|
| Thread: Why Is Atheism So Prevalent In Online Communities |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted May 11, 2003 11:55 AM |
|
|
Hello Romana,
Quote:
Lews you say Jesus threatened with eternal torture. I dun see it that way. I see it as a warning. Like you would warn a child not to get to close to the flames.
There is a term for such a warning, spoken by the person who is in power to exert the consequence, and whose interest it is that the warning is heeded: Blackmail.
An almighty, all-loving and all-caring god lets the ones who do not believe in his existence be tortured forever. Does that make sense to you? To me, it very much looks like Orwellīs doublethink.
Quote:
And Lews..i been thinking about what you said about conscience, where you used the example of parent teaching their child to steal thus influencing it's conscience in a big way.
Maybe in some cases it works that way, but I myself find it hard to believe such a thing as conscience can be taught.
Basically it's the same as saying that every victim is a potential violater. Like to hear what you think about that also.
Hmm, not every victim is a potential violator, but men who abuse their wives and children usually are men who have been abused in their own childhood, too. But I think this has a large number of factors, and conscience is only a small part of it.
The world just doesnīt look like there is some kind of collective god-given conscience. Whereever different cultures have different world views, the consciences of their people differ in accordance. If someone is educated to be stingy, he will most probably have a bad conscience about large expenses. Who grows up with animals and learns to respect them, will probably have a bad conscience about hurting them. You say that you donīt believe something like conscience can be taught. Why is it Christian Monks then, who castigated themselves for their sexual desires? Why donīt you and me have this urge to flog ourselves, too, when we think of sex?
If you teach your children that wieners must be eaten in buns, while condiments of every kind are a deadly sin, they will have a bad conscience about using mustard or ketchup.
Conscience is not a miracle to psychologists and neurologists, itīs very well explainable to science. You donīt need metaphysics here.
Quote:
Furthermore, you know people whom have suffered a great deal, kicked a bad habit (like drugs, alcohol). I never heard any of those people saying : Atheism saved me!
Yes, thatīs true. Religious belief can affect certain areas of the brain just like drugs do. Even the side-effects are similar. Once you are deeply caught in it, you cannot even imagine a happy life without the drug/religion.
Those people you mentioned have just replaced one drug with another. Itīs their Methadon. I agree though that, depending on how bad the former addiction was, this may actually be a good thing. Regarding George W. Bush Iīd like to say: I wish he had stayed an alcoholic.
The difference: Parents usually donīt make their children addictive to alcohol at an early age.
What do we learn from that? No Drugs! 
Hello Peacemaker,
Quote:
Second, I dont's really study the bible or anything and I am sure you and practically anybody else has more direct knowledge of it than I. But was it not the old testament where all the hellfire threats turned up? Wasn't that practically non-existent in the New Testament? I have heard debates that suggest Jesus changed that whole aspect of the bible
No, itīs quite the opposite: The hellfire threats did not exist in the old testament. It was the biblical Jesus made excessive use of them. Hereīs an example:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
...
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew25;41-46
You are right that Jesus brought a lot of positive change as well. The old Testament very often glorifies mass murder against men, women and children, the total extinction of other peoples.
Among the cruelest are the books of Moses and David, both brutal warlords that make Saddam Hussein look like a philantropist in comparison.
Still, the most inhuman idea of the bible, the eternal torture for non-believers, only appears in the New Testament.
All that aside, does it really make sense what the apologists do, to treat the Old Testament as some kind of second class word of god? Is an omnipotent power not able to express itself more clearly?
In history, the two testaments had a very practical side. When Christians were weak and the minority, they preached tolerance, based on the New Testament.
After becoming state religion though, the old one was prefered, to justify the exertion of murder, torture and merciless persecution on Jews, Pagans, so-called Heretics and alleged witches. Not only most catholic popes, but also reformers like Luther and Calvin agitated in favour of these systematic mass-murders.
Only when humanistic and secular ideas won influence, against grim resistance by the church, the New Testament became more suitable again.
____________
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 01:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Romana on 11 May 2003
|
Quote:
There is a term for such a warning, spoken by the person who is in power to exert the consequence, and whose interest it is that the warning is heeded: Blackmail
So if your parents warn you not to use drugs for example it's called blackmail now? LOL
Anyways..About the conscience part..Aren't you confusing that with morality?
Morality simplified means :code of conduct put forward by society and that it be used as a guide to behavior by the members of that society.
Conscience simplified means:The faculty, power, or inward principle which decides as to the character of one's own actions, purposes, and affections, warning against and condemning that which is wrong, and approving and prompting to that which is right
See the difference?
edit: and what ya think about my sig. I though it was hilarious LOL
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 01:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is a term for such a warning, spoken by the person who is in power to exert the consequence, and whose interest it is that the warning is heeded: Blackmail
So if your parents warn you not to use drugs for example it's called blackmail now? LOL
Read more closely please. My parents are not those who cause the negative effects of the drugs, and neither do they have the power to prevent them.Quote:
Anyways..About the conscience part..Aren't you confusing that with morality?
Conscience is internalized moralities.Quote:
and what ya think about my sig. I though it was hilarious LOL
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 04:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then as we continued to grow through the scientific developments of the the 19th and 20th centuries, two things began happening. First, the idea that "everything is knowable" started disintegrating when we could not locate whether the utimate building block for all this matter was a particle or a wave, but that instead the building block just behaved which ever way depending on the way we studied it (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
This is not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that there is a limit to the precision that an "object's" momentum and location are defined. It basically places a fundamental limit on how deterministic the universe is.
It's also not that things are "particles" or "waves," they are something completely different, but the best analogy that we have been able to come up with is that they are a sort of hybrid wave-particle that behaves more wavelike or particlelike depending on the conditions.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 12, 2003 02:14 AM |
|
|
Bort, I think you know way more about this subject than I do based on your post. Sorry; I'm operating off discussions I had about it twenty years ago so it's not real fresh. Are you saying that the Uncertainty Principle further called to question the location of matter in reality? Does this in some way involve the theory of relativity? "Cause that's what it sounds like you are saying.
(At any rate the point is that "everything is knowable" began appearing increasingly oversimplified based on new developments.)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted May 12, 2003 07:38 AM |
|
|
Hi Lews_Therin and Romana:
I hope you won't mind me coming in-between your discussion.
Romana, you said,
"Conscience simplified means:The faculty, power, or inward principle which decides as to the character of one's own actions, purposes, and affections, warning against and condemning that which is wrong, and approving and prompting to that which is right";
so how do you think this "Conscience" come about? Do we born with one? And if so, are they "fixed" and are they the same?
I have not really figured out (or shall I say, "decided" ) what "Conscience" actually is, and would like to know how you see it. However, I suspect my view on this is closer to that of Lews_Therin than yours.
Lews_Therin, you said,
"Read more closely please. My parents are not those who cause the negative effects of the drugs, and neither do they have the power to prevent them."
I do not quite follow this. Surely, you are not comparing "hellfire" to "drugs", and "parents" to ... say "Jesus", right? Can you please elaborate?
You also said,
"As Iīm not a believer, like you suggest, Iīm open to change my mind, as soon as you bring me some evidence, as soon as I find that a certain metaphysical view has better arguments than atheism and agnosticism."
Based on your above statement, I am not too sure about the "opening to change of mind" part. This is because, your justification of an "evidence" has to based on some fundamentals, or as mentioned, a certain "paradigm" that you are "working" within. Hence, is it not only possible for you (as for anyone of us) to "open to change of mind" within your "phenomenon world", but not without?
I hope you understand that I am not trying to contradict you, but trying to further understand your views, of which I find quite similar to mine.
Bort:
Thanks for the definition.
Oldtimer:
We can always count on the "oldman" for something deep (I'm serious).
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2003 01:35 PM |
|
|
Hello Snogard,
first of all, Iīd like to apologize that I answered so stupidly to some of your good arguments in past discussions. Second ...
Quote:
Lews_Therin, you said,
"Read more closely please. My parents are not those who cause the negative effects of the drugs, and neither do they have the power to prevent them."
I do not quite follow this. Surely, you are not comparing "hellfire" to "drugs", and "parents" to ... say "Jesus", right? Can you please elaborate?
Romana made that comparison. I said that it doesnīt fit, because the god demands belief and punishes disbelief (as heīs ominipotent, he surely would be able to prevent hellfire).
Parents usually are not omnipotent. They are not in control of the drug effects, thatīs why they warn their children beforehand.
The first one is a threat, while the second is merely a warning.
Quote:
Based on your above statement, I am not too sure about the "opening to change of mind" part. This is because, your justification of an "evidence" has to based on some fundamentals, or as mentioned, a certain "paradigm" that you are "working" within. Hence, is it not only possible for you (as for anyone of us) to "open to change of mind" within your "phenomenon world", but not without?
Hmm, good question that may give me a bit to think. As I donīt have that much time right now, my spontaneous answer would be, that my views are falsifiable. If you give me empiric evidence that your horoscope tells more about you than about those guys who are born on the other 364,25 days, I will reconsider my opinion about astrology. If you show me empiric evidence that praying is more than meditation with a possible placebo effect, I may reconsider atheism. If you show me an UFO, I may withdraw my opinion that Daeniken is a brainless idiot.
The monotheistsic religions on the other hand have positioned themselves so that they are immune to falsification. Unless their god appears and tells us that it doesnīt exist  . Christians have suffered the worst humilitations when they made concrete assertions about the physical world. The coming of the lord (end of the world) did not happen in the first century, as Christianity in its origins believed. The world is not flat. The universe does not move around central us.
Now the pope even acknowledges the theory of evolution.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 12, 2003 05:34 PM |
|
|
There does seem to be an assumption underlying this discussion that suggests that "God" in terms of this discussion means the Judeo-Christian "God." I just want to make a suggestion here. Just because these major monotheistic religions might be off track for purposes of the panelists here does not mean that therefore there is no "god." I mean a man-constructed religion being all flawed is one thing. But who's to say that there isn't some force underlying all this that doesn't have anything to do with the Christian views of all this?
So discussing the flaws in human methods of arriving at conclusions and construction and use of religions is a totally separate thing than how the universe came to be to begin with.
Lews, what are your thoughts on that topic? Romana? Whence did the original protoplasm spring??? How 'bout you bort?
Also Snogard, I think you raise an interesting point about impirical evidence when the very topic requiring proof may be operating beyond the realm within which we are contsrained to perceive and operate (it may be beyond the piece of paper in paperland as it were Lews). I believe (no pun intended) this may be where the concept of "Faith" comes from. Personally, though, I still think we CAN perceive greater things, if not through unused portions of our brains, then through the opening of our minds...but of course I have very personal "impirical" reasons for believing such things...
Thanks for letting me participate guys.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 12, 2003 06:14 PM |
|
Edited By: Romana on 12 May 2003
|
Hiya Snogard
About the conscience thing.
I believe that our character builds our conscience and because character is not a thing that can be taught I also believe conscience is not a thing that can be taught. Hope that clarifies it a bit.
And about the comparing thing with the parents and the drugs. Maybe i used to wrong comparison but I was actually going for something to point out the difference between a threat and a warning
(I aint as good as lews in explaining things )
edit: Once upon a time a man asked God to show himself, thus proving he exists. God decided that for once he would do so and the moment he showed himself to the man , he dissapeared in a cloud of logic.
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2003 02:54 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
Quote:
But who's to say that there isn't some force underlying all this that doesn't have anything to do with the Christian views of all this? ... Lews, what are your thoughts on that topic?
I totally completely agree with you . There may or may not be such forces. Denying that possibility is just as dogmatic as ... you know what .
Reason why I tend to pick on a certain religion is that it is the most influental, and I consider it to be both irrational and harmful.
I find views like yours and Romanaīs just as positive as my own.
Quote:
Whence did the original protoplasm spring???
I have no idea. Regarding that, I suspect that we are in a situation similar to that of the "plainies".
And as long as thatīs the case, I find it sensible to "work with" what we have ...
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 13, 2003 04:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you saying that the Uncertainty Principle further called to question the location of matter in reality? Does this in some way involve the theory of relativity? "Cause that's what it sounds like you are saying.
The uncertainty principle is part of quantum mechanics. Regarding the "location" of a particle or wave packet, it can only be expressed as a probability density. So technically, the exact location of an object does not exist. Relativity is an entirely different theory.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted May 13, 2003 05:20 AM |
|
|
Lews_Therin:
Nah, don?ft be stupid, you never answer stupidly to my post.
OK, seriously...
Quote:
Romana made that comparison. I said that it doesnīt fit, because the god demands belief and punishes disbelief (as heīs ominipotent, he surely would be able to prevent hellfire).
Oh, I get it. I missed your point because I failed to see that your argument was based on God being an omnipotent that controls ?gALL?h including both ?gGood and Evil?h?c Thanks for clarifying.
Regarding your second point, I think your comparison of ?gfalsifiable?h and ?gnon-falsifiable?h views explain a lot. May I summarize your position as, ?gyou are open to change of mind, as long as the subject concern is epistemically conceivable?h? (Please note that I used the word ?gepistemically?h due to the certain ?gphenomenal world?h that I assumed you?fre ?gworking?h in; but that by no means imply that your views are entirely ?gsubjective?h and lack of logical reasoning.) If this is the case, do you agree with me that a ?gcomplete openness of mind?h (free of any judgment and prejudice?) is never possible to a ?gnormal?h, logic-functioning mind? I am tempted to go further in saying that this state of mind deals with ?gabsolute?h, of which maybe ?c only ?gGod?h is capable of achieving.
As for the argument of ?gGod?h/?hno-God?h (here, I am not only referring to the Judeo-Christian God), this is how I look at it, and I hope you and others could ?gassess?h.
Simply put, God exists in the ?gspiritual?h realm (the other is ?glogical?h) of ?gour world?h (speaking of God beyond that, if it is possible at all, is meaningless as it doesn?ft concern us; and if I may add, that doesn?ft imply that God does not exist beyond that - whatever it means), and thus arguing for God?fs existence based on logic is very difficult (maybe possible to a certain extend; Dargon was doing a very good job ) and, I would say, unfair. That is why it is easy to refute the existence of God based on ?glogic?h. However, I would like to think that the ?gspiritual?h (please take this word in it?fs broadest sense, as I am not sure if I am able to specifically define it ?c yet ) realm is as real as that of the ?glogical?h within ?gour world?h. All said, in any argument, those for-God are bound to be in a disadvantage as judgments are normally based on ?glogic?h (the reason why is not related to his topic).
In conclusion, I (at this moment ) do believe that there is an ?gabsolute?h (you can call it God or what ever, but it is not solely a being) out there, but it is very difficult (if possible at all) for us to conceive it ?glogically?h. I think Lao Zhi (Taosim) has had a good attempt in explaining this ?gabsolute?h based on logic; but again I must admit that I do not know him, nor have I a chance to learn about his thinking from him personally.
Peacemaker:
Do the above coincide with some of your views?
Romana:
You are right, not many people are that good in explaining things, such as Lew, Bort, Privatehudson, Peacemake, Dargon, and a few more, and I really admire them. But hey, Bush isn?ft good at explaining things either, and he?fs a president.
Thanks for clarifying your views on conscience. According to you, if ?gcharacter builds our conscience?h, then every individual may has a different conscience, but it is something in-born and not acquired. That explains why you don?ft think it is an ?ginternalized moralities?h, but if that?fs the case, I would like to ask where/how do you think ?gcharacters?h come from/about? Like I?fve said, I have not really ?gdecided?h on what conscience is, but I think it is something that ?gactivates?h our moralities. Er?c for example, if we do not have a (certain?) conscience, we will not be able to show a (certain?) moral (that we have acquired)?c Ooops, I think this explanation is a little ?gmessy?h. Forget it if you don?ft get me, me neither?c
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 13, 2003 07:12 PM |
|
|
Whew. That was a rough ride/read. now I know how Lews feels reading and writing in English all the time.
Yes Snogard, you have said it very well. The absoluteness of the overarching Being is by its very nature beyond us, as we are by our very nature less than absolute (or so we believe based on our observations and experiences).
Yet therein lies the contradiction. Are we limited only by our thoughts and beliefs? Is it possible to get a glimpse beyond those limitations, and thereby redefine them??? IS there not some spark of self-awareness that drives us ever to the edge of the paper, and question, even DEMAND more answers to what lies beyond it???
We have some glimpse apparently that drives us all to have such speculative discussions as these. And there are minds so greatly inspired that they cause us to bump right up against the edge of our assumptions and look over that edge into the brink... So who was it that said humans would never run the spiritual four-minute mile as it were?
I personally believe that humanity is on the brink of a great spritual breakthrough. Of the last hundred years, things have changed so dramatically in human experience and consciousness, and yet we seemingly keep failing these terrible, wonderful tests presented to us (most recently 9-11 in my opinion) to break free of the human fragmentation habits we indulge and truly UNITE. We keep coming up with the same old hackneyed excuses to keep doing the same dumb old $h**. In my mind, heart, and body, another terrible, wonderful opportunity has been squandered and I truly weep for it to the depths of my being to this day. But it is also what brought me here to you all, my Heroes.
Ahh, well... That's just my highfolutin' idea. I may be full of it. On the other hand, in a way the same dumb old $h** is sometimes what drives us together, is it not???
Little baby steps... little baby steps...When the student is ready, the teacher will come....(Boy do I sure hope so)
bort, thank you for your patience with my stale and underdeveloped knowledge of these things. My understanding of particle physics, relativity, and the like, has been somewhat redefined after twenty years of traditional ceremony to an extent I had not realized until having this conversation with you. Let me try and pose the question to you this way. (And thus you will see the degree of warp I am talking about here.
This is like the kind of thing you have to be there to understand, and I'm going to butcher what the inipi leaders I have been around said during ceremony. But when we go into sweatlodge, it becomes the center of the universe, or the womb of the universe, during the sweat. This is explained in a sort of perceptual way; not like the whole universe repositions itself just to make the lodge the center of the universe. It's more like the universe is not locatable and with it not being locatable, there is either NO center, or every location IS the center.
So for instance, If you have only two objects in the universe, and one passes the other, there is no way to tell which one is moving and which one is standing still. The motion of one or the other or both is determined solely by your position of observation in relation to the two objects. Motion itself is only defined by the existence of the other object. If there were only one, there would be no telling if it were moving or standing still, or whether it was you moving or standing still. In fact, motion/motionlessness becomes meaningless if there is only one object. Adding more objects only expands the local context and adds to the confusion; it does not locate any given stationary center. So if the universe is infinite it can have only one center which is the infinite whole. I realize there are varous theories about the universe being limited, but this particular specualtion takes into account the absence of any explanation for what likes beyond the "limits" of the universe.
There's more to this but I'll take it a piece at a time. Thus now you really understand the degree to which I had bastardized the term "relativity." However, seems to me at some point in the ancient cobwebs of my mind that there was some relationship debate going on there that suggested there WAS a relationship between Einstein's theory of relativity, in its pure sense, and Heisenberg. It has just all gotten melted together in sweatlodge and I cannot articulate it at this point. But I think it had something to do with causality implying a contextual center which is irrational given the above. Sorry I can't do any better than that at the moment.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2003 02:04 AM |
|
|
Hello Snogard,
Quote:
If this is the case, do you agree with me that a complete openness of mind (free of any judgment and prejudice?) is never possible to a normal, logic-functioning mind?
I think thatīs absolutely correct, but no reason at all to let our attempts towards objectivity go down the drain. Itīs a tactic commonly used by fundamentalists, to first choose the position of epistemological nihilism, and then present their dogma as the rescuing anchor. Which is nonsense of course, a god explains nothing, only shifts and multiplies the open questions. See my above gif ...
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted May 14, 2003 04:29 AM |
|
|
Peacemaker:
Quote:
Whew. That was a rough ride/read. now I know how Lews feels reading and writing in English all the time.
LOL. Sorry, I am really terrible in explaining things, much less my own thoughts and in a short period of time.
Quote:
Yet therein lies the contradiction. Are we limited only by our thoughts and beliefs? Is it possible to get a glimpse beyond those limitations, and thereby redefine them??? IS there not some spark of self-awareness that drives us ever to the edge of the paper, and question, even DEMAND more answers to what lies beyond it???
I am not sure if we are referring to the same thing(s), but I do think that although we can redefine the limitations, we are still limited only to ?gour own?h thoughts and beliefs. (The ?gour own?h here includes both ?gindividual?h and ?ggeneral?h.) These thoughts and beliefs might change, but we would still be confined to them after they have changed. Anything beyond ?gour?h thoughts and beliefs are things that have not been conceived and thus excluded from ?gour?h thoughts and beliefs; however, once conceived, they will be (are) included in ?gour?h thoughts and beliefs. In other words, a ?gglimpse?h beyond those limitations is not possible, or it is possible but the moment we have a ?gglimpse?h of it, it becomes part of ?gour?h thoughts and beliefs. I would also like to add that although ?gour?h thoughts and beliefs might change, the changes might not be cumulative. I think there is no ?gactual?h edge to the paper, only a ?gdefined?h edge.
Lews:
Quote:
I think thatīs absolutely correct, but no reason at all to let our attempts towards objectivity go down the drain. Itīs a tactic commonly used by fundamentalists, to first choose the position of epistemological nihilism, and then present their dogma as the rescuing anchor. Which is nonsense of course, a god explains nothing, only shifts and multiplies the open questions. See my above gif
Saw it yesterday and was wondering where you got it from. Really enjoy it.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 14, 2003 09:20 PM |
|
|
Snogard, I must apologize. my reference was not to your writing style at all. I think you are very clear and articulate. What I was referencing were these wierd little symbols that keep appearing in your text, which I now realize may be only appearing on my screen and not evrybody else's. They appear to intend some emphasis on certain words, such as an italic or quotation command, but on my screen the emphasis is not occurring; only the command symbols.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 15, 2003 04:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I have been a member of several message boards, and I could not help but notice that Atheism is very popular when it comes to religious preferences or non-preferences. Has anyone else noticed this? Do you think online communities are a reflection of the general public? Is education a factor? I was hoping we could have a tactful discussion about this without offending anyone or their beliefs, since religion is usually a touchy subject. I am curious to hear your insights.
I think the real question is how can Christianity, religion in generel for that matter, be so prevelant in the world? I never had an imaginary friend even when I was little , and here 90%+ of people do there whole life.
____________
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
posted May 15, 2003 11:52 AM |
|
|
|
Yet you call yourself "omnipotent being"?
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 05:21 PM |
|
|
He means a being with great potence.
"God is 9@y" - Kurt Cobain
"Kurt is 9@y" - God
____________
|
|
Mercy_Severity
Adventuring Hero
answer seeker
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 09:38 PM |
|
|
"atheism is not a belief, just like not-playing-tennis is not a sport. Itīs a non-belief. "
Thats all a matter of perspective.
An about the Omnipitant being heh i just put that cause i thought it snapped with that crazy lookin alien avatar
____________
|
| |
|
|
