Messages

1

Debate & Discuss / Re: HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE PRAYER ?

« on: May 10, 2013, 07:54:57 pm »Message ID: 735180

I know I need something in my life. I am not sure if prayer is it...I need to rest and be quiet with myself and reflect. I don't know if that is prayer but I think it will help clear my mind

That's called meditation. And it doesn't require fictional deities. It's also very healthy, and recommended for those who deal with a lot of stress.

Meditation is helpful, whether within self, or both self and God, or both self and whatever religion the person is involved with.  It's preference of choice and personal, as well.  

I will add, for myself, God is NOT a fictional deity, and it's one thing (and appropriate, actually) that when telling someone what meditation is or does, to add that your "opinion on the matter" or "your belief," etc. is way less offensive, than saying that meditation "doesn't require fictional deities."  That is speaking as a confirmed fact, and though it may be that to you, it is not that to all.  That is simple respect for those who do or don't believe, without deliberately stoking an issue.

My saying god is not a fictional deity is in now way any more or less offensive then someone saying it is. Confirmed facts are facts for everyone. No one can have different facts.

Also, god isn't the only fictional deity. What about all those other deities you might believe to be fictional? Isn't saying that god is the only deity offensive to those who believe in other deities? Why is it okay that I don't believe in things like Quetzalcoatl or Zues, but then when I say I don't believe in Yahweh it's suddenly a problem?

The only "problem" I'm seeing is your unwillingness to be open to those on both sides of the fence - don't believe in a deity, do believe in a deity, or do believe in any other thing.  My response to you also clarified that it is helpful or appropriate to simply add that "no fictional deities are required" is your thought, belief, or opinion on the matter, because others do not see that the same.  

In other words, I responded to the other poster, that whatever way is best for the clearing of the mind, etc., of the poster, is the way he/she should go - whether or not it involves only self, self and God, or self and any other deity.  

So, in that respect, you are appearing to ignore the fact that my response to you and the other poster, includes respect and flexibility for whichever way to meditate is chosen.  

If you were to choose to meditate without any deity or only within yourself, or with whichever means helps you, then I am not going to tell you that you must have a deity in order for it to work.  Because it is not my business how you would choose to meditate, especially if you do NOT believe in any deity.  

In the same respect, it would be the same to understand that others may choose to meditate along with God, or another deity, and shouldn't be told that their "deity" is fictional, because to them their deity is not fictional.  

If asked, then yes, opinions, beliefs, and thoughts on the matter could and will be offered, but should be acknowledged as "my opinion, thought, or belief..."  With that, each acknowledges that they disagree, according to their personal views, without pushing a deity on the other, or saying a deity is "fictional" to another, and a potential fire is squelched before it gets too hot.  

It's a personal choice, and both sides should be respected for their personal choice.

As a last note, regarding your comments, "Confirmed facts are facts for everyone. No one can have different facts." - That will be true for a great deal, as we all know, with regards to historical facts, time zones, seasons, science, math, family ancestry, and on and on.  

However, the concept of God being a "confirmed fact that he is fictional" is false to many or true to many.  The concept of God being real or not real is indeed different, depending on whether someone believes in Him or someone does not, or if someone believes on a different deity.  In that respect, people can very much so have different "facts" based upon their personal beliefs, evidence shown or perceived or proven to them, testimonies, history, research and studies, etc.

In other words, I shouldn't tell people their god is fictional because it might offend someone? When someone states that god is real I am very offended. But I don't tell them not to post, and I don't tell them to not say these things because they might offend someone. I argue against them.

The idea of a god is not different from other forms of facts. Facts can either be true or false. God is either real it or isn't. Its that simple. In all cases dealing with reality, or something existing, there can only be these two decelerations. No one can say for a fact that a specific movie genre is better than another because there isn't a real way to measure this. Thus it's an opinion. Whether or not something exists isn't an opinion. We have a way to measure this. It's called the scientific method.

We can disagree on whether or not god exist, but one of us has to be wrong.

2

Debate & Discuss / Re: HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE PRAYER ?

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:04:46 pm »Message ID: 734690

I know I need something in my life. I am not sure if prayer is it...I need to rest and be quiet with myself and reflect. I don't know if that is prayer but I think it will help clear my mind

That's called meditation. And it doesn't require fictional deities. It's also very healthy, and recommended for those who deal with a lot of stress.

Meditation is helpful, whether within self, or both self and God, or both self and whatever religion the person is involved with.  It's preference of choice and personal, as well.  

I will add, for myself, God is NOT a fictional deity, and it's one thing (and appropriate, actually) that when telling someone what meditation is or does, to add that your "opinion on the matter" or "your belief," etc. is way less offensive, than saying that meditation "doesn't require fictional deities."  That is speaking as a confirmed fact, and though it may be that to you, it is not that to all.  That is simple respect for those who do or don't believe, without deliberately stoking an issue.

My saying god is not a fictional deity is in now way any more or less offensive then someone saying it is. Confirmed facts are facts for everyone. No one can have different facts.

Also, god isn't the only fictional deity. What about all those other deities you might believe to be fictional? Isn't saying that god is the only deity offensive to those who believe in other deities? Why is it okay that I don't believe in things like Quetzalcoatl or Zues, but then when I say I don't believe in Yahweh it's suddenly a problem?

3

Debate & Discuss / Re: Do YOU believe in MIRACLES ??????

« on: May 08, 2013, 08:27:33 pm »Message ID: 734243

should we remind you of what happened with falcon9 lol xD maan these so called bashers and haters are everywhere no wonder kids here dont wanna talk... DAAAMN


sad to keep this burden..  ohhh well its there own fault not ours... haters to the fullest..  also arent we getting out of hand with randomn shyt talking about putting someone down...  you guys are forgetting the ops topic... this clearly says that thats why the ego is there so they think we dont know nothing about this shyt.

all honesty fackle who gives a daamn... theres a differnce by giving ur opinion and then putting them down.. i labeled you as a hater and a basher for one reason only you like to stir up nonsense.. if you like to argue and argue to see ur right thats fine but if this person dont wanna argue back who gives u the right to act like u own this topic??? tell me that fackle... your worse then falcon9 man... at least he knows when to shut up. and please dont get all innocent act all on me pal.. you started this i didnt... i didnt mentioned you in this topic so go off your high horse..

I never force anyone to respond to what I say. It would be physically impossible for me to do that on this forum. Just as everyone has the right to speak their mind, I have the full right to criticize. Sorry. That's the price you pay for freedom. When someone makes a topic, they need to realize they have no control over those who posts. To assume otherwise would mean threads would have absolutely no dissenting viewpoints, and as a result no true discussion. You want to live in a world where we cannot debate ideas? How can we grow without ever being criticized? I don't debate to convince others of my view points (even if it may be a side-effect). I debate to learn. If you don't want to debate, then don't respond to my posts. It's that simple.

This is the debate and discuss forum, isn't it? If so then I respectfully request a post of actual substance.

Why am I not allowed to criticize others on this forum open to debate and discussion?
Why is there suddenly some unwritten rule that says we cannot deviate from the original intent of the forum, even slightly?
Why is it that I am called a hater, yet I don't blatantly use Ad hominems, and use words like "shyt" nor namedrop other forum members.
Why is that I am a hater, when there have been plenty of religious persons debating a frivolously and often times crossing lines much further then I ever have and yet they're just fine?
Why is it that you're defending against my supposed "attacks" when I don't used charged words like "basher", "hater", and "shut up"?

4

Debate & Discuss / Re: HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE PRAYER ?

« on: May 08, 2013, 08:20:04 pm »Message ID: 734241

I know I need something in my life. I am not sure if prayer is it...I need to rest and be quiet with myself and reflect. I don't know if that is prayer but I think it will help clear my mind

That's called meditation. And it doesn't require fictional deities. It's also very healthy, and recommended for those who deal with a lot of stress.

5

Debate & Discuss / Re: Do YOU believe in MIRACLES ??????

« on: May 04, 2013, 01:27:17 pm »Message ID: 731964

Though I partially agree with you, these two statements are why sometimes putting down someone's beliefs is sound judgement and beneficial.

Putting someone down simply because they don't believe in the same things you do is not beneficial in any way, shape, or form, and saying something so ridiculous, in my opinion, shows a serious lack of judgement. I don't know whether or not God exists, and I really don't care, but in America everyone has a right to believe the way they want to without being put down because of it. A miracle is defined as a supernatural event. If people who believe in God want to attribute these events to their deity, who does it hurt?        

Excuse me, but the freedom to speech assumes we also have the freedom to put down other people. You don't have a right not to be offended, and if we want to put down someone because we think what they believe is ridiculous we should have the full right to do so.

Payer can cause plenty of harm, when used in place of real actual science.

Wow! Now we're rewriting the Bill of Rights? First off, there's an old saying about assuming things, I'm sure you know the one I mean. Secondly, "you don't have the right not to be offended"? Exactly what does that mean, that you would force me to take offense at something that doesn't bother me? Does that really make sense to you?
Prayer never hurt anyone, it's fanaticism that causes all the problems. If your belief in something, whether it's for God or against God, is so blind that you have to attack someone, verbally or otherwise, then in my opinion you're a fanatic and cannot be reasoned with. After reading some of your previous posts, Flackle, I have concluded that having a conversation with you on this subject is useless, so I hope you have a nice life and I wish you all the best.      

This statement makes absolutely not sense, and in no way can you logically entail this statement from anything I have said. No one can force you to take offense from something, and even if you don't take personal offense from someone doesn't believe in god, you was the one that stated "In America, we have the right to believe what we want too without being put down" which assumes that you have the right to censor others who doesn't believe the same you do, because that's the only way to guarantee you wont be "put down" for your beliefs.

The meaning of the statement "You don't have the right not to be offended" in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwGsOBTlhE

I apologize if my dissenting view makes me a fanatic. Maybe I'll just go sit in a corner and forget about expressing my views on any subject because apparently having an opinion is only okay when you're a centered boring individual who doesn't particularly believe in anything.

6

Debate & Discuss / Re: Do YOU believe in MIRACLES ??????

« on: May 01, 2013, 07:59:12 pm »Message ID: 730279

Though I partially agree with you, these two statements are why sometimes putting down someone's beliefs is sound judgement and beneficial.

Putting someone down simply because they don't believe in the same things you do is not beneficial in any way, shape, or form, and saying something so ridiculous, in my opinion, shows a serious lack of judgement. I don't know whether or not God exists, and I really don't care, but in America everyone has a right to believe the way they want to without being put down because of it. A miracle is defined as a supernatural event. If people who believe in God want to attribute these events to their deity, who does it hurt?        

Excuse me, but the freedom to speech assumes we also have the freedom to put down other people. You don't have a right not to be offended, and if we want to put down someone because we think what they believe is ridiculous we should have the full right to do so.

Payer can cause plenty of harm, when used in place of real actual science.

7

Debate & Discuss / Re: Do YOU believe in MIRACLES ??????

« on: May 01, 2013, 05:04:56 pm »Message ID: 730210

^^^^ as you can see bashes with the highest extent.. big EGO xD This guy just wont leave it alone there like kids wanting attention saying how better they are...


sad really

and im glad you agree [sarcasmn]

At least I bash ideas, instead of bashing other people with ad hominem attacks.

So let me get this right...

If I was a christian, then I would be fully allowed to express my opinion without question. I would be allowed to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, without being criticized for expressing this opinion (by you).

On the other hand, being an atheist, if I express my opinion then I am an egotistical hater who should be censored because I am obviously mentally unstable.

Please define egotism, we clearly don't have the same definition of the term.

8

Debate & Discuss / Re: Do YOU believe in MIRACLES ??????

« on: April 30, 2013, 07:48:07 am »Message ID: 728727

i also belive... but for people who bash it has problems of thier own.. they need to re evulate themselfs better..

[sarcasm]I agree. People who bash religion by disagreeing with it and having a different opinion are simply mentally incompetent, and should re evaluate the way they think so that they too can realize miracles, although having absolutely no scientific evidence nor any convincing studies done to show that supernatural occurrences not only cause miracles but even occur at all, we should still simply blindly believe that miracles happen and base our reality on something we can't prove. Because that makes a lot more sense than basing our reality on things we can prove, like that those crazy mentally insane atheist's do.[/sarcasm]

9

Off-Topic / Strangest Captchas

« on: April 20, 2013, 11:27:15 am »Message ID: 723695

What's the strangest Captchas you have ever had to type in? I just did one that stated "I like humans". Made it seem like my computer was trying to convince itself.

10

Debate & Discuss / Re: work or go to school

« on: April 14, 2013, 09:44:16 am »Message ID: 720703

If only given these two choices, I'd say work. Education is free if you take the time and effort to seek it out. I would highly recommend to always educate yourself, even if you work, or else you'll stagnate as a human being and stop developing. Luckily, we're naturally curious beings and have a tendency to learn even if we don't realize it.

Personally, I'd choose starting a business.

11

Debate & Discuss / Re: Being Gay and Same Sex Marriages......Huh !

« on: April 11, 2013, 06:56:15 am »Message ID: 719504

At one time this country went along with the founding fathers as marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.....Since this world has become so corrupt that is no longer the case.....And someone said something about a FREE country!!!!  Wake up!!! The government is trying to control everything.....Just as of yesterday the new thing is to control our kids since parents aren't doing too good of a job!!!

The government is trying to control everything, isn't it? In this case, the government is trying to control others by telling them they cannot marry or enter into certain contracts only because that other person is of the opposite gender. The founding fathers might have supported marriage as only being between a man and a woman, but where in the constitution did they ban such a marriage? It's not there because they realized it's not the governments job to define such things. Although they themselves where quite religious, they also supported our freedom to choose one religion over another. They also realize that by banning marriage between a man and a woman (solely for religious reasons) we are infringing on that freedom of religion. Its unfortunate that those running state governments don't see it this way. The idea of marriage is not restricted to only Christianity.

12

Off-Topic / Re: Favorite Restaurant

« on: April 11, 2013, 06:52:59 am »Message ID: 719501

Our dining room.

13

Off-Topic / Re: If you were to win the power ball

« on: April 11, 2013, 06:52:23 am »Message ID: 719500

I would assume it was a mistake, since I never (and will never) play.

14

Debate & Discuss / Re: Being Gay and Same Sex Marriages......Huh !

« on: April 11, 2013, 06:36:18 am »Message ID: 719487

The only Non-God anti same sex marriage arguments I have heard are fatally flawed. Their arguments all place procedure over progress.

@Flackle: When I was saying that laws defining marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex was not directly against homosexuals getting married, was to point out the difference between a law having a disparate impact upon a group versus being completely against a particular group. For example, most states disallow felons from voting. It could be argued that in a particular state, since the majority of the felon population is of a minority race, that the law is against minorities. But this is not accurate... Even though the minorities will be disparately impacted by such a law doesn't mean that the law is truly against minorities, and thus is not a civil rights issue of racial discrimination. Likewise defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has a disparate impact on homosexuals, esp. since in the general sense of the term people marry someone they are in love with, but is not necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals from getting married, as long as they follow that it is with someone of the opposite sex.

So... Because these laws do not "directly" ban homosexuals from marrying one another, and only ban homosexuals from marrying one another as a consequence, then they are okay? Most laws that exist have unintended consequences. That doesn't make them right. The fact remains, unintended consequences are just as important as the intended consequences of a law, and those unintended consequences should be treated with just as much scrutiny. I already agreed that the federal government cannot improve this situation, and it should remain a states right issue. I already agreed that the federal government need not intervene (I never stated it was a civil rights issue, just a issue on human rights in general. I am frivolously for the separation of church and state, and any case where the government starts dictating anything about any specific religion then I call it a human rights issue).

It's up to us and the states to realize that we should not have laws running religious ceremonies. By that, I mean we should not have laws the specifically ban certain individuals from certain religious ceremonies, especially when that banning has no bearing on any other laws. Its obvious we should ban ceremonies that sacrifice humans (Being that murder is illegal in all other aspects of life), but we should have laws banning people of the opposite sex (Being that there is no other legitimate reason to ban the opposite sex in doing anything else).

If people (and churches) want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only, that's fine. It's not the government's job to do that for them (and thus, in affect, for everyone else).

The government should only be defining the terms for unions between people (civil or otherwise). And if they want to ban people of the opposite gender when it comes to those unions, they better have a good reason. They'd have too, since they could no longer hide behind religious reasons.

15

Debate & Discuss / Re: Being Gay and Same Sex Marriages......Huh !

« on: April 08, 2013, 05:17:40 pm »Message ID: 718234

The right to enter into a personal contract with another human being is one that should not be infringed. Therefore, your right to keep your marriage sacred ends when it denies other human beings the legal right to enter into a contract. We're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

With contracts, there are usually certain terms that need to be satisfied in order to fulfill the contract. If the contract of marriage within a particular state says that the people have to be above the state's age of consent, then in order for that contract to be valid, both people need to be above that age. That is not age discrimination as understood under the 14th Amendment because everyone must abide by that. Likewise if a state has defined marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex, then in order for it to be a valid contract, both people must be of the opposite sex. This is not directly prohibiting homosexual people from entering into a marriage contract (ie a homosexual man can "marry" a homosexual female) so again is not a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. If, on the other hand, a couple of the opposite sex (that also met the other requirements for marriage) were rejected to get married in a state because one of the individuals was homosexual, then the state would be in violation of that person's civil rights under the 14th Amendment. People tend to confuse this since our general understanding of marriage is a compact between two people that love each other, and thus by denying them the legal ability to marry is often seen as denying 2 people from loving each other. The right to love whom you want (as well as whom you want to associate with, etc.) is a civil right whereas the right to enter into a contract is about contract law.

It actually kind of does directly ban homosexuals from marrying. Just because certain homosexuals can marry (that being a male homosexual and a female homosexual) doesn't mean that the banning of people of the opposite sex from marrying is an "indirect" ban. I never stated that banning of these contracts where "illegal". These states technically have the full legal ability to ban homosexual marriage. It doesn't make it moral, as I believe that entering into contracts should be a right retained by its people in a fair an equal manner. There are real legit rational reasons to restrict contracts for underage parties (being that those under certain ages do not retain all of the same freedoms as consenting adults.). There is absolutely no legit rational reason for the government to ban homosexual marriage between full grown consenting adults.

There has long been precedent that the states are the ones that dictate family law. This includes the terms it requires for a legal marriage contract, which may include such things as the age of the individuals, their gender, the familial similarity between them (some states allow cousins to marry while other states require that they are most distant relatives), the mental status of them (eg both individuals have to have the mental capacity to understand the contract they are entering into, which may be set at a higher level than a mundane commercial transaction like buying something at Walmart), etc.

Again, I never stated that what they did was illegal and that that the federal government should get involved. I understand the states have this ability, I'm simply criticizing their use of it. Just because a state government may ban something, doesn't mean I'll support their decision simply because they have the full capacity to do so.

This is why I don't think that the court should have heard the first set of arguments with respect to California's law. This should have been left to that state to decide for themselves how it wants to handle its family laws, including how it chooses to define marriage. On the other hand, I do agree that the court should take a look at the arguments surrounding the federal DoMA law, as that is how the federal government chooses to define something that should be relegated to the states.

I agree. Allow the states figure it out. Eventually all states will make it legal, less they show their ignorance and lose out on a lot of potential tax revenue. I never stated I supported a government take-over of the situation. When I refer to rights, I don't simply refer to rights as terms set by the federal government. I am referencing rights as abstractions of being human. A government of any level should not be restricting two consenting adults partaking in a religious (or otherwise) ceremony if they are not directly putting another human being in harm's way.