The Dink Network

Ok, not a religious thread, but you can answer by religious answers. How do you believe we (humans) were created? How do you think we were evolved onto earth?

My personal belief is that we were apes at first, but a specie from another planet came onto Earth and decided to do some gene testings and changes to us and made us grow further than apes, in terms of science and all that stuff. This, I believe, how we got the idea of God. Because the specie came with flying spaceships, UFOs or whatever you wanna call them, we humans came up with the idea of God, and that God lives in Heaven.

This kind of may seem far fetched, but there are some interesting things that make my believe in this quite strong.

If you're interested in this theory, here is a good link to check out:

Link

So, what do you think? What is your theory of how humans were created?

And please, no sarcastic comments or attacking towards others' theory. Seriously.

As I am a Muslim, I say that Allah invented us. We are the sons of Adam (AS). And daughters

I don't know and I don't believe it's possible to know until I invent a time machine and have a look.

I belive that an asteroid brought the bacteria that when involved became humans. So we are aliens

If aliens created us, who created the aliens, if they are created at all? Isn't this just moving the problem?

Well, basically when it comes to our creation, everything is just moving the "problem".

Not that I know much about religion but I certainly believe that humans didn't appeared out of nothing, as most of the religions state, more or less anyway. (That a god or something created us.)

Sorry, but I stick to the scientifical reasons and explanations. That we evolved to human beings after millions of years of mutation and everything. From the first single-celled organism that appeared somehow. It may have been created from an asteroid from outer space that landed on earth in it's early days for example.

That we evolved to human beings after millions of years of mutation and everything.

Yeah, that is kind of my theory as well, only thing different in my theory is that I believe aliens made us evolve.

Well, basically when it comes to our creation, everything is just moving the "problem".

If abiogenesis succeeds in discovering how life emerged, then the question of our creation can be answered within the universe itself and there would be no need to move the problem further. The only question that would remain is the creation of the universe itself, if it was created at all of course.

And then there would be the question "where is universe in, and what created where universe is in." Next there would be "what created multi-universe and what created where multi-universe is in". It's an endless circle.

That's simply beyond our reach.. it may also be that there's just one universe that has always been there in one way or another. I think it some point you have to accept that something has always existed, like God or the universe. Or there was really nothing at first and then everything started, that would be hard to grasp.

But the problem is, there always has to be "something". "Nothing" doesn't exist.

"Nothing" doesn't exist

O rly?

There will always be the issue that you're just moving the problem. The essential problem is that intuitively the most sensible situation would be that nothing existed.

We tend to think in terms of causality, everything should be caused by something. But this something should also be caused by something else, so if you keep on going like this I can think of two possible solutions:

- There's a certain something that exists without a cause but that has consequences. (God, or creation of the universe itself)
- There's a circular line of causes, so the first thing is caused by the last. Something like that our universe was created by the previous universe collapsing. (Which happens to be our own universe at a later point in time.)

Actually both concepts are the same for me, because the existence of circular time (as suggested by the second solution) is something that has no cause but has consequences. Sometimes there is no easy explanation... Well not for me.

Anyway, how humans were created can be simpler than thinking how the existence was created.

"thinking how the existence was created"

That's just, well, weird to think about

My mind has trouble grasping the idea that stuff "just was." I often think about it and it really is mind-bending. I think that any of the religious beliefs are just as believable as any scientific discoveries. Though I do often wonder why the universe is so vast if it was created for humans on this tiny speck of a planet.

(1)oh sure skull your threads should not have junk what about the stufe you put
in other peoples threads

there is "NOTHING" writen in ^ that message

Yes exactly, there is "nothing" written on it, so therefor something is written on it. And please, go play somewhere else with your keyboard.

There is "nothing," so to speak, but the post still exists. Like the universe still exists when "nothing" is in it.

Humans can't comprehend "nothing," try it. The color black that we often imagine is "something."

Seeing as the majority of people here are 'smart' and 'scientific', and I consider myself to be these two things, my beliefs may seem rather fatuous to you all, but I really dislike all the evolutional theories and that. I believe that we were created by God, placed on earth to be his people, and all that. Basic Christian beliefs.

That is all.

My two cents:

Most people believe that life was first created in warmer climates. This would seem suitable for life, but a theory has been put forward stating that amino acids bind together much better in a cooler climate, i.e. the arctic. So as we were coming to the end of an ice age, certain chemicals (which either don't exist in the environment or are nowhere near as abundant today) binded together to create very primitive organic molecules, with would bind together to make more complex ones and so on until you had a basic cell (thousands of years for this to happen). After the first cell, there would eventually be more advanced cells, and the simpler cells fell into one kingdom and the more advanced ones fell into another. The simpler ones formed plants (I think) or probably only basic algae at that time. The advanced ones created animals, but not for a long time after the plants. The atmosphere was full of poisonous gasses (which, ironically, are the chemicals needed to create life) so animals couldn't live yet, but the plants didn't find so many of them poisonous. As we know, plants absorb CO2, which is poisonous to us. This reduced the level of toxins in the atmosphere over time, but the toxins created a perfect living environment for them. The plants created one of the most poisonous substances to life: oxygen. This was the point of no return, as oxygen destroys organic chemicals such as amino acids if they are unprotected. No new life would be able to form after this point, because any organic chemicals naturally occuring in the environment would be destroyed. After a while of putting oxygen into the atmosphere, animals began to develop. They evolved into fish, then reptiles, then mammals. After millions of years of mutations, the first "humans" evolved.

BTW of course nothing would be black, as the absense of light is detected as black by our sight system.

close this thread

Dinkdude95 I agree 100%, I believe totally in creation rather than evolution and a God that created us all. (I am also a christian) I don't understand how so called 'smart people' think we crawled out of the water and evolved from a one cell amoeba and turned into what we are today - or a monkey/ape, yet there are still 'un evolved monkeys/apes? Or better yet a big bang created us - that's one smart bang
Anyways - that's my 2c worth

Here's a different perspective. It took God (I'm a christian, so bear with me) six days to create Earth and all that exists. He rested on the seventh. Say a day to God isn't twenty-four hours, but millions of years, or maybe billions. Man coming from the dirt and being shaped into the likeness of Him could be evolution. (This is only a theory my strange friend told me.) the 'dirt' could be bacteria evolving into modern day humans and the 'day' to God could be billions of years. On the seventh day, God crated man. Now, he could have created the big bang, or just spoke things into existence; but he worked six days to create everything. This is what my friend told me, and he has some pretty interesting ideas.

see, no one could find a reasonable explanation except me. Allah created us

Then who created Allah?

Plenty of the above posts provide reasonable explanations, DinkDoodler. Shush now and learn to read

Eh, I disagree with a 'day' for God being billions of years. A day has always been from when the sun came up to when the sun went down, that's never changed. You can't disagree. And if there was some different measure of daytime for God, then the chapter 'Genesis' in the Bible most likely would have stated something like '...and God rested on his 7th Heavenly Day' or similar, to imply that his days are different to ours. Also, no where in the Bible (which is, frankly, where Christians garner the majority of their information from) does it say anything about God having lengthier 'days', so I must disagree there.

Also, as a side note, none of my 'teachings' are meant to be inferred as me trying to force fact upon anyone. It's simply me voicing what I believe, as appears to be the purpose of this thread.

DinkDude, I disagree with all religion and stuff but it is "possible" that if "God" "existed" then "He" may have had different length days because after all, "He" is said to have created the sun, so what would "He" base "His" days off before the sun was "created"?

P.S. Everything in quotes denotes something I do not beleive in.

Also, MsDink, if you find it hard to beleive that it is possible for evolution to take place, then what about the varying strains of viruses? Viruses like the Common Cold mutate all the time, so our immune system isn't immunised against all the strains. This gradual mutation is called "evolution". Also, it is wrong to say we evolved from apes, as we didn't actually evolve from the modern day apes. The modern day apes evolved from a hypothetical "Australopithecus" humanoid, which is the common descendant of both man and ape. That is why there are both around today.

Well, when you think about it, 'days' weren't exactly around before there was a sun, right? A day is one sunrise to the next sunrise, in the simplest sense. And we can only really assume that before the universe, and the sun and everything, there weren't exactly 'days'. And this sort of just brings us back to the whole 'nothingness' debate.

I'm not completely denying any sort of 'Heavenly Day', as I have no proof against it, but I'm not going to agree with it, as it is simply a human assumption, as it was never mentioned in Jesus' teachings, or in the Bible anywhere.

yeoldetoast, Allah was already from the start

In my opinion, it goes like this:

In the beginning (I say beginning, because our crappy brains must label things) there was void. It was a kind of matrix, in which all was to be formed: a combination of light and dark, on and off, everything and nothing, matter and anti-matter. I cannot say "good and evil" because that is labelling, and I believe that this "void" was Beyond Good and Evil. At first, the light gathered in a space away from the dark, but over un-counted eons (for nothing could mark the dimensions of time or space) the two began to mix, creating and negating.
Finally, the spirit (for want of a better term), by necessity for the furtherment of it's power and understanding took on a form: God, YHW aka Jaweh aka Jehovah aka "Nameless", Allah, Ymir, Zeus, Yesu aka Jesu aka Jesus. This super-being, from its' own ascension and existence began to form and set in motion all that we know of. I believe the global, spiritual and universal circles are too perfect, too well designed to be accidental.
We all know that Darwinian evolution is a flawed theory, although an opinion can never be wrong, merely un-supportable.

Ed. If you compare Nordic myth, Greek myth, Kabbalah and Judaism, Genesis/ Christian creation, (I don't know much about Islam... DinkDoodler?) etc you find that all share common threads concerning the origin of human life. I think "in the image of the maker" is a reasonable explanation.

So why is your answer more convincing than those of others then?

According to Muslims Allah was the start, nothing explains why he exists.
According to Christians God was the start, nothing explains why he exists.
According to (most) atheists the big bang was the start, nothing explains why it exists.

See the pattern? That's why I can't see why you think your explanation is the only reasonable one.

We can't explain existence in itself without assuming that something must exist in the first place. Maybe our reasoning in terms of causality is wrong, but I can't see what would replace it...

EDIT: In case you didn't see it, this post is in reply to dinkdoodler...

To those who think God adequately answers this question, I always say: for whatever reason that you're willing to accept that God needs no further explanation or that He has always existed, I can simply apply the same reason to the universe and God becomes an irrelevant additional step.

For example, if you say God always existed, then I can say the universe simply always has. If you say God needs no creator, then I can say the universe needs no creator. Why does this work? Because it would be a completely arbitrary reason as to why the universe necessarily needs a creator/explanation but God doesn't.

NOTE TO FUTURE POSTERS: READ ALL THE PREVIOUS POSTS BEFORE PUKING A RESPONSE. I DID; NOW I'M AN OLD MAN.

Science doesn't discredit religion, religions often discredit themselves for refusing to believe science. If I'm not mistaken the Catholic church now accepts the theories of evolution and the big bang as having a role in the creation of the universe.

Eh, I disagree with a 'day' for God being billions of years. A day has always been from when the sun came up to when the sun went down, that's never changed. You can't disagree

DinkDude, actually "day" is only a word given for the different times when God created earth and our galaxy. The day we know today as 24 hours has come much later. The bible even says that we are still in the seventh day. Even I know that much of the bible.

The modern day apes evolved from a hypothetical "Australopithecus" humanoid,

Ahh so apes evolved from Australians!! Now that makes sense

To say that one of Gods days was 24 hours is just plain silly. It is exerting a human definition on something transcendental. Some Muslims even believe that Allah created the big bang. Evolution is real and is happening. It is scientific fact. Why are people unable to accept science and proven facts?

Once upon a time it was a "fact" that the world was flat.

Just throwing that out there, like.

Also, I'd just like to put a question out to all the "Well if God/Allah/Powerful Force created the universe then who created God/Allah/Powerful force???" arguments.

As human beings we maintain that all things have a start and an end. That things have to come into existence at some determinable point. But is this truly the case, or is it just the only way our insignificant minds can make sense of the universe?

The Earth spinning around its axis takes a certain amount of time that is fairly constant.
Even if the Earth didn't do that, it wouldn't negate the existence of that span of time.
It takes a quantum- or metaphysicist to disagree with the constancy of time, and that wouldn't even be in this thread's interests.
The constancy of time, you see, is irrelevant when trying to determine a process that is much simpler and less bizarre.
In the event that we actually do have to take a look at the cause of, say, the Big Bang, for whatever reason, such as...
Did God do it? Or did Brahma do it?
Or was it some other deity that we have not yet had the imagination to specify? Like a sufficiently advanced alien from a "mother-universe"?
Would there be any point in worshipping a deity whose identity we don't (and can't) even know?
How could we know who it was? The Bible, or any other story of creation, is not a very credible source of information, not more so than our own eyes.
We only believe stories like that because those stories keep telling us they're right. And because we lack better proof.
But that which can be accepted without proof, can just as well be rejected without proof. Like a ceramic teapot between Mars and Earth.

"Two cents", as everyone else seems to be saying.

ok

(1)Australopithecus was the name for the orignil "all togethrer" continent the one that was there before the earth('s) plates shifted they changed to became what is known today as the continents
(2) point 1 has been proven(this is still a hypothosis but people are convinced to belive this) look at a map of the earth dose it not seem to likely
(3) close this thread it is going to go on and on
(4)skull very good topic good try at the 1000 goal
(5) (dont take this personally anyone(there is no point in reading this message after this point)) close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread

edit close this thread close this thread close this thread close this thread

You know, if you keep saying to close this thread it is never going to be closed. Plus, your points in humans/existences birth is completely idiotic, to say the least.

Especially since this seems to be one of those fantastic threads that have the smell of promise and epicness about them.
Although the theme does feel a bit used...

Australopithecus was the name for the orignil "all togethrer" continent

That is incorrect, Fireball5 described it correctly. The continent you're refering to is called Pangaea.

@ MsDink: I lol'd, I lol'd so far away; I just lol'd, I lol'd all night and day... no really, I did

@ Yeoldetoast: I see where you're coming from, but if deity "X" created this solar system, then he also established what we base time on, which is why any well-thought out explanation of creation starts out with deity "X" creating the sun and the orbit. So, just because deity "X" may not have followed the 24 hour day, does not mean that the days of creation where not the same length in the time-dimension. Eg. Not having a clock doesn't mean that time stops, rather that it's measurement by the clock stops.

Regarding deity X's Origin: it thought itself into existence... in fact, it probably is existence/ matter and anti-matter.

@ hell7fire1: I don't personally see any reason to close a thoroughly interesting thread, so long as everyone is social!

At least you saw I meant it as a joke Schnapps Glad I can still entertain I do my best ya know *wink*

Yea yeah- things evolve/mutate - but to jump from a one cell amoeba to a human being so intricate is a bit of a stretch for my wee mind, no matter how many million years pass. So I still believe God created me and I didn't come about cause something exploded

edit edit:close this thread

This is an intelligent debate on concepts no one can understand but can make complex guesses about. This promotes thinking and therefore should not be closed but instead sink back into the archives after we get bored and argue about something else.

If you don't care for a thread (and you're not with the majority) then just ignore it and don't read it.

On to my theory.

After reading all of the theories and holes in the theories I have come up with one conclusion: Time is an illusion. Our brains only rationalize the passage of time as the alternative was incomprehensible back when spears with stone tips were at the top of technology. There was no beginning and no real end, there was never a time when god/allah/big-bang came before.

Clocks and other objects don't disprove this theory, as we designed them to "work" to our rationalized view of "time". There is no way to detect this true temporal nullification as our machines are designed to work on the terms of "time" and even if they weren't then we still could not comprehend it on our terms of "time".

The closest anyone is to getting toward this theory is with the concepts of god/allah having "a billion years in one day" or "one day is actually a year, and one year is actually a day". This is likely a result of the best possible description on our terms of "time" of what appears to be the true functioning of the universe.

To disprove the concept of time, take a look at black holes, or any gravity well. If time is simply the progression of events and is always a constant, then it should not be slowed and constrained by even the most intense gravity fields in the universe. Yet, we have managed to find extremely small differences in the speed of time at different altitudes above the earth. So our concept of time is in fact not a mechanism the universe runs on, but a byproduct of humans having to recognize something else as "time" and adjust their perception so that it was as good as true.

Why are people unable to accept science and proven facts?
Hmm.. where shall I start, ok: Proven facts seem to continually change - Take an egg - they say don't eat more than X amount a day because they have proven that eggs cause cholesterol, Now they realise you can actually eat as many as you like as the egg is an awesome creation and the white and the yolk work together (fancy that) to balance each other out.

More? Ok... what about Carbon Dating. How do we know that these scientists actually have dated things correctly. Yet they proudly state when an item was alive, what era it came from and so on as a "proven fact"! To do that, they are guessing what the atmosphere was like between now and then, they are assuming the ratios that they measure are static, but, in actuality, these could have fluctuated significantly over relatively short periods of time (that they are totally unaware of) and that could throw their calculations off by years yet they state it as fact with no first hand knowledge or (for me) a viable method of proving its accuracy beyond any doubt.

So yeah I have some issues with what is "proven fact". Realistically, how will we ever really know if they are accurate or not, yes they have all these theory's, backed up by equations and surmising what was happening thousands of years ago, but unless we can go back and see with our own eyes (and I don't believe we can do that yet because as Toast said - he hasn't invented his time machine yet... ). So, we are expected to believe them Just because they say so?

err... Thats my 2 no- 4c worth now hehe

Edit: Shoot - EvilEarl you said intelligent debate *Gulp* ^ = Tongue in cheek

So, we are expected to believe them Just because they say so?

Like the churches expecting you to believe their word is the be-all and end all? The door swings both ways. Ever heard of the heliocentric model of the solar system and its history? There was another sticking point that the church overcame. I should go and ask local priests if they believe the world is flat.

The Flat Earth society still exists today. Their view of the world is not at all based on established fact that can be backed up with scientific arguments. We now have the knowledge through observation to know that planets are not flat discs, likewise with evolution.
Radiation from the big bang still hangs around as background radiation that can be picked up and analysed.

Look at the changes in the human race over the last 100 years. Surely at least some of us have become smarter.

Maybe.

Well I am glad to know someone was there and can tell us for a fact that that radiation is definitely from the big bang... and I am glad the earth is flat and it still revolves around me... you have eased my mind! I was worried you know

The door swinging "both ways" is exactly my point - people say we can't believe in a God without evidence - well I can't believe science has any more actual tangible proof to offer me - they base their "proof" on what they agree is proof not that which they have seen with their own eyes... so, seems its all a question of faith. One way or the other.

Edit: Yeah I know - huge generalisation... whatever... Dang - that's 6c worth now

Yeah okay I agree for the most part.

Aww don't u believe the world revolves around me

I fear this has gotten otu of hand...

"Australis" means south, "ia" is a suffix attached to a word to turn it into a place, so "Australia" is literally "Southern Land". "Australopithecus" was probably an ape of some sort from southern Africa, though I'm not sure.

Time does not exist, it is merely an imaginary thing that humans made up to help them, in much the same way we invented numbers and maths to help us. Movement distorts time, as does matter (this distortion caused by matter is commonly called "gravity")

Life has existed on the Earth for millions of years, long before humans even walked the planet. Whoever made us came to a planet that was already teaming with life. Humans have only been here for 6,000 years, but the planet has been here for billions?

Look at the changes in the human race over the last 100 years. Surely at least some of us have become smarter.
I simply cannot agree. The 1800's were surely the golden age of creativity just as the 1900's were the golden age of discovery.

Ultimately, since the coin spins both ways, It doesn't matter what you believe made you, but what your' beliefs make you.

In my opinion, that is.

It doesn't matter what you believe made you, but what your' beliefs make you.
Dang schnapps - I like that... but heck, stop screwing with my head!

I can't believe science has any more actual tangible proof to offer me - they base their "proof" on what they agree is proof not that which they have seen with their own eyes... so, seems its all a question of faith. One way or the other.

You're not the first person to argue as such: religious people tend to equate both positions to faith and then one might as well choose either one. But that's false of course because observations and facts have only one explanation, not another. For example, in forensic research, it's even possible to determine the angle of the gun shot based on the blood splats around the victim: nobody was there to see it happen (like you're arguing) but it did happen and it has only one explanation.

The same holds for biological observations, cosmic background radiation and so on. The "you weren't there" argument also fails for God's act of creation.

I actually don't really contemplate "how we were created" as it's something that happened REALLY long ago, could possibly be a mixture of existing theories, and is a touchy subject for many people (mostly due to there being such a thing as religion). So I don't bother.

Only one explanation? The basic idea that a specific observation can have only a single explanation is flawed. For example when I use DNA profiling to investigate a murder and I find a match there are multiple explanations for this match:

- The man with the matching DNA is the murderer.
- The man's identical twin is the murderer.
- Someone with the same set of genetic mutations is the murderer. (Very unlikely, but not impossible)
- The DNA that was found is not from the murderer.

And very often we have much less detailed observations to work with and we can come up with a large variety of explanations. Perhaps a single observation has only a single cause, but that doesn't mean we can always deduct that from our observations.

I agree on your point that it is not needed to actually see something to have proof, in fact our eyes can be very deceiving. But you'll need to remember what assumptions you're making and that your observations and reasoning, no matter how detailed or thorough, can be flawed in some way. Certainty can not be found in science, only a high probability.

I agree with that. What I meant to say is that one event led to a certain result and that it cannot be the case that two explanations are equally valid and simultaneously true.. one has to be wrong, although we may indeed not be able to deduce that.

(Not enough time to type password.)
Very well put, Metatarasal.

Every argument here is biased on the forced illusion of "time". Almost every area of science requires heavy basis on the Earth-affected "time". We can't fully understand the universe until we experience enough "time" distortions to realize that our basis is flawed.

In fact, our very actions are done to make sense in terms of "time". For one who fully understands the true nature of the universe can actually transcend our "timeline" in any direction we want. I just don't as it's pretty complex and I don't really have anything good to do by "going back in time".

I'll research more into this true constant of the universe and post my findings in due "time".

EvilEarl said: "For one who fully understands the true nature of the universe can actually transcend our "timeline" in any direction we want."

Druuna, anybody?

this is an infinent and never ending argument

Well, God really exist and created us all? I dunno and no-one will know it until it dies...

In my theory we believe in God because we need to. The humans and universe creation must have a remote starting point which will never be explained fully 'cos any explanation will ask for another begin, to solve that we use this simple answer God. I'm not assuming if He exists or don't, even I believe that Someone is watching us all to avoid madness...

What if today a scientific journal announces that God doesn't exists and life has no sense? Why wouldn't you be a murder, robber and sort of? If every single person could believe that no-one will be there watching us our world would be chaotic.

I believe that scientific dedutions are trustable, believe that real is what you can see would keep us stopped in the presenr time, "Future? I can't see that! But today exists so I will spend all my money! Who cares about tomorrow! ".

Generally God is the answer to the unasnwered questions, the ancient Greeks believen that Sun was a giant ball carried throung the skies by Apollo, seems crazy today, but, was God wasn't he?

Finish: We will never find if God exists or don't and we must not find it for our safety and sanity, but we must keep trying to! So we can understand how thing were/are/will be.
Science is there for that, try to find answers to the 'unanswerable' ( ), without suppositions and theories that seemed fake or absurd we would be right now at Demeter's Temple praying for a year plenty of food.

Yes, I agree that we as a species have a natural tendency to try to explain things that we don't understand. God or gods have traditionally filled this role. The more we have come to better understand, the further away the mechanistic domain of the divine moves.

Why is the wrath of an omniscient being required to keep you from murder and thievery? Is it not objectively better to live in peace and treat others as how you would want? The fear of God is not necessary for order and peace, these things happen because of people who understand this concept of reciprocity and apply it.

What if today a scientific journal announces that God doesn't exists and life has no sense?

Why, exactly, would life have no sense when nobody is up there watching us? It's the same as arguing that there must be an afterlife because without it, life would be meaningless ("you just do things and then you die"). Why does life need to be infinite to have meaning? I've never heard a satisfying answer to that question.

Why wouldn't you be a murder, robber and sort of? If every single person could believe that no-one will be there watching us our world would be chaotic.

I do not think that would happen. There's no reason to think arbitrary people would go on a murder spree when it is discovered that there is no God. If you have no desire to murder now, you won't have it then either. The point is that murderers are not born but mostly made by their upbringing (bad parents, bad friends) and their environment (hanging on the street), possibly influenced by a psychological disorder. If their needs (love, affection, direction in life) would have been met, they would not have murdered. It is too easy to say that they are evil and evilness made them do it. I think life pushes them to a point where they see no other option, although they do have other options. It's similar to suicide: people commit suicide because they see no other options, although they do have them.

I do feel castman's opinion. Humans need a leader, a higher-power to give them motivation, a sense of protection and something to run to or appeal when we feel we have been abused or treated unjustly.

So wether or not God exists as a being or creator, or wether it is just that we are in many instances God's creators (see this thread), the most important thing is the idea and it's application. For example, humans are natively hedonistic, but belief in a God or deity should provide an incentive to be ethical-hedonistic.

Sadly, deism has back-fired all too often: It becomes a guise for violence, selfishness and tyranny. Yet it is wrong to say: "religion causes trouble". That is like saying "Germans are NAZIs", "Muslims are terrorists", "Americans are ignorant" or "Negroids are violent" - all erroneous generalizations. Indeed, most of the great discoverers, explorers, inventors and scientists were Deists or at least Agnostics.

Regarding "Temporal Nullification", an absence of measurement/ definition does not prove non-existense. Just because you cannot comprehend time does not mean that the dimension of time ceases to exist, except to yourself. Even if you were to slay anyone who believed in time and destroyed all measures of time, you could not A.) destroy the idea of time - that you attacked it represents your' acknowledgement of it. B.) Stop time from occuring - You will still get old, metal will still rust.
This is also why the reasoning behind jihad or stating that god or the big-bang theory is wrong is anomalous: an opinion or idea cannot be wrong; merely unsupportable, contradictary or out-landish.

If everyone one day deduces that God doesn't exist, why should they consequently abandon their morals if they know that would be a bad thing?
If humans have any reason to have morals, be it God or general order and happiness, they will have them. And the latter will never be made obsolete in a foreseeable future.

I feel what he is saying, time is relative. If you travel at the speed of light, funny things happen. You get crushed into an infinitely small, infinitely massive particle with no perception of time. Time just doesn't pass for you, of course you'd be dead, but that is beside the point. If you go near the speed of light, it would pass slower for you. Another example of relative\ time would be if you removed everything from the universe. The universe would still be there, but time would cease to exist. AKA nothing could never ever ever happen ever.

As for carbon dating, scientists accept that it is only accurate up to about 60,000 years. Where atmospheric oxygen levels were the approximately the same as they are today. Other methods exist as well, such as analyzing rock layers and the species that they find fossilized in different layers.

As for religion prevents violence or causes it, there is no way to prove it unless we had an alternate timeline to analyze. Religions just go through "phases" so to speak. Millions have been killed in the name of Christianity, especially during the middle ages. In fact, Christianity has caused more deaths than Islam. Modern day Christianity is much tamer, and it seems the once tame Islam is now becoming more violent. Not to say that Islam endorses violence like the news will have you believe, there are always radicals who will kill in the name of their religion.

Edit: And Deists haven't caused more suffering, how could they? They were never that large of a group.

Indeed, most of the great discoverers, explorers, inventors and scientists were Deists or at least Agnostics.
Although I don't have examples to offer, keep in mind that religion was pretty much the only option in the time of most of the discoverers you're thinking of. There's nothing to say that they couldn't have made their discoveries, had they been atheists. Or that no one else could have made them in an alternate history where religion was unheard of.

Religion doesn't cause people to have morals. If a person wants to be good, then they will believe in a kind and loving God who gave great gifts to his people. If he wants to be bad, he will believe in an evil God who killed entire villages full of homosexuals and condoned the cannibalism of people from different tribes.

In fact recent studies have shown that hardened criminals are more likely to be Christians just not "serious about it". Religion doesn't cause trouble, but it does certainly cause hate.

Religion doesn't cause trouble, but it does certainly cause hate.

Things or beliefs do not cause hate. That's like saying guns kill people - yet its not the guns fault if someone dies with a bullet hole in them. It is an inanimate object and cannot do anything without something or someone making it.

Same for religion. it can't do anything on its own either, it is the personality etc of the individual with that belief and their lack of tolerance or understanding of others that encourages (not causes) hate. Hate is merely a choice people make, as is love or indifference.

I'm not much of a religious guy, and i do not belive anything if the is no physical explaintion, so i agree with almost all the above scientific theories

MsDink said: "Things or beliefs do not cause hate. That's like saying guns kill people..."

This is utterly true. But I would push it further: Guns are designed to kill. Selfish people kill with guns designed for that purpose.

Religion is designed to reveal the truth of the past, perpetuate happiness in the present and (most of all) to secure the future or provide hope of some future reward; to give meaning to life.

True, many people don't need the motivation of religion anymore. What are they, instead, motivated by? Lust for power, sex, respect of others, revenge on those who have dealt "unjustly" with them, drugs and so on. Humans sink to the lowest denominator, given the opportunity. Yet humans also have the power to ascend to the greatest heights. I don't think it matters which deity/s you choose to follow, all of them have restrictions and means of atonement should one "fall from grace".

This grace is clearly lacking in the non-philosophical, non-intellectual or non-spiritual masses.

The media is tight-packed with vulture-like reporters and paparazzi ready to rip up anyone who should be a little different, whilst the masses watch screen-glued like voyeurists: Laughing at the struggles of fellow-fatties in "The Biggest Loser" or shrieking in disgust at people no less outrageous then themselves in "Big Brother". This is comparable to those "inhuman" Romans attending the arenas and Colosseum.

Oh, and Redguard, regarding deists, I was using that term to describe people who believe in a deity/ deities ie. gods. It's just that religious people are more attuned to human progress.
And corruption is not a religious condition, it is a human condition.

Sorry for interupting an intelligent debate, but I for one loved to watch Big Brother and I didn't find much of the stuff they did "disgusting". probably because I didn't watch the late version.

Anyone know why they took it off the air?

Um nope - sorry

Big Brother theories anyone... do you feel watched?

I am heading away soon and some of my trip covers a portion of Britain and I hear there are cameras absolutely everywhere... that's some scary shi... stuff

1984 eekkkkkkk!

In fact recent studies have shown that hardened criminals are more likely to be Christians just not "serious about it"

Well, that is pretty obvious considering that there are more Christians than any other religious people.

Yet do people kill each other in the name of the gun? The Bible is not as nice of a place as modern day Christianity would have us think. I like to think we've moved above it in most respects, I mean, who still locks their daughters in the cupboard when they are on their period? Who attacks cities and kills and rapes the entire populous? It is not as heartwarming as sermons would have us believe.

Yet do people kill each other in the name of the gun? The Bible is not as nice of a place as modern day Christianity would have us think. I like to think we've moved above it in most respects, I mean, who still locks their daughters in the cupboard when they are on their period? Who attacks cities and kills and rapes the entire populous? It is not as heartwarming as sermons would have us believe.

That stuff seems more or less like the catholic-driven crusades. In fact, it turns out that the priests weren't completely honest at the time because when printing presses came out, more people could read and what they read in the Bible was sometimes different from what the priest said he was reading. This sparked the break-off into the protestant branch of christianity, with less bizarre practices than worshiping the saints, having a Pope as their leader regardless of who was King (the U.S. freaked out when the first catholic president took office as there was worry that the pope would control him) and going into barbarianesque wars against opposing religions for the same piece of land over several hundred years.

True, many people don't need the motivation of religion anymore. What are they, instead, motivated by? Lust for power, sex, respect of others, revenge on those who have dealt "unjustly" with them, drugs and so on. Humans sink to the lowest denominator, given the opportunity.

I very strongly disagree with many parts of this generalization... but I may meander a bit with my rebuttal (as is the style of the DN).

No, all humans have the capacity to go to that "lowest denominator", but that does not mean that they go there under normal circumstances. Socialization and learning are important parts of who we are as people, not just the those base animals parts. Theism (that's the word you're looking for, not Deism) in the way that you are describing is merely a traditional form of social control employed by Western societies since at least the Middle Ages. You can still be motivated by a belief in things greater than yourself without a belief in a reward... the well-being and healthy continuation of your species, your children, the planet. These are all also very strong motivators. Even on a base level, people can and do get pleasure from them.

Even with for people raised with modern Theistic religion all those "lowest denominator" motivators would be just as strong as someone raised without it. And in my experience, I have found that such religious people merely suppress and deny these urges, so that they are expressed unconsciously or done in secret. Both of these tend to make them rather unpleasant and destructive people, as they attack the very same urges in others as they themselves indulge in (whether they wish to acknowledge it or not).

Granted, suppression and denial is not an inherently religious thing, but it is a rather huge problem in most.

Personally, I believe that the best thing one can do is acknowledge these aspects and balance them for a greater purpose as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with desire for power, sex, respect, justice, or altered states.

Striker, I thank you for your' constructive criticism - I welcome, because if I don't, I am burying my head in the sand. I do not wish to be closed-minded. Indeed, I have first-hand experience with fanatical Christians.

After reading your' post, I have these thoughts (of course, somewhat self-defensive):

- but I may meander a bit with my rebuttal

Please do not hold back. I am stronger now, and will not run away when the masses seem to disagree with me. How can improve my philosophy without seeing where it is flawed? All I ask is that the criticism be constructive and logical to some extent.

- No, all humans have the capacity to go to that "lowest denominator", but that does not mean that they go there under normal circumstances.

Yes, you are right. I ammend my former statement: Humans tend to sink to the lower denominator when in desperate circumstances (Jews during Titus' destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD; Japanese cannabalism during latter years of WW2 etc.)
Or in times of extreme success, resulting in indolence (Internal corruption, crimes for etc... this is a bit of a "movie hook": Scarface, Saw, Hostel etc. Yet I believe it happens in real-life too: Think, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Corruption that led to the collapse of the British Empire and the problems that inflamed America, but are apparently being dealt with even as I type.)

- Regarding the rest of your' post, Striker, I would point to a favourite thinker of mine: the widely mis-understood Sigmund Freud.

Freud came up with the theory of Id <- Ego -> Super-Ego. The basic gist of this theory is that within our minds are a triangle of struggling motivators. These components have often been described as "sin and righteousness", "conscience" and the "choice". I would like to pull away from the former two labels with this statement: There is no right or sin, merely that which is constructive for X and what is destructive to X.

So, Id is what we want to do. "I'm starving! A Maccas Super-Meal-Deal would be swell!" Super-ego is the hold-back, think-again/ guilt factor. "Maccas? Outrageous! Think how fat and pimply you'll get, plus your' crap will be green for a week! Wait 'til you get home and eat lettuce, you greedy sod!" Ego strives to balance the two. "Just get a chicken burger now, to last you till you get home, then have an apple and some OJ."

The Bible supports this idea as well:

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? - Romans 7.15-24

The author, Paul is freaking out because his Id and Super-Ego are in conflict.

You also mentioned, Striker, "such religious people merely suppress and deny these urges, so that they are expressed unconsciously or done in secret".

I would say yes, absolutely: for example, some strict christians will watch videos against "Rock 'n' Roll" (because that's the era they grew up in), but they enjoy the video clips of these bands whilst murmuring "Demonic! Evil!"

This is best addressed by comparing such mind-sets with Freudian readings of Shakespeare's "Hamlet".

It is clear that an innate desire to kill one's father and sleep with one's mother runs contrary to the very fabric of our society. For orthodox Freudian thinkers, the difference between this innate urge and the demands of our civilization is mediated by repression and sublimation. Either the inappropriate urges are repressed (which risks manifesting itself in psychological illness) or they are transformed into some expression which is useful to society.

From this interesting article. Worth a read.

So, often, strict Christians think that the Id = bad / If it feels good, it must be wrong. This is bad for the health, it is not holistic or balanced, and Biblical figure Solomon spoke against it:

 1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: 2 a time to be born, and a time to die;a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing. - Ecclesiastes 3. 1-5

So I think balance is good. If you go all Id, all Ego or all Super-ego then you are either going insane or simply missing out on life's fun.

Too long; didn't read.

Too long; didn't read.

EvilEarl has given kudos to yeoldetoast's post, despite the lack of a kudos system.

What if today a scientific journal announces that God doesn't exists and life has no sense? Why wouldn't you be a murder, robber and sort of? If every single person could believe that no-one will be there watching us our world would be chaotic.

I've used wrong words there

I was trying to say something close to:
Humans need a leader, a higher-power to give them motivation, a sense of protection and something to run to or appeal when we feel we have been abused or treated unjustly. Thx Schnapper

What I meant by 'chaotic' wasn't a world ranged riot which would end as our end...
I've said that murders and robbers number would rise and, due the feel of unpunishment, people (honest) would feel abused and abandoned, 'vigilantes' and militias would be the new concept of justice (for some). Churches would fall and some believers would see no reason to live, else, that kinds of churches which grabs people money as a 'gift to God' would have lots of problem

What I think in these kinds of discussions is that any comment shouldn't be taken as a general concept, example:
Why wouldn't you be a murder, robber and sort of?
That shouldn't be taken as a world of murderers and robbers, that quote would be made by some people which had religion as main support to honesty instead their own ethic.

I've said that murders and robbers number would rise and, due the feel of unpunishment, people (honest) would feel abused and abandoned, 'vigilantes' and militias would be the new concept of justice (for some).
Actually we wouldn't, if humans were prone to such behaviour by our nature, we would have been extinct ages ago. Although some generations have known some excuses for murder (war/religion), in al cases where nearly all of the young male population was eradicated through war, it has always taken years to overcome this issues. This comes to show that if all humans were like that by themselves, without being triggered into it by a leader figure, humans would be long extinct before the first year of our calendar.

It is true that a leader figure reduces the chaos and that humans these days have become opportunists that are ruthless without something that controls their lives. You know why part of that is? Because for 1000 years (although before that too) humans, who are prone to look for a leader, have been indoctrinated by religions. Religions trying to control their lives and be that leader. Once having a grip, othe humans followed, as humans are flock animals in that sense, like sheep. The smarter (noticing the difference between intellect and smarts) of the bunch can partly break loose although even in those people you can see the rudiments of their original religion, regardless whether they are indifferent or loathing towards their former religion. Alot of people have to strong a 'social' need and religion has ever filled this for them so they cannot let it go regardless of anything else. (happens alot in the States)

People having a harder time with selfconsciousness and love or compassion of one's fellow man, other than what they are forced upon to do by a church, will see their world crash down once the religion seems false, or perhaps they never really believed and something snapped. These are the people who will cause the chaos.

Like I said humans are also sheep. There is two sides of the coin, order incites order, chaos incites chaos. If the chaotic people I mentioned go rogue, others will follow regardless of their own true feelings. Religion can be seen as a thing that created some sort of (perhaps/probably false) order, however it has also at the same time created the radical opposite of hate and chaos. Remove the religion and there may be a bit of chaos to manage at first, but the extremes will die down in time.

Well alot can be said about it, but I am certain it will take decades if not centuries, before humans can go back to just looking up at their leaders and take religious traditions as an extra. (provided all come to an agreement about the role of religion in our lives) We will always have criminals, but the extremes will be much lesser. (until the next religious-type hype comes to us)

hypah said "order incites order, chaos incites chaos"

I disagree. In fact, order creates disallusion resulting in chaos. Chaos creates a lack/ need for security and stability, which results in the eventual re-establishment of order unless national immigration (Zimbabwe under Mugabe) or self-destruction (Sudan, Cambodia) take down the nation first.

I agree with the sheep analogy, though I would suggest this is because of laziness, not stupidity.

Take for example the Emo movement - how did they merge into pop culture? Because kids with bad feelings and a sense of oppression started expressing those emotions through music. Other kids (too lazy to be artists or protestors) suddenly realized that they felt the same way, but they grew content with listening to music and cutting themselves. Now, they lost sight as to why they were crying, cutting, dressing up etc, but went through the motions anyway. Eventually, the music industry realizes that kids aren't listening to Aqua anymore, so they sponsor a whole string of "emo" bands (I'm sure you can think of 10). Emo now begins to be a pop-culture. People attend the concerts, dress up and cut themselves and think that they are rising against "The Machine". Problem is, most of these kids don't know what they're rebelling against, or they fail to realise that "The Machine" has engulfed them, and that they are now a generic gear within it.

Now the worst part of people rebelling against some "Satan", "Empire", "Machine" or "Evil Church" that mostly they don't realise that A.) There is no "Bad Guy", B.) because they've already made the "Bad Guy" a "Small Guy" (a sub-culture), which C.) Puts them in the position of oppressor ("Bad Guy").

"Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves." – Henry David Thoreau

Well, as I said the 'order' created by the church is the cause of the extreme chaos on the other side.

Order incites order, chaos incites chaos in that context is true; what I was trying to say is first the church created some sort of 'order' and the sheep follow. The rebel reaction to this is the exact opposite, which is chaos. Which in turn causes sheep to follow in that chaos. And of course this retroacts the other way in people distinguishing themselves from chaos by creating order or emphasising existing order.

So maybe I should've said it like this: order incites order but in time will create chaos, chaos incites chaos but in time will result in order.

As for stupidity, like I emphasized, smart <> intellect. Although there will always be differences in the interpretation of what is to be considered smart and what not. The way I tend to use it is in a way that points out that being smart has nothing to do with your mental or academical capabilities, but rather with things like common sense andbeing able to think for yourself.

And there is a social aspect to the matter. Laziness.. I think thats less of an issue then you'd think. Lazy to try create ones own views perhaps, but the sheep behaviour in this is fed from the social part, for if social (other people) weren't there in the first place, you couldn't lazily follow whatever other people tell you, because there would be no other people to tell you. In fact the best reaction of a true lazy person is to do nothing, not change at all.

Your example is a very true thing indeed. Its an interesting concept that comes back in so many aspects of every day life. Why do we do some of the things we do? We like some sort of order in our life, a routine. Even if that order is being chaotic, erratic, unpredictable. As long as we're predictable to ourselves and have something to identify ourselves with. Interesting subjects for philosophy on any occasion.

Yes, I see what you mean. When something, such as a church or political party lean heavily in one direction, people will be either offended, shocked, hurt, left-out, thus they will turn to anarchy. I suppose that the struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism in the UK over the centuries is evidence of that.
Even Germany under Adolf Hitler was like that, except the masses were suppressed by fire-power, fear, threats (see also Communist China, esp. the Tiananmen Square protests).

This is understandable under the theory that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Given enough power, Christians hate and fear their brethren, Communists rob and kill their' comrades and the Civilised resort to "an-eye-for-an-eye" styled barbarism.

Regarding the goyim (for want of a better word - one might say sheep or masses or ignoramuses) it was probably better for me to use the term "Indolent" then "Lazy". And, as you say "Lazy to try create ones own views". Absolutely... I'm guilty of it myself, at times.

I feel it's best to live up to your' own standards, rather then following every shining thing. To quote the greatest of the White Wizards:

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost."

You stupid nitwits no-one can argue about religion. So keep your big fat mouths shu and let us worship as we want. And a note to metatrasal: Allah is God

And I ask Christaan, SabreTrout or Striker, or any staff member, to close this thread

And I ask Christaan, SabreTrout or Striker, or any staff member, to close this thread

Not to be rude or anything, but wouldn't that put you at somewhat of a psychological advantage at the end? So, without further ado.

BANANACREAMAPPLESAUSEPUDDINGCAKEPIE!

now close the thread.

DinkDoodler if you're offended by this thread I suggest you don't read it any more!

Everyone can have their own opinions, beliefs and arguments.

This has hit the 100th post mark. Nothing of value will be lost if closed. It's just turned into another pseudo-intellectual circlejerk.

It turned into a religious argument, which is of course rather banal and probably offensive to some, and ultimately a dead-end.

If you're offended by what i've just said, I suggest you don't read it.

Also I give kudos to Earl despite there being no upvote/thank you button.

Not really taking anything you said seriously judging by your new title but really, this was "ultimately a dead-end" from the very beginning and only ever meant to promote discussion.

If you're offended, or if you have to make nasty comments, stay away.

Ey. Enel is the only god I know of.

My thread has earned title "epic".

Multiplicus Moroni said: "Close this thread, or I'll tell mummy"

Hang on! Surely an intellectual discussion is good for mind and mankind, no matter how tangential! After all, those who criticise Christendom say that it restricts freedom of thought, yet these same folk screech out when someone dares to say anything with which they don't agree!

Note also that those baying for the closing of the thread are those with grudges against the topics here discussed.

It is a glorious day when Christian, atheist and philosopher can part shaking hands, agreeing to disagree in an agreeable manner, realizing that science and reason are incapable of entirely proving the truth, since they are label-dependent.

This is a perfectly valid thread.

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you think it's a "pseudo-intellectual circlejerk," maybe you should just leave it be and hope it dies of it's own accord (as these thing all eventually do), rather than bumping it back to the top of the page?

Whether any individual thinks the discussion is of no consequence is, unsurpringly, of no consequence.

That is all.

And a note to metatrasal: Allah is God

I know that, but since you used the term Allah to describe God I decided to take that into my post for continuity. A Christian outside of the Arab world would never call God Allah, so I couldn't possibly use that to describe the Christian God. Apparently Muslims are using the name of Allah even outside of Arab countries.

For some Muslims the distinction between God and Allah is quite a sensitive issue...

Aye Skull, 'tis true. An epic thread lay forth ahead of ye.

*reads fireballs post* *vomits uncontrolebely*
ok
to skull
answere me (or els i will post
in 12 diferent posts )
1.you made this thread to start world war 4
2.this thread is acctuly your plan to take over/rule the world
3.this is not the epic thread that lay forth ahead of ye.

to skull
know this
1. do not even dream that this thread will go over 300 posts
2.there is a chance (a tiny one ) that says this thread will go over 150 posts but it is unlikely
3.to any one that read the above(^) i can already see this thread going of course
to anyone
*please* if i come to this thread and post comething sensebal

my dearest apologise

Hands Hellfire a bucket - you actually get to clean up your own mess here buddy Oh and don't worry - we wouldn't expect you to make a sensible comment you are safe there. *pats* hellfire on head, shoo, go and play with your other toys now there is a good lad

@Schnapps, rather sad we can't all just accept others have a different point of view I agree, *sighs* in a perfect world huh.......

I really don't understand get so angry about the existence of threads about religion, especially since the discussion has been quite civil so far. Why do some people find them so threatening?

I imagine I'll get around to discussing schnapper's points about being able to selectively quote the bible for just about many subjects, that we've come much farther than Freud in the field of psychology, and my view that coming at human nature from a inherently negative viewpoint, that of "sin" has a detrimental impact on both the individual and collective psyches. Other than those, though, we seem to be agreement... I'm just rather lazy/busy to want to do it at the moment, which is really no excuse at all.

Metatrasal, God is One, and we believe his name is Allah. And there is no seperate God for all religions. Ahwell, better not say anything more. After all, I was jsut expressing me beleif. Don't be ffended, Christians or people of any religion, I'm not your enemy . I don't think we should fight about religion when we are firm on our beliefs. Well, there goes.

Umm... World War 4? I thought there needed to be a World War 3 first, unless I counted wrong...

Somehow this thread allows people to take over he world lol I made a similar thread about religion that had roughly the same post count, and Skull saying this was an epic thread was similar to what happened in my religion thread.

P.S. from examining the board, I beleive that we could get up to 150 posts easily, though the posts per day will go down unless a flamewar erupts, in which case we could go well into the 200s before the thread is eventualy closed.

Hmm.. well your sox smell Fireball5 (is that enough?)

Hell7fire1, thank you for helping to get this thread even more epic. I appreciate your loyalty.

Been there, done that

just returning your favours in my threads

'my thread'? Where does this sense of ownership come from? Just because you created the topic doesn't mean you own the thread or something.

sorry wrong wording i ment the bing thread

This thread is too long for Me to read the whole thing, but i can say that hell7fire1 annoys Me by trying to look like Fireball.

And my religion clearly states that i am God. After creating the universe and all its wonders, i looked down up my creation, and lo! i was pleased.

However, after some time watching the lives of the humans below, i began to feel lonely. i had too much power, that was the trouble.

So i turned myself into a man, and cast Myself down among the mortals as a baby in its mother's womb, erasing all My memories.

And now here i am, the creator of Everything, living the life of the man i believe Myself to be...

How can you remember that if you erased all your memories?

So can you explain to me how you've come to know all this, since all your memories were erased...

Edit: Hmm somehow the page was apparently cached when I refreshed to look if someone was faster than me

I remember because my religion tells me it is so... duh.

Oh wait... so you're jewish?

Still, how do they know its you. Perhaps you're a fraud, an anti-christ type. A false-prophet-ish thing perhaps? (whatever those things would be called in your religion)

I just believe in myself for no specific reason, but all the reasons in the world, all at the same time.

I believe you're wrong.

Thats something alot of people can agree on

Humanist, Scientologist, Hindu perhaps wanker? Definitely not Jewish, though perhaps a follower of the Kabbalah. Perhaps you meant Jain, skull? Oh, could be a hybrid form of Satanism. Well you could, for that matter be a neo-pagan or a general Mystic/Spiritualist.

You are speaking sarcastically, but in Soviet Russia, Sarcastically are speaking you.

i can say that hell7fire1 annoys Me by trying to look like Fireball.
me illegal
me evil
me payed do that
.
.
.
curse them goblin give me bad vois
*light bulb* me know cure
*chop*

All I can say is... *gasp* *choke* *expire* *die*

I think hell7fire1 has been drinking again

He doesn't need to drink to get high.

*shouts* death! death!
you there
i wanna cash in this ticket
.
.
.
@ vokodlak )don't worry little boy just go in the train it will take you to happy land