Emily’s NEW positivity and being nice to each other thread

You are not the only one who goes for the bum. Though I also have a thing for the hips. Gives me something to hang on to. 🫦
I personally am a shoulder grabber. Or arms if they meet me halfway. Then I usually pause and check the intentions of the owner of the arms. While holding the arms still. It’s a good MMA tactic. That’s Mixed Marital Arts as well as Mixed Martial Arts. ;)
 
Head grab, back of neck, butt squeeze, embrace around waist with pelvic thrust... it's all good. Mmmmmm.
 
Animals don’t have souls? Who started that nonsense? Are they not also creations of the creator and thus worthy of paradise? I’m not stepping into your paradise if they’re not there! Surely you’re making accommodations for them? I hope so!
If animals have souls, we have souls. If animals don’t have souls, we don’t have souls. We are just a type of animal. One with ideas above its station.

Em
 
If animals have souls, we have souls. If animals don’t have souls, we don’t have souls. We are just a type of animal. One with ideas above its station.

Em
This viewpoint is not sufficiently positive and uplifting. Please try again, but with more pep.
 
Ha... Who would have thought that writers would be the ones to reject the notion of a soul.
 
Ha... Who would have thought that writers would be the ones to reject the notion of a soul.
Not really surprising. Authors learn better than most that it's better to show than to tell, and so far no one's got a soul to show, so their tales of soulfulness read rather weakly.
 
My Internet is back on! Such a simple thing, a broken wire, with so many consequences. :)
 
Ha... Who would have thought that writers would be the ones to reject the notion of a soul.
Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide, perfectly captured my thoughts on this issue when he wrote, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without believing that there are fairies at the bottom of it?"

I've always felt that the world revealed by science is far more wondrous and beautiful than anything based on hocus pocus.
 
Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide, perfectly captured my thoughts on this issue when he wrote, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without believing that there are fairies at the bottom of it?"

I've always felt that the world revealed by science is far more wondrous and beautiful than anything based on hocus pocus.
I am glad we opened this topic. While I am very scientifically oriented myself and an agnostic as well, I also have that feeling, a hope I suppose, that there should be something more than this, something not necessarily theistic in its nature. It might come from the fact that I do not find this garden of ours all that beautiful, to be honest. The beauty is there, and at moments it feels overwhelming, but I also feel that it is more than balanced with the ugliness we manage to create everywhere. Simply put, I don't find the garden good enough, so I want to search for more, even though my mind firmly rejects all the easy bullshit explanations of various religions and beliefs.
 
Last edited:
I am glad we opened this topic. While I am very scientifically oriented myself and an agnostic as well, I also have that feeling, a hope I suppose, that there should be something more than this, something not necessarily theistic in its nature. It might come from the fact that I do not find this garden of ours all that beautiful, to be honest. The beauty is there, and at moments it feels overwhelming, but I also feel that it is more than balanced with the ugliness we manage to create everywhere. Simply put, I don't find the garden good enough, so want to search for more, even though my mind firmly rejects all the easy bullshit explanations of various religions and beliefs.
I call myself a 'mordant optimist.' By that I mean I see shit in every direction, but I believe we also have the choice to see good, beauty, and the chance for improvement.
 
It’s hard to argue that homosexuality is deviant when it is very prevalent in the natural world. Of course some will argue that humans are somehow different (we have a soul or some such nonsense), but - given we are simply animals - we behave pretty much like the rest of them do. Including girls fucking girls and boys fucking boys.

Em
 
Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide, perfectly captured my thoughts on this issue when he wrote, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without believing that there are fairies at the bottom of it?"

I've always felt that the world revealed by science is far more wondrous and beautiful than anything based on hocus pocus.
Feynman spoke eloquently about this as well.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
 
Back
Top