you're implying she has oxen hips. but then again here that's okay. ;]
reptar, has anyone ever told you how sexy you look not being able to have kids? love, stalker #1
Both are double edged swords. A Christian individual can have moral beliefs out of fear of God, doing the right thing, realizing it over time, or they can only do it without fully realizing why they have the moralities they do. In the same way, an Atheist can have moralities that they've realized on their own, but at the same time, they can have lack of moral values on the basis that there is simply no need, and instead just care for themselves. Both have somewhat decent outcomes, but both also have pretty negative ones as well. In that respect I'd say they're no different; the only difference I can muster is that the source of the meaning in the morals is different in either.
I cant' say I know a lot of people who are completely/mostly hedonistic. I'd say the closest I can think of is a certain family member of mine. Tries as hard as he can to have as little responsibility as possible and can't really support himself effectively. Just uses and uses until he has to move onto the next batch of friends.
your so cool!! as cool as thi s cat
MY SCIENCE IS BETTER THAN YOURS kiss my pulsar *****ezzz
I am ultimate bum
lololo i am well.
Agreed. You can't be upset/surprised at how religion turns out more "good" members of society (or perhaps "efficient" members might be more accurate); it is simply built into the structure. Of course you also have pride and self-righteousness, but that is built in too; no matter who you are, it's just the way it goes. Self-actualization, perhaps, or just simply fitting in: humans need a purpose, yes? It just so happens that religion appeals more easily to this fundamental human need, but at the cost of this faith-based fear. I would disagree with this logic only on the case that all you've done is changed the source of the meaning. People will believe what they are taught, regardless of the fact it came from a religious teacher or from a life experience. In either case, meaning was derived, not simply invented. Of course, you could also say that the meaning of being a "good" member of society was invented by religious teachers. And I would agree with this as well. In the case of a non-religious citizen, replace "religious teacher" with "parent," or "life experience." Still, I know plenty of religious individuals that were given the definition of what is "good" through religion, but later came out and realized just how right those teachings were on a very fundamental level in society. If individuals don't go out and self-actualize their teachings, then yes, it is completely pointless and contrary to being "good." Yes, the first model does. Agreed. The only difference is the path taken to reach that level of being considered "good." This is what you mean? Clearly one is more efficient. 100% agreed. :)
be a rep who- oh, nevermind, i think you figured it out
I would agree as well. It just happens to be that in a religious setting it is more likely the people growing up become more moral and "good" members of society. The religion notions of "being moral" or "good" seep not only from those religious teachings, but society dictates the direction the morality goes (what is socially acceptable in the US vs. India, etc). And if they're devout enough, it magnifies even more. I agree that religion shouldn't have the face of having "good" members of society, but you can't be upset either. It's certainly not a surprise; it's more organized than atheistic notions of morality, which is essentially "be nice" and "don't litter." That doesn't make it worse, but it does make it less reliable. .... lmfao
shadow is all CHAOS CONTROL now rebecca black is gone forever somewhere in the Vega system along with all the rest of the turds (see: justin bieber)
oh my god guys its still fcukin friday
im pretty sure the new justin bieber has been found
remember that tiem you got me right in the eye with pepper spray? yeah you better watch out buddy
"no girls allowed" would have been funnier /judging
speed ran bbs on critical 16 total hours whatttttt now the final episode, poop
Really, the best starting point for any child shouldn't be to get them to decide, but to encourage them to be the best they can be while learning & paying attention to as much from the society as they can (parents showing them why certain things are wrong fundamentally along the way, etc). As a child in a public school, it can work both ways. It just depends on who they decide to take from: the teachers, adults; or the other kids who might corrupt the child's thinking. If they were in a religious school I can certainly imagine them being raised to believe a certain paradigm of "just don't do X, Y and Z." However, in my experience, most of the men and women who were raised in a religious family/upbringing actually just want to be the best they can be; they turned away from seeing sins as "bad" pretty much right the time they started becoming adults. I have met some who were still considered "bad kids," but that was usually the result of issues at home (abusive parents, drinking, yelling, etc). Some people can also just be dumb right out of the box, despite having similar opportunities and being around people of "equal" potential.
ilu2 and the power to not only encourage but continue the great trend of making fun of awful music brb getting more images
CtR <3 I haven't been on here in forever. How's it goin?
