A question for everybody

[Guest GhostRanger]

I have to be told te truth, no matter how harsh it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if one of the religions IS the truth?

[darkmage099]

 

I have to be told te truth, no matter how harsh it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if one of the religions IS the truth?

 

 

 

Could be. If it's one of the three Abraham religions then that'd be kind of messed up seeing as how they're so closely related.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

That's why I'm agnostic, it's not a choice, it's the most rational stance. Nobody in the world has enough proof to prove one way or another; A God simply exists or he doesn't. I'll try to explain why I think so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguing about anything else is just a matter of personal beliefs that should not be confused with a logical argument. Thus I'll respect anybody's beliefs, because it is just as possible that a hindu is "right", or a muslim/christian/taoist/whatever is "right" in his beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currently, we can't disprove God's existence. Neither can we prove he exists. Thus atheism would sound the most logical solution, but it's not, because there is always the chance of God existing. Agnosticism is thus not a belief or religion, it's a neutral observation. Everybody's religious beliefs are equally valid until proven otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd rather believe in some higher being. It gives me hope. Sometimes when I'm stressed out I pray and remind myself that life goes on even after I die. It's mainly for hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't get hope from religion, it just depresses me. I have to be told te truth, no matter how harsh it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does it depress you to know that there is life after death, and you will be in heaven where everything is near perfect. Something like that. I just think there's something better than there is now in heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I always remind myself, I'll only be here, if I'm lucky 70 more years. And that's only if I'm lucky. I have to make of those 70 years worht it. Because when I die, there will be nothing, my life will be over with. My life is irrelevent to the Universe. There's stars that live millions of times longer than me, galaxies that live billions, and I'll only be able to see a speck of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if one of the religions IS the truth?

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

[Astralinre]

 

What if one of the religions IS the truth?

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

You really don't understand the words "what if," do you?

[Viktorkrum77]

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might as well say, "I won't believe in oranges until they start walking." It is something that is impossible - aka, nonsensical.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

How is the Bible not logical?

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might as well say, "I won't believe in oranges until they start walking." It is something that is impossible - aka, nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll believe in oranges. Because oranges can be studied and proven. But I won't believe in something that is just stated. Scientific theory's are well thought out hypothesis's. And that is why I choose to believe them, not a 100%, but I put my faith in what they state for the most part.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might as well say, "I won't believe in oranges until they start walking." It is something that is impossible - aka, nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll believe in oranges. Because oranges can be studied and proven. But I won't believe in something that is just stated. Scientific theory's are well thought out hypothesis's. And that is why I choose to believe them, not a 100%, but I put my faith in what they state for the most part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except, you totally missed the orange analogy, I'll let it slide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain it like this: You can NEVER prove the supernatural, therefore, you don't make sense when you say "I won't believe it until there's proof." What you need to say is, "I will never believe in it."

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

How is the Bible not logical?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shall I break it down. We'll start with the creation. It's just stated, it says the sun was created for Earth, which is wrong, because we know for a fact, the sun is just an irrelevant star. It focus on the Earth, and the Earth is just an irrelevant little planet. There are theory's that make sense and are well researched that contradict many things stated in the Bible. It is not possible to split the Red Sea, or to talk to a burning bush, or to walk on water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here's another good point. Kind of like what DarkMage said, why is Chrisitanity correct? What about Paganism, surely this would mean it was made up, but by who? What about Budihism, Hinduism, etc... You're saying that these are made up? Well they could say the same about Chrisitanity. Which shows it could be an invention by man.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might as well say, "I won't believe in oranges until they start walking." It is something that is impossible - aka, nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll believe in oranges. Because oranges can be studied and proven. But I won't believe in something that is just stated. Scientific theory's are well thought out hypothesis's. And that is why I choose to believe them, not a 100%, but I put my faith in what they state for the most part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except, you totally missed the orange analogy, I'll let it slide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain it like this: You can NEVER prove the supernatural, therefore, you don't make sense when you say "I won't believe it until there's proof." What you need to say is, "I will never believe in it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're basically trying to say, Athiests have as much faith as Christians, but don't recognize it. True, I do have faith, in scientific theory's created by man.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To respond to you: Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive as you suggest. You cannot prove the supernatural. Therefore, your entire point is nonsensical. Guess what else is new!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I didn't pass that ages ago?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I only believe 'what if's' if there is some sort of logical theory or small amount of proof that comes along with it.

How is the Bible not logical?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

 

 

 

Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

 

 

 

They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. 19When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They answered, "We have only five loaves of bread and two fishÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[apinagez]

Questions adressed to X seem to be quite trendy this season.

[darkmage099]

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vickie! You finally passed darkie to take the lead for the most annoyingly ignorant poster on TIF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you're an [wagon].

 

 

 

You for got to add IMO at the end of your statement. You're probably the person on the OT who flames the MOST. Doesn't that make you kind of a jack [wagon]. You always make stupid comments such as these. You can never help yourself can you? You always have to flame people about whatever they say with your irrelevant opinions.

[kelem_ryu]

There is a difference between religion and spirituallity. About the same as between types of government and politics. Also god/no god, higher being/no such isn't all there is about spirituallity. And as far as i figured out especially the question after the primary cause is a question pysics are also concerned with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: and about this "what happens after death" question. here's what i believe:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"YOU SHOULD HAVE WORKED OUT BY NOW THAT EVERYONE GETS WHAT THEY THINK IS COMING TO THEM: IT'S SO MUCH NEATER THAT WAY."

 

 

 

Terry Pratchett - Mort; p137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might say there isn't hard evidence for this claim, but i believe that believes fuel reality anyway. Just because there is hard evidence i won't necessarily believe it :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT2: btw i don't like the idea of religions too much, because imho spirituallity is a personal matter that shouldn't be limited by the codex of some religion.

[jonstark7x8]

Beliefs are a touchy subject because there are so many different ideas, values and opinions. You can't say that people are getting very stingy on an issue, because there are people that agree with that person that think quite the opposite. It is all a stance of point of view, and it's not fair to view it as people "pmsing" or "freaking out."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am slightly offended by people that trample all over what I believe, because wouldn't anybody be offended if someone were to completely disagree with your views? Unless you are horrifically uninformed and/or passive, than you would let it slide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember flipping on the T.V and the 700 club comes on. Pat Robertson starts rambling about how Islam extremists have bombed another church in Pakistan and how you NEVER hear about Christian extremists. He kept talking about how Islams are the only people taking it this far, and that Christians never do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, imagine this, what if you supported that Islam extremist, wouldn't you agree with that extremist and believe that what he/she did was the right thing to do? This is where it gets touchy because a lot of people can argue "well, Christians don't kill other people" etc, etc. But that's unfair, because there are other people that probably view Christianity as hostile. And ejaculating this propaganda is unfair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish there would be a happy medium. We can only hope and wait as society evolves to a more unified state. Where other countries/coalitions aren't distrusted. Where an opposing religion won't be prejudiced against. I readily doubt there will ever be a happy medium. Welcome to society.

[insane]

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is the study of natural phenomena. God is supernatural, meaning science cannot relate to God in any negative/positive correlation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until you can prove that turning water into wine, walking on water, creating unlimited food, resurrecting dead people and curing blind people with your hands is logically possible, feel free not to post or also find me evidence about santa clause flying with Rudolph the reindeer and throwing presents down the chimney every christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Jesus really was the Son of God, then do you really think it would be hard for Him to manipulate the very matter He created?

[Viktorkrum77]

 

Well they aren't doing a very god job at proving it. Science is way ahead of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is the study of natural phenomena. God is supernatural, meaning science cannot relate to God in any negative/positive correlation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until you can prove that turning water into wine, walking on water, creating unlimited food, resurrecting dead people and curing blind people with your hands is logically possible, feel free not to post or also find me evidence about santa clause flying with Rudolph the reindeer and throwing presents down the chimney every christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Jesus really was the Son of God, then do you really think it would be hard for Him to manipulate the very matter He created?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then why doesn't God bare another son. To help end the corruptness of this world today, and make it better. End world hunger, wars, poverty, death, violence, the black market, etc... And to prove he exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I get the feeling that God doesn't really care. If he did, he would've, for example, stopped the 911 attacks, like he helped those in the Bible rebuild the Kingdom of David, and escape the Egyptians.

[kelem_ryu]

yeah! jesus said you can do everything if you believe you can (methinks he gave that example of making mountains jump into the ocean.) well that fits my believes :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Geez! stop thinking of god as that old man with a long white beard, or as a person at all. at least that picture wouldn't make any sense to me.

[Kwisatz]

I'm not a fundamentalist at all and I object to you saying everyone has to be. I'm actually a fairly liberal Christian. You don't pay attention enough if you believe that insane, Astra, and myself are fundamentalists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, way to pull that out of thin air. On the contrary, I rather like Astralinre and Insane's viewpoints, because they calmly justify themselves rather than launching into a whole long thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do see how people joke about you getting into flame wars. I believe you have no right to call anybody on logic when you make bold implications such as you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, when I say that "everybody has to..." I really mean "it seems as though you primarily run across..." It's a hyperbole. Perhaps my last line did not convey the rhetoric nature of my question. I realize that there are agnostics, but it SEEMS that so many people must be to one extreme or another, and feel the need to get intensely defensive when somebody brings the simple question of spirituality up, as exhibited above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's please try not to turn this into another "is there a God?" thread; please stick to your personal reasons and observations regarding my original question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I sometimes look at it this way: If there isn't a god when you die and you believed in one while you were alive, then the worst that could happen is that some intolerant people thought you crazy. Big deal. But, if there IS a god when you die, you get a ticket to the afterlife. Like insurance. The whole "fear of the wrath of God" seems to be a motivating factor for some people, but not so many as I thought.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

I'm not a fundamentalist at all and I object to you saying everyone has to be. I'm actually a fairly liberal Christian. You don't pay attention enough if you believe that insane, Astra, and myself are fundamentalists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, way to pull that out of thin air. On the contrary, I rather like Astralinre and Insane's viewpoints, because they calmly justify themselves rather than launching into a whole long thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do see how people joke about you getting into flame wars. I believe you have no right to call anybody on logic when you make bold implications such as you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, when I say that "everybody has to..." I really mean "it seems as though you primarily run across..." It's a hyperbole. Perhaps my last line did not convey the rhetoric nature of my question. I realize that there are agnostics, but it SEEMS that so many people must be to one extreme or another, and feel the need to get intensely defensive when somebody brings the simple question of spirituality up, as exhibited above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's please try not to turn this into another "is there a God?" thread; please stick to your personal reasons and observations regarding my original question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I sometimes look at it this way: If there isn't a god when you die and you believed in one while you were alive, then the worst that could happen is that some intolerant people thought you crazy. Big deal. But, if there IS a god when you die, you get a ticket to the afterlife. Like insurance. The whole "fear of the wrath of God" seems to be a motivating factor for some people, but not so many as I thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why must everyone either be religiously zealous and fundamentalist or fiercely atheistic and hostile towards any form of spirituality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, you have since redefined your question, but I was answering your original question by showing you that everyone is not one or the other and that there is a middle ground. I gave you three examples of people who are in the middle ground on the side of religion. It is your fault for phrasing your question incorrectly - because I answered your question by showing you how your initial assumption is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. You persist in saying I should not turn it into a thread about God and I should give my personal observations about your question. This is another ridiculous statement. First off, I never brought up the validity of God - you did. Second off, I gave my personal observation that not everyone who is religious is a fundamentalist. That IS my personal observation on your question - so I gave what you asked for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please don't try and misrepresent what I say next time. It's rude.

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

[Kwisatz]

 

 

I'm not a fundamentalist at all and I object to you saying everyone has to be. I'm actually a fairly liberal Christian. You don't pay attention enough if you believe that insane, Astra, and myself are fundamentalists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, way to pull that out of thin air. On the contrary, I rather like Astralinre and Insane's viewpoints, because they calmly justify themselves rather than launching into a whole long thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do see how people joke about you getting into flame wars. I believe you have no right to call anybody on logic when you make bold implications such as you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, when I say that "everybody has to..." I really mean "it seems as though you primarily run across..." It's a hyperbole. Perhaps my last line did not convey the rhetoric nature of my question. I realize that there are agnostics, but it SEEMS that so many people must be to one extreme or another, and feel the need to get intensely defensive when somebody brings the simple question of spirituality up, as exhibited above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's please try not to turn this into another "is there a God?" thread; please stick to your personal reasons and observations regarding my original question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I sometimes look at it this way: If there isn't a god when you die and you believed in one while you were alive, then the worst that could happen is that some intolerant people thought you crazy. Big deal. But, if there IS a god when you die, you get a ticket to the afterlife. Like insurance. The whole "fear of the wrath of God" seems to be a motivating factor for some people, but not so many as I thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why must everyone either be religiously zealous and fundamentalist or fiercely atheistic and hostile towards any form of spirituality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, you have since redefined your question, but I was answering your original question by showing you that everyone is not one or the other and that there is a middle ground. I gave you three examples of people who are in the middle ground on the side of religion. It is your fault for phrasing your question incorrectly - because I answered your question by showing you how your initial assumption is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. You persist in saying I should not turn it into a thread about God and I should give my personal observations about your question. This is another ridiculous statement. First off, I never brought up the validity of God - you did. Second off, I gave my personal observation that not everyone who is religious is a fundamentalist. That IS my personal observation on your question - so I gave what you asked for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please don't try and misrepresent what I say next time. It's rude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, I didn't redefine the question, I clarified it for you, who obviously has the inability to read between the lines. Let us examine what I said and use pompous bold text:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, when I say that "everybody has to..." I really mean "it seems as though you primarily run across..." It's a hyperbole. Perhaps my last line did not convey the rhetoric nature of my question.

 

 

 

Thought I'd ask.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's like somebody telling you about something bad happening and then you saying "Oh, great." It's sarcastic irony. Notice how the posters above you did not take it as you did - they all realized the true meaning of my question. You, on the other hand, obviously did not pick up on this. I'm guilty of doing it myself from time to time, but at the very least I had the balls to admit I was wrong. Unfortunately I can't find the thread, but it was about how some guy was talking about smoking and sarcastically said how it was good for him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, notice the on topic. That indicates that the part prior was off-topic, or at the very least of a different nature than all of the words following it. You also did not pick up on this. That is, the whole bit around being on topic was not directed at you, but rather at the posters who began turning this into a deep theological discussion about life and death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read for comprehension. I used to think that the public school system stressed this far too much, but it seems that they have reason to do so. I'm also guilty of not doing this - in fact, I also wrote a bit about Merc and how he shouldn't take all religious peoples to be fanatic zealots. But, then, I realized: he said nothing in his post about that, and I was obviously not picking up on the true intentions of his post - that is, his frustration with the proliferation of self-anointed righteous religious figures in the media and society in general. So, rather than making myself look like an incompetent fool, I deleted it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your weak attempt at exposing my "rude" tendencies still does not compensate for the fact that you make a brash assumption in your first post, even going so far as to name names, which is what motivated me to reply to you in such a "rude" manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, learn to read a bit into peoples' posts - between the lines, as it were. Because, my friend, taking everything literally and at face value is rather rude to those who try to put an ounce of research or thought into their posts.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't prove the supernatural. Your point = nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All thes people sticking up for me. :P Thanks BTW! I gotta learn to stick up for myself a little better. Just one of my many negative qualities unfortuantly.