100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
respect...allowing others to believe and have their faith without judging them for it or trying to convert them to your religion ..EVERYONE deserves FREEDOM of religion... it's not thier religion i focus on..it's do they treat me with the same respect i give them..simple.......it seems hysterical to ask people to respect your beliefs when you dont respect others dont you think? well said. if all beliefs are to be respected then islamic extremisim and the kkk must be respected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh boy, a post about religion at an "un-Godly" hour of the night. *rimshot please* My take on religion is very simple: We're all guessing. There, I said it. Many of the religions that exist (or so far that I'm aware of) are based around trying to discover how we came to exist on the planet. And because humans are...well, humans, we all have different opinions and that leads to some interesting theories as to how everything we know of and don't know of came to be. This is where the word "Faith" comes in. Allow me to take the definition from Merriam Websters: Merriam Webster defines "Faith (noun)" with definition 2b as: firm belief for something in which there is no proof (2) complete trust). That definition pretty much sums up all forms of religion on the different ideas of how we got here. And as several posters in this thread have said, religion is often blamed for when people who are fanatics do things that put others in harms way simply because they believe that what they believe is right, and they believe it with every fiber of their being. I like to call these people psychopaths, because that is what they are; they have absolutely no conscience. Instead of blaming the religion, or even blaming the individual(s) who carried out the acts that put others in harms way (or worse) simply know that it takes someone who is mentally unstable to do something of that nature. That's the end of my post as I'll not get into the much more controversial modern religious happenings. in psychology, a diagnosis of delusional is one who believes in a certain concept in spit of evidence to support an alternative concept. i'd say that applies to the god fearing. Here's a "concept" jr posted (bolded for emphasis) science does not depend on faith whatsoever and scientists do not put out facts. scientists do not BELIEVE in a theory as the faithful BELIEVE in god. indeed the scientific method requires that science question every theory put forward by testing evidence that supports the theory to see if it produces repeatable and predictable results. religion does not allow for such testing, one because there is no evidence to be tested and two, because the faithful have been indoctrinated not to question god. Now we have a conundrum... jr, has expressed his opinion that he has no beliefs yet he posted the words above. Will jr deny believing the words he wrote? He has also stated that he doesn't "waste his time" learning about "God". no, i don't BELIEVE that i posted the above words. as i experienced myself posting the words i KNOW that i posted them. there's a huge difference between "belief" and "knowledge." i can KNOW what i experience. i cannot KNOW anything that i don't experience including what i read in a bible or a book by stephen hawkings because i've experienced nothing that is written. i can see plausibility in what hawking writes but i find nothing plausible in the bible. Sooooo, Ima jus gunna call bullchit! on that statement and offer my "proof". 1 Thessalonians 5:21 King James Version (KJV) 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. i understand you see scripture as proof. i see it as mere unsubstantiated testimony. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think that the world would be a safer place without religious dogma that can be interpreted to do harm. thus i've no respect for any religion. i do respect the right for people to practice as they choose. JR, you basically summed up why I believe in God, but intentionally choose not to have a religion. I have my own belief, and it does not exclude science. Nor does it deny anyone else's choice of worship. It's just what works for me, and it's simple. hey, if it works for you, great. i don't think any believe in itself is dangerouss. it's the dogma that i have trouble with especially the "believe precisely as i do or else" crap as happened during the crusades. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Science" itself does not depend on faith. But you believing the science is true is on faith, unless of course again you have repeated the experiment(s). but i don't BELIEVE that the science is true. in fact i don't believe anything and question everything as happens with the scientific method. every claim is tested over and over again when there is ample evidence to be tested. because a theory passed the latest series of tests does not mean i believe the therory. means i'm awaiting the next test, and the next, and the next. one because there is no evidence to be tested and two, because the faithful have been indoctrinated not to question god. e is much evidence, just gotta look. i'm always willing to look at SCIENTIFIC evidence so perhaps you can tell me where to look. but scripture will not do as that is mere testimony which is not consider SCIENTIFIC evidence. there's the rub cowboy. you say there's evidence and throw scripture on the table as such but i don't consider that evidence but simply someone's opinion. i've read all the scripture that you've thrown ont the table and simply don't see such things as genesis plausible. the big ban is plausible to me. highly plausible but that does not mean i accept is as a belief or true. 2. Not true. We don't question God because we know it to be true. In school, while being taught by teachers, did you question what the teachers taught you? If not, why not? How do you know it to be true? Because they tell you it is? That's a bit on the side of blind faith there. therein lies the difference between me and you. you don't question god and i've always question science and still do. you bet i questioned what teachers taught me. in fact i corrected a high school physics teacher on several occasions. blind faith is taking something as truth without any evidence to suggest it's true. now who has blind faith? me, who questions everything, believes nothing with no faith in anything? or you who never questions god? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh boy, a post about religion at an "un-Godly" hour of the night. *rimshot please* My take on religion is very simple: We're all guessing. There, I said it. Many of the religions that exist (or so far that I'm aware of) are based around trying to discover how we came to exist on the planet. And because humans are...well, humans, we all have different opinions and that leads to some interesting theories as to how everything we know of and don't know of came to be. This is where the word "Faith" comes in. Allow me to take the definition from Merriam Websters: Merriam Webster defines "Faith (noun)" with definition 2b as: firm belief for something in which there is no proof (2) complete trust). That definition pretty much sums up all forms of religion on the different ideas of how we got here. And as several posters in this thread have said, religion is often blamed for when people who are fanatics do things that put others in harms way simply because they believe that what they believe is right, and they believe it with every fiber of their being. I like to call these people psychopaths, because that is what they are; they have absolutely no conscience. Instead of blaming the religion, or even blaming the individual(s) who carried out the acts that put others in harms way (or worse) simply know that it takes someone who is mentally unstable to do something of that nature. That's the end of my post as I'll not get into the much more controversial modern religious happenings. in psychology, a diagnosis of delusional is one who believes in a certain concept in spit of evidence to support an alternative concept. i'd say that applies to the god fearing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this part bothers me: My religion does not ask people to believe blindly and without scientific evidence in supernatural "saviors," "prophets" or "avatars" of a particular ethnicity or culture. science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith. to have proof would require no faith. even the religion described here would demand a certain amout of faith, only that faith is placed in a mind set rather than a god, prophet or savior with no evidence as to the right or wrong of its premise. Science depends on faith on our part as well. Have you specifically redone the experiments to come to the conclusion on Scientific facts to verify their truth? If not, the "fact" scientists put out are taken on faith on a regular persons' behalf. science does not depend on faith whatsoever and scientists do not put out facts. scientists do not BELIEVE in a theory as the faithful BELIEVE in god. indeed the scientific method requires that science question every theory put forward by testing evidence that supports the theory to see if it produces repeatable and predictable results. religion does not allow for such testing, one because there is no evidence to be tested and two, because the faithful have been indoctrinated not to question god. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read about it quite a bit and I can understand the evidence. The evidence is overwhelming that Al-Qaida is responsible and there is absolutely nothing to corroborate any US or third party conspiracy. If it was that overwhelming, everyone would agree, but the fact is many don't, and for good reason. not so in the least. i'll refer you to the holocaust as an example. overwhelming evidence that it occured and not everyone agrees that it happened. so give me a 'good reason' some deny the holocaust happening. can you produce evidence that would underwhelm the evidence that supports the holocaust actually happening or that 9/11 was the work of jihadist extremists? let's see it. dispute the actual evidence. a conspiracy theory is simply an alternative theory and not evidence in itself that another explanation, official or otherwise, is in error much less false. when you make a claim of conspiricy you inherit the burden to proove your claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aw shucks, leigh. kind words.
i recently read of a study that concluded that more people have been killed because of our 'reactions' to 9/11 than were actually killed during the attack. the study saw that the increased number of people who chose to drive long distance who would normally have flown, but for the hassel of "homeland security", has resulted in an increase in trafic fatalities during the last decade that exceed those lost in the tragedy itself. think about it folks. we keep handing these terrorists win after win everytime we enact another law that changes the way we choose to live our lives. government cannot enhance you're safety more than a tiny amount and it damn sure cannot provide you the life you had before this jihad came to america. only you can live the life you choose to live. now let's flip the bastards the finger one last time and get back to living it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peronally i don't even think about 911 anymore. it's number 1 on my speed dial.
seriously folks, all this talk about conspiracies, the rediculous "security" measurse we've enacted since 9/11 and the continuing idiotic rhetoric political and otherwise we keep babbling keeps giving bin laden win after win even in his watery grave. the best way to fight this jihadist crap is to get on with our lives. al queda's single purpose was to disrupt our american way of living and we've been the best guy on their team in accomplishing their goal. recall shoe bomber richard reid. he completely failed to blow up himself and an airliner full of people but he accomplished bin laden's primary purpose. i can see the bastard sitting with his buddies in a cave somewhere pointing at his tv, laughing his *** off and saying, "hahahaha. lookit that. now the infidels will be taking their shoes off just to get on an airplane. hahahahahahahaaaaaaa." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think that the world would be a safer place without religious dogma that can be interpreted to do harm. thus i've no respect for any religion. i do respect the right for people to practice as they choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
phyicists riducule the nothion that the higgs bosen is "the god partical."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
punitive damags work for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ramance
|
|
chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the reason that you can't date younger men is because you must date older men. when you date younger men you take yourself out of the dating pool for us older men who must have plenty of younger women to date. quite simple really. i like these easy questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Question about relationships
|
|
these questions always seem loaded to me. i'm hearing one persons take on a situation that involves two people. to be of any help i'd have to sit down with your bf and blow suds off a few cold ones. hear his take on all this you see. could be from his point of view he has every reason to suspect that there's something more than simple friendship going on.
oh yeah, you're buying the beer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey pay, when i left my last marraige i took a couple of years just doing guy stuff and stayed away from the pretty ones completely. i found it kinda neat not having to be considerate of the ladies. after those 2 years i think i was more ready than ever before to dive back in but with a difference; now i've found quite a bit of happiness in my bachelorhood and don't feel the pressure to find a gal just to have her around. i can relax and just let it happen if it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Advice.
|
|
@ Emo chick: I have a very good ******** radar and I am very good at reading between the lines. herein lies the biggest hurdle to affective communication, imo. anyone who thinks they're good at reading between the lines is a terrible communicator as i've discovered. attempting to read something that was never said is always unfair to the one doing the saying. read and listen to exactly what what was said. if you read or hear something different then ask for clarification but never ever assume that anything that was said meant anything other than precisely what was said |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
though i'm agnostic and not theist or atheist i see both questions like this. if you think you did the ethical thing in either or both cases then you were morally correct. my ethical and moral standards have been derived from my own experiences and a healthy dose of common sense. i don't look to others for moral guidance. living up to my own moral and ethical standards is all that matters to me. having said that, my ethics would not have allowed me to promise to say a prayer that i knew i wouldn't say. there are other things that can be said in such circumstances, such as "he will be in my thoughts."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we humans are so predisposed to violence that we've paid to see it for centuries and call it enjoyment. from the coluseum in rome where gladiators fought to the death to the coluseum in oakland where raider fans pay what some would call a week's wages to see a sport so violent that it can cost the price of good used car to equip just one of the participants just so the violence won't hurt too much. and i can recall a time when muhamad ali was the most recognized man on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 12/11/11 08:16 AM
|
|
Trying to prove for a psychology class debate on Tuesday that humans are not naturally violent. I will post some of the material I have so far but would love your insight on why they are not or anything I can research to help my claim. I will be standing up with two other individuals conveying this then there will be another group that comes up and tries to prove that we are naturally violent. Then the class interjects. Any ideas or strong points to prove my defense? sorry but i think you got wrong side for this debate. but if you and your two cronies can pull this one off you'd be a hit in politics. lol. good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
