Philosophy of Religion

[JohnnyZ]

Today in my phil of religion class, my professor posed a simple question:

Is it rational to believe in God?

Me, I say no. Since rationality is a product of rules of the human mind, and since God exceeds the limits of the human mind, then God also exceeds rationality.

Give your opinion and back it up with a logical argument.

[BlueBlazer]

Johnny, Epicurus laid it down a couple of thousand years ago. It seems to still hold up to me.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

In my opinion, belief in god is not rational or logical. Having "faith" is central to all religions. To have faith in the existence of god, one must refute logic and reason IMHO.

[pepurr]

The belief in God is not illogical. What is illogical is the way humans have portrayed God. The attributes we have given God.

From the time humanity first obtained the ability to reason, we have looked for the answers to the question of our origin and purpose. Sense before the written word, stories were made of gods and the powers that be, in an effort to come to this understanding.

Ten thousand years ago humanity had no understanding of the forces of nature. But yet, because of our desire to understand and to know, we came to conclusions based on what we did know. These understandings took many forms, shaped by culture and the environments people were exposed to.

Now humanity has come to understand the workings of the atom and the underlying forces of nature. Yet people cling to ideas based on archaic wisdom. People all over the world think God to be a spirit separate from the universe, when in fact God is the universe.

It is now thought that there may be 11 dimensions of time and space. If this is found to be true, then God is not only the universe, God is the multi-verse.

It is believed that this universe was created in what has been called the "big bang". Even now people strive to understand what was there at the instant of creation using tools like the Large Hadron Collider. Before this big bang it is said there was nothing. No time. No space. Even this absence of time and space was God.

People need to expand their mind to be able to understand the true nature of God. People should stop giving God human attributes.

Some notions put forth in days of old are correct. Take the ten commandments for instants. These laws concerning behavior are correct and right. They have withstood the test of time. Take the one that says, we should make no graven images. This is true because a stone, gold or wood figure of a supposed god has no power. It is not an all encompassing power that can create. It is merely a failed idea by one who seeks to understand.

Some ideas of creation and God were partly right. They were partly right because our understanding of the universe was incomplete. Take the book of Genesis. It is said there, we were created from the dust of the earth. This is correct. We were made of the stuff of the earth and are a part of it, and will one day return to it. Then in the same book it is said we were cast out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge. In a way this is true too. Let me explain.

In our remote past, our ancestors lived like the animals. Day by day, hand to mouth. We wholly depended on what nature provided as nature provided it. Then one day we departed from that. We had a spark that allowed us to craft tools and to control fire. When that happened, we started to depend on our intellect to survive. That was the day we were metaphorically cast from the garden.

This Garden of Eden still exists, but it is not a place. It is a state of being. You can still see the garden if you're willing to open your mind. Look at the birds and the other creatures. They depend on what nature provides, where they can find it. They are living in the garden.

So is believing in God illogical? I think not. What is illogical is the manner in which we believe in God. :hippy:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

So is believing in God illogical? I think not. What is illogical is the manner in which we believe in God.i'd think that one should define what we mean by the term "god" before even beginning any discussion on the logic of faith. it seems that sentience is an integral part of the definition of god. it must have the will to effect us and our world, implying a self-awareness and a desire. this seems to rule out the uncaring energy of the universe. humanity has created this concept. by claiming that our understanding of it is illogical, you also make the claim that the concept itself is illogical. by claiming that god is the universe itself, you deny the very meaning of the term and, in doing so, deny the existence of god. redefining god does not validate its existence, it denies it.


johnny- you should have first asked your professor to define his concept of god before stepping into such a ludicrous discussion.

[pepurr]

i'd think that one should define what we mean by the term "god" before even beginning any discussion on the logic of faith. it seems that sentience is an integral part of the definition of god. it must have the will to effect us and our world, implying a self-awareness and a desire. this seems to rule out the uncaring energy of the universe. humanity has created this concept. by claiming that our understanding of it is illogical, you also make the claim that the concept itself is illogical. by claiming that god is the universe itself, you deny the very meaning of the term and, in doing so, deny the existence of god. redefining god does not validate its existence, it denies it.

Our understanding of God at this point is not logical. It is based on incomplete knowledge. Claiming that God is the universe in no way denys the existence of God. It is a statement who's purpose is to attempt to gain understanding. What is more correct, to say God is a gray bearded fellow who rules a heavenly domain, or to say God is all? One can not separate God from the universe. If God made all, all is made from God and is God.

Indeed the forces of the universe are uncaring and harsh. But yet, the universe attempts to understand its self. That understanding of its self takes the form of us or any sentient being who strives to unlock the secrets of time and space, for we are a part of the universe.

That being said, it would hold true that we also are a part of God, for we are a part of the universe.

We will not truly understand God till we have complete knowledge of the universe. To know the universe is to know God.

[BlueBlazer]

pepurr, your concept of god sounds more like the concept of the Tao.

I obviously don't have a problem with that concept, but what difference is there to us in our daily lives between a non-personal god and no god?

In my 1st post, I was going by the definition of the cognizant, personal god embodied in almost all religions. Any god belief involving a god who cares about the latest dominant species on one planet out of more planets than grains of sand on the beach is not logical. In my humble opinion.

[pepurr]

pepurr, your concept of god sounds more like the concept of the Tao.

I obviously don't have a problem with that concept, but what difference is there to us in our daily lives between a non-personal god and no god?

The only difference to us in our daily lives between a non-personal god and no god is the difference we as individuals choose to put on it. For them who believe there is no God, there is no God. Then they return from whence they came, same as all the rest. Hopefully they return happy in knowing they are one with all.


In my 1st post, I was going by the definition of the cognizant, personal god embodied in almost all religions. Any god belief involving a god who cares about the latest dominant species on one planet out of more planets than grains of sand on the beach is not logical. In my humble opinion.

True, it is not logical, and God can not do illogical things. If God loves one, how could God not love the other. God made them both of him self. By loving one and not the other, God would not be loving himself. A house divided can not stand.

[BlueBlazer]

The only difference to us in our daily lives between a non-personal god and no god is the difference we as individuals choose to put on it. For them who believe there is no God, there is no God. Then they return from whence they came, same as all the rest. Hopefully they return happy in knowing they are one with all.

I agree. :thumbsup:

[pepurr]

True, it is not logical, and God can not do illogical things. If God loves one, how could God not love the other. God made them both of him self. By loving one and not the other, God would not be loving himself. A house divided can not stand.

I wanted to comment on my use of gender specific terms when writing the above comment.

I use the term him and his to refer to God sometimes, even though I try to avoid it. The terms are not used because I believe God to be male. I use them because I was brought up in a family that believed that. In my life and the culture I was raised in, God was always called by masculine terms. So today I do to as a matter of habit.

I do not believe God is male or female. God doesn't need gender. God is not a biological creature, so therefore God doesn't need to reproduce.

So all you people who have a "Mother Goddess" or "Our Father", if it gives you comfort so be it. I think if God chuckles about human activity God would chuckle about that.

[Graywolf]

Due to my Native American perspective, I usually avoid discussions on religion because I have come to believe that they are all a leap of faith.

Believing is seeing, so after making that leap, we are no longer logical in our beliefs and see only facts that support our position.

Very much like Zen, I believe we are all one and but individual pieces of the whole. Sort of like cells in the body, or drops of water in a river.

If there is a concept of sin, it is creating disharmony against the whole, though my beliefs allow me to thwart the minions of chaos in defense of the whole, after the harmony has already been broken. Very much like our own bodies have anti-bodies.

As a student of ancient history, it is impossible to not be aware of the founding of the current dominant religions, of which there were about 10,000 different ones with a following of 500 or more devotees, last time I researched it.

There are divisions within that 10,000 of course, and for instance Christianity itself had about 32, 000 and change different variations, and growing rapidly.

Each of those religions and divisions will die believing they are right, and the odds seem high to my engineering mind, that most will be wrong, including the sheer probability of the numbers that I am amongst them.

I like to think I have a discerning scientific mind, but alas the more deeply I dig into the celestial dance that is going on, the more I realize how little I understand and the more in awe I am of the details of what is going on.

It appears to me that life itself is constantly searching and finding ways to evolve and fill new niches.

A study of the Cambrian explosion and mathematical odds with hundreds of zeros after the decimal point and before a real number for even single celled bacteria, will put some of that into better perspective for any of yaâ??ll who havenâ??t.

I salute the good things that organized religion has provided, which have served to bind civilization together under a moral code.

I reject and abhor that the name of the creator has been dirtied and sullied by the mind of man and used to justify genocide. I also reject attempts at proselytizing me, because I know Iâ??m right.

One old manâ??s opinion and given my limited years left, it wonâ??t be all that long until I find out for sure.

GW

PS: My creator gave the fox and hare everything they needed to win, but is indifferent to which one does.

[pepurr]

Due to my Native American perspective, I usually avoid discussions on religion because I have come to believe that they are all a leap of faith.

Believing is seeing, so after making that leap, we are no longer logical in our beliefs and see only facts that support our position.

Very much like Zen, I believe we are all one and but individual pieces of the whole. Sort of like cells in the body, or drops of water in a river.

If there is a concept of sin, it is creating disharmony against the whole, though my beliefs allow me to thwart the minions of chaos in defense of the whole, after the harmony has already been broken. Very much like our own bodies have anti-bodies.

As a student of ancient history, it is impossible to not be aware of the founding of the current dominant religions, of which there were about 10,000 different ones with a following of 500 or more devotees, last time I researched it.

There are divisions within that 10,000 of course, and for instance Christianity itself had about 32, 000 and change different variations, and growing rapidly.

Each of those religions and divisions will die believing they are right, and the odds seem high to my engineering mind, that most will be wrong, including the sheer probability of the numbers that I am amongst them.

I like to think I have a discerning scientific mind, but alas the more deeply I dig into the celestial dance that is going on, the more I realize how little I understand and the more in awe I am of the details of what is going on.

It appears to me that life itself is constantly searching and finding ways to evolve and fill new niches.

A study of the Cambrian explosion and mathematical odds with hundreds of zeros after the decimal point and before a real number for even single celled bacteria, will put some of that into better perspective for any of yaâ??ll who havenâ??t.

I salute the good things that organized religion has provided, which have served to bind civilization together under a moral code.

I reject and abhor that the name of the creator has been dirtied and sullied by the mind of man and used to justify genocide. I also reject attempts at proselytizing me, because I know Iâ??m right.

One old manâ??s opinion and given my limited years left, it wonâ??t be all that long until I find out for sure.

GW

PS: My creator gave the fox and hare everything they needed to win, but is indifferent to which one does.

I can see that you are wise, and know we are all part of the whole.

It is refreshing to read words of one whose mind has not been clouded by dogma.

Hopefully, in your remaining days, the creator will give you a gift of more wisdom. Hopefully you will be able to share it before you leave this state of being. :rastasmoke:

[JohnnyZ]

johnny- you should have first asked your professor to define his concept of god before stepping into such a ludicrous discussion.

Sorry guys, I should have defined God. In class we generally use the "supreme being" image of God, an omnipotent and omniscient creator. Basically, just a big dude up in the sky.


To have faith in the existence of god, one must refute logic and reason IMHO.

Indeed sir.

pepurr, I agree with many of the things you said about how God is all and we are all. The further science breaks everything down, we see that we are nothing but little bits of energy held together by an electro-magnetic field. So we are all, and we are all nothing.

I don't know how far any of you have delved into psychedelics, but once you have experienced ego-death, you tend to see the universe in a whole different light. Psychedelics are only dangerous because they hold the ability to give you comprehension of infinity. A lot of people can't handle that. Me, I loved it :)

Have any of you heard of the "thumbprint"? Perhaps some of you older dudes toured with the 'Dead back in the day.

[pepurr]

I don't know how far any of you have delved into psychedelics, but once you have experienced ego-death, you tend to see the universe in a whole different light. Psychedelics are only dangerous because they hold the ability to give you comprehension of infinity. A lot of people can't handle that. Me, I loved it :)

Have any of you heard of the "thumbprint"? Perhaps some of you older dudes toured with the 'Dead back in the day.

I think that is the biggest stumbling block for people. They are not able to comprehend the infinite. The infinitely small or the infinitely large. When they do think they understand, they place themselves some where in the middle. They do not understand that there is no middle.

I was never a huge fan of the Dead, but I did do a lot of acid. I haven't done any for many, many years now. I doubt I ever will again.

There are some who believe all religious faiths started with some one who ate a mushroom. Sort of like looking at the crescent moon and seeing the smile of the cheshire cat.

They can't fool us. We know the moon is really made of green cheese. :D

Before mankind can truly throw off the chains of ignorance, they must embrace the infinite.

[BlueBlazer]

Have any of you heard of the "thumbprint"? Perhaps some of you older dudes toured with the 'Dead back in the day.

I'm not a huge Dead fan either, but I've heard of thumbprinting. It was always star blotter for me back in the day. :hippy:

Be careful with psychedelics Johnny. They expand your mind, but they also open it to someone who may use that against you. You think they are harmless until someone with a evil need to dominate romps around in your grey matter while you're tripping. . . . End of sermon. :D

[pepurr]

I agree BlueBlazer. Back when I was doing 4 way windowpain, I always tripped with people I knew and trusted. Some people get a kick out of doing a mind fuck.

I always thought mushrooms were the best. I grew up in Florida and mushrooms there were as easy to find as going to the nearest cow pie. Smooth, mellow trip.

[JohnnyZ]

Thank you Blue. You are a kind and wise man. I have a friend who is as interested as I am in this subject. Both of us have been doing quite a lot of research into LSD. From Hofmann to Leary, it's psychological potentials, it's downfall, and everything in between. We are both experienced with mushrooms, but still him and I agreed that we would not do LSD until we found a pure source. A little poking around in the drug scene here has told me that a lot of the stuff floating around is low grade garbage that is bad for the mind and body. It's like the mexican ditch weed of acid.

I know it is all about setting. A day out in the provincial park here is a tripper's paradise.

Also, being a member on shroomery.org provides incredible information. This fall will mark my first grow :)

[BlueBlazer]

Thank you Blue. You are a kind and wise man.

You're welcome.

Now can I get you to tell that to my wife? :D

As long as you are well educated and knowledgeable, that's half the battle. The other half is to ensure you limit your contact to folks you know well and trust and be prepared for more than a day "out of commission".

[JohnnyZ]

I love my friends man, I know they would never hurt me when I am vulnerable. However, they might when I am drunk and trying to make fun of them :D

pepurr I must ask you what you think of the devine simplicity argument for God, as it seems somewhat contingent with what you have said.


Godâ??s existence is absolutely simple, without combinations or additions of any kind. All perfections are found in Him in a perfectly simple manner. However, God does not entail separate domains â?? even though in truth there exist in God qualities which, within us, are separateâ?¦ Indeed the true nature of His essence is that it is a single attribute, (yet) one that intrinsically encompasses everything that could be considered perfection. All perfection therefore exists in God, not as something added on to His existence, but as an integral part of His intrinsic identityâ?¦ This is a concept that is very far from our ability to grasp and imagineâ?¦

[pepurr]

pepurr I must ask you what you think of the devine simplicity argument for God, as it seems somewhat contingent with what you have said.


Originally Posted by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
Godâ??s existence is absolutely simple, without combinations or additions of any kind. All perfections are found in Him in a perfectly simple manner. However, God does not entail separate domains â?? even though in truth there exist in God qualities which, within us, are separateâ?¦ Indeed the true nature of His essence is that it is a single attribute, (yet) one that intrinsically encompasses everything that could be considered perfection. All perfection therefore exists in God, not as something added on to His existence, but as an integral part of His intrinsic identityâ?¦ This is a concept that is very far from our ability to grasp and imagineâ?¦


I feel it is a good start. I agree, "All perfections are found in Him in a perfectly simple manner. ", that is one of the reasons Jesus said:


Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Yet understanding is still lacking because, not only does God encompasses everything that is considered perfect, but all things considered imperfect. Just because we see something as imperfect does not make it so. To what standard do we measure? We measure by our own standard, which was born of incomplete knowledge. So, if it exists it is perfect because God made it and it is a part of God. Nothing about God can be considered imperfect.

An example of man's lack of understanding of this can be found in this. It is said of some ground that it is holy. I say all ground is holy because God made it, and it is in God, and he in it. That supposed holy ground may hold special meaning to man, but this is because man gives it special meaning. No ground or place is more holy than another, no thing is more perfect than another.

Truly, "God does not entail separate domains". All domains are of God, and in God, and he in them. To us there are many domains. To god there is only one domain.

People over complicate things. People love ceremony. People add things to the requirements of righteousness, and for entry into heaven, that are not required. Doing so they are giving God the attributes of man.

How is this so? Some people will tell you that you must be baptized in water, be it submerged or sprinkled, to enter into heaven. They are adding a ceremony that is not needed. They misunderstand what Jesus was telling them.



John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.


The water Jesus gave was the water of truth and understanding. I really believe Jesus understood God in a way never understood by man before.

So even though there are good intentions in being baptized, doing that does not make one more saved or righteous. Any one can hold something in their hands and still not understand it.

[JohnnyZ]

People love ceremony.

So true bro. That is such an issue in our world. Especially in the Canadian parliamentary system, they waste important time with all the pomp and circumstance. And for what, to make them seem above society? They forget that they are our servants, not the other way around. Democracy has turned sour.

Also, I hate how God is always He. I would love to see equality already in this world, it's long overdue. I can't stand feminists though.

I like what you are getting at with God's all-encompassing nature. From my ego-loss experiences, I can say with much certainty that there is a force behind everything.

The question now is, is it possible to give that force a name? Something we don't understand? Do we even comprehend perfection?

I think not.

[pepurr]

Also, I hate how God is always He. I would love to see equality already in this world, it's long overdue. I can't stand feminists though.

I don't agree with people who insist that God is male or female. I think there is an explanation for it. Through out human history we have been mostly living patriarchal, and less often matriarchal, groups. These arrangements must have had survival value in our remote past. When thinkers, who were contemplating the nature of the world around them, began to have thoughts of a higher power, they thought in terms of male and female. I doubt there was anything malicious about it. It just seemed logical to them at the time.

There are many cultures who still live in societies that are patriarchal or matriarchal. This seems to be diminishing. Even so, people think in terms of gender. They even refer to inanimate objects in ways that suggest gender.

I call God him or his sometimes. I try not to, but I do it anyway. I was raised in a family who believed that God is a male figure. So it was pounded into my head from an early age. I don't think God is male though, I only use male gender to describe God because of habit.

God doesn't have gender. Gender is something living organisms have. Gender is something we need to procreate. God has no need to reproduce, therefore no need of gender.


The question now is, is it possible to give that force a name? Something we don't understand? Do we even comprehend perfection? I think not.

Sure! Humanity has been giving the forces of nature names from the start. Naming things is necessary. We have to give names to things real and imagined so we can communicate thoughts about them. The name really doesn't matter. God is what God is.

If man can comprehend the existence of the universe and of reality, they can comprehend perfection. Man's comprehension falls short when we have preconceived notions about that perfection or when we try to decide what perfection is. What exists in the universe is perfect for the universe otherwise it wouldn't exist. Sense the universe is all that it is composed of, it is also perfect.

Some may say we are not perfect because we fail and die. Having failure and death is just as much a part of man as success and life. The way we work is perfect for our place in the scheme of things. This is true even if it seems that we do things that are imperfect. This is so even if we change over time.

People only need to realize, it is not us who decides perfection. Reality is the decider of that.

[BlueBlazer]

The belief in God is not illogical. What is illogical is the way humans have portrayed God. The attributes we have given God.

So is believing in God illogical? I think not. What is illogical is the manner in which we believe in God. :hippy:

Perhaps I should have said belief in religion's god is illogical.


Through out human history we have been mostly living patriarchal, and less often matriarchal, groups. These arrangements must have had survival value in our remote past. When thinkers, who were contemplating the nature of the world around them, began to have thoughts of a higher power, they thought in terms of male and female. I doubt there was anything malicious about it. It just seemed logical to them at the time.

I agree with your assessment of how the one god came to be though of as masculine. Pantheon gods had both male and female attributes, though the top dog was most always a male figure.

I'll got a step further. When humans began to contemplate higher being(s), they logically assigned human attributes. The human race has "created" god(s), not the other way around.



The question now is, is it possible to give that force a name? Something we don't understand? Do we even comprehend perfection?

Pepurr is right about our innate need to name things. I use the name Tao, others use Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Rha, Mohammad, etc.

I believe much as perpurr that there is a god that is everything, including ourselves. I do not believe in a personal god that cares or responds to anything in a human way.

We can't even really comprehend the sheer numbers of galaxies in our observable universe. To understand "god" one must first understand the universe. In that respect, science is doing more to define what god is than religion that only seeks to solidify and propagate a self-contained image of god who "wants" you to behave in certain ways (what ways depend on the religion) and believe in certain things (again depending on the religion).

[JohnnyZ]

My point though was the kind of God we're talking about is not gender specific, is perfection and imperfection, is everything.. Oneness..

Everything already has a name though.. Universe.

I'm just trying to draw conclusions here, and it's tough man. This is the first time I've contemplated the notion of God in this light. I keep coming back to my ego-loss experiences and the more I relate God in the senses I felt in those times.. the stranger it is, but also the more sense it makes at the same time.

Fuck now I am just confusing myself :D

[pepurr]

My point though was the kind of God we're talking about is not gender specific, is perfection and imperfection, is everything.. Oneness..

Well, is perfection and what we see as imperfection. It is sort of like the concept of chaos. We look at some things and occurrences, and see chaos. For God there is no chaos. For God there can only be order. We see chaos because we do not fully understand.


Everything already has a name though.. Universe.

Maybe! Some people might call God's name multi-verse. The name is unimportant.


I'm just trying to draw conclusions here, and it's tough man. This is the first time I've contemplated the notion of God in this light. I keep coming back to my ego-loss experiences and the more I relate God in the senses I felt in those times.. the stranger it is, but also the more sense it makes at the same time.

Fuck now I am just confusing myself :D

Keep seeking the truth. You are young, and God willing, you will have many years to seek truth. It will not come over night. The truth, and more importantly understanding (truth is worthless without understanding), will come with experience, study and meditation.

Never be like the ones who believe they have all the right answers. Always question everything. Keep an open mind, and do not close it off to new knowledge. Knowledge is a gift of God and wisdom is bought with time.

When people get angry with you because you question things or because you don't believe the way they do, wish them well and walk away. They have the reward they seek. But if they wish to debate in good will and calmly, join the debate and learn from them, and they can learn from you.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Today in my phil of religion class, my professor posed a simple question:

Is it rational to believe in God?

Me, I say no. Since rationality is a product of rules of the human mind, and since God exceeds the limits of the human mind, then God also exceeds rationality.

Give your opinion and back it up with a logical argument.



Rationality is the product of "rules of the human mind". if you mean to say the nature and physics of the human brain, then rationality is a product of nature and not science.

If you mean the rules which humans create in their minds, then rationality is irrationally founded.



However, if the physics of the human brain are the source of rationality, then human beings could not be or act irrationally.

The universe exceeds rationality?


I cant fit all of reality in my head, but all of reality still exists... how is that for your model of rationality?

[JohnnyZ]

A product of the human mind meaning that we, as individuals or societies or religions, decide what is rational. It's make-believe is what I'm trying to say.

You can't go blaming everything on nature dude. There is also nurture to be accounted for. We are a combination of who we want to be and what we are shaped to be. Your past never leaves you.

[BlueBlazer]

A product of the human mind meaning that we, as individuals or societies or religions, decide what is rational. It's make-believe is what I'm trying to say.

I agree with you here. All those things are a product of the human mind. The genesis was the very group behavior that made homo sapiens so successful when plainly outgunned by the competition.


You can't go blaming everything on nature dude. There is also nurture to be accounted for. We are a combination of who we want to be and what we are shaped to be. Your past never leaves you.

Nurture isn't absolute either. A study of twins that were separated for adoption found that the twins developed very similar personality traits even under much different environments.

Also a negative environment can motivate a person to overcome and "succeed" despite that person's upbringing. Similarly, a person raised with love, encouragement, and all the breaks can still grow up to be a serious jerk. Just saying.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

A product of the human mind meaning that we, as individuals or societies or religions, decide what is rational. It's make-believe is what I'm trying to say.

You can't go blaming everything on nature dude. There is also nurture to be accounted for. We are a combination of who we want to be and what we are shaped to be. Your past never leaves you.



AH, Nature is the natural nurturer, dude.
The universe is one gigantic ecosystem that is constantly nurturing itself naturally.

As is the human body.

As is the earth.


We, human bodied people, have to take efforts into nurturing ourselves, but nature also provides for us, which is, in effect, nurturing us, like a mother nurtures her child.
Religion and Civilization are irrational byproducts of irresponsible and un-matured minds, fearful of reality, of nature.

When one is negligent of their natural, internal, nurturing, one will assume that external nurturing is all there is available.

[JohnnyZ]

Yes, I realize this. I believe that we are all one. We all came from an infinite point of singularity after all.

But you are totally missing my point. Largely due to humanity's historically consistent ignorance, we have arisen from this oneness into a state of consciousness separate from the whole. In this separation, we have, on our own terms, instilled rights, wrongs, morals, and the like.

Indeed, there is a universal consciousness. But all that are part of it do not necessarily perceive it as such. At least not yet. We are in that state of limbo right now. Hence our notions of right and wrong.

An example would be the "right" way to raise a child, which is not necessarily the "natural" way to raise a child.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Yes, I realize this. I believe that we are all one. We all came from an infinite point of singularity after all.

But you are totally missing my point. Largely due to humanity's historically consistent ignorance, we have arisen from this oneness into a state of consciousness separate from the whole. In this separation, we have, on our own terms, instilled rights, wrongs, morals, and the like.

Indeed, there is a universal consciousness. But all that are part of it do not necessarily perceive it as such. At least not yet. We are in that state of limbo right now. Hence our notions of right and wrong.

An example would be the "right" way to raise a child, which is not necessarily the "natural" way to raise a child.



The idea is that we need to take responsibility, not just let it go and watch it destroy everything.


WE, HUMAN BEINGS, are responsible for creating a monster. it is up to no other entity but our collective selves to slay this monster, lest we allow it to dominate our world, our lives, and our futures.


Do we want to submit to a mechanical demon of our own creation, that has been fueled with the "right" to take every last resource in the universe for it's own personal benefit, regardless of how it affects it's own creators, us? :wtf: