The cake is real. It reminds you of your 5th birthday, which is also the day your mother died.
You kill yourself through a portal paradox.
Glados reboots. She starts talking about something. She's confused, and talks about the last thing she saw. The last thing she apparently saw was a 5 year old's birthday party.
Any pro-lifers here, I have a question: If a fetus early in development is a human being, then why don't you hold funerals for them?
The same reason most people don't hold funerals for pets.
Moreover, a great deal of fetuses self-abort. If I remember correctly, the number was 1 out of every 3.
Sauce?
However, I never hear about people holding funerals for undeveloped fetuses. What's the matter, they human, but not AS human as a baby that was born already?
Wait, who are you talking about? The people getting abortions should hold funerals or the people who just happen to hear about dead fetuses should hold funerals?
Also, we have a lot more to celebrate, with things like family members, things to remember about them. One of the reasons we hold funerals is to remember a person, and if you don't have memories of a person, you cannot comment on their life... Or have a good funeral.
And I also notice that most "pro-lifers" support the death penalty. Pro-life is anti-woman.
We don't know weather or not a fetus will grow up to be bad or not.
We only know that it will grow up to be... Well, a baby.
(I happen to be pro-choice, I just hate it when people talk like this)
Not theories? Scientific theories aren't the same as theories under a colloquial definition. Theories are the lofty goal of science, not just "educated guesses". Theories are large bodies of information that all point to a unifying umbrella concept. Both General and Special Relativity are theories. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Aside from a few nuts that don't have a clue what these theories actually say, these are completely undisputed facts.
A theory is better than fact, which is just a single point of data. Hell, a theory is better than a law, which is a patter of the universe's behavior.
In all honesty this is irrelevant to your question though. The answer is "I don't know." Before one Planck Time, we can't say anything with any sort of certainty about the universe. I already explained this in this thread, but I suppose I can't count on you to do something as responsible as reading a thread before replying to it.
But here's the deal: You don't know either. As far as knowledge goes, we are on equal ground. However, as I have already said in this thread, scientists have several really good hypotheses about how the singularity that would become the universe came to be, and none of them involve a magical man. All of these explanations involve nothing that we don't have evidence for. Magic men are not supported by evidence.
So what was your point exactly?
BTW: YOU STILL ARE IGNORING MY POINTS. Maybe if I put it in big enough text you'll have no excuse to ignore it.
Nazzer, another thing...
Why can't people believe in religion?
Ha. Nice. Bye, I'm ignoring your idiocy from now on, you obviously don't care about having a discussion.
Hey, HEY, just wanting to learn your reasoning. Just like in a classroom, man, you should be allowed to asked questions.
"Teacher, why does 2 times 2 equal four?"
"Ha. Nice. Bye, I'm ignoring your idiocy from now on, you obviously don't care about having an education."
Ignoring me only makes you look like another one of those "super superior atheists who think they know
everything." I personally am atheist, but what are religious people doing wrong?
Nazzer, if you're so knowledgeable at the universe and everything... Tell me something...
Can you tell me what created the universe? Explain only in science LAWS (not theories, they're not proven) and facts.
Not theories? Scientific theories aren't the same as theories under a colloquial definition. Theories are the lofty goal of science, not just "educated guesses". Theories are large bodies of information that all point to a unifying umbrella concept. Both General and Special Relativity are theories. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Aside from a few nuts that don't have a clue what these theories actually say, these are completely undisputed facts.
A theory is better than fact, which is just a single point of data. Hell, a theory is better than a law, which is a patter of the universe's behavior.
In all honesty this is irrelevant to your question though. The answer is "I don't know." Before one Planck Time, we can't say anything with any sort of certainty about the universe. I already explained this in this thread, but I suppose I can't count on you to do something as responsible as reading a thread before replying to it.
But here's the deal: You don't know either. As far as knowledge goes, we are on equal ground. However, as I have already said in this thread, scientists have several really good hypotheses about how the singularity that would become the universe came to be, and none of them involve a magical man. All of these explanations involve nothing that we don't have evidence for. Magic men are not supported by evidence.
So what was your point exactly?
BTW: YOU STILL ARE IGNORING MY POINTS. Maybe if I put it in big enough text you'll have no excuse to ignore it.
Read it with tone? Do me a favor, read the following with an angry tone:
"No, Gay people are everywhere!"
Now read it with an explanatory tone.
Reading it with an angry tone makes it sound like a complaint. Maybe the person saying it angrily is homophobic? You might expect him to follow that statement with "It's getting on my nerves!".
On the other hand, reading it with an explanatory tone makes it sound like a person correcting someone's statement that gay people are rare. Perhaps he might next say "They just don't always look different from everyone else."
Now, what "tone" are you trying to get me to read that paragraph with?
The exclamation point automatically makes that sentence "angry" to me.
So the tone of that "No, Gay people are everywhere!" paragraph is angry.
And please, don't pretend like you don't know what kind of tone.
You're just grasping at straws.
I didn't ask "Now, what "tone" are you trying to get me to read that paragraph with?" because I didn't know. I asked because I wanted to see you try to justify it, but given that you assume that every exclamation point means a sentence is angry, I suppose you just answered the question: You just don't have any good justification. "Mom, I love you so much!" is obviously an angry sentence. Yeah.
I'd also like to point out how much I love how you continue to completely disregard points you don't have a response to. It makes you look so competent.
No, I am not saying "Mom, I love you so much!" is an angry sentence.
You really like to take things out of context.
I'm saying that certain sentences can be taken out of context if not put into proper spelling and grammar.
(Oh, and the competence thing SURE SOUNDS GOOD when you have some yourself.)
Read it with tone? Do me a favor, read the following with an angry tone:
"No, Gay people are everywhere!"
Now read it with an explanatory tone.
Reading it with an angry tone makes it sound like a complaint. Maybe the person saying it angrily is homophobic? You might expect him to follow that statement with "It's getting on my nerves!".
On the other hand, reading it with an explanatory tone makes it sound like a person correcting someone's statement that gay people are rare. Perhaps he might next say "They just don't always look different from everyone else."
Now, what "tone" are you trying to get me to read that paragraph with?
The exclamation point automatically makes that sentence "angry" to me.
So the tone of that "No, Gay people are everywhere!" paragraph is angry.
And please, don't pretend like you don't know what kind of tone.
You're just grasping at straws.
And you say these are "things science can't answer"? Well just because we can't answer them now doesn't mean we never will. Furthermore, all of those questions HAVE been answered by science. Time started at the moment of the big bang. The singularity that would expand into our universe was probably a singularity present in another universe, and when it became unstable it began to expand rapidly, generating separate time and space from its parent universe.
Lastly, just because we dont' have an answer to a question doens't mean we are justified in following whatever superstition claims to have an answer. If you don't know, then the correct answer is not "My religion tells me this, so it must be true", instead its "I don't know, but let's find out".
Katamari, where did I ever say that science will answer every question?
"And you say these are "things science can't answer"? Well just because we can't answer them now doesn't mean we never will. Furthermore, all of those questions HAVE been answered by science."
Why can't they? I personally think it's good to believe, sometimes. I mean, would you rather have the diagnosis of "You have cancer with no hope of living and there is no heaven," or "You have cancer, but God is on your side, and Heaven will be waiting for you if you die"?
Because there are laws to the human race, we could probably never learn anything that has to do with those laws. So no, you can't do every science experiment with a controlled test. Because raping babies is illegal.
I like Daft Punk, but I'm not going to make a whole topic being like "Hey kids, listen to this music! If you don't like it, listen to it again because I know you'll love it!"
0
You kill yourself through a portal paradox.
Glados reboots. She starts talking about something. She's confused, and talks about the last thing she saw. The last thing she apparently saw was a 5 year old's birthday party.
0
The same reason most people don't hold funerals for pets.
Sauce?
Wait, who are you talking about? The people getting abortions should hold funerals or the people who just happen to hear about dead fetuses should hold funerals?
Also, we have a lot more to celebrate, with things like family members, things to remember about them. One of the reasons we hold funerals is to remember a person, and if you don't have memories of a person, you cannot comment on their life... Or have a good funeral.
We don't know weather or not a fetus will grow up to be bad or not.
We only know that it will grow up to be... Well, a baby.
(I happen to be pro-choice, I just hate it when people talk like this)
0
Hey, HEY, just wanting to learn your reasoning. Just like in a classroom, man, you should be allowed to asked questions.
"Teacher, why does 2 times 2 equal four?"
"Ha. Nice. Bye, I'm ignoring your idiocy from now on, you obviously don't care about having an education."
Ignoring me only makes you look like another one of those "super superior atheists who think they know
everything." I personally am atheist, but what are religious people doing wrong?
0
Nazzer, another thing...
Why can't people believe in religion?
0
Can you tell me what created the universe? Explain only in science LAWS (not theories, they're not proven) and facts.
0
No, I am not saying "Mom, I love you so much!" is an angry sentence.
You really like to take things out of context.
I'm saying that certain sentences can be taken out of context if not put into proper spelling and grammar.
(Oh, and the competence thing SURE SOUNDS GOOD when you have some yourself.)
0
The exclamation point automatically makes that sentence "angry" to me.
So the tone of that "No, Gay people are everywhere!" paragraph is angry.
And please, don't pretend like you don't know what kind of tone.
You're just grasping at straws.
0
This last paragraph. Read it. Read it with tone.
0
Yeah... You've already pretty much broken that.
There's no reason to continue this topic if it's going to be flames and trolls.
TOPIC'S CLOSED
DUE TO RELIGIOUS FLAMES
0
Because it's a bible that's "obviously fake" that people on the internet still believe.
Including me.
0
I'm gonna go ahead and mention lolcat bible just to **** off Nazzer.
0
"And you say these are "things science can't answer"? Well just because we can't answer them now doesn't mean we never will. Furthermore, all of those questions HAVE been answered by science."
0
Yes, actually. You said that science will be able to find out everything.
That's includes the science of raping babies.
Also, it a matter of philosophical debate. Some say god doesn't save people because he has different plans for them.
0
...Nazzer?
...Nazzer...?
NAZZER! SNAP OUT OF IT!
People can believe what they what.
Why can't they? I personally think it's good to believe, sometimes. I mean, would you rather have the diagnosis of "You have cancer with no hope of living and there is no heaven," or "You have cancer, but God is on your side, and Heaven will be waiting for you if you die"?
Because there are laws to the human race, we could probably never learn anything that has to do with those laws. So no, you can't do every science experiment with a controlled test. Because raping babies is illegal.
0
I like Daft Punk, but I'm not going to make a whole topic being like "Hey kids, listen to this music! If you don't like it, listen to it again because I know you'll love it!"