It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Protoss: I believe that many people got a look "behind the scenes", most prominent are Buddha and Jesus, although I believe that especially Jesus was greatly misunderstood, although one still can read some good things he said.

I'm really curious to know what you mean by this. Jesus never said he was a wise man; what he did say--repeatedly--was that he was the Son of God.
To each his own . . . =)
Attachments:
religion.jpg (28 Kb)
avatar
Navagon: What I did not do was say "Oh yeah? Well I've got my own language which has different definitions to yours.".

Besides the "oh yeah ?" attitude, I don't see what would be wrong with that. But I probably should curse my own clumsiness for not saying the things right.
EDIT: oops, disregard this. >_> (where's a delete button when you need one?)
Post edited February 09, 2010 by Arkose
Atheist. :)
My religion is my religion. It lives with me and it dies with me. It represents my view of the universe as whole and is both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. But that is as much as you will ever know about it. :)
avatar
Stuff: To each his own . . . =)

So your idol is a retarded cat playing with a Rubix Cube?
Level 80 Atheist.
When will people learn that religion and the internet don't go well together? It tends to go down the road of flaming, ad hominems and "I am right, you are wrong" rather quickly and I'm honestly surprised that this has been brought up here.
To chip in on a more geek way, I'm Laplace's daemon. On a more serious note, I guess I'm stuck somewhere in the area of causal determinism.
avatar
Cambrey: Besides the "oh yeah ?" attitude, I don't see what would be wrong with that.

Well, what would one gain from such a standpoint? It's like constructing one's own unique mathematical system and then arguing with all who claim that 1+1 is 2. Sure, one can do it, and it technically wouldn't even be wrong, but... why?
avatar
AndrewC: When will people learn that religion and the internet don't go well together? It tends to go down the road of flaming, ad hominems and "I am right, you are wrong" rather quickly and I'm honestly surprised that this has been brought up here.

But it's not even an argument about religion. It's about semantics!
Post edited February 09, 2010 by Jaime
avatar
Stuff: To each his own . . . =)
avatar
Rohan15: So your idol is a retarded cat playing with a Rubix Cube?

Once that cat gets two sides done you're going to be eating your words. :D
avatar
AndrewC: When will people learn that religion and the internet don't go well together?

When has religion and people in general ever ended peacefully?
avatar
Cambrey: I don't see what would be wrong with that. But I probably should curse my own clumsiness for not saying the things right.

Communication. It requires more than one person. Therefore if there is no standardisation then miscommunication is all that will result. As is proven here.
Post edited February 09, 2010 by Navagon
avatar
Navagon: Once that cat gets two sides done you're going to be eating your words. :D

*30 years later* Oh shit, he did it.
avatar
Rohan15: *30 years later* Oh shit, he did it.

He almost had a side a minute ago, dammit! Poor kitties eyesight isn't so good when it comes to distinguishing colours. They should make one with different patterns on it or something.
avatar
Navagon: Communication.

Communication has nothing to do with accepting others definition and being fine with the fact that there are differences. We don't have to agree with each other.
Post edited February 09, 2010 by Cambrey
avatar
Navagon: Once that cat gets two sides done you're going to be eating your words. :D
avatar
Rohan15: *30 years later* Oh shit, he did it.

It could happen . . . .=)
Attachments: