Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jenson_Rules

Sexuality; What Are Your Views?

Sexuality  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Your Sexuality A Choice?

    • Yes
      24
    • No
      24
  2. 2. Should Homosexual Men And Women Have Equal Rights With Straight People?

    • Yes
      39
    • No
      9
  3. 3. Should Homosexual Couples Be Allowed To Adopt?

    • Yes
      24
    • No
      24


Recommended Posts

And his aggressive style is not for everybody.

Indeed, I might not even agree with him all the way. However it is wonderful that there is someone like him in this world, we need more people like him. He isn't the type to un-convert people, but he has his place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible is so true that revelations says that you will be using the 666 (mark of the beast) and tht without taht we could not buy or sell and that is exactly what is happening today, YOU and ME are using the 666 in that is in those bar codes the EAN (Euroean Article Numbering) and in the UPC (Universal Product Code) I don't know if know something about thoses codes, but thoses lines are numbers and the is a frame in everyone of thoses codes, begining with a couple of thin lines in every end and two more in the center and thoses lines are 6, every number can be done in three different combination and that is one of the combination to do the number 6, so far now almost every person in this world has a bar codes asigned, take a look at your ID, I used to work for Citibank and they were testing a "new tecnology" (in the 90s) that is called Iris-scan, how it works, there is scanner that look into your eyes and read your iris, with this info a bar code is created for you, with this the bank was planing to replace fisrt the credit cars pins, and then the whole credit card.

The barcode is not the mark of the beast becasue the Mark of the beast will be placed in the right hand or in the forehead, right this barcodes taht we are using is just in the products not in ourselves, so right now there is no problem with that, the problem is that while there is a lot of people denying the truth of the bible EVERYTHING taht is in the bible is becoming true, but you that don't read it, and you that don't believe in the bible are being part of this world without noticing theses things, and one day there will be a "new tecnology" like the one called Mondex Smart Card, that will be very helpfull for everybody and they will not know that they are really getting the mark of the beast in their bodies, the warning is in the bible and we are telling you about that, there will be a day where you could not say "I didn't know" you will have to say "I didn't believe" but every prophecy in the bible is becoming a reality but you don't realize it because yo don't know what is in the bible.

Just read theses links before you reply.

http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/mondex.html

I've read your post, and whilst being respectful of your views, I have to disagree.

Religion is the cause of most wars in this world as I have said before. And as for 666 if you read the following link, you'll actually see that it is held as holy in Judaism, means "ellah or Allah" in Arabic (God).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/23/mobile_number_sold/

As stated before, I respect your opinion and I will not belittle it. But you'll find all over the world homosexuals being persecuted. This is not God's will. As I was brought up, God is supposed to be an understanding, empathic, compassionate and loving being. The bible was written (if indeed) by Man. God's will is not to belittle each other, or call each other wrong, or hate gay people.

As for sex supposedly only being for procreation (or whatever the word is lol), thats not entirely true. If so, then masturbation wouldn't exist at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Kay_zee, I disagree. Concepts such as good and evil have no basis in reality, rather they are just perspectives on behaviour. Your assertion that evil exists is just as unsupportable as HotRod's or Schumikonen's assertion in the truth of the bible or the existence of God. Both are based on a belief in an abstract concept of moral ideal (i.e. an absolute truth), and neither has any basis in our physical reality.

While most of us agree that a belief in a supreme being is by definition an unprovable proposition (which is why it's called faith), many of us fail to view our own value systems with similar clarity. For example, your belief that evil exists in the world is merely a projection of your own personal values and life perspective. When if fact, what's actually happening in the world is random acts of nature, disease, and in the case of human sponsored tragedy, acts premised on competing intrests and objectives that are incongruent with your priorities.

I'll give you an example. Many see capital punishment as evil, whereas many people see it as entirely justifiable. What differentiates those groups of people is not that one is morally superior to the other, rather they simply do not share the same moral perspective on the issue. And a moral perspective is nothing more than a projection of our own internally generated value system (i.e. what matters to us).

Nevertheless, the reason that concepts like "good" and "evil", or "right" and "wrong" get so much play, (and particularly why we see them used so greatly in the context of political discussions) is that they convey tremendous emotive resonance, and as a result, are often effective in persuading others when simple logic and reason is not sufficient. Very often they are used in an attempt to persuade the listener that the argument being proposed is premised on a shared value system, such that scrutiny is directed away from the motives of the speaker.

HotRod, the problem with arguments such as yours is that they are premised on an a priori belief in the truth of the bible, whereas the rest of us reject that basic assumption as mere superstition with no basis in reality. As a result, if we reject the very premise of your argument, there is no point in reading any of it.

Well I consider evil to be people, rather than any system or action, the people who hurt defenceless creatures in this world for no fundamental need (e.g. food) are evil, not for their actual actions but for their ability to carry it out. I agree the word is used far too lightly by many to emphasis things, especially in headlines. I certainly do not agree with the idea that people must turn to God because they fear what he would do otherwise.

And I do not understand why you elude to the idea that I say I am definitely right, I have several times pointed out that what I think, is an opinion rather than fact and pointed out that HR should realise the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I consider evil to be people, rather than any system or action, the people who hurt defenceless creatures in this world for no fundamental need (e.g. food) are evil, not for their actual actions but for their ability to carry it out. I agree the word is used far too lightly by many to emphasis things, especially in headlines. I certainly do not agree with the idea that people must turn to God because they fear what he would do otherwise.

And I do not understand why you elude to the idea that I say I am definitely right, I have several times pointed out that what I think, is an opinion rather than fact and pointed out that HR should realise the same.

Out of interest, do you consider animals that kill other defenceless animals for food to be evil or to be acting on their instinct?

Just because humans have the capacity to choose meat or vegetables doesn't make the choice for meat 'evil'. Killing or abusing an animal for recreation could be deemed evil as it has no specific survival purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pump, i agree it really is a mission having to scroll past all that religious drivel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing people should learn is that by shoving this drivel upon us you don't prove any point at all, but then that's why religous people are the biggest cultists around, they drink the kool-ade(Jonestown) and blindly follow...........

This cuts both ways. While it's true that religious persons follow their doctrines, well, religiously, athiests also follow their doctrines with the fervor of religion. Some questions cannot be answered by science alone. Describing the physical world around us, and the laws that govern it, is fine and dandy, but it doesn't answer the question of 'what put those laws into place?' The answer that it put itself into place is, to me, as ridiculous as saying an unseen power did it. Both arguments cannot be answered, only guessed at. Choose what guess you buy into and remain true to that.

Actually Kay_zee, I disagree. Concepts such as good and evil have no basis in reality, rather they are just perspectives on behaviour. Your assertion that evil exists is just as unsupportable as HotRod's or Schumikonen's assertion in the truth of the bible or the existence of God. Both are based on a belief in an abstract concept of moral ideal (i.e. an absolute truth), and neither has any basis in our physical reality.

While most of us agree that a belief in a supreme being is by definition an unprovable proposition (which is why it's called faith), many of us fail to view our own value systems with similar clarity. For example, your belief that evil exists in the world is merely a projection of your own personal values and life perspective. When if fact, what's actually happening in the world is random acts of nature, disease, and in the case of human sponsored tragedy, acts premised on competing intrests and objectives that are incongruent with your priorities.

I'll give you an example. Many see capital punishment as evil, whereas many people see it as entirely justifiable. What differentiates those groups of people is not that one is morally superior to the other, rather they simply do not share the same moral perspective on the issue. And a moral perspective is nothing more than a projection of our own internally generated value system (i.e. what matters to us).

Nevertheless, the reason that concepts like "good" and "evil", or "right" and "wrong" get so much play, (and particularly why we see them used so greatly in the context of political discussions) is that they convey tremendous emotive resonance, and as a result, are often effective in persuading others when simple logic and reason is not sufficient. Very often they are used in an attempt to persuade the listener that the argument being proposed is premised on a shared value system, such that scrutiny is directed away from the motives of the speaker.

HotRod, the problem with arguments such as yours is that they are premised on an a priori belief in the truth of the bible, whereas the rest of us reject that basic assumption as mere superstition with no basis in reality. As a result, if we reject the very premise of your argument, there is no point in reading any of it.

I would expect this argument from a defense lawyer!! (kidding of course, Jay) Your argument reminds me of the shinto Way and also mirrors what some Yogis have put forth on the nature of Trimurti (Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu). Have you ever read Joseph Campbell by any chance?

when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong

The difficult part is in the determining.

Why, anytime :D

'Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests".'

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difficult part is in the determining.

I fear I've de-railed the de-railing of the thread......sorry.....

To the first part, I agree entirely.

To the second part, no problem Mike! I would far sooner debate with you, with open minds on both sides (as far as our core beliefs will allow, I suppose) than be bombarded with scripture and blinkered views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest, do you consider animals that kill other defenceless animals for food to be evil or to be acting on their instinct?

Just because humans have the capacity to choose meat or vegetables doesn't make the choice for meat 'evil'. Killing or abusing an animal for recreation could be deemed evil as it has no specific survival purpose.

I had food in brackets as an example of a fundamental need, as one needs to eat. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it's true that religious persons follow their doctrines, well, religiously, athiests also follow their doctrines with the fervor of religion. Some questions cannot be answered by science alone. Describing the physical world around us, and the laws that govern it, is fine and dandy, but it doesn't answer the question of 'what put those laws into place?' The answer that it put itself into place is, to me, as ridiculous as saying an unseen power did it. Both arguments cannot be answered, only guessed at. Choose what guess you buy into and remain true to that.

Well I agree basically that we just don't know how the universe came to be. Therefore I always say we simply can't say much about it. My problem arises when some religious people base their (and worse, others') lives around such an unsubstantiated belief. The sensible thing to do is to work from shared human values and common sense as much as possible imho. The atheist has no obstacles to that, whereas most (though not all) theists do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt it, I see Mr "I don't think gay people should adopt because the kids would get bullied lurking"

:banana_new:

Sorry I live in the real world not the land of kum-by-ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do people feel about stupid pet tricks? Stupid human tricks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got too late into the discussion to add anything interesting. My vote was for "yes" on all the questions, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay, does this sound familiar to you?

"This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose"

when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

I like this one.....

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

Well I consider evil to be people, rather than any system or action, the people who hurt defenceless creatures in this world for no fundamental need (e.g. food) are evil, not for their actual actions but for their ability to carry it out. I agree the word is used far too lightly by many to emphasis things, especially in headlines. I certainly do not agree with the idea that people must turn to God because they fear what he would do otherwise.

And I do not understand why you elude to the idea that I say I am definitely right, I have several times pointed out that what I think, is an opinion rather than fact and pointed out that HR should realise the same.

Kay_zee, I am not debating with you what qualifies as evil and what does not, I am saying that if the concept of "evil" is to have meaning within the context of reality, it does not mean what you think it does......

And it doesn't matter whether the context is within a headline of a newspaper, a casual comment on the moral relativism of your neighbor, or in a speech given by the American President designed to divert the electorate's focus from the failings of his own administration - it amounts to the same thing. A semantic shell game intended to conceal the speaker's real message of personal condemnation.

This cuts both ways. While it's true that religious persons follow their doctrines, well, religiously, athiests also follow their doctrines with the fervor of religion. Some questions cannot be answered by science alone. Describing the physical world around us, and the laws that govern it, is fine and dandy, but it doesn't answer the question of 'what put those laws into place?' The answer that it put itself into place is, to me, as ridiculous as saying an unseen power did it. Both arguments cannot be answered, only guessed at. Choose what guess you buy into and remain true to that.

Not necessarily Mike. One can be agnostic, atheistic, or both, and it requires no religious fervor to do so, only intellectual discipline (which is arguably the precise opposite of religious fervor!!!!). I am an atheist in that I do not believe in a sky-god (or any other kind of [G]od for that matter), however I also consider myself agnostic, in that I appreciate my capacity for knowledge is limited by my subjective perception of reality. Given the common definition of [G]od, that he/she exists on an ethereal plane of existence, which does not require a physical manifestation in our tangible world - it's hard to argue otherwise. However, the cynic would say that God was so defined intentionally - in a clever trick to insulate believers from doubt and critique.

As for your criticism that science cannot explain the origin for the laws of physics, that is not entirely true. Modern quantum physics (and I am by no means an expert in that area) suggest that the physical laws that define and govern the universe were created at the moment of the Big Bang, and it was the very nature of that event which set those laws in motion.

This can be contrasted against religion in the sense that science operates on the basis of hypothesis and experimentation, whereas religion operates on the basis of postulates. Unless an hypothesis can be tested, replicated, and verified, science rejects it as nothing more than an unproven theory (more commonly known as the scientific method). Big Bang theory is not an unproven theory, as many of the effects which it predicted have subsequently been discovered or proven through scientific experimentation. By contrast, religion utilizes no similar methodologies to test its tenets of faith - rather it uses postulates in the form of a priori assertions and assumptions to explain that which was not previously understood.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not bashing religion - but it is not fair to say that science is no more than a belief system in the same sense that religion is, nor is it fair to suggest that either can provide equally compelling explanations for the origins of life, the laws of physics, or the universe itself.

I would expect this argument from a defense lawyer!! (kidding of course, Jay) Your argument reminds me of the shinto Way and also mirrors what some Yogis have put forth on the nature of Trimurti (Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu). Have you ever read Joseph Campbell by any chance?

:clap3:

Nope Mike, to be honest I haven't read any of his works, though I was passingly familiar with him.

Most gods have a common ancestry. If you follow migration patterns backwards, you can track the 'gods' back to an original source. It's then that you gain the proper perspective, I believe, to look at our current 'gods' and discern the silver thread of truth from the rough hemp of human imaginations.

Maybe so Mike, but the "truth" you speak of seems to say more about our human need for reassurance than it does about the validity of a belief in [G]od.

Out of interest, do you consider animals that kill other defenceless animals for food to be evil or to be acting on their instinct?

Just because humans have the capacity to choose meat or vegetables doesn't make the choice for meat 'evil'. Killing or abusing an animal for recreation could be deemed evil as it has no specific survival purpose.

I had food in brackets as an example of a fundamental need, as one needs to eat. ;)

I was going to point this out, then I saw that you had already done so.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily Mike. One can be agnostic, atheistic, or both, and it requires no religious fervor to do so, only intellectual discipline (which is arguably the precise opposite of religious fervor!!!!).

I think my explanation went a bit astray of what I meant. The true athiest, believing in nothing but the answers science gives him, is as close-minded about the existence of a God as the religious person is about that God's existence. Both cannot prove beyond doubt that their belief is correct, yet both still stubbornly cling to their unprovable notions. I completely understand the athiest view because God is unprovable to us in the physical sense, but it takes a closed mind to close off the possibility of God's existence simply because we cannot prove it in a controlled laboratory experiment. Any decent scientist who is concerned with the Truth, will close an explanation only when it's proven false, not when it's assumed false. The agnostic's way is the better, as I see it, because it allows for an open mind.

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in a sky-god (or any other kind of [G]od for that matter), however I also consider myself agnostic, in that I appreciate my capacity for knowledge is limited by my subjective perception of reality. Given the common definition of [G]od, that he/she exists on an ethereal plane of existence, which does not require a physical manifestation in our tangible world - it's hard to argue otherwise. However, the cynic would say that God was so defined intentionally - in a clever trick to insulate believers from doubt and critique.

If Jesus existed, and did what is claimed in the Bible, then there has been proof....just not proof that you have personally seen. The argument that God doesn't manifest to the tangible world is not correct in the context of the Bible. He has manifested. It's up to each person to believe that or not.

As for your criticism that science cannot explain the origin for the laws of physics, that is not entirely true. Modern quantum physics (and I am by no means an expert in that area) suggest that the physical laws that define and govern the universe were created at the moment of the Big Bang, and it was the very nature of that event which set those laws in motion.

This can be contrasted against religion in the sense that science operates on the basis of hypothesis and experimentation, whereas religion operates on the basis of postulates. Unless an hypothesis can be tested, replicated, and verified, science rejects it as nothing more than an unproven theory (more commonly known as the scientific method). Big Bang theory is not an unproven theory, as many of the effects which it predicted have subsequently been discovered or proven through scientific experimentation. By contrast, religion utilizes no similar methodologies to test its tenets of faith - rather it uses postulates in the form of a priori assertions and assumptions to explain that which was not previously understood.

But it's not entirely false, either. When you say that the 'Big Bang' created the universe, you are still not saying what created the Big Bang. If you accept a metaphysical realm where God and souls exist, and can affect the tangible world, then you can say God created the Big Bang and set our physical laws into motion. It's interesting to note that a Hindu story of Indra goes into alternate galaxies and, indeed, universes....long before any such concepts were recognised by science. Understanding the creation doesn't mean you have found (or not found) the creator.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not bashing religion - but it is not fair to say that science is no more than a belief system in the same sense that religion is, nor is it fair to suggest that either can provide equally compelling explanations for the origins of life, the laws of physics, or the universe itself.

I don't mind any religion-bashing. I agree that it isn't fair to say science is not more than a belief system. Indeed, I wasn't trying to say that at all in my initial post! I was trying to limit my argument to the origins of the universe. Science lets one understand the creation and religion to understand the creator.

Maybe so Mike, but the "truth" you speak of seems to say more about our human need for reassurance than it does about the validity of a belief in [G]od.

Indeed. I found my own truth in it, but that isn't everyone's 'truth'; if it seemed preachy, my apologies, it wasn't my intent! I believe it's up to each person to be the captain of their own ship in life and to find their own path through it. I'll not judge yours, Russ' or anyone's course....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kay_zee, I am not debating with you what qualifies as evil and what does not, I am saying that if the concept of "evil" is to have meaning within the context of reality, it does not mean what you think it does......

And it doesn't matter whether the context is within a headline of a newspaper, a casual comment on the moral relativism of your neighbor, or in a speech given by the American President designed to divert the electorate's focus from the failings of his own administration - it amounts to the same thing. A semantic shell game intended to conceal the speaker's real message of personal condemnation.

And I'm using my own opinion, therefore what I think it means, is what I think it means as I am not offering myself as all knowing and speaking of facts; this whole thread is based on what we think certain things mean and how we believe these things should be treated. We all define things different, as we see the world through different perceptions. This thread wouldn't be necessary if we all stuck to the same definitions and ideas about the reality we live in. Our realities are based upon knowledge and experience and different ideas drawn from these does not mean one must be right and one must be wrong. Preaching that you are over and above everyone else, as has been done in this thread, in my eyes is wrong.

I see "evil" and "good" as a balancing act, without one you would not see the other, without them you would have little basis for morals. Just like without personal condemnation, you would not notice personal praise. They may mean the same thing to you, however through my experiences and knowledge they do not completely overlap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it's up to each person to be the captain of their own ship in life and to find their own path through it. I'll not judge yours, Russ' or anyone's course....

:clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading it right now :)

You see. this is what I told you once, that you find what you are looking for, and you are looking for more and more reason to deny God existence, non of you are really trying to find God, if you are goind to a city and you get to the highway that get you to that city and then you drive in the oposite direction to that city, you are not going to get to that city and that is exactly what you are doing, you are running away from God is obvious that you can not see him if has turned your back to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grrr...I missed the most juicy debates here!

Ok, just a few lines because it's late and I'm sleepy:

On atheism: "If atheism is a religion, then 'bald' is a hair colour"

I am an atheist. No, I have no idea if god exists or not. I don't care at all. Some people call "agnostics" at people like me. That's not entirely correct. I cannot prove if god exists or not. But my view of the universe does not need a god at all. He may exist. So can Santa Claus, or Mickey Mouse. In that sense, I am an atheist. This is not a question of faith, is a question of the Ockham's Razor.

Im too tempted to get into this discussion...but I would need a thousand of my rambling posts to express what I want (I suck at making succinct posts with my own views)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my explanation went a bit astray of what I meant. The true athiest, believing in nothing but the answers science gives him, is as close-minded about the existence of a God as the religious person is about that God's existence. Both cannot prove beyond doubt that their belief is correct, yet both still stubbornly cling to their unprovable notions. I completely understand the athiest view because God is unprovable to us in the physical sense, but it takes a closed mind to close off the possibility of God's existence simply because we cannot prove it in a controlled laboratory experiment. Any decent scientist who is concerned with the Truth, will close an explanation only when it's proven false, not when it's assumed false. The agnostic's way is the better, as I see it, because it allows for an open mind.

If Jesus existed, and did what is claimed in the Bible, then there has been proof....just not proof that you have personally seen. The argument that God doesn't manifest to the tangible world is not correct in the context of the Bible. He has manifested. It's up to each person to believe that or not.

But it's not entirely false, either. When you say that the 'Big Bang' created the universe, you are still not saying what created the Big Bang. If you accept a metaphysical realm where God and souls exist, and can affect the tangible world, then you can say God created the Big Bang and set our physical laws into motion. It's interesting to note that a Hindu story of Indra goes into alternate galaxies and, indeed, universes....long before any such concepts were recognised by science. Understanding the creation doesn't mean you have found (or not found) the creator.

I don't mind any religion-bashing. I agree that it isn't fair to say science is not more than a belief system. Indeed, I wasn't trying to say that at all in my initial post! I was trying to limit my argument to the origins of the universe. Science lets one understand the creation and religion to understand the creator.

Indeed. I found my own truth in it, but that isn't everyone's 'truth'; if it seemed preachy, my apologies, it wasn't my intent! I believe it's up to each person to be the captain of their own ship in life and to find their own path through it. I'll not judge yours, Russ' or anyone's course....

This is an excelent post Puma. :clap3:

The part about to be the captain of their own ship is exactly the truth and that is what the bible says, that is why I said in another thread that God will not send anybody to Hell, you are choosing you own destiny, is your right, God gave us that Gift, and the bible also tell us the way to live a better life here in earth, that is why bible means

Basic

Instruction

Before

Leaving

Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grrr...I missed the most juicy debates here!

Ok, just a few lines because it's late and I'm sleepy:

On atheism: "If atheism is a religion, then 'bald' is a hair colour"

I am an atheist. No, I have no idea if god exists or not. I don't care at all. Some people call "agnostics" at people like me. That's not entirely correct. I cannot prove if god exists or not. But my view of the universe does not need a god at all. He may exist. So can Santa Claus, or Mickey Mouse. In that sense, I am an atheist. This is not a question of faith, is a question of the Ockham's Razor.

Im too tempted to get into this discussion...but I would need a thousand of my rambling posts to express what I want (I suck at making succinct posts with my own views)

Give it a shot, at the very least your views will be interesting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this thread is too long and full of religion.

I know that is very difficult for most of the people to separate God from religion but they are not the same.

God is the creator of everything.

Religion is nothing more than the creation of men who with a lot rules think that can help people to get closer to got, but the ral truth is that no religion can do anything to get you closer to God and the truth is that if you follow what religion tells you to do you are not really going to get closer to God because you will be following man's commandments enstead of God's.

To me God and religion has nothing in common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is about sexuality not religion. If it's religious views on sexuality then fair enough but not views on religion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...