Why can't people accept that everything could be connected?

[e30frosh]

We adapted to not biting our mate during sex to show control. We evolved to mindfuck them with love until they shit bricks.

[ak-]

Maybe we weren't designed to know these things.
But who knows, I sure don't.

[Streichholzschächtelchen]

Maybe we weren't designed to know these things.
But who knows, I sure don't.

whose to say we were designed? Prove it.

[Bill 84 318i]

Way late on this - been real busy. Anyway.

Well, Evolution warrants Awe? A complete accident and sequence of "mistakes" that happend to promote "life" by no intelligent means beyond random selection of particles? I'm missing the Awe part, perhaps.

Hell yeah! All those genetic mistakes/mutations that created individuals better suited to an environment that then get passed on? And the ones that fail? Led to us? That shit is amazing! Hell, I'd be awestruck in a somewhat different way if a mistake I made that led to another human being being created.

"God is Love" is the simpliest way to look at God (IMO). You cannot prove Love through anything other than personal experiences which cannot be verified by anyone else. As you, (or someone else maybe?) pointed out, experience and "what we see" cannot truly be confirmed by any other eyes because one man's reality could be another man's dream, yes? That's the general philosophy we're operating out of unless I am incorrect.

"God is love." I kinda can meet you here. You seem kinda anti-organized religion (IIRC; not enough time to go look through older threads), and more of a man-in-the-sky guy, right? I kinda get that - it's more of a spiritual thing than a religious thing. And yeah, to each person, perception is reality, and that's what contributes to such an interesting society. It's why you and I disagree, and it's fantastic.

Survival of the Fittest is less about most able to reproduce and more about who gets too.

Tomato/tomato (I chuckle every time I type this).

We should therefore look to throw down fists and forget about how much "security" or "money" we have to offer, right? Or would you argue that our "security" and "money" are the evolutionary effects of where we've progressed too? That to be violent is not really in our nature and that we've moved into a simple exchange of goods? Again, this destroys the hypothesis of "love" that we're trying to prove. And again, "Love" should be thrown out with "God" in every debate because it simply cannot be verified one person to another. Manson and Dahmer thought they loved those they abused. Who is anyone to say they are wrong then? What is distilled in our "humanity", or evolution, that tells us these actions are wrong? Because they harm another? Death of the lesser vessels is simply a part of life by these standards. Not helping those weaker or lesser off than yourself. Those are for the weak in evolutionary standards.

This is a very interesting philosophical question. Humans are much different than all other species, and I kind of think we're kind of a game-changer when it comes to evolution. Instead of adapting to the environment, we change the environment to best fit us, and significantly. We're self-aware in a way no other species is. And yeah, security and money, at least in the form that we use them, are kind of human-created (evolved? shrug). I don't know that violence specifically is in our nature, but it's certainly a product of things that are, like how we're territorial and protective.

There are exceptions to all rules, and wacko's everywhere. Manson and Dahmer were fucking insane, and deluded; one is now dead and the other in jail until he is, which, I dunno, I suppose could be viewed as human effect on natural selection. But in a weird way, each person also handles love differently, and this is very much influenced by their behavioral upbringing.

Sorry if I missed a few words. I type fast and try as I might, still miss a few words here and there. Or maybe, a lot ;)

Bill, I enjoy talking with you, man. If you want to go to PM's so we're not throwing ideas in the middle of these, by all means let me know!

I enjoy discussing this stuff, too. A lot of times it's at either end of the spectrum - either preaching to the choir or falling on voluntarily deaf ears - neither are really productive - but when it's in the middle, it's interesting.

BTW: The STi was bone stock, save for wheels and a front lip - it was still a blast. I actually haven't owned a car for over two years now. I think I might get one soon, but I haven't made up my mind on what it would be yet.