NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Is MR religious or not? Sure not all is/not('s) need be enumerated, but I'm curious... are Ridazz religious (ahem *faith-based*).. or you know... believers?
Theres a little doc playing this thurs... I dont think i can make it, but if this is fits into your desire to keep beating the God vs No-God inner/outer debate in your body, mind and soul-thing... maybe you'll like it.
http://www.collisionmovie.com/
Story continued... this thursday.
Religion is an interesting subject (okay, okay, faith...whatever)... some just write it off without really knowing why. They have their 10 questions and points that every atheist arms themselves with... and they sleep well at night.
The believers just write Atheist arguments off without really knowing why. They have their 10 questions and points that every believer arms themselves with... and they sleep well at night.
Some have delved genuinely in both, and come out stronger in or or the other stances. Each call each other crazy, and point to the absurdness of each other's beliefs... and so the story goes.
God is dead, in our hearts or alive somewhere/everywhere, or is a psychological phenomenon.
I wonder: IS RELIGION GOOD OR BAD FOR MR?
Ive wondered for years: IF SOMEONE BELIVES IN GOD, WOULDNT THEY BE INCLINED TO RIDE BIKES over driving?
What Midnight Ridazz is:
-Fun
-Friendships
-Non Confrontational
-Family
-Compassionate
-Open - Minded
-Multi-cultural
What Midnight Ridazz is NOT:
-Mean Spirited
-Political
-Commercialized
-Non-inclusive
-Abrasive
-Protest
I believe that the gods are inside of us. I believe that the truest sign of intelligence is the ability to exist forever. The only beings that are capable of that are the tiniest forms of matter. We are no where near the center of the scale of life. I believe in what I call "particle beaurocracy" in which infinitely microscopic matter is intelligent and works to build more and more complex systems resulting in what we know as "lifeforms" which are trapped in a conundrum of beaurocracies that occurs when trillions and trillions and trillions of individual eternally lasting and intelligent particles work together.
I really have no clue what you're presenting and i might bet you dont either, but I would like help spread the word.
Tenets:
1. believe that the gods are inside of us.
2. believe that the truest sign of intelligence is the ability to exist forever.
3. The only beings that are capable of that are the tiniest forms of matter.
4. We are no where near the center of the scale of life.
5. believe in what I call "particle beaurocracy"
--in which infinitely microscopic matter is intelligent
--and works to build more and more complex systems
--resulting in what we know as "lifeforms"
--which are trapped in a conundrum of beaurocracies
--that occurs when trillions...
--of individual
--eternally lasting
--and intelligent particles
--work together.
I might say, Roadblock, that if this is the best we got, the religious right is going to have a field day.
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.26.09 - 4:52 pm
in⋅tel⋅li⋅gence -noun
capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
I know what the right wing conservatives think of my theory. I take every chance I can to explain this theory to them. Religious people appreciate that I address intelligent design in my theory - which is completely scientifically based - but my theory of intelligent design begins with an unmeasured-able amount gods. Whereas intelligent design advocates a single god.
Science driven "left wing" thinkers appreciate that I address evolution. However current science does not acknowledge that higher intelligence occurs at a sub atomic level. So people on that end of the spectrum dismiss my theory.
Imagine a giant microscope looking down at the particle understood as earth. You zero in through that microscope and you see even tinier particles behaving travelling in the same routine every day. You look at cars you look at people travelling movements weather. It is like peering in to our own bodies. See into the microverse. We see only so much.... But scientists understand that matter is infinitely small. These are the beaurocracies of beaurocracies of unmeasure-able particles of intelligent matter. The first particle. Is god.
Roadblock responding to a comment by snowcone
10.26.09 - 5:34 pm
I dont really know who you are, but considering my past, I have this standard message:
sorry, i didnt mean to treat you as i did... i'd like to blame it on the alcohol.
I'm sure I said things that made you feel like i liked you, but I would like to blame the alcohol. Sure, you thought I was a great guy at first and you open yourself to me, but maybe I'm an asshole, as you know say to me and our mutual friends... which I blame on the alcohol.
and no i wont stop drinking, and even if I were sober I would still like your prettier friends more.
again, sorry... kind of.
md2 responding to a comment by TheJen
10.26.09 - 5:55 pm
humans are conceited and believe they possess these two qualities of "intelligence" and "consciousness" in order to differentiate themselves from other life forms. The truth is that we are no more "special" than a rock.
I call them gods because it's a term universally understood to every being as "the most powerful "thing" for scientists it is mother nature and science and the big bang.... For religious people it gets very simple. Basically I'm just using it as a common term that everyone can grasp.
Why is the world so fucked up? Is it? If you consider only the interests of microcosmic particles that exibit the highest intelligence in their ability to exist forever. When a human suffers, do these particles feel pain? They are indestructible.
The truest sign of intelligence is being in the position of having to obey the least amount of laws. The most infinite particles observe the fewest laws with no consequences. Now if scientists can prove that matter alcan be created ad destroyed then tuis whole theory is fucked.
Roadblock responding to a comment by snowcone
10.26.09 - 6:17 pm
you can always represent a high level law (such as a man-made law) as a lower level law and in the end all things obey the same set of laws.. the laws of physics... and those laws are all contained within the unified field theory (though one has yet to be accepted).
snowcone responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.26.09 - 6:21 pm
you know the thread was to highlight a movie being played for a day at the landmark.
Anyhow, "the most powerful thing"... well it seems the most powerful thing to your theory is something that can exist forever, Okay... that is powerful, but does it show that "that thing" exists because of it's own power or some other power "keeping" it in existence... and so on and on... and wait... okay--you just call that first thing god.
Ummm, yeah, well thats what the monotheist pretty much claims.
Now what are these things again? And how do we know they will exist forever? And, wait, how do we know these super tiny things exist?
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.26.09 - 8:34 pm
but we do not they have not existed forever.. only after "time" began
if you want to know how they know these subatomic particles exist... do some research
the unified field theory is not the monotheistic view of god
i think what roadblock means is that the smallest particle (if such a particle exists) is the most significant thing because particles of its class are the building blocks of everything else
the lego of legoland
however, there may not exist a smallest particle.... they could be made up of smaller and smaller particles... who knows... but i think he puts too much importance on those mostly insignificant details
what's important is the way everything is related.. through our building blocks
and that a universe is made up of solar systems which are made up of stars and planets which may consist of planets such as earth which is made up of living and non living organisms which some of these are humans which are made up of organs which are made up of cells which are made up of things like proteins which are made up of molecules which are made up of elements which are made up of atomic particles which are made up of subatomic particles... etc
you can ZOOM in to any level and you will see a group of stuff working together... and the unconscious "goal" of them working together is to continue to exist
i get that idea... as if lets say each lego is equally powerful or similar or whatever.... all legos are the same, there is nothing to break down any further. Moreover there are trillions of legos that are the cause, reason, etc, of everything.
Fine.
I was highlighting as you point out.... they existed after time began
okay, Im playing, then how did they just come into existence? How does this happen?
Now to point on the how do we know, lets say atoms exist... how exactly do you know this snowcone?
Have you seen one? Or have you seen a diagram of one? Is it because they theory of the atom seems to generate predictable outcomes that we base plasma TV off of? And guess what, plasma TVs work as expected, so atoms must exist?
its all so very.....yes, depressing.
md2 responding to a comment by snowcone
10.26.09 - 8:59 pm
the short answer is that nothing can be known with 100% certainty, but we have developed a system to be pretty damn sure about most things... and that has worked for us for thousands of years!
Eeeehh for some reason there was a man I believe Christian staning outside of the school I attend passing out small bibles with only the new testament. When I told him I wasn't interested in his religion at the moment he told me I have gone down the wrong path of God. What kind of shit is that??
This same exact thing happened at my high school back in '00.
The Christian Businessman Association was just handing the small, green pocket versions out like candy.
Funny thing is, we already had this thing called "Teens For Christ" actively operating as an after-school program.
Haha this guy had like 6 boxes of little orange bibles. Just passing them out to students. Mos of them it ripped apart, thrown away, or just got drawn on
palucha66 responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.26.09 - 10:24 pm
well when you get a boner you're horny and it's a cool feeling. religion just makes me wanna vomit... and uughh. no words can truly describe the disgust.
I'm not overly religious either, but I still get a kick out of these dipnuts trying to have one of those mountaintop crosses torn down.
I mean, those things have been there for years and did shit to nobody, now a few people are afraid of them?
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random[citation needed]. That is, in an experiment where all causally relevant parameters are controlled, there will still be some aspects of the outcome which vary randomly. An example of such an experiment is placing a single unstable atom in a controlled environment; it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay; only the probability of decay within a given time can be calculated.[3] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities. Hidden variable theories are inconsistent with the view that nature contains irreducible randomness: such theories posit that in the processes that appear random, properties with a certain statistical distribution are somehow at work "behind the scenes" determining the outcome in each case.
snowcone responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 12:44 am
Further, this same discussion about religion sent the country of my heritage, Lebanon, in civil war for decades. I could only imagine where this discussion could lead after reading how you guys talk about politics.
My 2 cents, stop the thread, but we all know it won't happen.
Would you support (with your tax dollars) if I put up and anti-Christ symbol right next to it? Would you also pay to allow every religion hve ther symbol put there? It's all or nothing. We need a secular government precisely because we have freedom of religion.
Roadblock responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.27.09 - 8:07 am
There is no such thing as "free will" nor would we ever want such a thing nor will it ever exist. The laws of physics make it impossible to acquire free will.
Roadblock responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 8:10 am
how did this thread get into quantum mechanics and free will?
sadly, i wonder, if you take the results of QM, and believe that particles are in a state such that you can predict their outcome, except by assigning probabilities, thus demonstrating the the basic particles are in a state of randomness (as wiki might say), or basically a state that cannot be known for certain. You'll never know if particle "z" will actually travel up or down, but only that it has such and such probability to do so.
Who needs free will to be intelligent anyway? Does knowing 2+2=4, require free will? Maybe i need free will to determine or act in such a way, whether I want to know that 2+2=4. But in that case free will is tied to action, rather than knowledge. Its concerned with what i chose to know or not know.
STOP QUOTING WIKI... its bad for you..
md2 responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 8:41 am
Well, this particular cross is on top of one of the mountains out here in the desert.
The thing has been up there for 40 years and no one has begun to complain about until a few years after 9/11.
If they wanted it taken down so bad, they could've started screaming from the get-go, but unfortunately it takes a national disaster or an assload of people getting killed to spur any type of action from anyone.
If it stays, or gets torn down, I could really care less about what happens to it.
The way I see it, anyone could preach, pray, kneel, Holy-fucking roll for all I care.
As long as it doesn't result in my ass getting dragged out to participate at gunpoint, be one with your chosen form of worship or non-worship as you please.
md2 - some people have postulated that randomness exists... others the opposite. i am a determinist. most of the arguments are explained on wikipedia.. a resource written by many intelligent people... maybe you should read it before you discount it as a source of information. if you think just anyone can put something there... i encourage you to try.
roadblock - if you also believe there is no free will, and particles do not have "choice".. then how exactly are you defining intelligence? it seems you are talking about an unrelated concept so why not just use a more accurate word; and if such a word does not exist, make one up and describe what it means.
snowcone responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 9:17 am
Yes. Bill Hicks. Rad. But the point that I was ever-so obliquely getting at is that all measures of value (or "specialness," or whatever) are inseparable from the human experience. The universe has no value system by which you can compare the specialness of a rock with the specialness of a human, but this does not (and in fact cannot) stop us from valuing things. We are humans. This is what we do. We value things. We are valuing machines.
Free will may not exist, but the illusion of free will most certainly does. We experience free will no matter what we know or believe. And if an illusory mental state is so convincing that it is impossible not to experience it, how is that meaningfully different from "reality" from the observer's perspective?
i have to disagree... the idea of "free will" makes no sense to me, and i think if you think about it and what it's supposed to mean enough, you will agree.
snowcone responding to a comment by nathansnider
10.27.09 - 9:34 am
1. yourself
-> this brings value to things that bring you happiness (friends, family, pets, money, etc)
2. things that resemble yourself
3. things that don't resemble yourself (why racism exists)
snowcone responding to a comment by nathansnider
10.27.09 - 9:37 am
Why are you bringing intelligence into the equation of free will and choice? It seems that you believe an entity must be able to make free choices in order to be intelligent. Why is that so? (maybe youre right, i just dont know what makes yo think this).
Also... i thought you dont believe in free will. So why is it a prerequisite for intelligence?
md2 responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 9:49 am
to me the concept of intelligence is to be in a state in which you experience the least agitation and the most joy. to achieve that state you have to be immune from as many constraints as possible. our systems - life our bodies, the world around us are such complex systems that they are mired in constraints. no free will.
science has shown so far that the building blocks of the universe experience indestructibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy therefore these particles are in a state of near free will.... however they do observe some kind of physical laws and are bound by physical laws.... scientists apparently have not discovered the most elemental laws of the universe as of yet but they are on there way. when they do they will discover the truest intelligence of the universe. particles under these very simple as yet to be defined laws have the ability to collect into a system and have formed vast bureaucracies of particles leading to more complex systems which in turn form new bureaucracies of bureaucracies of unmeasure-able size and number. the intelligence is in that these extremely complex bureaucracies have exibited choice and repetition. there is something extremely infinitely small that is thinking on a level far greater than the systems that compose.... science will eventually realize it I believe...
Roadblock responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 9:51 am
Sarte said the same. And in general I think it is true.
Whether we have free will or not is debatable, butits hard to debate the experience of free will (i.e. I feel freely capable of making fun of snowcone in this post... will I?).
Snowcone sucks.
Yup. Was I free to do so? Or was this determined by my chemical imbalance from all the exhaust I inhale on my way to work?
md2 responding to a comment by nathansnider
10.27.09 - 9:52 am
illusions are not real. you are then describing a faith. a person can "believe" in something that does not exist, but that does not change the scientific proof of it not existing. at the end of the day free will is subject at the very least, to the laws of physics.
Roadblock responding to a comment by nathansnider
10.27.09 - 9:55 am
how do particles experience the least agitation and the most joy? they get pushed around a lot by forces and they lack the capacity to experience joy (a human construct). why do we have to attach significance on anything?
this is where nathan steps in and reminds me that we, as humans, are in the business of attaching significance (or value) to things.
snowcone responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 10:00 am
my hippie ethics state that the systems that we comprise of experience pain and joy and therefore it is important to address them at our own scale. but we should understand where it all comes from and rather than attribute it to a single "god" setting rules and making decisions, I have attributed it to infinitely small and unmeasure-ably vast amounts of intelligent "gods" - matter, particles, of life that are each bound by the laws of physics which scientists are discovering and understanding more and more....
I suppose particles of life would have to care on some level about joy and agitation because they seem to repeat themselves and their systems over and over and they tweak and modify them over billions of years towards adapting to other complex systems like earth and climate....
Roadblock responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 10:07 am
so then.... lets say some driver maces a group of riders. He shows up to court and says:
I have attributed it to infinitely small and unmeasure-ably vast amounts of intelligent "gods" - matter, particles, of life that are each bound by the laws of physics which scientists are discovering and understanding more and more
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 10:10 am
Illusions are not real, but perception is... (it's completely relative... but it's real)... and I think that's what we're talking about here. Whether or not we have free will, there's no doubt that we perceive that we have free will (because we make decisions ALL THE TIME.) And there's no way we can grasp the complexity of the infinite factors that influence our decision making process... so we perceive it to be our decision. So free will is not our faith, as RB suggested... it's our experience.
as with much in life.... we only hear part of the whole story..... the cross has actually only been on federal land since 1994 when the feds acquired the land as part of the "mojave land preserve"
the cross, or a cross has been there since 1934. the issue is whether it should remain on federal land.
a long time ago, after much religious oppression at the hands of state religious institutions, the founding father of this country decided that no religion should be endorsed by the state. they were extremely wise in this decision. as you can see, in nations where there is an official "state religion" there is much conflict and oppression ie Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia.... the modern concept of separating religion from state completely is important to maintain in order to have a more cooperative society.
it is imperative to reverse the advances of all religions on our state. our state should be completely separate from any hint of religion in order for there to be LESS strife in our society.
Roadblock responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.27.09 - 10:25 am
to have the illusion of free will is to have faith that free will exists... a person who believes in jesus has the perception that jesus existed. they have the faith that jesus existed even though is it completely unproven that jesus ever existed, just as it is unproven that free will exists.
Roadblock responding to a comment by canadienne
10.27.09 - 10:28 am
we are all living in the same scale of life so it is at this stage that we understand other's actions. courts are set up to handle systems at this scale of life. I'm sure that on a cellular level there is communication and "court systems" that make decisions based on the cellular level of life and so forth into infinitely smaller and smaller systems until we reach a point of near free will.
for all you people who believe in the religion of free will check out this interesting argument that describes the illusion of free will, why it does not exist and why we would not want for it to exist.....
yeah man... as a person who was raised in christian schools, I believed in the existence of jesus and it was plain as day to me just as it is plain as day to you that freewill exists. but then, my father was not christian, so eventually my faith cracked I grew less ignorant and now I understand that jesus and religion is not a fact of life but fiction. just as free will is not a fact of life. it is fiction.
I disagree. I perceive that I have free will... but I'm actually pretty open to the idea that it doesn't exist.
My life could be the way it is and always has been, repeating itself for all eternity... but it doesn't change the fact that I'm going along for the ride, and even if it's all deterministic, there's no way for me to ever see it that way.
And you really can't compare the perception of free will to Jesus. Experience and faith are two completely opposing things.
No one is saying free will exists (or that the will is free). Some are ONLY saying, hey, RB, I feel free.
Watch:
Roadblock has a tiny god.
What determined me to type that phrase? I have nothing to point to (at the moment), but in all honesty I felt free as hell to type or not type that. If we want to be silly and say, "but you did, so you ere not free to not type it".
whatever... this is where i get bored.
Anyhow, do you see the distinction between people who claim the will is free, and those that say, I experience a free will?
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 10:46 am
it's hard to wrap your mind around it, because we do have freedom of choices and so forth and freedom of choice appears to be a form of free will but it is not....
and on a side note this debate is great, I'm beginning to question my theory but I still "believe"
Roadblock responding to a comment by canadienne
10.27.09 - 10:52 am
the real danger is what you do with the conclusion you come to.
Free Will has mattered much to the religious (part of), since how can a just god hold his creation responsible with giving them the freedom to choose between good and better?
Moreover, the backdrop of how we hold people responsible for their not so fancy actions, are tied to the idea they could have done otherwise (those this phrase can be changed or refined--but this is just a general outlook).
There is much to be said. But what the debate should, i hope, do for people, is open their minds to the idea that people may not be as free as we would like. That some people are making poor choices because of determining past influences.
Our desire to punish, get revenge and the like, are tied to this love of blame.
Plus it helps letting the ones you wronged know, though I felt I could do otherwise, Im starting to think I can/could not.
Blame it on the al-l-l-l-l-co-hol
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 11:00 am
In this case, I should also mention that I'm a firm believer in secession.
Issues like this are pulling the country apart at the seams, perhaps it's time that we just quit fighting each other and let it all go.
States with a high amount of religious followers could keep doing what they're doing.
States with a firm stance on church/state separation could keep doing as they wish.
States on the fence about the entire thing could stick to the real issues of making sure croplands and water-tables are maintained and let the citizenry fight about the "cross" issues on their own accord.
"That some people are making poor choices because of determining past influences. "
depending on what the definition of a "poor choice" is which is of course subjective.... but I digress... this is the line of thinking that I believe will lead to better lives for us all. it's an argument for our society to focus on nurturing a better set of choices for every person to make.
you are not going along for the ride.. that is not the way to think about it. for computer scientists or mathematicians, the idea makes more sense. let me explain...
think of everything as a function.. a function as inputs and produces an output
for every unique set of inputs, there is only one output
people are complex functions where we take in inputs and produce an output (which can sometimes be referred to as making a decision)
and each person is a unique function
(p.s. thanks for your wishes... that midterm was cake! :D)
snowcone responding to a comment by canadienne
10.27.09 - 11:14 am
with my function analogy... the fear of punishment is one of the inputs that can affect a future decision
and in terms of ethics... the idea of being responsible for your actions is independent from the condition of free will. this is because "positive" changes can still occur without free will. if a criminal is imprisoned, the criminal would not be able to commit a crime. the goal is achieve with or without free will.
but you might admit.... its a little hard to get people motivated when you tell them to care, in light of the fact that at the end of the day...they're just a trillion of tiny intelligent things in a gigantic incestuous orgy...
or maybe not... i just got excited.
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.27.09 - 11:20 am
the weather
everything that's ever happened to you in the past
any knowledge you possess
what someone says to you
television
the urge to urinate
the fear of getting hit by a car
the image of a hot babe in a skimpy outfit
and so on...
if these are your conclusions then you don't understand the point I am making. let me try again...
"States with a high amount of religious followers could keep doing what they're doing."
which is what? allow religious followers to continue to creep in religious symbols and statements into the common government? and it's based on majority? what about the minority? how would you feel if say Muslims became a majority in Victorville and began to compel the government of Victorville to recognize muslim rituals or began to pracitic or support muslim rituals or symbols.... lets say you went to court because a muslim police officer arrested you and you felt you had not done anything wrong or perhaps you were arrested for not observing a state enforced religious ritual? at the very least you would resent that government and in fact eventually move out or try to overthrow it or at least evade it. at any rate we can see it's not healthy for the common government of the people to favor any religion.
this is why the founding fathers once again moved to irradicate religion from the constitution.they realized that endorsement of ANY religion is oppression of all other religions. This is the principal reason that there will never be peace in the middle east until they secularize every state in the region... the minority should never be under the tyranny of the majority. this was the genius of the bill of rights....
Roadblock responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.27.09 - 11:23 am
All I'm saying is that this fight to end religious oppression seems to be going nowhere.
I just think it's better to keep those that want to be free on one side of a wall and defend that wall.
The other side of the wall could be filled with as many religious creeps as they want and they could do as they wish.
As far as Muslims taking over Victorville is concerned, I've got actual family members that are that, so blending in and then sneaking off towards "freeland" won't be much of a problem if it did occur.
You already possed that the son could either wash or not wash the dishes.
Not washing does not determine anything --except some dishes will not have been washed by the said son.
You have to explain how or what determines actions, and why it is that the said action could not have been otherwise (im playing...maybe you are fancier, but we'll see)
md2 responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 11:38 am
"All I'm saying is that this fight to end religious oppression seems to be going nowhere. "
the fight began centuries ago and still continues..... and is for the most part progressing. most modern states do not espouse or endorse a religion. this was not the case 500 years ago where people who were not following the official state religion were oprressed, forced to convert or in the worst cases were ethnically cleansed from the land violently. Today right now in front of our faces we can see in the cases that we do have an official state religion all kinds of internal strife.... again I point to Israel/Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc etc. Secular (non religious) governments do much better in terms of cohesive societies....
Roadblock responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.27.09 - 11:39 am
you will change your mind once you realize that the "white collar" forces decided that you should follow a religion or doctrine that you are not comfortable with. and what I mean by that is your range of choices and comforts will get narrower and narrower until you decide to rebel.
Roadblock responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.27.09 - 11:43 am
Not dissing you or anything like that, but for someone that doesn't like guns, you were the last person I would think of that would suggest rebellion in any case.
It may be different for you, but anytime I hear "rebellion", armed-resistance is always the first thing that comes to mind.
whether or not I like guns was never the issue. I do not like guns because I have always pointed out that real men fight one on one with fists not weapons.... however I doubt there is a government that ever existed that didnt rely on overwhelming force to stay in control. in that case the choices are narrow as to how to truly rebel against this powerful unmatched entity. some people will be compelled to choose guns and other weapons.... others will be compelled to choose non violent resistance. those choices get narrower depending on the methods and ability of the state that is attempting to repress a certain type of people and how large of a mass the people of same mind and thought are.
Roadblock responding to a comment by bentstrider
10.27.09 - 12:02 pm
Well, all I can say now is that there are just some problems that are too ackward for people like myself to handle.
But, on a positive note, there are others out there that seem committed to making sure things like religious oppression don't become a full-blown nightmare for the most of us.
The way I see it, we'll always be able to keep it at bay out in the open, but we'll never be able to get flush the tyrannical ways from the minds of certain individuals.
Although this is a healthy discussion and everyone can make valid points, it is all useless. Discussing religion is a comical farce into the un-winnable debate.
i cracked up when i read this... i wonder if anyone else got it? hahaha
if a human was written in haskell... they would be one huge function that accepts a single argument which is another function which accepts a single argument which is...
either way... hilarious
snowcone responding to a comment by braydon
10.27.09 - 12:19 pm
Richard Dawkins: Ms. Garrison, I'm not so sure what you did today in class was right.
Ms. Garrison: What? But Dick, you told me the world would be a better place without religion.
Richard Dawkins: Yes, but to be so bold about it...
[he looks away]
Richard Dawkins: I've just never seen a woman with such... balls.
Ms. Garrison: [sits on Dawkins with the blanket over her chest] You've just been too soft on religious people in the past. Think about it, Richard. With your intellect and my balls, we can change the future of the world.
Richard Dawkins: Can you imagine a world with no religion? No Muslims killing Jews, no Christians bombing abortion clinics. The world would be a wonderful place... without God.
Ms. Garrison: You're the smartest man on earth, Dick. With me by your side, there's no stopping you.
Richard Dawkins: Oh, just let me see those beautiful breasts again.
Ms. Garrison: Oh, all right.
[she lowers the blanket and the breasts appear, with the implants not balanced]
Richard Dawkins: Oh yeah, baby! Oh!
[he shakes his head between the breasts, with the effect of a motorboat's engine revving up]
Ms. Garrison: [moans] Oh yeah! Aaahhh!
"I pledge allegiance to my bike, in the anarchist state of Cascadia, and to the fun movement for which it stands, one cycle, under your mom, do-it-your-damn-self, with free love and helmets for all!"
actually it is not like that. the pinball is a collective of particles bound together by common forces and subject to the forces of the particles composing the materials surrounding it.
the particle itself is not comprised of any smaller particles and acting on the same law that everyother single particle operates under. the collective of particles (ie the pinball) is subject to the forces of the collective of particles surrounding it and therefore doesnt seem in control to the common human understanding.
Roadblock responding to a comment by snowcone
10.27.09 - 1:04 pm
everyone needs to watch this. he talks about religion and science and what makes good arguments and how to "prove" things. he isnt interesting to watch like larry lessig or christopher hitchens or foucault. he is more boring to watch like a chomsky. but his ideas or rock solid.
Allen: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?
Woman: Yes, it is.
Allen: What does it say to you?
Woman: It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless, bleak straitjacket in a black, absurd cosmos.
Allen: What are you doing Saturday night?
Woman: Committing suicide.
Allen: What about Friday night?
md2 responding to a comment by Joe Borfo
10.27.09 - 3:34 pm
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
I've come to my senses and realize that when these two are thrown together, the Earth will open up and eat me instead.
I would much rather retain the option to eat others, so I'm now behind you on this.
I finally had a chance to read this late last night. So from what I understand from reading this, is that our gods are the countless subatomic particles that are indestructible? Is that right?
OK, so what does force or energy play in this roll?
The majority of the universe is made up of dark matter. There's a resistive force that is about half the size of dark matter. The observable universe is only about 4% of the whole entire universe.
Some subatomic particles have characteristics of force. Are these impure and not worthy of being gods? Are forces gods too? After all, energy is not made or destroyed.
User1 responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.29.09 - 12:21 pm
damn, i wish i could get this shit as an RSS feed. there's just no way i'm ever going to read this. if i still had a job, i would totally have time for this shit.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
I'm religious, I worship the Holy Dong.
I'll show you my Holy Dong.
yep i said it!
good thing yours is the tiniest dong of them all
religion = truly tl;dr
faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
.
I didn't read any of this thread.
Just when you found it
![[freewill]](http://www.fastforwardblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/red-pill-or-blue-pill.jpg)
![[don't panic - hitchhikers guide to the galaxy]](http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/Don%27t_Panic.jpg)
My god, it's full of stars!