Romy

Pretty self explenatory, create a sub-forum for Philosophy on the Off-Topic board, as there are quite many Philosophy threads&discussion there. EDIT- Question to any Mod who'd answer it- Is it against the rules to start a 'for and against' thread on the Off-Topic containing a petition list?

I'm better than you because I didn't repeat myself!

580 once again...

I'm better than you because my post count is higher :o...

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand. No, you may not be happy, but you'd still be happy about your life[/i[ even if you lost 20$. I hate repeating myself, but the fact that happiness is measured individualy by each person does not matter, because on the bottom line, if they define themselves as happy, it's because they are. To make sure we avoid more misunderstandings, I'll rephrase my initial statement- Religous people are more likely to define themselves as happy. I think your problem with that statement is your (possibly just) hatred towards religion which gets you annoyed when shown in a good light. You must remember that the fact that religous are more likely to be happy (or define themselves as happy for what it's worth), isn't necessarily good, I'd even call it bad. It's just like the example I gave, a drunk person is more likely to find joy in things, but I'd rather be sober most of the time. Please understand that the fact religous people are more likely to define themsleves as happy (about their lives...) has good reasoning behind it. A person who thinks someone is out there for them, that they're eventualy going to exist in Heaven, that a perfect entity is on their side, would likely make them happier. There's nothing "insane" about it.

600 :o...

400 methinks.

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS. It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P? And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are. Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that. No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature. Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc. It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times. Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same. Thus why I said "happy about your life". If you lost 20$, your answer wouldn't change. Again, if someone defines himself as happy, it's because he is. If someone defines himself as unhappy, that's also because he is. In terms of probability, you're more likely to pick a random religous person who'd define himself as happy, than someone who isn't. I don't see what the big deal is. It also makes quite a bit of sense, if you live your life thinking there's someone there guarding you, and that you'll be promised to live in Heaven etc, you're more likely to be happy (or define yourself as happy).

Nope mate, 420. Certainly.

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS. It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P? And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are. Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that. No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature. Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc. It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

450 actualy.

Now that I think about it...470!

480 and are keeping at it!

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS. It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P? And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are. Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

1) Yes, pretty much. 2) No idea how many. It really doesn't matter though. Science and religion are two wholly different things. I just have to ask, why is "ignoring facts to your comfort" wrong? Why is it so important that others believe the same things as you? 3) See Lenin's post. He said it better than I could have. 1) Nothing to say here but "Lol"... 2) Why is ignoring facts to your comfort wrong? Are you seriously asking this? If you really are, I'll answer with an example- Let's say you ignore gravity. I'm sure it would be much more comfortable not to feel yourself so restricted to the ground. You would almost certainly die because of it though. 3) After-life, creationism, basically the same thing in our discussion. People believe in God because of that, and not because the guidelines are so pure and just (that's not saying they're not, that's saying that that's not the reason).

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced. "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Kind of relevant. The point is a definitive stance, even if it would be perceived as negative is more productive and producing then an apathetic stance (i.e. Switzerland just lazying around and making clocks). I don't see it as relevant. He said gays don't conern him, so he's not going to care much or ever do anything about it. Thus "If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced." 1) And I'm saying we can't by and be apathetic, otherwise we would never accomplish anything. Even when we make war and suppress people we find new technology to help us do so, as opposed to when we don't make definitive choices we waste time. Everything concerns us. If you believe gays should be married you should help fight for their right. If you believe gays shouldn't be married, you should fight to preserve your definition of marriage. Sitting on the fence is cowardly. 2) As for you saying Christians find gays sinners? The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both believe and teach being gay is not a sin (loved by God equally) but partaking in gay activity is a sin, and they are the largest and second largest bodies of Christian Communions, so there goes your theory with thinking gays are automatically sinners. May I ask, do you speak from learning from a Protestant sect, or did you go to a parochial school, or another source or did you read some book? 3) And God doesn't send the Israelites to kill people, that is how they interpreted their relationship between themselves and God. Quite frankly I find some of the Israelite writings a bit pompous. 1) That's exactly what I said :S... 2) I don't think the difference is big enough to matter. So it's okay to be gay so long as I don't fulfill my desires? That's just plain dumb. 3) Umm, what about sending them to wars all over to "win" Israel? What about setting rules to wars (such as- before going to war, first ask your enemy if they'd want to surrender, if they wouldn't go for it!)? God repetitively sent his chosen ones to war. Period. EDIT: By the way, it wasn't Israelis I was talking about, it was Hebrews. [/hide]1. I said that because you said you didn't find it relevant and now you say that's what you said. 2. A lot of morals are about controlling desire. If I want to punch someone in the face and I know I could beat the crap out of them, I would restrain my desire to exact physical revenge, same with stealing, being a douche, etc. Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's good. Sometimes we have to do something that doesn't make us happy for the better. 3. Again, those are rules of war made by the Israelites, not God. The Israelites have interpreted God's inspiration like that, but Yahweh is not a god of war. Response to your edit: We aren't discussing Israelis, that's modern day. Israelites are descendants of Israel, i.e. Jacob. 1) So you were only trying to add on my first post :S? Nevermind, forget it. 2) That's still dumb. Saying it's okay to be gay aslong as you don't act out your "gayness" is dumb. There's nothing you can say that would change that. 3) Not true. God had given specific rules for wars circling the land of Israel, and specific rules to those who don't. If I weren't lazy I'd prove it too. 4) I misread.

I'm pretty sure Juhniz said it was 520.

550... Jeez, last time I was here it was like 210...

[hide] But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it. Unfortunately, others could. Many guys hate gays so not to be seen as feminin, not only for religous reasons. Thus the whole "gay is gross" trend :( ... That's why I said logical. Reasons like that would be illogical. One could argue that religous reasons are illogical, or that social reasons are. Also, whether the reasons are or aren't logical is pretty much pointless to take into account, simply because they exist whether they are or aren't. I would easily argue religious reasons are illogical, and that many social reasons are also. Whether or not reasons are logical is important, because dealing with a logical reasons gives grounds to back it, which for a legal battle is something you need. [/hide] I'm afraid logic on it's own is not enough for legalization :/...

But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it. Unfortunately, others could. Many guys hate gays so not to be seen as feminin, not only for religous reasons. Thus the whole "gay is gross" trend :( ... That's why I said logical. Reasons like that would be illogical. One could argue that religous reasons are illogical, or that social reasons are. Also, whether the reasons are or aren't logical is pretty much pointless to take into account, simply because they exist whether they are or aren't.

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time. I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way. No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact. That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are. I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact. I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part. No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion. You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's. Religous people are happier. But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing. Subjective or not, when someone says they're happy (as long as they're not lying), it's because they're happy. As for it meaning nothing... Read up the quote. The first guy said he finds the bible a book of joy, and is why I stated religous people are happier.

1) Even with a reason it's still a lot of effort wasted on someone else's beliefs. 2) While to it the entire premise of science is to use "facts" to weaken it. It works both ways. And that's a problem, members of both sides are too busy trying to prove each other wrong to actually accomplish anything meaningful. 3) However, following the religion as a moral guideline is the point. The existence of a God is just used to reinforce that. Same with the rewards and punishments of an afterlife. Because, to be honest, the immoral side is a lot more attractive. That's probably part of the reason parents offer longer term punishments and rewards when raising their kids (Behavioral psychology <3: ). 1) Effort? You mean like...typing? .... 2) The enite premise of science? Have you got any idea how many scientists are whole-heartly religous? The fact is, that religon will dismiss facts on the account that they collide with their beliefs. I'm kind of repeating myself here, but ignoring facts to your comfort is wrong. I know religion is not the first to do it and neither the only one, but as such a popular phenonmenon, I'd expect it to follow the logic behind facts. 3) Really? And you think religion would be that popular if it was based only on moral guidelines? Or exist at all thus far?

But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it. Unfortunately, others could. Many guys hate gays so not to be seen as feminin, not only for religous reasons. Thus the whole "gay is gross" trend :( ...