Life Changing Mindset

In your definition, is the liberal mindset more: "you need to support ME" OR "I need to support YOU"? : ) Oh! We GOP are truly sorry we freed the slaves...(Sarcasm)

what is wrong with my definition of child support? why can't i use it to live off of or buy stuff for myself such as specialty treatments at the hair salon or spa? i do not get why people think it such a big deal that i get a job and pay for things my ex' money and government assistance can pay for? the people in my family always call me lazy and say what will i do when it ends?i say it is a mans job to pay for a woman and their kids rather if it is theirs or not. so as long as i have a man, i will be fine. i do not get what is wrong with my mindset, i am not breaking any law. my ex,family members, and associates need to find a hobby and leave me alone. i have been doing this since i got with my ex bf and had our child 5 years ago, what is the big deal? if a woman wants to work to help provide, then fine with me. but the man should work twice as hard to cover all the bills so the woman will not feel as if they will go broke if she does nto work. this is why child support and customdy are almost always given to the women no matter if we work or not. it is because the states feel government assistance is for the women to stay at home with their kids no matter what age and the man pays for them and her no matter if they are together or not! i love being a woman in our country!

What's your definition of a Liberal? Conservatives, time to let loose with your worst definition of the Liberal mindset. What is a Liberal? And Liberals, what's good about your political beliefs?

What is your definition of skinny? Is it a size? Is it a mindset? Whatever, I just want to know what you think.

Do you hate bigots with a fixed, stubborn mindset? A. Of course. I dislike anyone who's intolerant of others. B, Depends on your definition of a bigot. Some are better than the others. C. I'm a bigot.

Is the Christians definition of an open mind mean that you believe in all the ancient myths of one book.......? and thereafter close your mind to anything that might not agree with your rigid mindset? Isn't this the real Christian definition of an open mind with few exceptions?

Is true freedom just a mindset? Obviously everyone's actions are limited my factors outside of their own control. Everyday there are things which limit your potential. Is true freedom having all limitations cut away, or is a state of mind that can be developed anywhere, no matter the situation? Because one of those definitions of freedom can be taken away, the other cannot be, unless you choose to give it away that is. If freedom is a state of mind how do you develope it?

How do you explain the creationist mindset..? All the arguments on both sides have been presented at one time or another, but with the real "mainstream" scienctific disciplines offering conclusive evidence and verifiablity of the "maintream" scientific understandings and principles. The creationist offers "psuedo science", twisted logic, misquotes, misinformation and outright lies as a retort.. Bearing in mind that at no point does science ever attempt to either prove or disprove the existance of god, yet these creationists attempt to use "psuedo science" to discredit science.. ie: "our science proves science is wrong.." etc.. Can anyone explain how such denial and ignorance is so prevelant in the face of overwhelming evidence and data to the contrary..?? Creationists, remember: Mainstream Science is the real science. Any claims outside of this framework are not science by any definition..! "M&S", you have omitted one glaring fact, tha evolution isn't the opposition to your creation fairytale, but is only one part of the many fields of the mainstream sciences, and which, like all the others, is corroborated and verified everyday, and is an interlocking, interweaving part of the understandings and principles of the mainstream scientific explanations and descriptions of the natural world around us.. Your denial and ignorance here is shameful, and pathetic at best..

Is reality the way one perceives the world or the physical being of matter? My philosophy on reality is that humans will never know what true reality is because our perceptions are warped through societal norms and our own personal experiences so that we perceive the world around us in different ways. In other words, we give certain objects an essence of metaphorical or symbolic meaning according to our experiences or societal perception when really matter is matter, and our perception doesn't change the physical atoms or molecules of the object. Do you agree or disagree? Also, do you believe, according to my definition of reality, that there could be a god (when we strip away the symbolism of actions and set ourselves in a mindset of the physical reality rather than the conceptual reality we place ourselves in)? Thanks for your time!

"the mindset of showing dogs, trying to confirm to a standard, and breed the perfect dog is wrong."? So often the amazing dog lovers here at yahoo answer can word something a lot better than I can get out of it... how would you REPLY to the title(and the quote far below). (note I did no actual say the title, nor agree with it, it's a quote from someone) i've been debating with a person..they just keep saying 'a dog is a dog' and getting the idea somehow that i'm blaming the dogs, i guess. I guess a don't understand because no matter how much 'a dog is a dog' thats still...no excuse fro designer breeds, sold at 1.2k. e-e Then they use the idea of crossbreeding in dogs to outbreed a bad trait as an excuse for mixed breed designer dogs, like labardoodles. As well as "all the dogs in the past where mixed to create the dogs we have today" idea. heres THEIR full quote: The definition of "purebred" is an animal that breeds true. When you breed two purebreds the offspring looks like the parents. A lab bred to a lab will always look like a lab. To be honest, I think of dogs as just dogs. I don't see one being special or better than the other. Because dogs are mutant canines we created. They are all the same species. Dogs were originally bred to serve a purpose often a working one. Guess what? They were often mixes of several different types of dogs. I think the whole mindset that I see nowadays probably got started when someone decided that we needed to show our dogs and conform to a standard someone came up with. That we must breed the prefect dog. In my mind bettering the breed means breeding dogs that are more healthy and sound. Even if it means crossbreeding. There was a Dalmatian breeder who did a breeding project to produce a line of Dalmatians that weren't riddled with a genetic disorder that causes a bladder problem in the breed called Hyperuricemia. Dalmations for some reason do not have the "normal" gene in their gene pool. So he had to reintroduce the gene otherwise it would be impossible to eliminate the disorder. How he did it? He crossbred his Dalmatians with English Pointers who are thought to be related. Then he backcrossed the offspring to pure-Dals. After several generations he had purebred Dalmatians free of the disorder. But he was not allowed to register the dogs because of the hybrids farther back in the pedigree. He bettered the breed but the club with its mindset that all of the dogs in the pedigree must be all of the same breed so therefore his dogs aren't allowed. " oh yeah, and sorry for asking all these types of questions. (well this is the second one). But it's really bothering me I suppose... thats what i'm thinking cashflow, they keep just barely skimming the surface of every topic.

God must have done it:.....Is this the default mindset that Christians fall back on every time..............? they encounter something they don't understand? Is that the Christian definition of proof?

Do you agree with Fr. Andrew Greeley's definition of what it is to be Culturally Catholic? Though not practicing... perhaps Ex-Catholic or Lapsed Catholic, but still Catholic in mindset... not in beliefs. He describes this in his book "The Catholic Imagination."

Some presidential nominees claim they have a plan for all our problems??? I liked this article by Ron Paul. Called "I have a plan..." As election time nears, we are bombarded with political ads and speeches by candidates telling us their great plans for running the country. At the end of the recent presidential debate, for example, the Democratic nominee recited a litany of supposed cures for nearly everything that ails us, beginning each sentence with the phrase “I have a plan…” The problem is that government is not supposed to plan our lives or run the country; we are supposed to be free. That our public discourse strays so far from this principle is an unhappy sign of our times. Those who believe in limited constitutional government should worry every time a politician says, “I have a plan.” Remember, there is a simple dictionary definition for government planning of the production and provision of goods and services: socialism. No matter how much the grand planners from both political parties deny it, many of their programs and proposals are socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, price controls, and interest rate manipulations all represent socialist interventions in the economy. True, we do not yet have a fully socialist economy. But that is why we must be vigilant and label socialist proposals for exactly what they are, so we can maintain and expand economic freedom in America. Both history and economic theory prove conclusively that centrally-planned economies lower the standard of living for everyone except government elites. Historically, centralized economic planning goes hand in hand with hardship and bloodshed. Modern soft socialism, found in nations like Sweden and France, is beginning to implode of its own weight as governments realize they simply cannot fund cradle-to-grave programs without imposing tax rates that kill any last remnants of productive spark in their citizens. By contrast, capitalism – which is to say economic freedom – raises the standard of living for everyone in a society. But we must understand what capitalism really is. Capitalism is not a system, but rather the result of free individuals taking economic actions without interference by government. A true capitalist economy is neither planned by bureaucrats nor steered by regulators. This is why it’s so important that we resist the idea that any president should plan our economy. If we accept that government “runs” the economy, we accept a fundamental tenet of socialism. We must understand that economic liberty is every bit as important as political and civil liberties. In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense. Such was the system envisioned by the Founding Fathers, who strictly limited regulatory and tax powers in the Constitution. They were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown, so they created a servant government that would allow freedom and capitalism to flourish. Today’s political rhetoric demonstrates that the servant has become the master. Most politicians, and too many Americans, have accepted the premise that government should plan our lives and control the economy. This subservient mindset encourages political pandering, as candidates strive to convince voters of their superior plans to take care of all of us. For a nation founded upon rugged individualism and self-reliance, the modern political landscape represents a wake-up call. Unless and until Americans begin to reclaim the mentality that made us great, we are destined to slide further into an economic and political malaise that cannot be solved by the grandiose plans of politicians.

I want to know the definition of friend.? I do not consider a person as a friend who becomes your friend just by coincidence or by some mutual interest. I think friends should have a common mindset. What do you think.

Why are peoples mindset so focussed on other people? People just want everyone to love them. Its a little weird if you think about it. We as humans, are so focused on it that it destroys peoples lives, and yes while it does give " new meaning" to life, it can ruin someone just as easily. If you simply look at society today, people can not last on their own. It is really sad actually. Now it may seem like I am a loner, but is that a bad thing? Is it bad to be alone and independent today? By societies definition, yes, by mine, no. You see being independent is a great thing. You have no rules set by another party, you can think freely, you can pretty much do anything short of breaking the law. Having another person hanging on to you, or worse, supporting you, is just a problem. I don't know, I guess I'm just weird.

Why are liberals still in the mindset that banning the private ownership? of firearms is going to stop crime? A criminal, by definition, does not follow the law. How is that going to make the country safer if we take away firearms from people who have not done anything? Even if you make firearms 100% illegal everywhere, criminals are going to find other ways to kill and harm people. Just the other day I read a story of how a guy went on a rampage in the UK with a sword. Why aren't we also outlawing automobiles, kitchen knives, cigarettes, alcohol, airplanes... These things can all be used as weapons. To say that these have legitimate uses and that firearms do not is a gross lie. Firearms put food on the table and defend the home and our lives.

What is your definition of being a man? To have a mindset that you must dominate in every challenge that comes your way. Every challenge must be face as if you are facing death, no matter if the challenge is physical, intellectual, financial, etc... whatever it is you must give it everything you got. Even if you aren't the best you must never accept defeat. A man knows how to love his women passionately, and to be able to protect her without any hesitation from any form of harm that comes her way. To be a man you must be able to destroy something without feeling remorse or guilt basically no emotion to anything that needs to be taken care off but at the same time sensitive to those you love. A man must have a cause or a goal that is larger than life in order to push his ambitious as far as possible. Even facing death a man will never waiver. So this is all that I can come up with.

If modern science predates Christianity where was all the systematic observations to make modification and or? corrections? science by definition is a method utilized in organized efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and corrections through systematic observations, if the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, or even Islam had the mindset influenced by Christianity wouldn't they have been or become greater before Christianized Europe, Greeks, Romans, and Chinese never achieved real science as we know it today, Islam although keeping books about advances that could lead to real science never made it either, but in the minds of Europeans influenced by Christian reasoning skills and the thought that there is a Creator which we must explore nature to try to fully understand Him...not just in the NT but in all aspect of creation, and those laws must be found, if a man doesn't believe in a Creator, as the Christian does, by what rational would he think the universe has laws, why didn't others succeed, When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser Socrates Lucid you should pick up a book sometime...the "dark ages" was a creation by anti-religion zealots to put down Christianity and to make themselves look better...many things came out of the dark ages, universities, the wheel barrel, the horse shoe, glasses, the water wheel, polyphony, heavy calvary, the plow, the cannon, mechanized watch, three field concept, etc... preacher...i did not infer that these cultures did nothing to help science...what i stated is that they never achieved what the Christian Europe mindset was able to achieve because of the mindset instilled within the Europeans from Christianity...this is why to the amazement of the Europeans they were far superior than other cultures even though though cultures possesed the same knowledge they had for a longer period of time...and if you did read the definition of science i wrote then you would understand discovery of things is not science...science is a systematic observations...not coming across things by happenstance like gun powder...it was an accident becuase he was trying to make a drink to make him immortal...not trying to make gun powder...there were other inaccuracies but i don't want to waste more time or correcting an obvious attempt...like earlier anti-religious writers...to not give any credit to Christianity for anything...

Please help me finish the sentence "CULTURE IS..."? A group of people in your neighborhood may have a different "culture" than a group of people that live in the country, or in a different state, or a different country. Personally, I do not feel that culture has to do with race or religion. I feel it is more of a mindset, or educational background. Yet I am trying to finish this sentence and need some thoughts. What IS culture? Not a definition, but your gut instinct. Thanks for your help!

Has Glenn Beck become all gloom & doom lately? I listen to him every day for three hours. I've decided to stop listening all together because he has become so incredibly negative. He IS the definition of the term "alarmist". I really can't take him anymore. Anyone else feeling this about him? He's moving to Fox. Fox has also become more about drama and less about news. Aside from the over-use of lip gloss, Glenn will fit in well at Fox. I think it is important to remember that negativity and a doomsday mindset is contagious. I encourage everyone to stop listening. Former Fox/talk radio junkie.

Do you consider bowling a sport? I consider it a sport. Most people (that aren't bowlers) do not though. If you are one of those people that don't, here may be some things you don't take into consideration: Football, tennis, baseball, cheer leading, basketball, and soccer are all things that most people probably classify as sports. But think about this, everywhere you go, conditions (other than weather) are virtually the same. They have to be a certain way. In bowling, conditions change everywhere. No two places are exactly the same. There are also a lot of things that people that don't bowl wouldn't know. You can talk about how expensive your baseball or football equipment is, but bowling equipment is also very expensive. Hook balls cost around $200, good shoes can be around $100 or more, wrist guard things are around $70, rolling bags are also $50 or more:: that's $420 right there. And most high average bowlers have more than one ball. The thing that probably puts people in the mindset that it is not a sport, is that people think the definition of a "sport" is physical activity. The definition of "sport" from dictionary.com is: 1.an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. One last point; If you think bowling is not competitive, you couldn't be any more wrong. They show it on ESPN and the crowd cheers. Whether you believe it or not, a high school state bowling meet is ridiculously loud because the teams all have cheers we do for certain things. Bowling is more-so a game of strategy and putting your strategy into action. Taking these things into consideration, do you still think bowling is/isn't a sport?

How many of you people, actually planning to settle down with just one person of the same sex? I was wondering. I thought I am not the only one who wanted to settle down. But apparently, people think that "settling down" is just too overrated. They think that love has it's time limit and you are going to love another person anyway. I mean....I thought gay people was fighting for marriage? But how come their mindset of the definition of marriage is just, not for the rest of their life? And they think that same sex life settling down thingy is just, unrealistic. Is it? Am I wrong to think that I wanted to settle down with someone? Moreover, I am afraid, can I actually found someone who wants the same way? Or am I just too idealistic and need to downgrade my demand?

How can I really get over him? (long question)? This past year, all this guy's been to me is a complete JERK. I’d liked him for the previous two years prior and last (school) year finally had the gull to tell him how I feel via note. He never wrote back and when asked why, got a “I don’t write notes” reply, and when asked how he felt and what he thought said, “I just wanna be friends”. That was in April. And apparently, his definition of friends, is ignoring you, flirting w/other people right in front of you just because he knows you have feelings for him, and being a complete *** about it w/his friends. When I asked him to sign my yearbook, he wrote “Have a good summer!” Then even wrote a fake phone number (really his friend’s) after. If you ask me what I saw in him, I truly don’t know. Now for now. I have summer school and the past few weeks have been great. I haven’t had to see him, be bothered with him, none of it. But today (the start of a new semester) he came because he now has a class. He had the NERVE to look at me this morning with a stupid smirk he always had. I hate it, I really do. We used to always stare at each other all the time and that’s how I thought he liked me back somehow. So how do I go through the next 12 days of school with a mindset on not to stare at him? I know you guys may be like "Just don't stare" but it's amazingly difficult. And you don't know how mad I get when I do look at him. I don't want to have anything to do with him anymore and I was doing completely fine until today. My whole goal this summer was to get over him, not let the past repeat itself...

Since Liberals think that it is ok to abort a child? because it is dependent upon its host therfore not life... shouldnt all babies be able to be aborted in thier mindset? since a breastfed baby cannot feed itself... a bottle fed baby cannot feed itself either... they are dependent upon thier parents.. does this mean by thier definition that they are not life??

Is agnosticism a religion or a philosophy? it seams to be the closest i can possibly come to solidifying my feeling of a religion that favors my view on life. but i treat this "religion" more as if its philosophical mindset, furthering the chase i have with god. my ex and a couple of my friends claim they are agnostic but dont treat the meaning the same as i do. so what could the definition be and how popular is this "thought process"

someone define what "punk" is and what isn't, including appearance, attitude and bands? Just curious as to people's definition of what "punk" is, and I'm talking about music and culture, not prison. What are some punk bands, what are some bands that are called punk but isn't. What is punk gear, what does it look like. What is a "punk" attitude or mindset. I've recently found some fairly different ideas as to what "punk" is. I'm sure this is a "Hot Topic"....Who thinks Nirvana was a punk band? **some girl--thanks for the URL's, i could look them up anytime. I want to know your independent thoughts on the subject. Could I please have them?** **additional: I'm amazed and a little shocked at how good these answers are. I've encountered a lot of knuckleheads without the slightest clue**

How do I stop even looking at him? This past year, all this guy's been to me is a complete JERK. I’d liked him for the previous two years prior and last (school) year finally had the gull to tell him how I feel via note. He never wrote back and when asked why, got a “I don’t write notes” reply, and when asked how he felt and what he thought said, “I just wanna be friends”. That was in April. And apparently, his definition of friends, is ignoring you, flirting w/other people right in front of you just because he knows you have feelings for him, and being a complete ass about it w/his friends. When I asked him to sign my yearbook, he wrote “Have a good summer!” Then even wrote a fake phone number (really his friend’s) after. If you ask me what I saw in him, I truly don’t know. Now for now. I have summer school and the past few weeks have been great. I haven’t had to see him, be bothered with him, none of it. But today (the start of a new semester) he came because he now has a class. He had the NERVE to look at me this morning with a stupid smirk he always had. I hate it, I really do. We used to always stare at each other all the time and that’s how I thought he liked me back somehow. So how do I go through the next 12 days of school with a mindset on not to stare at him? I know you guys may be like "Just don't stare" but it's amazingly difficult. And you don't know how mad I get when I do look at him. I don't want to have anything to do with him anymore and I was doing completely fine until today. My whole goal this summer was to get over him, not let the past repeat itself...

A synonym for "culture"? I've already used it twice but I want a word to sum up the whole way of life, mindset and society of a country as in "immersed in the __" i know thats not exactly a definition of culture but I can't think of the word and im getting desperate

Why do we define "good" actions as those that we would like to receive? Isn't it just a selfish, self absorbed mindset that governs out definitions of morality and good? We define good as things that we would like receive, eg., acts of charity, and bad things as those we wouldn't like to receive, eg. eugenics (wouldn't want to be wiped out by it). Isn't that all our "morality" boils down to? Objective morality doesn't exist, we just consider whether it is good for the individual (imagining ourselves to be that individual). However, doesn't that mean we possibly compromise the well being of the species, by defining ethics in terms of the individual? ie. Eugenics? .......................

A conservative view of the future..? I sometimes wonder how people of a more conservative mindset than mine might view the future. Since conservatives by definition resist change but knowing it's inevitable do they simply close their eyes and wish for the past to come back or can they envision change even if they don't like it. Take as the perfect liberal vision - Star Trek - the antithesis of the conservative ideal: One world government, people of all races and creeds working together as equals, no money, no religion to speak of, everybody working together, not for personal wealth or power but for the benefit of all humanity. Enough to make a right-winger cringe! ;-) So, what's the alternative? Give me an example of a conservative vision of Tomorrow.

Future of Republican Party? Personally, I'm a democrat: socially, economically, etc. But I'm curious about the future of the Republican party. As you probably know, parties change their stances over time. The Republicans weren't always all conservatives, and the Democrats weren't always all liberals. History also tells us that over time, by the very definition of liberal, society gradually becomes more and more liberal. It's inevitable. The major bone I have to pick with Republicans is their socially conservative mindset. They oppose things like gay marriage and support linking church and state. History tells us that society becomes more tolerant and more secular. It's inevitable that gay marriage will be legal throughout the US in the future. Probably within the century. And mandatory prayer and teaching creationism will never spread throughout the US. So socially, we'll become more like Democrats, whether you like it or not. However, Republicans support less government intervention in the economy. I'm actually not completely opposed to this idea. If Republicans could think of a practical way to fund things like education and infrastructure, which are typically paid for by the government, and prevent monopolies and corporate-political corruption, I might start liking the GOP. There might be a way to have a functional laissez-faire government. So I think conservative economics will last. So, because there really is no arguement for social conservatism lasting, I think the Republican party will become more socially liberal but remain economically conservative. This is basically the Libertarian party. I know a lot of young people who consider themselves Libertarians. So I think the GOP will be replaced by the Libertarian Party's values. So the future will basically be Libertarians vs. Democrats. What do you think will be the future of the Republican Party in the USA?

Help me define proof? my science teacher proposed something...confusing he almost said there's no such thing as proof it went something like this... "prove to me there is a desk here" "i can see it" "how does that prove it's here?" "you're touching it" "how does that prove it's here?" i need a good definition of proof, because my teacher has a point. Proof seems to only be limited to the mindset we have that "if i can see it, i'll believe it". what is the actual scientific definition?

Does America have the right to impose democracy in other countries, when we are still in infancy ourselves? In America we are just realizing the different ideologies and concepts of the varied definitions of Democracy itself. Which means; rule by the people. I see this to mean that we are a community of equals, and our voices are to be heard, realized, and counted as a vital input to our government's future. I also feel this concept has not been realized within its full definition, due to the facts; if one is not equal, than all are not equal. There is no room for error here, but as we have all experienced American democracy, we also are experiencing-"American Exceptionalism." Our country is in the toddler stage of democracy, and many other countries have had democracy as their governance for many decades. What does this mean to the outside world? Are we the champions of this definition, or are we trying to rule the planet with just one mindset? And is this the only way to rule any country? Many individuals I speak with, do not even know the true meaning of democracy, do you?

Can you help me PLEASE (with this guy problem)? This past year, all this guy's been to me is a complete JERK. I’d liked him for the previous two years prior and last (school) year finally had the gull to tell him how I feel via note. He never wrote back and when asked why, got a “I don’t write notes” reply, and when asked how he felt and what he thought said, “I just wanna be friends”. That was in April. And apparently, his definition of friends, is ignoring you, flirting w/other people right in front of you just because he knows you have feelings for him, and being a complete *** about it w/his friends. When I asked him to sign my yearbook, he wrote “Have a good summer!” Then even wrote a fake phone number (really his friend’s) after. If you ask me what I saw in him, I truly don’t know. Now for now. I have summer school and the past few weeks have been great. I haven’t had to see him, be bothered with him, none of it. But today (the start of a new semester) he came because he now has a class. He had the NERVE to look at me this morning with a stupid smirk he always had. I hate it, I really do. We used to always stare at each other all the time and that’s how I thought he liked me back somehow. So how do I go through the next 12 days of school with a mindset on not to stare at him? I know you guys may be like "Just don't stare" but it's amazingly difficult. And you don't know how mad I get when I do look at him. I don't want to have anything to do with him anymore and I was doing completely fine until today. My whole goal this summer was to get over him, not let the past repeat itself...

Were the Attacks that killed Dozens in Norway "Terrorism"? Why or Why Not? Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist. There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible. In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As (Richard) Silverstein put it: How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world? What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html

I'm curious to know how many of us Bible-believing Christians here who started out as anti-evolution Young....? ....Earth Creationists moved to affirming an Old Earth viewpoint and to affirming the mechanisms of biological evolution -- once we quit restricting our reading to just the YEC authorities perhaps? And once we began reading/studying the Bible-believing Christian scholars who showed us that the Bible was not hostile to evolution nor to the idea of a 13+ billion year old universe, did that "clinch" our transformation? Was that the story for most of you who "changed sides" after being ardent YECs for years? WAS THIS YOUR EXPERIENCE? OR DID YOUR CHANGE OF MINDSET INVOLVE OTHER FACTORS? What do you think is the most common path for those who abandoned YEC views? =============================================================== =============================================================== {Remaining background is optional & unnecessary for answering main question.} =============================================================== OPTIONAL: Personal Experience in moving away from YEC anti-evolution beliefs For me my mastering Biblical Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic in grad school also played a big role -- although I found that even that can be of very little help if the professors don't have a good grounding in linguistics and the kinds of discoveries which have revolutionized Bible translation so that we are not unknowingly brainwashed by tradition. Even some people who have passable Greek/Hebrew skills never grow past silly Strong's Concordance definitions [rather than BDB or KB/HAL] and reasoning because they never got past the translation philosophies of pre-WWI scholarship. One can see a lot of that here on R&S, such as with the "YOM=24hr day because of YOM with an ordinal number" reasoning that got debunked long ago. In these sorts of argument many Christians actually side and quote from the anti-inspiration secularists who like to see the folly of 24-hour YOM days encouraged because it makes their attacks on the Bible much easier. I'm often amazed how many Christians fail to see that they are being used to extend a secular, anti-Bible agenda in this way. Yet, at the same time they complain that Christians who affirm evolution are incorporating "atheistic ideas" into their theology! Looking back, it seems that it the social factors as well as the unwarranted confusing of "social Darwinism" as a philosophy --- which is, indeed, a naive guide towards any kind of truth -- and the actual biological science related to the scientific theory of evolution. Many of my Christian friends even in my own church today still confuse "Darwinism" as a philosophy with the theory he helped define and set in motion as a long-term "evolving" theory and definition. BUT WHAT WAS YOUR STORY? WHAT CHANGED YOUR MIND? ================================================================= Obviously, if you never changed your viewpoint, this question doesn't apply to you and a rant against those who did serves little value -- unless you can perhaps tell us why you encountered the same spectrum of possible positions and can share reasons why you found them insufficient to change?

I know it's been asked before, but is killing a clone murder or what? Let's ignore the whole Identical Twin argument, because even scientists have found that genetically speaking, identical twins have genetic differences, no matter how small they are. Let's ignore the whole "not real human beings" thing, because ALSO genetically speaking, they are human beings, as they are genetically homosapians. There's the probability that in the future, if we hit widespread availability of cloning, there will be a law put in place to cover this: clonicide. Intentional premeditated killing of a clone. Cloneslaughter would probably be introduced as well. As for the issue of cloning, it would really depend on where you are as to whether or not it's illegal/banned. While the UN has put a ban on it, deeming it an indignation to human beings, only a few places have actually deemed it illegal, including only 13 states. So lets ignore the whole "It's illegal to clone anyway" arguments. Also, let's disregard any thoughts about clones being sub-human or property, as we believed the same things about African slaves, but they're genetically human, and slavery was wrong, both in the legal mindset and the moral mindset. And let's not make this an argument about slavery, either, please. So with all that put in place, if you INTENTIONALLY kill a clone, yours or someone else's, is it murder? If we can assume that killing someone else's clone is murder, then we would have to agree that it would be murder to kill your own, as murder is defined as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Granted, the definition may be changed in the future, but as of right now. So...BEGIN!

why do military spouses refer to home as....? with their mama and daddy?and not with their husbands?for example,i see on here and hear many military spouses on post say when my husband deploy i am going home for the year?i always thought home is where you live with your current family.such as husband and kids.but maybe i don't know know the real definition?why don't military spouses want to stay independent and live a regular life without running to mama and daddy each time there is a deployment,training,schooling and etc for their husband.i have been through a 15 month deployment with 3 weeks leave in between just fine.and i have a child.is there something to be scared of?is living alone without a man that scary?i really want to know why there are so many military spouses that do this?is there something maybe scary about being an adult,married,having kids,and living as a family?i just wonder why marry military if you have this mindset,that's all.or why even agree to be married and live like married people do if you cannot handle living through a deployment.i know its hard,don't get me wrong.but i would never pay alot of money to move my things to another state just to live with mama and daddy with my child just cause i am not mature enough to live alone.that has to be expensive to move every other year,at least for me it would be. another question is,why do many spouses think that the military should pay to move them with mama and daddy while their husband goes to deployment?how much more would the government be in debt,than they already are if they did that for every spouse.come on now,the government paid to move your family already to where you currently are cause that is where your husband is needed.he is not needed in the state where you grew up at,where your parents are,or with friends.that would not be fair to the taxpayers that anyone would get a privilege like that. can anyone tell me if they understand where i am coming from on here?i just get annoyed by keep reading post on here and hearing women speak on post about how they cant stay alone cause husband is leaving to deploy or etc.then they complain about it,and whine cause the government wont foot the bill cause they cant be adult enough to live alone. i wonder how the husbands feel about women that have the mindset like i have explained above?personally my husband told me he cant stay married to someone like that.my husband is active army by the way.

Was Jesus Christ really a socialist? October 4th of this year, Michael Moore posted a blog on his website aimed at those going to church that Sunday morning. He eventually arrived at this point: “I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus… taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” At the end of this letter to churchgoers, he makes this closing comment about Jesus and the feeding of the 5,000: “Either he was the first socialist or his disciples were really bad at packing lunch.” Was Jesus Christ really a socialist? Well, first, socialism must have a definition. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has 3 definitions for the word, and they all involve collectivism, governmental ownership of the means of production in a society, and the lack of private property rights by individuals. Socialism is much closer to diet-communism, containing all the potential for a collectivist society without quite so much bloodshed. The goal of all Marxist theories (including socialism, fascism, and communism) was to eventually create a paradise on earth. This paradise would be governed by the principle that each person was not unique. That person simply worked as part of the whole, putting in as much as they could and being given only what they needed by the all-powerful government. Now that socialism is defined, the work of Jesus must be put into a similar light for comparison. Jesus was sent to Earth as the Son of God, preaching salvation for belief in Him, and of a paradise AFTER this life is over. Jesus did in fact do many wondrous acts for people throughout His ministry, including healing the sick, feeding multitudes through miracles, and even raising others from the dead. Jesus once said, “Give, and it will be given to you…” (Luke 6:38a), and on another occasion stated, “Sell your possessions and give to charity.” (Luke 12:33a). In His interaction with the “rich, young ruler” in Luke Chapter 18, Jesus told the rich man, who argued that he had followed the law, to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Later, once the rich man went away sad, Jesus said, “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” So what comparison can be made here? Both socialism and Jesus do indeed advocate giving. The difference comes in the motivation for the giving, the method of the giving, and in the scope of the giving. Jesus advocated giving to others in order to store up treasures in heaven. Socialism advocates giving to others in order to do your duty to society, and to eventually create a collectivist paradise. Jesus told people to give freely, since God loves a cheerful giver. Socialism doesn’t really care about the mindset in which the individual gives up possessions and liberty, for it is taken by force in the end anyway. Jesus did not teach that one should wait until government takes the money to give it to the poor; he said to do it personally so that it can be used in the furtherance of the ministry. Socialism actually prefers government redistribution of wealth to personal charity, so it makes personal charity more difficult and redistribution of wealth the norm. Dr. Timothy Faber, pastor at East Tipp Baptist Church in Lafayette, disagreed that Jesus was a socialist. He stated, “The ability to own personal property, to recognize that people have the right to have possessions, is a God-given right.” Dr. Faber referenced 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, where believers are urged not to be a burden upon anyone. This is a clear message for self-reliance. 1 Thessalonians also talks about personal responsibility, saying to “lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” Clearly, the Bible doesn’t advocate any type of reliance upon the government, which happens to be a central tenet of socialism. As far as who should be doing the giving, and at what level, Dr. Faber explained that the Bible makes it clear that individuals are to care for themselves and their family first, and then for others within their community. He pointed to 1 Timothy 5:8 which states, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How can one provide for their family unless they have a job and keep some money for themselves? How can one raise a family unless they have possessions, such as a house? Dr. Faber went on to say “The Bible makes it clear that the church or individuals are to meet the needs of the poor, not the government.” He made it clear that one teaching of Scripture (being self-reliant) can’t be ignored in order to fulfill another (giving to the poor.) Leftist individuals would argue that churches don’t give enoug

Why do people say that the christian god isnt a bigot? here is the definition of bigot or bigotry from wikipedia: A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own,and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable. Hello people who say that god isnt a bigot....this accurately sums up who god is...he is intolerant of anything and so are his followers. No one can question the existence of god without christians getting offended about it. Even in my own family, people get mad at me for even saying that god is a bigot. They clearly don't understand the definition of a bigot. I am an agnostic, which means that I don't know what religion is the "true" religion or even if any religion is real. I do not know if god exists. But if the christian god of the bible is real then he is in fact a bigot. Does anyone else agree? just answer me is god a bigot or not lol

THE TESTIMONY OF A FORMER IRISH PRIEST, Q for RCatholic? THE REASON WHY I SHARE I share these truths with you now so that you can know God's way of salvation. Our basic fault as Catholics is that we believe that somehow we can of ourselves respond to the help God gives us to be right in His sight. This presupposition that many of us have carried for years is aptly defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) #2021, "Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons...." With that mindset, we were unknowingly holding to a teaching that the Bible continually condemns. Such a definition of grace is man's careful fabrication, for the Bible consistently declares that the believer's right standing with God is "without works" (Romans 4:6), "without the deeds of the Law" (Romans 3:28), "not of works" (Ephesians 2:9), "It is the gift of God," (Ephesians 2:8). To attempt to make the believer's response part of his salvation and to look upon grace as "a help" is to flatly deny Biblical truth, what's your judgment to this former priest, who found the truth of worshiping God Most High, Lord Jesus Chirst in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-24. If you want to read the whole testimony please go to: http://www.integrityonline.com/cl/berean http://www.biblebelievers.com/catholicism/ http://biblebeleivers.com and go to catholicism http://biblebelievers.com then go to: what about and select: catholicism

Don't fundies understand by rejecting evolution/big bang, they are rejecting those who we owe civilized life? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzdv2dsPPKw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ There seems to be some mindset among evangelicals and fundamentalists that scientists are of no addition to society, and that they are hell-bent on destroying religion and that is all. What I hate the most is the whole 'I bleive in most of science, just not when it contradicts the bible, then I think they're making it up'... This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. BY very dfintion, science is not just 'guessing'. A sicentists job is to INVESTIGATE A PHENOMENON, AND HYPOTHESISE A RATIONAL CAUSE. THEN TEST THE HYPOTHESIS. NEVER to 'just guess'. These 'heathens' are responsible for instant worldwide communication, avionics, modern medicine, modern engineering etc. Preachers and faith healers have never done any such thing. Without scientists, you would most likely be dead from small pox or tooth decay. So don't you think that maybe, just MAAAYBEEE, they know what they're talking about? When was the last time your Bible-thumping, gay bashing, theocracy-supporting pastor sequenced a genome, for crying out loud! A scientist may believe in God, fair enough. That is, by very definition, untestable. But if he/she lets that groundless belief contradict the general consensus of those who have worked their whole lives, using the scientific method, to bring them tehir current understanding on the subject, then they are a fool and by no means a scientist. [/rant] Funny blog saying pretty much the same thing http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-OemzD3EyfqqBa_7wSs5njqCudVU-?cq=1 @John the Baptist. Close. Only a fool outright rejects their claims on the grounds of groundless faith. If they have an opposing hypothesis that they think explains the phenomenon more thoroughly, then they can go right ahead, as happened with Eintein's theory of gravity (whcih supplanted the long standing Newtonian model). If however, you have no such hypothesis that doesn't just replace one unknown with another, then yes, understand these people know more than you do and shut up. @Snow Globe. I feel as though it is fair to be stern to those who reject reality. I think of conspiracy theorists, growing Earth, and flat Earth proponents in the same way. I am not looking to please anyone's feelings, I am attempting to find how they justify the rejection of science. @Fransda. No, they weren't creationist Christians. Very few scientists are. In order to sway me from thinking this, you need to provide me with some evidence (i.e. a simple poll from scientists, instead of making another groundless claim like you did, like you creationists are OH so good at...

is this a good research paper anyone? Religious Fundamentalism There are many things in this world that seem unaffiliated with religion but still are. One of these things is violence. It may seem that most if not all religions preach peace, love, and understanding but for some their religion turns them towards violence. This is called religious extremism. According to Laird Wilcox in his article What is “Extremism” he defines extremism as "A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others." (Wilcox) The more broadened version of religious extremism is religious fundamentalism. In the book DaVinci Code Silas is a religious fundamentalist but he turns towards violence in the name religion which makes him a religious extremist. Religious fundamentalists can be peaceful like the Amish or violent like Al Qaeda. Either way they take their religion to the point at which many are not willing to go. There are many important aspects of religious fundamentalism which include the history and historical events that have occurred, the reasoning behind extremist attacks, the difference between fundamentalism and extremism and the modern day effects of religious extremism. The earliest form of religious extremism is the Christian crusades. This is extremism because they went out and killed people in the name of their religion. A somewhat recent act of religious extremism is the bombing of the world trade centers in 1993. The towers would later fall victim to the largest attack on the United States inside the countries borders, the September eleventh attacks that rocked the world and killed over 1,200 citizens. All these acts were made in the name of the religion. But, to truly understand these attacks you must understand the mindset of the attackers. Many if not all extremists/terrorists are raised being told their religion is the right religion and that they are blessed. They are also taught that any one who believes in a different religion they are devil’s advocates. They have been told that dying while killing people of a different religion is a good thing and you will be respected and you will be a great legend. But, what’s the difference between this and fundamentalism? Religious fundamentalism as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary is “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of religious principles”. This definition allows for a more broad range of people to fall in this category. An example of non-violent fundamentalists would be the Amish. They have an attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to their bible but they do not conduct in violence. This makes them fundamentalists but not extremists. One more example of non-violent fundamentalists would be Opus Dei. They are a large group of Christians that adhere to the bible with literal meanings. Now, how is religious fundamentalism, violent or non-violent, affecting us right now? There are many current effects of religious extremism. Some examples would be the 9/11 attacks, the Iraqi/Afghani war, and the attacks world wide. The war on terrorism has sparked conflict and unrest throughout the world some people are for it here is an example of a person who opposes the war, "We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others." (Martin Luther King III). The 9/11 attacks have brought a sense of patriotism to everyone in the U.S. This has lead to the war on terrorism which has lead to more and more attacks on the U.S. and allies to the U.S. Thus, religion created a giant snowball that is going to be hard to jump out of the way of it. Religion is a major part of almost everything that happens in the world today. There are those who take literal meaning of their religion but there are also those who don’t. Some people who do take a literal meaning some times resort to violence in the name of their religion. They are often referred to as terrorists but the real name they should be given is religious extremists. These people resort to violence but some take a literal meaning and don’t commit any violent acts, these are religious fundamentalists. Two examples of fundamentalists would be the groups of Amish around the world and Opus Dei. The violent groups of fundamentalists (extremists) have helped to create a war and an unstable balance of power in the world. Because of the 9/11 attacks the U.S. has gone into the Middle East thus starting a large war and unstable economy and balance of power.

Atheists: How can you work toward the future with no evidence in the here and now? Let's say you graduate high school, and want to be a doctor. In the here and now as a student you have no physical "proof" that your path in life will result in you becoming a PHD. You just work your hardest, and hope in the end that your becoming a doctor is the final result. Why do take issue with someone taking trust in Jesus Christ and hoping the end result is heaven? Must you not have the same mindset, for either one? Seeing others becoming doctors because of study and hard work is not "evidence" is it's true definition, it's nothing more than a guide post. Same as the saved Christian, I may not know that my life will turn out the way there's does but I see their lives have faith it's worth working toward. Is there not some belief without evidence that you will become a doctor? No one knows for sure, it's all in good faith.

Am I mentally retarded? I'm 19 years old, and I'm fairly sure I have it. I think slowly. I speak slowly. I read slowly. I hear slowly. I forget things a lot. I'm absent-minded and miss really obvious things. I'm also immature. When I speak to someone, I have to prepare what I say in my head first before I say it. It just doesn't come to me in time otherwise. I often can't find words to express what I want to say. When someone says something to me, it often takes two to three repetitions of what they said for me to understand it. My hearing is fine. I'm always one of the last ones done on exams because of how slow it sometimes takes things I remembered to come to me. When I try to read a book, I often tend to stare at a block of text without understanding it at all. I can identify each word instantly, but the meaning just doesn't register right away. I have to go back and read some things two or three times before I understand what it says. I do stupid things at times, and I am maybe two years behind my age group in maturity. I find my actions hard to control when I start to get excited - I just keep seeking amusement until I calm down, sometimes at the expense of other people, and then feel really bad about it afterward. It's hard for me to get anything done beyond the minimum to get by when it comes to work. I just get so bored and and start to feel frustrated and confused until I set it aside to pick up later, but I never get around to it. I feel so far behind all the other people who are my age. I want to be independent, but I freak out when it comes to simple things like managing money. Other people can make plans to go to the store, go exercise, and whatever else they need to do with ease, and then carry it all out. I on the other hand may see several things that need to be done in a day but only get one done, then sit around daydreaming or doing something unrelated until it's too late. I hate to be dependent on people, but I'm so afraid of living alone somewhere with nobody I know around. I asked this a week ago and got a few appreciated, but unhelpful answers: - "You write too well to be retarded" - I can write well, but it takes me a lot longer than most people. Isn't that the definition of "retarded"? - "You are normal" - When why doesn't anyone else I've ever met have this problem? - "You have autism or Asperger's Syndrome" - People with autism have: (1) an inability to socialize due to difficulty in reading subtle body language or deciphering the mindset of other people, and (2) repetitive behaviors. I have neither. - "You are just trying to get attention" - Nope

Is declining to perform an operation on a person the same thing as forcing them to do something? When discussing abortion on here, one argument that has come up a lot is the "The woman is the one whose body will change for nine months if she's pregnant! She shouldn't be forced to go through that if she doesn't want to," arguments. But is it FORCING a person when you simply decline to let them have a procedure? FORCING a person to do something is, by definition, taking a course of action which alters the course of events another person is currently on. It's forcefully bringing about a new state of affairs which they wouldn't otherwise have been subjected to had you not interfered. Simply declining to give someone an operation you feel is immoral isn't FORCING them to do anything, because it isn't altering their current circumstances; quite the contrary, it's allowing their current circumstances to continue on the path they're already on. Saying no to abortion is the opposite of forcing. In that case, the only one who forced the woman's body to go through those changes was her herself, when she chose to have sex. I've noticed this very childish sort of mindset in Pro-Choicers before, this notion that a woman is entitled to a "Get out of jail free" card, and declining to give it to her is somehow a violation of her rights (who here remembers Rowdy's recent question about all those California prisons that are now letting female inmates out early, but not male inmates?). SUMMARY FOR LAZY PEOPLE: Should surgeons be allowed to decline women to have abortions? Agree/Disagree?

Was the time period from 1400-1800 A.D. when humanity reached modernity? That is the prompt for an essay that my dumb jack*** world civ teacher assigned... I'm not a kid that just throws around labels like that, but for example last year he signed my yearbook with "you suck!" one time i had a really bad sunburn, he asked where it was, then slapped it, all that stuff... but anyway, I just don't understand how i'm supposed to write a 5 paragraph essay answering this question, and i've started a little bit, but basically all i have so far is asking questions about how am i supposed to answer this... Here's what i have: What is modernity? Why is civilization expected to someday end up at this, when there isn’t even a clear meaning of the goal that is expected of us? Can you really reach something whose very definition has to do with continuity through the essence of change? ...yup... i'm pretty much stuck... its hard to do when your in this mindset... haha and ADD without my meds for a week doesn't help much either >.<

What is Time? Give your opinion and thoughts.? I was thinking about it. And it's hard to even say, Time is something that comes and it definately goes. But how was it even created? When did it start? Is it marked here or in other dimensions? Why? And what are your thoughts about it? I'm pretty sure there is a lot about this matter, we are unable to answer. So why do we judge others on what they chose to believe in? I believe in having an open heart and giving everyone's opinions an open ear. Have you ever realized that half of these answers are biased because we are so quickly to judge others and their views? Learn a little before you fall into the trap of ignorance. If you consider seeking knowledge from other biased sources, you're mindset will be thrown off, So what makes you think you are superior? The simple fact of time cannot be answered, by just a simple word or even by the capacity of a human mind. It was something created and we do not truly know the underlying meaning, I certainly don't. Maybe I don't make any logical sense at all, but who cares. What I chose to believe is, Time is simply continual, it has no end. It is marked here on earth and beyond. It is definitely a simplistic definition but my mind has difficulty wrapping around this idea. Leave your thoughts I'm Interested. Stray away from leaving any mean comments!

Does evil truly exist? I don't personally feel like it is real. Yet if I had to give a personal definition I would guess that it is having incredibly high level of conscious awareness of the light and divine love and still choosing to make decisions and exert control over others externally or further the agenda of separation (instead of unity and oneness) or brainwash others...that kind of thing. Example: promote war when in their hearts they KNOW (divine knowledge) that peace is truly possible. Yet something also tells me even evil should be forgiven and if I can't consciously forgive on my own then I need to ask for guidance from the holy spirit. This all stems from my own curiosity if there is any truth to conspiracies like the illuminati. If the world 'leaders' who are currently making big messes are doing so out of ignorance I can forgive them easily. I have deep compassion for people who make mistakes due to misperceptions. I just don't know if I even want to forgive them if they are acting like they are with a high level of consciousness. Does any of that make sense? Asked another way, will the awareness of divine truths facilitate the probability for evil actions if love is not also grown alongside in order to balance it out? Is the awareness of divine truth even possible if divine love isn't brought into the equation? My heart tells me that we are all children of God and even those who are 'in charge down here', if they are acting from a position of full awareness, I still need to forgive. I think they are aware of what they are doing, but I don't think they are aware of any higher truths than ego intellectualism/fear and doubt mindset. I think they are just as lost, scared and homesick as the rest of us....? If so, I can easily forgive that.

Atheists who accept the possibility of spirituality -is it a 'feeling' or more than that? Can it be 'anything'? If spirituality is simply a psychological response I don't see why that would devalue it at all. However it begs the question: is it anything more? For example, finding something funny is simply a psychological response but if you laugh at disabled children living in poverty does that mean they are genuinely funny? I'd say no, I'd say they are not funny even IF they are they cause laughter. I hope you agree. But how about spirituality? If you feel that hijacking a plane & flying it into a building is spiritual IS it? If it isn't, then what IS spirituality if it IS all in the mind i.e. subjective NOT objective? Can you define spirituality in a meaningful way which can't easily be defined as something detrimental to sentient beings? I don't find the opposite term 'beneficial' nails it. Does it even need to relate to other beings? But what definition would you use? I find it's one of those words that I THINK I know the meaning of until I try to define it precisely. (Sorry if you are of a theistic mindset but I'm more interested in hearing a philosophical not theological response.) Daniel: I don't see why spirituality needs to invoke a 'higher power' necessarily. Why must it?

Christians: do you not see any danger in faith? I am not asking this question aggressively; I am simply curious. The definition of faith, in my book, is belief without evidence. To me, this seems like blindly rushing forward without a thought to the pits that might be ahead. By this mindset, one can believe anything at all. The Bible was written by men; that much is certain. How can you just accept the justification that it was "inspired by the Holy Spirit?" There is no way whatsoever to verify this. So what makes the Bible more reliable than the Koran or the Torah or any of the other holy books? How can you claim the God of the Bible is any more real than mythological figures like Zeus or Poseidon? The circular logic that "the Bible is true because the Bible says so" aggravates me to no end. Your articulation on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Sorry for the rant. Exodus: What verses are you referring to? Prophecies can seem to be true when they are simply fulfilling ambiguous details (i.e 'rain of fire' correlating to nuclear weapons). Jack: The reason that the argument between atheists and Christians specifically is more prevalent is probably because the U.S is a Christian nation. The Republican Party's heavy Biblical leanings cause me great fear for the future of our government and laws.

Please Proofread my Definition Essay? It’s a typical scene that many of us have witnessed at some point. A mother and her little girl are out shopping. The child catches a glimpse of a shiny new toy she’s been wanting and asks her mom to buy it. The mother looks at her daughter and says, “No, honey, we can’t get it today.” Then the little girl begins to argue with her mother, and eventually resorts to screaming and throwing a temper tantrum. Other shoppers, overhearing the situation, think to themselves, “Wow, she is a spoiled brat!” But what does being spoiled really mean? The dictionary defines spoiled as to have impaired, or damaged character or nature due to unwise treatment and excessive indulgence. I believe this is only part of the actual definition, and elaborating on it will allow me to clarify that people often give others this derogatory label with ignorance toward all of the facts. Being spoiled is a perceived characteristic trait describing a person who receives numerous amounts of attention and/or material processions without showing any signs of gratitude. They often see other’s willingness to appease them as deserved. Like other characteristics, this trait distinguishes the attitude and demeanor of the referenced person. If a person truly is spoiled, it can be reflected in their attitude towards many aspects of life. Their mindset compels them to become more and more self-centered, and ability to reason is lost. The constant craving for attention or material objects is so strong that their concern for other’s well¬-being no longer exists. All of these actions combine to create a damaged character. You must use caution when using this term to label others. Sometimes there seems to be a gray area between being spoiled and not. For example, my family helps me out tremendously. If I need something and don’t have the money, they will try to get it for me. Do their actions automatically make me spoiled? Due to two small words, the answer is no. I always say “thank you,” and let them know that I appreciate what they have done for me. The other factor which denies this label is that I can accept “no” for an answer. Knowing the full definition of spoiled is very important. There are tiny details, like simply saying “thank you” and showing appreciation, which can completely alter the word that should be used to describe the person’s character. Keeping that in mind, a seemly spoiled individual who is grateful and does not take their privileges for granted could better be considered fortunate. Any suggestions on how to re-word some of the sentences in which I used their when referring to a singular subject. I can change it to his or her, but stating it like that more than once or twice will sound redundant. If I pick one or the other( his OR her) then my sentence will be gender bias, which I want to avoid.

What mindset did this country rebel against 250 years ago? Liberal or conservative? Who pins people up on crosses for inspiring other people? Liberals or conservatives? Who burns witches at the stake? Liberals or conservatives? Who executes scientists for revolutionizing the way we view the universe? Liberals or conservatives? Who is responsible for the U.S. debt and deficit over the past 11 years? Liberals or conservatives? Who is responsible for the ongoing war and countless lives lost in Iraq? Liberals or conservatives? Who is responsible for the S&P downgrade on U.S credit? Liberals or conservatives? Who has been the ball and chain on progress throughout history? Liberals or conservatives? What group by definition is synonymous with being adverse to change and progress? Liberals or conservatives?

This girl I like... I think she thinks I'm gay? I go to boarding school, and my roommate last year was openly gay, and I hung out with him a lot, and I'm very metrosexual (which by definition means straight), and she thinks I am "gay by association," I assume... her mindset: if he was hanging out with [gay roommate], then he must be gay, too. However, I have had the hugest crush on her since last year.. and it would be totally awkward to come out to her and tell her I'm straight, but I really like her, and I think she likes me, too... but I also know that she thinks I'm gay (I know she does.. I just know it). So what should I do? Just drop it? but I can't.. I think about her all the time.

Is it easier to understand the Israeli's mindset when you read Hamas' charter? "Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)." "Those who wish to live their life without religion Have made annihilation the equivalent of life." "Article Eight: The Slogan of the Hamas Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief." Seems Hamas' definition of "Jihad" is a little different to what "ordinary" Muslims claim. http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html ... Apologies for my poor use of an apostrophe. That should read "Israelis' " ... Lol, are you sure? I think the second is correct. "The Israelis" Belonging to The Israelis "The Israelis' " ... "The solution was to use an apostrophe after the plural s (as in girls' dresses). However, this was not universally accepted until the mid nineteenth century.[3]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apostrophe&mobileaction=view_normal_site#Standardisation ... I know, She Said, I know. It's horrible all-round. Please tell me you don't support state-sponsored, politically-aimed genocide like what Hamas' aim is though? ... "it's historical fact"? Should be easy to provide a link then....? ... Nope. And it may surprise you that I don't support it. Are you in denial that Palestinians fire rockets at Israeli citizens? Are you aware that Palestinians blow themselves up along with women and children on buses? Or do these things not happen? Also, all you're doing is invoking a tu quoque logical fallacy whilst not answering the question which is "do you support it?". ...

Dream Interpretation. . .? So I had a very vivid and weird dream last night. One of those dreams were you wake up and your body is still in the mindset of the dream. I felt an extreme sense of desire and anxiety. My dream: I was in a house that i don't know in real life but the "dream me" lived there, with her two best friends (who I also do not know). We were scared, terrified actually of something but there was no indication of what exactly it was. Suddenly we realized I had forgotten to lock the door of the house and we were in extreme panic. This was, apparently, a huge mistake. We heard movement in the hall and all of the sudden two guys dressed in black rushed into the room. The fear I felt was more than just the fear of two men running in, these were the men we had been fearing the whole time. I managed to escape and was running out of the room and through the living room to the door when all of the sudden I was tackled by a third man. I managed to gain the upper hand and have him pined down, but I could sense that I was terrified. Then suddenly I was overcome with intense desire for this man. It was strange because a moment ago I was terrified of him and now I was torn between being scared and being insanely attracted to him. He noticed this and mocked me. Until I let my guard down and kissed him. Surprisingly he stopped trying to hurt me and kissed me back with passion. Then the two guys from before ran into the living room and yelled at him for his actions before all three of the men ran out of the house. I tried looking up the definition on dream dictionaries and what not but I have not been able to find exactly what I am looking for. This dream, I believe, has many important key elements that the dream dictionary does not explain. If anyone could help me out, I would really appreciate it.

What is your personal reaction to this definition/understanding of atheism? ". . . including atheism, which in practice is the stubbornly held idea that the world is a mindless mechanism." Alan Watts. Atheism is simply 'not' theism, but this quite accurately portrays the particular mindset the majority of atheists atrophy into as they delve further into the drunken nihilist ramblings of not-so-bright arm-chair philosophers.

If you discovered you had a scat fetish, would you indulge in it or would you hold back? My reasoning behind not revealing what a scat fetish is to the percentage of the public that is likely ignorant of this information is that most people who do not know the definition of scat have likely not achieved the receptive mindset necessary to produce a productive answer to this question. But for those of you who do know, what do you think? scorpus23: Oh, but this is something more... Psyc-0: The difference between those 2 girls and I is that I am not really into eating it. Coprophagia refers to eating, coprophilia just refers to arousal from playing with feces. scorpus23: I believe that statutory rape isn't morally differentiated from actual rape often enough. scorpus23: I think that having an actual fetish for scat is more sexually tempting than the mere willingness to try everything you possibly can (excluding your aforementioned exceptions of course). scorpus23: I think that this question is perhaps quite useless, considering that only people who actually have scat fetishes can answer this (since the sexual fetish is probably necessary to surpass the barriers that would usually keep us from engaging in something like this, and even necessary to give an accurate representation of how you'd actually act in that situation). Still an interesting answer, though.