I do hope you only use messaging with online contacts as a preliminary to meeting in person and wait to size up your compatibility from there, scepticalsoulmate, since my impression of you is that you're quite a catch and I'd hate to see you diminished by entering a relationship on someone else's terms, where they're just seeking their own gains.

People who profess their true love in a purely online/messaging relationship from overseas are straight up giving you a great big red flag by showing they can't tell the difference between feelings they made up in their head all by their lonesome and feelings they think others are responsible for.
Take that scenario to an extreme, bad situation and you've got someone who may become violent with you for something they simply made up in their head, but believe you are responsible for.
It's a big red flag and it aint normal brain activity. I think you're better than being involve with that.

Meet first, then decide about someone and a person who doesn't do that, they're kind of not altogether safe because they just plain think wrong.

aint that the truth for us all. You think you're giving opinions about other people when you're young, without realizing you're only talking about yourself, acting like an authority on others when you know nothing about them. The arrogance of youth means this the most I think.

Something that's only 1 foot in breadth sincerely doesn't know about any more than one foot of a mile but if their whole world is a foot across, they know the whole world as far as they know. They can't know for the rest of that mile they're just wrong, wrong, wrong

No, I would be a travel agent working for a major cruise line. My issue is I try not to hang out with co workers because one little (rape) and it goes around the whole office.

No, I would be a travel agent working for a major cruise line. My issue is I try not to hang out with co workers because one little (murder) and it goes around the whole office.

No, I would be a travel agent working for a major cruise line. My issue is I try not to hang out with co workers because one little (uncool threesome) and it goes around the whole office.


What do you do that you don't want people you happen to work with to know about?
Or you're just saying you should be an enigma to coworkers? Like a rockstar.

People are just people dude, and you should be the person you're proud of if you've a social anxiety thing. Pidgeon-holing others turns you into the marionette.

You always have had complete knowledge of anything about yourself, you're the authority on what you would like to do and what you would not like to do and whilst your actions can be overpowered, your sentiments cannot and whilst they may be unwise, they are yours and are there regardless. No academic qualification is required to declare: I do not wish to do this, or I do wish to do this. You can walk around feeling like a complete know-it-all with regard to anything to do with you, personally. You are the only authority on your feelings and sometimes others will challenge it, they will say no you feel what I say because that's what it looks like to me, and you can say, up yours, it's not what you say, it's what I say when it comes to me.

So in this, you are a complete authority. The one and only authority.

However what you think you know of anything about everything else is nothing more than a falsifiable hypothesis. And that includes everything, everything, everything in the entire universe that isn't you.

The context is getting out of your own head when you're with other people.

Part of the trick about socialization skill is we tend to project what we think of someone and what we see as their personality is really our assumptions, often made at a glance and concluded to be something we're receiving from them. Social interaction is, to some extent vicarious.

If you're in a proverbial zen state of mind however, and simply absorbing someone's active presence rather than running through your regular thought processes and hoping you "get each other", you'll find much less preconception involved and far more confidence in how you feel around that person on any given day, as opposed to just that day due to any number of reasons that all essentially come from inside your own head.

Or back to the simple version, get out of your own head around others. If you're not confident about how you feel around them, then you're all up inside your own head instead of being present in front of them.

And if you're talking about messaging relationships where you haven't even met in person then it is completely a relationship with yourself and nobody else, it's a solitary activity and not social interaction, despite intellectual intercourse. You can have intellectual intercourse with the television or using roleplay, a doll if you don't mind looking a bit crazy if someone peeks in a window. Relationships begin and end in physical proximity, with LDR merely a mutually exercised, solitary activity.

No. If atheist you believe an unfalsifiable hypothesis that any human interpretation or assertion of divinity is a descriptor of an unhealthy psyche. It's classic disassociative antisocial behaviour prevalent in youths with poorly developed socialization skills. The kind who tells children there's no Santa, where the child is a mother mourning her dead baby and Santa is finding some sense of relief in mundane religious assertions.

The fact is an unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific, plain and simple. So if you say there is absolutely a god others must believe in or if you say there is absolutely no god for anyone to believe in then either way you're being unscientific because the subject is, by definition as ascendant of physical rules, untestable. So any absolute answer is an unfalsifiable hypothesis as it cannot be physically tested, one way or another.

But everyone is entitled to their opinions on likelihoods. Just don't go around outlawing people's brains when they're doing no criminal activity. Nor should you assert an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is physically untestable as adherent to scientific method. There is no way to test the conclusion there is no god, just as there is no way to test there is. That means neither are scientific conclusions, they're both just falsifiable hypotheses as far as scientific method is concerned.

Sure I could. The very first rule of scientific method is a falsifiable hypothesis, whilst fruitful social interaction necessarily deals in accommodating intrinsic variation. Intolerance can only be applied to behaviour, such as criminal activities for an extreme example, but also actions which compel you to intervene for conscience and disturb your sense of self worth if you tolerate.

In context I cannot tolerate picketing protests outside abortion clinics as it is malicious as a form of social interaction and justifying it with a religious claim doesn't change the fact wilfully malicious acts are only done by malicious personalities in general. It's not the religious claim that bothers me, it's the malicious act which will compel my direct and summary intervention. So if a dating prospect was to do that things probably wouldn't go so well when I knocked them on their proverbial arse for assaulting vulnerable women for things they just made up in their head.

But that's nothing to do with religion as far as I'm concerned. It's just a coincidence that the most cowardly type of criminal calls themselves religious to go around being arsehats. I mean all you have to do to call yourself religious is call yourself religious, stands to reason most are full of crap. It shows the minute you lay out some actual document and linguistics research and start discussing their religion with some academic accuracy on point matter.

The reality is denominational religious devotion is, by and large a political devotion and describes the kind of social rules you prefer in your home or familial community. It's the extremists you want to avoid but any kind of extremist is, to some degree sociopathic. Again despite using religion as the selected environment it's not about religion, but the extremist wielding it. A Catholic extremist who justifies misogyny with their version of it in their head, would do exactly the same thing if they were a Eugenicist instead, twisting whatever system is available and manipulable to suit their predeterminent, aberrant behaviour.

On the other hand you can have say, a Catholic theologian schooled enough in archaic linguistics and relevant academia to hold perfectly intelligent conversations, which neither diminish their sense of faith nor challenges scientific method. The Anglican Church formally attempted this as a policy when Archbishops declared the bible to be interpreted as allegories and parables, as metaphors shouldn't diminish the value of their morality.

What's the word I'm looking for?

Preggers?

Your coworkers will form the most immediate, local social group. Ask early on whether they do things like go out for drinks, might be a simple way to break into the local nightlife.

Unless the job involves turning up at the docks around midnight, wearing a dark hoodie in a pickup truck and wait for someone to flash their lights and you're asking for advice about that. And it sounds fishy dude.

TBH you're sounding more suspicious than he does

I'm just posting so Queennawty notices me...but now I have to say something witty so I'm just going to go away now. At least I can be enigmatic.

I know. It's like adults don't have to answer to gossips and just go around doing any lawful thing they feel like. Sometimes they go for a drive and they're not even driving to the shops or anything, they're just going for a drive. Obviously they don't need permission to go to the toilet because there's a specific reason for going to the toilet but imagine if someone masturbated in there. I think you'd better stand outside toilet doors to make sure nobody does and don't worry so much about people having relationships without your approval, just do one thing at a time. Toilets.

I guess being such a subjective phenomenon the main thing is feeling happy or satisfied with the person you are when around or in a relationship with the person you're with. For example I think you need that almost vicarious emotional connection for sex to be more than just mechanical. The more connection you have the more earth shattering, although obviously moods can affect this but sympathetic connection helps that too. So it needs to be someone you kind of look up to or respect in ways, generally that comes from a sense of understanding you get by seeing some of yourself in this person and the best measure of that is if you like yourself around them.

You can get a similar sexual effect from diametric opposition but the difference there is you don't like yourself around them outside the bedroom and it's unhealthy and won't last through anything requiring complementary spousal cooperation or personal trials requiring support, yet tons of people confuse that for love, that's just lust, with clear warning signs of incompatability. It may sexually simulate love just because we're equipped to understand danger as effectively as camaraderie in order to deal with it instinctively and survive it. If you run around thinking with genitals you won't see the difference between someone your instincts want you to get away from and someone you definitely want to be with, the sex is just as earth shattering but one doesn't shackle you in the basement afterwards.

You need to be open about suitors because we can be surprised where the best matches might come from, ie. friendzoning and coming at it all feminist are dismissive approaches since they require you be all up inside your own head and never even see other people with clarity. But you do need to be aware of how you feel about yourself when you're with a person, do you feel like you're some ugly monster around them and they're doing you a favour, or do you feel just bright and sunshine happy and want to dance to a Fred Astaire musical when you're with them? You need to be open and clear to size that up but I think that's the best measure of the relationship potential.

If you're like me and feel like Fred Astaire in a musical pretty much every time any woman gives you the time of day well then I can't help you any more than I can myself :D hahaha

The Hebrew term 'satan' is a verb and title, not a name. It means arguer or adversary, old Hebrew was a very limited dialect and most words are loose and ambiguous compared to more modern languages. As a title it was given to public advocates, ie. lawyers.

The English word 'devil' comes from the old English, deuil, which is a translation of the latin, daemon or demon, which in turn is the translation of the greek damon, which means divine messenger or ancestral spirit and was used as a substitute for the word seraphim when rabbi wrote in greek instead of Hebrew, because greek is a more concise language than Hebrew, which is as mentioned a very limited and inherently ambiguous dialect in early forms when scripture was first written down.

Satan translates to lawyer, or someone who is acting like a lawyer in an argument. Devil literally means angel, there is no differentiation.

The evangelical concept of Hell simply doesn't exist either in Judaism or early Christian script, it was borrowed from pagan beliefs at the time, which often happened during various stages of christianization. The concept of Hell is taken from Greek mythology where Tartarus was the burning chamber of incarceration within the afterlife realm, Hades which was ruled by the god of earthly realms, Hades. There was also a kind of heaven in Hades. Zeus ruled the divine sky, Poseidon the changing seas and Hades earthly mortality, that was the Greek trinity.
Later, during north European Christianization the terms were changed from Greek but again mixed with local paganism to describe the same concept, which was Greek, except now they used Germanic terms in which the land of the dead was called Nifleheim, in which was a domain called Hel, which was ruled upon by a monstrous goddess named Hel. In Germanic mythology heaven as it were, was in a completely different location whereas originally in the Greek it was in the same neighbourhood, so the new alignment was borrowed too.

There was no hell originally in Judaism, the closest Hebrew term for the concept is that of Sheol, a word that describes the slum neighbourhood of ancient cities, where dead were burned in the street. It was where the most impoverished lived in these cities, so was rife with destitution, disease and the smell of burning flesh. Sheol as such describes a rather unpleasant existence, but an earthly one and describes nothing whatsoever about any fairy lands. Early Christianity started upon this basis but received a tremendous amount of local pagan influence, simply because most early converts had been brought up viewing things in such a manner, and it was much more loose with parables and metaphors by intention, where Judaism in Hebrew is more a linguistics issue and involves a lot of arguing to decide what scripture is even saying between rabbi.

So it's like two jews talking and one says they have a terrible lot in life, the other remarks, gee you must really live in Sheol, whilst a Christian with a classical education scribes the conversation and substitutes the term Gehenna, but then it is rewritten into latin about 5 centuries later as Hell, and a pentacostal comes along and says, my god, it's a real place!
That's how you wound up with hell in Christianity. Similar story with the devil. Lucifer is a name but not a real one, it's a title taken by rulers like Josh the Fearful. It is believed by most scholars it was probably the battlefield title of Nebadchannezzar III. Not a spirit being. And before you say the greatest trick of the devil is making people believe he doesn't exist, the word devil as previously described is a mistranslation (due to modern meaning) of the Hebrew seraphim. Doesn't mean anything more than that. It's just a derivative of the Greek, damon which means divine messenger or ancestral spirit.

edit. it should also be mentioned archaic Hebrew in which earliest scriptures are written uses masculine and feminine linguistic forms, which is why god seems a bit schizo as LORD God in one phrase and creator God in another. Some scholars believe Judaism was originally pantheistic and became monotheistic sometime around the 5th century BC, ie. God was a married couple with a host of demigods not too unlike other period religions, Mr and Mrs God, but the Mrs God sort of got lost along the way, or absorbed into the new omnipotent multifaceted God of many personalities and forms.

Oh and definitely these two. Type of women that habitually divorce after a year or get roofied on the second date and every time, act surprised. Sad conclusions but nobody else is surprised and it. just. keeps. happening.

Some of the ones I've read on women's profiles that give me a headdesk moment:

Must own your own home (bet she can't wait to see my murder room)

Interested in men 25-35 for a long term relationship (her age is 47 and she doesn't look particularly wealthy or MILF or anything)

Must be professionally employed (because she'd say no to Michael Fassbender)

Hi... (no description, no profile questions answered, just a string of photos at MySpace angles...that means cleavage shots taken slightly above head height)

If you're looking for a hookup don't message me (blank profile again, duckface photos and one lacy bra shot)

Jullia5993749875938797 (hijacked celebrity model photo, clearly isn't a catfish in Ghana, tons of those on this site, one is using Emilia Clarke's photo, she's the Queen of Dragons in Game of Thrones it's probably not her)

:D

I think people whom write qualification/requirement "must have" lists are actually thinking of specific people they've met previously, representing personalities or habits they'd rather avoid or tend to clash with. "Must take care of herself," sounds like it would infer avoiding drug addicted party girls as opposed to someone who may have smoked weed once, talking about the type that drinks 'til she vomits on a strangers car and runs off with any guy that has a fistful of ecstacy, tends to be the type that brings violent crims home and is really on a downward spiral; or also the lazily overweight as opposed to being vibrant and simply among diverse body types, talking about the type that has to be dragged out of rolls of fat on her couch with triple cheeseburgers slapped out of her hand and tends to spend every waking moment spewing hatred for what amounts to hating her own life, without the drive to get off her arse and change things she doesn't like about herself or learning to like things she can't change if she can't.

I have met, myself the crim party girl type, wound up a witness at her court case after being together for years. Should've walked earlier, killed a bit of my own self esteem hanging around. But she was hot and we were young.
And I've met the lazily unhealthy type and every time you get fed up with enabling self destructive denial you wind up in an aggressive argument.
I would describe both as women whom had no concept of looking after one's self. To do that you have to learn to be your own parent and to do that you have to grow up and start being independent as opposed to codependent.

But in a sense, mentioning it as a dating requirement seems a lot like baggage. The fact I'm quite over these things some years on means I'd never bother to mention it in a dating profile, or at least I don't think so. Seems a bit negative. Better to mention positive things rather than think of and refer to negative ones.

In a lighter form, you could simply refer to it as meaning someone whom likes to at least consider her own general health in an adult sort of way, ie. somewhat active, reasonably healthy lifestyle, fairly positive attitude towards others, considerate as appropriate: cares about herself without being a narcissist or pretentious. You could simply say a well adjusted adult to the same effect.

It's the "must be" which suggests a touch of baggage, seems abrupt or dismissive.

Firstly, the reason I'm agnostic is because the first rule of scientific method is a falsifiable hypothesis, which means it's impossible to categorically state there is or isn't a god or gods. Regardless of opinion or sentiment or intuition it is simply against the rules of scientific method, so cannot be stated as fact one way or another without being either pseudoscientific or unscientific.

One can only say, this does not fall within the realm of scientific method, therefore your opinion on the matter is just as valid as mine.

Therefore there is no argument with religous people unless they're being pseudoscientific, ie. using bad science, in which case the argument is with the bad science and not the individuals nor their beliefs and opinions.

However atheists are often just as pseudoscientific in their arguments, categorically stating there is no god(s) defies a falsifiable hypothesis in the first place, so is not scientific.

And just as often religious people may not be theologically educated enough to argue their points of view successfully, in the same fashion many atheists aren't scientifically educated enough to argue their points of view very well.
So agnostics can often wind up in arguments with both, though intrinsically have no fundamental argument with either.

This isn't fence sitting, it is correctness. Our social existence however isn't about correctness or being corrected. It's more about appreciation and things like that.

In this vein the statement that atheists believe something came from nothing is pseudoscientific, atheists tend to cite science and the standard model states that mass-energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. That means there is no time where there has been any more nor any less total energy in the universe than this moment, it is a constant, but the form of the energy can change via molecular structures, etc. giving the visual impression of more or less content. There is no true scientific definition of empty space, the closest thing to it is a zero point energy field, but a field of energy nonetheless, a virtual quantum field at worst. There is literally no such thing as a literal nothing in science.

Mad Max just never gets old, I keep watching the first one every now and then and enjoy it just as much every time. That and the remake with Charlize Theron are the two best, hands down.

Haven't seen the cloverfields. Saw the new Bladerunner though, engrossing. And Wonder Woman, but it's impossible to watch Gal Gadot and not smile, she's very elegant and armed. I must admit I was probably thinking of SBS/arthouse sci-fi with the metallic bikini. Standard equipment for a French sci-fi, where the lead is awesomely a woman.

The best part about a female lead in a spacesuit however, re: Alien, Gravity, etc. is, when removed at some point during proceedings women are pleasurably, if oddly required to wear little more than bikini briefs and a teensy little tee shirt under them.

So, big thumbs up on the spacesuit :D