What does indicated mean in this context?
Iām guessing it doesnāt show up on any kind of scan. The imaginary eye I mean, not the pineal gland.
The parietal eye is a part of the epithalamus, which can be divided into two major parts; the epiphysis (the pineal organ, or pineal gland if mostly endocrine) and the parapineal organ (often called the parietal eye , or if it is photoreceptive, the third eye ).
Howādya like them apples!
Did Ratty go to a love doll wedding? 
A person wrote the dictionary. Iām a person too and so are you.
Your definition is a ārangeā of emotions. Mine is āone in particularā.
Yeah. Sure. Using colloquialism, additional terms, conditional terms, hyperbole, and exaggeration - all of which distort the original meaning.
Not really. Love proper (which is what Iāve been advocating this whole time) is transcendental and unconditional.
I havenāt changed my mind a single time. Not my problem if you donāt know what love is.
So what was your fucking point, then? If you are so vague with your claims, donāt be surprised that I donāt know exactly what you mean.
I went to the trouble to quote you (at your request - fair play). Now, my request. Clarify what you mean so that I can understand you. Expand, elaborate, explain.
Well. God bless the Greeks! Sheldon? This is what Iām referring to and have been the whole time. I said āloveā. Sheldon said, āthis kind of loveā āthat kind of loveā. I mean love proper. Can we fucking move on? NEXT!!!
Come on? You seriously put me on the same level as that ignorant fuck? Iād like an apology. Iāve been nothing but cordial and forthright to you and everyone else here (with the exception of Sheldon). 
āIndicatedā - āimplicatedā, āinvolvedā, ārelated toā. See above wiki link.
I donāt much care for that definition of love. Hereās a better one from Paul of Tarsus.
ā Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.ā
As for proving it is supermundane in nature - follow the 55 step path laid out above (and now below) in the flow chart. Thank you.
Bump
Either that, or AI has become far more advanced than we realized.
Ratti, ratty rattyā¦ Havenāt you ever learned that you can not define things by what they are not. Love is not an elephant, it is not a sunrise, it is not a grain of sand, it is not an E-flat, it is not the crud between your toes or the appendage between your legs. Love is not the moon, nor the light shining from the moon. It is not your nose, your hips or your toes. And it certainly is not defined by the stupid and extremely ignorant utterance of Paul of Tarsus.
3 Likes
Strawberry fields where nothing is real ā¦
Love is naught 
Straw man, since your claim included the usual unevidenced superstition. The term āthird eyeā is of course a metaphor, as the pineal āeyeā responds to light and darkness. The gland contains light-sensitive cells that secrete melatonin in response to changing light throughout the day. It is responsible for helping your circadian rhythm or your sleep-wake cycle .
Thatās how I like them apples, with your straw man and your original unevidenced superstition removed. You canāt piggy back your unevidenced superstition on science, and think we wonāt notice.
2 Likes
Water is wet, since we now appear to be introducing trivially true non sequiturs.
One more time then, that is not a definition, it is inferred from the definition of the word love. Yours is semantically wrong, since we are not limited to one type of deep affection. Youāve even been given different examples by more than one poster.
Except you didnāt do that, and changed it to transcendental love later. Not that this shifting of the goal posts evidences your original claim that ālove is supernaturalā of course.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that love is supernatural? You already implied you cannot.
I have quoted the dictionary definition more than once.
Love
noun
- an intense feeling of deep affection.
You are the one insisting this is a) supernatural, and b) cannot cover a range of human emotions.
My point is that you assigned a claim to me, I had not made, and would likely never make, and you ought to have the integrity to admit that error, and not embellish the falsehood with another one, since my claim was very specific, and demonstrably not the absolute claim you assigned to me.
No I did not, nor have I ever.
Which was not what I said. The quote is self evidently not the claim you assigned me, I have already explained why more than once? Claiming something has never been demonstrated to happen is very different from making an absolute claim that it canāt happen, clearly.
Those are describing different kinds of love, that was entirely the point @Old_man_shouts_at_cl was making? You are again using a quote that is disproving your claim. Either way none of this evidences your original assertion that ālove is supernaturalā. You are holding an empty bag my friend.
That link doesnāt evidence the supernatural part you included in your claim.
I could care less, the dictionary reflects common usage.
So now youāre disputing your own argument, and asserting love can involve more than one sort of emotion, none of them supernatural either. Quod erat demonstrandum.
1 Like
Kay. This has (as usual) become as tiresome as kicking a dead horse.
If Iāve implied I cannot, then I canāt.
All that you need to know is that some people are too dumb to be atheists. The bullshit in their minds is astounding though.
You might find debate less tiresome if you donāt start by making sweeping claims you cannot support with any objective evidence, to then spin that claim out with errant semantics was doomed to fail. However I fear until you learn to debate properly rather than preach beliefs, you will always find the result tiresome. One last thing, those who donāt learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them, and here I am talking about your inability to recognise the difference between a statement of fact that āsomething had never been evidencedā and a sweeping unfalsifiable claim that āit canāt happenā. You may find such distinctions tedious, but theyāre an essential requirement to reasoned debate.
1 Like
@Sheldon Well, Sheldon ā¦ you wonāt be able to stop me from sending transcendental love over the conscious field which fills space - to you.
Despite all of your objections three things remain constant:
-
consciousness is a universal field pervading space an time which allows all people to interact with all other people indiscriminately
-
consciousness has (at least) four levels of universality - 1) love 2) joy 3) compassion and 4) equanimity
-
by merely conversing with you over the internet, I have a āgoodā idea of your presence and consequence on earth. Ie. I will be sending you love despite anything and everything and you will notice it when it reaches you
Please, save your intellectual desire for objective evidence ā¦ I will not be providing you with any.
However, as a being who is engrossed in love,
I see no reason to spread it universally - as it is not only for my karmic benefit to do so, but also those who come across it.
Label me a āKrishna consciousnessā. Label me whatever you like. At this stage of life it is a necessity to make this world a better place by spreading positive feelings of love; joy; compassion; and equanimity.
Note that āGodā means nothing in this case and it is not as a ātheistā that I approach life from this position of good will.
I am a theist by circumstance (not by choice). I generally keep my understanding of God in a personal level which Iād rather not share with people (see: omnipotent industrial toilet shooting rockets up my ass).
Since there is no objective evidence it is real why would I want to stop it?
1, Nope, this is just word salad, please demonstrate some objective evidence to support the claim?
2. Consciousness can encompass a a range of emotions yes.
3. I shall pay particular attention for its delivery, what tell tale signs will differentiate this experience from my otherwise meaningless existence?
I had no expectation you ever would, but one must remain open minded.
I donāt believe in the superstition of karma, in fact I find the notion morally repugnant.
Oh I leave the labelling to others, but by all means knock yourself out, it seems a harmless enough pursuit.
Ok, duly noted.
You have already shared it, declared it publicly in a debate forum?
1 Like
Itās coming Sheldon. Strawberry fields forever
You will find comfort in the darkness. Any underlying fears of death will be replaced by absolute solace in the idea that there is love within the unknown.
Something I have been ātrainedā for and is now my duty as a human to fulfill - the training in love; joy; compassion; and equanimity!
Yes! In jest. Though I can see how some may find it funny that I was abducted by an omnipotent industrial strength toilet - and believe me; I can appreciate the humour ā¦ it is also very real to me.
I share it and I donāt ā¦ here nor there - let the summer of love (version 2.0 - post Covid) BEGIN!
I donāt find darkness discomfiting, nor do I fear death, so I shall likely be unable to distinguish this from the reality I already perceive?
Purely out of concern for your welfare, are you off your meds again?
What rat-spitās talking about is logos and it has nothing to do with love but a fight to the death for the minds of men.