Read the thread. 
It’s a load of crap basically. Sounds to me like someone misread/misheard the word haemoglobins and made up a new definition for it!
Well… actually, haemogoblin can also be spelled hemogoblin.
Although I’m sure he was using it in a completely fictional way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin
Haemoglobins and hemoglobins are the same thing, but hemoGOBlins are just a load of BS!
Oh haha I didn’t notice that.
But like I said I’m pretty sure he just made it up, and happened to be something similar to that which already exists.
“They had me working on haemoglobin encodings…”
Since you don’t beleive in an afterlife, does the fact that you must die eventually depress you?
What will happen to you if there isn’t an afterlife? Will your conciousness cease to exist? Will everything you learned and all the good things you did in your life be for nothing?
That’s one of the reasons religions exist- so we don’t feel like we’re wortless after we die.
Oddly enough, religious people are often the first to cite the value of human life, despite their feverent belief that a better one awaits us after death.
Actually… I feel. Happier. 
I don’t feel like doing anything in this life if another one awaits, I much rather think that there’s nothing else after this life, so I must live it in the fullest way possible.
So it was created to escape the truth?
Well, it’s just one of the mysteries of life. We’ll find out soon enough. Until then, I’d rather live my life as best as I can than worry about all that stuff.
If anything, no afterlife is better than risking an eternity of hell.
Why would we “feel like we’re worthless” after we cease to exist? What we do in this life will live on in the future of the people that are still alive and the people that will be born later.
The concept of an afterlife where I exist in perpetuity is the scariest, most tortuous and most inhumane thing imaginable. It would literally be hell.
I am not scared of the virtual eternity where I won’t exist…just like I wasn’t scared of the virtual eternity where I didn’t exist prior to my coming into the world.
Also, I called them “hemogoblins” as a play on “hemoglobin”. :retard:
Interesting topic.
I am tempted to join the fray, but really… a lot has been said.
I skimmed through some of the first posts, and was amazed really. I do think this merits comment though. There was refference made concerning;
“9/11 happened because Americans are willing to accept gays, and abortion”. (Or something close to that anyways)
Ummmm What kind of half-baked, sheep loving, moronic mouth fart is that? The part with this that is truly scary (and sad), is people who make these statements do not even know the theology that they claim to believe.
“If a person is guilty of breaking the law at even the least point, they are guilty of breaking all of the law” (Romans) In other words, it does not matter (in terms of theology) if a person is guilty of swearing, sexual sin, drunkenness… Blah blah blah… Breaking the Law is breaking the Law.
So, according to Romans, it doesn’t matter if a person smokes pole, or swipes someone else’s stuff. The one who breaks the law in any way, is just as guilty as a gay or whoever else.
The part that is jaw dropping (Which was handled very well early on in this thread) is how someone can judge someone else, but be completely blind as to where they are at, within the theology they claim to believe.
The one who rages “God will smite the gays” and yet is guilty of being harsh to their kids, or cheating on their taxes, or on their wife, or who does not help their neighbor (blah blah) is in the same boat, as the ones they judge themselves.
Besides, if I recall correctly, it is faith in Christ that saves a person, not judging someone else. Still, hiding behind the law allows someone to blow smoke up their own butt and inflate their ego… Sad that so many do not understand “Grace”, and are still trying to live under the law. (As far as faith goes anyways)
I have met some truly wonderful Christian people, and some that should be ashamed of themselves. The same can be said for the non-religious camp. I do not think the discussion is best held on the grounds of who is “Better” or more moral, so much as it is held in the arena of what is true or not.
The failure of some from the religious camp comes when they make huge assumptions concerning the non believing crowds. The one that amazes me is…
“So, you do not believe in God. Therefore, what you are really saying, is that killing babies is ok?”
What the hell kind of stupidity is that to say. It is not like everyone not going to church has a town parade where they throw babies on pitchforks as they are mobbing the local church on Sunday. Mind bending.
And foe what it is worth, religion is not the only thing that has sheep. What party do you belong to? Republican? Democratic? Communist? NDP? ETC. There are lots of folks who wave the flag, but do not really understand all the details, but they will go fisty-cuffs if someone says anything that goes against their side. So, I don’t think that all religion is mind control - that is just silly - Anymore than a non church goer cannot have a high degree of ethics.
Cheers
Oh… Those kind of half witted, politically motivated, woman repressing, self important… theology ignoring, blind to their own failings, half wits… I see…
You know, It really is horrid when those of faith, who hold power, are willing to forward their own agenda, in the name of faith.
I do not claim any faith. I am well versed in the Christian religion - but I do know a few things… and these jack-asses that mock the deaths of those killed on 9/11 should have been taken to town square and horse whipped.
Who the hell are they to judge. Jerry, said God was going to kill him unless he got some cash… The part that amazes me, is according to the scriptures that he claims to believe, “God owns the cattle on 1,000 hills.” And “He shall supply your needs, according to his riches in glory.” And this moron is going to beg for money? If God was that interested in Jerry accomplishing this or that, one would think that God could supply hey?
Bastard. I am not sad he is dead. He has caused great harm, and was no friend to either those of faith, or to America.
So you are saying that you can easily identify a triangle without any problem? Then what about this:
https://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html
The thing at the top, is it a triangle or quadrangle? Can you tell it at the first glimpse? Recognition process is a complex thing and its not always 100% effective. You are just not fully aware of the processes that take place inside our brains.
The hypotenuse of the big “triangle” is not straight. Therefore, it’s not a triangle. Triangle requires only three straight lines. The polygon in the top picture has four lines. It’s just not noticeable “at first glance”.
Your “computer” neural network would look at the picture and say 0% triangle…because it’s not a triangle. It doesn’t meet the definition of “triangle”.
In scientific understanding, you would not take things “at first glance” or for granted. It’s one of the worst things one can do. I do not believe that the top polygon is a triangle even though it might look like it at first glance. Hell, I thought it was at first until I realized that I was being tricked; that the hypotenuse wasn’t perfectly straight.
:right click:
: Save Image:
:“My Pictures”:
I have to admit, that made me smile.
That was neato.