Pages:
Author

Topic: There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!! - page 2. (Read 11621 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

Do you acknowledge that you can confuse the hyperreal (here, any network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) for the real (here, the physically extant)?

belief is a choice, so you certainly can. beyond this observation, i'm hardly qualified to pontificate on this matter.
(Red colorization mine.)


Quote from: Dr. Gary E. Aylesworth, Eastern Illinois University, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005 link=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#6
Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.
(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy (1988) by A. N. Wilson, p. 146. link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273222
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is [hyper]real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is [hyper]real and begets hyperreality.

It is a (post-])modern “matter” (r3wt) that besieges even the common man.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”

Perhaps you should have studied how to effectively communicate  Smiley

Do you acknowledge that you can believe the hyperreal (i.e., a network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) to be real (here, reference something else)?

belief is a choice, so you certainly can. beyond this observation, i'm hardly qualified to pontificate on this matter.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”

Perhaps you should have studied how to effectively communicate  Smiley

Do you acknowledge that you can confuse the hyperreal (here, any network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) for the real (here, the physically extant)?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

Care to clarify the meaning of this sideshow we have entered? i'm having trouble following you.

“[R]ight” (r3wt) cannot be “do[ne]” (r3wt) because it does not reference the real (whereof, one’s acts are constituted).

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”

Perhaps you should have studied how to effectively communicate  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

Care to clarify the meaning of this sideshow we have entered? i'm having trouble following you.

“[R]ight” (r3wt) cannot be “do[ne]” (r3wt) because it does not reference the real (whereof, one’s acts are constituted).

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?
[…]
(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?

Objectively you can't prove that it [is not], but you can choose to believe that it [is not].
[…]

ok

Care to clarify the meaning of this sideshow we have entered? i'm having trouble following you.

“[R]ight” (r3wt) cannot be “do[ne]” (r3wt) because it does not reference the real (wherein, one acts).

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?
[…]
(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?

Objectively you can't prove that it [is not], but you can choose to believe that it [is not].
[…]

ok

Care to clarify the meaning of this sideshow we have entered? i'm having trouble following you.

“[R]ight” (r3wt) cannot be “do[ne]” (r3wt) because it does not reference the real (whereof, one’s acts are constituted).
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?

Objectively you can't prove that it [is not], but you can choose to believe that it [is not].

Quote from: Plato. “Euthyphro.” Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Athens: −2160. Web. 09 Apr. 235. link=http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Soc. Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life.


THE END

ok

As an aside, the dates above are 𝑏 E.A. (lit., "earthly Anthropocene").

Care to clarify the meaning of this sideshow we have entered? i'm having trouble following you.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?

That a slippery slope. There are the obvious things. Murder, Bullying, Abuse, Stealing,Scamming, etc. Then there are the little things, like being rude to other people or hurting other people intentionally(emotional), disrespecting other people, telling lies about people. Some people have a type of moral compass, whether they admit it or not. Like when you did something bad and it hurts you so bad to even think about it that it makes you want to cry. It appears that some other people never experience this.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?

Objectively you can't prove that it does, but you can choose to believe that it does.

Quote from: Plato. “Euthyphro.” Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Athens: −2160. Web. 09 Apr. 235. link=http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Soc. Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life.


THE END

ok
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?

That a slippery slope. There are the obvious things. Murder, Bullying, Abuse, Stealing,Scamming, etc. Then there are the little things, like being rude to other people or hurting other people intentionally(emotional), disrespecting other people, telling lies about people. Some people have a type of moral compass, whether they admit it or not. Like when you did something bad and it hurts you so bad to even think about it that it makes you want to cry. It appears that some other people never experience this.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?

Objectively you can't prove that it [is not], but you can choose to believe that it [is not].

Quote from: Plato. “Euthyphro.” Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Athens: 380 BCE. Web. 09 Apr. 2015. link=http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Soc. Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life.


THE END
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?

That a slippery slope. There are the obvious things. Murder, Bullying, Abuse, Stealing,Scamming, etc. Then there are the little things, like being rude to other people or hurting other people intentionally(emotional), disrespecting other people, telling lies about people. Some people have a type of moral compass, whether they admit it or not. Like when you did something bad and it hurts you so bad to even think about it that it makes you want to cry. It appears that some other people never experience this.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?
Objectively you can't prove that it does, but you can choose to believe that it does.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?

That a slippery slope. There are the obvious things. Murder, Bullying, Abuse, Stealing,Scamming, etc. Then there are the little things, like being rude to other people or hurting other people intentionally(emotional), disrespecting other people, telling lies about people. Some people have a type of moral compass, whether they admit it or not. Like when you did something bad and it hurts you so bad to even think about it that it makes you want to cry. It appears that some other people never experience this.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
[…]

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists objectively?


That a slippery slope. There are the obvious things. Murder, Bullying, Abuse, Stealing,Scamming, etc. Then there are the little things, like being rude to other people or hurting other people intentionally(emotional), disrespecting other people, telling lies about people. Some people have a type of moral compass, whether they admit it or not. Like when you did something bad and it hurts you so bad to even think about it that it makes you want to cry. It appears that some other people never experience this.

PS: you acidentally linked to perceive twice-
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
[…]

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.
(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
Our galaxy was created and is the other end of a black hole thats why you see it spiral expanding. The universe is one big black hole expanding the same way.The big bang is just dark energy and matter shooting from the event horizon from a huge black hole in the center of our universe....no books will tell you this and it can't be proven but you can read the signs ....like, every galaxy has a black hole in the center and you can tell by the pictures we are spiraling outward.My IQ is 181 & i am 1% of the population but i don't work for NASA or the government. I am Anonymous
(Red colorization mine.)


Quote from: Ahmed Farag Ali, Saurya Das. “Cosmology from Quantum Potential.” _Physics Letters B_ 741 (235): 276-279. 277. 04 Apr. 235. link=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057
[…] Note that these additional terms are not ad hoc or hypothetical, but rather an unavoidable consequence of a quantum description of the contents of our universe. Also, since it is well known that Bohmian trajectories do not cross [19,20], it follows that even when 𝜃 (or ȧ) → −∞ , the actual trajectories (as opposed to geodesics) do not converge, and there is no counterpart of geodesic incompleteness, or the classical singularity theorems, and singularities such as big bang or big crunch are in fact avoided. This view is also supported by the quantum corrected geodesic deviation equation derived in [10], which suggested that trajectories can never actually access infinite curvatures. ⁴
(Red colorization mine.)
legendary
Activity: 3374
Merit: 1824
Actually this is perhaps the only thing on which both scientists and religious people totally agree
Both believe in Big Bang, just scientists believe that Big Bang came by chance and religious people believe that God started it.
What is the truth?
Probably we will never know, we can believe either in Religion or science but they can't prove their theories or ideologies.



donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Smiley

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.



Alternatively some people have never understood why other people have needed a god, and rather than being spooked by religion find it irrelevant.

I'm well aware of these people; i just find them irrelevant...  Shocked

Well, I'm sure those people find that very encouraging, as opposed to the religious types that try to convert them, or make unfounded accusations about their morals.



Just as i found it encouraging when you refer to religion as "irrelevant". respect is a two way street.

I find it irrelevant to *me*. I'm quite certain there are plenty of people who find religion very relevant otherwise there would be no religious conflict.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Smiley

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.



Alternatively some people have never understood why other people have needed a god, and rather than being spooked by religion find it irrelevant.

I'm well aware of these people; i just find them irrelevant...  Shocked

Well, I'm sure those people find that very encouraging, as opposed to the religious types that try to convert them, or make unfounded accusations about their morals.



Just as i found it encouraging when you refer to religion as "irrelevant". respect is a two way street.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Smiley

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.



Alternatively some people have never understood why other people have needed a god, and rather than being spooked by religion find it irrelevant.

I'm well aware of these people; i just find them irrelevant...  Shocked

Well, I'm sure those people find that very encouraging, as opposed to the religious types that try to convert them, or make unfounded accusations about their morals.

hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

Smiley

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.



Alternatively some people have never understood why other people have needed a god, and rather than being spooked by religion find it irrelevant.

I'm well aware of these people; i just find them irrelevant...  Shocked
Pages:
Jump to: