Dark Matter Blob Confounds Experts

Status
Not open for further replies.
dadman said:
I believe that mutations in general don't live very long, and can't reproduce either. Bacteria build up immunities to antibiotics just like we build up immunities to them. It's called adaptation, not evolution. By the way, there is no know cure for any virus, we can only suppress them. Viruses do not respond to antibiotics either.
Click to expand...

The pertinent question is; how does a virus respond to dark matter?
 
dadman said:
I believe that mutations in general don't live very long, and can't reproduce either. Bacteria build up immunities to antibiotics just like we build up immunities to them. It's called adaptation, not evolution. By the way, there is no know cure for any virus, we can only suppress them. Viruses do not respond to antibiotics either.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong in nearly all senses.

Mutations, when they're beneficial, have a positive effect and thus the organism lives longer or healthier or at least is able to easier compete with its competitors. Mutations don't necessarily amount to cancerous tumors...

Bacteria do become immune to antibiotics, but this "adaptation" if it's beneficial and gets passed on becomes a prime example for evolution in practice. Again, you're looking at species as stairs on a staircase rather than a smooth gradual transition with no boundaries or borders. As far as evolution and nature is concerned, there is no such thing as a species. We're all just a bunch of different stuff. Some of us are just more similar than others and can reproduce.

Finally, there are cures to viral infections, they're called vaccines :p They aren't antibiotics in the sense that they attack the virus's organelles or membrane or DNA/RNA but they are still "cures." A vaccine is (usually) the envelope that encases the harmful RNA or DNA within a virus that's injected into our blood and is recognized as a harmful agent. Thus when you do get infected by a virus that looks similar to that, your immune system kicks up and acts on neutralizing it and because it's seen it before it's faster in doing so and more effective.

This method doesn't work on all viral agents because some are prone to rapid and constant changes in their DNA (or RNA) that affects their outer protein shell. Others can envelop themselves in the plasma membrane of your own cells so your immune cells simply pass them off as your own body's cell rather than an infectious agent.
 
dadman said:
I believe that mutations in general don't live very long, and can't reproduce either. Bacteria build up immunities to antibiotics just like we build up immunities to them. It's called adaptation, not evolution. By the way, there is no know cure for any virus, we can only suppress them. Viruses do not respond to antibiotics either.
Click to expand...

Mutations are carried on through genetics. With bacteria, they can pass on mutations in real time. They don't need to wait to reproduce. That's why bacteria that is immune to antibiotics are so scary. They can easily pass those genes on to other bacteria. Keep this adaptation up for millions of years, and you'll eventually have a new species of animal. Thus evolution.

There is obviously a cure for a virus, it's called vaccine. You inject dead or weak viruses into your body, so your immune system can create antibodies. Bacteria aren't viruses. Bacteria are single cell organisms while viruses are hardly considered alive. For the most part, a virus is just RNA or DNA. Antibiotics attack the cellular wall of the bacteria. Literally making them pop.

Viruses like Herpes have no known cure. They hide away permanently in your bodies nerve cells, waiting to strike. Chicken pox is a form of herpes that will emerge when you're older as shingles.
 
Tudz said:
Really? So how do you know that for certain?
Click to expand...

1) World NOT created in seven days, six thousand years ago.

2) Noah's ark. Seriously now. That's the kind of thinking someone wandering through the desert would come up with. You think someone living in a rainforest would come up with such a moronic story?

How come the kangaroos aren't mentioned? :p

3) The entire story is basically a rip off of Egyptian and other older myths.

4) Prayer is not answered. This is easily confirmed in double blind medical studies where other people pray to heal someone. Oooooh, but maybe God knows we are studying it. Yeah, nonsense. Maybe "answered prayer" consists entirely of luck and irrational perspective. My personal favorite, because it's personal, is how I was religious, and prayed for faith when I knew it was slipping because "God gives all good things to those who ask" and nothing is better than faith. Well, guess what.

5) We have better explanations for things now than "god did it," like the big bang and evolution, that were never mentioned in the Bible. People who argue against them simply are not in a position to do so, because they are not scientists and have no better theory.

6) Still waiting for Jesus to "come back soon." Anyone impartial would realize that's a failed prophecy.

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Nnnnnnnnnope.
 
Oh, and there's the small matter of the events of the four gospels being completely different and contradictory. The fun part is that Christians try to weave all four into one crazy narrative, like Jesus was Woody Allen. The obvious evaluation is that they are either not accurate (good job God) or they were making it up.
 
pelo said:
Actually, you're wrong in nearly all senses.

Mutations, when they're beneficial, have a positive effect and thus the organism lives longer or healthier or at least is able to easier compete with its competitors. Mutations don't necessarily amount to cancerous tumors...

Bacteria do become immune to antibiotics, but this "adaptation" if it's beneficial and gets passed on becomes a prime example for evolution in practice. Again, you're looking at species as stairs on a staircase rather than a smooth gradual transition with no boundaries or borders. As far as evolution and nature is concerned, there is no such thing as a species. We're all just a bunch of different stuff. Some of us are just more similar than others and can reproduce.

Finally, there are cures to viral infections, they're called vaccines :p They aren't antibiotics in the sense that they attack the virus's organelles or membrane or DNA/RNA but they are still "cures." A vaccine is (usually) the envelope that encases the harmful RNA or DNA within a virus that's injected into our blood and is recognized as a harmful agent. Thus when you do get infected by a virus that looks similar to that, your immune system kicks up and acts on neutralizing it and because it's seen it before it's faster in doing so and more effective.

This method doesn't work on all viral agents because some are prone to rapid and constant changes in their DNA (or RNA) that affects their outer protein shell. Others can envelop themselves in the plasma membrane of your own cells so your immune cells simply pass them off as your own body's cell rather than an infectious agent.
Click to expand...

Actually there are no cures for viruses. What you are talking about is prevention. This must occur BEFORE the infection to work. All other "cures" merely suppress the virus,
not allowing it to reproduce.
 
I would like to add one thing here. There are 3 major schools of thought on evolution, with many disagreements between them. Also, they can't explain how male and female evolved simultaneously, or how there are male and female in the first place. I guess it would be spontaneous reproduction or something.
 
dadman said:
If the facts don't fit their current theory, they change the theory, and you know this is true. ..... I find this to be the height of conceit and terribly narcissistic. ....... Next time you get the chance, read some of what the founding fathers believed. They all believed in the God of the Bible....
Click to expand...

So when I believe something, then get new facts and it changes my mind, THAT'S NARCISSISTIC? Unlike priests, scientists do something amazing with new information, it's called learning.

So Thomas Paine's not a founding father anymore?
 
bh192012 said:
So when I believe something, then get new facts and it changes my mind, THAT'S NARCISSISTIC? Unlike priests, scientists do something amazing with new information, it's called learning.

So Thomas Paine's not a founding father anymore?
Click to expand...

Or Ben Franklin apparently. He liked to frequent some mischievous parties where scholars would gather and belittle God, religion, and have some kinky orgies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club

Neither Paine nor Franklin believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Paine was a naturalist who denounced any form of organized religion whereas Franklin wasn't as extreme, but nevertheless not exactly what we would consider a "good God-fearing Christian."

You'd figure the one nation that was founded by people who were religious outcasts and not "Good Christians" would understand that freedom of religion applies to those who don't necessarily agree with you, but somewhere in the last 200+ years we've seem to have lost that.
 
spintroniX said:
1) If you understood how fossils are formed, it would be no surprise there aren't many fossils. However, there are in fact PLENTY of intermediary fossils - the problem is that when we are looking for a species between A and C, and then find B - the whackjobs (like you) ask "what's between A and B?"

Besides that, genome sequencing provides the smoking gun proof of evolution. If you had bothered to learn anything in your life that possibly contradicts your world view, you would know this. But hey, if you don't believe in the theory of genetics, when your wife has a baby with the neighbor I'm sure you can consult the bible to figure out whose kid it is.

2) Had you also read the bible, you would know that your god created the oceans and the plants before the sun. For those of us who don't live in fantasy land, this is a major plot hole.
Click to expand...


Tell me how the plants or the ocean saw the light being here or not being here? this is in reference to your #2 statement

I also want to know how I'm a whackjob by asking how come if evolution was a proven theory why does it continue to be proven mistaken by the fossil evidence? by the way there isn't any genome to study from a fossil it's a rock maybe you should go back and study genetics.
 
bh192012 said:
So when I believe something, then get new facts and it changes my mind, THAT'S NARCISSISTIC? Unlike priests, scientists do something amazing with new information, it's called learning.

So Thomas Paine's not a founding father anymore?
Click to expand...

Typical, take the exception and make it the rule.
 
dadman said:
Typical, take the exception and make it the rule.
Click to expand...

What part of "all" don't you understand? Your statement is either correct or it's wrong.

See this is where an intelligent person (scientist) would learn and integrate the new information (that not "all" of the founding fathers believed in the god of Abraham.) It's also where a religious person would try to ignore or bypass the fact and continue to believe whatever the hell they wanted to, and continue to pass it off as truth.

I guess it would be too narcissistic to revise your statement to say "almost all?" [/sarcasm]
 
jackofalltrades said:
Tell me how the plants or the ocean saw the light being here or not being here? this is in reference to your #2 statement

I also want to know how I'm a whackjob by asking how come if evolution was a proven theory why does it continue to be proven mistaken by the fossil evidence? by the way there isn't any genome to study from a fossil it's a rock maybe you should go back and study genetics.
Click to expand...

You're a whackjob for replacing the scientific theory of evolution with some sort of caricature in your mind, and then stomping on the caricature and proclaiming victory.

If you don't see the problem in creating plants before the sunlight to feed them, then well I don't know what to say to you.

In order for evolution to be disproven through the fossil evidence, someone would have to find a fossil that has an irreducibly complex feature. The lack of fossils between species doesn't prove anything except that fossils are hard to come by.

DNA amplification enables the extraction of DNA from fossils. You can also get it from living organisms, and then compare it to others thought to be related from the fossil evidence.
 
MajorDomo said:
It seems that the dark matter is not acting as it should and have the corps of scientists who have been studying the phenomenon since 2007 scratching their massive cerebral cortexes in unison.
Click to expand...
And this is where science gets down to business! If an observation doesn't match up with our models of how we think they work, we find new models.

Exciting stuff!
 
spintroniX said:
If you don't see the problem in creating plants before the sunlight to feed them, then well I don't know what to say to you.
Click to expand...

If you want to argue against creation, are you arguing against the 1 week creation as described in the bible or the millions of years creation that people have tried to shoe horn into the bible?

If its the former, light came first, then plants, then sun. The bible doesn't define what the initial light was, other than it divided day from night. There was 1 day between plants and sun...

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Are you suggesting plants couldn't survive one evening and one morning without the sun?

If you are arguing the latter (people fitting billions of years into the first 7 days of the bible), then I agree, it doesn't make sense. I personally think if you're gonna believe in a biblical creation, then you believe it as it is written in the bible. If you don't believe the 1 week creation, but still believe in a God, then you must believe in something other than the Christian God, or you believe in the Christian God yet also believe the book that describes Him is a lie.
 
Believing in Jesus but not a literal Bible is absurd. What's the basis of belief then? Some other guy told you about it? And someone told him about it...100 times. The worst game of telephone ever.

Then some people believe some of it but not other parts, which is nice. Must be neat to have the ability to determine which parts of a book of myth are actually fact. The best part is these are people who are unable to display such amazingly accurate discernment in any other matter in their lives. "By day a cashier, but by night a literary critic and historian, although only concerning one document, and even then only the parts they like."

The only appropriate response towards a book that is clearly rife with nonsense is to assume the whole thing is nonsense unless you can otherwise validate particular claims. And the whole Jesus thing is not.
 
I believe that man and woman were born in Niflheim from the sweat of Ymir as he slept.

It may not line up with scientific findings, but neither do all the other creation myths so I might as well go with it.
 
Aluisious said:
Believing in Jesus but not a literal Bible is absurd. What's the basis of belief then? Some other guy told you about it? And someone told him about it...100 times. The worst game of telephone ever.

Then some people believe some of it but not other parts, which is nice. Must be neat to have the ability to determine which parts of a book of myth are actually fact. The best part is these are people who are unable to display such amazingly accurate discernment in any other matter in their lives. "By day a cashier, but by night a literary critic and historian, although only concerning one document, and even then only the parts they like."

The only appropriate response towards a book that is clearly rife with nonsense is to assume the whole thing is nonsense unless you can otherwise validate particular claims. And the whole Jesus thing is not.
Click to expand...

If you're a follower of the bible. Then by the word of god, Exodus 21:7. I'LL TAKE ONE!!!
 
I really hate it when they always say Confounds / baffles / flabbergasts / etc Scientists.
People REALLY need to buy a CLUE!
Scientists Study something make a hypothesis on why/how etc. think on how they can make a test to prove disprove it. Make predictions on what they "should" see if they might get things correct. Test to see of the predictions are correct, if not they need to start again or see if the test or some other step was in error. Once they can start making predictions they make a theory/additional predictions and the science builds from there. At any point the predictions or tests could go wrong, Observations can also be misleading, So check and re check and the more people doing it the better. After a while REAL understanding starts growing, Like being able to predict the effects of gravity in a wide range of frames of references down to a level that is beyond most peoples understanding.
Also they LIKE it when things are not exactly as predicted!?!! (this is not a religion that needs to be perfect - and I think that is why most hyper religious people can not understand it.) Science is perfectly ok with being wrong, since you learn anyway and will try again. Eventually the correct information will be found and people will have a much better understanding of whatever they are looking at and more questions to boot.
Religions really do not go there, it is simple (and often wildly wrong) or ineffable and you should not question it at all.
 
Why is Christianity or any other religion more believable than say, Greek gods? I bet if someone were to talk about Greek gods to a religious person they'd roll their eyes and say, "That can't be so, they're not 'real.'"

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
 
dadman said:
"According to our current theory... This pretty much sums up most of what these eggheads know. When confronted with evidence that is contrary to their "current theories", they act surprised, and "Oh how can this be?". Just like the "Theory of Evolution" has become fact to these morons. The probability that the universe "just happened" is so enormous, that it is actually impossible for it to have spontaneously appeared. The laws of probabilty don't lie, but lets not let the facts get in the way of our theories. I am now putting on my flame suit, so fire away.
Click to expand...

Could God type a post so dumb not even he, himself could comprehend it?
 
Tudz said:
If its the former, light came first, then plants, then sun. The bible doesn't define what the initial light was, other than it divided day from night. There was 1 day between plants and sun..
Click to expand...
The bible also states one day to God is a thousand years to humans so.... Also, The Sun is the only thing that divides day from night.

Tudz said:
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.”
Click to expand...
Is this talking about astronomy or astrology? Cause it sure does sound like God was saying (a powerful being that doesn't have human form nor a human tongue) let the stars mark signs which would be astrology which the bible is clearly against. Flip-Flop from different authors?

Tudz said:
Are you suggesting plants couldn't survive one evening and one morning without the sun?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, I am, since plants wouldn't form without the sun, not light, but the sun. An exploding star doesnt' even produce the same light. Also, the bibles kind of vague no? Light? What kind ? From where? Where did it go? Hmmm?

If you are arguing the latter (people fitting billions of years into the first 7 days of the bible), then I agree, it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

None of the bible makes much literal sense after you take heed to its moral stories (both good and bad).

the book that describes Him is a lie.
Click to expand...

I'd bet my life on it.
 
dadman said:
Let me clear something up. In my original post, all I'm trying to say is, as smart as these guys are, and yes they are very intelligent, they don't really know whats going on out there in the universe, but they try and make us believe that they do. If the facts don't fit their current theory, they change the theory, and you know this is true. It's truly amazing how when they present a theory, all of a sudden IT'S FACT, but if the facts end up being contrary to the theory, it's no longer fact, and the new theory becomes the new truth. I find this to be the height of conceit and terribly narcissistic. I don't have any hard feelings towards any of you who may be making fun of me and my beliefs, I am just amazed at how many people in a country that was founded on Judeo/Christian principles get angry when someone mentions God or Jesus. Next time you get the chance, read some of what the founding fathers believed. They all believed in the God of the Bible, and prayed about the correct way to go in establishing this nation. I guess they were religious fanatics too.
Click to expand...

There's no way this can be a serious post. Holy-trolly batman.
 
Tudz said:
If you want to argue against creation, are you arguing against the 1 week creation as described in the bible or the millions of years creation that people have tried to shoe horn into the bible?

If its the former, light came first, then plants, then sun. The bible doesn't define what the initial light was, other than it divided day from night. There was 1 day between plants and sun...

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Are you suggesting plants couldn't survive one evening and one morning without the sun?

If you are arguing the latter (people fitting billions of years into the first 7 days of the bible), then I agree, it doesn't make sense. I personally think if you're gonna believe in a biblical creation, then you believe it as it is written in the bible. If you don't believe the 1 week creation, but still believe in a God, then you must believe in something other than the Christian God, or you believe in the Christian God yet also believe the book that describes Him is a lie.
Click to expand...

Well spoken.

We also celebrate the birth of Christ Jesus at Christmas time, and His death at Easter. Our calendar year is based on His birth as well.

Read this site for a very detailed description of what Jesus suffered for us so that we could be saved: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/crucifixion.htm.

Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Peace to all, and may God bless all of you.
 
AnonymousUser said:
The bible also states one day to God is a thousand years to humans so.... Also, The Sun is the only thing that divides day from night.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this?

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8)

Or do you have another quote where one day to God is a thousand years to humans? I'm no bible scholar, don't pretend to be, enlighten me perhaps? Coz if that's the verse you mean, you're taking it out of context. Genesis clearly defines what a "day" is...

And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. (Genesis 1:13)
Is this talking about astronomy or astrology? Cause it sure does sound like God was saying (a powerful being that doesn't have human form nor a human tongue) let the stars mark signs which would be astrology which the bible is clearly against. Flip-Flop from different authors?
Click to expand...
Say what? Where does that verse say anything about astrology? It says to "mark sacred times". Astrology implies that the movements celestial bodies influence human affairs, its a bit of a leap to say "mark sacred times" falls into astrology.

Yes, yes, I am, since plants wouldn't form without the sun, not light, but the sun. An exploding star doesnt' even produce the same light. Also, the bibles kind of vague no? Light? What kind ? From where? Where did it go? Hmmm?
Click to expand...
The creation of the plants was a miraculous event. God didn't get a seed and do some gardening to get some plants to grow, He commanded and so it happened. Plants don't form in a day, either, this is not new science, people have known for millenia that plants don't spring up like that, in fact I'm sure humans have long known that plants need sunlight to grow and survive. It then comes down to a belief issue, do you believe a God of sufficient power could just command a plant into growing from nothingness.

Yes, the bible is kind of vague on it. It says light existed before the sun and it says days (defined by evening and morning) existed before the sun. It doesn't say how or why, what type of light it was, anything like that. You either take it as being literal, that somehow there was light before the sun, or you take it as a lie. Again, people have known for millenia the sun is what defines the light and darkness that give us days. Its not some trickery to confuse lesser minds, it says it right there, first there was light, then there was the waters, then there was the land and the plants, then the sun, each separated by a day... take it or leave it. Either God created plants in the absence of the sun or the bible is a lie, just because you don't see HOW plants could be created in the absence of the sun doesn't automatically make it a lie. It doesn't say anything about the plants reproducing and growing in the absence of the sun, they were created a day before the sun, plants can survive a day without the sun for a day. You problem is weren't there to see it and you can't see how they were created by God therefore you think its a lie. I'm not going to argue whether it is or is not a lie, but at the same time I'm not going to say it is a lie based purely on the fact I don't understand it. Hell, ignore any miraculous things, just in my every day life with earthly things I've made that mistake, something told me something happened/they did something and I've told them "no fucking way", then seen it in the flesh and been like "Damn it how the fuck did that happen"
None of the bible makes much literal sense after you take heed to its moral stories (both good and bad).
Click to expand...
I disagree. People take verses and chapters out of context and interpret them to their own liking, which is why people think it doesn't make sense. Often when you hear people say "this verse in this book says this and this other verse in another book says something contradictory" all it takes is to read the preceding chapters and realise they're taken in different context and mean different things rather than contradictions. The bible is meant to be taking literally and as a whole, not bits and pieces chosen from here and there and twisted to an individual's desire.
I'd bet my life on it.
Click to expand...
That's your choice, I don't understand why atheists have to so fervently attack people who hold on to religious beliefs (often with ill conceived arguments), after all, we're all just random arrangements of atoms, its not like it matters what one person believes from the next ;)
 
I don't understand why atheists have to so fervently attack people who hold on to religious beliefs (often with ill conceived arguments), after all, we're all just random arrangements of atoms, its not like it matters what one person believes from the next ;)
Click to expand...


Beliefs matter because believers in crazy things grow up to become voters.
 
AnonymousUser said:
I'd bet my life on it.
Click to expand...

Pen and Teller wore lightning rods while they lambasted Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Dalai Lama and the Pope on national TV. AFAIK, they're still alive. So no bets.

dadman said:
We also celebrate the birth of Christ Jesus at Christmas time, and His death at Easter. Our calendar year is based on His birth as well.
Click to expand...

Easter and Christmas are not originally Christian holidays. They're Pagan ones.

Think of Christianity in terms of capitalism. Take a popular holiday, rewrap it, and present it as new and entice the Pagans into your religion. They've done it here. Ati-Atihan is a tribal festival that's been adopted into Philippine culture using the child Jesus as a figurehead (sometimes colored black to resemble the natives).

And please don't tout your Religion as end be all. I live in a country where half the population are Catholic extremists.

Untitled-3.jpg


Those are real huge-ass nails. And it's considered an honor to have yourself nailed to the cross. If we can't find or make thorn crowns, we make do with barbed wire.

Those that don't quite make it have to make do with this

flagellants_3.jpg


That's how strong our belief in god is, we don't just preach the word of god, when we say we follow in Christs footsteps, we do them literally.

The other half? They're muslim extremists (The type that plants bombs in busses and trains during rush hour, i'd be dead right now if i didn't stop for coffee). North (Catholics) and South (Muslims) have been at each others throats since the Spaniards came four hundred years ago. You should know them, they've kidnapped and behedded enough marines to make the front page quite a few times.

After living in this Country all my life, hearing every possible religious argument, attended dozens of church-of-whatever-this, holy-grove-of-that, presented with godly-signs, crying statues, virgin-mary-blessed-mummified-corpses. Having muslims threaten us with Jihad (It's not as funny a word when devote Catholics and Muslims are right next door to each other) i've come to one conclusion. THERE IS NO GOD!!!
 
kurt454 said:
Beliefs matter because believers in crazy things grow up to become voters.
Click to expand...

LOL, for this reason I don't understand why western countries are so happy to import people of other religions which result in oppressive governments.
 
Arguing with a religious person about the existence of god is pointless; since there's no way to definitively prove there is or isn't a god. We can only hope religious nuts become a small enough percentage of the population that their beliefs become irrelevant, so they don't hold the rest of us back. Don't feed the troll.
 
Sly said:
Lets clear something up thats wrong with this comment. First, Christmas NOW, is not a pagan holiday. It's true the church started celebrating Christmas to offer Christians an alternative to a pagan celebration, thats all.

Second: Easter never has been , nor ever will be a pagan holiday. It celebrates the death AND resurrection of Jesus Christ, and there has ever only been ONE Jesus Christ.

The historical evidence of Jesus is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whether you want to believe it or not is your choice.
Click to expand...
 
Excuse me while I commit deicide.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top