But is this society full of love and hate, emotion and war (reletive) freedom, and disorder really better the the ordered peacefull society of BNW?  Are our emotions something that is worth the pain that they bring? Now some of you will say "we all just need to love" but as i often say you cant have love without hate. an emotional being will do both.

So, what do you think the pros and cons of a BNWlike society are, and do you think that such a society is inevitable?

 Further do you think that someone from 300 years ago would view our society as being just as frightning and inhuman, as we view BNW?

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=185

 Now my question is what is it that people find atracive about the god of Abraham? To me the concept of a big brother figure who gave you a nature and rules that go against that nature, who is always watching, and if you dont obey his odlly specific and counter intuative laws hes ready to condemn you to eternal suffering. Just the entire concept is completlly displeasing, why do people find it so appealing.

The free will, soul, eternal life all that i get, i can see how thats apealing (for me personally eternal life is also a frightening though but i can see why people like it). But you can belive in all that without a need for a crazy bearded man in the sky watching your evry move, and skrewing with your instincts. I just dont get it. Budhism, Daoism, Jeffs abstract spiritual views to me they apear to be much more appealing (not that i think any are more are true).

On a side note a question on eternal suffering, lets say there is good and evil. How can a finite amount of evil one comited in ones lifetime add up to eternal suffering. Should not the punishment be proportionate to the crime, why is god so damn vengefull?

Anyway i was just wondering, never could really could wrap my head around why that belief system is apealing. Hope to hear back from you belivers.

And also Metamorphoses by Ovid, but i have yet to start this one.

 What about you guys.

 The question is is this at all justified? Lets say he did not abuse her or cheat on her, what does that matter? She clearlly did not want to be with him, how can something like this be forced upon a person.

Just wondering if anyone thinks the court, or rather the new yourk state law is fair and just?

The passion, beauty, and the cold, the very essence of our souls

The vision seemed at first so clear, I for a moment thought it real

A truth so pleasant to behold, I quickly felt empowered, bold

And as these thoughts my head did fill I felt it all love, hatred, fear

A grand illusion truly so, threes more to me then just this fleshy mold

But as the end to this drew near, my mind again was all too clear

These images that seemed alive, now waning pictures in my eyes

And as I let them drift away I felt no love, nor fear, nor hate

They disappeared despite my cries, and now they truly seem but lies

Threes no remorse, for that its late, without them is a milder fate

I shall not miss these severed ties, just watch my essence as it dies

            And as the embers lose their glow, one would presume I felt a cold

            But I was neither warm nor cold, I simply was, or so was told.

Tell me what you guys think, i know its a bit repetative. I just threw it tigather before going to sleep, felt a bit of inspiration. Please be critical if you think its terrible let me know. Its a shakespearin sonnet by the way, with 2 ryming schemes.

I think this is the best way to see which political arguments are solid. This being a more practical matter I wil function under the assumption that our perception is basically acurate and not take it to the deeper levels.

I chalange someone, (in a friendlly manner of course) to prove to me anything they consider to be objective truth. I ask that you state the concept, idea, or "fact" that you belive to be objectivley true, and just a quick sentence on the most obvious reason why. I will then attempt to play the role of Socrates and simplly ask questions if we get to a point were you have answerd my question and i have no more questions then, well you will have proven an objective truth.

 There is a cutally a really simpleway to get me on this one, hope no one gets it, though im sure you guys will. haha

Winston Churchill said the oposite "dont just do something, stand there and think for a while".

So i was wondering what you all think about this. which extreme do you tend to lean towards? Which do you think is more important? Dont say balance is key, that is aparent, but i want to know which you see as more key thought or action.

What i am wondering is when one crosses the line from ignorance to awarnes? What seperates the ignorant from the aware? We have danced aroundthis a bit in our discussion here.

If there is in fact infinite information, or at least more information then our mind can store, then at what point does one become informed enough to be considered aware? I think it is imposible to really draw such a line because no mater how much we know it is always going to be a miniscule ammount compared to the ammount of information out there.

One can say that ignorance and awarness can only be looked at with relation to a paticular topic, or concept. But even then no mater what the subject no one can know everything ther is to know about it, so again what is the threshold for being aware rather then ignorant?

 I would have to say that the thing that separetes the ignorant from the aware, is the awarness of their own ignorance. "I know that i know nothing". The only true ignorance is certainty and conviction. Letting go of certinty and the ilussion allows one to see things more objectively, and think more abstractlly.

 Onece you let go of all your convictions realizing that nothing you know is certain. And once you let go of the desire for solid ground, which is conviction, and dive into the ocean of uncertainty you realize that that piece of land that you stood so firmlly upon was nothing more then a mirage.

Just rasing some questions, tell me what you "think". 

 Now taking this and aplying it to free will. If all the particles were set in motion by the prime mover and since then act upon each other to form various paterns. Some of which are us, now if we are still subject to the causes that preceded us, and everything that we are made up of is simplly a continuation of cause and effect begun by the prime mover. Well then we dont really have free will. However if we do have free will, every decision that we make must not be a product of millions of cause and effect interactions of brain particles. But instead must be in itself a prime cause. Something like a soul if you will that decides and purs the biology of the brain into action. So ineffect if we are capable of free will, we are capable of manifesting a prime cause, a choice that is not an effect of anything other then us. And would this not make us essentially gods.

 Interesting test. I personally found it rather limited, and having more to do with political outlook then moral outlook. Morally i would be a libereterian, or even borderline anarchist. However when it comes to practical social and govermental structure i think a socialism that isnt extreme, and right leaning towards capitalism is best. Something like we see in Denmark or Norway, would work best.

Now about hedonism, someone in the coments of the original idea mentione that ife there was no afterlife they would just seek pleasure, and not care at all about other people be a dick to everyone, not sacrifice anything for anyone nd so on. But if ones reason for treating others with compassion is because there is and afterlife in which they will be rewarded, that is not really compassion to begin with. If one is compationate treating people as such is an end in itself for them, no reward should be nessisary.

Another point mentioned was that as eastern philosophy states we are one with the univerese, and we are in fact the universe. This is a pont of view i tend to subscribe to, i came to it through mataphysical analisis rather then religion but that matters little. But if that is the case then we as beings have no identity, we are simply the univeerse conected to all other matter. And if we have no distinct identity then there is likley no eternal concionsess, we simply die our phisical patern disintegrates, and whatever matter that made us up over the course of our life (matter in the body replaces itself all the time so there would be alot of it that was parto of our pattern at some point) just gets redistributed to other paterns.