Lets see where this goes.

[The Sign Painter]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I said that I could never see myself being attracted to a girl, but I didn't say that I couldn't understand how other guys can be attracted to girls. I understand it very well; some people are born liking girls, while other guys are born liking other guys. I don't have to feel the same attraction to understand why people have that attraction.

Well still, for me, I don't understand (I understand that one can feel that way about a man) that kind of mindset. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

What is there to not understand, though? You like girls, I like guys. It's the same feeling, just directed towards different genders.

But yet completely different.

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepmyself being attracted to a girl, but I didn't say that I couldn't understand how other guys can be attracted to girls. I understand it very well; some people are born liking girls, while other guys are born liking other guys. I don't have to feel the same attraction to understand why people have that attraction.

Well still, for me, I don't understand (I understand that one can feel that way about a man) that kind of mindset. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

What is there to not understand, though? You like girls, I like guys. It's the same feeling, just directed towards different genders.

But yet completely different.

No, not at all. Love is love, no matter what gender.

 

[Megamannt125]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I just don't understand how you feel that kind of an attraction for a man as I do for a woman. You said you don't see how you can be attracted to girls, so we're kind of in the same spot here.

I said that I could never see myself being attracted to a girl, but I didn't say that I couldn't understand how other guys can be attracted to girls. I understand it very well; some people are born liking girls, while other guys are born liking other guys. I don't have to feel the same attraction to understand why people have that attraction.

Well still, for me, I don't understand (I understand that one can feel that way about a man) that kind of mindset. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

I had that mindset once as well Al, now look at me.

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I said that I could never see myself being attracted to a girl, but I didn't say that I couldn't understand how other guys can be attracted to girls. I understand it very well; some people are born liking girls, while other guys are born liking other guys. I don't have to feel the same attraction to understand why people have that attraction.

Well still, for me, I don't understand (I understand that one can feel that way about a man) that kind of mindset. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

I had that mindset once as well Al, now look at me.

As did I, before I came out.

 

[coffeebean!]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepmyself being attracted to a girl, but I didn't say that I couldn't understand how other guys can be attracted to girls. I understand it very well; some people are born liking girls, while other guys are born liking other guys. I don't have to feel the same attraction to understand why people have that attraction.

Well still, for me, I don't understand (I understand that one can feel that way about a man) that kind of mindset. I don't know. It's hard to explain.

I had that mindset once as well Al, now look at me.

As did I, before I came out.

Same here

It really depends on how you look at it.

 

[AnimalCrossingcool]

Gave me minor depression.

 

[Numner]

Sexualality isn't just strict to religion.

In all honesty, I don't not like it, I mean just public displays of affection isn't bad; but I'm alittle annoyed by really gay people.

Like that gay that isn't gay, but just overly gay.

I can't explain it.

I feel the same way about straight people sometimes. Things aren't just straight, they're overly straight. Straight couples always kissing in public, flaunting their straightness... Gay couples can't even get away with holding hands in many places.

How the heck are straight couples "flaunting their straightness"?

I see where you are going with the gays can't hold hands, but I don't see it in any way as flaunting.

What I'm saying is that you see gay couples how I see straight couples, except far less. You don't like it when you see gay couples displaying affection in public, right? Well, that happens a whole lot less than it does with straight couples. And it happens so much that I just get sick of it. But my reasons are different than yours. I don't dislike straight couples, nor do I think that they shouldn't be able to show affection, but whenever I see a straight couple holding hands or kissing, it makes me so miserable knowing that I can't do the same with my boyfriend.

That's not what I meant.

I just mean people are overly something.

Like Jersey Shore people are too straight and Perez is too gay.

Or Paris Hilton is too girly or a jock is too manly.

I've always liked neutral stuff though.

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepoverly straight. Straight couples always kissing in public, flaunting their straightness... Gay couples can't even get away with holding hands in many places.

How the heck are straight couples "flaunting their straightness"?

I see where you are going with the gays can't hold hands, but I don't see it in any way as flaunting.

What I'm saying is that you see gay couples how I see straight couples, except far less. You don't like it when you see gay couples displaying affection in public, right? Well, that happens a whole lot less than it does with straight couples. And it happens so much that I just get sick of it. But my reasons are different than yours. I don't dislike straight couples, nor do I think that they shouldn't be able to show affection, but whenever I see a straight couple holding hands or kissing, it makes me so miserable knowing that I can't do the same with my boyfriend.

That's not what I meant.

I just mean people are overly something.

Like Jersey Shore people are too straight and Perez is too gay.

Or Paris Hilton is too girly or a jock is too manly.

I've always liked neutral stuff though.

Now you're talking about celebrities, though. Celebrities are overly everything. =P

 

[Numner]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepoverly

What I'm saying is that you see gay couples how I see straight couples, except far less. You don't like it when you see gay couples displaying affection in public, right? Well, that happens a whole lot less than it does with straight couples. And it happens so much that I just get sick of it. But my reasons are different than yours. I don't dislike straight couples, nor do I think that they shouldn't be able to show affection, but whenever I see a straight couple holding hands or kissing, it makes me so miserable knowing that I can't do the same with my boyfriend.

That's not what I meant.

I just mean people are overly something.

Like Jersey Shore people are too straight and Perez is too gay.

Or Paris Hilton is too girly or a jock is too manly.

I've always liked neutral stuff though.

Now you're talking about celebrities, though. Celebrities are overly everything. =P

Well I don't like them xD

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepoverly

That's not what I meant.

I just mean people are overly something.

Like Jersey Shore people are too straight and Perez is too gay.

Or Paris Hilton is too girly or a jock is too manly.

I've always liked neutral stuff though.

Now you're talking about celebrities, though. Celebrities are overly everything. =P

Well I don't like them xD

Neither do I. Celebrities piss me off, lol.

 

[//RUN.exe]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

^^

failed attempt at trying to be funny.

Hey, guess what?

There is no God, your parents have lied to you your entire life. You've spent your life eating up everything you were spoon fed by those older than you. You've entered a perpetuating cycle of ignorance, hate, and smug superiority that will preclude your attempts at finding friends or women of any worthwhile caliber. I can only hope that someday you'll experience the soul-crushing realization that you've spent your hypocritical life with some particularly ugly delusions. Perhaps such an event will have to wait until your inevitable death, when the bleak, yawning infinity will swallow you and your mind, and the sudden, unexpected loneliness will be the last thing you experience before oblivion.

if you are right and i am wrong, then i lose nothing. if i am right and you are wrong, you lose everything.

i see your pascal and raise you an epicurus.

 

[Sporge27]

Bacon Boy, think of it this way, girls like guys the way you like girls, yes? If you can be fine with that concept is it so hard to think that sometimes other people like guys not just women? Cause otherwise how could you ever imagine any girl ever wanting to date a guy... and that does definitely happen unless women are all true deceivers and make you just think they like you to gain ...something.... but that view is kinda overly paranoid .....

Also stop the talk on omnipotent beings, they cannot be proven nor disproven by any means we currently have. Therefore, all arguments on the subject are pointless. Seriously why do we need that here?

 

[Mino]

Also stop the talk on omnipotent beings, they cannot be proven nor disproven by any means we currently have. Therefore, all arguments on the subject are pointless.

Do you know what "non sequitur" means? Your syllogism is wrong, your conclusion does not follow from those premises. It's true that we would we have no way of ascertaining the reality of a God that does not actively participate in this world, but even then that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. Such beliefs may not be grounded in empirical evidence, but logic has its place in belief, does it not?

 

[Sporge27]

Also stop the talk on omnipotent beings, they cannot be proven nor disproven by any means we currently have. Therefore, all arguments on the subject are pointless.

Do you know what "non sequitur" means? Your syllogism is wrong, your conclusion does not follow from those premises. It's true that we would we have no way of ascertaining the reality of a God that does not actively participate in this world, but even then that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. Such beliefs may not be grounded in empirical evidence, but logic has its place in belief, does it not?

Let me put it another way. Neither of you will change your view, as both are extremely stubborn and rooted in what you believe, and nothing is gained from arguing it. All it does is cause frustration and possibly torment for at least one side and that is just stupid.

It is a personal belief, no matter what you believe and can we please just respect beliefs. Not respecting beliefs causes wars, both actual and just stupid flame wars, and I just don't want to hear it.

And really we have no way of telling whether there is an all powerful being or not, for if there was such a being who did not want to be seen or known to be pulling the strings of the world and expects people to take a leap of faith, then there is no way to show he exists because he is all powerful and can use his limitless power to shroud his actions making it appear that he isn't even there. In this scenario we really can't tell one way or another.

To quote God from Futurama "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." Following this philosophy of a God is what brings about a conundrum that I really don't think can be proved. Logic has a place for certain things, but my own personal philosophy is that we live in a limitless world and honestly think that given the right location, size, time, and dimension anything could happen or be possible. It is just as likely something doesn't happen though, but really I've reached a point in my philosophy that I can't find a way past as far as trying to figure this part out.

 

[Mino]

Also stop the talk on omnipotent beings, they cannot be proven nor disproven by any means we currently have. Therefore, all arguments on the subject are pointless.

Do you know what "non sequitur" means? Your syllogism is wrong, your conclusion does not follow from those premises. It's true that we would we have no way of ascertaining the reality of a God that does not actively participate in this world, but even then that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. Such beliefs may not be grounded in empirical evidence, but logic has its place in belief, does it not?

Let me put it another way. Neither of you will change your view, as both are extremely stubborn and rooted in what you believe, and nothing is gained from arguing it. All it does is cause frustration and possibly torment for at least one side and that is just stupid.

It is a personal belief, no matter what you believe and can we please just respect beliefs. Not respecting beliefs causes wars, both actual and just stupid flame wars, and I just don't want to hear it.

And really we have no way of telling whether there is an all powerful being or not, for if there was such a being who did not want to be seen or known to be pulling the strings of the world and expects people to take a leap of faith, then there is no way to show he exists because he is all powerful and can use his limitless power to shroud his actions making it appear that he isn't even there. In this scenario we really can't tell one way or another.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but as you're telling other people not to discuss their beliefs, you keep on stating your own beliefs. The belief that the existence of God is outside the realm of proof is called agnosticism. Please don't try and use your authority to end argument even as you take part in it.

The idea that no one will change their view about these sorts of things is demonstrably false. I'm an example of someone who has changed his views on this question. As for the alleged stubbornness, that's your opinion. You can't actually say for certain that no one's beliefs will be swayed. And again, you are entirely wrong by saying that nothing can be gained from arguing. Do yourself a favor and throw away the negative connotation that word has, you don't need it. A belief that you can't defend is not one worth holding, and arguing it can either strengthen your conviction or afford a new, enlightened belief.

I also object to your conflation of "flame wars" and actual religious wars. Religious wars are not started over not respecting beliefs, but by the beliefs in the religions themselves. And not all internet arguments are "flame wars", which is a fact that the administration of this board has conveniently never bothered to understand. This argument originally started when a certain member posted a picture of that pathetic husk of a woman Megan Fox, claiming she "turns gays straight", implying in that comment that gays needed to be turned straight, and that they can be. That is a belief, and I freely admit I do not respect it.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Bacon Boy, think of it this way, girls like guys the way you like girls, yes? If you can be fine with that concept is it so hard to think that sometimes other people like guys not just women? Cause otherwise how could you ever imagine any girl ever wanting to date a guy... and that does definitely happen unless women are all true deceivers and make you just think they like you to gain ...something.... but that view is kinda overly paranoid .....

Also stop the talk on omnipotent beings, they cannot be proven nor disproven by any means we currently have. Therefore, all arguments on the subject are pointless. Seriously why do we need that here?

I mean I understand how you would feel that way. I guess it's more of a "I can't see myself feeling the way about a guy the way I do for _______".

 

[Sporge27]

Also stop the talk on omnipotent beings, they cannot be proven nor disproven by any means we currently have. Therefore, all arguments on the subject are pointless.

Do you know what "non sequitur" means? Your syllogism is wrong, your conclusion does not follow from those premises. It's true that we would we have no way of ascertaining the reality of a God that does not actively participate in this world, but even then that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. Such beliefs may not be grounded in empirical evidence, but logic has its place in belief, does it not?

Let me put it another way. Neither of you will change your view, as both are extremely stubborn and rooted in what you believe, and nothing is gained from arguing it. All it does is cause frustration and possibly torment for at least one side and that is just stupid.

It is a personal belief, no matter what you believe and can we please just respect beliefs. Not respecting beliefs causes wars, both actual and just stupid flame wars, and I just don't want to hear it.

And really we have no way of telling whether there is an all powerful being or not, for if there was such a being who did not want to be seen or known to be pulling the strings of the world and expects people to take a leap of faith, then there is no way to show he exists because he is all powerful and can use his limitless power to shroud his actions making it appear that he isn't even there. In this scenario we really can't tell one way or another.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but as you're telling other people not to discuss their beliefs, you keep on stating your own beliefs. The belief that the existence of God is outside the realm of proof is called agnosticism. Please don't try and use your authority to end argument even as you take part in it.

The idea that no one will change their view about these sorts of things is demonstrably false. I'm an example of someone who has changed his views on this question. As for the alleged stubbornness, that's your opinion. You can't actually say for certain that no one's beliefs will be swayed. And again, you are entirely wrong by saying that nothing can be gained from arguing. Do yourself a favor and throw away the negative connotation that word has, you don't need it. A belief that you can't defend is not one worth holding, and arguing it can either strengthen your conviction or afford a new, enlightened belief.

I also object to your conflation of "flame wars" and actual religious wars. Religious wars are not started over not respecting beliefs, but by the beliefs in the religions themselves. And not all internet arguments are "flame wars", which is a fact that the administration of this board has conveniently never bothered to understand. This argument originally started when a certain member posted a picture of that pathetic husk of a woman Megan Fox, claiming she "turns gays straight", implying in that comment that gays needed to be turned straight, and that they can be. That is a belief, and I freely admit I do not respect it.

You have a point that some beliefs aren't right and just wrong, but those times there is plenty off proof to the contrary , but a belief in God should not be something to be looked down on as there is no such proof.

I also never said religious wars, look at just about every war in history, they are eventually able to be started by demonizing the viewpoints of another side pointing out the differences rather than similarities.

Really what I want you to do is stop being an a-hole to some members, and I would hope they would do the same for you. Stating your belief as a fact when you cannot prove it is fairly pompous, and no it is not just you. In fact it is probably hardly you doing this in the grand scheme of things but I have seen you post like this in the last day and it not only bugs me, but is against the rules set up here. Why do we have this rule? Because these discussion so often lead only to animosity towards each other and we don't want that to happen. I honestly don't care if you can have a discussion of it with out ticking people off, but right now it is not occurring so I will ask again to please stop this line of discussion.

 

[Numner]

I think the discussion on why we should discuss religion is a religious discussion.

Sporge how could you :c

 

[Mino]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Let me put it another way. Neither of you will change your view, as both are extremely stubborn and rooted in what you believe, and nothing is gained from arguing it. All it does is cause frustration and possibly torment for at least one side and that is just stupid.

It is a personal belief, no matter what you believe and can we please just respect beliefs. Not respecting beliefs causes wars, both actual and just stupid flame wars, and I just don't want to hear it.

And really we have no way of telling whether there is an all powerful being or not, for if there was such a being who did not want to be seen or known to be pulling the strings of the world and expects people to take a leap of faith, then there is no way to show he exists because he is all powerful and can use his limitless power to shroud his actions making it appear that he isn't even there. In this scenario we really can't tell one way or another.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but as you're telling other people not to discuss their beliefs, you keep on stating your own beliefs. The belief that the existence of God is outside the realm of proof is called agnosticism. Please don't try and use your authority to end argument even as you take part in it.

The idea that no one will change their view about these sorts of things is demonstrably false. I'm an example of someone who has changed his views on this question. As for the alleged stubbornness, that's your opinion. You can't actually say for certain that no one's beliefs will be swayed. And again, you are entirely wrong by saying that nothing can be gained from arguing. Do yourself a favor and throw away the negative connotation that word has, you don't need it. A belief that you can't defend is not one worth holding, and arguing it can either strengthen your conviction or afford a new, enlightened belief.

I also object to your conflation of "flame wars" and actual religious wars. Religious wars are not started over not respecting beliefs, but by the beliefs in the religions themselves. And not all internet arguments are "flame wars", which is a fact that the administration of this board has conveniently never bothered to understand. This argument originally started when a certain member posted a picture of that pathetic husk of a woman Megan Fox, claiming she "turns gays straight", implying in that comment that gays needed to be turned straight, and that they can be. That is a belief, and I freely admit I do not respect it.

You have a point that some beliefs aren't right and just wrong, but those times there is plenty off proof to the contrary , but a belief in God should not be something to be looked down on as there is no such proof.

I also never said religious wars, look at just about every war in history, they are eventually able to be started by demonizing the viewpoints of another side pointing out the differences rather than similarities.

Really what I want you to do is stop being an a-hole to some members, and I would hope they would do the same for you. Stating your belief as a fact when you cannot prove it is fairly pompous, and no it is not just you. In fact it is probably hardly you doing this in the grand scheme of things but I have seen you post like this in the last day and it not only bugs me, but is against the rules set up here. Why do we have this rule? Because these discussion so often lead only to animosity towards each other and we don't want that to happen. I honestly don't care if you can have a discussion of it with out ticking people off, but right now it is not occurring so I will ask again to please stop this line of discussion.

Where have I been an "a-hole" to members? Honestly, I think you're making this up. Giving people a reasoned argument against what they've said against me is not being an "a-hole". Unless you're talking about my comment to David, but that was me mirroring his being an *censored.1.3* by posting that picture and trying to be funny.

Sporge, you're not making any sense.

 

[Sporge27]

Hey, guess what?

There is no God, your parents have lied to you your entire life. You've spent your life eating up everything you were spoon fed by those older than you. You've entered a perpetuating cycle of ignorance, hate, and smug superiority that will preclude your attempts at finding friends or women of any worthwhile caliber. I can only hope that someday you'll experience the soul-crushing realization that you've spent your hypocritical life with some particularly ugly delusions. Perhaps such an event will have to wait until your inevitable death, when the bleak, yawning infinity will swallow you and your mind, and the sudden, unexpected loneliness will be the last thing you experience before oblivion.

Was David being ignorant? Yes he was. But replying with this? This is really wherre I thought you crossed the line. You then went on to say you weren't stating it as a fact even, despite that the second sentence was exactly that. I'm just saying just cause you think one way does not give you the right to look down on those with other views. That is being an a-hole in my book, if anything because you have no idea what they have experienced.