Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
Why would I care for Freud? He was a drug addict. No one took him serious. The only thing he was right about was there being a sub-conscious. Besides all of that, he was out there...

Doing research on upper class Austrians and surmising that girls have a penis envy or fathers are paranoid about their sons sleeping with their wife is quite questionable in regards to his mental state.

Now its my turn to LOL. A classic ad hominem attack coming from a guy with a green kiddy pail on his head. lol 20

Freud's theory of interpretation have and continue to have a powerful influence in the humanities. While his method was not scientific to the extent that he held, his insights have been used in philosophy, comparative studies, literary theory, etc.

Also, I could go on all day listing various theories of religion - Durkheim,Feuerbach, James, Weber, Geertz, Levi-Strauss, Bataille, Eliade, etc. There is a growing body of research that deals with evolutionary biology, philosophy of mind, neurology, etc. Boyer is just one. You might want to look at his book, Religion Explained.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
Why would I care for Freud? He was a drug addict. No one took him serious. The only thing he was right about was there being a sub-conscious. Besides all of that, he was out there...

Doing research on upper class Austrians and surmising that girls have a penis envy or fathers are paranoid about their sons sleeping with their wife is quite questionable in regards to his mental state.

Now its my turn to LOL. A classic ad hominem attack coming from a guy with a green kiddy pail on his head. lol 20

Freud's theory of interpretation have and continue to have a powerful influence in the humanities. While his method was not scientific to the extent that he held, his insights have been used in philosophy, comparative studies, literary theory, etc.

Also, I could go on all day listing various theories of religion - Durkheim,Feuerbach, James, Weber, Geertz, Levi-Strauss, Bataille, Eliade, etc. There is a growing body of research that deals with evolutionary biology, philosophy of mind, neurology, etc. Boyer is just one. You might want to look at his book, Religion Explained.


With all of that, your turn was just in vain. It doesn't change any thing by using a well known drug addicted as a source. No one would ever take him serious...unless they were in a paddled room banging their head constantly ahainst the walls. I am sure throwing out Stalin or even Jeffry Domer for tips in cooking would be your next choice. lol Not so green, quite mellow yellow...of sarcasm.

dance


Durkheim condensed religion into four major functions:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


This is true about any religion or lack of belief, political affiliation or so forth. So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol
Last edited {1}
Regarding "faith":

It's been thrown around that for those who don't believe in 'god' or BELIEVE, there is no 'god'...that either way, faith is yet still implemented.

Arguing 'faith' (supported by faith) is like arguing whether or not there is a 'god' is, as I've said before, is useless.

However, I was thinking:

What do we call it, if one doesn't have faith in the existence, and or believe of 'god', or a 'god'?

Thoughts?

NOTE: If someone says "it takes faith to not have faith" or something to that affect,then go guerrilla pimp slap yourself and leave a mark!
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Regarding "faith":

It's been thrown around that for those who don't believe in 'god' or BELIEVE, there is no 'god'...that either way, faith is yet still implemented.

Arguing 'faith' (supported by faith) is like arguing whether or not there is a 'god' is, as I've said before, is useless.

However, I was thinking:

What do we call it, if one doesn't have faith in the existence, and or believe of 'god', or a 'god'?

NOTE: If someone says "it takes faith to not have faith" or something to that affect,then go guerrilla pimp slap yourself and leave a mark!


A belief...can't use the word faith. lol
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Regarding "faith":

It's been thrown around that for those who don't believe in 'god' or BELIEVE, there is no 'god'...that either way, faith is yet still implemented.

Arguing 'faith' (supported by faith) is like arguing whether or not there is a 'god' is, as I've said before, is useless.

However, I was thinking:

What do we call it, if one doesn't have faith in the existence, and or believe of 'god', or a 'god'?

NOTE: If someone says "it takes faith to not have faith" or something to that affect,then go guerrilla pimp slap yourself and leave a mark!


A belief...can't use the word faith. lol


The question still stands. Care to answer it? Followed by an explanation that is at least digestable?
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Durkheim condensed religion into four major functions:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


This is true about any religion or lack of belief, political affiliation or so forth. So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol
Confused Wouldn't the obvious answer be that it calls the truth of any one religion into question if they all are nothing more than societally-instituted tools?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
... So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol


WillyWill3,

Where do you make the assessment that kresge was trying to debunk religion? Confused


The tone of this conversation if I am correct when using the following people who are either secular or Atheist in their views such as Durkheim,Feuerbach, James, Weber, Geertz, Levi-Strauss, Bataille, Eliade, etc. is an attempt to debunk religion, and yes the drug addict Segmund Freud as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Durkheim condensed religion into four major functions:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


This is true about any religion or lack of belief, political affiliation or so forth. So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol
Confused Wouldn't the obvious answer be that it calls the truth of any one religion into question if they all are nothing more than societally-instituted tools?


Religions regardless of the location are societally instituted when you have a mass population that appeals to that one belief. Yes it can be used as a way to control people...even non-religious views too. They all can.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

The tone of this conversation if I am correct when using the following people who are either secular or Atheist in their views such as Durkheim,Feuerbach, James, Weber, Geertz, Levi-Strauss, Bataille, Eliade, etc. is an attempt to debunk religion, and yes the drug addict Segmund Freud as well.


Tone? Dude...

quote:
Freud's theory of interpretation
Take the man out of it. Speak to the theory.

"I find it odd", that someone, you, who've asserted many times that the religion, assuming we are speaking about those abrahamic ones at least, isn't bad, it's just that folks put that 'pagan' stuff in it and corrupted it. Right here, Willywill3, you are/were incouraging folks to sift through the filth to get to the gist of it all.

I have, "Mein Kamf" and "The Communist Manifesto". Hitler was a mad man. I'm not a fan of Marx, yet I wanted to gain some insight on these two individuals. To do that, I had to put my prejudice aside and what his story records.

WillyWIll3,

If you are seriously gonna make a study of religion(s), you can't just go with stuff that agrees with you. While at the same time -be willing to study those whom you disagree with if only initially.

P.S.

I'm still waiting on you to go over to:
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/
Put that "nut" in check for misinforming the masses. My self included Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

The tone of this conversation if I am correct when using the following people who are either secular or Atheist in their views such as Durkheim,Feuerbach, James, Weber, Geertz, Levi-Strauss, Bataille, Eliade, etc. is an attempt to debunk religion, and yes the drug addict Segmund Freud as well.


Tone? Dude...

quote:
Freud's theory of interpretation
Take the man out of it. Speak to the theory.

"I find it odd", that someone, you, who've asserted many times that the religion, assuming we are speaking about those abrahamic ones at least, isn't bad, it's just that folks put that 'pagan' stuff in it and corrupted it. Right here, Willywill3, you are/were incouraging folks to sift through the filth to get to the gist of it all.

I have, "Mein Kamf" and "The Communist Manifesto". Hitler was a mad man. I'm not a fan of Marx, yet I wanted to gain some insight on these two individuals. To do that, I had to put my prejudice aside and what his story records.

WillyWIll3,

If you are seriously gonna make a study of religion(s), you can't just go with stuff that agrees with you. While at the same time be willing to study those whom you disagree with if only initially.

P.S.

I'm still waiting on you to go over to:
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/
Put that "nut" in check for misinforming the masses. My self included Wink


Just like kresge, I have a bias like you do as well. You can say you would put your "prejudice" to the side, but like any human being, you're just one sided like the rest of us. However, I have even agreed with some of you on here when it comes to religion it has it's down fall as any non belief as well.

I can't see how I have been "one-sided" in that? But I do and I have defended God and spirituality just because of some of the weird and untrue things people are saying. It doesn't hurt to think just a little deeply about this, than being dense. That is a choice nonetheless.

The Communist Manifesto says a lot of things just like the Bible does, but who fucks that up who strays away from those teachings? People. Smile LOL

I am encouraging people to NOT just look at the negative side of things...then you become quite miserable and one sided, and over generalized things that are not true. That is my point, I am glad you do see that.

And the Pagan belief system, what more do I need to say about that? It's obvious which one is which and what it doesn't have to do with the Abraham religions, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, blah, blah, blah. I repeat that a lot on here.
This is the common obsession on here with some folks and of course when this catches my eye, I am already at the helm to jump into these type of conversations.

One I would hope it's obvious that religion (being organized spirituality) can be misused as it has been, like ANY other institution; Atheist are not exempt from this. Their little clubs like any one else and theirs can have their down falls. People or individuals can go astray any time with any belief, lack there of, political afflictions, etc.

Now from the Atheist I have talked too, mainly most of them have been between the ages of 18-29. Most of them have been quite rude, but I handled that with ease by returning the favor. I don't expect people to agree with me, yet don't expect me to agree with you and respect you when I do not get that in return. I have said over and over, there are some great people regardless of their beliefs, lack there of and on and on I have met and usually I get some good conversation with them and we all learn some thing new daily.

The thing that boggles my mind and why I think some of them are quite ignorant, stupid (because we all know how they feel about people and their beliefs, as if they should judge) if you being an Atheist are "morally superior" maybe now, you shouldn't have built weapons of mass destructions and other harmful technology that could possibly kill the human race? Doesn't seem too humane to do that.

Religion has killed a lot of people (Swords, axes, etc), Science has as well. Religion has done a lot of good for people spirituality and science has provided many ways of benefiting the human race.

Who is being one sided? Most of you on here. But this makes it fun to point this out.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Durkheim condensed religion into four major functions:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


This is true about any religion or lack of belief, political affiliation or so forth. So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol
Confused Wouldn't the obvious answer be that it calls the truth of any one religion into question if they all are nothing more than societally-instituted tools?


Religions regardless of the location are societally instituted when you have a mass population that appeals to that one belief. Yes it can be used as a way to control people...even non-religious views too. They all can.
You're missing the point. This strand of discussion stems from your comment about "the one source" of religion & spirituality. Kresge's point was that there is no consensus on what that source is. The point about Durkheim concerns the idea that religion may stem from a need universal among human societies for an institution that would effectuate his four functions. The idea is that religion accomplishes those four functions and is therefore an inevitable institutional expression (if I'm summing up correctly!).
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Just like kresge, I have a bias like you do as well.


Bias is not in question. I'm bias about the Ohio State Buckeyes Football Team. I can't stand, and this is true, Florida ( 'St. or Miami,FL) However, these florida schools have great tradition and top notch football programs. I am showing, with sencerity, my ablity to separate my bias.

Beyond being a buckeye fan, I can appreciate good football, enough to give UF Fl St and the U, their props...As much as I dislike them.

quote:
You can say you would put your "prejudice" to the side, but like any human being, you're just one sided like the rest of us.


That may be, however, I can do it long enough to get to the 'gist'. According to your response regarding Feud, you have not or can not.

quote:
However, I have even agreed with some of you on here when it comes to religion it has it's down fall as any non belief as well. I can't see how I have been "one-sided" in that?
I'm merely words on a screen until youn meet me. If I like 'little girls', would you put me were you put Feud, despite all the agreements you have with me? I would be considered a sick man, and that's understandible, but does that dismiss any or all my perspectives with regard to religion?

quote:
But I do and have defending God and spirituality just because of some of the weird and untrue things people are saying. It doesn't hurt to think just a little deeply about this, than being dense.


The same has been asked of you. What makes your campaign more noble? Because you don't like 'little girls'?

quote:
The Communist Manifesto says a lot of things just like the Bible does, but who fucks that up who strays away from those teachings?
Why, because you read the manifesto, or are only going off of what someone said and leaving it at that?

quote:
I am encouraging people to NOT just look at the negative side of things
I've suggest to you that you read, READ, acharya s's works and what was your responce? This doesn't mean you'll dig the chick, but at least you'll know exactly what it is your refuting/debunking.

quote:
...then you become quite miserable and one sided, and over generalized things that are not true.
This is assuming you know what will make folks miserable to began with...
The reason I do not take Frued serious is the fact that he was a drug addict. Why would any sane person take a drug addict seriously? So again, should I ask Jeffery Domer for tips on cooking?


The reason I laugh at Archaya S. is because like many others who have criticized her, her work has no backbone. She claims now that in her Christ conspiracy's book that Jesus Christ is a clone of Appolanuis, Jesus Panthera, etc. All those gentlemen were born way after his death and with the Mithra, do understand that the only thing that the Roman Catholic church used from them were candles, the ceremonies and robes.

Also we have to keep in mind that there are many division of Christianity that do not hold the Catholic views and they ALL do not believe Jesus was God. Oh yes, the most famous one, she said that the Buddha was God? The Buddha was an Atheist? How can a Atheist believe he is a God when he doesn't believe in God? or the famous one, the Bhagahad Gita inspired the Old Testament? Where in the world would make her think this??? It's laughable...though people do have things similar when it comes to morals and depending on their spiritual beliefs as well.

It's common sense to see that people can misuse anything, history, life right now speaks for itself. I thought that was obvious...

"The same has been asked of you. What makes your campaign more noble? Because you don't like 'little girls'?"

Elaborate on that a bit more? I have no idea what this even means or have to do with this conversation. I like grown women, little girls will get you locked up.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
One I would hope it's obvious that religion (being organized spirituality) can be misused as it has been, like ANY other institution.


Like scientology?


Scientology was never there to promote spiritual growth since they DEMAND you to pay for some Thethan screening with a answering machine looking device.

No other religion does this, unless you the individual wish to contribute money to your church. BIG DIFFERENCES. Smile
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Durkheim condensed religion into four major functions:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


This is true about any religion or lack of belief, political affiliation or so forth. So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol
Confused Wouldn't the obvious answer be that it calls the truth of any one religion into question if they all are nothing more than societally-instituted tools?


Religions regardless of the location are societally instituted when you have a mass population that appeals to that one belief. Yes it can be used as a way to control people...even non-religious views too. They all can.
You're missing the point. This strand of discussion stems from your comment about "the one source" of religion & spirituality. Kresge's point was that there is no consensus on what that source is. The point about Durkheim concerns the idea that religion may stem from a need universal among human societies for an institution that would effectuate his four functions. The idea is that religion accomplishes those four functions and is therefore an inevitable institutional expression (if I'm summing up correctly!).


In every belief system, there is a source an inspiration for the religions to occur.

With out Hinduism you could not have Buddhism nor Jainism.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
The reason I do not take Frued serious is the fact that he was a drug addict. Why would any sane person take a drug addict seriously? So again, should I ask Jeffery Domer for tips on cooking?
Why would any 'sane person' take Hitler seriously, that is, put him on a pedistol? Wanna compare who's the baddist, WillyWill3?


quote:
The reason I laugh at Archaya S. is because like many others who have criticized her, her work has no backbone.
Like others...

quote:
She claims now that in her Christ conspiracy's book that Jesus Christ is a clone of Appolanuis, Jesus Panthera, etc. All those gentlemen were born way after his death and with the Mithra, do understand that the only thing that the Roman Catholic church used from them were candles, the ceremonies and robes.
You seem to be sencere. I wanna...beleive you. But before I do. You mind citing what she said exactly, that you disagree with? You know, so that we do not fall victim to "overgeneralizing"...

quote:
...she said that the Buddha was God? The Buddha was an Atheist?
Interesting. May I have the page were she said that, so I can got, right now, and look it up?
quote:
... the Bhagahad Gita inspired the Old Testament?[ Where in the world would make her think this??? It's laughable...
I must admit, that is kind of funny. What page is that on?

quote:
It's common sense to see that people can misuse anything, history, life right now speaks for itself. I thought that was obvious...
I'm sorry to disappoint you.

quote:
"The same has been asked of you. What makes your campaign more noble? Because you don't like 'little girls'?"

Elaborate on that a bit more? I have no idea what this even means or have to do with this conversation. I like grown women, little girls will get you locked up.
Asked and answered.
There are many other authors who have dwell into the issues of Jesus Christ and have more of a backbone than her claims...many of the Christian apologetics do...because that's their job. Like I said in that one video, she needs to stick with her Ancient Greek studies.

You had to be that one fella on youtube that has asked me the same thing over and over about "quoting" Acharya S. in her books. How about this as I made it clear with the examples above why I care not for her work...because it's laughable and unreal. No quotes, just that simple.

Suns of God - Acharya S. (D.M. Murdock)= Buddha is God in her view.


You should know where that is at, the woman compares Jesus, Krishna and the Buddha as being the same. God...I read the book awhile ago and I wish to never pick that up again...a waste of time that was as reading, "The Road".

I think you might be in love with Acharya S. as many times as you have mentioned her in EVERY conversation we have had Raptor. girl


And it's simply faith, that is the answer to why people believe the things they do even if the evidence of some guy who started the religion isn't there to be observed or God (who is a spiritual entity). It takes a lot of faith not to believe in some thing either. Why? How do you really know for sure if there is not a God or if there is simply because you do not feel God's presences nor see God. If you wanted God in your life, to wish to understand you would...if you care not, then you do not.
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
quote:
What do we call it, if one doesn't have faith in the existence, and or believe of 'god', or a 'god'?

Thoughts?


nothing. Those who believe must be there first to "create" non-believers.


Such as your religious nutjobs, huh? Though that is debatable...then again, why allow some one else to ruin God for you?
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
There are many other authors who have dwell into the issues of Jesus Christ and have more of a backbone than her claims...many of the Christian apologetics do...because that's their job. Like I said in that one video, she needs to stick with her Ancient Greek studies.
Backbone... That is a cop out. But okay.

quote:
You had to be that one fella on youtube that has asked me the same thing over and over about "quoting" Acharya S. in her books. How about this as I made it clear with the examples above why I care not for her work...because it's laughable and unreal. No quotes, just that simple.
I don't get down with youtube like that.

quote:
Suns of God - Acharya S. (D.M. Murdock)
I don't have that book yet.

quote:
You should know where that is at
Four eyes are better than two. Now, page please? If it's in "Suns of God", I don't have the book yet. I was referring to "Christ Conspiracy". Which one are you talking about?

quote:
I think you might be in love with Acharya S. as many times as you have mentioned her in EVERY conversation we have had Raptor.
Where I apply my 'love' is irrelevant. I recommend her, because, you don't read. You've shown that you haven't 'dug in the crates'. You recommend lots of links where the authors are anonymous. You covet your religious studies class, recomnend, to me, ONE BOOK, that is 99.9% the same as my book titled, "The World's Religions". An introductory book like your's. Uh,,, What's the title of that ONE BOOK you have, byetheway? Oh, I must've forgot. You have Mbiti's book. Okay, TWO.

I can recommend more works, but you don't have the space in your dorm room for what I can unload.


quote:
And it's simply faith, that is the answer to why people believe the things they do even if the evidence of some guy who started the religion isn't there to be observed or God (who is a spiritual entity). It takes a lot of faith not to believe in some thing either.
You are saying it take faith to not have faith...?

GUERRILLA PIMP SLAP YOURSELF THIS INSTANCE!!!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
... So how is this suppose to debunk religion? lol


WillyWill3,

Where do you make the assessment that kresge was trying to debunk religion? Confused


The tone of this conversation if I am correct when using the following people who are either secular or Atheist in their views such as Durkheim,Feuerbach, James, Weber, Geertz, Levi-Strauss, Bataille, Eliade, etc. is an attempt to debunk religion, and yes the drug addict Segmund Freud as well.

I am not trying to debunk religion. None of the scholars you list had this as an objective. Also, they were not all secularists or atheists. Several were professing Christians. Others had high regard for religion, and were hardly trying to debunk it. They were trying to understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
quote:
then again, why allow some one else to ruin God for you?

how can somebody who doesn't believe ruin God for you?


Those who believe must be there first to "create" non-believers.

You said that...

I interpret that as those who believe in God create Atheist, and that is why I said why allow religious nut jobs (mainly conservatives) ruin religion for you?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

I agree, it isn't 'mandatory'...


Maybe you started something here. Is it manditory? Dealing with buddhism and buddhism only, are the buddhist...lacking spiritualy, because buddhism doesn't have a 'god' shape form or figure at the core of the faith?

19


Nope... I also don't have a 'God' concept as far as an external 'being'...

Also, I know many an atheist/naturalists and revolutionary who lives a far more 'spiritual' existance than many who profess religion.

Some people concentrate on belief, some people concentrate on lividity.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
WillyWill3,

Your card was pulled a long to ago brethren. And you did nearly all the pulling...


How was my card pulled? I find it odd for some one to ask me do I like little girls out of the blue. I wonder...

So this whole time is the question can you have spirituality with out God? Yes, religions like Buddhism and Jainism are there. Apparently its not mandatory to them. Then again not all Buddhist are "Spiritual Atheist" either. You can be Buddhist and believe in God. My point is, where did they get there base from. Hinduism is a religion that believes in God.

There are many people of spiritual faith by the way who care about life and are not obsessed with a belief system, nor do they snicker about the beliefs of others like your girl friend as of late, Archarya S.

Yet as always people will argue their views on discussion boards like this out there and in life through simple conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

Nope... I also don't have a 'God' concept as far as an external 'being'...

Also, I know many an atheist/naturalists and revolutionaries who live a far more 'spiritual' existance than many who profess religion.

Some people concentrate on belief, some people worry about lividity.


So for those who worry about lividity, why build weapons of mass destruction then?
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

Nope... I also don't have a 'God' concept as far as an external 'being'...

Also, I know many an atheist/naturalists and revolutionaries who live a far more 'spiritual' existance than many who profess religion.

Some people concentrate on belief, some people worry about lividity.


So for those who worry about lividity, why build weapons of mass destruction then?


17 are you talking about? What relevence does it have? And why are you asking me that question? Do you think people who find and build more efficient ways of mass murder(WMDs) are concentrating on lividity(expressing their spirituallity via the way they live their life)?
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

Nope... I also don't have a 'God' concept as far as an external 'being'...

Also, I know many an atheist/naturalists and revolutionaries who live a far more 'spiritual' existance than many who profess religion.

Some people concentrate on belief, some people worry about lividity.


So for those who worry about lividity, why build weapons of mass destruction then?


17 are you talking about? What relevence does it have? And why are you asking me that question? Do you think people who find and build more efficient ways of mass murder(WMDs) are concentrating on lividity(expressing their spirituallity via the way they live their life)?


That is the question I asked, because we all know people do not live their lives based on their spiritual beliefs. Seems like if you are wishing to preserving human life, or life entirely, for those who build destructive instruments such as nukes, have are you living by your "spiritual views" and promoting it? Hypocrisy is on both sides and it seems it is not just limited to those who are religious either. Of course....

In other words, people can say they believe in God and are all moral, yet contradict themselves. The same for any one else who doesn't believe in a God and say they are morally superior. That is why I asked you that.

You rarely get some one who is true to their beliefs by the way to answer your question.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

How was my card pulled? I find it odd for some one to ask me do I like little girls out of the blue. I wonder...
Quote me.


...Card pulled.
Again.


I don't know about card's being pulled, but to ask some one a question about if they like little girls, I think your card should be pulled along with deep criminal background check. lol

Card pulled...record out of the window then it falls into the dumpster. thanks

Again I don't even know why you asked me if I liked little girls? lol

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×