I am not saying we shouldn't endeavor, as a species, to tap into what useful knowledge we can.. but to expect we can decode even the fundamentals of this existential reality is foolish. Let us achieve a rise to power humbly, with good intentions. Arrogance can be deadly.

But nothing is always something; you can't just have it both ways.

At 4/1/07 05:53 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 4/1/07 05:19 PM, Mourits wrote: Let me tell you what I think of life, the universe and everything...

Oh for fuck's sake.

Thank you. Thank you so much. I love you.

At 4/1/07 06:52 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

I'm a dillusional piece of shit that has been blinded by his own prejudices and stereotypes of religion and religious people.

This thread was going places until you came along. I really fucking hate people like you.

;
Well now, thank you Dre. That is very christian of you.

It warms me inside, when the true colors of our religious posters here on Newgrounds come forth.

At 4/2/07 09:44 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/1/07 06:52 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

I'm a dillusional piece of shit that has been blinded by his own prejudices and stereotypes of religion and religious people.

This thread was going places until you came along. I really fucking hate people like you.

;
Well now, thank you Dre. That is very christian of you.

It warms me inside, when the true colors of our religious posters here on Newgrounds come forth.

Hahaha, you are hilarious in thinking that after insulting me to no end for my beliefs when I haven't said a thing in the world to you to provoke such, then when I finally retaliate when I get sick of it, I'm unchristian.

Fuck you.

Not that I think insulting either way is good, but, isn't part of being Christian "turning the other cheek"?

At 4/2/07 11:11 AM, Drakim wrote: Not that I think insulting either way is good, but, isn't part of being Christian "turning the other cheek"?

So, you're saying, that because I'm Christian I have to listen to this guy spew bullshit about my beliefs? Hell no.

At 4/2/07 11:15 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:11 AM, Drakim wrote: Not that I think insulting either way is good, but, isn't part of being Christian "turning the other cheek"?

So, you're saying, that because I'm Christian I have to listen to this guy spew bullshit about my beliefs? Hell no.

No, but I thought it was one of the Christian ideals to live up to. You know, Jesus teaching? Or was it just a general advice?

At 4/2/07 11:21 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:15 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:11 AM, Drakim wrote: Not that I think insulting either way is good, but, isn't part of being Christian "turning the other cheek"?

So, you're saying, that because I'm Christian I have to listen to this guy spew bullshit about my beliefs? Hell no.

No, but I thought it was one of the Christian ideals to live up to. You know, Jesus teaching? Or was it just a general advice?

The Bible also tells us to fight off those which spread evil, and to allow others to bathe in the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. But since biblical texts obviously don't mean much to most people on this forum, why do you care?

Meh, I'm just wondering why people are trying to spread the teaching of Jesus when they don't follow it themselves.

Do I spread evil by debating at an internet forum? Just calling those who doesn't hold the same belief as you evil doesn't really help anything.

Your last questions. Yes, you are right. I don't follow Jesus. I don't find turning the cheek a good answer to when people are assholes, as they tend to continue assholing when they think they "silenced everybody with their superior arguments of name-calling". I argue against assholes, and try my best to explain why they arguments are not holding up.

The big question is, because I don't follow the teachings of Jesus, does that mean you don't have to do that either when talking to me? Does Jesus teach that you are only supposed to be nice to other Christians?

At 4/2/07 12:08 PM, Drakim wrote: Meh, I'm just wondering why people are trying to spread the teaching of Jesus when they don't follow it themselves.

Way to generalize an entire group of people. Way to go! You win a cookie.

The big question is, because I don't follow the teachings of Jesus, does that mean you don't have to do that either when talking to me? Does Jesus teach that you are only supposed to be nice to other Christians?

Well, that shows how very little you know on the subject. Which leads me to believe that you should have no say on Christianity in general.

At 4/2/07 12:08 PM, Drakim wrote: Meh, I'm just wondering why people are trying to spread the teaching of Jesus when they don't follow it themselves.

Oh? And how don't I follow the teachings of Jesus?

Do I spread evil by debating at an internet forum? Just calling those who doesn't hold the same belief as you evil doesn't really help anything.

Was I talking about you? No. I think you're an intelligent person, you can actually debate religion and politics without constantly being insulting or rude. I was speaking to a person who couldn't.

Your last questions. Yes, you are right. I don't follow Jesus. I don't find turning the cheek a good answer to when people are assholes, as they tend to continue assholing when they think they "silenced everybody with their superior arguments of name-calling". I argue against assholes, and try my best to explain why they arguments are not holding up.

The big question is, because I don't follow the teachings of Jesus, does that mean you don't have to do that either when talking to me? Does Jesus teach that you are only supposed to be nice to other Christians?

Dude, you are totally twisting my words with that question right there. That's not what I said.

At 4/2/07 12:16 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/2/07 12:08 PM, Drakim wrote: Meh, I'm just wondering why people are trying to spread the teaching of Jesus when they don't follow it themselves.

Oh? And how don't I follow the teachings of Jesus?

Well, maybe I've been mistaken from the start, but isn't "turning the other cheek" part of Jesus's teachings? That is what Christians I've known has told me.

Do I spread evil by debating at an internet forum? Just calling those who doesn't hold the same belief as you evil doesn't really help anything.

Was I talking about you? No. I think you're an intelligent person, you can actually debate religion and politics without constantly being insulting or rude. I was speaking to a person who couldn't.

Well, okay. sorry for accusing you.

Your last questions. Yes, you are right. I don't follow Jesus. I don't find turning the cheek a good answer to when people are assholes, as they tend to continue assholing when they think they "silenced everybody with their superior arguments of name-calling". I argue against assholes, and try my best to explain why they arguments are not holding up.

The big question is, because I don't follow the teachings of Jesus, does that mean you don't have to do that either when talking to me? Does Jesus teach that you are only supposed to be nice to other Christians?

Dude, you are totally twisting my words with that question right there. That's not what I said.

hmm, okay. Can you explain what you meant to me then? I hate having confusion like this >>

At 4/2/07 12:20 PM, Drakim wrote:

Well, maybe I've been mistaken from the start, but isn't "turning the other cheek" part of Jesus's teachings? That is what Christians I've known has told me.

;
It is so much easier to rail against those who question the religion you believe in (or in my case all organised religions) than it is to follow the path that the church says your suppose to follow.
Plus I don't care that Dre has insulted me, I'm pretty sure some of what I say is more than a little disturbing.
It sure bothers me when I stop & think about it.
I just carry on looking for a reason to go back to church, I'm not finding any.
I do read the posts of the guys who are very into religion, & thats fine, they go their way I go mine...but every time my so called theory's or maybe its better to call them my opinion gets thrown back at me it's with quotes from the bible.

Even those who credit the fact that the bibles, many writers, many different translations, and new testiment VS old testiment, personal predjudices (like Ignateus & only 4 gospels)could have been the reason for all the glaring mistakes still fall back on the bible for so called proof to back up their arguments.

I've never said (that I can remember anyway) that I hate people that are religious.
Now I'm pretty sure I've said I hate organised religion, but that isn't the same as hating the people who are simply trying to find answers & live good, god fearing lives.

Bickering will not give us an answer if there's a god, or even if he created the universe.
Who really knows maybe he discovered a way to send all the garbage from another reality to this new one , it exploded & now here we are.

So let me do the christian thing here and apologize for any hurt feelings my comments may have caused, I'm just one of those lost people who refuse to take what is said by organized religion on "faith" alone.
I won't apologize for the opinions that have formed from my experiences.

Okay, you know what, take the "THERE IS TOO A GOD!" "NOT TRUE! GOD DOESN'T EXIST" bullshit to the Science vs. Religion thread, so we cna start discussing how the universe was created, intelligently.

At 4/2/07 01:56 PM, Dre-Man wrote: so we cna start discussing how the universe was created, intelligently.

;
Its simple Dre, the universe is 'the great recycler' it starts out as an indiscribable singularity that goes KABOOM, expands out until the explosive force depletes itself & it then collapses back onto itself again.
Compressing and growing smaller then , KABOOM there it goes again. No god, nothing fancy just physics in action over & over.

At 4/2/07 02:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/2/07 01:56 PM, Dre-Man wrote: so we cna start discussing how the universe was created, intelligently.

;
Its simple Dre, the universe is 'the great recycler' it starts out as an indiscribable singularity that goes KABOOM, expands out until the explosive force depletes itself & it then collapses back onto itself again.
Compressing and growing smaller then , KABOOM there it goes again. No god, nothing fancy just physics in action over & over.

Again, take your retarded notions to the Science vs. Religion thread, so that intelligent people can DISCUSS (not argue) the creation of the universe.

Here's a little translation for your puny skull: Fuck off, please.

I have never believed in religion and so I have never believed in a god. However, I have always desperately wanted to understand the way things work. This lead me to find physics a very interesting subject.
Though I studied physics and did a lot of research into it, I am still interested in philosophies and beliefs almost just as much. Despite having claimed to be atheist in earlier life, I now find I am agnostic.
As well as having interests in philosophy and physics, I have always been intrigued by psychology.

In the world of psychology, the memory has remained a mystery. How do we remember so much and why, when pieces of the brain are removed from a test subject, does the subject still remember how to do what it's meant to?
In the physical world, there are still many mysteries to be solved. For example, particles have shown behaviour that suggests somehow they are linked to other particles in the physical world no matter how much distance seperates them. It would seem that either a signal has been sent between at above the speed of light (impossible) or they are connected in some other way.
One common solution has been suggested for both these problems: the holographic universe. Basically a holgram is a mess of lines that produces a clear image when translated with light.
The interesting thing about holograms is that no matter how much of the original hologram you take away, it will always produce the same image. This means that every part of the hologram contains all of the information to make up the whole. This helps to explain why memories don't seem to be stored in any one part of the brain and also explains why particles can appear to be linked.
Now, if the mind is a hologram and the universe is a hologram, then perhaps the universe is a mind. Not a mind in the physical sense but in the holographic sense.

Now, lets look at how we link philosophy into this. There is a song that "He's got the whole world in his hands". Well, being an intelligent child this was my first clue to the non existance of God. Afterall, I didn't see any hands holding onto our globe. I've always had a habit of taking things literally, but I do understand the use of metaphor and I enjoy it.
Anyway, we can replace the word 'world' with 'universe', seeing as society has come a long way from believing that the world is all that is.
So, does God hold the whole universe in his hands? Well, if there is a God, no he doesn't. The hands aren't a vessel suitable to hold the universe. Something as complicated as the mind, on the other hand... do you see where I am going with all this, yet?

If the mind is a hologram and the universe is a hologram, then finally I can make the suggestion that the universe is God's mind. But I'm not quite done yet.

I don't believe the universe is all that there is. Anyone who knows about string theory will automatically understand the term multiverse. This multiverse contains all of infinity. Every parallel reality that is possible, exists. Any universe where the laws of physics are different to ours exists. So it's either infinity or close to it.
So, God's mind is the universe and rather than create just us on a tiny little planet he keeps cupped in his hands, he is responsible for all of infinity.

But what does that mean? It means that the multiverse is a very complex dream that manifests beings with conciousnesses. One possibility is that God exists within this dream, completely unaware. That doesn't mean that we're all going to cease to exist, should God wake up, because the dream is infinity. And with that I move on to my final point...

I was reading an interesting articl in New Scientist recently, looking at how we retrieve memories and imagine the future. The results of an experiment showed that the same parts of our brains are used when imagining the future and remembering the past. New Scientist went on to state that this was a sort of mental time-travel. So, with the existance of "mental time-travel", God can already have created the past and the future, enabling him to exist in the present completely unaware that he ever did anything. Which means if this theory is correct, whether or not God wakes up at some point in the dream, the universe will carry on to exist until "THE END".

I apologise for the use of pronouns when discussing God. Truth is, we don't know whether God is a he, a she or an it and people will needlessly debate this fact, even though God's existance is hypothetical.

At 4/2/07 02:37 PM, Schmut wrote:

THis was a great post.
I'm blown away by your ideas,
In my opinion they are as valid (maybe more so) any others posted .

I apologise for the use of pronouns when discussing God.

He, she, it, if god's paying attention to any of this at all, I'm willing to bet pronouns are the least of what might bother a diety.

At 4/2/07 02:48 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/2/07 02:37 PM, Schmut wrote:

THis was a great post.
I'm blown away by your ideas,
In my opinion they are as valid (maybe more so) any others posted .

Thankyou very much. It's pleasing to know that I didn't waste all of my life and then the time it took to type that.

I apologise for the use of pronouns when discussing God.

He, she, it, if god's paying attention to any of this at all, I'm willing to bet pronouns are the least of what might bother a diety.

I was apologising to people reading. But having read it through myself, the use of different pronouns to refer to god is unnoticable.

At 4/2/07 02:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Its simple Dre, the universe is 'the great recycler' it starts out as an indiscribable singularity that goes KABOOM, expands out until the explosive force depletes itself & it then collapses back onto itself again.
Compressing and growing smaller then , KABOOM there it goes again. No god, nothing fancy just physics in action over & over.

i thought the idea of the expanding and contracting universe was disproven.

At 4/2/07 02:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:
Again, take your retarded notions to the Science vs. Religion thread, so that intelligent people can DISCUSS (not argue) the creation of the universe.

Says the guy who said the big bang was a chemical reaction...

At 4/2/07 08:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
i thought the idea of the expanding and contracting universe was disproven.

In regards to doing that because of known forces, yes it has. The current expansion is accelerating, and, without an outside/as-yet-unobserved force will continue to do so (as far as we know). However, calling anything this far out there proven or disproven is tricky at best.

At 4/2/07 11:43 PM, Ravariel wrote: However, calling anything this far out there proven or disproven is tricky at best.

aye true, i think we're still missing that dark matter thats supposed to be out there in abundance.

OK everyone who is still here, I have something interesting to say.

I am been away for a bit and while I was away I started and finished a great book called Manifold: Time by Steven Baxter. It really showed me some interesting theories about the universe and such.

Within the book, it stated that there was multiple universes in a "family" sort of thing. That means that there was a universe that branched out into other universes. The medium for this was black holes.

As you probably know, the center of a black hole is a singularity. This book stated that the singularity was actually another dimension.

Also, this book refined my concept of aether. It told me that the vacuum in a universe still has quantum fluctuations and wormholes and that aether had nothing, not even quantum activity, nor neutrinos.

Overall, this was a great book. It is science fiction, so expect some weird crap. Well, now I'm off to read the next of the series Manifold: Space and come back with more insight/input.

ForumGuy out again.

At 4/2/07 11:43 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/2/07 02:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:
Again, take your retarded notions to the Science vs. Religion thread, so that intelligent people can DISCUSS (not argue) the creation of the universe.

Says the guy who said the big bang was a chemical reaction...

Oh? And what else occurs to create such an explosion?

At 4/3/07 09:01 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Oh? And what else occurs to create such an explosion?

generally chemical reactions are limited to pretty pathetic explosions. though its called the big bang it wasn't a giant explosion in the same sense as a bomb.

At 4/3/07 09:44 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/3/07 09:01 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Oh? And what else occurs to create such an explosion?

generally chemical reactions are limited to pretty pathetic explosions. though its called the big bang it wasn't a giant explosion in the same sense as a bomb.

So what, if not a chemical reaction, made that tiny little piece of matter explode into a giant universe?

At 4/3/07 09:57 PM, Dre-Man wrote: So what, if not a chemical reaction, made that tiny little piece of matter explode into a giant universe?

i said it was not an explosion per say and chemical explosions are weak in comparison to nuclear explosions.

At 4/3/07 10:05 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/3/07 09:57 PM, Dre-Man wrote: So what, if not a chemical reaction, made that tiny little piece of matter explode into a giant universe?

i said it was not an explosion per say and chemical explosions are weak in comparison to nuclear explosions.

So it was a nuclear explosion now? God damn science book is wrong then, I guess. My question posed to you is how did this little tiny rock, which weighed like trillions of earth tons, end up right in this little tiny spot, and then blow up into an infinite universe? Where did it come from, if not from our physical universe, or from a higher being? I keep hearing an alternate reality, but if such a reality can not be scientifically observed or understood, are not people who believe in such a pane of reality religious?

From the point of view of many people, if one believes in something that can not be explained or understood scientifically, then that belief in itself is religious in nature.

So how do you explain this magical explosion from a tiny little pinhead of matter into an infinite universe? Where did this little pinhead come from? Where did our reality in itself come from? Where did the first, original, beginning piece of the entirety of reality in itself come from, if not from a higher being eh? You can't answer that question, can you? No one can. That's where faith steps in.