that's where i'm at. indifference. they say the opposite of love is indifference; but i really don't care what people do anymore. people lie; cheat; steal; and murder. that seems a wee bit more important than who or what a person sleeps with. i remember when mick jagger screwed a watermelon on stage. who bloody cares.
well i don't think that the opposite of love is indifference. i mean, it ain't like i hate homosexuals. i love them and i respect them. it's the way it should be. my mother used to work for a gay couple and we got along very well with them. our beliefs were also irrelevant to them as their lifestyles were to us. we never propogated hatred towards them. and neither did they hate us even though they were indifferent about our beliefs. heck this was when my dad was an apostolic/pentecostal preacher! most would condemn my dad for doing such a thing... and they did.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, i was just teasing you. why are people so sensitive? i'm sorry. but in this case you kinda did hurt my feelings too when you said that my words fart in the wind. people's sexual preference is irrelevant to me. so that's why i made that observation to show how much "sexual preferences" there are in the world today. and homosexuality is only but one of them. why do most christians feel that homosexuality is the worst and most degrading one? beats me.
"I" always means that person personally. "you" can mean you personally or it could mean anyone reading that supports an alternative lifestyle.
i didn't mean to hurt your feelings and i'm sorry if i did. once again i meant that people that support one group should support all groups or they are discriminating and hypocrites. since you don't support anything; you are not a hypoctire nor are you discriminating. therefore the post had nothing to do with you.
i was teasing a bit too to make a point. friends???
well i don't think that the opposite of love is indifference. i mean, it ain't like i hate homosexuals. i love them and i respect them. it's the way it should be. my mother used to work for a gay couple and we got along very well with them. our beliefs were also irrelevant to them as their lifestyles were to us. we never propogated hatred towards them. and neither did they hate us even though they were indifferent about our beliefs. heck this was when my dad was an apostolic/pentecostal preacher! most would condemn my dad for doing such a thing... and they did.
some think the opposite of love is hate; but when you hate; you still acknowledge that person. you actually have emotion for that person even though the emotion is negative.
with indifference; you really don't acknowledge thier existance.
for example; if you hate gays; you will see one on the street and think something like "freakin rope suckers" but with indifference you pass them by without a thought.
sorry all; not meaning to insult anyone. just making a point.
some think the opposite of love is hate; but when you hate; you still acknowledge that person. you actually have emotion for that person even though the emotion is negative.
with indifference; you really don't acknowledge thier existance.
for example; if you hate gays; you will see one on the street and think something like "freakin rope suckers" but with indifference you pass them by without a thought.
sorry all; not meaning to insult anyone. just making a point.
well the opposite of love isn't indifference in my mind. it doesn't flow well will my frame of thought. i love the person but his lifestyle preference is not important to me. just like my friends who are nerds and into computers, i'm still friends with them... even though i'm a super stud and super cool. or my friends who smoke weed even though i don't smoke it... i'm still friends with them and i love them too. but what they do is like whatever to me.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I have a few christian friends who have expressed pity over my lack of faith. They contend that I am missing out on something "wonderful" and so on. Of course, they don't go into how I might be morally corrupted or how I have a reservation in hell. They're my friends. They're not going to be rude about it.
But, when all is said and done, I still can't help but feel sorry for them. For example, a christian friend of mine once said, "God accepts me and all of my faults." I think it's sad that she really believes she needs god to accept her. My response was that only she can accept herself. I don't think she will ever know what it's like to feel accepted as long as she is under the opinion that it is an action that can only be carried out by something other than herself. True acceptance is derived from within.
For anyone who seeks peace of mind, religion is the most convenient route to take. And it is for that reason that so many people follow that route. But, if you ask me, it is a false route.
So, if I'm angry at religion, I think it's because it has robbed so many people of any hope of grasping reality and the true essence of humanity. Religion is sort of a shortcut to that path. It's like a pair of "training wheels" so to speak. Because religion makes it possible for people to ride on the path of righteousness, few seem to question it. But, there comes a point on the path where the training wheels have to come off.
I'm not saying that I ride a bicycle without training wheels. For christians and the like, those training wheels might be heaven and hell. For me, it's fines and jail time. It's all the same if you ask me.
But, I think if society is going to keep moving forward, then it has to figure out a way to maintain its balance without the aforementioned crutches. Of course, what I'm talking about is anarchy. Our ultimate goal is to survive without needing a babysitter. I don't think government is bad at this point in time. As for as morals go, people in general ( and that includes myself) have a long, long way to go before we realize why wrong is wrong and right is right. One thing is for sure, however, and that's that religion will not be a factor in this ultimate state of self-awareness that I hope mankind eventually achieves.
why do you feel that you should "save" everyone that believes. why feel sorry for them? if they are your friends why do you have condensending feelings towards them? everyone should seek peace of mind. and no matter what road leads them there; it is the right road for them. a good portion of this thread is about how atheists are insulted when someone of religion feels sorry for them. is this tit for tat or or are you as guilty as those you look down upon?
if society is to move forward everyone must accept eachother. people are social beings and although we don't need "babysitters" we do need eachother.
well the opposite of love isn't indifference in my mind. it doesn't flow well will my frame of thought. i love the person but his lifestyle preference is not important to me. just like my friends who are nerds and into computers, i'm still friends with them... even though i'm a super stud and super cool. or my friends who smoke weed even though i don't smoke it... i'm still friends with them and i love them too. but what they do is like whatever to me.
and that's cool. we all think differently. that's what makes us unique. you are apathithetic to thier lifestyle; and not indifferent to them. that's my take on it anyway.
why do you feel that you should "save" everyone that believes. why feel sorry for them? if they are your friends why do you have condensending feelings towards them? everyone should seek peace of mind. and no matter what road leads them there; it is the right road for them. a good portion of this thread is about how atheists are insulted when someone of religion feels sorry for them. is this tit for tat or or are you as guilty as those you look down upon?
if society is to move forward everyone must accept eachother. people are social beings and although we don't need "babysitters" we do need eachother.
Funny, I don't feel the need to "save" religious people. I don't know where you got that impression. Yes, I feel sorry for them. But, I also understand that people can change only when they want to. That is, you can lead a horse to water...
Secondly, I don't know where you got the impression that I "condescend" my friends or anyone who is religious. Just because I don't agree with their views doesn't mean I think they are beneath me. If my views are different from yours, does that mean you think I am beneath you?
Also, the original post of this thread asked why atheists are angry at the religious when the religious only feel sorry for atheists. My response to that was that my anger toward religion is not derived from the religious feeling sorry for atheists.
Your last sentence is one that I agree with, but it just so happens that I see religion as actually preaching alienation as opposed to acceptance. I can get into why I think that if you feel like hearing it.
Babysitters..... again...that's what heaven and hell are. They are extensions of fines, penalties, and jail time. What I mean by growing out of the babysitter stage is finding our intuitive sense of morality without needing spirituality, ultimate consequences...etc. That's what I mean by self-acceptance being derived from within rather than from, say, a god.
some think the opposite of love is hate; but when you hate; you still acknowledge that person. you actually have emotion for that person even though the emotion is negative.
with indifference; you really don't acknowledge thier existance.
for example; if you hate gays; you will see one on the street and think something like "freakin rope suckers" but with indifference you pass them by without a thought.
sorry all; not meaning to insult anyone. just making a point.
i always thought that saying was bullshit. love is strong positive emotion, hate is strong negative emotion. they are opposites. the opposite of apathy/indifference is empathy... a sympathetic concern, as opposed to an uncaring.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i'm in an area where polygamy is popular. i divide it into two groups:
1)cult polygamy
2) individual polygamy
i've seen bad things come from cult polygamy. like the young boys being thrown away so the elders can have the young girls. they also tell you who you can and can't marry.
individual polygamy has produced better homes than any monogimus homes. when mum "A" is cooking and doing other chores; mum "B" is spending time with the kids. the children are always supervised and experience more of life than other homes where both parents are working (either outside of the home or just mum doing chores) and the children left in the care of an outsider.
you gotta be kidding me with that statement. you really believe that?
from my experience; yes. unless of course the family has a maid that does all the cooking; cleaning; laundry; errands; etc; which would allow a parent to be a full time parent.
you gotta be kidding me with that statement. you really believe that?
I believe it. It was mentioned in developmental psychology.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
the one time i agree with you is the one time you don't post a link or something else for the non-believers.
I'm sure I can find you a link
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
why do you feel that you should "save" everyone that believes. why feel sorry for them? if they are your friends why do you have condensending feelings towards them?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Hahaha! This is classic, thanks for my laugh of the day
the one thing i've always stood for is equality. what is good for one is good for the other.
he detests being felt sorry for yet feels sorry for those who don't agree with him. i didn't find this funny; i found it sad.
i don't mind; nor have i ever opposed anyone feeling sorry for me because of my spirituality. i believe it's misplaced and misguided but just the same; i believe you feel how you feel and in this world of diminishing freedoms; i'll fight for my right to feel as i wish.
i guess you missed the point.
I believe it. It was mentioned in developmental psychology.
When a man is tapping all that ass 24/7 you know it's going to be a pretty stress free environment. ....Mommy why is daddy smiling all the time? I think he really loves us ....
Happy happy... joy joy...live and love the family...variety keeps the spicy in spice
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
When a man is tapping all that ass 24/7 you know it's going to pretty stress free environment. Mommy why is daddy smiling all the time? I think he really loves us ....
Happy happy... joy joy...live and love the family...variety keeps the spicy in spice
i guess that explains the low divorce rate of polygamist families.
the one thing i've always stood for is equality. what is good for one is good for the other.
he detests being felt sorry for yet feels sorry for those who don't agree with him. i didn't find this funny; i found it sad.
i don't mind; nor have i ever opposed anyone feeling sorry for me because of my spirituality. i believe it's misplaced and misguided but just the same; i believe you feel how you feel and in this world of diminishing freedoms; i'll fight for my right to feel as i wish.
i guess you missed the point.
If by "he" you meant me, then you didn't read my post.
from my experience; yes. unless of course the family has a maid that does all the cooking; cleaning; laundry; errands; etc; which would allow a parent to be a full time parent.
And that's a contradiction in itself. If having a maid can produce the same supposed results as having two wives, then the second wife in the two-wife marriage isn't really a second wife, and therefore it is not truly a two-wife marriage in terms of child rearing.
Also, there are plenty of marriages where the father works while the mother stays at home and gets things done while the children are at school, so when the children come home from school, the mother is able to give attention to her children.
To say that a polygamist marriage provides better child rearing than "ANY" monogamous marriage is to be just plain naive.
i guess that explains the low divorce rate of polygamist families.
I agree. I'd totally be up for it.... Actually I don't see anything wrong with it.
If everyone was willing and happy...man that's like the perfect case scenario in life . King of the jungle. Seems to work out for a lot of animal species. I think most actually...
My take is it can't be unnatural if it's everywhere in nature...
.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
why do athiests have so much anger toward those of religion?
i'm going to say because some religions have twisted the truth behind God.
religious threads here turn into athiest trying to prove those of religion are wrong. why?
because those people can't grab the concept of a perfect God, and also because people in general want to feel like their views are correct.
where does this anger come from. if you tell someone of religion that you are athiest; they feel sorry for you and maybe pray for you; which is an act of compassion to them.
i don't feel sorry for athiests, and i don't pray for them either. if they have a good heart, i appreciate that. i leave it up to God if He wants to reveal Himself to them.
yet athiests can't wait to jump on someone trying to prove they're wrong. they disrespect that person and thier beliefs. are these the attributes of a "good" person?
i couldn't care less if an athiest jumps on me to try and prove me wrong. they are swimming against the current on that one. they can disrespect my beliefs ALL they want, i leave the outcome to God. however, if they are disrespectful/nasty, i wouldn't call them a "good" person.
I died. I died and you just stood there. I died and you watched. I died and you walked by and said no. I'm dead.
And that's a contradiction in itself. If having a maid can produce the same supposed results as having two wives, then the second wife in the two-wife marriage isn't really a second wife, and therefore it is not truly a two-wife marriage in terms of child rearing.
Also, there are plenty of marriages where the father works while the mother stays at home and gets things done while the children are at school, so when the children come home from school, the mother is able to give attention to her children.
To say that a polygamist marriage provides better child rearing than "ANY" monogamous marriage is to be just plain naive.
There are also families where everyone participates in getting the chores done. My kids helped me clean, they helped in the kitchen, they helped in the garden ... we were together, we enjoyed one another's company, and they were learning how to run a household. When I was doing a job that the kids couldn't help with, they were playing with friends or learning to entertain themselves. The idea that surplus moms are required for a happy family is a little nutty.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I wouldn't have any problem being in a polgamist marriage just as long as each of my husbands realizes that he has to share me....that and hubby don't mind which one of my other dozen husbands is boinking me at that particular moment
I wouldn't have any problem being in a polgamist marriage just as long as each of my husbands realizes that he has to share me....that and hubby don't mind which one of my other dozen husbands is boinking me at that particular moment
Aahh!! Exactly prism!! Sounds like utopia to me!!!
i find homosexuality discusting. no religion involved. i see 2 guys kissing and i want to puke. men acting like women (to me) is pretending to be something they're not.
i am not sure what to call myself. i used to call myself atheist but now am leaning more towards agnostic. i really dislike organized religions. why you might ask?
countless wars and lives have been lost because of a "belief" in something that can not be proven. most religious people that i have run into (even my best friend) have told me that i am going to hell cause i don't believe. meanwhile, i have probably lived a more "pure" life than most of them. is confessing sins better than not having any as a non-follower?
my religion is better than yours arguments are pointless. there is no physical evidence of any god yet everyone that believes, believe that they have the right god to follow. religion is just one more thing that people can use to discriminate against someone else. people have enough "obvious" differences. looking at Christianity and its various divisions is funny to me.
i try to enjoy life and make sure people do not get hurt by my actions or others actions for that matter. however i can have fun without worrying what my religions god will think of me!
Originally Posted by sponger
And that's a contradiction in itself. If having a maid can produce the same supposed results as having two wives, then the second wife in the two-wife marriage isn't really a second wife, and therefore it is not truly a two-wife marriage in terms of child rearing.
Also, there are plenty of marriages where the father works while the mother stays at home and gets things done while the children are at school, so when the children come home from school, the mother is able to give attention to her children.
To say that a polygamist marriage provides better child rearing than "ANY" monogamous marriage is to be just plain naive.
maybe you know more that psychologists and researchers. i guess you couldn't follow that the maid example was only an analogy to show how a monogimus home could get the same results. if you bothered to do the slightest investigating; you would have found that both mother participate equally. if i can use another analogy; it's like a tag team.
There are also families where everyone participates in getting the chores done. My kids helped me clean, they helped in the kitchen, they helped in the garden ... we were together, we enjoyed one another's company, and they were learning how to run a household. When I was doing a job that the kids couldn't help with, they were playing with friends or learning to entertain themselves. The idea that surplus moms are required for a happy family is a little nutty.
polygamist homes opperate the same way. the exception being that the kids learn more. partly due to having 2 teachers and two mums can offer twice the love as one.
i'd like to hear you explain how having 2 mums is any nuttier than 2 men. in fact; how is it different from a lesbian couple raising children? you support that. the only difference i see is that there's a third teacher bringing a male influence into the mix.
Comments
"I" always means that person personally. "you" can mean you personally or it could mean anyone reading that supports an alternative lifestyle.
i didn't mean to hurt your feelings and i'm sorry if i did. once again i meant that people that support one group should support all groups or they are discriminating and hypocrites. since you don't support anything; you are not a hypoctire nor are you discriminating. therefore the post had nothing to do with you.
i was teasing a bit too to make a point. friends???
some think the opposite of love is hate; but when you hate; you still acknowledge that person. you actually have emotion for that person even though the emotion is negative.
with indifference; you really don't acknowledge thier existance.
for example; if you hate gays; you will see one on the street and think something like "freakin rope suckers" but with indifference you pass them by without a thought.
sorry all; not meaning to insult anyone. just making a point.
why do you feel that you should "save" everyone that believes. why feel sorry for them? if they are your friends why do you have condensending feelings towards them? everyone should seek peace of mind. and no matter what road leads them there; it is the right road for them. a good portion of this thread is about how atheists are insulted when someone of religion feels sorry for them. is this tit for tat or or are you as guilty as those you look down upon?
if society is to move forward everyone must accept eachother. people are social beings and although we don't need "babysitters" we do need eachother.
and that's cool. we all think differently. that's what makes us unique. you are apathithetic to thier lifestyle; and not indifferent to them. that's my take on it anyway.
Funny, I don't feel the need to "save" religious people. I don't know where you got that impression. Yes, I feel sorry for them. But, I also understand that people can change only when they want to. That is, you can lead a horse to water...
Secondly, I don't know where you got the impression that I "condescend" my friends or anyone who is religious. Just because I don't agree with their views doesn't mean I think they are beneath me. If my views are different from yours, does that mean you think I am beneath you?
Also, the original post of this thread asked why atheists are angry at the religious when the religious only feel sorry for atheists. My response to that was that my anger toward religion is not derived from the religious feeling sorry for atheists.
Your last sentence is one that I agree with, but it just so happens that I see religion as actually preaching alienation as opposed to acceptance. I can get into why I think that if you feel like hearing it.
Babysitters..... again...that's what heaven and hell are. They are extensions of fines, penalties, and jail time. What I mean by growing out of the babysitter stage is finding our intuitive sense of morality without needing spirituality, ultimate consequences...etc. That's what I mean by self-acceptance being derived from within rather than from, say, a god.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
i always thought that saying was bullshit. love is strong positive emotion, hate is strong negative emotion. they are opposites. the opposite of apathy/indifference is empathy... a sympathetic concern, as opposed to an uncaring.
i'm in an area where polygamy is popular. i divide it into two groups:
1)cult polygamy
2) individual polygamy
i've seen bad things come from cult polygamy. like the young boys being thrown away so the elders can have the young girls. they also tell you who you can and can't marry.
individual polygamy has produced better homes than any monogimus homes. when mum "A" is cooking and doing other chores; mum "B" is spending time with the kids. the children are always supervised and experience more of life than other homes where both parents are working (either outside of the home or just mum doing chores) and the children left in the care of an outsider.
you gotta be kidding me with that statement. you really believe that?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
from my experience; yes. unless of course the family has a maid that does all the cooking; cleaning; laundry; errands; etc; which would allow a parent to be a full time parent.
I believe it. It was mentioned in developmental psychology.
the one time i agree with you is the one time you don't post a link or something else for the non-believers.
I'm sure I can find you a link
the one thing i've always stood for is equality. what is good for one is good for the other.
he detests being felt sorry for yet feels sorry for those who don't agree with him. i didn't find this funny; i found it sad.
i don't mind; nor have i ever opposed anyone feeling sorry for me because of my spirituality. i believe it's misplaced and misguided but just the same; i believe you feel how you feel and in this world of diminishing freedoms; i'll fight for my right to feel as i wish.
i guess you missed the point.
When a man is tapping all that ass 24/7 you know it's going to be a pretty stress free environment. ....Mommy why is daddy smiling all the time? I think he really loves us
Happy happy... joy joy...live and love the family...variety keeps the spicy in spice
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
you don't have to take the time. i was only making an observation. you backed up something i said and i thank you for that.
i guess that explains the low divorce rate of polygamist families.
If by "he" you meant me, then you didn't read my post.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
And that's a contradiction in itself. If having a maid can produce the same supposed results as having two wives, then the second wife in the two-wife marriage isn't really a second wife, and therefore it is not truly a two-wife marriage in terms of child rearing.
Also, there are plenty of marriages where the father works while the mother stays at home and gets things done while the children are at school, so when the children come home from school, the mother is able to give attention to her children.
To say that a polygamist marriage provides better child rearing than "ANY" monogamous marriage is to be just plain naive.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I agree. I'd totally be up for it.... Actually I don't see anything wrong with it.
If everyone was willing and happy...man that's like the perfect case scenario in life . King of the jungle. Seems to work out for a lot of animal species. I think most actually...
My take is it can't be unnatural if it's everywhere in nature...
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i'm going to say because some religions have twisted the truth behind God.
because those people can't grab the concept of a perfect God, and also because people in general want to feel like their views are correct.
i don't feel sorry for athiests, and i don't pray for them either. if they have a good heart, i appreciate that. i leave it up to God if He wants to reveal Himself to them.
i couldn't care less if an athiest jumps on me to try and prove me wrong. they are swimming against the current on that one. they can disrespect my beliefs ALL they want, i leave the outcome to God. however, if they are disrespectful/nasty, i wouldn't call them a "good" person.
I wouldn't have any problem being in a polgamist marriage just as long as each of my husbands realizes that he has to share me....that and hubby don't mind which one of my other dozen husbands is boinking me at that particular moment
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Aahh!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Have you?
countless wars and lives have been lost because of a "belief" in something that can not be proven. most religious people that i have run into (even my best friend) have told me that i am going to hell cause i don't believe. meanwhile, i have probably lived a more "pure" life than most of them. is confessing sins better than not having any as a non-follower?
my religion is better than yours arguments are pointless. there is no physical evidence of any god yet everyone that believes, believe that they have the right god to follow. religion is just one more thing that people can use to discriminate against someone else. people have enough "obvious" differences. looking at Christianity and its various divisions is funny to me.
i try to enjoy life and make sure people do not get hurt by my actions or others actions for that matter. however i can have fun without worrying what my religions god will think of me!
maybe you know more that psychologists and researchers. i guess you couldn't follow that the maid example was only an analogy to show how a monogimus home could get the same results. if you bothered to do the slightest investigating; you would have found that both mother participate equally. if i can use another analogy; it's like a tag team.
polygamist homes opperate the same way. the exception being that the kids learn more. partly due to having 2 teachers and two mums can offer twice the love as one.
i'd like to hear you explain how having 2 mums is any nuttier than 2 men. in fact; how is it different from a lesbian couple raising children? you support that. the only difference i see is that there's a third teacher bringing a male influence into the mix.