Now this post WAS NOT made to say religious people are stupid, it is to say religious people AND athesists are stupid.
Why do people not understand, religious people consistently believe that almighty god plopped the human onto the plannet and that was that, surley our all mighty god would have using a way of logic and reason to put his beings into existance.
Why do you athesis not understand, the matter of life, or that huge ball of energy that exploded to cause the big bang had to come from somewhere, i call that source god, you might want to call it creator or whatever.
If god was to tell jesus to explain Darwins theory of eveloution to people 2009 years ago how many people would believe it? How many people would be religious today... 0, they would all say Jesus is a mad man.
People need to open thier eyes, think more, then maybe we will not waste so much energy arguing over something so pointless.
Err,
you seem to be confusing two arguments.
1) The 'first cause' argument (ie something must have caused the 'Big Bang) doesn't really work unless you also say it doesn't apply to God. That is what we call 'special pleading' and doesn't really answer anything.
2) Evolution and the BB have very little to do with each other, unless you support some of the more speculative cosmologies (cf Lee Smolin) where universes are 'selected for' on the basis of their ability to support life.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Err,
you seem to be confusing two arguments.
1) The 'first cause' argument (ie something must have caused the 'Big Bang) doesn't really work unless you also say it doesn't apply to God. That is what we call 'special pleading' and doesn't really answer anything.
2) Evolution and the BB have very little to do with each other, unless you support some of the more speculative cosmologies (cf Lee Smolin) where universes are 'selected for' on the basis of their ability to support life. |
1) The matter for the universe had to come from somewhere, there had to be something that made it.
2) actually i think its all linked,
big bang
earth created
first organism bored
evoultion
humans! | ParsaAkbari wrote: |
| Why do you athesis not understand, the matter of life, or that huge ball of energy that exploded to cause the big bang had to come from somewhere, i call that source god, you might want to call it creator or whatever. |
Who is to say that something isn't the default state over nothing? Also it wasn't huge it was near infinitesmal, and it did NOT explode it expanded. And another thing, time as we understand it only exists as a property of the universe. So if the universe wasn't here there would have been no before or after or present.^^No.
1. Why did the matter have to come from somewhere? Didn't God have to come from somewhere? As Bikerman said, that logic doesn't hold up because if you say, "Where did the matter come from?" I'll reply with, "Where did God come from?" The only difference is that scientists have the ability to find out where matter came from but you'll never find out where "God (assuming God exists)" came from.
2. No. The theories have very little to do with each other. The Big Bang Theory is about the origin of the universe. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution is about the DIVERSITY of life AFTER it was formed. Evolution is just change over time. The theories are unrelated because if you somehow managed to debunk the BBT, the theory of evolution would still hold. Likewise, if you somehow manage to debunk the theory of evolution, the BBT would still hold.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The theories are unrelated because if you somehow managed to debunk the BBT, the theory of evolution would still hold. Likewise, if you somehow manage to debunk the theory of evolution, the BBT would still hold. |
And its not like either are going to be debunked anytime soon seeing as there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence for both of them and they have stood up to rigorous scientific experimentation. But for some reason people just don't get it. | ParsaAkbari wrote: |
Why do people not understand, religious people consistently believe that almighty god plopped the human onto the plannet and that was that, surley our all mighty god would have using a way of logic and reason to put his beings into existance.
Why do you athesis not understand, the matter of life, or that huge ball of energy that exploded to cause the big bang had to come from somewhere, i call that source god, you might want to call it creator or whatever.
If god was to tell jesus to explain Darwins theory of eveloution to people 2009 years ago how many people would believe it? How many people would be religious today... 0, they would all say Jesus is a mad man. |
So basically what you're saying is that the book from which you got the idea of God has stories that conflict with reality and that the book really only got a few right:
1.) There's an immortal, invisible guy with super powers that lives in the sky.
2.) That same magical guy impregnated a virgin in order for her to give birth to someone that really was himself.
3.) He telepathically contacted a few random people and instructed them to write down some stories, the majority of which are for some reason fiction. 
Completely believable! I mean they had to have gotten at least those two parts right. The whole book couldn't be fiction... nah, impossible. 
Just most, but definitely not the parts about an invisible guy and a "virgin" teen getting pregnant by said invisible guy. Happens all the time. 
Last edited by miacps on Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total | miacps wrote: |
So basically what you're saying is that the book from which you got the idea of God from has stories that conflict with reality and that the book really only got a few right:
1.) There's an immortal, invisible guy with super powers that lives in the sky.
2.) That same magical guy impregnated a virgin in order for her to give birth to someone that really was himself.
3.) He telepathically contacted a few random people and instructed them to write down some stories, the majority of which are for some reason fiction.
Completely believable! I mean they had to have gotten at least those two parts right. The whole book couldn't be fiction... nah, impossible. Just most, but definitely not the parts about an invisible guy and a "virgin" teen getting pregnant by said invisible guy. Happens all the time. |
I think that pretty much covers it.... | ParsaAkbari wrote: |
2) actually i think its all linked,
big bang
earth created
first organism bored
evoultion
humans! |
I saw a movie last night, only half before I got too tired to watch it further, called "Evolution" . Reminded me of this posting. Maybe it was a meteorite from outer space that hit the earth? 
This is a shortcut to a write-up about the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251075/(i don't really approve of this topic, and don't really have any interest in contributing, but...
| ParsaAkbari wrote: |
| 1) The matter for the universe had to come from somewhere, there had to be something that made it. |
Point 2 is just to silly to even comment on, but for point 1... are all the physicists here asleep at the wheel? ^_^; There are two physical objections to this point - one theoretical and one confirmed by observation. Anyone want to take a stab at it?) Err...yes, but I'll sit back and wait for others since I think you know what I'm going to say 
| Indi wrote: |
| ParsaAkbari wrote: | | 1) The matter for the universe had to come from somewhere, there had to be something that made it. |
Point 2 is just to silly to even comment on, but for point 1... are all the physicists here asleep at the wheel? ^_^; There are two physical objections to this point - one theoretical and one confirmed by observation. Anyone want to take a stab at it?) |
E=mc^2? I haven't taken any high level physics courses yet, but you asked if anyone wanted to take a stab at it and I thought I'd give it a shot. Isn't the point of that equation that at extremely high energies, energy can turn into mass? Wouldn't the enormous energy at the beginning of the big bang be able to create a lot of matter and antimatter? This has been observed with gamma rays, which have created electrons and anti-electrons.
Also, to take another approach (that I often use)... to ask "Where did this matter come from" is trivial because I can just as easily ask where God came from, and I can ask why are you assuming that nothing is the default over something.
So how did someone with a background on physics consisting of one class taken in high school do? I know I'm probably off a little (or a lot). | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | ParsaAkbari wrote: | | 1) The matter for the universe had to come from somewhere, there had to be something that made it. |
Point 2 is just to silly to even comment on, but for point 1... are all the physicists here asleep at the wheel? ^_^; There are two physical objections to this point - one theoretical and one confirmed by observation. Anyone want to take a stab at it?) |
E=mc^2? I haven't taken any high level physics courses yet, but you asked if anyone wanted to take a stab at it and I thought I'd give it a shot. Isn't the point of that equation that at extremely high energies, energy can turn into mass? Wouldn't the enormous energy at the beginning of the big bang be able to create a lot of matter and antimatter? This has been observed with gamma rays, which have created electrons and anti-electrons.
Also, to take another approach (that I often use)... to ask "Where did this matter come from" is trivial because I can just as easily ask where God came from, and I can ask why are you assuming that nothing is the default over something.
So how did someone with a background on physics consisting of one class taken in high school do? I know I'm probably off a little (or a lot). |
Furthermore who is to say that it isn't the default state of matter to exist rather than not exist? | Xanatos wrote: |
| Furthermore who is to say that it isn't the default state of matter to exist rather than not exist? |
That's pretty much what I said in the second part of my post. Asking where the matter came from is assuming that nothing is the default state over something. It's mind-boggling to think about because it's hard to imagine anything without something because if nothing existed (no energy, matter, etc.) what would there be? Would it be all blackness because that's the absense of even photons? but it's still hard to imagine that because there would still be something. So if there was nothing, nothing would even be here to contemplate anything... but if we had nothing for all eternity, how can nothing exist? I've wondered about that my whole non-Christian life (when I was a Christian, I just accepted that God had always existed, and even though I didn't understand how he could always exist, I planned on just asking him when I died).Whoa, from some of these posts sounds like ya need Jesus.
Can i ask....why (being religious) is so misconstrued in this topic as believing in Jesus Christ or Christianity. i mean aren't Muslims, Jews, or even Hindu religious groups?
in other words, it just sounds damn pathetic to blast Christians. Stating ones beliefs and opinions is one thing, telling them their dumb for thinking or believing something, well that is just dumb and you sound retarded.
| nolimitcare wrote: |
Whoa, from some of these posts sounds like ya need Jesus.
Can i ask....why (being religious) is so misconstrued in this topic as believing in Jesus Christ or Christianity. i mean aren't Muslims, Jews, or even Hindu religious groups?
in other words, it just sounds damn pathetic to blast Christians. Stating ones beliefs and opinions is one thing, telling them their dumb for thinking or believing something, well that is just dumb and you sound retarded. |
No, You sound retarded 
Sorry I have to act childish at least once a day....
Anyway, why do we attack christianity most of all? Well for one thing most of us live in country that is dominated by christians, and they are the most likely to post here and argue with us. Second... well that pretty much covers it on my end anyways. | nolimitcare wrote: |
Whoa, from some of these posts sounds like ya need Jesus.
Can i ask....why (being religious) is so misconstrued in this topic as believing in Jesus Christ or Christianity. i mean aren't Muslims, Jews, or even Hindu religious groups?
in other words, it just sounds damn pathetic to blast Christians. Stating ones beliefs and opinions is one thing, telling them their dumb for thinking or believing something, well that is just dumb and you sound retarded. |
I'm sorry... maybe I missed something... But I do not recall anyone here telling anyone that they're dumb for thinking of believing in what they think and believe. Many people here have attacked arguments, but nobody has attacked the person behind the argument - that's just rude. I am an open-minded person, and I always respect people's freedom to believe what they want to believe - even if I think it's silly. I have not blasted any Christians. Sure, I've blasted the hell out Christianity. But I'm an equal opportunist, I've attacked many other belief systems. You cannot expect to post your ideas on a public forum (especially when of us here actively engage in debating on online forums) and not expect to have them examined critically. Unless your posting your Christian ideas on a "Christians Only" website (or something along that line), then expect to have people who want to challenge your beliefs. That's what's so nice about the freedom of speech on a secular website.
If you do not want to have any of your ideas challenged, then I encourage you never to enter the academic world, where it's expected to have your ideas challenged (especially in science) to ensure that they hold up to the most intense scrutinty.
So I hope I made that clear. Nobody (at least on this post, and I'd hope nobody on this forum - for the most part) is attacking someone else. People are just attacking ideas. | nolimitcare wrote: |
| Whoa, from some of these posts sounds like ya need Jesus. |
I do but I can't seem to find him at the moment.
| nolimitcare wrote: |
| Can i ask....why (being religious) is so misconstrued in this topic as believing in Jesus Christ or Christianity. i mean aren't Muslims, Jews, or even Hindu religious groups? |
The OP explicitly mentioned Jesus so it's safe to assume that he's a Christian. If he's Christian, there's no need to address him as if he were a Muslim, Jew, or Hindu.
Or were you talking about the OP mentioning that if everyone thought Jesus was a madman, zero people would be religious today? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | ParsaAkbari wrote: | | 1) The matter for the universe had to come from somewhere, there had to be something that made it. |
Point 2 is just to silly to even comment on, but for point 1... are all the physicists here asleep at the wheel? ^_^; There are two physical objections to this point - one theoretical and one confirmed by observation. Anyone want to take a stab at it?) |
E=mc^2? I haven't taken any high level physics courses yet, but you asked if anyone wanted to take a stab at it and I thought I'd give it a shot. Isn't the point of that equation that at extremely high energies, energy can turn into mass? Wouldn't the enormous energy at the beginning of the big bang be able to create a lot of matter and antimatter? This has been observed with gamma rays, which have created electrons and anti-electrons.
Also, to take another approach (that I often use)... to ask "Where did this matter come from" is trivial because I can just as easily ask where God came from, and I can ask why are you assuming that nothing is the default over something.
So how did someone with a background on physics consisting of one class taken in high school do? I know I'm probably off a little (or a lot). |
You get five stars! ^_^; Your terminology is spotty, but considering your background is a single high-school class, this is forgivable. But your ideas are spot on. i'll use some physics terminology for perspective:
Before around a millionth of a second after the big bang, the physics is a little spotty - but that's not a problem for us here, because matter as we know it was mostly created after that, in the period where our physics works and is fairly well understood. At that point - starting from around a millionth of a second after the big bang - the universe was a hot quark-gluon plasma. This plasma cooled over the next couple of minutes, condensing into the matter we know now (protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons).
Naturally the next question is where the quark-gluon plasma came from. You have already answered this: it formed around a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang right out of the raw energy of the big bang using E = mc² (electrons were created about the same time, the same way). In this part of the big bang, there are still a lot of questions - but mostly about other details (such as how the bosons were created). The creation of the quark-gluon plasma, and the leptons (such as electrons) is pretty well understood.
So that's the first answer to the question of where matter came from - it condensed from the energy of the big bang in ways we understand quite well (and observe all the time in colliders).
The second answer is more exotic, but has also been observed. Matter can spontaneously appear. It is a fact that undermines all of these lame creationist objections to the big bang, but actually can. ParsaAkbari's statement, "The matter for the universe had to come from somewhere....", is simply wrong. Period. It's just plain wrong, and we have observed it to be wrong. Matter can come from nowhere.
The secret is vacuum fluctuations. The "fabric" of our universe is not and never has been stable - not by a long shot. It is a furiously bubbling and heaving surface down at the Planck level. Every so often, the fabric of reality simply... burps... and virtual particles are created (they are also created during interactions, but that's not important now). Literally, right from out of nowhere, without the need for anything to "balance" or "conserve". They just come from nowhere. Usually these particles exist in a state where they both exist and don't exist, and given enough time, non-existence wins out, and they poof back into nothingness. But under the right conditions, the balance of states can be changed, and a virtual particle can be "boosted" into existence. Voilà - matter from nowhere. Suck on that, creationists. And this is not theory. This can and has been observed.
So there you go, two physical answers - both backed up by evidence and observation - to how matter can come into existence without the need for "something that made it".^^Thank you for the more in depth explanation. I must admit, that in terms of cosmology and any advanced physics (like relativity), I have very limited knowledge. I haven't taken any upper level physics classes, but I would like to some day. The one year of physics that I did take in high school was a very good class, but I wasn't taught any of that. The class that I took was very focused around Newtonian physics, light, mechanics, etc.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ^^Thank you for the more in depth explanation. I must admit, that in terms of cosmology and any advanced physics (like relativity), I have very limited knowledge. I haven't taken any upper level physics classes, but I would like to some day. The one year of physics that I did take in high school was a very good class, but I wasn't taught any of that. The class that I took was very focused around Newtonian physics, light, mechanics, etc. |
Don't knock the basics! ^_^; You may not have learned about quark-gluon plasmas, but you understood the nature of matter and energy well enough to intuit the answer. And that from a high school physics class!
See, this is the fundamental difference between a truly humble scientific mind, and the mind of a religious fool. Your mind, when confronted with a question you did not know the answer to, went: "Well, i don't know what the answer is, but i do know of this other phenomenon that seems somewhat applicable... i wonder if it is." Then you suggested the notion, at risk of ridicule for being way off, and asked for feedback to see how well your understanding is. Contrast that with the religious mind that, when confronted with a question it does not know the answer to, goes: "God knows. So i don't need to know," and ends it there. And then compare that to the mind of a religious fool to says that, then adds: "And anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion is deluded." or "And there can be no other conclusion." (And then has the gall to accuse the scientist of arrogance. ^_^) | Indi wrote: |
Don't knock the basics! ^_^; You may not have learned about quark-gluon plasmas, but you understood the nature of matter and energy well enough to intuit the answer. And that from a high school physics class!
See, this is the fundamental difference between a truly humble scientific mind, and the mind of a religious fool. Your mind, when confronted with a question you did not know the answer to, went: "Well, i don't know what the answer is, but i do know of this other phenomenon that seems somewhat applicable... i wonder if it is." Then you suggested the notion, at risk of ridicule for being way off, and asked for feedback to see how well your understanding is. Contrast that with the religious mind that, when confronted with a question it does not know the answer to, goes: "God knows. So i don't need to know," and ends it there. And then compare that to the mind of a religious fool to says that, then adds: "And anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion is deluded." or "And there can be no other conclusion." (And then has the gall to accuse the scientist of arrogance. ^_^) |
I wasn't knocking the basics! I just wish I knew a lot more about these types of things. I have a lot of trouble with cosmology, relativity, etc. because I simply am not at that level yet. I know enough of the very basics to debunk the typical Creationist arguments that I hear (and I owe that knowledge to several people on youtube.com that make videos in response to many Creationist videos). But when it comes down to it, I know almost nothing.
I'm much better with evolution (and biology in general) because I have taken more classes. With physics, I know many of the basics because I took that one class in high school. I am fortunate that I had an extremely good experience with that class (that physics teacher was actually featured in a documentary shown in universities to perspective science teachers on how to teach high school science), so I have a sound background on the basics. That teacher wasn't even too interested in us knowing physics, but that was ironically the teaching style that got everyone to understand physics.
If I wasn't so interested in mathematics, I would take more physics courses. I'd also take more biology courses; I've always wanted to be an evolutionary biologist simply because I love debating Creationism vs. Evolution so much... and I want to be responsible for getting at least one Creationist to accept evolution in my lifetime.
So I thank you again for better explanation. I wasn't too sure what E=MC^2 was before this (because every time I've ever asked someone, they've gone on to give me some extremely confusing answer that is mind-boggling), but I had a guess (based on a little background knowledge). I knew that E was energy, M was mass, and C was the speed of light. So then there has to be some relationship between energy and mass. At some point, they have to equal each other. I wasn't sure if it was that at very high speeds (the speed of light squared, which would be impossible, correct?) mass becomes energy, or if a lot of energy can become mass... Now I need to start doing more research on this.i'm religious in a scientific sort of way..
| Indi wrote: |
| And then compare that to the mind of a religious fool to says that, then adds: "And anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion is deluded." or "And there can be no other conclusion." (And then has the gall to accuse the scientist of arrogance. ^_^) |
How would this argument fit in with the title of Richard Dawson's book: The God Delusion? People who are religious are probably deluded? And so people who are religious are probably fools? Atheists are probably not deluded as they use scientific tools to evaluate their facts? Anyone who does not agree with atheist conclusions is probably deluded. Atheists are probably not arrogant people, they are just more certain of their facts in the presence of religious fools? | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | And then compare that to the mind of a religious fool to says that, then adds: "And anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion is deluded." or "And there can be no other conclusion." (And then has the gall to accuse the scientist of arrogance. ^_^) |
How would this argument fit in with the title of Richard Dawson's book: The God Delusion? People who are religious are probably deluded? And so people who are religious are probably fools? Atheists are probably not deluded as they use scientific tools to evaluate their facts? Anyone who does not agree with atheist conclusions is probably deluded. Atheists are probably not arrogant people, they are just more certain of their facts in the presence of religious fools? |
What argument? i just asked Afaceinthematrix to compare the ways different kinds of minds respond to questions they do not know the answers to. That is a suggestion, or a request, not an argument.
And what do Dawkins or his book have to do with that? Or any of those other questions you asked? | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | And then compare that to the mind of a religious fool to says that, then adds: "And anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion is deluded." or "And there can be no other conclusion." (And then has the gall to accuse the scientist of arrogance. ^_^) |
How would this argument fit in with the title of Richard Dawson's book: The God Delusion? People who are religious are probably deluded? And so people who are religious are probably fools? Atheists are probably not deluded as they use scientific tools to evaluate their facts? Anyone who does not agree with atheist conclusions is probably deluded. Atheists are probably not arrogant people, they are just more certain of their facts in the presence of religious fools? |
What argument? i just asked Afaceinthematrix to compare the ways different kinds of minds respond to questions they do not know the answers to. That is a suggestion, or a request, not an argument.
And what do Dawkins or his book have to do with that? Or any of those other questions you asked? |
Sorry Indi. It was a clumsy reply. Think it was prompted by your general statement of how a religious fool would look at the facts. I thought there was a touch of delusion in that as not all people who are religious disregard scientific facts. If I can remember when I was at University, our Science Department had most of the "religious fools" (if you would like to call them that). And they were the brainiest in science and math. So possibly there is a delusion somewhere that most religious people disregard scientific facts. And believe in Genesis as a literal translation. That is a delusion. To add to this, the category of religious friends I knew, who were quite serious about science and math, were quite modest and humble, and modesty and humbleness are actually helpfull in exploring science, as people like that may be more open and receptive to alternative theories. There are exceptions of course of truly "religious fools", but not all people who are religious are fools in this category. That is a delusion. Of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world are people with religious beliefs. | deanhills wrote: |
| Sorry Indi. It was a clumsy reply. Think it was prompted by your general statement of how a religious fool would look at the facts. I thought there was a touch of delusion in that as not all people who are religious disregard scientific facts. |
Which is why i said religious fool, not religious person. In fact, i explicitly differentiated between a generally religious person, and a religious fool.
| deanhills wrote: |
| If I can remember when I was at University, our Science Department had most of the "religious fools" (if you would like to call them that). And they were the brainiest in science and math. |
You know, a religious person is not actually religious 24/7. They're not being religious when they brush their teeth, for example. They're only religious when and if they think religious thoughts, or or do things relating to their religion.
Your brainy friends were not doing anything religious when they worked on their science and math. When they were solving equations or doing experiments, they were thinking like scientists and mathematicians.
If your brainy friends stumble upon a problem in math or science that is new to them, what do they do? Do they:
- Ask around to see if anyone else has solved similar problems, and then try to solve it themselves methodically?
- Decide that God knows the answer, and if God wanted them to know, he would tell them.
- Decide that God knows the answer, and if God wanted them to know, he would tell them. And that anyone who tries to find answers that don't jive with what they believe must be deluded and should be stopped.
Depending on which choice they make, they are thinking like a:
- scientist
- religious person
- religious fool
There is no contradiction in thinking like a scientist when doing science and thinking like a religious person when at church. As you said, this was how many of the greatest minds today and all throughout history worked.
Take Newton for example. Newton was a religious crackpot with ridiculous religious beliefs by our standards, but he took them damn seriously. But when he did math and physics, he usually thought like a mathematician and/or scientist - in fact, he pretty much wrote the book on how to think like a mathematician and a scientist. Note that i said usually... because Newton wasn't perfect. Sometimes he let his religion slip into his science, and that fuggered up his science. Famously, he claimed he didn't have to solve the action-at-a-distance problem of gravity because God was the answer. Thankfully, other people - many of them deeply religious (because at that time, there was little other option), managed to put their religion aside and think like scientists when doing the science.
Or, if you want a philosophical model, look at Kant. Kant was probably the first truly modern philosopher, and he was one of the first to try to formulate a completely non-religious formal deontological theory of morality. And he made remarkable progress... but failed to complete it because he fell back on his religious beliefs about morality. Others completed his work.
There is no contradiction in being a religious scientist. But you can't be religious when you're doing science, and you can't be a scientist when you're at church (just try and disprove the God hypothesis during the sermon, and see how popular you are in that congregation ^_^).Thanks Indi, you've written good postings, but relative to me, this one has been better than excellent!
This posting brought to mind what my sister tried to tell me when I was on holiday with her in South Africa in October last year. That when we relate to other people, we neglect to really appreciate that they are completely different from us. So these bright scientists I was talking about must have related to religion in a totally different way than what I had been thinking about. They would have dealt with their religion, like they would have dealt with their science. Systematically, and probably much less complicated way than for someone who was into psychology for example. And yes, religion would have had its one place, and science another. These guys were religious nuts Indi. Their beliefs were completely on the white and black level. No gray areas. Just total certainty, clarity. Absolutes. I probably will never comprehend a 100% but at least now know where some of it comes from. Interesting stuff!
are u a religous person?????
well i am cuz i believe in god ^^
