Really,what's a soul?

I don't understand how you're drawing these conclusions. And what do you mean by "higher realms"? Are you talking about consciousness? Do other animals have this, or is it only the human species whom are privy to this level of "soul"? See what I mean? It's too subjective and abstract with no substance to back it up.chrisrooR

Your reality isn't my reality,my friend.

And actually,it's not "too subjective".

I'm not the only one who believes that.

If you ACTUALLY want me to answer the question about animals.i think that maybe,just maybe,i'll go the Wiccan way and say that while it's not exactly a human soul,they must have some kind of essense.

And no,i was not talking in psychological terms.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]I don't understand how you're drawing these conclusions. And what do you mean by "higher realms"? Are you talking about consciousness? Do other animals have this, or is it only the human species whom are privy to this level of "soul"? See what I mean? It's too subjective and abstract with no substance to back it up.GreekGameManiac

Your reality isn't my reality,my friend.

And actually,it's not "too subjective".

I'm not the only one who believes that.

If you ACTUALLY want me to answer the question about animals.i think that maybe,just maybe,i'll go the Wiccan way and say that while it's not exactly a human soul,they must have some kind of essense.

And no,i was not talking in psychological terms.

Atheists vs Christians war thread number 218976198655

On an unrelated note, do you happen to believe in UFO's, ghosts, psychic mediums or astrology?chrisrooR

Maybe,yes,yes,somewhat.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]On an unrelated note, do you happen to believe in UFO's, ghosts, psychic mediums or astrology?GreekGameManiac

Maybe,yes,yes,somewhat.

A soul is a person's life energy.

How it comes to be, and what happens to it when your body dies, is the topic of countless books, theories and spiritual texts.

But we do know for a fact that energy can't be destroyed, it can only change forms or become dispersed to the point where it becomes imperceptible, but that energy still exists in some fashion, whether in the atmosphere, in the earth, or "drifting thru the universe."

Science is interesting but mostly useless, it is "religion of secular society" where people hope someday thru science they can live forever, or that their life energy can be put into a robot. Instead of heaven they have cryogenics and DNA-rewrite, all we're waiting for is scientific "Jesus" to be born (sound familiar?)

The bottom line is the Earth is not our home, we are temporary guests here on a very short stay.

What happens afterwards "Don't worry about it." You had no control over being born, and you'll have no control over where you go next.

If you need a belief-system to make sense of it all, I recommend reading up on Epicureanism.

A soul is a person's life energy.

How it comes to be, and what happens to it when your body dies, is the topic of countless books, theories and spiritual texts.

But we do know for a fact that energy can't be destroyed, it can only change forms or become dispersed to the point where it becomes imperceptible, but that energy still exists in some fashion, whether in the atmosphere, in the earth, or "drifting thru the universe."

Science is interesting but mostly useless, it is "religion of secular society" where people hope someday thru science they can live forever, or that their life energy can be put into a robot. Instead of heaven they have cryogenics and DNA-rewrite, all we're waiting for is scientific "Jesus" to be born (sound familiar?)

The bottom line is the Earth is not our home, we are temporary guests here on a very short stay.

What happens afterwards "Don't worry about it." You had no control over being born, and you'll have no control over where you go next.

If you need a belief-system to make sense of it all, I recommend reading up on Epicureanism.

ZombieKiller7

THIS.

Your reality isn't my reality,my friend.

And actually,it's not "too subjective".

I'm not the only one who believes that.

If you ACTUALLY want me to answer the question about animals.i think that maybe,just maybe,i'll go the Wiccan way and say that while it's not exactly a human soul,they must have some kind of essense.

And no,i was not talking in psychological terms.

GreekGameManiac

please elaborate on how your perception on reality differs fundamentally from everyone else.

You just made the claim that no two realities are the same; and now you are saying that things aren't all that subjective. Please don't contradict yourself, and not blatantly.

OK.

What makes you believe that there is a difference between a soul and an essence? You've stated before (in this thread) that the soul is the essence of man, the "true self." Do you mean that animals have some sort of underdevoloped soul? If so what sort of spiritual journey must they transgress to be "whole."

You clearly weren't.

I don't see why the ethereal & natural sides of the universe can't co-exist.

Nobody knows everything after all.GreekGameManiac

You can't take them with you in the higher realms(kinda)and you def. can't take them with you in any next lives.GreekGameManiac

please elaborate on how your perception on reality differs fundamentally from everyone else.

You just made the claim that no two realities are the same; and now you are saying that things aren't all that subjective. Please don't contradict yourself, and not blatantly.

OK.

What makes you believe that there is a difference between a soul and an essence? You've stated before (in this thread) that the soul is the essence of man, the "true self." Do you mean that animals have some sort of underdevoloped soul? If so what sort of spiritual journey must they transgress to be "whole."

You clearly weren't.

SirWander

I wasn't contradicting myself,was just saying that not everybody believes the same.

Don't say that again.

About animals,maybe.And i don't know for sure.

I.never.said.that.soul.and.essence.are.separate!

Please read my posts more carefully.

A man made fabrication to explain personality

A soul is a person's life energy.

How it comes to be, and what happens to it when your body dies, is the topic of countless books, theories and spiritual texts.

But we do know for a fact that energy can't be destroyed, it can only change forms or become dispersed to the point where it becomes imperceptible, but that energy still exists in some fashion, whether in the atmosphere, in the earth, or "drifting thru the universe."

Science is interesting but mostly useless, it is "religion of secular society" where people hope someday thru science they can live forever, or that their life energy can be put into a robot. Instead of heaven they have cryogenics and DNA-rewrite, all we're waiting for is scientific "Jesus" to be born (sound familiar?)

The bottom line is the Earth is not our home, we are temporary guests here on a very short stay.

What happens afterwards "Don't worry about it." You had no control over being born, and you'll have no control over where you go next.

If you need a belief-system to make sense of it all, I recommend reading up on Epicureanism.

ZombieKiller7

All of it based on armchair philosophy.

Energy cannot be destroyed nor can it be made. But more people are being born, more than there have ever been, and that seems to imply that new souls (i.e. "life energy") are being created for that individual. But since you seem to agree with the conservation of energy, that is highly unlikely.

Science is not a doctrine. It is not a dogma. It's a methodology by which people use to discern the causes of natural phenomenon. the rest of that sentence is so incongruously stupid, that nobody here needs to reply to it.

Where for then did you draw this conclusion?

Then why are you even discussing this? If knowing is inconsequential, why are you even bothering with studying the subject?

All of it based on armchair philosophy.

Energy cannot be destroyed nor can it be made. But more people are being born, more than there have ever been, and that seems to imply that new souls (i.e. "life energy") are being created for that individual. But since you seem to agree with the conservation of energy, that is highly unlikely.

Science is not a doctrine. It is not a dogma. It's a methodology by which people use to discern the causes of natural phenomenon. the rest of that sentence is so incongruously stupid, that nobody here needs to reply to it.

Where for then did you draw this conclusion?

Then why are you even discussing this? If knowing is inconsequential, why are you even bothering with studying the subject?

SirWander

I think that souls just wanted to experience physical life,so eventually they came down to this dimension and somehow managed to inhabit 3D bodies(physical).

Or something like that.Souls aren't created anymore,they already exist.

life energy.ZombieKiller7

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

A soul is a person's life energy.

How it comes to be, and what happens to it when your body dies, is the topic of countless books, theories and spiritual texts.

But we do know for a fact that energy can't be destroyed, it can only change forms or become dispersed to the point where it becomes imperceptible, but that energy still exists in some fashion, whether in the atmosphere, in the earth, or "drifting thru the universe."

Science is interesting but mostly useless, it is "religion of secular society" where people hope someday thru science they can live forever, or that their life energy can be put into a robot. Instead of heaven they have cryogenics and DNA-rewrite, all we're waiting for is scientific "Jesus" to be born (sound familiar?)

The bottom line is the Earth is not our home, we are temporary guests here on a very short stay.

What happens afterwards "Don't worry about it." You had no control over being born, and you'll have no control over where you go next.

If you need a belief-system to make sense of it all, I recommend reading up on Epicureanism.

SirWander

All of it based on armchair philosophy.

Energy cannot be destroyed nor can it be made. But more people are being born, more than there have ever been, and that seems to imply that new souls (i.e. "life energy") are being created for that individual. But since you seem to agree with the conservation of energy, that is highly unlikely.

Science is not a doctrine. It is not a dogma. It's a methodology by which people use to discern the causes of natural phenomenon. the rest of that sentence is so incongruously stupid, that nobody here needs to reply to it.

Where for then did you draw this conclusion?

Then why are you even discussing this? If knowing is inconsequential, why are you even bothering with studying the subject?

Philosophy was "science 2.0" right after religion was "science 1.0" all dogmatic, all seeking to beat people over the head to "believe" with Mythbusters and Dr Oz being the new bully pulpits.

Measuremeant, examination and trial-and-error all existed for thousands of years before "science" and will exist long after we move to a new religion like "Trans-humanism" or whatever.

What you chodes refuse to accept out of fear and loathing is that man is not apart from nature but is in fact a creature belonging to it.

We can examine things all day long out of curiosity, like chimps poking things with sticks, but nothing will change the basic realities we live under, and the fact that our biggest enemy is the societies we have created that try to control us and seek to penalize us if we stray from their norms.

Where once non-believers in religion were punished, now non-believers in "science" are punished, for refusing to vaccinate their children or refusing to promote whatever society/govt thinks is a good idea this week.

All the while the foundations of secular society are becoming unsustainable, Disneyland is straining at the seams as the pundits discuss "the economy" and how our wonderful science-based society can avoid faceplanting into reality.

Philosophy was "science 2.0" right after religion was "science 1.0" all dogmatic, all seeking to beat people over the head to "believe" with Mythbusters and Dr Oz being the new bully pulpits.

Measuremeant, examination and trial-and-error all existed for thousands of years before "science" and will exist long after we move to a new religion like "Trans-humanism" or whatever.

What you chodes refuse to accept out of fear and loathing is that man is not apart from nature but is in fact a creature belonging to it.

We can examine things all day long out of curiosity, like chimps poking things with sticks, but nothing will change the basic realities we live under, and the fact that our biggest enemy is the societies we have created that try to control us and seek to penalize us if we stray from their norms.

Where once non-believers in religion were punished, now non-believers in "science" are punished, for refusing to vaccinate their children or refusing to promote whatever society/govt thinks is a good idea this week.

All the while the foundations of secular society are becoming unsustainable, Disneyland is straining at the seams as the pundits discuss "the economy" and how our wonderful science-based society can avoid faceplanting into reality.

ZombieKiller7

You seem to be having a tenuous grasp on what science is. The mythbusters aren't the standard by which new axioms are formed nor are their "experiments" paradigm shifting in their results, and Dr. Oz is medical physician; neither of their opinions are given much consideration.

Well, that's true enough. But, transhumanism isn't, nor will it be, a religion.

Whom in this thread made the claim that man is unto himself? That humans are independent from their surroundings? Because I sure as hell didn't.

Society can only control you as long as you're compliant with it's rules and are dependent on the securities it affords.

I don't know why you're making the case that religion and science are anathema to each other. It's a false dichotomy. As I've said before, science is not a doctrine. Science also doesn't exclude whether the workings of the supernatural carry any affect in the natural world. There is nothing to stake belief in, as these are matters of fact; not matters of faith.

Humans have never been as prosperous, nor have they been so intellectually inclined, as they have been in these secular societies. They're not perfect and without flaws. Those that do believe that any given society is the pinnacle of human achievement, have a skewed world-view. Majority of these pundits you are alluding to are religious.

Its what humans made up to explain self awareness.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]life energy.MannyDelgado

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]life energy.MrPraline

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Philosophy was "science 2.0" right after religion was "science 1.0" all dogmatic, all seeking to beat people over the head to "believe" with Mythbusters and Dr Oz being the new bully pulpits.

Measuremeant, examination and trial-and-error all existed for thousands of years before "science" and will exist long after we move to a new religion like "Trans-humanism" or whatever.

What you chodes refuse to accept out of fear and loathing is that man is not apart from nature but is in fact a creature belonging to it.

We can examine things all day long out of curiosity, like chimps poking things with sticks, but nothing will change the basic realities we live under, and the fact that our biggest enemy is the societies we have created that try to control us and seek to penalize us if we stray from their norms.

Where once non-believers in religion were punished, now non-believers in "science" are punished, for refusing to vaccinate their children or refusing to promote whatever society/govt thinks is a good idea this week.

All the while the foundations of secular society are becoming unsustainable, Disneyland is straining at the seams as the pundits discuss "the economy" and how our wonderful science-based society can avoid faceplanting into reality.

SirWander

You seem to be having a tenuous grasp on what science is. The mythbusters aren't the standard by which new axioms are formed nor are their "experiments" paradigm shifting in their results, and Dr. Oz is medical physician; neither of their opinions are given much consideration.

Well, that's true enough. But, transhumanism isn't, nor will it be, a religion.

Whom in this thread made the claim that man is unto himself? That humans are independent from their surroundings? Because I sure as hell didn't.

Society can only control you as long as you're compliant with it's rules and are dependent on the securities it affords.

I don't know why you're making the case that religion and science are anathema to each other. It's a false dichotomy. As I've said before, science is not a doctrine. Science also doesn't exclude whether the workings of the supernatural carry any affect in the natural world. There is nothing to stake belief in, as these are matters of fact; not matters of faith.

Humans have never been as prosperous, nor have they been so intellectually inclined, as they have been in these secular societies. They're not perfect and without flaws. Those that do believe that any given society is the pinnacle of human achievement, have a skewed world-view. Majority of these pundits you are alluding to are religious.

Science is the religion of rationalism, which seeks to extend into every facet of human life the mantra, "Don't feel, measure."

Examination and measurements have always existed, but were balanced and in touch with our humanity and intuition, now seek to strip that intuition and replace everything with numbers and statistics.

By this is assumed that "Science knows better than your instinct."

My instinct tells me I should kiss a girl, science tells me that kissing a guy is the same thing, a hole is a hole, what's the difference, but fail to take into account all the complexities of being human, the hopes and aspirations, animal drives and motivations.

This is man playing God unto himself.

Religion -> Philosophy -> Science; these are all the same thing and a progression of each other, an attempt to structure and control the condition and context of our examinations and measurements. Just like Galileo was threatened for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun, others are threatened for saying things that are not politically correct in the modern world like "boys are better at math" or "blacks have low IQ." It's not about taking measurements, it's about using the ones that support our worldviews and discarding the ones that don't.

Measurement of "human prosperity" are similarly filtered through an "of course we're prosperous, don't be silly" lense. Assets backed by wealth that doesn't exist represented in fiat currency paint a picture that's positively rosy. Inflation is %2 but gas is $5 and you're stepping over bums on the train. We're the richest country in the world and $16 trillion in debt.

The name of the game is lies, damned lies and statistics.

ZombieKiller7,

I'll just restate that you seem to have a tenuous grasp on what science is. As you are using it seems more like a blanket term to ascribe to schools of thought that you seem to disagree with.

Some people's instincts tell them that they should kiss a guy; how is this instinct any different than yours? Anyway does the scientific method exclude the "complexities of being human?" (hint: it doesn't) Most of the data gathered is verifiable. There are things we have come to learn that are based on the observations made through years of research.

In regards that each have been used to in order to gain an understanding of the world and it's machinations; religion, philosophy, and science share a loose, but common, thread. But of those three only religion is ever used as an agent of social control.
People in the modern world are not chastised simply because those statements are sexist and racist, but because there is no legitimate data to support those claims.

If these things are being used to obfuscate the truth, what can you believe in? What guarantee is there that a truth even exists. Your instincts and senses are severely limited. They are not a reliable source to by which information is disseminated.

Consciousness. ghoklebutter

It's a broad term for the physical and metaphysical self that allows us as individuals to have awareness.

But generally I don't see it in a spiritual way.

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Philosophy was "science 2.0" right after religion was "science 1.0" all dogmatic, all seeking to beat people over the head to "believe" with Mythbusters and Dr Oz being the new bully pulpits.

Measuremeant, examination and trial-and-error all existed for thousands of years before "science" and will exist long after we move to a new religion like "Trans-humanism" or whatever.

What you chodes refuse to accept out of fear and loathing is that man is not apart from nature but is in fact a creature belonging to it.

We can examine things all day long out of curiosity, like chimps poking things with sticks, but nothing will change the basic realities we live under, and the fact that our biggest enemy is the societies we have created that try to control us and seek to penalize us if we stray from their norms.

Where once non-believers in religion were punished, now non-believers in "science" are punished, for refusing to vaccinate their children or refusing to promote whatever society/govt thinks is a good idea this week.

All the while the foundations of secular society are becoming unsustainable, Disneyland is straining at the seams as the pundits discuss "the economy" and how our wonderful science-based society can avoid faceplanting into reality.

ZombieKiller7

You seem to be having a tenuous grasp on what science is. The mythbusters aren't the standard by which new axioms are formed nor are their "experiments" paradigm shifting in their results, and Dr. Oz is medical physician; neither of their opinions are given much consideration.

Well, that's true enough. But, transhumanism isn't, nor will it be, a religion.

Whom in this thread made the claim that man is unto himself? That humans are independent from their surroundings? Because I sure as hell didn't.

Society can only control you as long as you're compliant with it's rules and are dependent on the securities it affords.

I don't know why you're making the case that religion and science are anathema to each other. It's a false dichotomy. As I've said before, science is not a doctrine. Science also doesn't exclude whether the workings of the supernatural carry any affect in the natural world. There is nothing to stake belief in, as these are matters of fact; not matters of faith.

Humans have never been as prosperous, nor have they been so intellectually inclined, as they have been in these secular societies. They're not perfect and without flaws. Those that do believe that any given society is the pinnacle of human achievement, have a skewed world-view. Majority of these pundits you are alluding to are religious.

Science is the religion of rationalism, which seeks to extend into every facet of human life the mantra, "Don't feel, measure."

Examination and measurements have always existed, but were balanced and in touch with our humanity and intuition, now seek to strip that intuition and replace everything with numbers and statistics.

By this is assumed that "Science knows better than your instinct."

My instinct tells me I should kiss a girl, science tells me that kissing a guy is the same thing, a hole is a hole, what's the difference, but fail to take into account all the complexities of being human, the hopes and aspirations, animal drives and motivations.

This is man playing God unto himself.

Religion -> Philosophy -> Science; these are all the same thing and a progression of each other, an attempt to structure and control the condition and context of our examinations and measurements. Just like Galileo was threatened for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun, others are threatened for saying things that are not politically correct in the modern world like "boys are better at math" or "blacks have low IQ." It's not about taking measurements, it's about using the ones that support our worldviews and discarding the ones that don't.

Measurement of "human prosperity" are similarly filtered through an "of course we're prosperous, don't be silly" lense. Assets backed by wealth that doesn't exist represented in fiat currency paint a picture that's positively rosy. Inflation is %2 but gas is $5 and you're stepping over bums on the train. We're the richest country in the world and $16 trillion in debt.

The name of the game is lies, damned lies and statistics.

ZombieKiller7,

I'll just restate that you seem to have a tenuous grasp on what science is. As you are using it seems more like a blanket term to ascribe to schools of thought that you seem to disagree with.

Some people's instincts tell them that they should kiss a guy; how is this instinct any different than yours? Anyway does the scientific method exclude the "complexities of being human?" (hint: it doesn't) Most of the data gathered is verifiable. There are things we have come to learn that are based on the observations made through years of research.

In regards that each have been used to in order to gain an understanding of the world and it's machinations; religion, philosophy, and science share a loose, but common, thread. But of those three only religion is ever used as an agent of social control.
People in the modern world are not chastised simply because those statements are sexist and racist, but because there is no legitimate data to support those claims.

If these things are being used to obfuscate the truth, what can you believe in? What guarantee is there that a truth even exists. Your instincts and senses are severely limited. They are not a reliable source to by which information is disseminated.

SirWander

I think we have established that "science" is not merely examination and measurement, if that is your definition then you are wrong and we will have to disagree on that point.

My definition is that science is the culture of using as actionable guidance ONLY that which can be examined and measured within the context of a western pluralist worldview ie "peer review, accreditation usually the backing of govt or a large corporation." Any data which do not fit this worldview become mired in limbo and will never see the light of day, for example anything deemed racist, sexist or somehow out-of-line with realpolitik.

If I tell you to go find data on pork, you can bring me anything.

But if I tell you to go find me scientific data that supports "pork is good for you" there is a %100 chance you will find such data, as well as a %100 chance you will find data to the contrary. The contrary data gets disputed and stuck in committee, while the "pro pork" data gets published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Now if we were, let's say, a Muslim society or a Hindu society, we don't eat pork. But scientific data says pork is good for you, and gives reason for govt to start serving pork as a school lunch and putting it at the top of the food pyramid.

Govt is the ultimate form of social control and science is its priesthood.

What is the truth and what can you believe.

You can start by believing your own eyes and ears. You can do your own research. You can almost always trust your intuition, even if it's only %80 right that's still more accurate than what you read in the paper. Talk to your elders and get life experience from them, learn from them, everything you're thinking about they already did it. 20 years after your dad dies, you'll realize he was right, and then you'll try to teach your own son and he'll say you're old and don't know what you're talking about. And after you die he'll know you were right.

If you want to know about souls, god, etc, gaze at the stars at night, your thoughts, concerns and fears become instantly meaningless, and all the data in the world becomes meaningless. We are part of one living universe, some call it God or Allah.

That's all the truth I have for you.

I believe the soul is real and is what goes to heaven, hell, and the ground until the second coming.BranKetra

Or if you are watching most movies, a ball of sparkly light.

jimkabrhel

Soul Reaver

I think we have established that "science" is not merely examination and measurement [...]ZombieKiller7

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]I think we have established that "science" is not merely examination and measurement [...]Zeviander

So you are confirming that science is not merely examination and measurement.

ZombieKiller7,

I'll just restate that you seem to have a tenuous grasp on what science is. As you are using it seems more like a blanket term to ascribe to schools of thought that you seem to disagree with.

Some people's instincts tell them that they should kiss a guy; how is this instinct any different than yours? Anyway does the scientific method exclude the "complexities of being human?" (hint: it doesn't) Most of the data gathered is verifiable. There are things we have come to learn that are based on the observations made through years of research.

In regards that each have been used to in order to gain an understanding of the world and it's machinations; religion, philosophy, and science share a loose, but common, thread. But of those three only religion is ever used as an agent of social control.
People in the modern world are not chastised simply because those statements are sexist and racist, but because there is no legitimate data to support those claims.

If these things are being used to obfuscate the truth, what can you believe in? What guarantee is there that a truth even exists. Your instincts and senses are severely limited. They are not a reliable source to by which information is disseminated.

SirWander

Your ESP is,though.

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

ZombieKiller7,

I'll just restate that you seem to have a tenuous grasp on what science is. As you are using it seems more like a blanket term to ascribe to schools of thought that you seem to disagree with.

Some people's instincts tell them that they should kiss a guy; how is this instinct any different than yours? Anyway does the scientific method exclude the "complexities of being human?" (hint: it doesn't) Most of the data gathered is verifiable. There are things we have come to learn that are based on the observations made through years of research.

In regards that each have been used to in order to gain an understanding of the world and it's machinations; religion, philosophy, and science share a loose, but common, thread. But of those three only religion is ever used as an agent of social control.
People in the modern world are not chastised simply because those statements are sexist and racist, but because there is no legitimate data to support those claims.

If these things are being used to obfuscate the truth, what can you believe in? What guarantee is there that a truth even exists. Your instincts and senses are severely limited. They are not a reliable source to by which information is disseminated.

GreekGameManiac

Your ESP is,though.

Did you know you can make a million dollars if you can prove the existence of things like souls and ESP? Ace6301

Did you know that the likes of you are ignorant and completely oblivious to things that are actually perfectly natural?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Did you know you can make a million dollars if you can prove the existence of things like souls and ESP? GreekGameManiac

Did you know that the likes of you are ignorant and completely oblivious to things that are actually perfectly natural?

My username says it all.

I think we have established that "science" is not merely examination and measurement, if that is your definition then you are wrong and we will have to disagree on that point.

My definition is that science is the culture of using as actionable guidance ONLY that which can be examined and measured within the context of a western pluralist worldview ie "peer review, accreditation usually the backing of govt or a large corporation." Any data which do not fit this worldview become mired in limbo and will never see the light of day, for example anything deemed racist, sexist or somehow out-of-line with realpolitik.

ZombieKiller7

Oh fun, that means I can just make up my own definitions if I don't like the existing ones! cool!

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Did you know you can make a million dollars if you can prove the existence of things like souls and ESP? GreekGameManiac

Did you know that the likes of you are ignorant and completely oblivious to things that are actually perfectly natural?