An Approach to Life

Competition, science, survival of the fittest, the whole alpha male thing, the drive to have the hottest/best cars, best cellphones, best computers, best clothes, look good, trophy girlfriend, the drive to basically have it all ( all the things outside of God), and alot of these people are not nice people, are not holy, are basically very very bad, conniving, player Aholes, and they’re all around us.

For example, you walk into a building or a mall, or wherever, and instead of other humans treating you nice, and living their lives as an example in the Bible,

they treat you either like you’re a nobody, you don’t matter, you’re expendable, you’re just another buddy, someone to compete against, someone to hate against, like you’re a slab of protein meat, like science would say….or they judge you by your materialism , how much you have, what you drive, your clothes, if they’re current or not….

that’s how the world will treat you.

So basically, how do you guys deal with all this crappola?

I deal with it daily, and sometimes it REALLY gets me down because I want to believe in God, and want to treat people nice and have a happy world, but other people HATE the idea of God, and want to go on listening to whatever music they want to, have sex whenever, compete, and totally lead a completely godless life, and f other people, etc etc etc.

How does anyone win here and not get discouraged?

this site here is like a car accident that you happen to drive by, you know you should not look, but you cannot help but look. The world is well, to be expected considering satan is the ruler of it and all the people. I try to ignore everything and everyone, and just worry about myself. Hard sometimes I know, but again listening to God is always best.

…characterized as "Retarded Design?"

Notice I mentioned religion, not your god.
forgetful student: you have lost the debate, over and over again. This is a new debate, based on your loss of the last one. Answer the question; you can debate ‘it’ if you want.
cadisney: this is the most accurate term I can think of; if offense was taken, perhaps a nerve was hit.
fs: box office returns shows Titanic is the best film ever made. Fact: it sucks!

you could use some tolerance yourself.
fs: you lose for not being rational; it has nothing to do with numbers, only self-congruency. Bottom line: Unless you accept the possibility that god doesn’t *have* to exist for evolution to work, the ID (mystical) component infects it like a cancer, and you start to become intoxicated with regard to where mysticism ends and science begins.

They are fundamentally incompatible notions.
fs: your persistence is more childlike than academic. I do agree debate skills are healthy, but such exercises are really moot. Q:Does the ‘concept’ of existence exist? A:sure! Q: Without the senses? A:Only with common or contrasting reference frame. Q: Could you make an argument for anything without the senses and thus language? A: no. And so the arguments go with respect to the ‘concept’ of love as well.

It is not I (as an agnostic) who has problems considering the existence of god or not. It goes without saying that I cannot definitively say so or not. But I can deemphasize the importance of this consideration (as with the current consideration). And so it will go with my choice of best answer with this question. The burden is on you to consider god’s nonexistence. I have no problem with considering its existence or nonexistence. YOU HANDICAP YOURSELF in this manner (ask yourself whether fear exists). I just think ‘retarded’ is a good way to describe this handicap.

ID is a complete fraud.

It isn’t science it isn’t even a belief. It’s a public relations campaign. Do a quick search for ID & Wedge Strategy and you will find that in the words of the ID promoters themselves that the sole purpose of ID is as a campaign to undermine science and evolution specifically.

This is not just my opinion it’s the stated goal of the biggest ID promoters.

I mean,of course,certain people or groups of people,a lot of the times including respectable scientists,who differentiate themselves from the scientific community,and form their own theories about (usually) controversial subjects.

Naturally most of the times they come off as crackpots,mostly,accused of (trying to) assume populist methods,etc.

The question is- how do you approach what they have to say?Do you not even bother?With skepticism?Do you even,yourself,hold some ‘non-conventional’ views on scientific matters(you can share or not,if you wish)?
Totally agreed,it’s just that the internet can drive you crazy sometimes.lol.

Part of the idea of being truly scientific is to be open to any and all ideas, no matter how silly or subversive they seem. To do otherwise is to demonstrate a biased, selfish, and intolerant mind..

"Science" often proves itself wrong. The earth is the center of the solar system, the earth is flat, man cannot fly, and the "the sound barrier" will limit mans speeds. These are example of "scientific" thinking that was proven wrong. Those who proved them wrong were often seen as "scientific heretics", and in the old times were severely punished for their beliefs.

So the only way to approach a scientific heretic is with an open mind. YOU don’t have to accept their ideas, and the burden of proof is on them not you, but YOU do have to listen.

stay tuned

stay tuned

For example:
Why are chemistry sciences, but astrology, philosophy or religion not?

scientific approach is ensuring as many of your statements as possible are backed up by hard fact and research evidence (usually collected by yourself) while the non-scientific approaches that you elude to are based on theory and idea’s. With debates playing a major role in deciding their founding ideas.

For example:
Why are chemistry sciences, but astrology, philosophy or religion not?

scientific approach is ensuring as many of your statements as possible are backed up by hard fact and research evidence (usually collected by yourself) while the non-scientific approaches that you elude to are based on theory and idea’s. With debates playing a major role in deciding their founding ideas.

Think about continuing investigation, basing findings on oberservation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building.

The scientific method creates objectivity. It is very difficult for a person with an idea in his head to discard it when facts indicate they are wrong.

really confused… would it be inductive and deductive reasoning? because right after this question it asks what are the inductive and deductive reasoning?

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,

I’m trying to write a paper why I think psychology shouldn’t be approached with science.I think philosophy would be the best alternative approach to psychology.
and i need help with WHY PHILOSOPY WOULD BE THE BEST APROACH FOR PSYCHOLOGY

I think we people approach the questions and problems from philosophic angle. I have never seen philosophy approaching any one of us. To use our thinking pattern in a more human way is the main theme of psychology.