Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

IV ● XxX

Atheism

Recommended Posts

K^2
This whole 720° is confusing to me - can you explain more about how this is possible? I've always considered a full rotation and 360° to be one in the same, that is, entirely relative.

That's SU2 for you. Unless you are interested in algebra of spin matrices, don't worry about it. Just accept that while objects might look like they are the same after a 360 rotation, they really aren't.

 

Knowing of AI you must have wondered about what consciousness really means? Intelligence, human thought, all that stuff?

 

I don't need to wonder. I understand enough about informatics, AI, and time flow to have a general idea of where consciousness comes from.

 

I find it strange that you tell believers to doubt, while believing that current science is truth. You say mistakes always happen, yet seem to believe that science makes none.

If you think that, you haven't been listening at all. I have been telling you to doubt everything. Religion, science, matter, time, and your own existence.

 

Now, why does science come out on top in the end? Because real science does not assume anything. Science will not tell you that the big bang happened. It merely suggests a model according to which it could have happened. I can use that model to make some predictions about the universe I live in. Do I care if the big bang actually happened? Not at all. I just want to have a model that is consistent with what I observe. Creation is consistent too, but it doesn't tell me anything. If God created everything, who am I to second guess God? That's why creation is useless as scientific theory. On the other hand, if everything happens according to some laws, and I can guess the laws, I can make predictions. If these predictions work for me, I don't need to know if I guessed right. I just use what I get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

 

science comes out on top in the end

I think science depends on observation, - and like flipping a coin, or betting on the stock market, "past performance is not indicative of future performance" or something like that, no?. I think a religious guy said 'Life goes forward we think backwards' and is the meaning of life really found in electrons?

 

 

I understand enough about informatics, AI, and time flow to have a general idea of where consciousness comes from.

Yet still you are for the Thinking Man? why not instead the Thinking Computer?

 

 

The "word", of course, does not need to be understood literally as a spoken word, but rather information or knowledge in general

According to Ishmael in Ishmael the bible came out of the opposition between the rise of agriculture and shepherds. Agriculture would count have counted as innovation back then - and those who had it would have been seen to have greater information or knowledge.

 

Some informations are more vital to survival than others. Some knowledges are more vital to survival than others. Basic Eating and Basic Sleeping skills are more vital than seeing skills or running skills not to mention mathematics skills, or writing skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I think science depends on observation, - and like flipping a coin, or betting on the stock market, "past performance is not indicative of future performance" or something like that, no?. I think a religious guy said 'Life goes forward we think backwards' and is the meaning of life really found in electrons?

You have absolutely no source of information other than observation. If you can't use it to make conclusions, you cannot make any conclusions. It is obvious that observations can be faulty on the fundamental level, but in that case there is absolutely no way to plan any action. Therefore, the only thing to do is to assume that we learn something useful from observation and to make conclusions on the basis thereof. I have no way of proving that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but I can draw no use from such a fact. I can benefit best from making an assumption that it will rise, and act accordingly. That's science for you.

 

Yet still you are for the Thinking Man? why not instead the Thinking Computer?

First, show me a thinking computer. Human brain consists of 10^11 neurons with an even large number of interconnections. No computer has yet approached that complexity. Computers we have can posses intellect of an insect. In some sense, studying intellect of even insects is interesting, but it's hard to talk about consciousness on such basic level.

 

According to Ishmael in Ishmael the bible came out of the opposition between the rise of agriculture and shepherds. Agriculture would count have counted as innovation back then - and those who had it would have been seen to have greater information or knowledge.

 

Some informations are more vital to survival than others. Some knowledges are more vital to survival than others. Basic Eating and Basic Sleeping skills are more vital than seeing skills or running skills not to mention mathematics skills, or writing skills.

Now what does that have to do with anything? Do you just like quoting random things you've overheard somewhere? It's really starting to seem that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

 

You have absolutely no source of information other than observation.

what about yourself? your soul or your mind or your brain - seems to follow some paths and not others. What does your consciousness tell you? Is accumulation of information all there is in life? What exactly is the purpose of human beings according to science? - I believe mortukai supported the idea of survival - reproduction - expansion - but that seems rather shortsighted.

 

 

I have no way of proving that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but I can draw no use from such a fact. I can benefit best from making an assumption that it will rise, and act accordingly

Use? what exactly is the use of the use? what strange road is science taking us? - The sun doesn't rise tomorrow, does anything change? no - 1+1=2, 2+2=5, 1+1+1=1

 

 

First, show me a thinking computer. Human brain consists of 10^11 neurons with an even large number of interconnections. No computer has yet approached that complexity. Computers we have can posses intellect of an insect. In some sense, studying intellect of even insects is interesting, but it's hard to talk about consciousness on such basic level.

You believe that we are just complicated computers? No "Free Will"? - Why are you for helping your civilization grow then? you are for helping other complex calculators? hedonism - it is the path of least resistance?

 

 

Now what does that have to do with anything? Do you just like quoting random things you've overheard somewhere? It's really starting to seem that way.

Discussions increase in size, because things are interconnected. Atheism has to do with Religion has to do with Christianity has to do with the rise of the Old Testament has to do with the rise of agriculture. If the Discussion is honest, truth seems to expand - perhaps if we know enough we'll be able to have the power of god and recreate the world in our own image! (or at least think we can)

 

Do I just like quoting random things I've overheard somewhere? When I quote things it is because I have a point. Regretfully, I seem to underdevelop my points - I seem to dislike to elaborate on points, perhaps for the amount of time it takes to find suitable claims (lazyness? finite amt of time in universe?), perhaps because as you've said an increase in claims means a decrease in accuracy of said claims (adaptation to D&D environment?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Your mind is just a resonance of a neuron net in response to external stimuli. If you think you have a free will, you are in deep denial.

 

When I quote things it is because I have a point.

You might think so, but I am yet to see you make any kind of a point. Until you formulate one, I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

Fair enough K^2Claims:

1 "Self-sufficient knowledge" is God, in the world described by K^2. It might not be christianity, but it is a deism.

 

2 Atheism is not a religion.

Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam are theist Religions. Buddhism is an atheist religion. Theism or Atheism are merely descriptors for a religion, not a religion.

 

3 Science is a religion.

Science has scientists and preachers for the expansion of science. Science has holy texts, the writings of great prophets like Einstein, Newton, etc. It claims certain modes of behavior are correct with it's arm of psychiatry.

 

4 Determinism and an idealization of Progress and the Thinking Man are incompatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

I thought these passages were relevant to the interests of this discussion.

 

 

To stop Science would create more problems than solutions. Aside from military considerations, it would be disastrous to freeze culture at its present high point. The highly technical civilization of the 20th civilization is like an airplane in flight supported by its forward motion. It can not stop without falling. If all the world's inhabitants, for instance, learn to use natural resources as fast as Americans do now, many necessary substances will be exhausted. Scientists confidently count on improvements, including atomic energy, to provide ample substitutes.

 

Present techniques won't do it. Where will man's curve of scientific progress take him ultimately? The surprises since 1900 have made scientists humble. They know that as science grows, it only penetrates deeper into mystery. Human knowledge may be visualized as an expanding sphere whose volume grows larger as its diameter increases. But the area of the sphere's surface, its frontier with the unknown, increases as the square of the diameter.

 

and unfortunately we'll get this one secondhand

 

Dr. Hoenikker was supposed to be the keynote speaker at the trio’s graduation from high school, but he did not show up for the ceremony and Dr. Breed had to give a speech instead. He spoke about the virtues of science and argued that if people studied science more, there would not be as much trouble in the world. His words seem to have made an impression on Sandra and the bartender, and they appear excited by a recent report that scientists somewhere have discovered that protein is the secret of life.

[...]

Analysis

This section communicates the dangers of technological advancement and laypeople’s misunderstanding of science. Vonnegut comically uses Sandra and the bartenders to exemplify this problem as they discuss Dr. Breed’s graduation speech and reiterate his view that one day science will solve the world’s problems. In a show of misunderstanding, they recall that only two days ago the news had reported that protein had been discovered as the basic secret of life. While protein may have been the most basic component of the report, it is doubtful that such a simple element would have been called the secret to life. But neither Sandra nor the bartender provides an explanation about why protein might be the secret, leading us to believe that they do not actually understand what they are discussing. Their deep faith in something that they ultimately do not understand is important because it relegates science to the level of religion in the minds of many common folk, in that they often see it as fantastic and magical.

 

I was thinking that knowing about electrons are useless for someone wanting to help people, instead an idea of where consciousness comes from (self sufficient knowledge? a greater AI?) and idea of human history, of justice, would benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlockWorkz

It's the belief of not believing. Why should we trust the bible? I don't know, it's "God's words, written by man."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

If the human brain is merely a complex computer to an order of 10^11 this gives rise to some questions.

 

Are human beings simply machines? From the theory of evolution it would seem that if animals are machines, then humans obviously wuold be. Are animals simply machines?

 

 

 

Another point I was thinking of was that of the matrix being true in a metaphorical way - in that the masses being controlled by propaganda, in that the control of most things in existence are mechanical, that the world can be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

1 "Self-sufficient knowledge" is God, in the world described by K^2. It might not be christianity, but it is a deism.

Huh? Where do I claim that?

 

2 Atheism is not a religion.

Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam are theist Religions. Buddhism is an atheist religion. Theism or Atheism are merely descriptors for a religion, not a religion.

Yeah, sure, Atheism does not specify a particular religion, but anything that falls under criteria for Atheism falls under criteria for a religion. All Atheisms are religions in one way or another.

 

3 Science is a religion.

Science has scientists and preachers for the expansion of science. Science has holy texts, the writings of great prophets like Einstein, Newton, etc. It claims certain modes of behavior are correct with it's arm of psychiatry.

I think I made it clear enough already that real science is not a religion. Real science does not promise explanations, and it does not state anything as a truth. It simply suggests models that can be compared to the real world. Some models work well, and are used to make predictions, but at no point does science claim that these things are anything more than models. People who think that science explains how things work are morons who don't know crap about science. Simple as. And get this through your head. I'm tired of repeating all that.

 

4 Determinism and an idealization of Progress and the Thinking Man are incompatible.

Au contraire. Thinking is defined by determinism. It is free will that is incompatible with determinism, but none of it means that you can't feel or think that you have a freedom of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

My $0.02:

 

If I take a glass and drop it onto the floor, what will happen?

 

[You say] "It breaks into hundreds of pieces"

 

Exactly. Now what are the odds of me dropping this glass and it breaking into hundreds of little glasses? Pretty low, huh? Well what are the odds of the entire universe exploding, and our solar system ending up in perfect harmony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Kostelecky

Are you trying to compare something that took just a second or two to happen (dropping the glass) with something that took over 4 billion years (the formation of the universe)?

 

And who said the universe was in complete harmony? This planet is pretty nice. But we're a VERY small portion of the universe. We don't even know if there is any other life out there (I'm betting there is).

 

Also, if there was a creator, wouldn't space be used a little more efficiently? Why would there be so much empty space compared to livable worlds? Doesn't seem like an intelligent design to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
My $0.02:

 

If I take a glass and drop it onto the floor, what will happen?

 

[You say] "It breaks into hundreds of pieces"

 

Exactly. Now what are the odds of me dropping this glass and it breaking into hundreds of little glasses? Pretty low, huh? Well what are the odds of the entire universe exploding, and our solar system ending up in perfect harmony?

1) Glass breaking into shards is part of your perception of time. You can also look at it as shards of glass coming together to form a glass.

 

2) There are plenty of simulations that show that random clouds of stars with some kinetic energy (as from an explosion) form neat "little" galaxies, clusters, and super clusters. Hell, I've ran some of my own. Everything we observe matches the simulations that are based on the big bang theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated
Are you trying to compare something that took just a second or two to happen (dropping the glass) with something that took over 4 billion years (the formation of the universe)?

 

And who said the universe was in complete harmony? This planet is pretty nice. But we're a VERY small portion of the universe. We don't even know if there is any other life out there (I'm betting there is).

 

Also, if there was a creator, wouldn't space be used a little more efficiently? Why would there be so much empty space compared to livable worlds? Doesn't seem like an intelligent design to me.

According to many religions, we (humans) are the only ones in the universe (under this assumption, although one can easily argue that). The Earth is in perfect sync and isn't going to smash into the sun, no other planets orbit are being deferred, no major meteors are hitting the planet (even though there are a whole lot of massive debris hurling through space, etc. If the Earth was moved even 1 meter off its orbit, eventually it would hit something, whether it be a planet, or a meteor. I, also, find it hard to believe that the planet hasn't been hit by a meteor the size of the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. The "neatness" of it all does not compute viddy_pirate.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
If the Earth was moved even 1 meter off its orbit, eventually it would hit something, whether it be a planet, or a meteor. I, also, find it hard to believe that the planet hasn't been hit by a meteor the size of the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. The "neatness" of it all does not compute viddy_pirate.gif

You don't know a whole lot about central potentials, do you? Short lecture. Earth would not collide with another celestial object if it's orbit would deviate by a meter, or even a kilometer, or even thousands of kilometers. All orbits around a star are stable. The only dangers are with intersecting highly elliptic orbits, and all large objects on such orbits have already gotten destroyed early in the formation of the system, leaving us with just our 8 planets moving in stable-nearly circular orbits. If you push earth enough to move a few thousand kilometers, Earth will still be in a nice, stable, nearly circular orbit. If you push it a lot more, the orbit would start getting a bit elliptical, but will still be nice and closed until you push Earth enough to collide with another planet. The nearest planets pass about 40 million kilometers away from Earth during nearest approach. That gives you quite a bit of room for not colliding with them.

 

Now, for the asteroids. You have to keep in mind that everything that is flying about in the Solar System has been doing so for about 5 billion years. Life on this planet has only been around for the last 0.5 billion years. All of the asteroids that were on Earth's orbit have been either picked up by gravitational field of Earth during Earth's formation, or smashed into Earth's surface before any serious life forms have developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

 

If the Earth was moved even 1 meter off its orbit, eventually it would hit something, whether it be a planet, or a meteor. I, also, find it hard to believe that the planet hasn't been hit by a meteor the size of the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. The "neatness" of it all does not compute viddy_pirate.gif

You don't know a whole lot about central potentials, do you? Short lecture. Earth would not collide with another celestial object if it's orbit would deviate by a meter, or even a kilometer, or even thousands of kilometers. All orbits around a star are stable. The only dangers are with intersecting highly elliptic orbits, and all large objects on such orbits have already gotten destroyed early in the formation of the system, leaving us with just our 8 planets moving in stable-nearly circular orbits. If you push earth enough to move a few thousand kilometers, Earth will still be in a nice, stable, nearly circular orbit. If you push it a lot more, the orbit would start getting a bit elliptical, but will still be nice and closed until you push Earth enough to collide with another planet. The nearest planets pass about 40 million kilometers away from Earth during nearest approach. That gives you quite a bit of room for not colliding with them.

 

Now, for the asteroids. You have to keep in mind that everything that is flying about in the Solar System has been doing so for about 5 billion years. Life on this planet has only been around for the last 0.5 billion years. All of the asteroids that were on Earth's orbit have been either picked up by gravitational field of Earth during Earth's formation, or smashed into Earth's surface before any serious life forms have developed.

Good rebuttal (I may not be able to say that about mind). Is it safe to say that something as intricate as the universe couldn't happen by chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Good rebuttal (I may not be able to say that about mind). Is it safe to say that something as intricate as the universe couldn't happen by chance?

Do you mean would we get something well structured if the laws were slightly off? I know we wouldn't get the same kind of organization, but I don't know if we would get some other, or if it would be just chaos. Some of the "parameters", if you will, do seem very finely "tunned". However, as I explained somewhere else, there is a simple enough model that allows for that. Imagine that there are infinitely many universes, all with slightly different laws of physics. Some of them might be chaotic. Perhaps, most of them. But there is nobody in these worlds to sit down and think about the nature of the universe. Then the odds of there being some universes that are just right for life and thought existing somewhere among the infinity are a certainty, and naturally we have a 100% chance to be in one of them. This model requires no creator.

 

Does this prove anything? No, not really. The laws of this universe might as well be intentionally "tweaked" to allow such organization by some supreme being. The point here, however, is that there is a way how this could have all come by "chance", and you have to consider both possibilities.

 

Personally, I prefer models that don't involve supreme beings, because they actually make predictions. I am not going to try to second guess a God, but I can work with laws of physics. As for beliefs, I think they are a waste of time. I don't see why I need to believe that the world works a certain way, and whether this Universe was actually created by a big explosion or by divine word, really makes no difference to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

 

Do you mean would we get something well structured if the laws were slightly off? I know we wouldn't get the same kind of organization, but I don't know if we would get some other, or if it would be just chaos. Some of the "parameters", if you will, do seem very finely "tunned". However, as I explained somewhere else, there is a simple enough model that allows for that. Imagine that there are infinitely many universes, all with slightly different laws of physics. Some of them might be chaotic. Perhaps, most of them. But there is nobody in these worlds to sit down and think about the nature of the universe. Then the odds of there being some universes that are just right for life and thought existing somewhere among the infinity are a certainty, and naturally we have a 100% chance to be in one of them. This model requires no creator.

 

Does this prove anything? No, not really. The laws of this universe might as well be intentionally "tweaked" to allow such organization by some supreme being. The point here, however, is that there is a way how this could have all come by "chance", and you have to consider both possibilities.

 

Personally, I prefer models that don't involve supreme beings, because they actually make predictions. I am not going to try to second guess a God, but I can work with laws of physics. As for beliefs, I think they are a waste of time. I don't see why I need to believe that the world works a certain way, and whether this Universe was actually created by a big explosion or by divine word, really makes no difference to me.

Yes, that model is probably likely, purely because of the vastness of the universe.

 

Another theory is the big bang theory:

 

(From Wikipedia)

user posted image

 

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state (singularity). Space itself has been expanding ever since, carrying galaxies with it.

 

Something outside of the singularity (the universe itself) to cause this. Whether it was a natural trigger or not is up for discussion. But that natural trigger could be God (?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Singularity is a state with the least possible entropy. Due to the way our perception of time works, we interpret states with lower entropy as our past. It is only natural, therefore, that our universe appears to have risen from a singularity, but that doesn't say that singularity was "created" first.

 

When you talk about the universe as a whole, you can't talk about causality in the common sense. You are talking about "creation" of something that includes time. You can't say what came first and what came later. You really have to accept that the universe just is.

 

I don't entirely understand how the universe can just be, but a creation model requires me to believe that the creator just exists, and I don't see a difference between the two ideas. Also, I don't see any reason for the universe not to exist. Everything I understand about how things can or cannot work comes from the rules governing this universe. Outside of these rules, I don't know what can happen. Perhaps, the law of conservation of matter doesn't work if you have no matter, space, or time to begin with, which results in a singularity exploding into a universe with its own laws. But that's just random speculation. There is absolutely no way to know such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated
Singularity is a state with the least possible entropy. Due to the way our perception of time works, we interpret states with lower entropy as our past. It is only natural, therefore, that our universe appears to have risen from a singularity, but that doesn't say that singularity was "created" first.

 

When you talk about the universe as a whole, you can't talk about causality in the common sense. You are talking about "creation" of something that includes time. You can't say what came first and what came later. You really have to accept that the universe just is.

 

I don't entirely understand how the universe can just be, but a creation model requires me to believe that the creator just exists, and I don't see a difference between the two ideas. Also, I don't see any reason for the universe not to exist. Everything I understand about how things can or cannot work comes from the rules governing this universe. Outside of these rules, I don't know what can happen. Perhaps, the law of conservation of matter doesn't work if you have no matter, space, or time to begin with, which results in a singularity exploding into a universe with its own laws. But that's just random speculation. There is absolutely no way to know such things.

I need to take in what you have said, as it makes plenty of sense. Time adds another dimension to a already complex equation.

 

Also, could you expand on "between the two ideas".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

By the two ideas I meant:

1) Universe just exists.

2) Universe is created by God who just exists.

 

Either way, you have to accept that something just is. I don't see why one should make sense more than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

 

By the two ideas I meant:

1) Universe just exists.

2) Universe is created by God who just exists.

 

Either way, you have to accept that something just is. I don't see why one should make sense more than the other.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Well, I guess Atheists take #1 and Religious people take #2 biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Kostelecky

The funny thing is religous people take #2 because they cannot accept that the universe just exists. So a god had to create it. But the god can just exist. I don't understand that logic. But logic and religon do not go together at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I don't think that's why religious people chose to think so, and that argument is just being used to try to justify the choice that they do not understand themselves. At least, that's the feeling I get every time I talk to any strongly religious person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randomname01

I call atheism a state of living in which a person actually is in reality in life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
senapanaga

Yea i dont know... sometimes I wonder about these things. Im an athesit through and through don't get me wrong it's just that... Not about the reality of life but the tway we think I mean, to me... galaxies are cosmic dust and materials, swirled altogether until they spin ahrd enough to get gravity, some are even pulled together through black holes... So we get a galaxy formed, than the gravity pulls in some big rocks, those rocks become comets or asteroids, they eventually hit a planet in the galaxie(s) their in and that cosmic dust has been found inside human beings bodies. The materials from comets/asteroids have been found in our bodies, so the same comet/asteroid that may have killed the dinosuars, created human life. And yeah I really don't know where im going with this...

 

lol kthxbai....

 

(our dead bodies, if buried naturally, can feed other lifeforms. Humans live forever in this fashion. Shifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gif )

all without the need for a god.

 

 

gravity = life. tounge2.gif

Edited by senapanaga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All-Blacks

One thing I hate 'bout religion are the religious public schools (Catholic, Church of England mainly) that discriminate athiests or Islams and prevent 'em into their school, in my opinion its just as bad as an 'Only Black School'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

 

One thing I hate 'bout religion are the religious public schools (Catholic, Church of England mainly) that discriminate athiests or Islams and prevent 'em into their school, in my opinion its just as bad as an 'Only Black School'.

So you actually have public religious schools in the UK? Whatever happened to seperation of church and state?

 

Religion affiliated schools in the US typically aren't exclusive to their religion. I go to a Catholic high school and I know there are a number of of Jews and Hindus who go to my school. I'm guessing this happens because in some places private schools are a lot better than the public schools. This is definitely the case in my school district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
So you actually have public religious schools in the UK? Whatever happened to seperation of church and state?

That is a New Zealand flag. Just like All Blacks is a New Zealand team. So I'm thinking he's not from UK. Though, it still puts him on an island, with Union Jack on his flag and Elizabeth II as his Queen, so you're not that far off.

 

First Amendment to the US Constitution states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That is taken to mean that government cannot fund a religious school. I'm not exactly sure what stops a state from funding one, but this is pretty much where the lack of public religious schools in US stems from. New Zealand, on the other hand, doesn't even have a written Constitution, so it's quite possible that it is more flexible in that regard. Another thing they have in common with UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All-Blacks

Well the UK is pretty strict in allowing students into religious schools, you need to go to your priest and collect points towards a point system to join a religious school, the requirement is usually a minimum of 5 years of attending church to get enough points to be 'looked' at. I think some religious schools in the UK are private, but the majority are publicly funded (even New Zealand has some private religious schools).

 

PS- I live in the UK BTW, i'm a proud traitor wink.gif .

Edited by All-Blacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.