it seems you don't know what love is. your posts seem to centre on the need to reproduce. this is chemical. you cannot explain unconditional love or devotion to one person. if in fact the emotion is chemical; then people would act as animals in that when the recipient of that love is away; the chemical reaction would take place with another. this is what makes humans different.
the urge for sex is chemical; love is something completely different and does transend far beyond scientific explaination.
I disagree with you. Recent experiments by Paul Zak have shown that even when two people are anonymous and aren't directly in contact with each other, they display trust and have high levels of oxytocin in their blood. His experiments used participants seated behind computers. Half of the participants group A were given a sum of money into their account, Group B was given nothing. It was up to Group A to transfer as much as they want to group B and in doing to the amount was multiplied. So if they transfered $30, person in Group B would receive something like $60, then person from Group B could transfer as much as they want back. Most Group A participants transferred the entire amount to Group B, and the majority of Group B transferred half back, maximizing the mutual benefit, these people marked highest for Oxytocin. Some did not transfer much at all, there is a biochemical explanation for that too. The chemicals involved in biochemistry are quite numerous and may explain all behavior if looked at optimistically.
I'd like to establish that I believe in thermodynamics and the natural laws. To convince me that something is more than the sum of it's parts, it will require some kind of physical evidence. I've brought to the table a theory about some evidence and the theories I've heard seem only to discount the evidence and fail to introduce any new evidence to which these new theories arise. You are welcome to explore Paul Zak's experiments, findings and credibility as much as you'd like. You are welcome to develop your own theories as to what this evidence means. You are also welcome to bring new evidence to the discussion and new theories about such evidence. But, how should I interpret statements that seek only to undermine my theories without introducing any new facts or theories themselves?
If we can establish that the experiences we have are a result of biochemistry and the chemical levels correspond with experience. Then the suggestion that the experience is more than the chemicals would have to introduce new physical evidence that contributes to the overall experience. Social trust is already attributed to oxytocin.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I disagree with you. Recent experiments by Paul Zak have shown that even when two people are anonymous and aren't directly in contact with each other, they display trust and have high levels of oxytocin in their blood. His experiments used participants seated behind computers. Half of the participants group A were given a sum of money into their account, Group B was given nothing. It was up to Group A to transfer as much as they want to group B and in doing to the amount was multiplied. So if they transfered $30, person in Group B would receive something like $60, then person from Group B could transfer as much as they want back. Most Group A participants transferred the entire amount to Group B, and the majority of Group B transferred half back, maximizing the mutual benefit, these people marked highest for Oxytocin. Some did not transfer much at all, there is a biochemical explanation for that too. The chemicals involved in biochemistry are quite numerous and may explain all behavior if looked at optimistically.
I'd like to establish that I believe in thermodynamics and the natural laws. To convince me that something is more than the sum of it's parts, it will require some kind of physical evidence. I've brought to the table a theory about some evidence and the theories I've heard seem only to discount the evidence and fail to introduce any new evidence to which these new theories arise. You are welcome to explore Paul Zak's experiments, findings and credibility as much as you'd like. You are welcome to develop your own theories as to what this evidence means. You are also welcome to bring new evidence to the discussion and new theories about such evidence. But, how should I interpret statements that seek only to undermine my theories without introducing any new facts or theories themselves?
If we can establish that the experiences we have are a result of biochemistry and the chemical levels correspond with experience. Then the suggestion that the experience is more than the chemicals would have to introduce new physical evidence that contributes to the overall experience. Social trust is already attributed to oxytocin.
Yeah, I'm sorry Ryan, I understand what you are saying here, but why do you have to whittle all the good stuff in life down to cold, hard fact? Perhaps it is as you say, perhaps it all gets down to chemicals somehow in the end, and maybe it is just weak mindedness on my part to choose to believe that something else is happening. You are certainly entitled to your views. But, frankly life is shitty enough. So I choose to go with the good stuff, to feel, to believe, to have faith and to just go with it and enjoy it. And at least that way I can enjoy the best of people. And not be looking at them as a chemical cocktail that I HAVE to HAVE. Just as you reason it is all chemical and brain activity based on chemicals, I reason that there is connection. Perhaps it's the same thing. Who knows? But I prefer looking at it from my perspective, to be honest. At least that way people can feel special. And people can feel connected. And connection is a powerful, powerful thing.
Yeah, I'm sorry Ryan, I understand what you are saying here, but why do you have to whittle all the good stuff in life down to cold, hard fact? Perhaps it is as you say, perhaps it all gets down to chemicals somehow in the end, and maybe it is just weak mindedness on my part to choose to believe that something else is happening. You are certainly entitled to your views. But, frankly life is shitty enough. So I choose to go with the good stuff, to feel, to believe, to have faith and to just go with it and enjoy it. And at least that way I can enjoy the best of people. And not be looking at them as a chemical cocktail that I HAVE to HAVE. Just as you reason it is all chemical and brain activity based on chemicals, I reason that there is connection. Perhaps it's the same thing. Who knows? But I prefer looking at it from my perspective, to be honest. At least that way people can feel special. And people can feel connected. And connection is a powerful, powerful thing.
well stated.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
I disagree with you. Recent experiments by Paul Zak have shown that even when two people are anonymous and aren't directly in contact with each other, they display trust and have high levels of oxytocin in their blood. His experiments used participants seated behind computers. Half of the participants group A were given a sum of money into their account, Group B was given nothing. It was up to Group A to transfer as much as they want to group B and in doing to the amount was multiplied. So if they transfered $30, person in Group B would receive something like $60, then person from Group B could transfer as much as they want back. Most Group A participants transferred the entire amount to Group B, and the majority of Group B transferred half back, maximizing the mutual benefit, these people marked highest for Oxytocin. Some did not transfer much at all, there is a biochemical explanation for that too. The chemicals involved in biochemistry are quite numerous and may explain all behavior if looked at optimistically.
I'd like to establish that I believe in thermodynamics and the natural laws. To convince me that something is more than the sum of it's parts, it will require some kind of physical evidence. I've brought to the table a theory about some evidence and the theories I've heard seem only to discount the evidence and fail to introduce any new evidence to which these new theories arise. You are welcome to explore Paul Zak's experiments, findings and credibility as much as you'd like. You are welcome to develop your own theories as to what this evidence means. You are also welcome to bring new evidence to the discussion and new theories about such evidence. But, how should I interpret statements that seek only to undermine my theories without introducing any new facts or theories themselves?
If we can establish that the experiences we have are a result of biochemistry and the chemical levels correspond with experience. Then the suggestion that the experience is more than the chemicals would have to introduce new physical evidence that contributes to the overall experience. Social trust is already attributed to oxytocin.
again with the experiments.
my experiments have found a cure for cancer. under the law; i cannot make this claim. until the compound can be isolated in a lab and reproduced sythetically; i can't say a word.
that being said; i will admitt that the "experience" causes the biochemistry and the change in chemical levels. i do not have a change in chemical levels and thus become attracted to a woman; instead; i am attracted to a woman and thus the chemical levels change. i'm not questioning the experiment; only the way it was interpreted.
for example; one who does not believe in God will look at evolution as the beginning of life; while a religious person will tell you that God created evolution.
people find what they are looking for. we both look at the same study and see different results. you see a chemical reaction creating an experience and i see an experience creating a chemical reaction.
i respect your views and opinions; i just don't agree with them.
again with the experiments.
my experiments have found a cure for cancer. under the law; i cannot make this claim. until the compound can be isolated in a lab and reproduced sythetically; i can't say a word.
that being said; i will admitt that the "experience" causes the biochemistry and the change in chemical levels. i do not have a change in chemical levels and thus become attracted to a woman; instead; i am attracted to a woman and thus the chemical levels change. i'm not questioning the experiment; only the way it was interpreted.
for example; one who does not believe in God will look at evolution as the beginning of life; while a religious person will tell you that God created evolution.
people find what they are looking for. we both look at the same study and see different results. you see a chemical reaction creating an experience and i see an experience creating a chemical reaction.
i respect your views and opinions; i just don't agree with them.
Actually, the interaction causes the chemicals which causes the experiences. The physical stimuli cause the chemicals which cause the experience, or sensation of Love.
It's actually only a matter of belief if you choose not to believe in reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
what the hall is going on with you two?, you're going round and round on something that isn't going to be resolved. personally i think that attraction is the result of a chemical reaction. i also think that after that initial reaction it grows into something more. but despite that, i still think that attraction lasts only as long as your body is getting the stimulus it requires.
and as for the religion thing. if you feel you need that in your life then great. be my guest. some of us are quite content knowing that we can get by without faith in something that can't be proven.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what the hall is going on with you two?, you're going round and round on something that isn't going to be resolved. personally i think that attraction is the result of a chemical reaction. i also think that after that initial reaction it grows into something more. but despite that, i still think that attraction lasts only as long as your body is getting the stimulus it requires.
and as for the religion thing. if you feel you need that in your life then great. be my guest. some of us are quite content knowing that we can get by without faith in something that can't be proven.
How does it "grow into something more"?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
it grows into dependence. and yes ahnimus, that is a chemical dependence i believe. it's like a drug. otherwise why would it physically hurt when that stimulus is taken from us?
listen ryan, we're on the same side here.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it grows into dependence. and yes ahnimus, that is a chemical dependence i believe. it's like a drug. otherwise why would it physically hurt when that stimulus is taken from us?
listen ryan, we're on the same side here.
Ok, so you don't literally mean that the experience of love grows beyond the chemicals, rather the chemicals grow with the experience. Correct?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, so you don't literally mean that the experience of love grows beyond the chemicals, rather the chemicals grow with the experience. Correct?
i wouldn't say the chemicals grow, no. i would say our dependence upon them grows. if we are denied love then we crave it. that craving can grow. i would consider that as being beyond the experience of love.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i wouldn't say the chemicals grow, no. i would say our dependence upon them grows. if we are denied love then we crave it. that craving can grow. i would consider that as being beyond the experience of love.
Ok, but you don't literally mean that the chemical bond or dependency on the chemical bond exceed the experience of love or vise versa?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
ok, ahnimus, i didn't read through the 30 pagers of this but i have a question for you, because i believe this is a terrible thread title...
if there is no God, no higher power even, if we are all just products of our environment, straight up chemical reactions that can think...
in your world...its ok to kill? right? its ok to abuse others...we are just chemical reactions and we can do whatever we want...what holds you back, right? its nature's way, the fittest of the fittest shall survive. is that what you are saying...
ok, ahnimus, i didn't read through the 30 pagers of this but i have a question for you, because i believe this is a terrible thread title...
if there is no God, no higher power even, if we are all just products of our environment, straight up chemical reactions that can think...
in your world...its ok to kill? right? its ok to abuse others...we are just chemical reactions and we can do whatever we want...what holds you back, right? its nature's way, the fittest of the fittest shall survive. is that what you are saying...
Nope, quite the contrary. What I'm saying is that incidents of murder and abuse need to be thoroughly investigated. We need to identify the underlying root causes of murder and abuse in order to prevent them from happening.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nope, quite the contrary. What I'm saying is that incidents of murder and abuse need to be thoroughly investigated. We need to identify the underlying root causes of murder and abuse in order to prevent them from happening.
I agree with that, the root causes of murder can be traced directly to capitalism, nationalism, religion or crimes of passion, 99% of the time.
What I don't get is why do you care? if there is no after life, no reason to live a "good" life, why should you?
I agree with that, the root causes of murder can be traced directly to capitalism, nationalism, religion or crimes of passion, 99% of the time.
What I don't get is why do you care? if there is no after life, no reason to live a "good" life, why should you?
Evolution of our species. If we can progress, we can survive.
And who knows, in 20 years, they guess they'll be able to extend human life by 40 years, and it will increase exponentially to the point I will live to be 1,000 years old.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Evolution of our species. If we can progress, we can survive.
And who knows, in 20 years, they guess they'll be able to extend human life by 40 years, and it will increase exponentially to the point I will live to be 1,000 years old.
Simple matter of procreation. that's the extent of your plan? and that's progress?
as it stands the human race is having no problems doing that.
I assume you want what's best for everyone. And that you have the ability to empathize. I believe that ability to be more than just a product of chemical reactions and our synapses flashing in our brains, more than the sum of all our parts, hence a possible explanation of a higher power. the ability to empathize.
Simple matter of procreation. that's the extent of your plan? and that's progress?
as it stands the human race is having no problems doing that.
Not currently, but there are signs of moral collapse as we are moving towards global federation, we need a moral system that everyone can agree on. We need to eliminate old dogmas and I feel, in respect of science, formulate new moral guidelines.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
As does the dogmatic science mind. Only then can we grasp integrated intelligence. This either or imbalanced stuff is part of the evolution.
I doubt that the perfect state is a 50/50 split. I'd favor 70/30 for science. Overly religious people have kooky tendencies and comprehension difficulties sometimes. I think it's possible religion could very well eventually turn into fokelore.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
As does the dogmatic science mind. Only then can we grasp integrated intelligence. This either or imbalanced stuff is part of the evolution.
I think it's called Buddhism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Why do we need labels? And why do people have to choose a camp?
Is it not enough to keep an open mind and take on board or reject the information as it comes up?
I doubt that the perfect state is a 50/50 split. I'd favor 70/30 for science. Overly religious people have kooky tendencies and comprehension difficulties sometimes. I think it's possible religion could very well eventually turn into fokelore.
According to the developmental psychologists, even when there is much disagreement on points, there is underlying agreement across the board that each group with corresponding worldview must naturally evolve on it's own to higher levels at a natural pace. According to one prominant map of these levels, both the fundamental religion view, and the logic/scientific world view are 3 and 2 stages away from what is considered an integrated worldview. The hallmark of a view that is not at the integrated level is the belief that other views are "wrong". At the integrated levels, one recognizes the validity for all stages of evolution and that each stage must be preserved for the healthy evolution of those moving through that stage. Those with integrated awareness, having progressed through the other stages, recognize that evolution consists of progression, and that one stage cannot leap to another. Also at the integrated levels, individuals have evolved through the prior levels and can moved through any and all of them when such a mindset is called upon, thusly fully using the strengths of all stages. Again, the polarized stages consisting of right/wrong views are....polarized and thereby not integrated.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Why do we need labels? And why do people have to choose a camp?
Is it not enough to keep an open mind and take on board or reject the information as it comes up?
people have to choose a camp becaus not doing so is failing to find yourself, and address what it is that you believe.
open mind schmopen mind. one man's "information" is another man's propoganda. i don't work well in the middle, i know what i believe and i want to debate the fundamentals....i'm not good at singin' koombyah
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
people have to choose a camp becaus not doing so is failing to find yourself, and address what it is that you believe.
Hey you! I owe you an email! I'll get right on that!
So back to the thread.
What if neither camp has managed to "nail it" for you?
I don't see not choosing as "failing to find" myself or not addressing what I believe. I believe that you shouldn't follow anything too close to the prescribed doctrines. AND that things change over time. So what I believe today may not be what I believe tomorrow. BUT I need to be the one to make those decisions. Picking a camp, and sticking with it, is giving over one's ability to evolve as an individual.
open mind schmopen mind. one man's "information" is another man's propoganda. i don't work well in the middle, i know what i believe and i want to debate the fundamentals....i'm not good at singin' koombyah
True, but surely the idea is to inform oneself to the best of one's ability and to accept or reject information as you reason along? AND feel?
Aahh koombuyah!!
THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD NEEDS!!!! :D
A bit of unity!!! Some hand clapping, singing and acceptance!!
Comments
I disagree with you. Recent experiments by Paul Zak have shown that even when two people are anonymous and aren't directly in contact with each other, they display trust and have high levels of oxytocin in their blood. His experiments used participants seated behind computers. Half of the participants group A were given a sum of money into their account, Group B was given nothing. It was up to Group A to transfer as much as they want to group B and in doing to the amount was multiplied. So if they transfered $30, person in Group B would receive something like $60, then person from Group B could transfer as much as they want back. Most Group A participants transferred the entire amount to Group B, and the majority of Group B transferred half back, maximizing the mutual benefit, these people marked highest for Oxytocin. Some did not transfer much at all, there is a biochemical explanation for that too. The chemicals involved in biochemistry are quite numerous and may explain all behavior if looked at optimistically.
I'd like to establish that I believe in thermodynamics and the natural laws. To convince me that something is more than the sum of it's parts, it will require some kind of physical evidence. I've brought to the table a theory about some evidence and the theories I've heard seem only to discount the evidence and fail to introduce any new evidence to which these new theories arise. You are welcome to explore Paul Zak's experiments, findings and credibility as much as you'd like. You are welcome to develop your own theories as to what this evidence means. You are also welcome to bring new evidence to the discussion and new theories about such evidence. But, how should I interpret statements that seek only to undermine my theories without introducing any new facts or theories themselves?
If we can establish that the experiences we have are a result of biochemistry and the chemical levels correspond with experience. Then the suggestion that the experience is more than the chemicals would have to introduce new physical evidence that contributes to the overall experience. Social trust is already attributed to oxytocin.
Yeah, I'm sorry Ryan, I understand what you are saying here, but why do you have to whittle all the good stuff in life down to cold, hard fact? Perhaps it is as you say, perhaps it all gets down to chemicals somehow in the end, and maybe it is just weak mindedness on my part to choose to believe that something else is happening. You are certainly entitled to your views. But, frankly life is shitty enough. So I choose to go with the good stuff, to feel, to believe, to have faith and to just go with it and enjoy it. And at least that way I can enjoy the best of people. And not be looking at them as a chemical cocktail that I HAVE to HAVE. Just as you reason it is all chemical and brain activity based on chemicals, I reason that there is connection. Perhaps it's the same thing. Who knows? But I prefer looking at it from my perspective, to be honest. At least that way people can feel special. And people can feel connected. And connection is a powerful, powerful thing.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
again with the experiments.
my experiments have found a cure for cancer. under the law; i cannot make this claim. until the compound can be isolated in a lab and reproduced sythetically; i can't say a word.
that being said; i will admitt that the "experience" causes the biochemistry and the change in chemical levels. i do not have a change in chemical levels and thus become attracted to a woman; instead; i am attracted to a woman and thus the chemical levels change. i'm not questioning the experiment; only the way it was interpreted.
for example; one who does not believe in God will look at evolution as the beginning of life; while a religious person will tell you that God created evolution.
people find what they are looking for. we both look at the same study and see different results. you see a chemical reaction creating an experience and i see an experience creating a chemical reaction.
i respect your views and opinions; i just don't agree with them.
Thank you.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Actually, the interaction causes the chemicals which causes the experiences. The physical stimuli cause the chemicals which cause the experience, or sensation of Love.
It's actually only a matter of belief if you choose not to believe in reality.
and as for the religion thing. if you feel you need that in your life then great. be my guest. some of us are quite content knowing that we can get by without faith in something that can't be proven.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
How does it "grow into something more"?
it grows into dependence. and yes ahnimus, that is a chemical dependence i believe. it's like a drug. otherwise why would it physically hurt when that stimulus is taken from us?
listen ryan, we're on the same side here.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ok, so you don't literally mean that the experience of love grows beyond the chemicals, rather the chemicals grow with the experience. Correct?
i wouldn't say the chemicals grow, no. i would say our dependence upon them grows. if we are denied love then we crave it. that craving can grow. i would consider that as being beyond the experience of love.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ok, but you don't literally mean that the chemical bond or dependency on the chemical bond exceed the experience of love or vise versa?
if there is no God, no higher power even, if we are all just products of our environment, straight up chemical reactions that can think...
in your world...its ok to kill? right? its ok to abuse others...we are just chemical reactions and we can do whatever we want...what holds you back, right? its nature's way, the fittest of the fittest shall survive. is that what you are saying...
Nope, quite the contrary. What I'm saying is that incidents of murder and abuse need to be thoroughly investigated. We need to identify the underlying root causes of murder and abuse in order to prevent them from happening.
What I don't get is why do you care? if there is no after life, no reason to live a "good" life, why should you?
Evolution of our species. If we can progress, we can survive.
And who knows, in 20 years, they guess they'll be able to extend human life by 40 years, and it will increase exponentially to the point I will live to be 1,000 years old.
Simple matter of procreation. that's the extent of your plan? and that's progress?
as it stands the human race is having no problems doing that.
Not currently, but there are signs of moral collapse as we are moving towards global federation, we need a moral system that everyone can agree on. We need to eliminate old dogmas and I feel, in respect of science, formulate new moral guidelines.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I doubt that the perfect state is a 50/50 split. I'd favor 70/30 for science. Overly religious people have kooky tendencies and comprehension difficulties sometimes. I think it's possible religion could very well eventually turn into fokelore.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I think it's called Buddhism.
Is it not enough to keep an open mind and take on board or reject the information as it comes up?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
people have to choose a camp becaus not doing so is failing to find yourself, and address what it is that you believe.
open mind schmopen mind. one man's "information" is another man's propoganda. i don't work well in the middle, i know what i believe and i want to debate the fundamentals....i'm not good at singin' koombyah
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Ahnimus, what do you think of this?
scroll down click go...
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/freewill1.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hey you!
So back to the thread.
What if neither camp has managed to "nail it" for you?
I don't see not choosing as "failing to find" myself or not addressing what I believe. I believe that you shouldn't follow anything too close to the prescribed doctrines. AND that things change over time. So what I believe today may not be what I believe tomorrow. BUT I need to be the one to make those decisions. Picking a camp, and sticking with it, is giving over one's ability to evolve as an individual.
True, but surely the idea is to inform oneself to the best of one's ability and to accept or reject information as you reason along? AND feel?
Aahh koombuyah!!
THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD NEEDS!!!!
A bit of unity!!! Some hand clapping, singing and acceptance!!
All together now!!
Koombuyah, my lord, koombuyah!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift