No matter how open-minded...

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

People who dye their hair.

I can handle nose rings, nipple piercings, earrings, belly-button rings, and tattoos, but dying your hair, or altering any aspect of your body that you were born with just doesn't feel right.

Same with any cosmetic surgery.

......

i am complete opposite on this viewpoint...

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

lol yes! someone with the same head fuck as me!

 

[Soods]

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

I know this was posted 10 pages back, but I haven't read through this whole thread and wanted to comment on this post. I apologize if someone else mentioned this before me.

Wake up.
Grab Coffee.
Open internets.
10 new messages!
All quotes of my post.
Yay

I guess I have to defend myself from this atheist assault somehow. If you look closely, you can see the word "slightly" in my post. Yes, it is a flawed logic. But let me offer another theory. Most of the kids are forced to join a religion before they are capable of making the choice. And as they grow up they are taught everywhere that God is awesome and they get threatened with Hell every time they fail. All their friends are believers and if they left the Church, you might suddenly be left out of the community. "Communal pressure" is the right term? The system is based on something that doesn't make sense, but it can keep going because of so many people.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.

Not all religions hold on to moral concepts that no longer apply. Buddhism (5 precepts), Hinduism (no clear moral code, but personal interpretation of scripture), much of Christianity (Obviously not stupid things like homophobia), and many other religious moral codes offer ways in which people, even those who do not believe in the religion can attempt to live a moral life. Such ideas are the backbone of most systems of law that exist to this day.

Also, the declaration that atheists are "spiritually dead and morally suspect" is not a universal one. Most religions hold that atheists are misguided and are to be pitied for their lack of faith/spirituality. The alleged lack of morality is not entirely misplaced, however, as the belief that there is no spiritual power also implies no immortal Moral Law, meaning that, to an atheist, morality has no meaning beyond what they are or are not punished for.

I mean no offence, but I personally can't understand how atheists can be so hypocritical. Atheists often claim that those who are religious are being illogical. Yet, when taking an "objective" viewpoint, atheists assume that religion must be false, without any concrete proof either way.

 

[Blow_Pop]

all the things I can't wrap my head around save one are in relation to people's sexual fetishes..to specific ones...like the vomiting and *shivers thinking of the others*

the one that isn't sexual is trying to figure out what my kitty(actual person not the animal just a nickname)finds so damn attractive about me

 

[CleverCover]

The strength of two? A dog doesn't inherit combined powers of every breed in its ancestry. A Poodle/Collie mix isn't twice as good. You don't get a more powerful dog, you get a dog, the same as if you got a purebred. If I want a poodle, I'll go for the dog that is a poodle rather than the dog that isn't. If someone wants a poodle enough to shell out the big bucks for one, that's fair enough; some people are willing to spend £40 or more a pop on games. People are allowed to spend money on things that other people might not want to buy themselves, and value exactly whatever they want as a status symbol. A more realistic conversation would be along the lines of:

Colin: 'I spent a lot of money to get a purebred poodle'
Roy: 'Why?'
Colin: 'Because I wanted one.'
Roy: 'And?'

And that's the end. If Roy actually wants further explanation, the onus is on him to facilitate meaningful discussion. Colin doesn't have to explain the cause of his desire for a poodle, but roy might have cause to explain why he's so intent on grilling Colin over that decision.

Well that's enough. I suspect I'm too old for this thread anyway.

I just don't get why it's such a status symbol to have a purebred dog. It's a dog. I like that you have a dog, but it's weird for me to pretend it's better that another dog because it's purebred. Why should they get a medal for having a dog that supposedly has only one type of dog in their genes?

Like having 100% poodle means you practically own a yacht.

Your argument does make sense, though. Gah, it's just one of those things for me.

Later thoughts: Oh god, your argument works for about a bajillion things doesn't it?

 

[ChaosEternal]

I could never understand how someone could like a dog, I personally hate the things. Well, actually I have an idea of how to. Don't spend all your time trying to do crap on the computer like me. They annoy me because they are very up in your face. They NEED your attention. And they can be pretty big and tend to lie in doorways. And my dog doesn't ration food, no easy feeder for it. And they need to be let out even if they are small as far as I know. I prefer cats because they will see you on your own time. My cats don't bother me, but are happy to wait until I am done with whatever I am doing. They use a litterbox. They have feeders because they restrain themselves. Much easier for me. So what does that say? I am lazy. Still don't like dogs however.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Transdimensional tentacled bear-frogs. I think it's the eyes that bother me.

 

[ntw3001]

The strength of two? A dog doesn't inherit combined powers of every breed in its ancestry. A Poodle/Collie mix isn't twice as good. You don't get a more powerful dog, you get a dog, the same as if you got a purebred. If I want a poodle, I'll go for the dog that is a poodle rather than the dog that isn't. If someone wants a poodle enough to shell out the big bucks for one, that's fair enough; some people are willing to spend £40 or more a pop on games. People are allowed to spend money on things that other people might not want to buy themselves, and value exactly whatever they want as a status symbol. A more realistic conversation would be along the lines of:

Colin: 'I spent a lot of money to get a purebred poodle'
Roy: 'Why?'
Colin: 'Because I wanted one.'
Roy: 'And?'

And that's the end. If Roy actually wants further explanation, the onus is on him to facilitate meaningful discussion. Colin doesn't have to explain the cause of his desire for a poodle, but roy might have cause to explain why he's so intent on grilling Colin over that decision.

Well that's enough. I suspect I'm too old for this thread anyway.

I just don't get why it's such a status symbol to have a purebred dog. It's a dog. I like that you have a dog, but it's weird for me to pretend it's better that another dog because it's purebred. Why should they get a medal for having a dog that supposedly has only one type of dog in their genes?

Like having 100% poodle means you practically own a yacht.

Your argument does make sense, though. Gah, it's just one of those things for me.

Later thoughts: Oh god, your argument works for about a bajillion things doesn't it?

Haha, I felt a little bad because I think I worded my answer more aggressively than I intended. It is ridiculous when people expect their niche notion of a status symbol to be shared by others, which I guess is the real meat of what you were saying to start with. Still, people can value whatever they want; the key seems to be to be cognizant that we all do the same thing, to some degree. You can't shake your own notion of what's important, but you can try to keep in mind how wildly different it might be to someone else's, and how far from any kind of objective truth either opinion can possibly be. Things is just stuff.

 

[Madara XIII]

I, for one, will never understand how Millikan spent so darn long spewing oil all over the place just to find one physics constant. I wouldn't have survived the first day, and my physics teacher told me that he sprayed oil and did calculations for MONTHS.

...Oh, and atheists. I won't ever understand atheists.

LMFAO
Nice. I understand atheists despite me being a wavering Christians (DAMN MY CONFLICTION)
A good way to understand them is through Existentialism.
Pretty interesting to learn in Philosophy

Secondly the few things I will never understand are

[HEADING=2]Westboro Baptist Church[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]PETA[/HEADING]
and Finally
[HEADING=1]Hilbert's Infinite Hotel Theory[/HEADING]

I'm sorry, but having to acknowledge anything of Infinite Proportions in a Hypothetical situation just outright baffles me, mostly because of the immensity of the concept itself.

 

[Flizzick]

People who watch Jersey Shore. Those people are honestly worth less than the air they breath.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dont understand why Im supposed to feel sad for a person who's committed Suicide. They got what they wanted, and it seems kinda odd that the people who cry over them cant be happy that the person accomplished the rather lofty goal of ending their life.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I guess I have to defend myself from this atheist assault somehow. If you look closely, you can see the word "slightly" in my post. Yes, it is a flawed logic. But let me offer another theory. Most of the kids are forced to join a religion before they are capable of making the choice. And as they grow up they are taught everywhere that God is awesome and they get threatened with Hell every time they fail. All their friends are believers and if they left the Church, you might suddenly be left out of the community. "Communal pressure" is the right term? The system is based on something that doesn't make sense, but it can keep going because of so many people.

That's a good point, and it's another reason why I don't like religions ( I apologize for the sweeping generalization, I mean the infrastructure of religion, I don't have issue with individual religious people, though I think they can be misguided). They pretty much threaten you into staying with their religion, either through being shunned by the community, or in some extreme cases, death. The religious can't accept that maybe one of their members thinks a different way then them and label them as immoral, sinners, and other undeserved tags that lower their social standing. They can't be happy for someone when they've found a more appropriate philosophy for them, they just shun them and expel them from their social circles like a plague, and I think that's really lame.

Also, the declaration that atheists are "spiritually dead and morally suspect" is not a universal one. Most religions hold that atheists are misguided and are to be pitied for their lack of faith/spirituality. The alleged lack of morality is not entirely misplaced, however, as the belief that there is no spiritual power also implies no immortal Moral Law, meaning that, to an atheist, morality has no meaning beyond what they are or are not punished for.

I mean no offence, but I personally can't understand how atheists can be so hypocritical. Atheists often claim that those who are religious are being illogical. Yet, when taking an "objective" viewpoint, atheists assume that religion must be false, without any concrete proof either way.

It is illogical for one to assert belief in something when there is no evidence backing up said belief. It is not illogical to be skeptical of a claim brought forth which has no evidence to back it up. In fact, disbelief is the default position.
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, they need to prove to others why their claim is true, not the reverse. you can never, ever prove conclusively that something does not exist, but you can prove that something does exist, and so it is on the person making the claim to prove that their claim exists. If they don't give good enough evidence, then people are justified in not believing the claim.

I can't speak for other atheists, but personally, I don't "assume" that religions are false, I look at the evidence that I can see, and I make a judgement on whether I think they have any merit or not. And so far, every religion presented to me has failed to pass my standard of truth, with either blatant contradiction, or just plain lack of evidence. If you can prove to me that your religion is true then I will convert to your religion. I am not closed to the possibility of a God existing, I just know that the gods of today's modern religions cannot exist, because their holy books and their sects are all extremely vague and contradictory on what their God actually is.

Also it is extremely naive to think that some two thousand year old book written over the course of hundreds of years is the only source of morality. Morality is socially constructed, it is not divinely constructed.

 

[Nexus4]

The ecstatically religious. I have no beef against any religions or their followers, but when you come across those people whose entire life is based around that religion just astounds me. I don't get it, so just smile and nod!

 

[CleverCover]

Haha, I felt a little bad because I think I worded my answer more aggressively than I intended. It is ridiculous when people expect their niche notion of a status symbol to be shared by others, which I guess is the real meat of what you were saying to start with. Still, people can value whatever they want; the key seems to be to be cognizant that we all do the same thing, to some degree. You can't shake your own notion of what's important, but you can try to keep in mind how wildly different it might be to someone else's, and how far from any kind of objective truth either opinion can possibly be. Things is just stuff.

No, no. As aggressive as it may or may not have sounded, it made me rethink me explanation of my topic and explore what I meant. That's always a plus.

The thought can be applies to many status symbols people have. Like why having a certain animal over another means something better. Or where they live. Or what they do. Or what computer they own.

And well, I guess it's why I have a sort of strange pride over where I go to college over where someone else goes.

I think I learned something today. It's sort of bittersweet.

 

[viking97]

but i'd never in a million years try to tell anyone else what to believe, as long as their beliefs don't affect me in any way.

Really? This is a bit of a departure from our earlier conversation, but you wouldn't try to right someone's wrong even if the belief didn't affect you? What if I believed that the integral from 0 to pi of sin(x) was 1? That belief is completely harmless. Would you not try to correct me?

well, in the area of objective fact i might try to correct you.

 

[Gudrests]

I don't understand people that commit crime. I can't wrap my head around how somebody can be so immature that they don't develop a sense of responsibility or empathy for other people by the time they reach adulthood. Spur of the moment reactions are just down to willpower, or lack thereof, but commiting a planned and organised crime with a clear thought process behind that exists for nothing other than personal gain is an action I will never understand.

Simple man...survival. People have and will and always will commit crimes to survive.

 

[Sight Unseen]

but i'd never in a million years try to tell anyone else what to believe, as long as their beliefs don't affect me in any way.

Really? This is a bit of a departure from our earlier conversation, but you wouldn't try to right someone's wrong even if the belief didn't affect you? What if I believed that the integral from 0 to pi of sin(x) was 1? That belief is completely harmless. Would you not try to correct me?

well, in the area of objective fact i might try to correct you.

There are quite a few objective facts that religious people deny. Would you try to correct those?

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

...you try to be, there's always that one thing you can't wrap your head around.

For me, it's people who aren't moved by music, people who are fine with listening to the radio or club music because it's easy to dance to or it's simple, people who don't go looking for music that inspires them or brings out all manner of emotion/feeling to the surface (be it joy, excitement, anger, passion etc). These are the things I can't accept/understand, no matter how wide I open my mind.

So what's your one thing that you can't grasp?

I agree with this and also, people who keep fucking me over, saying they'll do something then I never hear from them again. I'm starting to feel like the world is filled with those. Actually, scratch that, Sweden in particular and not the world.

 

[Lilani]

The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.

I don't get how people can lump an entire VAST and varied group of individuals with radically different beliefs and backgrounds into one group. And then, because of this base assumption that everyone in this group is the same, they have the gall to freely and indiscriminately antagonize the entire group for the feelings of only a few (which an already large and growing number within them also disagree with).

 

[red the fister]

i'll never be able to understand people who don't like boobs.