1809 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthCaine]

Are the mods on vacation or something ?

[Ziggy]

HaloKT wrote...

Collider wrote...

HaloKT wrote...
What I think is that every human tries to make up some sort of supernatural entity to believe in.

I don't get the impression of this. Most parts of the world have some supernatural beliefs, but that doesn't mean every human will think of something supernatural on their own.

I however am open to the concept of a supernatural being. Thus I am not an atheist per se.

It doesn't matter whether you're open to the concept or not. What matters is whether you believe in a deity. If you don't, you're an atheist. What constitutes as a deity is up to you.

Every human does search for answers. In absence of such answers, you grab the next best straw you can. It's just what we do.

And I do not agree on your definition of an atheist. Not believing at the moment is not what makes an atheist for me. That is like saying a girl who experimented once during her college years is a lesbian. Or bisexual for that matter. The thing is - in my opinion - to make an atheist, you'd have to abandon all possibility of believing in a supernatural entity. Because even accepting the very concept of a deity could exist would defy atheism.
Oh well, that is my take on it at least.

But there are waffles to be had here, and I feel I'm missing out!

To grab the next best straw by making up an answer is so wrong - not knowing all the answers is exciting! Making up an answer spoils the fun and is a total abnegation of the responsibility to find out the truth. 

[sirandar]

[quote]Collider wrote...

The message is.

Peace and love and all that stuff Jesus spouted off about. That's the point of the bible, not where people came from. Everything else is just semantics that I'm willing to slide on.[/quote]

[/quote]

Peace and Love really aren't  the point of the Bible, but should flow naturally if you are following it's path. Perhaps a better definition is that God asks you to serve him/her in whatever way is most appropriate.  Most appropriate is very vague and that is by design.

Modifié par sirandar, 13 mars 2010 - 01:22 .

[Collider]

CShep25 wrote...
Maybe not the old testament. Jesus pretty much pointed out the fallacies of the Old Testament, and brought about the interpretation of the loving god rather than the vegeful one.

Plenty of verses that go against god and jesus being completely peaceful in the new testament.

[Collider]

[quote]sirandar wrote...

[quote]Collider wrote...

The message is.

Peace and love and all that stuff Jesus spouted off about. That's the point of the bible, not where people came from. Everything else is just semantics that I'm willing to slide on.[/quote]

[/quote]

Peace and Love really aren't  the point of the Bible, but should flow naturally if you are following it's path.[/quote]
Should. But does it always? Plenty of people have used their religious books, including the Bible, for hate. This thread may be a very example of it!

[sirandar]

Collider wrote...

CShep25 wrote...
Maybe not the old testament. Jesus pretty much pointed out the fallacies of the Old Testament, and brought about the interpretation of the loving god rather than the vegeful one.

Plenty of verses that go against god and jesus being completely peaceful in the new testament.

True but there was a marked reduction I would think.  The Story of Job gives me chills. 

[sirandar]

mrfoo1 wrote...

sirandar wrote...

Problem is, who is going to go about keeping this principle when one of the primary advantages of faith is the power of numbers.

HaloKT wrote...
Beliefs are awesome though, as long as they're kept on an individual basis.

Individual bias is exclusionary to the terms of the ideology it ecompases. To say that an andividual can hold a belief in an organized or adopted ideology is a bit of a fallacious statement imo. The individual may hold that belief but they still follow the greater crowed. Even when the individuals belief is directly and indirectly opposed or oppressed.

The concept of an individual is only as valid as it pertains to the individual's survival. Again imo.

Translation:  People pick and choose which parts of any given faith they can tolerate.  They weight the pros and cons with respect to their own survival

[CShep25]

Collider wrote...

CShep25 wrote...
Maybe not the old testament. Jesus pretty much pointed out the fallacies of the Old Testament, and brought about the interpretation of the loving god rather than the vegeful one.

Plenty of verses that go against god and jesus being completely peaceful in the new testament.

Really? Jesus got mad once in his entire life where he upturned a table. He had a bit of a dickish attitude at times, but he was never hostile.

The OT had God nuke humanity with a flood. The NT God cracked a pillar and tore a veil instead when Jesus died.

[HaloKT]

After educating myself on the subject, it seems we are both right and both wrong. Apparently there are varying degrees of atheism, and I just happen to have picked one extreme, while you have picked the other. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here, since your definition sounds about as logical to me as mine must sound to you. Since there is no "official" agreement on what is considered the "true" atheism, maybe we'll just leave it at that, no?
I did enjoy the little debate though.

As for ******-/bisexuality, it is a very good analogy for me in this case. Many girls are branded lesbians or at least bisexual if they sleep with another woman once. Some even call themselves that, in spite of them being perfectly straight for the rest of their lives. you can perceive it in this forum as well, just read up on people's thoughts on Jack's sexuality. the game mentions she has had a threesome involving a woman once, into which she does seem to have been coerced, and people take that as proof she is bisexual.

[Collider]

Really? Jesus got mad once in his entire life where he upturned a table. He had a bit of a dickish attitude at times, but he was never hostile.

I'll pretend you already know about hell and for some reason don't think that has anything to do with being a dick.
Have you ever read Relevation? God sends angels to kill people on earth...almost everyone dies.
Jesus kills people too as well.

Modifié par Collider, 13 mars 2010 - 01:35 .

[Collider]

HaloKT wrote...
As for ******-/bisexuality, it is a very good analogy for me in this case. Many girls are branded lesbians or at least bisexual if they sleep with another woman once. Some even call themselves that, in spite of them being perfectly straight for the rest of their lives. you can perceive it in this forum as well, just read up on people's thoughts on Jack's sexuality. the game mentions she has had a threesome involving a woman once, into which she does seem to have been coerced, and people take that as proof she is bisexual.

The difference is that atheism is not really analogous to sexuality. You can have sex of a certain sexuality...atheists don't really have an action to them. you either believe or you don't.

Modifié par Collider, 13 mars 2010 - 01:41 .

[sirandar]

HaloKT wrote...

After educating myself on the subject, it seems we are both right and both wrong. Apparently there are varying degrees of atheism, and I just happen to have picked one extreme, while you have picked the other. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here, since your definition sounds about as logical to me as mine must sound to you. Since there is no "official" agreement on what is considered the "true" atheism, maybe we'll just leave it at that, no?
I did enjoy the little debate though.

As for ******-/bisexuality, it is a very good analogy for me in this case. Many girls are branded lesbians or at least bisexual if they sleep with another woman once. Some even call themselves that, in spite of them being perfectly straight for the rest of their lives. you can perceive it in this forum as well, just read up on people's thoughts on Jack's sexuality. the game mentions she has had a threesome involving a woman once, into which she does seem to have been coerced, and people take that as proof she is bisexual.

The confusion is mostly due to the perspective.  From her prespective a person is, what they currently are.  If she doesn't want any more same sex encounters she moves from bi to hetero at that very instant.

From the outside perspective if she has even one same sex encounter then she is bisexual depending on the vested beliefs of the viewer unless she openly decalres one way or another. Even then the viewer may decide the contrary

Modifié par sirandar, 13 mars 2010 - 01:54 .

[jgordon11]

HaloKT wrote...

After educating myself on the subject, it seems we are both right and both wrong. Apparently there are varying degrees of atheism, and I just happen to have picked one extreme, while you have picked the other. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here, since your definition sounds about as logical to me as mine must sound to you. Since there is no "official" agreement on what is considered the "true" atheism, maybe we'll just leave it at that, no?
I did enjoy the little debate though.

Only true atheists are the Allied Atheist Alliance

[Collider]

sirandar wrote...
The confusion is mostly due to the perspective.  From her prespective a person is, what they currently are.  If she doesn't want any more same sex encounters she moves from ****** to hetero at that very instant.

From the outside perspective if she has even one same sex encounter then she is bisexual depending on the vested beliefs of the viewer unless she openly decalres one way or another. Even then the viewer may decide the contrary

There's a clear distinction of how one is perceived and how one actually is. Young people experiment with their sexuality all the time, for example, but it doesn't need to reflect their actual attractions. A woman or man can sleep with the same sex (or opposite sex for that matter) but realize that the attraction just isn't there.

Modifié par Collider, 13 mars 2010 - 01:47 .

[sirandar]

Collider wrote...

sirandar wrote...
The confusion is mostly due to the perspective.  From her prespective a person is, what they currently are.  If she doesn't want any more same sex encounters she moves from ****** to hetero at that very instant.

From the outside perspective if she has even one same sex encounter then she is bisexual depending on the vested beliefs of the viewer unless she openly decalres one way or another. Even then the viewer may decide the contrary

There's a clear distinction of how one is perceived and how one actually is. Young people experiment with their sexuality all the time, for example, but it doesn't need to reflect their actual attractions. A woman or man can sleep with the same sex (or opposite sex for that matter) but realize that the attraction just isn't there.

Isn't that what I just said?  "but realize that the attraction just isn't there" = at that moment she moves from bi to hetero

Modifié par sirandar, 13 mars 2010 - 01:53 .

[PyroFreak301]

Going to such efforts to stick an accurate label on a persons viewpoint seems a bit pointless. Even more so when you consider their viewpoint can change in an instant.



I preferred it when waffles were being discussed

[EternalWolfe]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

Going to such efforts to stick an accurate label on a persons viewpoint seems a bit pointless. Even more so when you consider their viewpoint can change in an instant.

I preferred it when waffles were being discussed

You could always make a 'point' of how waffles somehow make a valid reference to the current discussion, and then everyone can fight over what a true waffle is.



Edit: Oh, and demand that pancakes not be allowed in ME3.  Wouldn't want those filthy, messy, pancake eaters to get their way, amiright?

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 13 mars 2010 - 01:59 .

[sirandar]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

Going to such efforts to stick an accurate label on a persons viewpoint seems a bit pointless. Even more so when you consider their viewpoint can change in an instant.

I preferred it when waffles were being discussed

For some people understanding this little diiference can make the difference between pain and regret and moving on with their lives.  You are only ******, hetero or bi as long as that is that you choose to be or feel you must be. 

Obsessing about labels is only relevant in those labels are causing you pain, which is very common unfortunately.

To sum it up:  Having a same sex encounter doesn't make you anything .... You make you ...

Modifié par sirandar, 13 mars 2010 - 02:08 .

[SimonTheFrog]

It's interesting how this turns into a brawl about all sorts of subjects now.

Let's try something new:



I'm a vegetarian.



Discuss!

[Crimmsonwind]

Glad to see the thread is still dripping with hate and folks are still battling it out. You guys make me look like the peace loving hippie. Yikes.

[Ryzaki]

I just googled images of vampires and the second image was that of twilight (Edward and Bella)..

...

...

What is the world coming too?!?

*cries*

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 mars 2010 - 02:03 .

[Crimmsonwind]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

It's interesting how this turns into a brawl about all sorts of subjects now.
Let's try something new:

I'm a vegetarian.

Discuss!

I'm not a fan of beef myself, but I do still eat chicken and fish. How do oyu like being a vegetarian?

[Frieza1987]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

It's interesting how this turns into a brawl about all sorts of subjects now.
Let's try something new:

I'm a vegetarian.

Discuss!

I hate vegetarians, and hope they are banned from the ME universe.