If God doesn't exist...

[Damaged Eagle]

God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.

View attachment 68665

The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

So now you're saying that not only space but time existed prior to the big bang?

Are we resetting our goal points again?

Or God did it.

God did.

Which answer is simple yet stupid and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course.

I sense God and his/her wondrous works every day of my life.

All you have is a scientific creation theology, and from appearances you don't even know what it says, that you base your beliefs on.

Which of us has more proof of our beliefs?

Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.

Our ancient ancestors also believed that 1+1=2.

Were they wrong about that also?

And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Where and when have I ever stated that I belong to any of those religions?

I'll suggest again that you go back and read this thread starting at the beginning.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Hollie]

God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.

View attachment 68665

The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientific Creationism is actually the invention of fundie Christians.

Scientific Creationism and Error

That’s the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Supernatural Creation” ™that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the predictions made by the General Theory of Supernatural Creation and then supply some testable evidence to confirm or falsify those predictions and show specific circumstances of how, not just any god(s), but a unique trinity of god(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

All beliefs are not equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.

ID'iot Creationism.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 68665

The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientific Creationism is actually the invention of fundie Christians.

Scientific Creationism and Error

That’s the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Supernatural Creation” ™that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the predictions made by the General Theory of Supernatural Creation and then supply some testable evidence to confirm or falsify those predictions and show specific circumstances of how, not just any god(s), but a unique trinity of god(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

All beliefs are not equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.

ID'iot Creationism.

*****CHUCKLE*****

And this little dissertation of yours has to do with what the two of us are discussing is what way?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Hollie]

So you have nothing, got it.

I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.

Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Scientific Creationism is actually the invention of fundie Christians.

Scientific Creationism and Error

That’s the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Supernatural Creation” ™that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the predictions made by the General Theory of Supernatural Creation and then supply some testable evidence to confirm or falsify those predictions and show specific circumstances of how, not just any god(s), but a unique trinity of god(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

All beliefs are not equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.

ID'iot Creationism.

*****CHUCKLE*****

View attachment 68826

And this little dissertation of yours has to do with what the two of us are discussing is what way?

*****SMILE*****

Everything. You were the one who used "scientific creation" as a means to villify science. I merely identified that it is religious fundamentalists who coined that term. You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies. Your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are identical.

So, when can we expect your General Theory of Supernatural Creation”? Remember, it's only rational that we hold your theory to the same standards that science is held to. We'll need you to present your evidence for the gods with, oh, I don't know, maybe an article submitted to the journal Nature for peer review.




*****CHUCKLE******

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Everything. You were the one who used "scientific creation" as a means to villify science.

While you, and others of your ilk, attempt to vilify any beliefs other than your own as you worship at your scientific alter of empirical evidence over a creation theology that you can't produce quantifiable proof for examination.

Are you denying that the big bang is a creation theology... I mean theory that you follow?

I merely identified that it is religious fundamentalists who coined that term. You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies.

My views are quite separate from theirs.

Your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are identical.

You don't even know what my beliefs are.

So who's the one vilifying other peoples beliefs here?

So, when can we expect your General Theory of Supernatural Creation”? Remember, it's only rational that we hold your theory to the same standards that science is held to. We'll need you to present your evidence for the gods with, oh, I don't know, maybe an article submitted to the journal Nature for peer review.




*****CHUCKLE******

As I see it my saying what caused the big bang was a miracle has more meaning than your answer of 'I don't know'.

Still haven't went back and read this thread from the beginning have you.

Are you going to use the rack on me or the cushy pillow?

*****CHUCKLE******





OR

Is this the point where entropy sets and prior to a colossal bang of an event?

 

[Hollie]

Everything. You were the one who used "scientific creation" as a means to villify science.

While you, and others of your ilk, attempt to vilify any beliefs other than your own as you worship at your scientific alter of empirical evidence over a creation theology that you can't produce quantifiable proof for examination.

Are you denying that the big bang is a creation theology... I mean theory that you follow?

I merely identified that it is religious fundamentalists who coined that term. You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies.

My views are quite separate from theirs.

Your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are identical.

You don't even know what my beliefs are.

So who's the one vilifying other peoples beliefs here?

So, when can we expect your General Theory of Supernatural Creation”? Remember, it's only rational that we hold your theory to the same standards that science is held to. We'll need you to present your evidence for the gods with, oh, I don't know, maybe an article submitted to the journal Nature for peer review.




*****CHUCKLE******

View attachment 68835

As I see it my saying what caused the big bang was a miracle has more meaning than your answer of 'I don't know'.

Still haven't went back and read this thread from the beginning have you.

Are you going to use the rack on me or the cushy pillow?

*****CHUCKLE******





OR

Is this the point where entropy sets and prior to a colossal bang of an event?

I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.

Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Hollie]

I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

View attachment 68851

In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.

Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.

*****CHUCKLE*****

There's no reason to lash out. In your need to vilify science, I simply required you to offer a competing theory for the gods. The fact is, while it may offend your religious sensibilities, the personal beliefs of religionists regarding the physical sciences is not at issue. It’s the strength of the theory and the volume of evidence that religious extremists take issue with. The methods of science have only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. It's remarkable to see the time and effort ID'iot creationists spend attacking science and investigation as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gods and supernaturalism.

Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist religionists) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

View attachment 68851

In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.

Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.

*****CHUCKLE*****

There's no reason to lash out. In your need to vilify science, I simply required you to offer a competing theory for the gods. The fact is, while it may offend your religious sensibilities, the personal beliefs of religionists regarding the physical sciences is not at issue. It’s the strength of the theory and the volume of evidence that religious extremists take issue with. The methods of science have only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. It's remarkable to see the time and effort ID'iot creationists spend attacking science and investigation as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gods and supernaturalism.

Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist religionists) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

Your biggest mistake is thinking I don't respect science and the scientific method.

I'd suggest that you should reevaluate what's being put forth here and determine what or who is being put under attack by myself.

However I don't put much faith in your current abilities to accomplish that task.

Perhaps if you wield a scientific sword of truth and ride a dragon of empirical evidence your can vanquish your foes banishing them forevermore into a black hole of cosmic entropy.

*****CHUCKLE*****





Don't count on it though.

 

[zaangalewa]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

 

[HUGGY]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****

From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound. Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.

The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.

Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical. For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.

In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place. There was only absolute darkness.

There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.

Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe. I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.

 

[HUGGY]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

 

[zaangalewa]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.

We will see.

That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

unravel ... "entwirren" ... my explanations and excuses ... "meine Erklärungen und Entschuldigungen". ... Needs your hammer some nails? We are selling everything here.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? ...

You call a singularity "ball"? How unraveling. Take a look at here: Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A singularity is not necessarily the start point of the universe. But the space (with everything in it) started to expand once. This process needs time. "Before" this happened was not time nor space nor energy nor natural laws nor anything else what we are able to say anything about on plausible reasons with methods of mathematics and natural science. We call this nothing "nothing" - although it is a paradox to give a nothing a name as if it would be something and to speak about a nothing as if it would be something, because indeed we would be only able to say nothing about nothing on plausible reasons. What are two nothings? Perhaps existed an uncountable amount of endless numbers of nothings before the universe appeared?

By the way: One reason why so many people think a lot of nonsense is the wrong use of the word "not". "Not a chewing gum" is for example everything what's not a chewing gum. Lots of people today know what a chewing gum is - but no one knows what a "not-chewing-gum" is because this is everything including nothing except a chewing gum. If we say the world is "not a chewing gum" then gives this the illusion to know something about the worlds, but indeed we know only something about a chewing gum in this case.

But what about this idea? Once was a nothing and god took this nothing and made our worlds and heavens out of it? Not? - Okay. This is "only" a belief. If god made it in another way, why not? His decision, not my decision. Tell me when you'll find out how he made it concrete.

Whatever. God is dead. They crucified him. Today you are happy, aren't you?

 

[sealybobo]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

 

[zaangalewa]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

 

[emilynghiem]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.

 

[zaangalewa]

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.

I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?

 

[sealybobo]

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid. No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check. At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it. It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward. At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand. You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.

Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars. The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness. Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.

Or God did it.

Which answer is simple yet stupid

That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v" - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or") then the sentence "or god did it" is anything else than stupid.

and makes most people feel comfortable? God of course. Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up. And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid. Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.

Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.

The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour. When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed. That truth unravels your explainations and excuses. It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator

You are following the normal rules of propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?

Reminds me of Michael moore