Such a deep and complicated subject. You can love someone for sex or as you put it use them for sex. This would suggest that you are not getting enough sex. And in there is part of the problem, a lot of people 'love' their partner(s) simply for the amount of sex. He/she says I love you and he/she replies I love you too and a kiss is exchanged, until after fucking each other's rains out, he/she says I really love you.. but what they are really saying is I love to have sex with you.
The only way you can help friends after break up is to be a friend, the shoulder to cry on, the arm to cling too. But don't think its love if you end up fucking them, its comfort sex, rebound sex, it's not love.
So how do you know when it's really love.. well the picture says it all. When no one else matters including family. And if the person you are in love with you has the same fixation on you and a year on you and he/she still has that focus, when the first sex and lovey-dovey feelings have gone and you face the world together, then that's love. And ten or twenty years on you are still that united pair against the world then that's love.

My, my. I thought I could resist the urge to respond, but the fact is I cannot wait until you get tired of this site and leave. Well done, posting something so lacking in insight and perspective. I'd almost be amused, if it wasn't so disheartening to watch you unironically make this argument. Unfortunately, it seems adding someone to my ignore list does not relieve my eyes of the ridiculous blogs they write (ad nauseam, I might add - have you nothing better to do?).

As for me, I have nothing better planned at the moment, so let's start with the fact that everything you've cited as examples of "the truth" are, by definition, opinions. The truth is that the sky is blue. The truth is that plants get nutrients through photosynthesis. Your personal experience with men, women's weight, or race does not constitute the truth. That you cannot conceptualize the vast rate of, yes, institutionalized sexism and sexual harassment that still occurs in this country, as well as around the world, does not make it exist any less. That you cannot empathize with those who do not fit into the gender binary does not make their self-identity any less valid (and certainly doesn't make you some expert on which genders are valid). That you couldn't possibly imagine, in all your arid, pretty little noggin, that there are gorgeously healthy fat folks just as well as there are morbidly unhealthy skinny folks (even if only mentally unhealthy, as may be the case for you), does not make the evidence any less valuable. That you are fortunate enough to never have stared down the barrel of a gun preceding the hateful eyes of a crooked cop does not make the black victims of police brutality any less dead.

I hate to close with an ad hominem - but you are a child, depressingly inexperienced, and have less right than Donald Trump, himself, to presume your opinions even graze the shoulder of that which is fact.

Nonetheless, your opinions are yours to have. Just don't be surprised when your ignorance spurs others' ire. Hopefully some of it will inspire you to broaden your horizons and gain some perspective from angles beyond your own narrow, barren little corner.

I'm just going to say that PC has gotten way out of control.

I'm just going to say that PC has really gotten way out of control.

The cookie and slide analogy was only meant to illustrate the feeling of inexorability of the passage of time. It can't be taken any further.

The thing is, the passage of time is due to the expansion of the temporal dimension from that singularity. Just as the singularity expanded in to the three spatial dimensions, it also expanded in to the temporal dimension.

In the cookie and slide analogy, it is gravity that pulls the cookie along. In the case of the singularity, it is entropy.

By definition, a singularity is zero dimensional. The mass was contained in a zero width, zero height and zero depth volume, which made the density infinite. Even the smallest spatial volume makes the density finite. It was actually the transition from that infinitely dense, non dimensional state to a finite density state with dimensions that we call the big bang.

As to "when" the singularity originated - are you familiar with Zeno's paradox of "Achilles and the tortoise?" The thing is, before we get to that zero point of origin, there will be an even smaller step after each step. In that sense, the origin point of the singularity does not exist. It can't exist, because time didn't exist until it made the transition from a dimensionless state to a dimensional state.

Am I making sense?

And what length of quitting time are you basing this on?Again I am mostly just curious because I havent been there so Im not preaching just talking.

I like this post.

I love the ones where I give a dare that right in the dare it clearly shows that it will take at least 20 minutes to complete all parts of the dare and the person doing the dare replys 5 minutes later and says they just did it and wow it was awesome....oh really???

I never smoked it so I really cant relate but have you ever wanted to quit so you could eventually get away from these feelings?

Time seems linear to us because of the way we experience it. Imagine a cookie �� sliding down a play ground slide. That cookie is unable to halt the forward momentum. That cookie is experiencing a spatial dimension the same way we experience the temporal dimension. It's only because we experience time locked in a certain momentum we can't stop, that we assume it needs to have a start and and an end.

Big bang couldn't have been an explosion, because there was nothing for the universe to explode in to. Instead, it was an expansion in all spatial and temporal dimensions. In the same way that the singularity did not have a height, width, or depth, it did not have time, until the expansion began. It was the expansion that pushed everything in to that forward momentum along the temporal axis. Since time did not exist before the expansion, there was nothing before the expansion, in the same way that there was nothing above, below or behind the singularity.

That's my understanding. Hope it makes sense.

"And how can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is correct? That is quite difficult." We can't, but why would we need to. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof in a criminal trial. If we could reach a similar conclusive resolution to this it would be consider a "law" ie the "law of physics" or the "law of gravity" rather than a "theory."

Both science and religion waste way too much time and energy trying to find the answer to this. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? We're here now, shouldn't we focus on that and what the future may hold instead?

That being said, I do suppose if we had more concrete answers about the beginning, it may provide some insight into the future.

That should be corrected to "The first person to correct any grammatical mistakes of mine will be stabbed. Do not fuck with me on this."

Please mind your grammar.

Come stab me.

The mood you're in right now - I've been there. Ive been there more than once.

I won't offer you words of advice because right now they're no good. But if you need someone to shout at the sky with and complain that life's completely unfair then I can do that. You don't wanna know how close I got...

Point is I came around. The only way I managed it was through talking to people. Complaining about how harsh life is, ans letting them tell me why life is worth living. After I broke down I understood how good life is, how much love people are capable of all the time, and why happiness isn't what you should strive for.

Anyway, you know where to find me. Never face something like this alone. Never.

Believing you can do whatever you want is on par with believing in God. In reality neither is that unreasonable. There are certifiably genius people with PHDs who defend god consistently and convincingly. I'm an atheist personally because, I'm not sure I want to believe in god and I don't feel I have enough information to be certain.

However if you want some perspective, let me refer you to a couple of famous christian apologist, who often defend a monotheistic gods potential existence. One would be William Lane Craig. He debates and defeats people who are renowned agnostic biblical PHD historians like Bart Ehrman, PHD physicist like Lawrence Krauss, and PHD neuro Scientist like Sam Harris. The other apologist I would recommend is Alvin Plantigna, well renowed and I believe an influence of William Lane Craig. Alvin is referred to by many apologist debaters as kind of an expert.

I wouldn't commit to any religion without being super convinced because, most of them won't let you come back philosophically if you have left them, which could be very psychologically disturbing if you later find you are wrong. Just something to think about though.

Basically DO NOT GIVE UP. There are A LOT of things to consider. I don't think there is even one good reason to give up. There are many many potential outcomes and ways to potentially value them.

You are not unlovable.

Anyone who tells you that you are unlovable or generally not worthy of love and respect is speaking out of their own inability or unwillingness to love and respect themselves.

And if you are not unlovable, then you are not unbearable either. "Love bears all things." Be gentle with yourself. Please. Do whatever you need to in order to love yourself, actively; get what you genuinely need. Because you deserve to be loved, first by yourself.

Welcome to the real world hun.
Life's a bitch for real more bitchier than any ugly bitch one will ever meet in their lives.

So stop caring what others say or do..just do what you feel is right cos ultimately you decide the course of your life.
For me the last many years have been so rough that I hv stopped caring about it at all.
But going back to your post. You dont believe in god but believe in hell. How could that be. When the real hell is actually what we all live in nowadays.