The last thing I'll say is probably the most important; and it's that religion made a mistake making an enemy of science. Science could have, and should have been welcomed as the means to know the Creation - rather than been rendered suspect of heresy, true knowledge should have moral worth. Why? Because, as implied above, survival is a matter of the application of the right technologies. We do not have a limited amount of resources we are consuming, and once they're gone, we're done. That's not how it is. We create resources by the application of technology, and have not applied the right technologies because science was made a heresy - rather than valued as true knowledge of Creation. — counterpunch

Humanity and unrestrained science do not mix. The world almost became an irradiated wasteland SEVERAL TIMES now due to NON-WILLED NON-HUMAN NATURAL OCCURRENCES/MALFUNCTIONS. See nuclear false alarm incidents. We create all these germs and mutations in things that have the potential to kill us all, there's so many science fiction movies about this that nevertheless speak from a strong position of scientific fact. Please just honestly stop reading, thinking of a reply, and just think about that for a few minutes.

What is the goal of science? To extend and benefit human life? What do you think that will work out to with enough time. The end of true life, and us all being a series of 1's and 0's in a simulated machine. There is no other outcome. We must turn back. And now.

Given this state of facts, the only conclusion is that morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Why bother about other people, their lives and their property, when you can get away with endangering and damaging it.


I dare you to prove this wrong. — baker

Say I did. Then you'd never know who the people you don't want to have around/in your life are. Until too late.

"The utopia you imagine is actually a dystopia of the worst kind."
- Anonymous

It's one person (or couple, family, what have you) out of billions. Just remember that. Though, as I'm sure you'll come to contemplate, it's quite a bit more than that. We generally create the life and fate we wish. Now, I'm not going to automatically take your story at face value, perhaps there's more to it you're either neglecting to share or feel is not relevant. Still, at face value, if they feel no desire, need, or responsibility to correct damage done either willful or unintentional, they likely don't expect any recompense or recourse when it's done to them, ie. those who are hard on others are often hardest on themselves. Misery likes its company, they say. Not sure where you live but they are generally small claims courts or similar avenues to pursue.

Interesting dynamic you say they "have connections with the local authorities". What support or evidence do you have of this? If those connections are worth jeopardizing the social fabric over (ie. documentable proof of conspiracy) it is unlikely you live in a poor or average neighborhood. A fact you should not take for granted.

Imagine how many microorganisms are on the surface/interior or tools or probes near computer elements that are protected from the extremes of space that are only opened/utilized on the rock itself. And from all those before. Even if the ones from before mutate due to radiation or wahtever. I imagine it may be hard to distinguish between what was brought and what was already present if anything.

What to you, would be happiness. It wouldn't be anything you've experienced because then you'd know or at least be able to rationalize why not everything is so simple. I've posted this a good two times (actually probably only one here), in fact I summed it up quite well previously, though again it could be a simple parroted derivative of the piece I'm about to show, but...



No not everything can be reduced or explained in a sentence, a few, or even a video, but- when it comes to things that have been omnipresent since the beginning of time, sometimes people manage to peg one or more things down.

I dunno some people have all the luck. Perfect life, finances, career, relationships, etc. Then perhaps they get fatally impacted by a sudden falling asteroid. Though the happiness technically did end, seeing as the life it was enjoyed in did, it's almost like it didn't. Lol. There was never any unhappiness in this hypothetical (yet existent albeit rare) scenario.

Quite. I must have. Paint however is not mathematics, it consists of molecules of a finite and measurable size, or else it is no longer paint. Though perhaps "paint" is implied to be simply the smallest unit of measure available, ie. an atom or the smallest known subatomic particle being a quark (which is still measurable). Or does it transcend even this? Basically, how can something be infinitely long if it's slowly decreasing from a measurable state or point? Writing off the world we live in for numbers that could in theory go on forever.. it's still kinda confusing lol. Almost seems kinda like arguing over a glass being half full or half empty. Which of course is actually simple. If it was an empty glass filled up, it is half full. If it was a full glass, with half removed, it's half empty. Unfortunately, this does seem to boggle the mind. Hopefully not by design.

I never liked math. Perhaps someone who does can shine some light on this for the both of us? Basically, what is the largest number that can be reached, and is it any closer to infinity than 1? What is the smallest unit of measurement to reach infinity? What is the smallest fraction that can be reached without there being nothing left, etc. The universe, at least the world we live in, seems to disprove the existence of 'infinity' beyond "oh look a solid figure".

If it were truly infinite, in the context of decreasing in size, it would reach such a small size beyond what is possible due to the makeup of this world, ie. smaller than an atom. Or perhaps not as we're constantly talking with the implied context of "reality" ie. things as they are at the moment of observation. Before then even, once it becomes smaller than what allows a single molecule of paint, it would of course "fill up". Though it is interesting because assuming once we reach the point of smaller than a molecule, you could still paint it's exterior because even though it's girth or width may not be able to hold a single molecule of paint, perhaps it's length would... actually no. Molecules, as we're told are symmetrical. There is probably a single point after a molecule of paint would no longer fit, where due to the structure itself counting as at least one molecule or atom, there is a point where the exterior can be painted (one molecule of paint can reside on the outside past the point where one molecule of paint can no longer pass on the inside). I couldn't imagine in a million years where this "paradox" would ever come up or be relevant in.. literally anything would ever do or ever come across but, isn't free society fun. Lots of time for non-productive speculation.

Is there an actual purpose or point to life or living? — Mtl4life098

How bad do you want to know. You have your answer.

Check out either this or this and see if you'd be willing to throw down a game with @praxis

I certainly wouldn't mind watching.

Edit: It's kinda finicky but once you get the flow of copying/pasting the img and url tags it's doable.

Just wondering if there's a reset button for the earth and even for the universe itself. K-Pg extinction event? — TheMadFool

First commandment. The eternal God, existing outside of time, who perhaps any attempted personification or manifestation would simply be: Father Time. Chronus I believe another name was. When man discovers how to disrupt the flow of time, and attempts to do so (ie. attempts to become omnipresent, omniscient, and to exist outside of time aka to "become God" or create an idol that attempts to rival or give man mastery over God or time such as particle accelerators) it will create a slowly-expanding black hole that will consume the entire galaxy. For a time. :grin:

Anything non-scientific aside, it is a "cosmic" book that urges humans to worship God as an eternal entity that exists outside of time (perhaps even alluding to being time itself), that this entity is to be respected and we are not to question or attempt to change it, or else, we may be doomed to a "lake of fire", perhaps due to said potential black hole(s) stripping the atmosphere away and leaving the planet at the mercy of cosmic radiation and the like. It lines up perfectly to be honest. Perhaps.. there is a face on Mars. The last thing a doomed civilization who mastered the sciences a little too well managed to sprawl out in their last moments... a galactic S.O.S. to any and all who would see it, a simple "hello".. and unfortunately, goodbye. Or who knows. Perhaps they made it to the next planet after all... who's to say. Kind of like the ending to Children of Men. What's the name of that book about men and women again? :grin:

According to several theories from various physicists at least (the possibility of a space-time rip not the Mars part). I believe Stephen King produced a book and later movie about this called "The Langoliers". Highly recommended if you haven't seen it by the way.

"Too much rope" comes to mind. Someone wants to promote a previously unheard of view, say abortion or even right of the unborn, women's rights, modern transsexual surgery as "intrinsic human freedom", emancipation even, we'll assume in the pursuit of this "liberty for all" .. someone can, accurately, point out how it offers potential to be counter-productive to the very concept. Some will say abortion infringes upon the right of an unborn person, others say it infringes on the right of a woman's freedom to choose. Some say women's "rights", in a society of laws, rules, and equality already, not only diminishes gender equality but their own right of equal potential/progression in manifesting skills not possessed or refined, arbitrarily paying them more based on their gender and not their work value, simultaneously/counter-productively labeling them as inherently "lesser" and so needing to be paid more without acquiring more skills to truly become an equal, simply for being a different gender.

Why stop there though, it extends beyond rational belief, because liberty, that is to say the extremes, are not inherently rational. Say I want to engage in carnal relations with deceased animals, or why stop there how about people. How dare you and your fascistic authoritarianism even pretend like it can attempt to deny my pursuit of happiness simply because it's different than yours. Say I want to drive around schools at recess yelling obscenities and playing pornography at full blast. Again, how dare you attempt to become an enemy of the Constitution and human freedom in my presence... Etc, etc.

the illusion of her — synthesis

For this exact point, I'd say your line of reasoning, at least in the context of this example is flawed. Happiness is not illusion (or is it?), some argue happiness is not illusion (though it is subjective, some even reduce it [emotion] to scientific terms expressed as chemical balances or imbalances), but ignoring that possibility for a moment. The more seemingly true yet false sources of happiness one removes from their life, mathematically/absolutely the closer one becomes to true happiness. Which is again subjective. Right? To me, you can't have happiness with unpredictability. And you can't have unpredictability without possibility of failure, misery, or misfortune. It's a cosmic dance the two opposing forces, feelings, and/or moods are forever intertwined in, the final result a one-of-a-kind tapestry that is "one's life". Reminds me of an old song, "Dire Straits - Walk of Life".

If happiness results in sadness, why be happy? — synthesis

You open a philosophical Pandora's Box with this question. Why be more than a single-celled microorganism while we're at it. Or a cat. Or a fish. Why even be alive? Because, you know you love it.

So what now? Last pawn standing?

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

at the moment we unleash all atomic weapons, the future will resemble the past, humanity's future would be indistinguishable from its past - stone age. — TheMadFool

Except for the elite who will probably be aboard a laser-armed, V2K-capable space station orbiting Earth far enough away to appear (if even at all) as a star. This could very well be the new Pantheon. Or as some dare suggest, the very same. Are some fates worse than death? Perhaps. It depends on your value of life and at what point, if any, some become commodified.

Your move

Stop doing that. :lol:



Your move

Your move

Your move

Compassion is not morality, it's self-serving appeasement in the presence of immorality. A soldier who just massacred a village of unarmed non-combatants can have compassion toward a lone boy throwing rocks at him.

Empathy is what prevents indifference, the root cause of virtually all suffering man will ever face.

the point being made is it is a sadistic life to imagine everyone that's different from you will burn eternally while your group floats amongst angels. There is no evidence either will happen but it is sadistic to subscribe to such a thought. — OneTwoMany

You're completely right- about both statements. What does that have to do w/ Christianity though? Hate the sin not the sinner the doctrine says. I mean, sure if by different you mean "a violent criminal" vs. "a law abider" than yes the law dictates the exact same thing. Literally even, if you want to be metaphorical.

I think your confusing Christianity with people who SAY they're Christian yet live in opposition to what it commands. Or to be blunt, those who just don't know what to say and/or don't want to fill out/answer "Atheist/Non-religious" or "Muslim" if/when asked.

First rule of life, trust sparingly and by actions not words. Anything that can be corrupted will be. Of course, anything that can be made wrong can also be made right. Some instances of which I described are simply harder than others.

Growing up, it was my family constantly reminding me that the world outside is a 'bad place'. — OneTwoMany

Good Lord. What foolish people. Don't they know the media makes up famine, starvation, violence, rape, and war? Thank God you survived that deathtrap of a family. How I cannot even begin to imagine. They truly had your worst interests at heart.

On the contrary, I learned some of my best values after I left home for college and later for work. — OneTwoMany

You mean, you began to discover life and perhaps had the best time of your life in your college years after being kept safe and sound and able to do so? Eh sounds like a bit of a stretch to me but even astronomical odds offer an even it would seem.

I attribute some of my worst experiences to family and I'm still working on myself to erase the negative impressions created during my growing years. — OneTwoMany

Well surely life is just a rose garden of pleasure and opportunity, people being open with you and not strangers, friends, or acquaintances bound by the implied social contract and/or law must have been purposefully tormenting you for no purpose other than to do so. They must have done so willfully, stashing their billions and near infinite love, wisdom, and understanding offshore, just so you could suffer just a bit more with each passing day.

Who knows maybe I'm right about everything I said. One or more posts here would seem to lend credence.

Your move

Your move

Oh snap. Shots fired. Nah but the real ones are those who are reading who haven't posted/offered to play who know they want to!



Imma try your "center of the board" philosophy and see where that gets me this time.



Your move

I was trying to be funny. But the idea I was suggesting was essentially whoever eliminates the other sides pawns wins. Don't take it too seriously, and besides there may be some Chess mechanic that makes that just kinda dumb. I am having fun here, just trying to prolong it. :grin:

If you'd like to humor me sure, otherwise I wouldn't mind a new game if no one else is willing to play at this time?

Well, if you can find an online version of it similar to the one(s) exhibited here, make a thread for it.

Otherwise, feel free to make an opening move.

I think he meant earlier on. Still, if you're more skilled than I it would be more of a match (even to watch perhaps). You sure now? Suppose the same could be said with you and I. Who knows I might win? :grin:

So queenside castle lets you move the rook (or king?) three spaces, with the king on the inner left side? From what I remember from the video, you can only castle using pieces you've yet to move.. correct? I was thinking of doing that but I had the assumption (as the example was a kingside castle, where neither piece moved more than 2 spaces) it was a 2-space deal.

Let's continue but playing the Western version. The straight, powerful male is garbage or just another pawn and so now it's about who keeps their pawns alive the longest. Do 'ya dare?

Looks like checkmate to me? The king is in imminent danger (via queen) and so must be moved, yet every moveable space (the lone non-movable/capturable space being his own pawn) leads to a check?