eleven

Would you not notice the differences in yourself to your parents? My Dad acts a lot like me and I wasn't brought up by him. My grandparents brought me up, my mothers side of the family. My dad enjoys the stuff I enjoy and he thinks the same why I do. I'd notice the difference, maybe it's not the same with everyone.

The fictional story you're seeing is nothing like the non-fictional story I'm seeing. I understand the bible quite well. I've read it time and time again, I interpret it as something other than a story - and it makes sense to interpret it that way, (wisdom) we're talking about creation, so keep it simple, the first steps in time (genesis 1). It's not like god is sat in a cloud and suddently it creates a planet and heavens in the first few seconds. God does it bit by bit - what's wrong with this view? Not the educated one? It's repenting, that's all you're doing. I don't believe you - you don't believe me. Let's leave it at that?

That's purely up to how knowledgable you are with religion. You interpret gods as something some of us don't; some of us may interpret god as something that does fit into this law. I picture God as an artist - just that, nothing more. I don't mean a human artist, or an alien artist, or a cloud-riding super monkey. I mean purely, 'artist' - the type of 'person', just the 'type', not the person. How can we find out who interprets god correctly? You find out which god fits in with the current rules. I bring up patterns - an artist fits in with these rules quite well - seeing as everything is a patten A.K.A art, and everything is creation. We as humans are in god's image as the bible says - we can create art, and see art (patterns), so that relates to the words in the books as-well. You can't prove me wrong - Instead to repent off of this view to proceed with yours. Without a view of a god ever happening, without anyone bringing up the topic of god, we would have never advanced into science. This isn't an insult, it's the basis to any claim you make. Without this type of argument, there would be no scientific responce, as we would have never had the thought of "God," and no need to say "There isn't a God." This is why we can contradict each others posts - science repents religion as religion repents science: they're opposites - believers/non-believers(skeptics). I don't believe a word you say, as you don't believe a word I say. Two months ago I was an athiest - I then deciphered the books, and here I am, full-fledged believer. How I deciphered them is purely down to pseudoscience, therefore wisdom of how I think it should be interpreted. So who's more wise? The person believing it's a fictional story of a man on a cloud, etc, or the one who treats it as more scientific/true-religious. Our predecessors were not retards - they liked patterns, and have cubic intelligence. After a few years in school most kids will come up with the idea that magnets can create free-energy, because they have a 'opposite-ended' mind. Therefore our ancestors were pure, and seen a pattern occuring in our faces, our bodies, and everything around them. From those patterns they created the bible (in hebrew). We translated it, time and time again - it's now !!!taught!!! as a fictional story. I'm afraid I can't accept that. So neither of us are wrong, we're just opposites. I believe, where as you don't. If you prove any theory as correct, you're not disproving God. You believe nothing made anything, I believe something made everything. You can never disprove it, so it's always 50/50. No matter what else you prove, you'll never be able to answer that question - I hightly doubt it anyway. It can only be less probable to how you interpret the book, or how the story sounds, if you think of it as a story. Yes you have proved that story wrong - where as the story I see and interpret, you're proving is correct, just by showing us what space looks like. Discussion over to be honest. I'm supposed to be banned. I only came on here to explain myself, once again.

I see a reoccuring pattern. I think you claim that ad hominem in every religion topic at some point. None of his points were valid, they're beliefs/false interpretations. That's like me saying, "God exists," - to which you reply, "No he doesn't," and then me debating and you clearly saying "You're ignoring contradicting evidence. There is no contradicting evidence, only contradicting to your interpretation. Also he did call religion stupid, using a differen't method, look at his choice of words. Obviously you're biased to his view - well that's unfair, so when I reply with a 50/50 insulting + contradicting post you should judge us both fairly. Just because you agree with one and not the other doesn't mean you should give one harsher treatment. Ironic topic name. I'm discussing, debating - not insulting. I'm staying on level with his technique. He want's to show confidence in his views, and pity to mine - I can show the exact same confidence and compete with his view. If I don't do this then I seem weak and foolish like most of the religious people you scare of. Ad hominem again? No, truth. Stop claiming that to posts that are simply defending religion, especially when you sit there insulting it and passing it off as fiction in the view of many religious folks... Geeez, you have to be fair and just. Atheism is a spawn of science/education. It comes with the science package I explained. What you're essentially doing now is saying that I'm wrong and you're right. That's not reading my posts, thats repenting them... Come on, how many times do I need to explain to you? You repent my belief, because my belief is that of a true religious-smart person. I believe in God, you weakly believe in God. That's stupid, listen, you can't sit there and tell me my beliefs are false when you have a weak-belief in God - because I have full-belief in God. You have weak-belief because of science, nothing else. If you weren't taught science, you would be taught religion. Damn. You can't expect me to take your posts seriously when you pass mine off as false. That's 'no-discussion' that's bigotry.

Yes you do.

That wouldn't be using wisdom then would it sir? It would be using academa - the interpretation I'm meant to follow... The one I disagree with. I stopped that anyway, it's all in my mind now; I'm moving on to proving other things like art and creation.

What you've just produced is a classic technique me and my brothers like to call: "No u!". This debate is possible as we're talking about Religion and Science. So what you've done is completely disregard previous events, beliefs and great people to come up with your own interpretation of what you believe religion is. You've already shown in amongst other threads that you don't take relgion seriously, and that you have a breif understanding of what God represents. You are science-smart, where as I am religion-smart - you're interpretation of relgion is false, where as my interpretation of science is correct. I enjoy science and agree that to advance it is required - however, to say that religion is a bunch of ideas with no premise is wrong. The God you interpret is nothing like the God me and many others interpret. Just because you can ask, "Oh, well how can you say I'm wrong and you're right?", does not mean that religious claims are incorrect - highly misoverstood if anything. It's been poisoned, diluted and edited over the last few generations. People running round in capes and large pointy hats preaching to people, "believe in this man in the sky," and science standing in the background snickering, "there is no God! hehehehe," like little naked-mole-rats. If you can't take religion seriously then you're not religious smart; therefore you view on religion is invalid, and any supposedly scientific view you have on religion is false. Religion brought humanity to a certain point where we couldn't advance no more. Then science was introduced to continue advancement. Religion believes "1" created something - it doesn't mean that the "1" religion explains is a man sitting on a cloud, or a flying spagetti monster (I like this one), or a magic pencil. It just means 1, and from that belief came life-experiments, where the prophets would experiment, just like science, using this omniponent view. At whatever point science was introduced, it repented religion to move forward. Religion came before science and no matter how much you troll and throw insulting science-proud pictures at it, you're never gonna lose it - it's always here because it's the basis to your view, until you gain victory, keep your paycheck and kill off religion. It's unfair, wrong and all you're doing is 'not-believing' as 'believing' is what you're repenting. You understand, I explained correctly, I don't even need to see your reaction to know the impact it has on your brain. I can also predict that you'll come back with a statement like: "Which God? Hmmm? Spagetti monster?" or "No, science is nothing like religion, religion is a fictional story, hehehe" or something insulting. Doesn't work with me. I'm immune and religious-smart. You say that religion has no evidence? I'm here though, and I think. I can see whats outside because my eyes are attracted to whatevers there. If I ask you how did nothing becoming something? You say "LOL I DUNNO, not God," therefore your argument falls down, cause no matter if you prove evolution right, I can still say, "God did it". You have no proof of 'nothing', you have no proof of 'God'. Therefore it's 50/50. I don't lose, I gain benefits - A much more beautiful outlook on life, my morality is stable, I have no respect for money and I admire all of creation. Where as you repent that, you love money, you love destroying the planet to make equipment to reach space, you don't care for starving children, you'd rather explore space (what us religious-smart people already know about). Do you see where you stand with us? I repent you as you repent me. You're evidence does not prove God doesn't exist, in-fact it just shows Gods creation. You're essentially prooving genesis as you go along and you have no clue about it as you still interpret any religious book you see as a fictional story - when someone says that to you, you say "because that's what it is, a work of fiction". "God exists" - Religion "God doesn't exist" - Anti-Religion Some scientists are relgious - doesn't change a thing. All that means is they're putting "faith" into something that is truly more scientific. If you can't put trust and know God is there 100% how can you say you 'believe' in God, as oppose to "Maybe". It's stupid to have faith at all - you either do believe or you don't. You never look at the possiblities in life. You see a tree as: wood and leaves. I look at the tree and see a creation, I see a possiblity, a pattern in life. It looks like a tree, It's not just a peice of wood and leaves, because they're not seperate - it's a thing, it's a possiblity. As well as the sky, I look up and see a blue sky. I think "WoW beautiful, how on earth was this designed?" where as you say it's a structure of the atmosphere or something scientific. That does not prove God doesn't exist, it just explains God's creation. You take religion as some kind of joke. Patrolling these boards taking part in every religion thread you see, using "No U" on every post and claiming "Troll" or "Dumb", then getting a few people on your side to argue the point, resulting in thread closure. You don't discuss religion, you ridicule it and pass it off as nothing serious. Shame on you for doing so - however, you're free to do so. Just don't think after you click that submit button that I walk away feeling down about my beliefs, because I sit here laughing at yours.

That's unfair on the child. It should be told to the child at an age when they can understand. Not at 20, he/she won't take it well at all. I guess the love from the mother is a good excuse, however it really should have been done before he/she left school. It must be hard/confusing being brought up by two completely different people to yourself - I can relate to my father, as he is of the same blood. If I had a different father I would 100% notice the differences. I would probably be the one asking "Am I adopted?" It's nice of them to adopt, and it really shouldn't be treated as something bad, but rather somethinng loving and good. I wouldn't mind being adopted, I would respect and love my parents exactly the same - protective, caring, etc. It wouldn't make a difference - although I would like to know what happend to my biological parents, to understand more about myself.

Evolution is just a theory, it makes sense; however, so does creation by an omniponent. I don't see why one towers the other, seeing as you require the creationist view to even proceed with scientific experiments. Without religion being invented, we would have never proceeded with science. Religion is the backbone for order, initial advancement + control as well as many other important factors to building a civilization. Science basically repents religion, or better said, had repented religion to take steps in learning about creation. Religion taught a religious-science view on life; then in came government and money, along with science. If no-one ever said, "there's a God", science would have never said, "there is no God," and continued experimenting against the rules of religion. What came first, Religion or Science? Religion. They are opposite ends of the bridge, and they rarely cross each other as the beliefs are totally different. As science repents relgion, it kills it slowly, as the money introduced gives power to one and not the other. Science is taught in schools as that's where the money is, and religion is ridiculed using stupid stories and inputs from religious-dumb people. A government-educated religious person is in-fact dumb compared to a true educated-religious person - you rarely see a religious-smart person, they're usually priests muttering a stupid fictional story, in place of the correct more-scientific(religious) version. So a creationist view is just as justified as a scientific view. A creationist view looks at the big picture while science looks at each individual microscopic micro-picture. An example: Religion: What goes up, must come down. Science: What goes up is a result of Gravity blah blah blah, neutrons and quarks blah blah blah - it's nothing special just a bunch of blah blah blah....... Each has there own input on life, but to class religion as 'not-science' is unfair, disrespectful and evil. As religion is the backbone for any science to become possible - if it wasn't for religion I doubt humans would have made it where they are today. It must have got to the point where another factor needed to be introduced, so science came in for profits and advancement. That's probably the cause of the 3rd Reich - I doubt hitler killed the Jews for the simple fact they believed in an omniponent, there must have been other factors, like the way they repented science, etc. I wouldn't be surpised, with the amount of budding religious smart people lately, if the 4th reich occured - however that's just me looking at previous events and comparing them to the events I see occuring at this moment, as well as revelations. tl:dr no. edit: -1 rep (scientist) +1 rep (creationist) perfect example

I would imagine a baby chicken. It would be better said, what came first, the embreo or the sperm? I'd say sperm - therefore I believe a baby chicken came first. A budding creation - seeing as an egg needs to grow as well. Maybe a baby egg. I can't answer the question >:[

Patterns Art + Creation Everything is a pattern - nothing in existence isn't a pattern. A letter in the alphabet is a pattern: "A". Take a second to examine the letter before continuing to read. Moving on, a "Word" is a pattern made from even smaler patterns - for example "Donkey" is just six different letters/patterns. Continuing, a sentence is a pattern made from lots of words and letters - a story is a pattern made from lots of sentences. We seperate the sentences to make the patterns easier to read using 'paragraphs". The body is a pattern, as is DNA. The face is composed of 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils and 1 mouth. That's a pattern in itself, along with everything else. Nothing on the body is not a pattern. Everything in the world is a pattern, and our mind loves these patterns, and we register it. Therefore God = Art and Creation. We are in Gods image as we are all artists (we love art) and we are all creators (we can create art). Discuss.

Destroying Art or Creation.

I think what he's trying to say is could "Google" be as powerful as they are without another "internet" giant next to them. Google is just ahead of the traffic, but without people next to Google, the traffic can just take over. Google/Youtube/4chan, front of the traffic, advertising sites etc, pinging back at the traffic behind them. If it was just google as the internet giant, and was one car in front of all the traffic, surely people would just take over, as one car leaves space to get through.

Create an OS in your spare time, design software along with a few websites gaining some traffic - look for a Job. The best science to pick at the moment, if you use the knowledge correctly. If you understand how a computer works then you can start fighting for control over the internet + systems. Make something that people want, they buy/download it, then make it something they need - example, flash player. At first it was just something people wanted, now most things require it. Work on net-income ($ per second) rather than annual. Build it up as you go along. You can do a lot with that man.

Sea, Land, Air - In that order? Sea + Air > Land - Or in this order?

Not a problem for me. If I attract them then it's okay, I like being loved - If one of them makes the mistake of thinking that I'm homosexual then I'll swiftly explain that I'm not, and continue as shower-buddies. It must be hard for gays, I make mistakes choosing the right women - the gays have a shallow audience. Mistakes are fine, just don't make them twice with the same person and I have no problem. tl:dr I'm confortable showering with homosexuals.

I agree - I think I'm going crazy. It's stuck in my brain, I can't interpret the book in any other way but scientific. I'm about to move on doing the rest of genesis in this crazy manner and maybe I'll get to a point where it's impossible to carry on. On and that note, this visage is over.

It's a sin to murder someone, So the death penalty is sin?

Source .a Christianity - "The Bible" Although the nature of the 'bible' may have been altered over the years, I'm going to attempt, whilst applying wisdom and logical assertions, to decode - and understand the bible, as it was understood during its origin/initial creation. It's rare to hear of somone who attempted to understand word for word what the religion symbolized; a supernatural monotheistic figure seems to be the most popular way to view the text, however it may be the incorrect view-point. Putting 'Occams Razor' to the bible in the present day is almost useless, as the book is highly ridiculed by most scientific figures/media, especially within schools/colleges and education as a whole. The Method is pretty straight-forward - applying a rule of relativity between each of the word-specifics (e.g. heaven, earth, adam, God, etc) in the book - then using factors in life and/or knowledge of space relating this special-relativity to that of the books. I will begin reading [genesis.1] and continue through genesis after I have reached a stand-still on the relativity in question, and require more knowledge to produce an accurate answer, even if that knowledge is found deep within [genesis]. GENESIS.1 1. "In the beginning, God, created the heaven and earth" Immediately my wisdom acknowledges 'attraction/bonding'. I sense an immediate relation to the heaven and earth - reliant or simply binded to each other; on the other hand they could be simply opposite ends of attraction - even hot and cold ~ heat (entropy). If I were to write this in a mathmatical form I would in this manner: G=HE. Since this is the very beginning, these factors must be vital to the rest of creation according to the bible. Science is aware that anti-matter/dark-matter exists - using basic knowledge of these elements, I came to the conclusion that anti-matter repluses/repents all other matter, including dark-matter. Therefore using that basis and the primitive nature of both substances: H = Anti-matter and E = Dark-matter. So far the current explanation for [genesis.1 .1] is: "In the beginning, God, created the anti-matter and dark-matter". In the algebraic form of - G=Am,Dm. 2. "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving across the face of the waters" Using knowledge gained in [1.]. The 'dark-matter' is without form and void'. Considering 'Am and Dm' and their current relativity, and the knowledge of dark-matter itself, I understand why it would be without form and void. As we're talking about the first steps in time, this 'darkmatter' must be of gigantic, or microscopic proportions. Example; super-massive black and white(antimatter) holes. Moving on, the intial attraction caused by both the substances would create a 'life-force' or energy. Seeing as the rule I am following is relativity, I am assuming 'God' as attraction/special-relativity that brings these two elements together, then continues throughout them, shaping and morphing them into their correct/good states. I understand that the deep and water faces hold some relativity to each other. Firstly they're both faces. Secondly they're both forms of h2o - Using wisdom I will assume the deep stands for deep-water, and water stands for surface-water(not-deep water). As one of the substances is dark-matter, we're already given a good reason as to why the deep was dark, although not such a good reason as to why the surface wasn't and/or is any different. Assuming the substances darkmatter/antimatter created a 'life-force' attraction between each other, creating a 'deep' and 'shallow' entropy - it may have be trying to describe hot/cold water or essentially heat entropy. The explanation for [genesis.1 .2] is: "The dark-matter was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep(hot), and the spirit of Relativity/Attraction was moving across the face of the shallow(cold)." Diagram X To be continued... Apoligizing in advance for using some of the ideas posted on this board in my explanation

I think the Death Penalty is only acceptable for the greater good or to stop any large threats. A terroist with aim to bring harm to innocents deserves to be punished - a terroist who intends to bring justice to the world, should not. If someone kills a child, then the death penalty is acceptable - if that someone had a mental problem then maybe permanent isolation from the world would be a better option. If a father see's his son inches away from being shot by the police - and picks up a gun to defend his son, and shoots an officer - that man doesn't deserve the penalty, as by the rules of nature he is choosing the right option, defending/nurturing his off-spring. The Death Penalty should only be involved in-cases of murder or tampering with the will of nature - nothing more. It should most definetly not be introduced into people who disagree with the government/science - as nature creates the rules. IMO

I would say "Dumber" by nature - we're placing them in zoo's etc, and the ones free in the world are having to adapt to the man-made structure of everything; burning/cutting down trees, releasing poisonous gasses into the air, and many other factors as the why the animals don't have the space/natural ability to evolve.

>drama /popcorn

What do you guys believe to be suitable-crimes for the death penalty?

What if the universe was created by a super-massive black hole and super-massive white hole. Both gave each other proportionate attraction - a binding force alike magnets. The two collide and due to each others 'field' of attraction, the life-force produced could only be perfect - there is no way that anything can go against the rules if the only factors are two attractions with specific structures, to simply, attract. - [a.] darkmatter/gravity gravity/antimatter (I'll explain this further in, Source a). Both attractions collide and project outwards at speeds in their 'field of attraction'. What if that initial love occurred through the -attractive-will- of the initial super-massive black hole, it must have caused the reaction itself, the need to attract! This darkmatter/gravity gaining an attraction with a almost nothing-like 'antimatter/gravity'. The first step would be binding, before being able to bind correctly the two super-massive 'holes would combine - creating an entropy. a. I have picked 'gravity' as a basis single attraction, as a black hole is 100% mass and is essentially pure 'gravity'. Antimatter, as the opposite of matter, would infact be antimatter, the negative version. The darkmatter would be the opposite of light, it's negative version. The initial binding procedure would create, after tumbling, space: entropy of hot/cold(heat) time waves; matter from the antimatter, and finally light which is the formula for darkmatter/antimatter^2. What if we were a bunch of literal time/hot/cold entropy waves?

A gun produces energy in the same way sound does right? Entropy, it's just hot/cold pressure?