The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What?
Grix is getting married?
Grix is getting married?
Page:
...
*sigh*
*sigh*
All I know is that my faith helps me sleep at night believing somebody loves us. I doubt the Big bang theory does that for you light.
Who really cares what you think Light. I, for one, don't and I'm sure there are many others who just don't really even give a particular rats ass either to merely make mention that when they see your posts, they just disregard and scan down the page to see what else is going on in this thread.
Go talk about your God crap elsewhere. This is a thread about Grix.
Just because someone says, "Oh wow, Grix..you may be diagnosed with cancer? That's horrible news to hear, I'll pray for you.." it doesn't mean they want to be subjected to having their belief in God disected and scrutinized.
You just want to argue and be ugly. I think those bombers are really out to get people like YOU. You give this site and all the people here a really bad reputation of being Godless, shreding, cynical, condescending assholes.
That does not make this place a fun place to come to.
And, I don't care that Grix is upset that I've posted here. At the moment, he can kiss my ass too.
Go talk about your God crap elsewhere. This is a thread about Grix.
Just because someone says, "Oh wow, Grix..you may be diagnosed with cancer? That's horrible news to hear, I'll pray for you.." it doesn't mean they want to be subjected to having their belief in God disected and scrutinized.
You just want to argue and be ugly. I think those bombers are really out to get people like YOU. You give this site and all the people here a really bad reputation of being Godless, shreding, cynical, condescending assholes.
That does not make this place a fun place to come to.
And, I don't care that Grix is upset that I've posted here. At the moment, he can kiss my ass too.
munn wrote:
> I could say the same thing about a god creating the universe.
> Until someone actually PROVES that there isn't a god, it's still a
> theory that's out there and, like the theory about a different
> dimension before the big bang, nothing to prove that it's completely
> false, so why not allow people to believe it?
I wholly agree; which is why I get so annoyed by religious types who say that other beliefs are wrong. Or somehow inferior (and no Game, I'm not saying you've said that yet).
Basically my beef is with people who claim they have all the answers when, as you say, no-one knows for sure.
>
> I don't know how the subject arose in this topic (i haven't read that
> far back), but I don't agree with people trying to convince others
> that there is no god, just in the same way I don't like people trying
> to convince others that there is a god.
I can't speak for others, but I'm gearing up for an argument with Game as he seems to be one of those unpleasant types who considers his faith to be better than everyone elses. I don't want to convince him otherwise; just examine his faith in a little detail. One usually finds that their implacably literal faith in the Bible is a little less consistent that they say.
>
> I myself believe that there is a god, though I don't know about all
> of the teachings in the bible (because I've never read it all), at
> the same time I believe in physics (if you know what I mean0, and for
> years and years I thought that the Big Bang was the creation of the
> universe, but at the same time, I didn't understand it, so I looked
> for other ideas.
Fair enough; I too have my own faith. But it's a highly personal thing (faith that is), and unique to an individual. Which is why it's so offensive to me to read other people trying to say that their faith is somehow better than that of someone else.
>
> You may think I'm weak-willed because I can't be othered
> investigating the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, but to
> be frank, not in 10 lifetimes will one person ever work out its
> mystery, so I mightas well think believe that there's a god - it
> lifts a burden from my mind and lets me enjoy life (I don't go to
> church or pray or anything like that, one thing I know from the Bible
> is that I don't have to do it), so why should I worry about something
> that doesn't concern me.
Nah, not at all; you have your faith which works for you and you don't try and force other people to accept what you're saying as being the only answer. I'm not gonna try and say "You're wrong" just cos your faith differs from mine.
>
> At least if I'm right, when i die I'm going to go to heaven.
>
> It's worth it, no?
Heh. I've heard that argument before. Can't say I agree with it, but whatever gets you through the night....
> I could say the same thing about a god creating the universe.
> Until someone actually PROVES that there isn't a god, it's still a
> theory that's out there and, like the theory about a different
> dimension before the big bang, nothing to prove that it's completely
> false, so why not allow people to believe it?
I wholly agree; which is why I get so annoyed by religious types who say that other beliefs are wrong. Or somehow inferior (and no Game, I'm not saying you've said that yet).
Basically my beef is with people who claim they have all the answers when, as you say, no-one knows for sure.
>
> I don't know how the subject arose in this topic (i haven't read that
> far back), but I don't agree with people trying to convince others
> that there is no god, just in the same way I don't like people trying
> to convince others that there is a god.
I can't speak for others, but I'm gearing up for an argument with Game as he seems to be one of those unpleasant types who considers his faith to be better than everyone elses. I don't want to convince him otherwise; just examine his faith in a little detail. One usually finds that their implacably literal faith in the Bible is a little less consistent that they say.
>
> I myself believe that there is a god, though I don't know about all
> of the teachings in the bible (because I've never read it all), at
> the same time I believe in physics (if you know what I mean0, and for
> years and years I thought that the Big Bang was the creation of the
> universe, but at the same time, I didn't understand it, so I looked
> for other ideas.
Fair enough; I too have my own faith. But it's a highly personal thing (faith that is), and unique to an individual. Which is why it's so offensive to me to read other people trying to say that their faith is somehow better than that of someone else.
>
> You may think I'm weak-willed because I can't be othered
> investigating the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, but to
> be frank, not in 10 lifetimes will one person ever work out its
> mystery, so I mightas well think believe that there's a god - it
> lifts a burden from my mind and lets me enjoy life (I don't go to
> church or pray or anything like that, one thing I know from the Bible
> is that I don't have to do it), so why should I worry about something
> that doesn't concern me.
Nah, not at all; you have your faith which works for you and you don't try and force other people to accept what you're saying as being the only answer. I'm not gonna try and say "You're wrong" just cos your faith differs from mine.
>
> At least if I'm right, when i die I'm going to go to heaven.
>
> It's worth it, no?
Heh. I've heard that argument before. Can't say I agree with it, but whatever gets you through the night....
Light wrote:
> who's to say that there wasn't a dimension other
> than time pre-Big Bang that was comparable, but worked differently to
> the way physics generally does here?
I could say the same thing about a god creating the universe.
Until someone actually PROVES that there isn't a god, it's still a theory that's out there and, like the theory about a different dimension before the big bang, nothing to prove that it's completely false, so why not allow people to believe it?
I don't know how the subject arose in this topic (i haven't read that far back), but I don't agree with people trying to convince others that there is no god, just in the same way I don't like people trying to convince others that there is a god.
I myself believe that there is a god, though I don't know about all of the teachings in the bible (because I've never read it all), at the same time I believe in physics (if you know what I mean0, and for years and years I thought that the Big Bang was the creation of the universe, but at the same time, I didn't understand it, so I looked for other ideas.
You may think I'm weak-willed because I can't be othered investigating the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, but to be frank, not in 10 lifetimes will one person ever work out its mystery, so I mightas well think believe that there's a god - it lifts a burden from my mind and lets me enjoy life (I don't go to church or pray or anything like that, one thing I know from the Bible is that I don't have to do it), so why should I worry about something that doesn't concern me.
At least if I'm right, when i die I'm going to go to heaven.
It's worth it, no?
> I'm not actually trying to diss you here, it's just that to
> confidently state that physics contradicts itself is right up there
> with "The Bible has all the answers" in terms of shutting
> off ones mind to possibilities.
I don't believe the Bible has all the answers, and there are lots of areas where physics contradicts itself (although before you ask me for an example, there are none that I can think of right now, so don't bother)
> You may well be right, but I'm
> guessing you haven't studied it in as much depth as those (frankly
> terrifying) men and women who have spent upwards of 40 years studying
> physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.
Well, that's a pretty safe guess to make, but on the same token, only those people that spent all those years studying them are pretty much the only ones who truly understand their theories, there's people who study the theory's, but few people will ever manage to discover if they are true.
I'll try and put it more simply, whilst they studied everything and came up with theories, most people will agree with these theories without ever trying to disprove them, so few people will ever discover if they've made mistakes or missed something vital which would screw them up.
(I don't really know what I'm trying to say, so I'll stop now).
> who's to say that there wasn't a dimension other
> than time pre-Big Bang that was comparable, but worked differently to
> the way physics generally does here?
I could say the same thing about a god creating the universe.
Until someone actually PROVES that there isn't a god, it's still a theory that's out there and, like the theory about a different dimension before the big bang, nothing to prove that it's completely false, so why not allow people to believe it?
I don't know how the subject arose in this topic (i haven't read that far back), but I don't agree with people trying to convince others that there is no god, just in the same way I don't like people trying to convince others that there is a god.
I myself believe that there is a god, though I don't know about all of the teachings in the bible (because I've never read it all), at the same time I believe in physics (if you know what I mean0, and for years and years I thought that the Big Bang was the creation of the universe, but at the same time, I didn't understand it, so I looked for other ideas.
You may think I'm weak-willed because I can't be othered investigating the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, but to be frank, not in 10 lifetimes will one person ever work out its mystery, so I mightas well think believe that there's a god - it lifts a burden from my mind and lets me enjoy life (I don't go to church or pray or anything like that, one thing I know from the Bible is that I don't have to do it), so why should I worry about something that doesn't concern me.
At least if I'm right, when i die I'm going to go to heaven.
It's worth it, no?
> I'm not actually trying to diss you here, it's just that to
> confidently state that physics contradicts itself is right up there
> with "The Bible has all the answers" in terms of shutting
> off ones mind to possibilities.
I don't believe the Bible has all the answers, and there are lots of areas where physics contradicts itself (although before you ask me for an example, there are none that I can think of right now, so don't bother)
> You may well be right, but I'm
> guessing you haven't studied it in as much depth as those (frankly
> terrifying) men and women who have spent upwards of 40 years studying
> physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.
Well, that's a pretty safe guess to make, but on the same token, only those people that spent all those years studying them are pretty much the only ones who truly understand their theories, there's people who study the theory's, but few people will ever manage to discover if they are true.
I'll try and put it more simply, whilst they studied everything and came up with theories, most people will agree with these theories without ever trying to disprove them, so few people will ever discover if they've made mistakes or missed something vital which would screw them up.
(I don't really know what I'm trying to say, so I'll stop now).
Light wrote:
> I did indeed post it for Forest's delight and delectation some time
> back, but I'm not sure if Meka wrote something as funny or funnier
> too.
Perhaps. Although for some reason I had that one pegged to Meka's name.
He must've been the "last poster" or something.
I do remember thinking that it was a little "rude" for Meka's usual style of writing. :-)
> I did indeed post it for Forest's delight and delectation some time
> back, but I'm not sure if Meka wrote something as funny or funnier
> too.
Perhaps. Although for some reason I had that one pegged to Meka's name.
He must've been the "last poster" or something.
I do remember thinking that it was a little "rude" for Meka's usual style of writing. :-)
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> I don't see why time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang. There
> was just nothing to measure it by.
I agree. Although it wouldn't have been "time" in the strictest sense, as time is (in part) a measurement that is only possible due to the Big Bang. But it may well have existed in another form prior to that.
A lot of religious types bug me with their "I personally don't understand this, ergo it is impossible" attitude; that sort of egotism is beyond even an arrogant scumbag like me...
> I don't see why time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang. There
> was just nothing to measure it by.
I agree. Although it wouldn't have been "time" in the strictest sense, as time is (in part) a measurement that is only possible due to the Big Bang. But it may well have existed in another form prior to that.
A lot of religious types bug me with their "I personally don't understand this, ergo it is impossible" attitude; that sort of egotism is beyond even an arrogant scumbag like me...
I don't see why time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang. There was just nothing to measure it by.
munn wrote:
> The argument about "after time" is a load of balls (to those
> who are talking all the physics about it).
>
> Physics contradicts itself just as much as religion.
>
> If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything (including time),
> then that's where time started, but since time started at some point
> then there must have been something before it. But then there can't
> have been anything before it, as then it would all into the
> constraints of time.
You're looking at it purely under the constraints of what you understand as "time" though. We measure time as a dimension. That dimension only came into being with the Big Bang (according to that theory). As we're starting to discover that time is a lot more malleable than we once thought (in terms of the passage of time of an object travelling at the speed of light compared to a stationary object), who's to say that there wasn't a dimension other than time pre-Big Bang that was comparable, but worked differently to the way physics generally does here?
I'm not actually trying to diss you here, it's just that to confidently state that physics contradicts itself is right up there with "The Bible has all the answers" in terms of shutting off ones mind to possibilities. You may well be right, but I'm guessing you haven't studied it in as much depth as those (frankly terrifying) men and women who have spent upwards of 40 years studying physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.
> The argument about "after time" is a load of balls (to those
> who are talking all the physics about it).
>
> Physics contradicts itself just as much as religion.
>
> If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything (including time),
> then that's where time started, but since time started at some point
> then there must have been something before it. But then there can't
> have been anything before it, as then it would all into the
> constraints of time.
You're looking at it purely under the constraints of what you understand as "time" though. We measure time as a dimension. That dimension only came into being with the Big Bang (according to that theory). As we're starting to discover that time is a lot more malleable than we once thought (in terms of the passage of time of an object travelling at the speed of light compared to a stationary object), who's to say that there wasn't a dimension other than time pre-Big Bang that was comparable, but worked differently to the way physics generally does here?
I'm not actually trying to diss you here, it's just that to confidently state that physics contradicts itself is right up there with "The Bible has all the answers" in terms of shutting off ones mind to possibilities. You may well be right, but I'm guessing you haven't studied it in as much depth as those (frankly terrifying) men and women who have spent upwards of 40 years studying physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.
The argument about "after time" is a load of balls (to those who are talking all the physics about it).
Physics contradicts itself just as much as religion.
If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything (including time), then that's where time started, but since time started at some point then there must have been something before it. But then there can't have been anything before it, as then it would all into the constraints of time.
It's all contradiction, and the opnly way we'll ever find out what's true is when we die and you all go to hell for blasphemy.
Physics contradicts itself just as much as religion.
If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything (including time), then that's where time started, but since time started at some point then there must have been something before it. But then there can't have been anything before it, as then it would all into the constraints of time.
It's all contradiction, and the opnly way we'll ever find out what's true is when we die and you all go to hell for blasphemy.
Page: