Home > Quick Notes, Religion, Science > BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER

BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER

October 10th, 2011

Philosophers and theologians sometimes say that science can't answer the important BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER, questions like, “Why are we here?” or “What is the meaning of life?” You know what. Neither can the philosophers or the theologians, comprar en línea ZOLOFT, comprar ZOLOFT baratos. About ZOLOFT, They just pretend that they can. Science makes no such pretense.

, ZOLOFT description. Online buying ZOLOFT hcl. ZOLOFT australia, uk, us, usa. Purchase ZOLOFT. Kjøpe ZOLOFT på nett, köpa ZOLOFT online. Buy no prescription ZOLOFT online. ZOLOFT interactions. Order ZOLOFT from United States pharmacy. ZOLOFT dose. ZOLOFT long term. ZOLOFT duration. Buy ZOLOFT no prescription. Buy ZOLOFT online cod. ZOLOFT reviews. ZOLOFT alternatives. Generic ZOLOFT. ZOLOFT treatment. ZOLOFT without prescription. ZOLOFT pictures. ZOLOFT overnight. Discount ZOLOFT. ZOLOFT from canadian pharmacy. ZOLOFT used for. ZOLOFT mg. Buy ZOLOFT from mexico. Buy ZOLOFT online no prescription. ZOLOFT coupon. Order ZOLOFT from United States pharmacy. ZOLOFT images. ZOLOFT alternatives. Buy cheap ZOLOFT. Buy ZOLOFT from canada. Order ZOLOFT online overnight delivery no prescription.

Similar posts: BUY NIMOTOP NO PRESCRIPTION. BARBITAL FOR SALE. BUY MOTRIN OVER THE COUNTER. LIPITOR FOR SALE. Discount EPIVIR. HYTRIN use. MODALERT gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. Where can i order LOTENSIN without prescription.
Trackbacks from: BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER. BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER. BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER. BUY ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER. Generic ZOLOFT. Canada, mexico, india. Doses ZOLOFT work. ZOLOFT pharmacy.

Categories: Quick Notes, Religion, Science Tags: by
  1. Troy
    October 10th, 2011 at 16:05 | #1

    People are funny, they want answers to these questions anyway.

    One of Japan’s nice points is belief in religious BS is relatively low.

    “Meanwhile, countries where people are most likely to believe they will cease to exist after death are South Korea with 40 percent, Spain with 40 percent, France with 39 percent, Japan with 37 percent and Belgium with 35 percent saying so.”

    Still kinda low, but there you are.

  2. SOUSA-POZA
    October 10th, 2011 at 16:27 | #2

    Chances are that there is no meaning to life other than that you give to it.

  3. Tim Kane
    October 11th, 2011 at 00:32 | #3

    Well, I think it’s all about the question they attempt to answer.

    Science isn’t asking the ‘why’ of creation, just the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of creation.

    Philosophers maybe don’t answer the question, but they certainly ask why.

    One of my favorite people in history is FDR. He was a very smart man, but he disdained the ‘why’ of creation and such types of things. However, I still wonder.

    The problem isn’t just why creation, but why suffering in creation. And religion doesn’t really deal adequately with that question, except in some instances, it helps people cope with suffering.

  4. October 11th, 2011 at 01:01 | #4

    I’ve never understood some people’s obsession with finding an answer to the questions of Why are we here? and What’s the meaning of life? It’s like debating why oysters are here — to be eaten raw with a squeeze of lemon or fried and enjoyed with a dollop of tartar sauce or left alone to live and die their solitary lives. Is your life more worthwhile if you’re the person selling the oysters or the person buying them? The meaning of life is extremely simple. Live.

  5. Roger
    October 13th, 2011 at 15:55 | #5

    To ask why? is to ask “for what?” – as in, in relation to something somehow bigger. Well, being that being alive is an amazing thing… and that the Earth and the Universe are amazing… why exactly do so many people feel that that is not enough and that it is empty unless it relates to something bigger and older than the universe? Why is life considered meaningless by these same people if we do not have eternal life after our life? To ask why is not positive – it distances you from the experience itself. I remember thinking as a kid that the juvenile response “because” (with no further explanation) to the question “why?” had some essential wisdom to it. It is. Life is. I am. You are. It is all amazing. Sometimes funny, sometimes tragic always amazing. Simple.

    Science only seeks to clarify our vision on what *is*. It doesn’t try to explain “why”… and for that I love it. Maybe we even eventually get to a why sometime in the distant future – but we get there organically – through what *is* rather than through wishful thinking of what we’d like things to be or how we think things somehow *should* be.

  6. stevetv
    October 15th, 2011 at 09:06 | #6

    “To ask why? is to ask “for what?” – as in, in relation to something somehow bigger. Well, being that being alive is an amazing thing… and that the Earth and the Universe are amazing… why exactly do so many people feel that that is not enough and that it is empty unless it relates to something bigger and older than the universe? Why is life considered meaningless by these same people if we do not have eternal life after our life?”

    Aren’t we engaging in stereotypes of what philosophers think and feel? Read Socrates. Read Wittgenstein. They acknowledged the possibility that there is nothing after death, but they would never say life is meaningless without eternal life. True, there are some theologians who believe life is meaningless without eternal life. And then there’s Nietsche who believed life was meaningless no matter what. So let’s put down the broad brush, shall we?

    And considering that the pursuit of the answers to these questions have been the foundation of much art, literature, civilization and culture, both Eastern and Western, isn’t this dismissiveness an example of… anti-intellectualism?

  7. Troy
    October 15th, 2011 at 11:40 | #7

    ^ honor those who seek truth; fear those who say they found it — André Gide

  8. Roger
    October 15th, 2011 at 15:59 | #8

    stevetv, I said nothing about philosophers… so I’m not clear how I could have been engaging in stereotypes about philosophers. My complaint is against many religious folk I’ve heard, met, and known over the years… “so many people” means not a small number – it means many… it doesn’t mean all – even in regards to religious folk.

    In general (I actually can’t think of an exception), religion *requires* the super-natural – references the super-natural to anchor the natural – to give it meaning. Philosophy does not necessarily have such a restriction. Do not take my view as anti-intellectual simply because it offends your view. Well, on the other hand, take it any way you like – but you would be mistaken. You could say that I subscribe to metaphysical naturalism and existentialism. Neither of these require or suppose outside constructs or meaning to make sense of the universe or human life (though existentialism invites us to create our own meanings). Are these anti-intellectual views?

  9. stevetv
    October 16th, 2011 at 00:45 | #9

    “stevetv, I said nothing about philosophers… so I’m not clear how I could have been engaging in stereotypes about philosophers.”

    You didn’t specify anyone in your paragraph, not philosohpers nor religious folk, that’s how. And it could easily have appled to philosophers. And if you had specifically meant philosophers, then it would have been an anti-intellectual statement.

    FWIW, it could be argued that Confucianism is a religion that doesn’t require the super-natural. It all depends on how one chooses to define religion.

  10. Roger
    October 16th, 2011 at 14:22 | #10

    stevetv, well, yes, it would depend on how you define religion… veneration of ancestors – and the associated belief that their spirits exist and influence the living world – is, by my estimation, a belief that depends on the super-natural… even though it is absent a specific god to worship. But yes, that is something that could be argued either way (as to whether the veneration of ancestors is even properly part of Confucianism or is simply often included along side it. Also, for what it’s worth, I reread my original post – and see more of what you reacted to. I am not by rule anti-intellectual – but I do believe that it can be overdone at times. Getting too abstract and too inside your head can create separation from the natural world around us and more basic truths that resist attempts to be reduced to symbols or systems. But, alas, most people do not reflect and think hard on such topics enough, in my opinion. But, being intellectuals, perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the former pitfall from time to time.

  11. Troy
    October 16th, 2011 at 17:08 | #11

    not apropos this BS, but this was funny:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiU8GPlsZqE

    A friend of a friend worked for Motorola Japan and got a 660AV at a company discount. The 660AV had Apple’s “PlainTalk” speech to text functionality but it required saying “Computer”, which they just couldn’t say right.

    They brought me over to try, and I of course could say “Computer”, not “Kohmpyutah” like they were.

    Also, these demonstrations are becoming interesting. Dunno where it’s going from here, but I’m encouraged to see some bodies in the street again.

    They’ve got the general right idea, it is class war between the ultra rich and everyone else, and the ultra rich have been winning since 1980 . . .

  12. Troy
    October 18th, 2011 at 05:58 | #12

    heh, interesting chart on this topic . . .

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2002/12/19/among-wealthy-nations/

Comments are closed.