- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXRat, I commend you. I had you all wrong. You, my friend, are on the right path. Keep thinking and searching....you will find what you are looking for.
Originally posted by David Cr@p
[b]Heaven forfend that your ego should be shattered to discover there is no higher purpose to your existence. Why can't it simply be a matter of enjoying your reality, and maybe reproduce along the way? Why try to attach some deeper significance to it all? For all you know, you might be a meat animal on an abandoned farm ...[text shortened]... cuse this post for being long and a little scattered - I'm tired from a thru-the-night shift...
🙂
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBut when enough people want to shove Creationism or ID down
Originally posted by RatX
[b]1. Man has no more intrinsic value than a smart ape or a cow in a suburban herd and will ultimately die and be recycled into the ecosystem
2. There is no right and wrong (the only law is gravity, survival and ultimate death)
3. Man has no free will (all man is doing is acting to bio-chemical reactions dictated by ...[text shortened]... as we know, it could be the method that a god or other powerful being used to create the world.
your throat against your will, it becomes a political force in spite of
its acknowledged anti-science stance flying in the face of all the
evidence anyone in their right mind could see as valid.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by sonhouse[/b]But when evolution is shoved down your throat against your will at schools, universities, the media and chess forums, it becomes a a political force in spite its lack of indisputable proof.
But when enough people want to shove Creationism or ID down
your throat against your will, it becomes a political force in spite of
its acknowledged anti-science stance flying in the face of all the
evidence anyone in their right mind could see as valid.
And when has Creationism ever acknowledged its anti-science stance? Where the hell did you shovel this manure from?
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatX1.) Schools and universities teach the sciences and humanities. Of course you're going to learn about evolution in the schools. And things relating to God, if any, would fit into the humanities category...which is where all religion classes and things such as "The Bible as Literature" come in, and various mythology courses.
But when evolution is shoved down your throat against your will at schools, universities, the media and chess forums, it becomes a a political force in spite its lack of indisputable proof.
And when has Creationism ever acknowledged its anti-science stance? Where the hell did you shovel this manure from?
As for the media and these forums, both represent personal interests....
2.) Creationism doesn't have to "acknowledge its anti-science stance" when the proponents of creationism and intelligent design have selected a specific scientific theory and demanded that either that theory cease being taught or that they get some story time during those science classes that are trying to teach life science.
This would be like me protesting an English class because it spends a section on British Literature and I want the class to be taught the alternatives, like "Amadis de Gaule" (a famous piece of Spanish literature).
Or perhaps forming a group to complain that physical education courses don't do enough to cover things like the video game "Dance Dance Revolution" or sex as alternative means of exercise.
07 Oct 05
Originally posted by echeceroWell, except that sex really is exercise.
1.) Schools and universities teach the sciences and humanities. Of course you're going to learn about evolution in the schools. And things relating to God, if any, would fit into the humanities category...which is where all religion classes and things such as "The Bible as Literature" come in, and various mythology courses.
As for the media and these ...[text shortened]... r things like the video game "Dance Dance Revolution" or sex as alternative means of exercise.
08 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXThanks for your reply. A couple things about your view confuse me.
Bbarr, I appreciate your perspective and I see you've put plenty of thought behind it. You're right that all these things are real, but when it comes to their value, I don't want to be living under false assumptions - in that I want to know that I choose my love, I sustain it by will. If I were to discover that my wife is a droid (pre-programmed to love), it ...[text shortened]... n because I have a theory and faith in something that gives me more answers and purpose in life.
You say that you want to choose your love and sustain it by will. But, at least with me, I have never chosen to love anybody. I have chosen to treat a person well, even though I didn't particularly like them, but even this choice derived from my character, over which I have little explicit control. I have never engaged in some process of deliberation that yielded the conclusion "I henceforth choose to love my wife". My wife and I found ourselves attracted to one another, and neither chose this. After a bit, we found ourselves quite fond of one another, and neither chose this. We know find ourselves in love with one another, and neither of us can remember any time when we chose to fall in love. Although we sustain our love in various delightful ways, it would be a mistake to think that either of us could simply choose to stop sustaining our love, or (absurdly) choose to no longer love the other. I mean, if we could simply choose to love another person, or choose to stop loving another person, then the world would be strikingly different. Think of the heartache that would be avoided in such a world. If my wife were to leave me, I wouldn't pine away in isolation, I wouldn't become depressed, I wouldn't need any downtime before another relationship. I could simply choose to stop loving her and be done with it. What I think you have done is hyper-intellectualize love. Seriously, just try for an instant to not love your wife. Obviously, this is something you can't do. Now, why does this fact diminish love, in your view. It seems to me to glorify love, that it is something we can't simply choose to fall in and out of. Think about the phrase "to fall in love". People don't choose to fall. Falling is something that happens to us, it is not an act that we deliberately engage in. There is something to this surface grammar.
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrI agree with a lot of what you say and perhaps I didn't make myself very clear...
Thanks for your reply. A couple things about your view confuse me.
You say that you want to choose your love and sustain it by will. But, at least with me, I have never chosen to love anybody. I have chosen to treat a person well, even though I didn't particularly like them, but even this choice derived from my character, over which I have litt ...[text shortened]... s, it is not an act that we deliberately engage in. There is something to this surface grammar.
I agree that there are plenty of chemical reactions that lead to love - that stuff you feel at first sight, heartbeat racing and pupils dilating etc. This is part of what keeps love exciting and fun.
I don't mean to imply that one simply "decides" to love someone, a lot of things must encourage you to love (she has to love you too and be pretty and all that jazz). But love would be very shallow if it were only driven by chemical reactions (which can usually be called, infatuation or being smitten) because what happens when those feelings wear off (during a week of PMS) or, as it often happens, redirected (either at another woman or a magazine). I believe that love has to a lot with decisions and will - you decide that you will love this woman, no matter what (if she gets ugly, bitchy or fat).
There are many decisions that sustain love - it's not a single "I decide to love you" - but rather becomes a state of being (because of decision-driven principles). Love is deeper than sex or "feelings". I suppose one of the reasons marriages break up so often, is because people place too much value on feelings and sex and when these wear off, they don't decide to keep the marriage going. Love is too complex, paranormal and unscientific to intellectualize, but I know it's deeper than chemical reactions.
I would also like to know my wife has chosen me (above my competition: Tom Cruise or Jude Law) and keeps loving me despite my way of "killing the chemical reactions and mood" 😀
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXAh. This post explains a lot. Thank you, RatX, for sharing. Now that I understand that love isn't an emotion ("feeling"😉 for you, but rather an active chore which allows you to continue a relationship with someone when you stop caring for them because they become unattractive (physically, emotionally, or behaviorally), it makes understanding your faith with your God and His love make much more sense.
I don't mean to imply that one simply "decides" to love someone, a lot of things must encourage you to love (she has to love you too and be pretty and all that jazz). But love would be very shallow if it were only driven by chemical reactions (which can usually be called, infatuation or being smitten) because what happens when those feelings wear off (during ...[text shortened]... you decide that you will love this woman, no matter what (if she gets ugly, bitchy or fat). ...
Since I operate on the assumption that love is an emotional that is lasting, my view of things involving love are much different.
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by echeceroUh, nope... Love is a state of being. It involves emotions and decisions.
Ah. This post explains a lot. Thank you, RatX, for sharing. Now that I understand that love isn't an emotion ("feeling"😉 for you, but rather an active chore which allows you to continue a relationship with someone when you stop caring for them because they become unattractive (physically, emotionally, or behaviorally), it makes understanding your faith w ...[text shortened]... ove is an emotional that is lasting, my view of things involving love are much different.
09 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXWell, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm still confused about your main contention. You started off claiming that if man were merely matter, then we couldn't make sense of the importance and value of love. I responded that even if man were merely matter, love wouldn't lose any of its importance or value, because we would still take it seriously in our lives and our deliberations. You responded that we couldn't make sense of the choice to love, if man were merely matter. I responded that love isn't a choice, though the sustaining of it involved making choices. But now here we are back again. I can explain the making of these choices based upon considerations of character. That is, I can explain my choice to sustain my love by referring to the way that choice flows from my character. Even if my character, which has proved remarkably consistent over the years, is, at some level of description, purely the result of physical processes, that fact is entirely irrelevant to the choices I make, the way I live my life, and the importance I attach to my love. Nothing whatever follows about the importance of love from the fact (if it is a fact) that we are merely made of matter. You say you know that love is deeper than chemical reactions. The response is this: You may have a somewhat impoverished view of what chemical reactions are capable of. That is not an insult, it is just a plausible response that will be made by anyone who doesn't share your view. They will simply deny that you have identified any property of love that is inconsistent with our being merely matter. At the end of the day, you'll still need to provide some reason for thinking that physical states and processes can't legitimately be considered of extreme importance, or purposeful, or valuable. I'm not sure what sort of reason you could provide in support of this claim.
I agree with a lot of what you say and perhaps I didn't make myself very clear...
I agree that there are plenty of chemical reactions that lead to love - that stuff you feel at first sight, heartbeat racing and pupils dilating etc. This is part of what keeps love exciting and fun.
I don't mean to imply that one simply "decides" to love someone, a lot ...[text shortened]... r Jude Law) and keeps loving me despite my way of "killing the chemical reactions and mood" 😀
Take care,