Branches curiously root-like replicate themselves into the frozen air to jointly host today’s fair burden of romancing winters frosty breath upon their once deathlike limbs. A skeletal framework now flattered to be spangled by nature’s artistic compliments ironically outlines the now treacherous icy road routinely worn in attempts to make a living. Fortunately, the real crisp breaths of livelihood come not from arriving at ones destination, but from traveling on that slippery road while admiring and acknowledging the six inches of snow that transformed the once lifeless scenery into a breathtaking live illustration.
If love is “granted” because it is requested, is it of equal value to love that is volunteered without request? Here are my thoughts on this query.
If one loves another, and then asks that the other love them in return, I feel that such a request may belittle the love that the other person may eventually have or already felt for the requester. Because now, after the request, any love expressed could be reasoned away that is was only because it was asked for and not because they truly loved. Therefore, to maintain consistent integrity of one’s expressions of love, I think it is best that one express ones love voluntarily, and not by demand. Also, if one is just not in the true spirit to express their love at that time, I think it is better that they wait until when the feeling naturally arises instead of expressing a forced counterfeit love due to a request.
So I would not honor such a request unless I knew I could express my love voluntarily. I would explain this to the requester. This way, the requester knows that any love I ever express is always and truly genuine. On another note, I don’t think that one should have to ask another to love them to begin with. If another is going to love you, they will do it on their own, it shouldn’t have to be requested, and it should not influence your possible love for them.
If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then how is it that a single word which represents such an extraordinary claim has the ability to survive for such a long time without extraordinary evidence to support it’s implications? Simple, never clearly define the word to begin with, and allow it’s hosts to adapt it’s definition to the environment. Allow it’s authors to change the definition and characteristics of the word at their will. Allow it to be redefined over and over again so that it can conveniently attempt to avoid old and new contradicting evidence. Permit people to redefine it at any time to meet their own personal needs. I present to you, the independently experienced personal “god.”
It’s evasiveness is legendary, it’s definition is elusive, it’s meaning is adaptable, it is intangible to all except to the one who provokes the thought. It is the impalpable, definition shifting, meme replicating, evasive “god” expression.
Children’s personification of inanimate objects compliment their imaginary friend complex and subjects them to being unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy to the point of where even as an adult they cling to an Imaginary attic friend whom they have been conditioned to believe really exists and should be referred to as an almighty omniscient god whom spares no rod to those without faith to worship it’s name and proclaim to all others that they too need to worship this invisible “who” whom they do not have evidence exists yet cite as fact and deny sciences act of studying reality in which no supernatural events have been found to be sound or even remotely possible in a world where respect for nature is being replaced by mans attachment to comfort and his imaginary attic friend who claims to fill in all the gaps to its host’s unknowns and stones all others who do not share the same grand delusion of the idea of a peaceful supernatural deity who curiously allows suffering and peculiarly requires it’s followers to reject reason, logic, and evidence for carefully arranged words in a man made book without proof to support its claims so it remains a spoof to me and all others who think reasonably free from such memetic debris.
If it is the intention of Valentines day for lovers to express their love for each other to each other, then I think that the day defeats itself in serving its purpose. If one needs a special day to express their love and are doing so only because the day asks for it, then how sincere could such expressions of love be? I am tempted to think that expressing ones love on any other day then a day that calls for it would be more sincere then expressing ones love because one has been called upon to do so. To have a single day to promote the importance of love not only seems to belittle those of us who love with the same passion every day, but it also diminishes the value of love on this day by making the motivation of love on Valentines day to be Valentines day itself. Why wait to send flowers, chocolates, cards, etcâ€¦ in the name of love only on this day, rather then being open to send such tokens of love on any day one feels like it. Every day we should share our love, and we should not need a day like Valentines day to be motivated to express our love. If you do need such motivation, then you need to reexamine if what you are feeling is indeed, love.
I’ve seen some discussions lately that suggest that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. This is somewhat misleading because atheists do not just lack a belief in god, they “disbelieve” in god.
To reach atheism, I think it must go in this order: Ignorant – agnostic – atheist.
By default we are all ignorant.
A baby for example has no idea of god, and therefore can not even disbelieve in god. A baby by default is ignorant. Once ideas are introduced, such as the idea of a god, then one immediately becomes agnostic until they decide to believe in the idea or not. If they decide to not believe in god then they are labelled as an atheist.
An atheist holds a disbelief based on being exposed to the idea of god and having rejected it. A baby for example does not hold a belief or even a disbelief. They are totally “ignorant”, they are not atheists. You must be exposed to the idea to reject it. Babies do not not believe in god. They haven’t been exposed to god to even not believe in god. Atheism isn’t just lacking a belief, it’s also holding a disbelief. To disbelieve, you must be exposed to the idea.