aperson wrote:Deism is the belief that God exists, but not in the anthropomorphic form portrayed by religion. I think you probably fit into this catagory.
I would agree. I consider god to be more like the conciousness of all the sum total of energy, mass, and souls. Although atheists would say there is no evidence to support this, I simply remind them that 100 years ago we didn't know that bacteria existed either but it doesn't mean they weren't there.
Quote:
Wow. That is quite a spectrum. I am not familiar with "yogic psychic". Do you mind enlightening me? And thanks.
Sure. Its not an official term. I simply am able to receive messages from the next realm (yep, I talk to dead people) and the way I can do it is with some modified yogic practices; breathing, meditation, chanting, calming. It has given me some really neat insight into some higher truths about the soul. I'm part of a 10-psychic team who does some kinda group reading and exploration. Sounds like a movie plot to me. I'm pretty new to it, but the originators of the group have their own TV show. Sometimes we meet just to have fun and talk to relatives or famous people, and sometimes we get really deep into meditation, astral projection, past life regression, and sometimes we just have movie night. Last month I dropped something twice and I remarked, "jesus christ," and he said, "yes?"
In a nutshell, I believe that god exists, satan does not, and the bible
was true before humans twisted it into something completely different. Religion is about the closest thing to satan that ever existed.
Quote:Let me ask you something. You are not religious, and neither am I, but if you did something considered "wrong" when you were a child, did you not feel guilt? Not just regret due to punishment and scolding by your parents, but a guilt from somewhere inside you? This is a good example of how morals are primarily instinct. Morals are partly taught, yes, but they come from inside us. It's not just our parents teaching. We know it's "wrong" to kill. We feel it. Morality is nature, as well as nurture.
My mother was the queen of guilt. If I did something "wrong" I got the cold sweats. But i think you're asking if I felt that guilt because of the moral aspect or because of the punishment. I'm Libra, and my parents were very fair with punishment, so the repercussions weren't so bad. What made me feel guilty was the threat of eternal damnation in hell. I was supposed to be "good" or the god of eternal love would send me to an eternity of torture and pain.
I therefore do not believe in right and wrong. I believe in what suits the soul's purpose and what does not suit the soul's purpose. Evil does not exist. People do things that are contrary to popular morality, but it doesn't mean they're evil. Most crime or amorality stems either from a mental illness or extreme duress. A sicko kills a family and shows no remorse? That's illness and it needs to be controlled and cured. If you removed rules and laws right now, it would be utter chaos, but as society advances we will let certain things go by the wayside. I've seen this in India. A restaurant was being renovated. The guys would come early in the morning, work on the front window, then at night they just set their tools down on the ground and went home. When they came back in the morning the tools were still there. Something about their society has removed the fear of theft. Now, of course, with the Americanization of India over the past couple decades, theft is a huge problem.
Its a hard concept to describe. If you take a step back and analyze every situation from this standpoint, you would see that there would be no motivation for any of the "sins" we currently eschew. In the absence of transgression, there is no need for morality. This is my basis for believing that morals are strictly a human fabrication from a sponsor of fear. Try re-analyzing "sin" or "wrong" from a new perspective using these assumptions:
1) Humans freely know how to communicate with their souls
2) Humans freely accept that all souls are one and interconnected
3) Morals don't exist, nor were taught
4) Laws don't exist
5) Humans are not a monogamous species
Then go back to analyzing them from the religious perspective which is:
1) Talking to the soul means consorting with satan
2) Humans are distinct unique physical bodies that share no energy
3) God requires you to be moral or he'll send you to hell
4) Laws are direct from God and if not followed, see #3
5) Humans are only allowed one sex partner/spouse for their entire lives and you have rights of ownership over their sexual expressions.
Its no wonder we fear everything.
I don't think that the guilt you feel inside is instinct at all. Think about an infant hitting another infant. There is no remorse until the parent teaches them that its bad. I think guilt is fully a learned trait, so I would argue that there is no nature at all. Kids act strictly on instinct until we teach them society and/or religion.
Quote:Your views are Hitleristic and genocidal, but I will not reject them simply because of this. As I have said, evolution makes pitiful progress compared to science. It is obselete. Letting nature do it's thing would be pointless, because technology can do nature's work in a millionth of the time. No. I say, let technology help these people. It is the substitute for evolution.
I didn't mean to appear Hitleristic, I was merely comically drawing a correlation between how one animal treats another where cognitive thought is involved. I'm certainly not suggesting we declare open season on people below poverty level.
I think my science background keeps me a little more reverent of natural selection's power. I have a somewhat romantic view of letting it take its course. I believe that if humans alter natural selection, it will only weaken the species. If we're selected for extinction because of a huge meteor hitting the earth, building a bio dome to sustain humanity might be successful, but unnatural and can lead to other side effects that harm or alter the path of other species in the future. I'm not adamant about it, but we've already seen the effects. We use technology to make life easier for humanity and in the process we vastly alter the planet for the other species that inhabit it. How many extinctions has deforestation caused? How many Eagles died from DDT? How has nuclear waste affected the genetics of animals? I kinda view it like a do-not-resuccitate order. If you have an inoperable tumor that's killing you, what is the point of staying alive as a vegetable on a machine? If humans are selected to become extinct, I think it would unnaturally alter the biosphere to use technology to force a livable environment. We gotta share
If Dinosaurs were intelligent and they used technology to save their butts, things sure would be different for humans today... if we existed at all.
