Steven

What kind of criteria is considered "shallow" when searching for love?

When two people connect on an emotional level, they will become friends. When those two become physically attracted, they quality for basic compatibility. Two individuals don't choose to be attracted when searching for a mate. one Either is attracted or they are not. When attracted, they advance. When they are not attracted, they either stay or retreat. Since physical beauty is a superficial characteristic, it is usually noticed first. People need not overcompensate and disregard physical attraction to avoid being labeled as "Shallow." Though its difficult to judge someones motivation thus pointless, in a general sense, its shallow to pursue a relationship when one of theses two factors has proven to be missing. This lack of chemistry wont end in the fireworks.

Brandon
Not sure what we are talking about other then if your find someone sexy is it will benefit your relationship a lot more them someone you don't. Why would you marry someone with different background, different religious views as you-its just a kink in your relationship |=| dating someone you don't find attractive. I am in the business of buying merchandise that is gaged. In other words equipment that runs in all shapes qualities and prices. More expensive equipment has better quality and more well verse capabilities- if you buy something cheap it wont work as well and not do all the same things as the more $ one. You can get a cheap deal or shop hard and get a hot girl-it going to cost more on your effort but she is going to more well diversetize the relationship- making it more successful.

Brandon:

Either Live happy and die over nothing, or live depressed and die for nothing.

Steven:

Everyone has the right to choose that which makes them happy. People can be depressed from a whole range of circumstances.

Faith, stickily religious?

Brandon

Does it take faith to not believe in God? I would say yes, to rest your existence on the whit of a scientist that has no idea who you are, that has exercised theses theories, yet he, nor anyone one else has ever actually seen unfold before their eyes; Is similar to going on the whit of a spiritual leader who has exercised his theologies, and has had them proven in the spiritual mind.
So now that I have swung the pendulum completely to one side lets bring it back. Science is a refined method of finding truth and is more tangible then religious experiences, but I am talking about the big questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? Scientist have theorize some answers, still you would have to go just as much on a limb as you would for belief in God.

Belief that life is an accident |=| belief that it was created with purpose

Let me clarify where i am coming from
"If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental...Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them? Would you have ever sown, if you had not believed that you would reap? Should you have ever planted, if you had not believed that you would gather?"

Joseph Smith

Imagine you are in a dinning room with a very elegant table with these amazing chairs. The chairs are so amazing they grab your attention. You study the floral design, then you get on all fours to check out the engineering of the chair, you admire how it was constructed. You conclude that chair could hold your weight if you sat in it. Is this faith? Not tell you release your balance, let gravity take you-- now you have faith that this chair will hold you.

A person who will turn their back on ideals of a religious zealots, say to themselves "there is no god" and who takes action to live that life, has faith that they have simple turned their back to a man made ideal. Is that not true?

Faith is power to act on what you believe

Steve

Question from a follower, "Is it better to believe in no god or a benevolent false god?"

Strictly answering the question, it's better to believe in no God than a Non Existent Benevolent One. It would be interesting to see if people respond to this question as an attack on his or her faith and choose to be offended rather than choose between the two choice given. Anyways, for the Christians who read this, the Hindus may come to mind since their concept of God is so vastly different from that of the Christian faith. Perhaps these two examples of vastly different religions see the other as illogical. For the agnostic, the question isn't 'which God to believe in' rather 'does god really exist.' A strictly logical, zero based thinker will believe according to what he or she feels is true. According to the philosopher Brian Johnson, "Ask yourself the following question, 'Knowing what I know now, would I have gotten involved in this relationship, this career/job, this project, whatever?!?' If the answer is 'No!' then get out of that situation as quickly as possible. That’s Zero-Based Thinking. ( "Zero based thinking" par. 1). If the answer is "yes" than keep doing and believing what ever you want. Of course this gets very complicated when considering all of life's many decisions decisions. The whole point is that a zero based thinker who sees insufficient evidence for God will not believe in God no matter how benevolent, almighty, loving or omnipotent God is reported to be. A zero based thinker can also acknowledge what he sees as evidence and then believe in God as long as thhe evidence is valid.

Source

Johnson, Brian. Brian Johnson's Philosopher Notes. http://www.philosophersnotes.com/idea/show/zero- based-thinking

Brandon's response:

Yes, a person believes what they are going to believe. The question seems irrelevant- people believe based on what they know- but I will not take the question as if your suggesting to change a persons mind (I very much believe in agency). Only worth while person is one that has purpose, goal seeking, or aim. If a person seeks after good=good! If you believe there is no consequence and therefore cruelty to others is a justified means to get ahead=bad! Even from a spiritual perspective: you are judge on what you did with your given knowledge. Should a person live a lie- no! I have meet a man that follows and practices the LDS faith, even though he is strongly agnostic (on the verge of atheist)- yet he wants his sons to be ordained to the priesthood, his daughters married in the temple; why? He still feels strongly that the rituals are good for them and if they develop a faith in Christ they will be better off (the real controversy is should he ordain his son himself?). Is this man going to hell? HELL no. Take what ever truth you have, what ever purpose you have and let it lead you to truth. My "T"ruth is a purpose in God, that is relative to my knowledge.
P.S. I wouldn't trust a religious person more then an atheist if that helps answer your question.

Steve's Response:

Your response is interesting but you didn't answer the question. My Initial response was a strict answer to the question "Is it better to believe in no God or a Benevolent false God?" How is the question irrelevant if could be seen as hypothetical, applicable to Agnostics and atheists, or even applicable to other Gods like Zues. Zeus is arguably a false god and I choose not to believe in him no matter how benevolent he is reported to be.