Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.
Prove to me that gravity exists.
The idea that gravity is in every way as unknowable as the assertion of an almighty god is rediculous and a slap in the face to all physicists since newton who helped us form our understanding of gravity and further explain our universe.
Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.
This is the legal issue. Emotionally we would be on a similar level and feel we have the right to see our partner, but the legal matter keeps us from it.
I agree, and I think it's a legal issue that will eventually be overtuned. If we're on the same level emotionally though, don't you think christians such as yourself, across the nation, should be helping gays get the right to unite and visit their partners in the hospitol?
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Didn't I already address that in my former post? Ok, just for you-
1.Sex as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bonding, trust and love in the relationship.
2.For zee orgasm(there are so many actual health benefits for this one, some disadvantages too to be fair).
3.For children
I would say number 2 should be the top one but since we are talking about 'relationship'...
How is tehre true trust and love if you are nto willing to give yourself 100% to the other person, this means to welcome the chance of having a child. I see sex as a very serious matter as something only two people should ever do with eachotehr when they decide to spend the rest of their lives together to have children and raise them under the proper teachings of God. Sex outside of this serves no purpose in the grand scheme of life.
You don't need orgasms to stay healthy. Any exercise will do so sex for that purpose is invalid. Though I don't deny the pleasure in the action, it is not the purpose of the action.
Well i think whether ur married, not married, single, or not single. in life you just generally, in all things, have to be open to God's will. This means if you are married, be open to life, be open to everything. The purpose of marriage is to form a union under God and depending on God. However, if a person is dead set on doing there own will, then marriage becomes something you want for your gain and if at any point you feel it is no longer beneficial, for whatever reason, you divorce. Or maybe you just love the sex part but not the children part because perhaps you feel ur not ready or whatever. my answer to a disposition like that is why even get married. In my opinion, b4 i get side tracked, the purpose of sex is realized when we, ourselves, dont intervene with our own will. in other words what is the purpose of sex without involving man made medicine or other stuff like that? the answer is quite obvious so lets not dance around it.
Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.
And since neither of these is a testable, evidential, or predictable hypothesis it's not a useful or valid theory. It is a belief. And that, is why we don't use beliefs in science.
Nothign is impossible, and if she becomes pregnant at 102 then we will welcome the child.
You stated a purpose of sex as orgasm which you related to health benefits.
Yes I stated the reason and associated it with health benefits. Nowhere did I mention the reason was motivated by the benefits. Something you've failed to grasp.
In any case, you've managed to create an interesting (and implausible) scenario that will guarantee you will have sex all your life.
Just goes to show how much you like it.
Now if you could be as tolerant and non-judgmental towards others, that would be tits.
I do nothing to keep gay people apart. I do not stop them and I do not intend to do so. What you or anyone else does with their lives is of no concern to me. This was a thread to ask for beliefs and why we believe. My morals can not be separated from my religious belief so take my answers as you will. More than one thing created how I think and your lack of faith will not change me.
Also when you do not allow yourself to accept the chance of having a child from sex you are holding something from your partner. Therefore you are nto giving 100% of yourself.
Nekro I would ask that you take more time to read and go over these posts rather than to mearly state that everything people says is wrong.
I did not merely say you are wrong. I backed it up with an article containing some statistics in the case of births. So you could see I wasn't really making things up.
As for your morals (regarding gays), they constitute a passive-aggressive stance towards homosexuality that is made obsolete by our current knowledge, reality and time and age. It is understandable since it is coming from an ancient book.
It is pretty obvious to any rational mind that commitment in a relationship does not depend on your chance to procreate. It was made even more so when you mentioned of getting your wife pregnant post-menopause which is to say the least, a delusional justification of maintaining sex after child birth is rendered impossible or impractical.
Maintaining that position requires you to ignore and discard every positive human trait we have in favor of blind obedience to some scriptures.
I understand your views, I've shared mine. If you feel that I am telling you that you are wrong as a result, I suppose somewhere the relevance of my points have touched a nerve. And you don't need to worry, I have read your posts carefully.
Peace.
Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.
And since neither of these is a testable, evidential, or predictable hypothesis it's not a useful or valid theory. It is a belief. And that, is why we don't use beliefs in science.
Your tests ,evidence, and predictable hypothesis is wrong though. So when you speak of gravity you are speaking of a falsehood. You are incapable of running all tests so you can not prove you are right.
Even if i gave you undeniable proof of God's existance thru the events i have seen not only happen to me but also over 20,000 pple, about 5,000 within the U.S. you could still just shove it aside as coincidence.
It the proof was undeniable, then there would be no way to shove it aside. You're not making sense. Assuming you have that proof, i'd love to hear about it.
Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.
Prove to me that gravity exists.
We don't need to explain everything, some of us are comfortable not knowing everything or needing to justify everything we don't know with beliefs. If you want proof of gravity, well, you're stuck to the earth and you aren't flying off into outer-space. There are also a host of empirical tests and observations you can make to proof the theory of gravity yourself.
The idea that gravity is in every way as unknowable as the assertion of an almighty god is rediculous and a slap in the face to all physicists since newton who helped us form our understanding of gravity and further explain our universe.
maybe i shouldve explained myself better. I meant it was undeniable proof because i have seen it, this proof is not something that can be told you have to see it. sorta like love. I can say I love someone as many times as i damn feel like, but the other person has to actually see that i love them, words are not enough, yet. Same goes for the existance of God. As it stands words to you might, probably, are not enough. thats why i said it was useless to try to proof God's existance in the forums. But as a litte aside ill add that I have seen pple, many get up leave there house friends and jobs and move to a foreign country under the crazy ass notion that God will look after them. 15 years later , sure they've had troubles like anybody would when they have $0 money, no knowledge of the language spoken and dont kno anybody. for some reason however, EVERYTHING was always provided for them. sometimes more than enough. Ill also add that these pple are families, and not of 1 or 2 children but somewhere in the vicinity of 5-15, it varies. they've been open to having these many children also under the notion that if God allows it than he'll also provide. crazy enough he always seems to. but of course that might just be coincidence. a coincidence that over 10,000 families seem to share. i could speak more but i await a response and then ill decide.
I have visited friends in the ICU and for someone to prevent you access is ridiculous. Separation of church and state needs to be way more prolific, especially in the case of hospitals. Also if you are going to be obtuse, you might as well not even argue. Saying Physicists are wrong simply because you think they did not believe in your god makes you look like an ignoramus.
Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.
And since neither of these is a testable, evidential, or predictable hypothesis it's not a useful or valid theory. It is a belief. And that, is why we don't use beliefs in science.
but the basis or search for answers in science always comes from a hypothesis, in other words a belief that something is a certain way, right?
I have visited friends in the ICU and for someone to prevent you access is ridiculous. Separation of church and state needs to be way more prolific, especially in the case of hospitals. Also if you are going to be obtuse, you might as well not even argue. Saying Physicists are wrong simply because you think they did not believe in your god makes you look like an ignoramus.
i totally agree Church and government should not mingle. I might add though, could u tell me who was the first to decide the 1 bed per person idea for the sick? I know answer just wondering if you do. because it used to be several people per bed and there was no distinction between the contagious sickness and non contagious ones.
This is the legal issue. Emotionally we would be on a similar level and feel we have the right to see our partner, but the legal matter keeps us from it.
I agree, and I think it's a legal issue that will eventually be overtuned. If we're on the same level emotionally though, don't you think christians such as yourself, across the nation, should be helping gays get the right to unite and visit their partners in the hospitol?
you kno what i think? the basis of a christian is to not resist evil, and by that i mean the evil directed at you not go do evil things. so no a real christian would accept the injustice and try to help you accept it as well. This goes for every other comment out there about fighting for rights and that christians should fight for rights as well. Did Christ fight injustice, no he accepted it. He did not resist evil and that is what all christians are called to do. and yes it aint pretty for Christians. I hope there isnt any more confusion in that matter.
What makes that life style so good you're willing to render your scientific mind null and void to use the other tool?
I didn't mean to imply that I do, I was just saying its how I view it.
I see it as a tool like any other textbook trying to convey a group of principals or theories. I don't necessarily agree with it or believe it in its entirety.
Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.
And since neither of these is a testable, evidential, or predictable hypothesis it's not a useful or valid theory. It is a belief. And that, is why we don't use beliefs in science.
but the basis or search for answers in science always comes from a hypothesis, in other words a belief that something is a certain way, right?
That is correct. But in order to avoid bias, a scientist tries to proof himself wrong, Only if he can't find any other, simpler, explanation to the phenomenon, he can send his findings to other scientists who would try to falsify his theory. And the theory is accepted as the most logical way to understand and explain a certain phenomenon only if neither the original researcher nor his peers can't find a way to prove the theory is wrong.
That is correct. But in order to avoid bias, a scientist tries to proof himself wrong
Such is why investigations of the null hypothesis (no effect) are often given greater strength than normal hypothesis. By proving that it isn't something else often greatly helps validate many research findings.
I see it as a tool like any other textbook trying to convey a group of principals or theories.
Except it's not a textbook, because those are filled with verifiable, testable, and predictable assumptions, not baseless beliefs.
Ther is basis to the belief you just dont believe it. No problem though
We have evidence to the facts within textbooks and we have no rational evidence for the contents of any religious text. Thus the obvious dichotomy: Evidence based text and Belief based text. The two are evidently diffirent things.
I have visited friends in the ICU and for someone to prevent you access is ridiculous. Separation of church and state needs to be way more prolific, especially in the case of hospitals. Also if you are going to be obtuse, you might as well not even argue. Saying Physicists are wrong simply because you think they did not believe in your god makes you look like an ignoramus.
I nearly included a disclaimer saying that I wasn't trying to say that the bible actually is a textbook, but I thought it wasn't necessary. Clearly it was. I also now see that textbook was probably the incorrect word to use.
I nearly included a disclaimer saying that I wasn't trying to say that the bible actually is a textbook, but I thought it wasn't necessary. Clearly it was. I also now see that textbook was probably the incorrect word to use.
I nearly included a disclaimer saying that I wasn't trying to say that the bible actually is a textbook, but I thought it wasn't necessary. Clearly it was. I also now see that textbook was probably the incorrect word to use.
I'm glad we're on the same page then. =)
I see what you did there! Lol...Well played.
I know I said I was done here but I can never resist congratulating a good pun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.
That's the point, I can't be legally married and that is the requirement to meet for him to be "family," thus useless bigotry and descrimination.
But you are married, you were allowed to be married, so you don't have a point for comparison.
I agree, and I think it's a legal issue that will eventually be overtuned. If we're on the same level emotionally though, don't you think christians such as yourself, across the nation, should be helping gays get the right to unite and visit their partners in the hospitol?
Well i think whether ur married, not married, single, or not single. in life you just generally, in all things, have to be open to God's will. This means if you are married, be open to life, be open to everything. The purpose of marriage is to form a union under God and depending on God. However, if a person is dead set on doing there own will, then marriage becomes something you want for your gain and if at any point you feel it is no longer beneficial, for whatever reason, you divorce. Or maybe you just love the sex part but not the children part because perhaps you feel ur not ready or whatever. my answer to a disposition like that is why even get married. In my opinion, b4 i get side tracked, the purpose of sex is realized when we, ourselves, dont intervene with our own will. in other words what is the purpose of sex without involving man made medicine or other stuff like that? the answer is quite obvious so lets not dance around it.
And since neither of these is a testable, evidential, or predictable hypothesis it's not a useful or valid theory. It is a belief. And that, is why we don't use beliefs in science.
As for your morals (regarding gays), they constitute a passive-aggressive stance towards homosexuality that is made obsolete by our current knowledge, reality and time and age. It is understandable since it is coming from an ancient book.
It is pretty obvious to any rational mind that commitment in a relationship does not depend on your chance to procreate. It was made even more so when you mentioned of getting your wife pregnant post-menopause which is to say the least, a delusional justification of maintaining sex after child birth is rendered impossible or impractical.
Maintaining that position requires you to ignore and discard every positive human trait we have in favor of blind obedience to some scriptures.
I understand your views, I've shared mine. If you feel that I am telling you that you are wrong as a result, I suppose somewhere the relevance of my points have touched a nerve. And you don't need to worry, I have read your posts carefully.
Peace.
Your tests ,evidence, and predictable hypothesis is wrong though. So when you speak of gravity you are speaking of a falsehood. You are incapable of running all tests so you can not prove you are right.
maybe i shouldve explained myself better. I meant it was undeniable proof because i have seen it, this proof is not something that can be told you have to see it. sorta like love. I can say I love someone as many times as i damn feel like, but the other person has to actually see that i love them, words are not enough, yet. Same goes for the existance of God. As it stands words to you might, probably, are not enough. thats why i said it was useless to try to proof God's existance in the forums. But as a litte aside ill add that I have seen pple, many get up leave there house friends and jobs and move to a foreign country under the crazy ass notion that God will look after them. 15 years later , sure they've had troubles like anybody would when they have $0 money, no knowledge of the language spoken and dont kno anybody. for some reason however, EVERYTHING was always provided for them. sometimes more than enough. Ill also add that these pple are families, and not of 1 or 2 children but somewhere in the vicinity of 5-15, it varies. they've been open to having these many children also under the notion that if God allows it than he'll also provide. crazy enough he always seems to. but of course that might just be coincidence. a coincidence that over 10,000 families seem to share. i could speak more but i await a response and then ill decide.
Pumpkin Contest Submission:
http://habeasporpoise.deviantart.com/art/Diablo-3-Pumpkin-263477540
I didn't mean to imply that I do, I was just saying its how I view it.
I see it as a tool like any other textbook trying to convey a group of principals or theories. I don't necessarily agree with it or believe it in its entirety.
That is correct. But in order to avoid bias, a scientist tries to proof himself wrong, Only if he can't find any other, simpler, explanation to the phenomenon, he can send his findings to other scientists who would try to falsify his theory. And the theory is accepted as the most logical way to understand and explain a certain phenomenon only if neither the original researcher nor his peers can't find a way to prove the theory is wrong.
Such is why investigations of the null hypothesis (no effect) are often given greater strength than normal hypothesis. By proving that it isn't something else often greatly helps validate many research findings.
Except it's not a textbook, because those are filled with verifiable, testable, and predictable assumptions, not baseless beliefs.
Ther is basis to the belief you just dont believe it. No problem though
We have evidence to the facts within textbooks and we have no rational evidence for the contents of any religious text. Thus the obvious dichotomy: Evidence based text and Belief based text. The two are evidently diffirent things.
Belief is assertion without evidence.
Indeed.
I nearly included a disclaimer saying that I wasn't trying to say that the bible actually is a textbook, but I thought it wasn't necessary. Clearly it was. I also now see that textbook was probably the incorrect word to use.
I'm glad we're on the same page then. =)
I see what you did there! Lol...Well played.
I know I said I was done here but I can never resist congratulating a good pun.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged