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

[drift]

i don't care what people believe they just need to stop pushing it upon others.

Case closed.
:yawn:

[ck_taft325is]

ok Ill play your game. No, there is no such thing as love, since it can not be proven it does not exist. Now, where does that put your threory on god?

You would have to follow that out all the way. God is Love. So, by your logical conclusion, we've reached that love, unable to be proven by hard, cold facts of life, does not exist. It is a "figment" of our imaginations that warrants no real world response anymore. By that, God does not exist. So, we are to then throw off any vestiges of Love and go forward in an englightened society where nothing, no opinions or conclusions are drawn on the premise of Love or that which cannot be proven. Happiness cannot be proven from one person to the other, so it should be abolished. Survival of the Fittest is one of the key cornerstones in "scientific evolution" so we should also destroy the weak in hopes of furthering our race and future. Kill the weak children for the good of the strong ones, yes? Arrange marriages and social circles (if they are even needed at this point) for the most likely, provably "beneficial" outcome to society as a whole. Individualism does not exist, only the benefit and furthering of society and our planet. Personal freedoms should also fall away as they cannot be proven to be a betterment to society, right?

[ck_taft325is]

That's a poor argument, and I think you know it. To take your logic a step further, I have to have faith that my TV is still in the other room since I can't see it right now.

Which AGW debacle are you referring to? The one about the emails at the University of East Anglia?

I'm not so sure it is a poor argument. You quantify that a Christians faith is not and cannot exist in certain circles of debate and only cold, hard facts yet these cannot be verified and are only valid so far as your faith carries them.

[Bill 84 318i]

You would have to follow that out all the way. God is Love. So, by your logical conclusion, we've reached that love, unable to be proven by hard, cold facts of life, does not exist. It is a "figment" of our imaginations that warrants no real world response anymore. By that, God does not exist. So, we are to then throw off any vestiges of Love and go forward in an englightened society where nothing, no opinions or conclusions are drawn on the premise of Love or that which cannot be proven. Happiness cannot be proven from one person to the other, so it should be abolished. Survival of the Fittest is one of the key cornerstones in "scientific evolution" so we should also destroy the weak in hopes of furthering our race and future. Kill the weak children for the good of the strong ones, yes? Arrange marriages and social circles (if they are even needed at this point) for the most likely, provably "beneficial" outcome to society as a whole. Individualism does not exist, only the benefit and furthering of society and our planet. Personal freedoms should also fall away as they cannot be proven to be a betterment to society, right?

First, you're jumping to the conclusion that we can agree that "God is love" (a very personal thing to say) and then going further say that "love can't be proven." I don't know how you can say it can't be proven. You're married, right? Kids yet? Surely you know what love is. Unless you're just engaging in mockery, since we can't quantify it on a chalkboard yet.

Evolution, survival of the fittest (or most able to reproduce), is how we can scientifically explain the diversity of life. It is not a worldview, or something to be applied to how we live - that would be cruel and inhuman. It's a very Ben Stein thing to say. I can't stand it when people take it that far, it's ridiculous and dramatic and completely unrealistic. Though I look at evolution with awe, that doesn't mean I want to kill off the weak - hell, how does that align with my liberal view that (properly done) income redistribution is a good thing?

And just to clarify what evolution is, I say again the "fittest" is not the same as "most capable of reproducing." See: Idiocracy.

[Bill 84 318i]

I'm not so sure it is a poor argument. You quantify that a Christians faith is not real? and cannot exist in certain circles of debate and only cold, hard facts can? yet these cannot be verified and are only valid so far as your faith carries them.

I had to guess at a few words that I think were missing.

But I'm still not sure I understand what you're getting at. I'm happy to admit that Christian faith cannot exist in certain circles of debate, and I'll stand by that. But what are these "cold, hard facts" you're putting in my mouth that can't be verified that I need faith for?

[LBJefferies]

I found this really cool and interesting video that is relevant to this discussion. Everyone should watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

[E30Kaiser]

That was good LBJ, I have thought about what is proposed in the video in far more basic terms before, and I think the quickest way for humanity to think of itself as a race or at least to think of Earth as the basis for out identity is to either branch out to other worlds, or have first contact with another alien race. Any other method will probably see the end of Humanity before that is accomplished I fear.

[ck_taft325is]

First, you're jumping to the conclusion that we can agree that "God is love" (a very personal thing to say) and then going further say that "love can't be proven." I don't know how you can say it can't be proven. You're married, right? Kids yet? Surely you know what love is. Unless you're just engaging in mockery, since we can't quantify it on a chalkboard yet.

Evolution, survival of the fittest (or most able to reproduce), is how we can scientifically explain the diversity of life. It is not a worldview, or something to be applied to how we live - that would be cruel and inhuman. It's a very Ben Stein thing to say. I can't stand it when people take it that far, it's ridiculous and dramatic and completely unrealistic. Though I look at evolution with awe, that doesn't mean I want to kill off the weak - hell, how does that align with my liberal view that (properly done) income redistribution is a good thing?

And just to clarify what evolution is, I say again the "fittest" is not the same as "most capable of reproducing." See: Idiocracy.

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.

"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.

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

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!

[Streichholzschächtelchen]

JJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH embrace the blunt. How can ganj be here for no reason if it does all kinds of good stuff?

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ Same way sea slugs are here.

[Streichholzschächtelchen]

^ Same way sea slugs are here.

survival of the fittest. People like weed so it gets spread about everywhere gaining population and nobody fucks with sea slugs cuz fuck em they're sea slugs.

Your sig makes me want a cupcake

[briansjacobs]

no, the weed makes you want a cupcake, his sig just reminded you that you want a cupcake. Short term memory loss is a bitch

[Farbin Kaiber]

I don't see any cupcakes in my sig.

[Streichholzschächtelchen]

I don't see any cupcakes in my sig.

avatar my bad bruh.

And yes, short term memory loss is a bitch but that had nothing to do with the other part you said briansjacobs. Amazing how you can go off tangent in only two sentences.

[Aptyp]

To take the bait, love is a product of evolution, and there's probably a nerdy evolutionary reason for it. Species/individuals that were passionate survived and reproduced because it was a successful trait....

Perception is reality.

The attitude that you reference - "we don't share beliefs so you're dumb" - is negative and offensive in some ways and positive and productive in others.

I see where you're coming from and agree with you on most of what you wrote, except for what I quoted.

Many animals and a lot of humans are very capable of fucking without any emotional involvement. Not love that drove people to marry girls in their teens with parental agreement and knocking them up in history. Macedonian armies intermarrying into persian populace had nothing to do with love either. So I do think that love is an idea, just like passion. As such, it may mean to you whatever you want, and I'll take on faith that meaning.


Perception is NOT reality.... Taking something on perception is absolutely unscientific.