why are you, you and me, me?

Hello guys and gals...

been a while that i have posted on here... too much HATE goes around and thats bad for the soul...

just a simple question,

why are you, you?

and why am i, me?

I dont accept that it is just a random act as many on here say about the planets and what not...


Why were you born to your mother and not mine?

Those are things i think about now cause all the talks on here sparked my interest to see...


i have also come to the point where i believe religion, not our beliefs are what is the problem. I know some beliefs are heavily influenced by ones' religion, but why hold on to a religion that has done more harm then good.=?

I still believe in God and Jesus Christ, I just HATE religion and any religious zealot.



Has science found the answer to why you are born as you and i was born as myself... or the fact that we were born in the USA rather then a dictator commy fucking country such as china...


anyone interested in a good discussion have at it...

any dickheads, well, keep being dickheads. i dont care...

The continuity of identity has always fascinated me. I remember being rather young and meditating upon why i started as me and never got any time being someone else. cn

simple, cause if i were you and you were me than i wouldnt be me and you wouldnt be you and then the universe would collapse on its self there are some things that just are.

that makes no sense... then why blame believers for the "crusades" or the deaths brought about by ww2? shit happens is what you are saying, so do atheists hate believers?

And no, this aint no believers vs. atheists, im just trying to see what we can come up with...

random acts do not happen, there is always something behind everything

H R Puff N Stuff said:

simple, cause if i were you and you were me than i wouldnt be me and you wouldnt be you and then the universe would collapse on its self there are some things that just are.

Click to expand...

energy cant be created or destroyed so we are recycled and when your next in line then your next unless you believe i think buddism, that if you were a bad person in your previous life then you are destine to be poor or sick until you obtain enlightenment so that you will be rich or powerfull in the next life.

olylifter420 said:

that makes no sense... then why blame believers for the "crusades" or the deaths brought about by ww2? shit happens is what you are saying, so do atheists hate believers?

And no, this aint no believers vs. atheists, im just trying to see what we can come up with...

random acts do not happen, there is always something behind everything

Click to expand...

Actually the operation of random chance in the universe and our lives is an article of my faith. I really do believe that a lot of the time, it is dumb luck without there being a reason or a plan. But that is (of course) a personal belief. cn

yes, i am marveled by the fact we cannot understand why we are who we are... there has to be something else other then what we have found and have not found through science...

cannabineer said:

The continuity of identity has always fascinated me. I remember being rather young and meditating upon why i started as me and never got any time being someone else. cn

Click to expand...

things happen for a reason once your you and im me but before then i dont know if they happen for any other reason that energy is bieng recycled.and once your you and im me the modivation is usually survival.then greed.

I somewhat agree, but why "random"? why leave it up to chance? If there is something we want, we are not just going to leave it up to the "randomness" associated with us are we? We are going to go out and get it or find more about it right?

Also, how can we be so sure that "randomness" is what created everything? I think we as people believing that it was an act of "randomness" really shows are ignorance( no offense to anyone) because we are so intelligent as a whole...

its like saying, i will be smart today, but i dont know about tomorrow... not wise

cannabineer said:

Actually the operation of random chance in the universe and our lives is an article of my faith. I really do believe that a lot of the time, it is dumb luck without there being a reason or a plan. But that is (of course) a personal belief. cn

Click to expand...

exactly, so why say random acts are what developed us as a species and random acts is what placed us here on earth?

H R Puff N Stuff said:

things happen for a reason once your you and im me but before then i dont know if they happen for any other reason that energy is bieng recycled.and once your you and im me the modivation is usually survival.then greed.

Click to expand...

because we have conciousness so we can steer the ship a little bit. does the univers have conciuosness i dont know.maybe maybe when the correct materials are there maybe the universe is compeled to create.

olylifter420 said:

exactly, so why say random acts are what developed us as a species and random acts is what placed us here on earth?

Click to expand...

Two excellent reasons:
1) A model based entirely on observing nature is being constructed for the chronology of the universe, and so far, not invoking divine engagement is working.
2) A model ... is being developed for the origins and history of Terrestrial life; same comment.

Of course, this neither proves nor disproves that there was no creative engagement. But Occam's Razor, which has proven an excellent guideline, states that if you don't need it, don't use it.

That said, I'd like to moderate the positive nature of the quoted statement. Rather than saying "random acts are what occurred", honest scientists won't be so definite. A truer statement for the attitude of scientists (other than the ones who are reverse evangelists, of course) is "models built on randomness are succeeding in modeling what we observe". This allows room for changing that conclusion ... should contradictory data appear. cn

I have had serious brain block lately, so as it has been remarkably sunny I decided to collect all of the mirrors from the house as well as from the houses of a few of my neighbors -( I’m sure they won’t mind) and piled them in my back garden in a concave assembly [con-cave, think of a cave, damp and dark and internal; con-vex, think of Lex Luther, whose head was shiny and protuberant and bulging and round and evil]. I wrapped myself in muslin from toe to neck to prevent sun blisters. I caked my face in putty and put packing tape over my glasses to avoid going blind. Then I crawled into the mirrored structure and curled up into a ball. Sun is very good for the thinking.

models built from randomness until it works then does it stay random because the succesful model no has its perimiters so cant be completly random at that point can it? it must stay within its peramiters to exist.

i really like what you are saying neer, but how can a scientist reproduce what a believer felt the day they met God or became enlightened in a laboratory? you just cant do that... why cant "randomness" be used to prove God or help the cause? why is only randomness used in science?

and as for the conclusion, if get what you are saying correctly, are you saying that science can always go back and change something if it does not fit the mold per se?

if so, then why do some atheists always cry that, "why read a book that has always been changed" fallacy, yet science can?

cannabineer said:

Two excellent reasons:
1) A model based entirely on observing nature is being constructed for the chronology of the universe, and so far, not invoking divine engagement is working.
2) A model ... is being developed for the origins and history of Terrestrial life; same comment.

Of course, this neither proves nor disproves that there was no creative engagement. But Occam's Razor, which has proven an excellent guideline, states that if you don't need it, don't use it.

That said, I'd like to moderate the positive nature of the quoted statement. Rather than saying "random acts are what occurred", honest scientists won't be so definite. A truer statement for the attitude of scientists (other than the ones who are reverse evangelists, of course) is "models built on randomness are succeeding in modeling what we observe". This allows room for changing that conclusion ... should contradictory data appear. cn

Click to expand...

prob. cause science can be argued and changed if nec. the bible not so much.

maybe im wrong but the bible is the word of god to the faithfull is finite. and science the knowledge of man is always evolving.

Oly, don't feel bitter about science because of this. Science is not equipped to answer your question as it is stated, and it doesn't pretend to be, so it has made no progress on this front. I think you want to be looking to philosophy studies rather than science.

I've asked myself these questions many times and came up with nothing. Eventually I decided it was like asking why I didn't get a better hand in poker. Although it would be interesting to know, the knowledge really wouldn't have much bearing on how I play the hand I have.

^^ *Like*******

Bump for knowledge. it's 420 as well.!!.