Viewing Thread:
"Love: real or science"

love is it a real spiritual thing or just a scientific trick to make us breed and look after our children.
my personal belief is that it is just a chemical thing,but i try to ignore this belief as firstly it reduces us to the level of animals and secondly i want to believe its possible.i dont think its a good idea to overanalyse these sort of questions as it reduces everything around us to science.
i am sorry if i have put these ideas into your head but im looking for some affirmation of the soul.
help me out.
im a big believer in science but sometimes i wish i wasnt.

Celestine wrote:
> Panda you remind me of a bobb..oh nevermind.

Now, was that going to be "bobblehead?"

> Love, love.

Can you not see your hypocrisy yet?

I've never insulted you, simply pointed out some of your many "one rule for me, one rule for everyone else" moments.

Another unwarrented and needless attack? Are you trying to "purposefully, yet playfully, prod" me? Trolling, basically?

Celestine wrote:

> If a negative multiplied by a negative, equals positive..then, with
> Light's algebraic theory of love, this comes to mean that two wrongs
> make a right.

Well duh; you've not heard then of two unhappy people meeting up and making one another happy? Or does unhappiness not exist in your world (unless it's your own, in which case you can't *&&^ing shut up about it...)

> Hm..I
> guess it could work out, if you like broken dishes and being beaten
> all the time.

You get beaten all the time? Man...thats the first time one of your posts has put a smile on my face.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Love exists. It's positive.
>
> So does sheer, unadulterated fury. It's negative
>
> Trying to alleviate someone of the latter by forcing their image of
> the former onto 'em is...well, anyone who got C or higher in their
> GCSE maths will know what you get when you try to add a positive to
> a
> negative.
>
> Most insightful post of the day.

Panda you remind me of a bobb..oh nevermind.

That's such a negative perspective.. tsk. And an algebraic equation taken so out of context.

If a negative multiplied by a negative, equals positive..then, with Light's algebraic theory of love, this comes to mean that two wrongs make a right.

If two equally unadulterated furious people meet, then it's a good situation? That would just make two equally unhappy people. Hm..I guess it could work out, if you like broken dishes and being beaten all the time. They'd definitely be unique in that they'd just not meld well with anyone else..the general peace loving population, that is. And, they'd become nothing but infinite fury that produces infinite fury.

From what I've come to know, two polar opposites usually work best to create more of an enticing spectrum of love and life. Thus, opposites attract.

It's normally when you try to change the integer from it's natural negative to a positive without any successive formula evolving the variables, when you become stumped and need to look to a tutor for help.

Love, love.

Light wrote:
> Love exists. It's positive.
>
> So does sheer, unadulterated fury. It's negative
>
> Trying to alleviate someone of the latter by forcing their image of
> the former onto 'em is...well, anyone who got C or higher in their
> GCSE maths will know what you get when you try to add a positive to a
> negative.

Most insightful post of the day.

Love exists. It's positive.

So does sheer, unadulterated fury. It's negative

Trying to alleviate someone of the latter by forcing their image of the former onto 'em is...well, anyone who got C or higher in their GCSE maths will know what you get when you try to add a positive to a negative.

That is one depressing thought.

I want to just keep believing that love is real, just so I don't lose the magic of life.

I thought they proved that everything we do is in the pursuit of rutting down and procreating? I think they proved it by leaving a fat lass and a gay bloke on an island for a year or something.

I'd like to forward the idea that love is the domain of giggling schoolgirls, lonely semi-desperate women approaching mid-late twenties who are still single and have more than 1 cat and effete metrosexuals that carry little pocketsized poetry anthologies and listen to David Gray.

I'd like to forward the idea of a brutal gang-rape.

Clazon wrote:
> ANYTHING that ANYONE does is electro-chemical. There is no such thing
> as a spirit.

You're just assuming that. What if, in 20 years, they discover a spirit? Then what?