what year to get pregnant

[RobertRodrig1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It's not an oxymoron, it's the way things should be. So many feminists want so much equality, that they expect to be treated like MEN. I could never understand this.

Women don't want ONE thing. They want everything ALL at once. A man that is masculine and feminine...aggressive and submissive...and the list goes on and on. They want guys to produce two opposites simultaneously. It's quite strange but that's how it is.

 

[RobertRodrig1]

My parents have 25,000 saved for my wedding and I expect my future husband's family to contribute 25,000 as well. 🙂 $2000 for a wedding? 😱

I understand where you are coming from. I think it is wrong for a woman to date a guy if it is only for the money. When I hear golddigger I think of a woman that is dating a guy she hates just for the money. I would never date someone for the money only. I have mention before if an guy asked me out to a Five Star restaurant and I don't like him, I would rather stay at home and eat instant noodles than go out with him.

With dating I believe initially the guy should pay for dinner. However after they are offically boyfriend/girlfriend, the guy should still pay for dinner, but the girlfriend should do things to show that she cares. Like bring him dessert sometimes, bring him some food sometimes, buy him small personal gifts to show that she cares, help him out when he needs it (like clothes shopping! 😀), etc etc. You know what I mean. Little small things to show him that I care. However, I only do those things after I have known the guy for a long time. If a girl does those things in the very beginning it means she is very desperate and its not good.

With marriage to be honest I can't see myself marrying someone with less money than me. I don't expect a super rich guy (though that would be nice 😀) but he has to have more money than me which isn't expecting much at all. I think a husband should be able to support his family! Shocker I know! 😱 Which means that if I have a kid, I could have an option to stay home and take care of the child. I think the husband's job is to pay for the basics which is a house, car, and bills. The wife's job is taking care of the child, make sure the house is clean, and cooking. (I personally don't mind housework, as long as its IN DOORS, its not bad) However, if the wife wants things of her own (everyone have things that they like to own, my happen to be handbags/shoes) than she will need to get a part-time job to pay for them. I have expensive taste, but I have NEVER said once that I expect a man to buy anything for me. If there is something that I want to buy, I will get a part-time job and I will buy it myself. I have been that way since I was 16 years old, so I don't ever see that changing.

You ask if I wanted to stay at home when I have a child? Yes, I would if I have a husband that can support me completely. However, if he can only pay for the basics (house, cars, bills) than I would get a part-time job to have some extra spending money on the side.

When you are in school it is difficult to pay for the girl. I think it should be 50/50 until the guy has a stable job!

 

[alenadoma]

Women don't want ONE thing. They want everything ALL at once. A man that is masculine and feminine...aggressive and submissive...and the list goes on and on. They want guys to produce two opposites simultaneously. It's quite strange but that's how it is.

ok and.....? Most men also want a woman who is not just one thing. Most men don't just look for a smart woman, just a beautiful woman, just a feminine woman, just a successful woman, they want a combination of all of the above, plus many more things. It's perfectly normal...

 

[RobertRodrig1]

ok and.....? Most men also want a woman who is not just one thing. Most men don't just look for a smart woman, just a beautiful woman, just a feminine woman, just a successful woman, they want a combination of all of the above, plus many more things. It's perfectly normal...

What I mean is that women was men to exhibit opposing behaviors simultaneously.

 

[Transformer]

When you are in school it is difficult to pay for the girl. I think it should be 50/50 until the guy has a stable job!

Robert,

SHC would more likely consider an established guy(who will have more money than her) than a student (who probably can't pay for all the bills). In theory, it would be nice to go 50/50, but in reality, and from personal experiences, this is seldom true.

 

[alenadoma]

What I mean is that women was men to exhibit opposing behaviors simultaneously.

Not simultaneously, just at appropriate times😀

 

[IrishHammer]

Not simultaneously, just at appropriate times😀

Is everybody still yammering about this? If you want the ideal man, find a man like Mike. It's not hard, either. Go to Dave & Buster's, find any guy that's pointing to his hat, and marry him. End of discussion.

 

[alenadoma]

Is everybody still yammering about this? If you want the ideal man, find a man like Mike. It's not hard, either. Go to Dave & Buster's, find any guy that's pointing to his hat, and marry him. End of discussion.

haha I have my ideal man. But I like talking about this stuff, because everyone has such different opinions 🙂

 

[PharmDstudent]

... I only do those things after I have known the guy for a long time. If a girl does those things in the very beginning it means she is very desperate and its not good

or that she wants to get him hooked! (i.e. addicted to her 😉)

Trust me... it works! 😎 And it gives her control, too. (You just have to remember to back off, periodically, if you wanna see how much he cared for and now misses your attention and affection. 😉 Of course, that's only if you like a spoiled man who keeps coming back for more...)


But I guess it just depends on what you want from the relationship and how you like things to be between you.

If he only gets special treatment whenever you've known him for X amount of time and he's done X number of things for you, then he'll believe that his actions control the relationship, which may or may not be what you want.
Just sayin'...

 

[PharmDstudent]

I have an irrational fear of being cheated on... probably because my mom and aunts have all been cheated on at one point. Despite the fact that my bf and I really love each other, I can't help my mind from wandering into weird imaginations about him being seduced by another woman, no matter how unattractive she is. And knowing the pain/consequences of infidelity makes me passionately fight against whatever subsequent behaviors that could lead to an act of indiscretion. But on the flip side, I'm a good gf to him to prevent him from wanting anything else. 🙂

Ok. I see.
I think some people cheat, because they know of no other way out.

I bet your bf is jealous, because he knows what the guy is thinking. lol. He may trust you, but he aint gonna trust the guy.

He's always been jealous. Some people are just like that, naturally, no matter if they have just cause or not.

Bf loves me cus I'm a cute little keeper. 🙂 When he's sick, I make him chicken soup and cut little heart shaped carrots into the soup. 😀 And I get along quite well with his family.

That's really sweet of you! I hope he appreciates all that you do. If he doesn't, then it's his loss.

 

[rphello]

That's really sweet of you! I hope he appreciates all that you do. If he doesn't, then it's his loss.

That would be his loss. I imagine it's similar to the feeling when one loses a tumor. Just kidding Kirb, you're so darn loveable!😛 😛 🙂 🙂

 

[SHC1984]

or that she wants to get him hooked! (i.e. addicted to her 😉)

Trust me... it works! 😎 And it gives her control, too. (You just have to remember to back off, periodically, if you wanna see how much he cared for and now misses your attention and affection. 😉 Of course, that's only if you like a spoiled man who keeps coming back for more...)


But I guess it just depends on what you want from the relationship and how you like things to be between you.

If he only gets special treatment whenever you've known him for X amount of time and he's done X number of things for you, then he'll believe that his actions control the relationship, which may or may not be what you want.
Just sayin'...

I know it works. hahahahaha...but I do it b/c I like buying gifts for people that I love. I am not talking about extremely expensive gifts, I am talking about small, but personal gifts that shows him that you KNOW him. I mean after you have dated someone for SO long, you know what they like, what their favorite things are, I am sure when you go shopping you see "things" that reminds you of him etc. Anyone thats been in a serious relationship will know what I am talking about.🙂

Like I say before I still believe a guy should always pay for the dinner, but after a while if the girlfriend cares about the boyfriend then she will start buying him little gifts and sometimes even bring some food over to his house etc. Just small things, I am not talking about dropping thousands of dollars (unless its his birthday and he bought you something expensive then you should buy him something JUST as expensive. 😉) I think little gifts and gestures help keep the relationship alive and it also shows that you care and its also VERY FUN to do. Its a hobby for me to shop for myself and people that I love. I don't see shopping for a boyfriend or anyone I care for as a chore at all.

However, in the begining the guy has to be put into "pursuit mode". If a girl starts out buying him gifts, allowing him to NOT pay for dinner, always being "available" when he calls, always acting clingy, allows him to treat her however he wants and still be "available" when he says so, cancels girl's night out to go out with him, etc. etc. then the girl is doom to be a doormat FOREVER. Thats one of the reasons why I don't pay for dinner b/c the guy will think.."WOW I have 100% hold on this girl, she is SOOO desperate to be with me that she will take any kind of treatment from me and still be available at all times." Man need to feel the chase, they need to feel that they have pursuited a girl all the way, and that its their choice to be with the girl not the other way around.

With that say, you are right again about pulling away. Whenever a boyfriend does something to piss me off the last thing I will do is NAG. The more you nag the more the guy will run and NOT do what you ask. If a guy does something to piss me off I either pull away or do something similar to see how he feels about it. And if I want to know how he feels about me then I will pull away just like you say. But I know woman that will nag and ask their boyfriends, "do you care about me anymore?" "do you love me still?" "we need to talk." "why aren't you treating me the way you use to?" ETC. None of the above should ever be asked. If a girl wants a answer than just pull away and see what happens.

 

[rphello]

Man need to feel the chase, they need to feel that they have pursuited a girl all the way, and that its their choice to be with the girl not the other way around.

Bollocks. Mans are not cheetahs chasing after gazelles. We appreciate mutual attraction, not this thrill of the chase tripe.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I have an irrational fear of being cheated on... probably because my mom and aunts have all been cheated on at one point. Despite the fact that my bf and I really love each other, I can't help my mind from wandering into weird imaginations about him being seduced by another woman, no matter how unattractive she is. And knowing the pain/consequences of infidelity makes me passionately fight against whatever subsequent behaviors that could lead to an act of indiscretion. But on the flip side, I'm a good gf to him to prevent him from wanting anything else. 🙂
.

Who gives a ****. It's just sex. It's one of the great failures of our society as it sets up many couples up for failure. Tying the biological desire to spread your seed as much as humanly possible with the emotion we call love is idiotic.

Guess what. Everyone gets physically bored of their partner. Even girls that aren't as attractive as a long time partner become more sexually appealing because its something different. Even if he doesn't "cheat" on you, he's going to think about it. He's going to get tired of you. It's going to happen because we are all evolutionarily preprogrammed to act that way. Rather than just going with the flow and being less sexually restrictive, we have chosen to try to be something we are not. Monogamous creatures.

The Romans had the right idea. Not being monogamous was not only accepted, it was encouraged. Visiting the brothel was seen as giving praise to one of their gods. Yet they still had workable family units. They separated sex from love...and nobody got divorced because they "cheated." I bet they were happier, too.

It always cracks me up. We are so insecure that the idea that our partners would *gasp* be sexually intrigued by another human being after millions of years of evolution made us that way...it's such an insult to our collective self-esteem. "But we're in love!" Bull****. The emotion of love is just an evolutionary adaptation itself. Why shun one and embrace another?

So I say if your boyfriend wants to diddle another girl for a night...let him...it will make him less likely to want to abandon an emotional relationship with you. There is no potential for sexual entrapment. Same goes for him when George Clooney wants to come by and give you a whirl.

Sure, my theories are controversial...but I'm right. Imagine a world with no guilt, no jealousy...just honesty. ****in' eh. It would be nice. But our society is too centered on personal narcissism. People need to believe that some other human thinks they are the most beautiful person on the planet. 99.99999999% of people are living a lie. It's just like everything else. People don't want to know the truth or accept the truth...or god forbid...just live the truth...they want to be lied to...they want to pretend they are special and something they aren't and never will be. It's maturity on the level of a Disney movie. And it's the predominant societal mores.

 

[powertoold]

WVU is so wrong yet right 🙁 Then again, it's possible to be happy with one person. You just can't achieve it in this society.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

WVU is so wrong yet right 🙁 Then again, it's possible to be happy with one person. You just can't achieve it in this society.

Of course you can. But to pretend to each other than you are only sexually interested in each other is just lying...and leads to misery.

 

[SHC1984]

Of course you can. But to pretend to each other than you are only sexually interested in each other is just lying...and leads to misery.

True, unless you are married to Adriana Lima, most men will get bored and look for someone else. 🙄

 

[IrishHammer]

True, unless you are married to Adriana Lima, most men will get bored and look for someone else. 🙄

And most women will eventually start to think about what it would be like to spend a night playing a few rounds of "Ow, ow, you're on my hair" with their spouse's really hot friend. It goes both ways.

 

[Kirbypuff]

Who gives a ****. It's just sex. It's one of the great failures of our society as it sets up many couples up for failure. Tying the biological desire to spread your seed as much as humanly possible with the emotion we call love is idiotic.

Guess what. Everyone gets physically bored of their partner. Even girls that aren't as attractive as a long time partner become more sexually appealing because its something different. Even if he doesn't "cheat" on you, he's going to think about it. He's going to get tired of you. It's going to happen because we are all evolutionarily preprogrammed to act that way. Rather than just going with the flow and being less sexually restrictive, we have chosen to try to be something we are not. Monogamous creatures.

The Romans had the right idea. Not being monogamous was not only accepted, it was encouraged. Visiting the brothel was seen as giving praise to one of their gods. Yet they still had workable family units. They separated sex from love...and nobody got divorced because they "cheated." I bet they were happier, too.

It always cracks me up. We are so insecure that the idea that our partners would *gasp* be sexually intrigued by another human being after millions of years of evolution made us that way...it's such an insult to our collective self-esteem. "But we're in love!" Bull****. The emotion of love is just an evolutionary adaptation itself. Why shun one and embrace another?

So I say if your boyfriend wants to diddle another girl for a night...let him...it will make him less likely to want to abandon an emotional relationship with you. There is no potential for sexual entrapment. Same goes for him when George Clooney wants to come by and give you a whirl.

Sure, my theories are controversial...but I'm right. Imagine a world with no guilt, no jealousy...just honesty. ****in' eh. It would be nice. But our society is too centered on personal narcissism. People need to believe that some other human thinks they are the most beautiful person on the planet. 99.99999999% of people are living a lie. It's just like everything else. People don't want to know the truth or accept the truth...or god forbid...just live the truth...they want to be lied to...they want to pretend they are special and something they aren't and never will be. It's maturity on the level of a Disney movie. And it's the predominant societal mores.

But the world is built on personal narcissism. Selfishness is a required survival trait. Monogamy is suited for the people with the best genes who don't want to corrupt their offspring with random genetic chance. Unless a guy is okay with the thought of his children growing up poor and ruining their chances of mating well, a guy would have adapted by now to having as many children as he can provide for and leave a legacy with. I would think that promiscuity is a sign of degeneracy. It could be why some women don't get turned on by promiscuous men, but rather super picky men. George Clooney for me? He's too old. Plus, I get hit on by guys way hotter than that, but I don't get turned on by appearances. I need a sign of intelligence and desire for extremely selective monogamy. What kind of degenerate woman would throw herself at a promiscuous, yet good-looking man knowing that she may have to raise her children by herself? Is she banking on welfare? Either her genes suck or she's making a short-sale.

So does this rambling of yours reflect your relationship with your wife or just wishful thinking? What if you slept with another woman, she gets pregnant, and refuses to have an abortion? Your wife okay with you raising/paying for the other woman's baby?

 

[Kirbypuff]

I think some people cheat, because they know of no other way out.

Interesting.

He's always been jealous. Some people are just like that, naturally, no matter if they have just cause or not.

Perhaps he hasn't told you or he doesn't know himself. (I just happen to have analyzed myself to death so I happen to know how to answer your questions of why I am jealous) Or maybe he just loves you passionately!

 

[rphello]

But the world is built on personal narcissism. Selfishness is a required survival trait. Monogamy is suited for the people with the best genes who don't want to corrupt their offspring with random genetic chance.

I bet you have an altar dedicated to Richard Dawkins. Random genetic chance is the essence of evolution. You might find a niche with limited genetic diversity, but more likely the environment will swallow your maladapted rump whole.

 

[Kirbypuff]

I bet you have an alter dedicated to Richard Dawkins. Random genetic chance is the essence of evolution. You might find a niche with limited genetic diversity, but more likely the environment will swallow your maladapted rump whole.

who's richard dawkins? and i have no idea what you mean by the environment eating someone whole. okay, i just google'd dawkins, you must be crazy, i'm all for God and his existence and his part of creation. i have no clue what you're trying to say, so do you mind clarifying your point? all i understood from what you said is that you think i worship an atheist when in fact, i find atheists to be equally intelligent as religious fundamentalists. if i were to advocate an atheist, i would probably go for someone like antony flew, ex-atheist, ex-agnostic, current deist who finally grew a brain and acknowledged the logical need for a "God" for there to be substance in the world.

 

[rphello]

Easy Kirb, my comment was in jest. He's the author of The Selfish Gene, which relates to your post. I mentioned nothing about religion, and neither did your original post that I quoted. I linked your comment to the science he espouses, not his view on religion.

My point was unless you have sufficient genetic diversity, which allows you to adapt to a transforming environment, your genes will most likely cease to exist.

 

[Kirbypuff]

Easy Kirb, my comment was in jest. He's the author of The Selfish Gene, which relates to your post. I mentioned nothing about religion, and neither did your original post that I quoted. I linked your comment to the science he espouses, not his view on religion.

My point was unless you have sufficient genetic diversity, which allows you to adapt to a transforming environment, your genes will most likely cease to exist.

I see. So you advocate polygamy?

(The religion part came into play because I read his wiki-page and that's what it talked about ...also, sorry for getting defensive, I got emotional because you said I worship an atheist)

 

[rphello]

I see. So you advocate polygamy?

Can't say I advocate anything, but it's a great way to disseminate your genes, and successfully adapt to your environment. Altruism could allow successful adaptation without polygamy, but it requires a cooperative community. I guess that's our current MO, but we have such a large population now that the cooperative part of the community has dwindled into what now seems like every gene for himself.

 

[rphello]

(The religion part came into play because I read his wiki-page and that's what it talked about ...also, sorry for getting defensive, I got emotional because you said I worship an atheist)

I know most associate his name with atheism, but I thought the context would clear that away. I apologize for the murky post. I have a dramatic flair, so don't take anything I write too seriously. I'm just here for the discussion, because I've realized I can't convince anyone of anything.

 

[Kirbypuff]

I can't see how polygamy would work for many people. Personally, if I were in a polygamous relationship, I may consider killing my husband's other children in order to secure my own children's inheritances. (I'm selfish.) Wouldn't it be in the best interest for a man to pick the best mate he can possibly get and have only as many children he can provide for so that he can secure their livelihood? To have children apart from his primary mate would risk the livelihood of all his children, especially the livelihood of his extramarital children.

 

[Kirbypuff]

I know most associate his name with atheism, but I thought the context would clear that away. I apologize for the murky post. I have a dramatic flair, so don't take anything I write too seriously. I'm just here for the discussion, because I've realized I can't convince anyone of anything.

Bring on the drama mr. van gogue! 🙂

 

[PharmDstudent]

...or maybe he just loves you...

If only that was all that was required to be fulfilled and to have a successful relationship...

 

[rphello]

I can't see how polygamy would work for many people. Personally, if I were in a polygamous relationship, I may consider killing my husband's other children in order to secure my own children's inheritances. (I'm selfish.) Wouldn't it be in the best interest for a man to pick the best mate he can possibly get and have only as many children he can provide for so that he can secure their livelihood? To have children apart from his primary mate would risk the livelihood of all his children, especially the livelihood of his extramarital children.

I see your point, but we know monogamy is rare. I can also imagine how group marriage polygamy could be beneficial by inspiring cooperation.

The women know their genes are secure, but shuffling the men around produces uncertainty. This uncertainty might drive men to cooperate and provide for all of the women, because one always thinks he and his genes are so strong that he must have sired at least one child. Polygamy, in the group marriage sense, is uncertain for men but absolutely certain for women in both genes and child support, which is what matters because women are utterly bonkers.

The uncertainty of monogamy increases jealousy.

 

[Kirbypuff]

I see your point, but we know monogamy is rare. I can also imagine how group marriage polygamy could be beneficial by inspiring cooperation.

The women know their genes are secure, but shuffling the men around produces uncertainty. This uncertainty might drive men to cooperate and provide for all of the women, because one always thinks he and his genes are so strong that he must have sired at least one child. Polygamy, in the group marriage sense, is uncertain for men but absolutely certain for women in both genes and child support, which is what matters because women are utterly bonkers.

The uncertainty of monogamy increases jealousy.

Certainty of polygamy flames jealousy.

Our society is scientifically waaaay beyond genetic uncertainty. And I highly doubt that a man would happily take care of children who are not his own in the same way he would his own. Plus, women can give birth to children who are not their own.

 

[rphello]

Certainty of polygamy flames jealousy.

Our society is scientifically waaaay beyond genetic uncertainty. And I highly doubt that a man would happily take care of children who are not his own in the same way he would his own. Plus, women can give birth to children who are not their own.

Maybe you're thinking of jealousy in a monogamous relationship. Monogamy demands the total devotion of the man. Everything he creates and procures must go to the mother. There is nothing to be jealous of in my scenario. You know they are cheating, but you are still provided for.

I argued from a historical perspective, but even today why would men demand proof of paternity with the perceived certainty of monogamy? I doubt a man would take care of a child that he knows isn't his, but that's the point of my little thought experiment; he wouldn't know which one is his. He couldn't take care of all of the children by himself, only by cooperating with other males could they care for the women and children.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

But the world is built on personal narcissism. Selfishness is a required survival trait. Monogamy is suited for the people with the best genes who don't want to corrupt their offspring with random genetic chance. Unless a guy is okay with the thought of his children growing up poor and ruining their chances of mating well, a guy would have adapted by now to having as many children as he can provide for and leave a legacy with. I would think that promiscuity is a sign of degeneracy. It could be why some women don't get turned on by promiscuous men, but rather super picky men. George Clooney for me? He's too old. Plus, I get hit on by guys way hotter than that, but I don't get turned on by appearances. I need a sign of intelligence and desire for extremely selective monogamy. What kind of degenerate woman would throw herself at a promiscuous, yet good-looking man knowing that she may have to raise her children by herself? Is she banking on welfare? Either her genes suck or she's making a short-sale.

Maybe for the female...but the man loses nothing by impregnating multiple women. So what if some are failures...others will succeed.

And a women than enjoys sex isn't a degenerate. That's f'n normal. What the hell kind of feminist thinks that. Living in a bizarre culture where only men can be sluts is what's holding them back. I'm all for equality.

So does this rambling of yours reflect your relationship with your wife or just wishful thinking? What if you slept with another woman, she gets pregnant, and refuses to have an abortion? Your wife okay with you raising/paying for the other woman's baby?

I got a vasectomy. And that's what prostitution would be for...though I've never actually had to pay before...that'd just be weird...though I guess I shouldn't knock it before trying it...

 

[Kirbypuff]

Maybe you're thinking of jealousy in a monogamous relationship. Monogamy demands the total devotion of the man. Everything he creates and procures must go to the mother. There is nothing to be jealous of in my scenario. You know they are cheating, but you are still provided for.

I argued from a historical perspective, but even today why would men demand proof of paternity with the perceived certainty of monogamy? I doubt a man would take care of a child that he knows isn't his, but that's the point of my little thought experiment; he wouldn't know which one is his. He couldn't take care of all of the children by himself, only by cooperating with other males could they care for the women and children.

Phenotype alone is a giveaway. Also, it's medically necessary to know one's blood type, which also is a giveaway to who is absolutely not your own.

Having sex with everyone would create jealousy because you can't avoid favoritism.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

if i were to advocate an atheist, i would probably go for someone like antony flew, ex-atheist, ex-agnostic, current deist who finally grew a brain and acknowledged the logical need for a "God" for there to be substance in the world.

LMAO. I could see thinking that there is a deity somewhere. One guess is as good as the next. Personally, I don't give a damn. But to claim that theism is a more logical stance than not caring or nihilism is just arrogant ignorance. Like if the Iraqi Information Minister actually believed his own press conferences.

Is this the same dummy that claimed to have the statistical odds of a deity existing? That's the dumbest and most pretentious-on-a-grandiose-level thing I've possibly ever heard about.

 

[Kirbypuff]

Maybe for the female...but the man loses nothing by impregnating multiple women. So what if some are failures...others will succeed.

And a women than enjoys sex isn't a degenerate. That's f'n normal. What the hell kind of feminist thinks that. Living in a bizarre culture where only men can be sluts is what's holding them back. I'm all for equality.



I got a vasectomy. And that's what prostitution would be for...though I've never actually had to pay before...that'd just be weird...though I guess I shouldn't knock it before trying it...

Eh, isn't life dandy until you pregnant and you don't know who the father is? That's degeneracy. Single mom with multiple baby daddies. Not exactly the cream of the crop.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Eh, isn't life dandy until you pregnant and you don't know who the father is? That's degeneracy. Single mom with multiple baby daddies. Not exactly the cream of the crop.

Who says you have to have the damn things? There is contraception available at multiple steps. Pre-during-post.

 

[Kirbypuff]

LMAO. I could see thinking that there is a deity somewhere. One guess is as good as the next. Personally, I don't give a damn. But to claim that theism is a more logical stance than not caring or nihilism is just arrogant ignorance. Like if the Iraqi Information Minister actually believed his own press conferences.

Is this the same dummy that claimed to have the statistical odds of a deity existing? That's the dumbest and most pretentious-on-a-grandiose-level thing I've possibly ever heard about.

Nope, totally different authors of totally different fields. Philosophy and Math. Hello Polar.

Eh, agnostic is perfectly non-caring. Agnostics and Non-caring are probably the most logical because it requires the least faith. Atheism and Religiosity both require faith. Careful combing through the chicken or the egg theory and abiogenesis points to the existence of a God.

 

[Kirbypuff]

Who says you have to have the damn things? There is contraception available at multiple steps. Pre-during-post.

Correct. Therefore, having multiple baby daddies is degenerate.

Also, if you're not contributing to future generations, your genes are obsolete. Have a nice life, then Goodbye.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Nope, totally different authors of totally different fields. Philosophy and Math. Hello Polar.

Eh, agnostic is perfectly non-caring. Agnostics and Non-caring are probably the most logical because it requires the least faith. Atheism and Religiosity both require faith. Careful combing through the chicken or the egg theory and abiogenesis points to the existence of a God.

You have got to be kidding with me. Now we're going to start arguing about whether God exists?

How, exactly, does the chicken or the egg theory and abiogenesis (which is what??) point to the existence of a god??

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Atheism and Religiosity both require faith.

I consider myself an atheist because I don't adhere to a theology. I don't care. I always thought that agnosticism should be considered a form of atheism...and the implicit belief that there is no deity would thus just be nihilism...also a school of atheism. But people are ******s that don't know how to use words correctly...

Careful combing through the chicken or the egg theory and abiogenesis points to the existence of a God.

No it doesn't.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Correct. Therefore, having multiple baby daddies is degenerate.

Also, if you're not contributing to future generations, your genes are obsolete. Have a nice life, then Goodbye.

There's research that women in poorer communities do better without the father around, because the father is just one more 'kid' they have to take care of.

And just because someone does not choose to reproduce does not mean that their genes are obsolete. They can care for/assist with kids that are related to them that are not their own. They can also do much to influence the next generation, regardless if they share genes with them.

I feel sorry for you if you have those feelings and you end up being part of one of the many couples in the United States that is infertile.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Also, if you're not contributing to future generations, your genes are obsolete.

Or I just don't care...

 

[Kirbypuff]

You have got to be kidding with me. Now we're going to start arguing about whether God exists?

How, exactly, does the chicken or the egg theory and abiogenesis (which is what??) point to the existence of a god??

I'm not here to argue the existence of God. If you care about it, you can go read about it. I can't make a better argument than the dude who denounced his life long atheism in his old age (Antony Flew.) I just happened to mention it because unwittingly someone triggered that response in me by saying that I must have a shrine of Richard So-n-So who I had never heard of and when I googled him the first thing that came up was that he was an atheist. If you're an atheist, and I have offended you, I'm sorry. I was just thrown off at a comment which I misinterpreted. You can't tell someone they worship Einstein.... because they beat their wife. The first thing people know about Einstein is that he was a genius.

 

[metrarx]

....

 

[Kirbypuff]

There's research that women in poorer communities do better without the father around, because the father is just one more 'kid' they have to take care of.

And just because someone does not choose to reproduce does not mean that their genes are obsolete. They can care for/assist with kids that are related to them that are not their own. They can also do much to influence the next generation, regardless if they share genes with them.

I feel sorry for you if you have those feelings and you end up being part of one of the many couples in the United States that is infertile.

If I'm infertile, I'll adopt. If you don't reproduce your genes ARE obsolete. 😕 Yes, if i can't have children, my genes WILL be obsolete. Duh?? What are you arguing??

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I'm not here to argue the existence of God. If you care about it, you can go read about it. I can't make a better argument than the dude who denounced his life long atheism in his old age (Antony Flew.)

Religious arguments are the best...because people put so much stock into the stuff...as an argument enthusiast I'm licking my chops.

I read a synopsis of his work this century. Not overly impressed. "A deity exists because the universe is so dern complex" isn't an argument. It's just subjective rambling. And, again, it all rests upon the insistence toward the pluralism of existence (i.e. the world was created by something unworldly)...which is, again, not a very credible thing to use as proof.

 

[Kirbypuff]

Religious arguments are the best...because people put so much stock into the stuff...as an argument enthusiast I'm licking my chops.

I read a synopsis of his work this century. Not overly impressed. "A deity exists because the universe is so dern complex" isn't an argument. It's just subjective rambling. And, again, it all rests upon the insistence toward the pluralism of existence (i.e. the world was created by something unworldly)...which is, again, not a very credible thing to use as proof.

WVU, I never got what you meant by pluralism of existence. If there is a super-powerful God, he can choose to conceal himself from one human being and show himself to another human being standing right beside the other. I see God in my world, because I believe through certain events of my life, he has shown himself to me.

HOLY SH.T my car just got hit by lightning. WTF. I swear to God. Scary sh.t. See, sh.t like this makes me think God exists. Call it crazy, coincidental, irrational, whatever, but I'm a sucker to these kinds of things. I pray about things, and things happen. Can't help it.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

WVU, I never got what you meant by pluralism of existence. If there is a super-powerful God, he can choose to conceal himself from one human being and show himself to another human being standing right beside the other. I see God in my world, because I believe through certain events of my life, he has shown himself to me.

Pluralism. As in the theory that the universe in and of itself can't explain itself, so it must be explained by the influence of outside forces. It's crazy talk is what it is.

HOLY SH.T my car just got hit by lightning. WTF. I swear to God. Scary sh.t. See, sh.t like this makes me think God exists. Call it crazy, coincidental, irrational, whatever, but I'm a sucker to these kinds of things. I pray about things, and things happen. Can't help it.

I'll go with coincidental + irrational. About a year ago my car exploded, but I didn't think it was the gods smiting me...

 

[rphello]

You can't tell someone they worship Einstein.... because they beat their wife. The first thing people know about Einstein is that he was a genius.

The guy wrote a book that sold a million copies encapsulating your views. I thought you would be familiar with him. Don't blame your problems on me. It's your assumption that unleashed the fury. How's that for drama, Kirb?