they instincts. its the same thing

Yet if you kill your spouse instead of reproducing then you again fail in your purpose in life.

everyone has a drive inside them to kill too

So that makes the two instincts equal? I'd say that taking life is a lot less productive than creating it.

they instincts. its the same thing

Yet if you kill your spouse instead of reproducing then you again fail in your purpose in life.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that history is important.

This is most certainly true.

if someone already had a kid it wouldnt matter. fuck off . you just looking at it from your own wanting to get laid point of view

Everyone wants to get laid bro, including you, even if your obstinate ass disagrees. Accept that and move on. Sex isn't a bad thing in any capacity anyway, so stop trying to take the moral high ground here.

everyone has a drive inside them to kill too

So that makes the two instincts equal? I'd say that taking life is a lot less productive than creating it.

they instincts. its the same thing

Yet if you kill your spouse instead of reproducing then you again fail in your purpose in life.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.

Is that a bad thing? We love anomalies in most other cases, why is it a bad thing here?

I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I'm beginning to think you're a little slow to catch on.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.

well thats kinda the point. its just the way people think is right and therefore its just the way it should be/

and a relationship without sex is possible

Sure, a relationship without sex is possible, you'd just be literally failing at your purpose in life.

if someone already had a kid it wouldnt matter. fuck off . you just looking at it from your own wanting to get laid point of view

Everyone wants to get laid bro, including you, even if your obstinate ass disagrees. Accept that and move on. Sex isn't a bad thing in any capacity anyway, so stop trying to take the moral high ground here.

everyone has a drive inside them to kill too

So that makes the two instincts equal? I'd say that taking life is a lot less productive than creating it.

they instincts. its the same thing

Yet if you kill your spouse instead of reproducing then you again fail in your purpose in life.

Yes, but if you've already thumbed a post up, thumbing it up will just take you to the next one because your vote is already in. If you thumb down after thumbing it up, it's changed to a thumb down. Either way, your feedback is in.

But thumbing up a second time is redundant, silly, and an utter waste of time.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I'm beginning to think you're a little slow to catch on.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.

it doesn't matter if he knows what will happen what matters is that YOU don't know what will happen. you can do as you please. God already knows what will please you, though but what does it matter?

You don't know what will happen, but God has already programmed you to be exactly who you are by putting in place all the stimuli that will make you exactly as you are now. You may perceive that you have free will, but an all-knowing and all-powerful God already knew exactly which circumstances you would be born, live, and die under because He put them there knowing you would find them. If He didn't, then He is not all-powerful.

This is simply one of the many logical contradictions in the Bible. Google determinism for more information.

I always see that kind of excuse as utter bullocks.. If God exists or not doesnt ever matter. If he does exist according to the bible, then i wouldnt respect him, and thus it doesnt matter to me. If he has a divine plan that will come true, then praying won't matter. If we're just humans doing what humans want, whats the point of a god? If the threat of hell can make a good person, then it's not really free will, and if said person was genuinely good, said person wouldnt need religion. If the rules of going to hell is according to the bible, just about everyone would be there, and thus it doesnt matter.
It's not like he's a CelestAI trying to satisfy everyones values through friendship or ponies over anything. He doesnt matter one way or the other

Well, that's the thing; if you are not genuinely good, then it's hypocrisy. The way I see it, you don't have to do good acts simply just because some people don't feel like doing them but it's a matter of not being evil, of not killing, raping and such. My best friend is atheist but i don't think he'll go to hell because he is a good person and has never purposely harmed anyone. Now back to the omniscient thing. Maybe my name is written on the book of life or maybe it is not but i don't know, so i have to be good.

If you think he can go to heaven, then so can you. You don't need this religion. You don't need god. Just don't be a dick, and try to make earth your heaven, cause theres nothing after death. You aren't a dumb person, so just shed the false beliefs already. You are perfectly able of being a good person without it.
Also, everything we are is actually beyond our own control. It's like a game, where even if you know its a game, you're still playing by the rules. But there's no God involved with it. This is just matter and life interacting and changing people, lots of coincidences and things done on purpose, shaping everything we know. I just wanna see if i can bump into some people and change their mind a little to the better, so religion can fade away a little bit sooner

I believe in a God for my own reasons. Also don't call people's beliefs "false." People have their beliefs for a reason, be it for being raised with them or their own reasons, whatever they might be.

It just bothers me to see a perfectly good and notdumb person hold onto whatever was chosen by everything around you. It would seem that you're perfectly content with it for some reason, so go along if you dont want to change. Its just way too often that its something simply and directly bestowed upon a person

I understand you for one part but it really bothers you? My beliefs don't affect anyone else. My friend's lack of belief in a deity doesn't bother me at all. In fact, we very seldom bring up religion when we talk and when we do we never fight over anything. His lack of religion doesn't affect me at all.

I just can't see why people get annoyed by it unless they are like those westboro retards

Well, they can still insult people. I, for instance, am insulted when I hear about a "perfect, all-powerful" God that is perfectly fine with me suffering. It's kind of an insult.

It kinda does, but rest assured, you arent really bothering me. It's just the fact that religion is taking so long to fade away and be replaced by common human decency and knowledge. I'm impatient. I wanna see some action and change on the world stage, something interesting, something big

that just shows how different people can be. I actually like people from all over the world believing different things. Idk why, i guess i like the diversity and culture that comes with them.

also, thank you for not being on of those asshole atheists

I find religion utterly fascinating in the way its used as a master placebo, fear, control, hope, whatever, and how diverse and complicated these fantastic tales gets, and how it's still managing to cling to people in this age of knowledge and reason. I just like knowledge and reason, and think it should make way for it, already
And I'm glad that you're not an asshole, either. Hurray for common human decency

>Thinks he understands quantum mechanics
>Doesn't understand that the chemicals in our brains make decisions for us

See the final sentence of my post and google determinism to fully understand what I'm talking about anon.

And if God isn't a hitman, then He just kills innocent people for the fun of it, even though He knows He may be sending them to Hell for living lives He placed them in.

And I'm totally for quantum mechanics and would say I have an decent 'understanding' of it, I'm just arguing from a faith-based perspective as a pissed-off atheist.

really?
i think it has the texture of a water-logged gummy bear, and the syrup at the bottom makes it taste a little like it too

I meant the "no exceptions" rule in the way of you MUST give feedback either positive OR neutral/negative, before going to the next one.

Which implies that you MUST thumb one way or the other every single time you see a post.

Yes, but if you've already thumbed a post up, thumbing it up will just take you to the next one because your vote is already in. If you thumb down after thumbing it up, it's changed to a thumb down. Either way, your feedback is in.

But thumbing up a second time is redundant, silly, and an utter waste of time.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I'm beginning to think you're a little slow to catch on.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.

Maybe I didn't word that right. Ok here's a scenario... I hope you can understand it.

>You go to the front page to look at the content.
>The content had a positive impact on you.
>You are done looking at it.
>Instead of a "next", "random", "funny", and "junk"...
>...There is just "funny/next" and "junk/next".
>You thumb it up.

>You are redirected to the next content.
>You write a comment.
>The content is not funny, but doesn't even rustle your jimmies. If it doesn't have a positive impact on you, then it's junk. So you thumb it down.

>You are redirected to the next content.
>Someone replied to your comment on the last content you looked at, so you go to it via alerts.

>You reply to their comment.
>Now you want to go to the one you were just at (the next one).
>You click the thumb up button to go to the next one. Your thumb isn't cancelled out, you already voted. If you changed your mind about thumbing it up, you could thumb down to give it a thumb down, and go to the next content.

Moral of the story, there is no possibility of visiting a content/post without a positive or neutral/negative feedback. Unless of course, you visit content, and then exit out and then come back to FJ and click straight on the next post from the front page, just to "skip" a content. Go for it, it's a pain in the ass though.

People should change their outlook on the "thumb down" option. Instead of only using it because the content made you butthurt, you use it if it wasn't funny/positively impacted you.

Under this system, I believe the front page would be more accurate.

I understand exactly what you're trying to say bro, you didn't need the wall of text.

I'm just showing you how flawed a "no skipping, no exceptions" rule is. What I've shown you is the logical conclusion to your argument.

I meant the "no exceptions" rule in the way of you MUST give feedback either positive OR neutral/negative, before going to the next one.

Which implies that you MUST thumb one way or the other every single time you see a post.

Yes, but if you've already thumbed a post up, thumbing it up will just take you to the next one because your vote is already in. If you thumb down after thumbing it up, it's changed to a thumb down. Either way, your feedback is in.

But thumbing up a second time is redundant, silly, and an utter waste of time.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I'm beginning to think you're a little slow to catch on.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.

Na, because if you voted up for it, and then you come back to it for some reason, you can push the same "thumb up" button to go to the next one. You voted, it's done, you can go to and from that post freely. If it's your first time voting, then you must choose one of the thumbs in order to get to the next one.

But your post explicitly states that people cannot skip content with no exceptions. Going back to the content after one has thumbed it and then not thumbing is still skipping, and therefore cannot be allowed.

Maybe I didn't word that right. Ok here's a scenario... I hope you can understand it.

>You go to the front page to look at the content.
>The content had a positive impact on you.
>You are done looking at it.
>Instead of a "next", "random", "funny", and "junk"...
>...There is just "funny/next" and "junk/next".
>You thumb it up.

>You are redirected to the next content.
>You write a comment.
>The content is not funny, but doesn't even rustle your jimmies. If it doesn't have a positive impact on you, then it's junk. So you thumb it down.

>You are redirected to the next content.
>Someone replied to your comment on the last content you looked at, so you go to it via alerts.

>You reply to their comment.
>Now you want to go to the one you were just at (the next one).
>You click the thumb up button to go to the next one. Your thumb isn't cancelled out, you already voted. If you changed your mind about thumbing it up, you could thumb down to give it a thumb down, and go to the next content.

Moral of the story, there is no possibility of visiting a content/post without a positive or neutral/negative feedback. Unless of course, you visit content, and then exit out and then come back to FJ and click straight on the next post from the front page, just to "skip" a content. Go for it, it's a pain in the ass though.

People should change their outlook on the "thumb down" option. Instead of only using it because the content made you butthurt, you use it if it wasn't funny/positively impacted you.

Under this system, I believe the front page would be more accurate.

I understand exactly what you're trying to say bro, you didn't need the wall of text.

I'm just showing you how flawed a "no skipping, no exceptions" rule is. What I've shown you is the logical conclusion to your argument.

I meant the "no exceptions" rule in the way of you MUST give feedback either positive OR neutral/negative, before going to the next one.

Which implies that you MUST thumb one way or the other every single time you see a post.

Yes, but if you've already thumbed a post up, thumbing it up will just take you to the next one because your vote is already in. If you thumb down after thumbing it up, it's changed to a thumb down. Either way, your feedback is in.

But thumbing up a second time is redundant, silly, and an utter waste of time.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I'm beginning to think you're a little slow to catch on.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.

Once you give it a rating, it goes to the next post, if you go back, it still has that rating, you can change the rating, but not cancel it.

But if you need to give it a rating every time you see it then you need to change your rating each time you view the content.

Na, because if you voted up for it, and then you come back to it for some reason, you can push the same "thumb up" button to go to the next one. You voted, it's done, you can go to and from that post freely. If it's your first time voting, then you must choose one of the thumbs in order to get to the next one.

But your post explicitly states that people cannot skip content with no exceptions. Going back to the content after one has thumbed it and then not thumbing is still skipping, and therefore cannot be allowed.

Maybe I didn't word that right. Ok here's a scenario... I hope you can understand it.

>You go to the front page to look at the content.
>The content had a positive impact on you.
>You are done looking at it.
>Instead of a "next", "random", "funny", and "junk"...
>...There is just "funny/next" and "junk/next".
>You thumb it up.

>You are redirected to the next content.
>You write a comment.
>The content is not funny, but doesn't even rustle your jimmies. If it doesn't have a positive impact on you, then it's junk. So you thumb it down.

>You are redirected to the next content.
>Someone replied to your comment on the last content you looked at, so you go to it via alerts.

>You reply to their comment.
>Now you want to go to the one you were just at (the next one).
>You click the thumb up button to go to the next one. Your thumb isn't cancelled out, you already voted. If you changed your mind about thumbing it up, you could thumb down to give it a thumb down, and go to the next content.

Moral of the story, there is no possibility of visiting a content/post without a positive or neutral/negative feedback. Unless of course, you visit content, and then exit out and then come back to FJ and click straight on the next post from the front page, just to "skip" a content. Go for it, it's a pain in the ass though.

People should change their outlook on the "thumb down" option. Instead of only using it because the content made you butthurt, you use it if it wasn't funny/positively impacted you.

Under this system, I believe the front page would be more accurate.

I understand exactly what you're trying to say bro, you didn't need the wall of text.

I'm just showing you how flawed a "no skipping, no exceptions" rule is. What I've shown you is the logical conclusion to your argument.

I meant the "no exceptions" rule in the way of you MUST give feedback either positive OR neutral/negative, before going to the next one.

Which implies that you MUST thumb one way or the other every single time you see a post.

Yes, but if you've already thumbed a post up, thumbing it up will just take you to the next one because your vote is already in. If you thumb down after thumbing it up, it's changed to a thumb down. Either way, your feedback is in.

But thumbing up a second time is redundant, silly, and an utter waste of time.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I'm beginning to think you're a little slow to catch on.

I suspected it ever since your comment #102.