FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Living the right way and believing about the afterlife won't forbid you from enjoying this recent life which is very short, i can't understand your logic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What proof would you want
- Thread starter Sabour
- Start date
Living the right way and believing about the afterlife won't forbid you from enjoying this recent life which is very short, i can't understand your logic.
Elusive Truth
Member
???
Can you reword this please?
I have tried grouping the words in different patterns but I am still having a problem with what you are trying to convey here.
Elusive Truth
Member
A "majority"
I am very democratic no worries... but I have just got here to this site, so I am a new arrival.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I stop and reconsider all the time. I am constantly testing myself to ensure that what I hold to be true is actually true.
I often wonder if theists are constantly reconsidering their position as well.
Elusive Truth
Member
I have often wondered this as well, but then I started researching etymology and the basic meaning of words.
A lot of stuff comes down to this, ones interpretation and understanding of what specific words mean to the individual and to the group.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I had to answer to this. I usually ignore your posts, but I have to tell you...
No, I do not believe religions prevents the believers from enjoying the worldly life. Based on such a claim from you, I know that you are full of BS and have no clue what I believe or not. And I do believe people can be happy in religion. So it's your logic that's screwed up.
So don't put words in my mouth or claim that you know what I believe or think, because you're way off the mark.
Now, I'm putting you back on ignore.
Besides, I think talking about another member in third person like this might be against forum rules, unless they've changed after the move.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
No, Ouroboros isn't incorrect because FearGod is incorrect about Ouroboros. That's not what I believe. He's slandering me because that's the only defense he has to issues he can't understand.
I consider myself spiritual and atheist at the same time. And I do know people who are happy with religion, and I respect it. It's idiotic to make claims about me when you don't even know me or my views.
What I think is stupid though, is people who claim that all atheists are militant. They're not. There are some, but not all of them, as you have positioned yourself.
With this, I will put you on ignore. You won't see me respond to any of your posts from now on, because I'm putting you in the list of people that I don't want to see posts from. Simply because you're rude.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Read the forum rules:
1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.
1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.
Elusive Truth
Member
huh?
Disagreeing with someone is a violation?
Help me out here instead of just posting rules, we have to lift each other up if one falls.
*the forum obviously needs a training section for people like me who are new
**I think it is the way you said your own username, made me think I was talking to FearGod?
***sheesh!
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
It was due to your silly opinion and i found it stupid so i only explain that your view was stupid.
This is your words
((While I was Christian and waited for the end, I didn't care for this life and didn't give it my all. Everything I was doing was focus on improving the next life and not this one. But now, since I know this is it, I put in much more effort right here, right now, to improve what I have. Playing the hand that was dealt to my best ability))
BTW, i didn't speak about 3rd person as i was just rewording my previous post to Elusive Truth.
I think the problem is with FG attributing beliefs to O. Kind of a gray area, best avoided.
But I do think O is overreacting myself.
Tom
Elusive Truth
Member
I consider myself a fast learner...
I am sorry if I have offended anyone personally, I didn't intend to.
*Individualism is my philosophy
Something to consider: I personally thought your dismissal of Smart Guy's bonafides a violation of the rule O posted.
But I am not in charge.
Tom
There is a link to the Forum Rules above. Here's a link, also: RF Rules | ReligiousForums.comhuh?
Disagreeing with someone is a violation?
Help me out here instead of just posting rules, we have to lift each other up if one falls.
*the forum obviously needs a training section for people like me who are new
**I think it is the way you said your own username, made me think I was talking to FearGod?
***sheesh!
Disagreeing with someone is not a rule violation.
Talking about someone...referring to another member in the third person...is.
You may, of course, disagree with a person you are talking to, and the way to do that is to address the point of disagreement with the person directly.
If you have any questions about the rules, please create a thread in Site Feedback to start a discussion with the staff. Any thread you create in Site Feedback can only be seen by you and the staff. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Hope this helps.
Elusive Truth
Member
Yes I believe I was talking to FearGod because of the way O refereed to O's own username.
uggh
And everything is out of line, meaning when I click on notifications then it takes me to the post and it is up a few posts (know what I mean) but there are messages after it.
*I'll adapt, if I made a violation so be it...
Mod Post
Members are asked to please keep Rule 1 in mind while posting.
Members are asked to please keep Rule 1 in mind while posting.
Yes... I speak Paganism, how about you
"English" derives from "Anglisc", or "of the Angles", one of the Ingvaeonic Tribes, who are so named because they believed themselves (according to Tacitus) to be descended from the God Ingvi. "Ang" was probably their name for this God.
No, Modern English technically called exactly that: Modern English. That's what Linguists call it, and thus that's what it's technically called.
LOL Is Late Middle English/Early Modern English really the best you got? I actually can read "A Gest of Robyn Hode" with very little difficulty, thank you very much.
What of what we, the Gardanes, afrained in yeardays of Theedkings' thrims, who the Aethelings ellen freemed?
Not probably at all, and not of Greek first. Our language is part of the Indo-European family, and thus can be traced at most to Proto-Indo-European. But just as we're not speaking Proto-Indo-European, I'm not speaking Ancient Greek. And likewise, I'm not speaking French, even though the majority of English's vocabulary is derived from Anglo-French. (Thanks, William the Conqueror.
)But like I said, the most commonly used words are almost all Anglic. In fact, most "bad words" are actually just Anglic words; they're taboo largely because of the ancient class war between the French-speaking nobles and English-speaking peasants.
English is the most dominating language on the planet, it is more efficient and more expressive than others, even over French.
English is the international language of business and for a reason... everything has a reason and a purpose.
*Modern English also happens to have Reformed the Catholic (Latin) Church
*Here is Part 1 of a 6 part (6hr) Series you may find interesting...
I doubt there's anything there I don't already know. I've been studying this for a few years, now. Youtube's giving me problems right now, anyway.
And English sucks. It has no real rules (and what rules there are are completely arbitrary and broken more often than not), the spelling is all over the place, and the vocabulary is so extensive that nobody can ever use it completely.
Elusive Truth
Member
May I have 6 hours of your time please?
English is derived from the "eng" / "ing" (of the Angle's Germanic Tribe)
Modern English is known as Protestant English, and the English that which reformed the Catholic Church.
Part 1 of 6:
If ones pretext is incorrect/flawed, how much weight does the rest of a conversation hold?
Last edited:
I doubt I have six hours these days.
Which is exactly what I said.
Perhaps try reading it more closely so you can see that you literally just repeated me.
By the way, one single documentary is hardly compelling as a source, particularly if it's primarily written by one person (however credible). I've been looking into the history of English for a few years now, in multiple sources, and this is very much the first time I've ever heard this "Protestant English" thing. I've only ever heard it referred to as "Modern English" by professional and amateur linguists alike. This documentary is apparently from the BBC, which could explain that; my sources are by and large American or Canadian.
Also, see the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem:
Ing wæs ærest mid East-Denum
gesewen secgun, oþ he siððan est
ofer wæg gewat; wæn æfter ran;
ðus Heardingas ðone hæle nemdun.
Ing was first seen by men among the East-Danes,
till, followed by his chariot,
he departed eastwards over the waves.
So the Heardingas named the hero.