do you think humanity is worth saving?

[nousd]

all i see is guns, bombs and other obviously human inventions.

yeah, that's the big human tragedy:
all those resources going to weapons
the cost of which, has to be justified by being used.

do landmines & cluster bombs actually win wars
or are they another form of terrorism?

How does Guatemala (?) get away with minimal military?

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

Too jumbled to join the flow

But

I often think how wonderful it is that all the elements and 'ingredients' to build things such as laptops and th'internet have existed all this time within the earth, was just a case of using understanding to put the pieces in order

Or how a gradual evolution for self defence lead to the development of a MAC-10 etc Marvellous use of economics

Maybe this topic is better used for listing the slightly obscure praises towards our species


SAME WISE!

[nousd]

a jumbled flow is a flow

[nousd]

^spooky eh?

[nousd]

there's always an awareness
that one could be talking only to oneself
but that's part of the commitment:
a faith that outside reality exists

insanity needs to nest
integration needs consideration
you need love
you have it

[feral witchchild]

In my next life, I hope I come back as a parrot, because I already know quite a few words.

[nousd]

lol

[alien pimp]

In my next life, I hope I come back as a parrot, because I already know quite a few words.

post of the week

[parson]

one of my friends came across a rosicrucian manual in half price books. i flipped through it yesterday.

tons of cool shit in there, but one thing that caught my eye was some diagrams of patterns that looked like cymatics.

then i looked closer and it had a drawing of a cymatic plate with a hand rubbing a bow on it like a violin.

the type of info in this book though is stunning. stunning. it should not be available in half price books.

sign of the times.

[hackman]

what's the title of it? sounds cool!

edit: this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rosicrucian-Man ... 0766128008

[parson]

found images on google

[parson]

check out how they note alpha draconis in the pyramid diagram. fuckin lizzies

[hackman]

big! found a pdf dl for it

[hackman]

check out how they note alpha draconis in the pyramid diagram. fuckin lizzies

[hackman]

you need to read this parson, finished it today
amazing!

[parson]

yeah i looked that up when you posted it earlier. looks real innarestin'

[parson]

all i see is guns, bombs and other obviously human inventions.

yeah, that's the big human tragedy:
all those resources going to weapons
the cost of which, has to be justified by being used.

do landmines & cluster bombs actually win wars
or are they another form of terrorism?

How does Guatemala (?) get away with minimal military?

costa rica?

[Genevieve]

The lion example can be applied to anything. You're using the same words again. 'Negativity', that's faulty since the perception of 'negative' changes from person to person. There were cultures where it was a positive thing to die. It's all between our ears.

who cares about cultures and what some people's opinions? fuck opinions, i'm about relevant facts as always

And what you're doing is project your opinion on 'good' and 'bad' on the natural world as if it were factual.

Earthquakes, forrest fires, any natural disaster is an abrupt change to the environment that an animal evolved to coexist with, that's what they're responding to.

Nature hasn't 'taught' anyone anything, all the animals that didn't respond to a sudden change in their environment were dead and didn't get to breed, that's why you see animals running away.
We have no evidence supporting your point of view. That point of view is actually religious and is based on the fact that there is a god watching us and has decided what is 'good' or 'bad', but if you take away the sentient (god, human, etc) what you're left with is a constantly changing environment, with animals adapting to it, who make no subjective judgement calls on quality, but react to what their instincts tell them and when an animal that is used to living in a temperate climate feels the heat of forrest fires, it's going to do anything in its power to go back to the temperate climate, because that's what it evolved into.

why do most animals react same way to a certain change, if all changes are equally bad or good? because nature generated a way to pass on to next generations the survival techniques. why did nature do that constantly if it has no preferences?
seems to me nature/life has preferences. those preferences mark the positive direction, what opposes them is negative.
that's also why life opposes some changes, even tries to undo them sometimes: it makes a difference between positive and negative change. stones don't care because they seem to have no goal.
the goal/preference is what makes the difference between + and - , and also the difference between living and dead.
well, maybe the "dead" matter has its goals too that we don't understand just yet, but that's indeed something we can't prove
sentience brings in just the awareness and determination, but the law of good and bad was here before, same way gravity is here with or without us being aware of it.
furthermore, if we agree life, love, health, mutual support and harmony makes us flourish, feel good and be congruent with our nature [as proved by experience and logic], we have our goal/preference, that's positive.
most of the people today set for themselves goals that contradict the natural/positive imperatives, that's negative and makes them a failed race. nothing debatable, not even about feeling good, because we know feeling good mechanisms in our body are actually objective and explainable. if you have all the data about a person you can scientifically explain why it likes dubstep more than trance and you can even change that. so opinions and subjectivity have no place in my demonstration about good and bad.

not sure what more proof you need, i don't understand at all the reference to religion and god and how did you get to it, seems to me like random generated text that part.

Your views are religious of nature because you're applying moral absolutism in your argument. Seeing as morals are a sentient construct, if you remove humans, what you're left with should be a god to make those absolute moral calls.

The reason why a lot of religious people dislike neodarwinian evolutionary thought is because it paves the way for moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism, which they think of as unhealthy.

Secondly, the reason 'all animals react the same way to a threat to their existence' is that they all evolved from that one common ancestor that reacted a certain way to danger. They obviously didn't descend from an ancestor who's natural instinct to danger would be to run headfirst into the open jaws of a predator.

[parson]

Everything in nature is beautiful and it is no less beautiful because it is understood. However, the unenlightened man will assign arbitrary values to all things in order to protect and justify his own position. His morals are based on things he wishes were true or which someone else wishes were true. His philosophy pays no attention to relative facts or realities and yet in his life he must deal with them. He is consequently involved in a constant round of pretenses and evasions.
Jack Parsons

[alien pimp]

The lion example can be applied to anything. You're using the same words again. 'Negativity', that's faulty since the perception of 'negative' changes from person to person. There were cultures where it was a positive thing to die. It's all between our ears.

who cares about cultures and what some people's opinions? fuck opinions, i'm about relevant facts as always

And what you're doing is project your opinion on 'good' and 'bad' on the natural world as if it were factual.

WHAT EXACTLY IS AN OPINION AND NOT FACT FROM WHAT I SAID??

Earthquakes, forrest fires, any natural disaster is an abrupt change to the environment that an animal evolved to coexist with, that's what they're responding to.

Nature hasn't 'taught' anyone anything, all the animals that didn't respond to a sudden change in their environment were dead and didn't get to breed, that's why you see animals running away.
We have no evidence supporting your point of view. That point of view is actually religious and is based on the fact that there is a god watching us and has decided what is 'good' or 'bad', but if you take away the sentient (god, human, etc) what you're left with is a constantly changing environment, with animals adapting to it, who make no subjective judgement calls on quality, but react to what their instincts tell them and when an animal that is used to living in a temperate climate feels the heat of forrest fires, it's going to do anything in its power to go back to the temperate climate, because that's what it evolved into.

why do most animals react same way to a certain change, if all changes are equally bad or good? because nature generated a way to pass on to next generations the survival techniques. why did nature do that constantly if it has no preferences?
seems to me nature/life has preferences. those preferences mark the positive direction, what opposes them is negative.
that's also why life opposes some changes, even tries to undo them sometimes: it makes a difference between positive and negative change. stones don't care because they seem to have no goal.
the goal/preference is what makes the difference between + and - , and also the difference between living and dead.
well, maybe the "dead" matter has its goals too that we don't understand just yet, but that's indeed something we can't prove
sentience brings in just the awareness and determination, but the law of good and bad was here before, same way gravity is here with or without us being aware of it.
furthermore, if we agree life, love, health, mutual support and harmony makes us flourish, feel good and be congruent with our nature [as proved by experience and logic], we have our goal/preference, that's positive.
most of the people today set for themselves goals that contradict the natural/positive imperatives, that's negative and makes them a failed race. nothing debatable, not even about feeling good, because we know feeling good mechanisms in our body are actually objective and explainable. if you have all the data about a person you can scientifically explain why it likes dubstep more than trance and you can even change that. so opinions and subjectivity have no place in my demonstration about good and bad.

not sure what more proof you need, i don't understand at all the reference to religion and god and how did you get to it, seems to me like random generated text that part.

Your views are religious of nature because you're applying moral absolutism in your argument. Seeing as morals are a sentient construct, if you remove humans, what you're left with should be a god to make those absolute moral calls.

The reason why a lot of religious people dislike neodarwinian evolutionary thought is because it paves the way for moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism, which they think of as unhealthy.

Secondly, the reason 'all animals react the same way to a threat to their existence' is that they all evolved from that one common ancestor that reacted a certain way to danger. They obviously didn't descend from an ancestor who's natural instinct to danger would be to run headfirst into the open jaws of a predator.

if you can point anything dealing with morality or religion, or religious whatever in my posts i cut off my dick and and take a picture with it stapled to my forehead!
did you really read my shit? do you have answers for the questions bolded above?

you are a zillion lightyears away from anything i've said or even believed. you managed to shock me, i had high esteem for your way to deal with arguments