Religious affiliation of Conquer Clubers?

[TeletubbyPrince]

I feel like there has to be a greater being, even if you CAN trace the Universe to a single, massively dense atom. SOMEONE had to have started it all.

That's a hypocritical thing to say and it betrays your lack of knowledge concerning the matter.

Hypocritical?

For a teacher, you're not too bright. Bringing a higher being into the picture raises more questions than it solves, ergo it is hypocritical to use one as an explanation.

[Army of GOD]

I feel like there has to be a greater being, even if you CAN trace the Universe to a single, massively dense atom. SOMEONE had to have started it all.

That's a hypocritical thing to say and it betrays your lack of knowledge concerning the matter.

Hypocritical?

I don't get it either.

I'm young and am coming off 18 years of being forced into Catholicism. Organized religion doesn't do it for me, the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of religions in the world (not just the major) makes them seem illegitimate. I have time to think and think I shall. If you don't like it, then too bad.

[Woodruff]

I feel like there has to be a greater being, even if you CAN trace the Universe to a single, massively dense atom. SOMEONE had to have started it all.

That's a hypocritical thing to say and it betrays your lack of knowledge concerning the matter.

Hypocritical?

Dunno about hypocritical but I have always found that argument to be very dissatisfying.

I agree with that. It simply doesn't fit "hypocritical".

I feel like there has to be a greater being, even if you CAN trace the Universe to a single, massively dense atom. SOMEONE had to have started it all.

That's a hypocritical thing to say and it betrays your lack of knowledge concerning the matter.

Hypocritical?

For a teacher, you're not too bright. Bringing a higher being into the picture raises more questions than it solves, ergo it is hypocritical to use one as an explanation.

For someone who will likely be removed from the site soon, you should learn how to use a dictionary.

[captainwalrus]

W00t! I'm Conquerclub's only jew!

[TeletubbyPrince]

For someone who will likely be removed from the site soon, you should learn how to use a dictionary.

u mad?

[Baron Von PWN]

W00t! I'm Conquerclub's only jew!

Haha I was surprised at the lack of Jews actually, as well as the majority Seculars.

[Woodruff]

For someone who will likely be removed from the site soon, you should learn how to use a dictionary.

u mad?

Not even remotely.

[luns101]

That's a hypocritical thing to say and it betrays your lack of knowledge concerning the matter.

For a teacher, you're not too bright. Bringing a higher being into the picture raises more questions than it solves, ergo it is hypocritical to use one as an explanation.

[ser stiefel]

I feel like there has to be a greater being, even if you CAN trace the Universe to a single, massively dense atom. SOMEONE had to have started it all.

That's a hypocritical thing to say and it betrays your lack of knowledge concerning the matter.

Stephen Hawking leaves it open, that it could very well have been God. There isn't any way to know for sure, since time itself came into existence at that moment, so the question "what happened before the big bang?" doesn't really even make sense since there was no time before the big bang. At least none that makes any sense from our point of view.

Me: Christian, Pentecostal.

[TeletubbyPrince]

For someone who will likely be removed from the site soon, you should learn how to use a dictionary.

u mad?

Not even remotely.

You mad.

Stephen Hawking leaves it open, that it could very well have been God. There isn't any way to know for sure, since time itself came into existence at that moment, so the question "what happened before the big bang?" doesn't really even make sense since there was no time before the big bang. At least none that makes any sense from our point of view.

You don't even understand what the 'big bang' theory is and to make matters worse you call it by the most ignorant term possible. Here's where you're wrong, "Mr. Hawkings" (by the way, inventing gay personas for yourself doesn't lend you any credability) saying there was no time before the creation of this universe is irrelevant because you can still logically draw the conclusion that there was a cosmic expansion from a singularity, and that the matter of the resulting universe was always in existance (it does not just 'magically appear' as your delusional rant would suggest). Why matter is eternal has not been determined, however "eternal matter" raises fewer questions than "an eternal God who created eternal matter" and this is not up to debate.

Considering you are a troll, this is somewhat redundant, however I will point out to you that I never claimed there was no possibility of higher powers. I only said that using a God as an awnser only leads to further questions and thus someone seeking to unwravel the mysteries of this universe is being counter productive by jumping to that conclusion.

Damn I just replied to a strawman argument

[ser stiefel]

(by the way, inventing gay personas for yourself doesn't lend you any credability)

lol, what? (honestly, I am really chuckling right now!)

For someone who will likely be removed from the site soon, you should learn how to use a dictionary.

u mad?

Not even remotely.

You mad.

Stephen Hawking leaves it open, that it could very well have been God. There isn't any way to know for sure, since time itself came into existence at that moment, so the question "what happened before the big bang?" doesn't really even make sense since there was no time before the big bang. At least none that makes any sense from our point of view.

You don't even understand what the 'big bang' theory is and to make matters worse you call it by the most ignorant term possible. Here's where you're wrong, "Mr. Hawkings" (by the way, inventing gay personas for yourself doesn't lend you any credability) saying there was no time before the creation of this universe is irrelevant because you can still logically draw the conclusion that there was a cosmic expansion from a singularity, and that the matter of the resulting universe was always in existance (it does not just 'magically appear' as your delusional rant would suggest). Why matter is eternal has not been determined, however "eternal matter" raises fewer questions than "an eternal God who created eternal matter" and this is not up to debate.

Considering you are a troll, this is somewhat redundant, however I will point out to you that I never claimed there was no possibility of higher powers. I only said that using a God as an awnser only leads to further questions and thus someone seeking to unwravel the mysteries of this universe is being counter productive by jumping to that conclusion.

Damn I just replied to a strawman argument

I have recently re-read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, and was just commenting on what one of the world's leading theoretical physicists had to say on the issue of the possibility of the existence of God. Nothing more than that. Oh, and by the way, Stephen Hawking, in chapter 8 of said book, refers to the "big bang".

[Neoteny]

To be fair, history of time was published in the late 80s... science moves on.

[GabonX]

Considering you are a troll, this is somewhat redundant...

Yes, Woodruff just trolls about the forums. He's always looking to pick a fight, just for the hell of it!

I see impotent American swine causing a ruckus over things they do not understand. I am of course, talking about the idiots on this forum - not the idiots in those videos. Perhaps woodruff, gabon, etc. should take a look in the mirror before they go pointing fingers. Their pretentious demeaniours and obnoxious guffaws are amusingly ironic and I would hate for them to embarass themselves further.

[size]Ahaha I jest; I revel in their bafoonery and laugh at their ass-like ways.[/size]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 7#p2319267

What were you saying about hypocrisy again?

[TeletubbyPrince]

I have recently re-read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, and was just commenting on what one of the world's leading theoretical physicists had to say on the issue of the possibility of the existence of God. Nothing more than that. Oh, and by the way, Stephen Hawking, in chapter 8 of said book, refers to the "big bang".

If he is indeed a leading theoretical physicist, then why was he not associated with the resonance cascade, Alexis Vance or Black Mesa? Sounds like a goddamned hack to me. Big bang is a very informal term btw, he was likely using it to reach monkey skulled cretins of this planet -

Speaking of which, it's Gibbons!

blah blah blah

Do not derail this thread any further, simpleton. I have no desire to discuss the forum drama that you so eagerly lambaste me with; go speak about it with your mother, I know all to well that she takes an intrest in gossip (amongst other things

[pimpdave]

Is there a separate option for the Mormons to take? Cause if they're claiming to be Protestant Christians, then they're just full of it.

That religion has nothing to do with Christianity, no matter how much lying to they do to try and convince you it does. Just like Islam really has nothing to do with Christianity.

But hopefully there's no Mormons tainting up the sample, because at least that would mean the protestants still outnumber the papists. The only thing more retarded than the Mormons are people who kneel before some made-up better than you Queen who gets up and lectures you about things like hypocrisy, and how none of that applies to him and he has the gold to prove it.

[Baron Von PWN]

Is there a separate option for the Mormons to take? Cause if they're claiming to be Protestant Christians, then they're just full of it.

That religion has nothing to do with Christianity, no matter how much lying to they do to try and convince you it does. Just like Islam really has nothing to do with Christianity.

But hopefully there's no Mormons tainting up the sample, because at least that would mean the protestants still outnumber the papists. The only thing more retarded than the Mormons are people who kneel before some made-up better than you Queen who gets up and lectures you about things like hypocrisy, and how none of that applies to him and he has the gold to prove it.

there is the other option. I would point out that Christianity is simply a religion which views Jesus as the son of god, so under that definition Mormons would fit.

[pimpdave]

No, Mormons do not fit. And you are completely wrong in your definition. By that logic, there should be no split between Catholics and Protestants, or hell, even between Shia and Sunni.

Thread FAIL.

[2dimes]

Dave is probably trying to tell us that mormans should choose "orthodox" because they have the priesthood.

[pimpdave]

Mormons aren't Christians. It's a separate religion made up off pieces of Christianity, the same way Christianity is made up off of Judaism and Islam is made up off of both Judaism and Christianity.

This is not so hard to understand.

[2dimes]

So kind of like agnostic was not a word?

[pimpdave]

What?

You must be referencing something I have no idea about that doesn't even remotely apply to the fact that Mormons aren't Christians. It's some weird cult like Scientology or David Koresh or Charles Manson. Those could all be blanketed together.

[2dimes]

Are you some kind of Christian?

So this isn't a stretch at all? Scientologists and Branch Davidians.

[Titanic]

I have heard that Sikhism is a sort of fusion between a more moderate Islam and Hinduism. Is this an accurate description?

Theres a fair amount of overlap between Sikhism and Hinduism, but thats understandable as Sikhism was born out of Hinduism (like Christianity came out of Judaism). A lot of Sikhism is actually about correcting the wrongs of Hinduism (multiple gods, class system, gender inequality etc..). The links with Islam are very weak and the main interactions between Sikism and Islam didn't come for a couple of centuries, and that was only when the Mughals attacked the Sikhs.

This might be for another thread and I'm prepped to move to one.

Is there a dude that some sikhs believe is god? Some guys where I was working mentioned this once and everyone had to go so I never really got a chance to discuss it.

In Sikhism theres the belief that there is only one god, and thats it. I'm hardly a scholar I've just been brought up with Sikhism, but I don't think too much is said about his character or who he is etc.. just that there is only one god, and the founders of the religion themself are not gods but just humans.

[lurkerleader]

I chose other because I am undecided, but I was raised as a Mormon so I do know their beliefs and that the common North American citizen has an extremely skewed and biased opinion of their church due to the simple fact that whatever is on TV must the exact 'truth'.

What?
You must be referencing something I have no idea about that doesn't even remotely apply to the fact that Mormons aren't Christians. It's some weird cult like Scientology or David Koresh or Charles Manson. Those could all be blanketed together.

Please learn to do some research before posting your own thoughts... Saying Mormons are not Christians, but some random cult proves that your either A: hypocritical yourself, B: not talking about real Mormans at all ( perhaps you are thinking of the media famed "Reformed Mormons", which have no affiliation to the church at all ) or C:Do not understand the core meaning to the word Christian ( The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints )

That religion has nothing to do with Christianity, no matter how much lying to they do to try and convince you it does. Just like Islam really has nothing to do with Christianity.
But hopefully there's no Mormons tainting up the sample, because at least that would mean the protestants still outnumber the papists. The only thing more retarded than the Mormons are people who kneel before some made-up better than you Queen who gets up and lectures you about things like hypocrisy, and how none of that applies to him and he has the gold to prove it.

Now I am no Theologian but any religion that believes in Christ as the saviour, messiah, son of god is defined as being Christian.


Here you are clearly implying that this religion is bogus/non-Christian/retarded, please tell me in a well researched and defined manner why you believe this via a PM..

[2dimes]

This might be for another thread and I'm prepped to move to one.

Is there a dude that some sikhs believe is god? Some guys where I was working mentioned this once and everyone had to go so I never really got a chance to discuss it.

In Sikhism theres the belief that there is only one god, and thats it. I'm hardly a scholar I've just been brought up with Sikhism, but I don't think too much is said about his character or who he is etc.. just that there is only one god, and the founders of the religion themself are not gods but just humans.

No worries titan, thanks for responding. The conversation was something like.
Sikh dude, "Well I'm Sikh actually."
Other guy 1 "Oh, whatever that means."
Other guy 2, "It means he thinks ******* is god."
Sikh dude, chuckles, "No, I don't think, ******* is god."
Other guy 2, "Well most sikhs do."
Sikh dude, "Yes, lots of sikhs do think ******* is god." Chuckles again.

I regret not asking more questions, It's been so long I can't remember the name or anything. I really wish I was able to find out more at the time.