Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
For thought.
    #4135710 -

OK here's what existence is in a nutshell. It is the opposite of nothingness. Therefore, existence is everything. SO - Existence is infinity since nothing confines existence but the limits of your mind. Overall mass is measured only by comparison of another. Time is also measured by comparison. Good and evil can only be considered through the logic of knowing what is universally good and evil. The rest are just senseless rules. If God does not exist, or a universal sense of good does not exist, then an athiest's morals are illogical to consider. However if evil did not exist, then good ceases to be if good was the only thing available in existence. Since nothing defines good by comparison. Evil would not exist if good did not exist. Oneness cannot exist as there would be no comparison.


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4135748 -

Existance in what respect? The ability to exist e.g. perception oriented? Or actually existing, or conceptual in nature? One could say that nothingness exists and therefore is the opposite of itself if we don't restrict this discussion.

God will always exist as a concept.... we can speak of such things, however we won't know beyond our assertions/assumption as we can't possibly concieve with our current state of mind god not existing in one form or another... Even aethiests acknowledge god through science in way of logical explanation, as well conceptually.

Evil and good don't exist, their merely personal preferences, subject to perspectives. We could be talking of colors for that matter... but if you wish to further deviate from the concept as their basis is intertwined and they work on the same fundamental basis wouldn't they be one? e.g. black and white are colors, part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is "one" in respects to the defined system.

I partially agree with your last statement, just not how you got their :smile:. It can be viewed as one, or two, or anything else... all depends on how far you're willing to stretch.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (05/05/05 12:01 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4135822 -

But you're applying duality where there is none.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. [Re: moog]
    #4136191 -

Deep thinking
\m/


--------------------
Heaveno...CU CU CU CU CU in the Highway...Peace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. [Re: moog]
    #4138511 -

Yeah well "none" is the point. No reason for it. No reason for anything really besides not being nothing. But let's say besides nothing there is an egg. If nothing was there to compare with an egg. An egg would not really exist. The trippy thing is everything has a place in the universe. The good. The bad. The ugly. The beautiful. Without existence there is nothing... Actually you know. Bill Hicks was right. It is only an illusion we are seperate. But in fact we are all connected of one thing. Which is everything. The only alternative is nothing. Existence will always be as there is no such thing as nothing. What is nothing? It is not even the color black. This is only an illusion. The doors of perception are filtered through with a sober reality... Where was I going with this? Oh yeah. Everything exists since otherwise it is nothing. But even so let's also not try to be assholes in this planet we share. Since... Where am I going with this??? Eh... I don't know. But I make sense when you talk to me on hallucinogens.


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4138815 -

Upon transcendence of duality, there only is.

There is no opposite to that "is"ness... because it is a concept that's very meaning is to have no descriptor upon which to apply dualistic logic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #4138936 -

makes me wonder, if you teach a child, "that was good" ...

could it then know it was not bad? would you have to teach it "that was bad" and/or 'how' would it relate to what was to us knows as bad (But for the child unknown) For example: know as "not good"


[I see I'm missing a lot of text here, but ...]

...


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: Gomp]
    #4139043 -

I'm pretty sure (I could be wrong, never raised kids) that children must develop past a certain level mentally before they're capable of dualistic thinking.

I mean... if you've got an apple, and you say, "Mm, this is good"... a kid who's still learning what things "are" in the first place (an apple) is just going to get confused and think you're labeling the fruit in question a "good"...

Once we start "teaching" them what we mean when we say "this is good" they start to realize things can take on different meanings depending on the situation and context. This is both true and false... but it's necessary for the child to learn it; and then learn to see how it can be both true and false so many years later.

One might get an urge to keep their child from ever developing this dualistic state of mind... but that would be both detrimental and impractical.

By impractical I mean that it would be difficult to adhere to, due to natural habits of speech we've already developed that those children will be experiencing on a regular basis.

By detrimental I mean that it benefits a human being to be capable of dualistic thought.

Hinderance comes from an inability to see past dualistic thought... to be capable of ONLY dualistic thought.

It's detrimental to try to keep one's child from developing ego for the sake of protecting them... they must instead develop their ego subtlely... so that it doesn't pervade and block out all the light when they become their own person.

Then one day they will use that intelligent ego they've developed to follow a trail of clues that leads back to the light. When they find the light again, they will understand that the developmental path was necessary to get them to that day... to a point where they understand again.

It was necessary... because without that ego, they would have never made it through.

...said rambly joe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #4139077 -

:thumbup: :sun:


--------------------
"Easy going and organic thoughts bent on self experimentation and knowledge and growth for the betterment of self and those around us"
-Playdo the philosophiser

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #4139115 -

What's with this great focus on dualism? :confused:

I dunno, dualistic thought processes seem all too limited.

From what I've seen a dualistic approach leads to outright stereotyping and places us in the good ol' fashioned us vs. them mindset.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4139119 -

Duality must be experienced before it can be transcended...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #4139126 -

Do we suggest the same with unity, hatred, fascism, nothingness, death, absolution?

~scapegoat saying.

Experienced as in seeing in black and white? Or experienced as in realizing that mentality?


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4139283 -

My point was not about duality whatsoever. Even duality does not match the scope of existence. It involves everything that existence holds which is infinite. But the question of good and evil comes from something. There has to be definite instances of being good and instances of evil. It makes something of the other to be actual and evident.

When it comes to moral questioning. There are some things which are definitely evil such as rape, murder, child sex, and greed. There are definites in good such as love, forgiveness, and self sacrifice for one another. But where can that come from? If you do not believe in a benevolent creator and believe in an athiest viewpoint in which you die (nothing happens after) moral precepts and moral values are illogical to hold. With a belief in God in which ALL religions believe in (even Hindu and Buddhists) moral values have ground. No do not mistake me as a bible thumper, but someone who has thought this out. I detest many religious values as they hold values other than keeping up with what is universally good. I am also not saying athiests do not have moral values, but holding them is illogical, nor am I saying believers in God are better at their morals (in fact the most hypocritcal people I know are believers in God). We've all felt a feeling, a real feeling, of love before. Where does that come from? If there is no God why don't all athiests just lie, cheat, and steal to benefit only themselves. Since after all, the universe is centered around them ultimately. Even as someone who used to doubt many times God's existence I had a fucking conscience. But I questioned the only logic to that was an universal good.

But that was not my point. My point is, existence is evident to fill in the gap of nothingness. Which is so empty it cannot be measured of how empty it is since there is absolute no comparison. Same as infinity/existence as everything that is everything fits in existence and nothing can compare to infinite. Not even a zillion.

I take the Zen approach to existence. Existence is the eternal paradox along with nothing. Therefore you have existence as of now...

Or when the robot goes, "01010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010..."


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4139299 -

Evil? :lol: Tell that to those that practice it... I assure you they'll suggest otherwise.

They're evil as they enforce consequences/actions on an individual without respects to the individuals intentions (freewill/dignity). The actions wouldn't be evil if the parties partaking/subjected to the experience enjoyed them with full consent now would they? Greed wouldn't be greed if everyone practiced it would it? It's merely the differentation in approach and the respect/consent associated with actions that justifies their affinity.

Absence of the belief in god = no morality?
~Secular Humanism.

Emptiness simply cannot be measured... it doesn't exist :smile:. Show me nothing, and I'll show you something.

Edit:
Changed 'content' to 'consent'


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (05/05/05 08:07 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4139609 -

"Absence of the belief in god = no morality?"
Never said that. Only that it is illogical to consider.

"They're evil as they enforce consequences/actions on an individual without respects to the individuals intentions (freewill/dignity)"

Of course. Religion is retarded in that respected.

My point was why have any moral regard for others if these individuals are not me? Why have respect for fellow humans? Why not just be a greedy asshole who goes through life by simple self gratification and deception of others if no real definition of good or evil exists. But if it does. Where the hell does it come from? Is it just IS? We don't see it or hear it. But I feel it. I don't know about you, but if it comes from something outside of being just IS then I believe it is God. Not in the judeo christian sense, but as an embodiement. As the source/force of good. God is that to me and not some invisible man in the sky who sends you to hell for masturbating.


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4139697 -

mgunetiquette said:
"Absence of the belief in god = no morality?"
1) Never said that. Only that it is illogical to consider.

2) "They're evil as they enforce consequences/actions on an individual without respects to the individuals intentions (freewill/dignity)"

Of course. Religion is retarded in that respected.

3) My point was why have any moral regard for others if these individuals are not me?

4) Why have respect for fellow humans?

5) Why not just be a greedy asshole who goes through life by simple self gratification and deception of others if no real definition of good or evil exists. But if it does. Where the hell does it come from?

6) Is it just IS? We don't see it or hear it. But I feel it. I don't know about you, but if it comes from something outside of being just IS then I believe it is God. Not in the judeo christian sense, but as an embodiement. As the source/force of good. God is that to me and not some invisible man in the sky who sends you to hell for masturbating.



1)
mgunetiquette said:
"If you do not believe in a benevolent creator and believe in an athiest viewpoint in which you die (nothing happens after) moral precepts and moral values are illogical to hold."


Why is it illogical to consider? Do all your actions need to be rewarded for them to be beneficial? Children need rewards - toys, candy, special privelages - to feel complacent with a job well done... An adult needn't the satisfaction of that to accomplish what they deem "good" according to their version of morality. If you think that you need rewards to help shape and mold your morality... you might as well follow the good book and gain your reward in the form of the limits of idealism; everlasting life, everyone speaking one language (hebrew I believe), no wars, no disease, etc...

Life isn't fair, it wasn't intended to be fair. We're merely animals who think we're the shit :smirk:. Perhaps if you don't buy anything above in terms of motivation, be good and adhere to your fomr of morality for the challenge of it.... as it is so easy to be a theif, to be greedy, to be an asshole, etc... yet to achieve the generalized notion of what is good is a little more difficult then what one might expect... especially in respects to motivations.

2) How is that having anything to do with religion? I was talking about your concept of evil.

3) Answered it already. Dignity. To dignify another, and to grant them the dignity, allows them to grant the same unto you. It's a hidden agreement.

4) Dignity/freewill, just an abstraction of #3

5) Subjectivity. No true definition exists, however a general consensus on a definition might be possible, start a thread and ask for ideas as to the general nature of what is "good" and what is "evil"... you won't be able to get beyond generalities for unilateral agreement.

6) I think we're talking about emptiness here... although not sure. Why can't it just be? Is a rock a god, any more then a computer is because it just exists? Why is god a source of god? Wouldn't their have to believe in polytheism for that to apply? E.G. multiple gods with varying definitions of the "good" such that their exists some "evil" that is just as good albeit not to the god you recognize.

Or does the force of good have a mortal enemy of that which we deem evil? (dualism at work)


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4140156 -

Why is it illogical to consider? Do all your actions need to be rewarded for them to be beneficial? Children need rewards - toys, candy, special privelages - to feel complacent with a job well done... An adult needn't the satisfaction of that to accomplish what they deem "good" according to their version of morality. If you think that you need rewards to help shape and mold your morality... you might as well follow the good book and gain your reward in the form of the limits of idealism; everlasting life, everyone speaking one language (hebrew I believe), no wars, no disease, etc...

Life isn't fair, it wasn't intended to be fair. We're merely animals who think we're the shit :smirk:. Perhaps if you don't buy anything above in terms of motivation, be good and adhere to your fomr of morality for the challenge of it.... as it is so easy to be a theif, to be greedy, to be an asshole, etc... yet to achieve the generalized notion of what is good is a little more difficult then what one might expect... especially in respects to motivations.

2) How is that having anything to do with religion? I was talking about your concept of evil.

3) Answered it already. Dignity. To dignify another, and to grant them the dignity, allows them to grant the same unto you. It's a hidden agreement.

4) Dignity/freewill, just an abstraction of #3

5) Subjectivity. No true definition exists, however a general consensus on a definition might be possible, start a thread and ask for ideas as to the general nature of what is "good" and what is "evil"... you won't be able to get beyond generalities for unilateral agreement.

6) I think we're talking about emptiness here... although not sure. Why can't it just be? Is a rock a god, any more then a computer is because it just exists? Why is god a source of god? Wouldn't their have to believe in polytheism for that to apply? E.G. multiple gods with varying definitions of the "good" such that their exists some "evil" that is just as good albeit not to the god you recognize.

Or does the force of good have a mortal enemy of that which we deem evil? (dualism at work)


Well I believe it is illogical to think that one should care about others if the concepts of good and evil were in question if not definite or existent. And for human beings on this planet, we need to find some common ground on what is right and wrong. Like I don't know, throwing a rock at somebody's face. That's bad. My parents or society rather do not need to tell me that is wrong or consider something like that an unconsciounable act. I have this little guy on my shoulder tell me it's bad... (joke) But you know, I believe God is a force, which is that of good will.

And as human beings, we love don't we? How is that explained in an athiest viewpoint? What, is love really just some biological falsehood, another biochemical reaction, artificial to the brain telling a person  to have such insane feelings towards someone else? That's how science without God explains it. An evolutionary trait, passed biologically so that species may self sacrfice themselves for the preservation of their young. That is how love is explained to us with science without God. That our evolutionary progress is a pathetic and synthetic method of preservation. No, we are not victims of free will they say. Science without God states that ultimately we are an accident. Life is an accident. Pointless and illogical.

I beg to differ. Science has stated that all things set in motion were set in motion by another force equal to that. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. Just look at the universe man, you see these stars in space moving around. Galaxies prancing like little orbs, can you guess what force has started that?


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4140206 -

mgunetiquette said:
1) Well I believe it is illogical to think that one should care about others if the concepts of good and evil were in question if not definite or existent. And for human beings on this planet, we need to find some common ground on what is right and wrong. Like I don't know, throwing a rock at somebody's face. That's bad. My parents or society rather do not need to tell me that is wrong or consider something like that an unconscionable act. I have this little guy on my shoulder tell me it's bad... (joke) But you know, I believe God is a force, which is that of good will.

2) And as human beings, we love don't we? How is that explained in an atheist viewpoint? What, is love really just some biological falsehood, another biochemical reaction, artificial to the brain telling a person to have such insane feelings towards someone else? That's how science without God explains it. An evolutionary trait, passed biologically so that species may self sacrifice themselves for the preservation of their young. That is how love is explained to us with science without God. That our evolutionary progress is a pathetic and synthetic method of preservation. No, we are not victims of free will they say. Science without God states that ultimately we are an accident. Life is an accident. Pointless and illogical.

3) I beg to differ. Science has stated that all things set in motion were set in motion by another force equal to that. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. Just look at the universe man, you see these stars in space moving around. Galaxies prancing like little orbs, can you guess what force has started that?


1) A sense of community, their is rationalization to it... why does a commune of monkeys treat each other well/care for each other? Is it because they have a belief of god?

Why do they establish hierarchies, and promote order, learning, and respect for each other? (they do all the negative shit as well, just more primitively then humans, their downright brutal in pack warfare... then again so are humans)

A primitive sense of the "good" and the "evil/bad" is necessary merely for terms of differentiation. It is when someone puts it in an absolute concept where shit hits the fan... as ultimately if one were to look at the absolute notions of good and evil/bad they would realize that they fundamentally rely on subjective preferences. (A masochist feels that it is good to be hit with a rock)

Well, the converse of the situation is promoted by this site.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_09neopaganism.html
It's rather extreme and suggests that heirarchies can only be developed through religions, where if we look to the real world in animal cultures/heirarchies it's proven to be false... At least we assume it to be as we see no form of idolization of worship... beyond the alphas that is. We could go so far as to assume that the alphas are god, but that really isn't representative of the situation as alphas are overthrown frequently, which would thusly negate that form of absolute worship.

2) How is it explained by a democrat or a republican? Your categorizations are irrelevant. I explain it as a chemical mechanism, one related to survival and procreation, as well as maternal instinct.. however that doesn't wholly apply in such cases of parents separating on the basis of differences among other things.

It really doesn't matter how it is explained... It matters how it is felt. What would it matter if life was without meaning? Wouldn't that be the ultimate free-will? The freedom to directly give life meaning rather then to live out of a mandate given as a point... I'd much rather live to find meaning, rather then to think of my life solely as a god's plaything created out of boredom.

3) The primordial definition of "god" ~ that which is unknown, or not wholly known (taking mechanics and laws that we do know about now). I detailed this subject as a god, of a god, of a god, of a god, of a god... of a... paradox where essentially the universe couldn't truly have had a beginning, but on the same token, it couldn't have an end... Due to human comprehension an absolute beginning that could be pinpointed is impossible as our awareness is limited to that which is finite, especially in respects to origin. When taking the big bang theory into account the beginning was the energy that later was converted to matter as well as energy... the initial source of the energy can't be acounted for, yet we know by our logic it had a beginning. As far as I'm concerned that's the beginning, as it's currently impossible to go beyond that as far as we understand it; as it is impossible to create something from nothing. It doesn't necessarily imply that their is a god... as per our understanding it would be subject to the same paradox.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (05/06/05 05:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4140323 -

Well in essence we are god's plaything. We are a plaything with free will however. Besides you are looking at God too much in terms of the Judeo Christian preconception of "him". God is not a he nor a large invisble bearded man in the sky with giant hands that mold and strikes lightning at sinners. I never believed in that shit. But I found a deeper sense in what God really is. Call the force what you will. Goodwill. Allah. Hannim. Zeus. Vishnu. Ishta devta. AWONAWILONA. Just to name a few... I just did not call God the "force" since I'm not a big Star Wars fan.

Besides what I also realized is that it's an illusion that anything is seperate. We are all in fact existence toying with itself. Call it the existential masturbation theory.

I also do know apes have similar social structures as humans. So what? What makes them a human being, and why should I treat my own moral inclinations differently if my evolutionary cousins do similar things as well. If animals have compassion that's great. I have compassion to animals too. But they are delicious. My question is without the guidance of God, why the hell did we evolve at this point like this. Ahhhhhhh looky here, with the gift of free will we have created vast amount of changes. We have created art. Music. We think. We question God's existence. I wonder if animals really think about this shit. So in my view. We are above them in that respect.

Yeah well you know add in whatever to the debate. I seriously do not know what the real argument is or who is winning it. I'm real confused, but it has made me think. And it all fits to the ultimate scheme of existence and we are all with everything in between, existence playing with itself.


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For thought. (think on, thinker!) [Re: mgunetiquette]
    #4140358 -

Oh yeah about the masochist thing. If someone wants pain to be inflicted on them. That is not evil. They choose to have pain. There is no moral questioning over that. That's why I think the show Jackass was really funny. If you were using that as an argument about what is common grounds for what is morally wrong, that was kinda dumb.

Hey my point is. If whatever you do does not harm anybody else but yourself, it is none of my fucking business. That also goes for people who want people to harm them as some weird fetish, go for it too. I don't really care, do what you want. If I try to stop you from doing your own business that's inherently evil. That's me being a cop. And unfortunately, that's some of the evils we have to live with sharing a planet full of humans of free will.


--------------------
It is only an illusion that the universe and everything within it is truly seperate. In essence it is existence playing with itself. I call it the existential masturbation theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Are you a slave to a God that doesn't exist?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Larrythescaryrex 8,090 42 07/30/02 04:00 PM
by Larrythescaryrex
* Polytheism versus monotheism
( 1 2 all )		 subconsciousness 3,470 30 11/29/12 05:02 AM
by Schopenhauer
* it seems therefore, that God does not exist. whiterastahippie 1,889 12 11/11/11 02:01 AM
by thefloodbehind
* the neutral flow, without comparison kaiowas 717 6 11/20/03 06:25 PM
by the universe
* Does God Exist? part one
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 MentalHygene 16,999 126 02/22/02 08:26 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Proving my Computer Exists. David_Scape 853 5 01/13/03 10:47 AM
by Anonymous
* Is there a "why" to existence?
( 1 2 all )		 silversoul7 1,536 22 08/05/04 11:31 PM
by tnecseda
* *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 buttonion 22,456 173 03/19/04 12:03 AM
by Frog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,102 topic views. 0 members, 59 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.