DarkAngel_

Ok, WIP you have an advanced debate here, same with pliny. if i may, a point made was very much subject in a disorder called 'derealization' in psychology. i suffer from it and it is not well studied... but i know allot around it, Derealization is a subjective experience of unreality, like a dream or foggishness of the outside world. though often thought and questioned as being 'in-senq' with depersonalization, often it is only the ladder. i quote from wikipedia "The main reason for this is nosological, because these symptoms often co-occur, but there is another reason of great philosophical importance, namely, that the phenomenological experience of self, others, and world is one continuous whole." my point? saying self, others, and world are not one, and not interpreting self, others, and world as one, (by a skewed perception.) are two separate statements. the soul as defined (thoughts and personality) living on as a stable packet of information is universally false 'if' you state it is still alive... (because it is one whole, in flux.) this is other-worldlyness and as an aesthetic view can only be taken as a belief. but the soul as this information only being changed and altered? that is more believable but is still just as aesthetic and made as a belief. so what is a soul? first one must backtrack to a more simple philosophical look at the actions of survival made by man compared to the meaning, as a means to survival it is a paper saint! great for those who believe it but in terms of existentialism it is futile. (as most atheists are existentialists) so to terminate the more nihilistic view of atheism that most try to point out, atheism calls this 'mind.' the soul is a well definable feature for open discussions and reassurance of our own survival. i see this as pointless, the 'i am the only me.' statement gives the presents of now an encumbering and often sobering hint to those who believe in the soul as defined. our brains are made up of many folds and holds chemical energy as well as electro-chemical energy that is dispersed at death... does it prove we go to any other world as in heaven or nirvana? or is it a change in form. strangely i think we are all a part of the same thing, a universe of space-time, all matter, energy, momentum, physical laws, and constants that govern them. no debate. so the appeal of the other choices are less... poetic, i find the thought of a christian soul being too small a thing to ones self, soul as defined is true unless religiously due to energy/matter laws of relativity, constants and causality. (due to the energy/matter still being Intra-universal, though theories of Inter-universal transportation of energy/matter are still in study and research today.) look at the WMAP image from NASA, it shows a big bang and look... a beginning hints toward many things, science is into disproving piece by piece... or i am at least. as for the young earth thing? intelligent design is corrective but so is Darwinism, but is that god?... i like to think not, the universe being intelligent is a no brainer but it being a deity or entity? naaa, but i bet its confusing as hell and we might as well call it god... but as a strong atheist i'd not dare, it is not as simple as a god or a collection of ideals made by a human interpretation of simple arithmetic or bureaucratical orthodoxy. by definition it is an enigma. if so then it is infinitely so and constantly in a flux, that of which forebodes a completely unknowable complexity to it's matrix or whatever otherwise makes up its complexities. as a basic look i think its easier to see it as a collective organization, but thinking about the way i see it has no meaning of words i can put together without it sounding like pure belief. last point: no god as worshiped by its people exists as a deity of universal control (again as defined) but a people as the mass have a control that defines them as a demi-god, but only that mass of people. example: 100m people worship 'Ophella' and are 3 countries, 26m people worship 'Dectror' and are one. two of the 3 countries openly have insulted those who worship 'Dectror'. in essense 'Ophella' insulted 'Dectror' so he went to war with 'Ophella.' in short if those worshipers insulted are more likely to turn to violence, then they have a violent god. personality of it's people reflect there god. please disagree freely

lol i know, but would it change if i asked instead should i be allowed to be atheist? a more conservative look on putting church in a news room shows that though people are more accepting then they used to be, they are also more prone to violence, and hurtful remarks. (atheists of outrage put aside) existentialism is widely accepted as a moral code for the common atheist but there seems to be a 'big bad wolf' in the media's outlook of an atheist, that is called nihilistic, sadistic, or materialistic... none of which is true... while attending a church function a dogmatic doctrine was established in the sermon, that, 'god is loving and pities the lost.' but contradicted later by adding that, 'atheism is a sin and will be punished on the day of judgment.' that day i heard several people speak about strong atheism being satanic or crudely influenced by a leftist agenda meant to break people's faith... people are delusional. atheism is being slandered by 'he-said shes-said,' they are being prosecuted by peers in the manner of small town alienation, paranoia, and execution of harassment planned before the fact, and it is only common in remote areas which middle class communities have to thrive on these rumors and acts of borderline oppression. point: do these people have that right as free people, or do atheists have the freedom to thrive.

after this video was made and released many band members were threated and virbally attacked. "when the song was originally released as a single many record shops refused to stock the track, fearing a religious backlash." (via wikipedia) And one man who DJed this song on his radio station was almost struck on a news program on CNN... my issue is i am atheist and I'm being prosecuted by civil insult, threats, hate, the contradiction of a god, his son, and the holy ghost and communion there of. Christ had a great message not many follow especially the Christians, just as Buddha. the Muslim belief is frightful but... respectable if not taken literally and if taken as an honorable religion. Jews have an ancient doctrine that has obedience but as we see is changing... all of them are, and those that do not modernize (abolish dogma) will diminish. the cause of freedom outweighs dogma. the problem is; is it ethical to prosecute these atheists for voicing 'weak' atheism, should outraged Christian's who attack, be prosecuted. (my opinion, no and no.)

look at the current GM situation, jobs will be paid out and replaced by a pay cut for laborer's (of less pay) from $28 PH to $14 PH. due to not modernizing. hydrogen cell technology is advanced but still sketchy to consumers. affordability to poor lower-mid.class families... who dominate the world population of car owners, is just not there. if the issues of economy are focused and the people who are suffering acting on these issues... even then there's more red tape and road blocks to get through to keep our livelihood and quality of life running smoothly, but without ease everyone in the market is panicking even in the S&P. so my question is how can those who make ridiculously large amounts of money, deserve it? that is company money over used and abused. the fast lane is saturated in money, but its useless without the resource to back it. A Brittney Spears video adding up to a $1M price tag is unjustified. :angry:

yay! star trek! if only replicators were real, "chicken sub wrap toasted, with mustard." then boom! goodbye hunger!!! but alas that tech is non existent right now, I'm sure there is progression to that field but hunger is an issue, and that 'pinch' is hard to get out of, more like a 'vice.' overpopulation in relation with money? i think resource is a more viable issue, not all resources are counted by our economy because not all are found or tap-able.

you misunderstand, lobbyists based activity show a high thresh hold to greed, MP's that do, are lobbyists...

i really don't see why we even allow lobbyists power! why not give every politician a set amount of money, it would show how good they are with money... also Serj Tankians idea of allowing people to look at what taxes go where and checking the box they want a majority of it going to is very American, i think lobbyist firms are a waste of time, money, and dumb half hour debates on returns that often mean a change in political agenda to benefit a single corp. or industry.

There are... and in those others is merit of action that moral value does not allow resolution... it is like bad traffic and politics. lobbyist this, corrupt that, with a touch of unmade promise's. not to mention the greed. things deplete, we move on, but less like a plague is our adaption and recycling of resources that will serve and survive. we will 'adapt' so long as we do not overgrow, and help life prosper in equality as is most 'scientific' goals. and of other animals? we have been putting effort into helping them, but the fight will always linger, some are stubborn but a majority has developed and intends on protecting the majesty of an ever evolving earth, it will never really die in truth. and in science the only relevancy is to be proven wrong, to have theory be built into fact from a philosophy and be understood empirically. that's why i fell in love with theoretical physics because physicists are proven wrong daily, stuck on the brink of literally pulling ones eyes out from the intense stress this kind of, 'writers block' can cause. i have great faith in those great thinkers. it is a proof man has more then desire to power, we will it to be! as do animals and it cannot be forcibly removed as a trait... but then again power comes with maintenance... then it becomes leadership, it then comes with responsibility beyond excuses to keep letting the other forms of life down. people are just becoming aware of it more then any other generation, and for that we have created something greater of ourselves for the future generations to act upon. the question is, will they take the same measures further when they are elected, will they vote for energy smarts? preservation of animal rights? and the maintaining of liberty by the peoples...? there's a good chance. if we have the power to be rise beyond defunctory, then we will, if not; then power will overcome power.

here is a good point, the actions that lessen us also make us more vulnerable. if we act to diminish human value we diminish solitary value, for which animals as ourselves depend on to contribute to the collective life on this planet. i think when the quality of our goods go south we go with the quality, its basic relativity. (and nice quotes they are particularly likable.) always think off into hermitism as well, a lone person can be 'collective' and a bit unaffected, if the issue discussed goes unsolved people will become weak, its true for animals so its true for us no doubt. the way a thing is, is no doubt against its future prediction, just the state by which its becoming.

i see, this is an easy thing to see but what is hard is the alternating differences, humans that cannot adapt die off via many a stance by nature... i agree about dull predators being 'over cultivated' but i disagree as to the path. man is a bridge, and our actions will be overcome by a surviving few, as with the saying, 'the needs of the few sometimes out-ways the needs of the many.' and many a human being sacrifice themselves and become examples of this corrupt pollutant where the human diminishes. in experience the point i make is things are loosing there naturallity in our eye only because even the most pure amongst us is just a modification of past suffering or poisoning which will always be a contributing factor in the downfall of men, but not in the downfall of humanity in general, our actions have spread gravely yes and if you've read 'operation firestorm' which is a theory of migrational war, then yes it will cause conflict to be too influential without a good outcome, cutting the human presence for being on this earth in half, but things will form the way they must. life is not exclusive, cruelty is not exclusive... only the lasting breathe and words spoken, Platonism is wrong in the assumption of the soul, but more importantly, in the 'regaining' of knowledge, you see as observers relativity claims great right explaining how similar we are to lesser intelligent life, and how close to natural effects we are, look at our actions and tell me it is no 'storm' in result... we are only the makeup of incredible forces, stuff, and energy. if animals change due to us, then the many are to blame but i for one of the few, think im not to blame for such actions... being blind means no time, and to much of a mind, i justify nothing, but if it is not empirically measurable for its worth, then it is a low sort of worth. animals should be treated according to there species, a chicken with thankfulness, cow as well, lion with cation, camel with ladency... and a child with new experiences. we will always be apart of that choice more-so, because we are not plant or animal, we are us and cannot be any other. and we are not guided....

wow this does sound like soilant green. i agree with that statement which is why we used to own chickens, happy chickens=good eggs. i have seen what happens to chickens not allowed to womp around, its disturbing, that's why i am a fan of serj tankians ideals but i am also a fan of the use of natural laws of predatory nature like A: predators are more intelligent due to the need to focus on the hunt. it is why we are protein seekers. but again you surprise me, your position is valid but very... fickle, what is your position exactly? to sum it up.

Diversifying the pallet helps very much i agree, but a small increase in other meats would help with our health as well. fish holds allot of healthy fats like omega-3, wines and certain juices with antioxidants, polyphenols, as well as other highly regarded preventive and fortifying minerals would also help reduce heath issues. the more well prepared the food the better, no doubt fast = fat, i noticed my friend from the Philippines whom is a chef often makes the best and healthiest foods (tangerines and duck....mmmmmm) but overall that's why home made meals are recommended, even with money being tight it can be fun to make a good diner with a recipe from experimentation, since it is a science. my common snack is a gala apple but as a fast food eater i've noticed that confusingly an issue comes to mind: it is proven that people eat what is most available plus the other altering factors to list, fast food is more available so people on the go get fast food. i think these companies are cruel yes but then again the idea is good, 'fast food' is helpful. but making it healthful is hard. helping moral issues is important, so keeping a happy farm is needed being a farm boy myself, so the issue stands and sides should stay on there sides in order to keep the fight and let it form to the most efficient form.

well unfortunately again i stress we don't act as collectively as people think, industry will still raise and people will eat what is readily available to them, it is natural suvivalism (minus the wilderness.) but i do think more fish oriented places of the fast food industry may help kick the curb on red meat consumption. that and chicken but there is too much animal cruelty there as well... in need of minor reform (i signed the peda-2 petition against KFC... i miss fried chicken.)

interestingly, the 'dying hair blond' trend is not common in politics...on contare: they are just blond! well no wonder!

now this i can agree with, but my q is what is a better alternative that does not cost much? unfortunately due to economy scares we cannot change much. (i have no idea what could be changed to help) thoughts any one??? i say open field farming! happy chickens taste happier!

given my heritage i agree to there great great grandfathers and ancestors but a hand me down drunk is still a drunk, and all to many haven't made the choice to change, i live by a res and i know the effect alcohol has on crime with natives, and gang iconisism does not help it. he made a wrong choice and as an adult should have his own justice. that also means redeeming his action through accepting punishment for the death of those young children... 'white man's poison' is only called so due to native excuses to blame and excuse there actions... i am native, ive been drunk, but i am no alcoholic and i would accept punishment for anything 'I' did.

that's hilarious... reminds me of a 'Harvey bird man: attorney at law' episode. "the mashed potato's are peeeeeeoplllllle! "*licks finger* nope, its just potato's....sorry!" something akin to that, has anyone heard of the giant potato? they dry them out and send the dry powder to Africa apparently... i'll see if i can find an article.

Again you surprise me with soft words, for that I've great respect. but to make clear: i have no hell-thought of a 'havoc filled' or 'cruel world' as i have none for my 'before sunrise' and 'admiring majesty's' as i would hold no such thought of the comforts... we are as cultivated as we seem to be and we are falsely secure. as it must be, nature see's things as just a usable resource... bleeding out 15 miles from civilization. i know what hell it can be, but i marvel at it! i love that i realized nature would take you or me just as readily as a leaf... no bias. there is 'beyond good and evil' and in this proposition of argument, the immutable man seems less esteemed to me. life is cruel, beautiful, and becoming of itself; chaotic, passionate, and free... of all that... it loves. the eggs i see being lifted are wholesome here, man has will to be free of destruction until it is decided by us to end... unfortunately for those who suffer this is a collective thought/choice that happens over so much time... those who say no may will there survival of that down fall, this doom-say is not absolute. the answer is simple, we are not enough of ourselves to know...yet. or speak collectively. animals have that same role and they have the same will, ours may be more powerful because of opposable thumbs, nice hard-wired brain, and looking incredibly handsome look but hey, they sacrifice as we do, no? we stepped away from primality, and into 'seeing' the song play. but science will find a truth that connects it irrefutably... but this is off subject so i apologize to those who read, disappointingly.

fish leads the way in feeding our protein appetite. so smart farming = well fed. i mean wow scientists are even looking into turning trout and salmon vegetarian relying off from feed-like food only... very good news for Africa if it succeeds,as it seems to be doing! watched a video on C-Span 2 on their efforts, as well as the 'quick and large' growing wheat's and other produce. as for our "agrarian origins." it is now a different stage, time, dynamic, and number of which we live it so going back is unwise as even a thought for solution, in truth only 'close to human extinction' would revert us to such an origin as defined. but overall a better control of livestock and our farming methods would put a good dent on waste, hunger, and the effect on creatures consumed... and i agree about human impact being the most influential... like swarms of locust to give as example, often other animals that are bigger have environmental impact by numbers more then action... contact alone is natural but when it causes other creatures to disappear? things could go wrong very slowly, but if we are lucky its noticeable, and fixable. (cruelty is often a natural attribute of even the most beautiful things, i was left for dead in the woods once, i should know.)

well this topic is odd because i could die 100 life times and still see a case worth a Buddhists starving for protest... and a few sound... well... delusional... well ill start by saying hi to cybercoma, long time no hear from, and to quote: do i detect communism?! interesting... but yeah vegginism is not natural, its 'non-harming' more like a doctrine... but i like meat and being a human as well. and Muddy that's just mean! we are observers of worldly things and without heart for what is beautiful, no measure of meat or cloth is deserved, 'if you feed happy cattle they give good milk.' my great grandfather would say, as well as guiding a line of green beans up a fencing helped it grow more fruitful... but i digress meat is good and i like to think we do try to keep it in stock, but we are not barbarians as you make it sound, so: "bad muddy, we do that outside" *points at pretend puddle * and Oleg Bach i found your response... well odd. our ancestors were retarded by there immediate situation, (also they were a bunch of drunks! lol beer...) the only barrier being breached is human opinion and human cruelty, a common thing from idiots with no eyes watching them to call them deviants and bad people... all that's needed is an area of control and the temptation to do the unspeakable 'behind closed doors' case closed. science never said what is insinuated, those are opinions and actions of this caliber are done from the hands of know 'self-forgivers.' religion is no reason to put a cat in a room and say 'i deserve to take care of you...' that is naive. (not to mention creepy sounding) your belief is well founded and noted, but not taken by me grant you, though if translated i get it and somewhat agree minus the other stuff (don't insult science for fact before asking it for its proofs.) truth is, science is deduction, and morality is built up... it is not scientists obligation to state opinions on moral issues like if a cow being tipped is cruel even if the ability for them to get up is just fine... that's why we are here! don't you feel jolly and warm inside like a fuzzy stuffed animal oh, beg you pardon lol. (and we are animals... not debatable just boring.) is that where that dog came from????LOL just kidding, oh i love to laugh. Rue i agree mostly, my great grandpa was Cherokee/Mohawk so he followed a similar belief note i do not wish to dictate belief or opinion. but what is beyond the good and evil of it? there is always 2 sides or more, and no one wins, but that does not make it futile just boring. if anything guidelines should be kept in place but no, sheep rape still happens occasionally and veggins still hate us for eating red meat, or any meat for that matter. but what do i know I'm just an ageist in a unique circumstance... debating 1 simple thing.... when do i get my stake!!!

Well i could not help looking at this topic with some humor as it adds up a valid point: how can one appear the way they want and not be deceived by others whom change appearances. (hence daddy saying 'those aren't the genes i wanted!') By example the question then leads me to think of early creationism belief, that you should be left the way 'god made you' even if you are ridiculously hideous beyond repair. but with this being put to the extreme think of it as such for a moment: should you keep your obnoxiously huge and ugly face or should you get that nose job and be superficial and materialist like every other American around me... don't worry i love my country (USA all the way) but without flaunting this question around like a new cancer or metabolic disease (me being a pharmaceutical company) i'll gift you you my point, a*) hair color due to race is often an attraction based trait, just as facial and other attractive qualities i'd be sued by the FCC for mentioning and we often mate in our racial circles or similar racial circles showing as how inter racial couples are not as common as most think globally. b*) due to the lack of being in sequence with our naturally occurring 'attractive selection' most don't care what their real hair color is... let alone their childrens. c*) no one wants to be alone in this world so loves a factor and i do think appearance alteration is unnatural, but not wrong. note everyone on this block would live a whole lot happier if the local Wal-mart did not look like a circus (though its nice to have a world with variety). reality is; some like the way they look, others don't care, don't care enough, or are not that rich. so the last thing to actually be answered is: if blond is trendy, is it due to culturalization? does it matter? no. people are people and hoping you can be a blond does not make you stronger, just a moron, or in the least moronic as not to insult. so for tonight i will grant that it is used for beauty often, but it does not matter, i will press toward a more intelligent reason for discussing hair color. (rather then Neo-Nazism... used up that card last poker night )

I've not been on this site for some time. so please bear with me cause, i am insane. But over all, with Barrack Obama and John Mccain, people almost have no choice as to who to choose because its a double sided sword. both are a muck-pit to research, both election candidates are 'porked' or 'with motive' as well as having one good promise and hundreds of red flags with a 'Hush hush' plan written all over it. to add as well in that measure they have fickle minds and had troubling reservations admitted by both in the media. this stems most likely (mind you I'm a contemptuous, self-centered, hypo-manic fight monger ) from the fact that they are politicians, and human. a famous quote of whom i don't recall states; "All people are delusional, but some of us question." my point is this: beyond our delusions and between what we think is real in the political reality, and what are the delusions conjured by these 'choices?' Is What in this fight we do need. (to be honest I'm gonna vote for my cat, she always gets what she wants and when presented with pests always takes decisive action, and she's spade so no nuclear war as predicted by not only sexists but also by unhappily married men ) Barrack Obama John Mccain

agreed at the price of pride. without flexability this will last forever!

true, the moral aspect of looking at a form of reality as well as making a human complex not; so to say...'robotic' makes one self sufficient on an understanding base, and can be reached by many area's of inspiration, like cosmology and physics. but beyond that the more simple outlet is easier to be learned for it has been passed down through families for many generations, as here spirituality of the same type is one way, and in Britain it is another but of the same base. now theorized, (keep in mind) if a human mind is wired to act stubbornly; it can be pushed into a subjective world, this sensation can often cause delusional thinking. so to what solution does the complex of many minds that disagree in the age of information incline to grow out of 'advertising alternative truth' and acting on opposition as well as difference. if logical truth in the objective world is truth in general, primalities will not allow an open mind in religions regarding the super-terrestrial. with the gloves off, the fight is on. the war seems to be fought on the web, and on land.

i agree, the individuals involved with personal beleif and power over the tinyest vendetta seem to make short work or an argument of opinion into a show of obscured tyranny, and even off from such a small eventfulness? should it not have been dismissed?