Quote:

Nothing in the objective world will give evidence for anything other than itself

---

Quote:

This seems your talking about belief in free will & its effects on the psyche

---

Quote:

You didn't like the idea of decisions being controlled by a supreme being, you prefer the idea 'you' are in control of decisions

---

Quote:

Different ideas make different people feel different ways

---

Quote:

How would it feel to see that every decision you 'think' your making has already been decided by the subconscious 6 seconds earlier?

---

And what's this supposed to mean? Last time I checked, my subconscious was still mine, which would still make the decision MINE.
I find it funny how some people act like they have discovered some hidden meaning on the human nature when they learn minimal things about the brain.

Ahimsa said:

Good to hear that your life belongs to you and only you. However, and this is a more philosophical question, if your life really did belong to you, then no-one or nothing could take it from you. And yet, when death comes we will all have to surrender 'our' life anyway.

---

MushroomTrip said:

Ahimsa said:

Good to hear that your life belongs to you and only you. However, and this is a more philosophical question, if your life really did belong to you, then no-one or nothing could take it from you. And yet, when death comes we will all have to surrender 'our' life anyway.

---

How in the world did you make such a connection between things?
It's sort of like saying, if cherries are indeed red, how do they end up rotting and having a dark color when they do?

You make it sound like nature is a person who gives you this life with a contract, and that one of it's clauses is for us, humans, to agree to surrender our life to death, eventually.

---

Ahimsa said:

Good to hear that your life belongs to you and only you. However, and this is a more philosophical question, if your life really did belong to you, then no-one or nothing could take it from you.

---

The conclusion to your philosophical question isn't based in sound reasoning when one considers the nature of the concept of belonging or ownership. I don't understand how you can make an appeal to “if something "really" belongs to you it cannot be taken away from you” when there's nothing in the concept of belonging or ownership itself that specifies that ownership cannot be negated or taken away anyways. Utilizing the qualifier ”really” to convey such a point is a fallacy.

Ahimsa said:

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you explain it in more simpler terms please?

---

I am saying that it doesn't make sense to give human attributes to nature and death, as if they were the ones who gave your life to you (nature) and will take it away from you (death).
Life is a process, and like any process it has different stages, and that's all there is to it really. It doesn't mean that the nature of this process implies that your life belongs in fact to someone else than yourself, it only means that everything that exists changes.

Ahimsa said:

Oh, so you mean there is a difference between your life being 'owned' by someone and your life 'belonging' to someone? Is that it?

---

Quote:

It seems to me God is the most important aspect of everyone's thinking no matter who they are or what they believe in.

---

Quote:

So now that I take God into account into my thinking, as a concept, I can now understand peoples behavior, why they act like they do, why some are assholes for no apparent reason..

---

Quote:

it's all about their hate or love towards the concept God

---

What a foolish thought to think that there's only love and hate, first of all.
Secondly, at the risk of repeating myself, can you expand more on this thought of yours?

Quote:

weather you like it or not God is always in your thoughts

---

Quote:

You always feel judged in each thought you think.

---

MushroomTrip said:

Quote:

How would it feel to see that every decision you 'think' your making has already been decided by the subconscious 6 seconds earlier?

---

And what's this supposed to mean? Last time I checked, my subconscious was still mine, which would still make the decision MINE.

---

By the time 'you' are making the decision, its already been made, you just think your making the decision
Its already happening, you then just say 'im doing it' ontop of whats already happening...
If it is an already happening process, then how isit 'MINE'?

Quote:

I find it funny how some people act like they have discovered some hidden meaning on the human nature when they learn minimal things about the brain.

---

Yep thats me

Ive learned what i have about the psyche through deep introspection, not through books or documentaries
This sort of documentary just backs it up, yet still fails to recognize what 'I' or 'Consciousness' really is

What that video is talking about compared to most psyche documentaries is not 'minimal'
When your starting to ask quesitons about consciousness & intent then its not minimal, its fundamental

Noteworthy said:

I thank my mother because she never imposed any belief system on my except by telling me her values and our family's values.

I understood from an early age that there were different opinions about praising god, because different parts of my family had different denominations (catholic, and orthadox, and the anglican school I went to).

When I was young, I accepted the concept of God just because everyone seemed to take it for granted.

However what I could not understand was where people were making their claims. Once accepting the notion of God, it seemed ridiculous that this all pwoerful being would require anything of me.. because it would clearly know what I think and how I feel and that I am a good person. Religion became, to me, a matter of pleasing eachother and reminding eachother that we are after the same things in life. People went to church to convince eachother that they were good people. This was the sort of thing I began thinking around 5, when my mother married an atheist.

He and my new step siblings did not go to church or celebrate anything religious but were good people, and very smart people, who taught me about science, mathematics, and computers. My notions of god slipped away, and I stopped respecting religion and saw people not only as trying to prove something to eachother but more importantly just trying to prove something to themselves. I felt annoyed that I had been told things about god as if they were real only to find out that other people on earth have other equally valid (invalid) explinations for why we are here.

As I developed into an adolescent, my grasp on science improved, and throughout highschool I was fascinated in learning how science could explain the 'true' nature of the universe.

My interest in science led me to my interest in biology and evolution.

my interest in these led to my interest in the mind, in the brain. This could only happen when I was older, around 14/15. I heard things about chemicals in teh brain and nerve impulses and all this stuff and it sounded like a cool sort of organic computer.

I started playing with consciousness by drinking alcohol and by hypoerventilating, etc. By 16 I tried marijuana and that was a launch pad for my fascination with psychology, mental illness, and 'reality'.

This led to my interest in Logic and Philosophy, something that I only became significantly interested in by around 18 when I had started university and realised that a lot of things that I thought were just ways of seeing the world and deriving information from it, were actually considered to be philosophical concepts that people studied and argued about.

When I really started applying logic to areas of science, it showed me that dispite being the logical highground, science cannot magically become perfect with logic - logic can never prove its own premises. a lot of people who were scientific or at least, claimed to not be religious, constantly made claims about the way the world was, as if these claims were sound, by the laws of science. But these claims were merely 'better' than the religious claims.

Over the last few years I have probed the world that is available to me and it has become clear that God is as likely as he is unlikely. there trully is no way of assessing the likeliness of god.

It is obvious that depictions of god given in ancient books are bogus and have been embellished over the ages from origins that wre much less specific or grandiose.

The fact that God represents all that we do not understand about the universe is very significant because, there will always be more we don't understand, about the source of ourselves, where we are going, how we judge good and bad, etc.  BUT we will also always have an emotional connection to those questions, and someone will always demand some sort of answer to these questions in order to justify moral stances.


There is, now, a 'religion of science' that takes 'the best science' to be the truth. And this is, on principle, as illogical as many religions.

Now I have an open view on life. My psychedelic experiences have shown me so many things that baffle scientists. Namely, consciousness itself. Whether or not God is real does not really matter.. what matters is that we don't know.

What I think should be understood about God is, however, that the only way that God can expect anything of humans, and thus force people to watch their steps and evade hell, is if god in fact is not a perfect, loving being. And if god is not a perfect loving being, fuck him. It is likely that he is just using us to some evil end and it is likely that existance is meant to be, overall, difficult and painful.

So the only reasonable deduction about god is that, if he exists, and is worth honouring,
then the best way to honour him is to keep doing what we are doing, following the feelings that we feel, and doing whatever we think ought to be done.

---

Beautiful use of a mind.

fireworks_god said:

Ahimsa said:

Oh, so you mean there is a difference between your life being 'owned' by someone and your life 'belonging' to someone? Is that it?

---

No, that isn't it, and if I had meant to say that I would have expressly stated as much. I really don't see anything cryptic in what I wrote.
The concept of ownership doesn't include any definition that suggests that whatever it is that is owned cannot be taken away, nullified, or lost. A brief look at anything that we commonly consider to be "owned" will make this all the more clear.
Therefore, to suggest that something isn't "really" owned because it can be taken away doesn't make any sense, because there isn't any aspect of the concept of ownership itself that suggests it cannot be lost, nullified, or taken away.

---

We have a different idea about the meaning of 'ownership'.