As requested from another forum post.
I would like to open the thread to all of those who do not believe in God or a creator. I would like to have a logical debate of ideas. I will not relay bible versus as I am not religious. If you do not believe in a creator, what is your reason for thinking we are just coincidence or chance?
God's existence is proven by the very fact that we exist. You can't have a creation without a creator. Art does't become art without an artist. You want to find out if He exists... ask Him. I am sure that He will give you an answer.
It's not the matter of chance or evolution. These are just rubbish doctrines imposed on us by Freemasons. 200 years have passed, yet Theory of Rubbish is not proved.
Okay, here's my point of view. I will base my belief on proofs that exists.
1. Proofs that God exists is our conscience... Why when we do good there is some inner joy we feel inside otherwise our conscience bothers us or even feel guilty about our wrongdoings. Some if not most ,hehehe, criminals feel guilty too and will testify against themselves during trials.
2. If we use genetics as our basis, we all came from one ancestors these could be adam and eve.
3. The theory of evolution has'nt yet proven that we evolved from apes, the missing link between man and apes has'nt been found yet until now. If we all came from apes then all apes have had turned or evolved into man already.
4. Our thumbs will also prove that God exists, because no one is created alike.
5. Our body is a wonderful creation ever, why, it will take billions of dollars just to create a single muscle tissue from scratch.
6. Not all scientists believe that there is no God. Isaac Newton considered by most as the best scientist ever is a religous man.
I will not accept the idea that i exists because of chance, I will just do wrong things from now on if my life is useless afterall.
i think that belief in a god isnt necessarily arbitrary, according to jung , these things are archetypes in our psychological make-up, and we believe in what we are culturally and genetically pre-disposed to believe(e.g. christianity in "the west" and buddhism and hinduism in "the east")
your belief system could theoretically have no more to do with "you" as a person than your hair color or accent in speech, as it is all just part of your bio-chemical make-up and not really a "choice"
"to believe, or not to believe" may be moot, the real important issue is "what you do", which in most cases is in direct opposition to what you "think"
Hmmm, are there really only two options?
Either there is a creator, or we are just co-incidence?
I am not entirely sure that either of these options match my beliefs.
Could you go more in depth please? What would be an alternative belief?
I concur with Jenny.
To my knowledge as well, you prolly wont find an atheist willing to divulge the concept of reality for a few different reasons mostly being that is is undefinable.
I believe that the theistic understanding is a shared concept which all must conform to one spiritual likeness while presuming that an atheist has no understanding whatsoever about life for choosing not to define what is most personal and can only be attributed to "something" that is souly understood yet cannot really be summed up because the "understanding" of the 'god' concept has been mangled beyond recognition that the only thing a person could do who knows this is to leave it unsaid.
I do take into account that some monotheistic believers do grasp it very well and fully understand what is not being said but by nature of mans oppression are to fearful to come to the dark side lol for fear of something that I assume many of them already understand but will not admit.
So atheism at it's core is not really about 'god' it's about the definition of the concept and most importantly it is about the theistic approach that is "actually" displacing people from what cannot but is the "absolute truth".
But this is my take that in all likely hood other atheist would disagree with assertion yet for an understood reason.
Try to make sense of it.
You are trying to give me the run around to assert that what you believe is without a doubt the truth.
I already stated that "what is" "is" undefinable. Why not start with telling me what you believe.
I'm not trying to give you any sort of test, I'm just asking to hear your perspective. I do not want to fill the page with my belief, if you want to read, it is my hub titled, "GOD LOGIC"
Literally I am just a genetic make up of the Universe. I don't know how it all happened with absolute certainty. I really don't care to try to define it.
I don't feel apart from it and I don't feel there is an end to it. I don't know that it was an "accident" and I don't know if it has a purpose.
When I die I literally believe at some point I will be what I was before. In essence I quite possibly will be a star. However ridiculous it sounds is just as ridiculous as any other but it is what makes me happy.
I believe in a heaven yet I believe it quite literally as whatever is out there in the Universe and that the Universe exist inside as well as out which only leaves me with the question about consciousness.
I don't know why we think or feel I just know that we do. I don't know why I care or why I esteem life as something I don't want to loose.
I don't know the answers but feel what is absolute and yet I know it goes beyond any "real" human understanding.
Spiritually speaking, I feel that in "lifes" continual and perpetual motions that what I love here on earth will not be as it is now but the attraction that I feel to the people that I love will exist in a sense in the same way that a star most usually has a companion star.
I don't know how they chose or if they chose at all so all that is left is something that I like to call "soul power". So laugh away at my ridiculous notions about what is and what comes next etc... just know that because this is the best way I can describe what it is I feel without defining a source leaves me to question an existence of any god at all.
In which case I can say that god does not and never did exist outside of us and on a physical reality plain the "creation" idea cannot and will never be define so I am aware of it but addressing what I already know cannot be understood just leaves room to ignore or distort what is into something that is not and that is why our ancestors used personified figures to depict the notion of god.
I would never laugh at your idea, at least you are thinking. I don't believe you read about turning into a star in any book. Thank You
I would just like to throw this thought out there. Some believe we are all connected by an unknown energy. When our energy dies, will family, friends, future acquaintances, maybe all be affected by our current and future loss if we died? If all energy is connected and a chain in the link was broken, would not all the links be effected some way whether they are conscious of it or not? If we were in this chain link of energy, would this not provide purpose and reason for each individual?
Again, I am speaking in a spiritual/emotional sense of being affected by our loss. We do know that spiritual/emotions will often lead to the physical actions.
Where are you getting the chain link analogy from? Think more like the way the internet is connected. And if you have ever lost anyone to death, you will know that it does affect you and your energy.
Purpose and reason imply a choice. This just is. Why do we have to have a purpose? Where do you get this concept of needing a purpose and reason?
I thought about how my death would effect my friends and family. Lets think about the next 10 years of my life for a minute. If I died tomorrow, how would this energy effect my chain so to speak? My unborn son would be 10 with no influence from me right? Maybe my son would still draw energy to think the world is against him because I died before he was born? Dead or alive, my influence of death or being alive would affect my sons energy correct? As the same it would if I walked out of the marriage and never saw my son. Thank You
Of course. But the chain is not broken, only his connection to you. Your son has connections to all sorts of other people. And you are not the only link in the chain. I guess you could say that the chain connecting you to your son has been broken, but there will be other chains that remain. Your sister for example (if you have a sister) would be another, separate chain that would remain - despite you being gone from both chains.
But this is self evident. Yes - if some one dies, this has an effect on everyone who knows them. Or in the case of the late Michael Jackson - people who did not know him.
Still I do not see how this becomes "purpose and reason," other than to perpetuate your genes.
Thanks for thinking with me Mark. Excellent Excellent example using the Michael Jackson example. Excellent "Large Scale" example I must say.
Please don't hear me wrong, all of my belief is open to debate, i'm just throwing ideas out. I myself work in a public service job. I have had many customers talk about MJ, also people at work, family talk about his death. You could throw the theory out that everyone's energy was affected. Some were happy that he died, some were sad. Maybe the reason behind his death was to wake people up? Again, I truly know nothing on the large scale of life. Thank You
Maybe the chain can never be truly "broken" only influenced or altered?
The pattern followed in all these religion forums is that the second person who walks in always comes along armed with a quotation or two and some reference stuff. Then the battle of quotations begins ... verses from scriptures, phrases from Wikipedia ...
Atheists cling on to Darwyns ba... (oops sorry! I did not mean to rude) and they swing to and fro screaming "viva evolution."
"Science cannot prove that GOD exists" they say, "therefore he does not exist!"
... er ... lets have some fun ... ?
If an atheist looks to other atheist for guidance of belief, is this not the same as a religious person looking for guidance of a preacher?
A preferable approach is not have belief at all.
Why do you say this? You always try to make me guess something. lol
An atheist looking for guidance? Well, atheism is the simplest "ism" in the universe. They orbit around just one statement "there ain't no GAWD." That's all there is to atheism. In order to become an atheist, all you need to do is confirm your subscription to that statement and that's it! No ceremonious welcome, no general announcement to the public. Atheists do not have an unholy book either. No scriptures to cause debates over possible traces of ambiguity. No priesthood, no "headquarters," no monthly periodicals ... wow! cool isn't it?
No offense meant to any individual or organization either.
I don't have a set belief. All ideas and belief are open to debate. I don't look to others for answers, just perspectives. I find the answers myself.
Congratulations! You belong to a unique set of people. Some of the others I know who did likewise are Johannes Kepler, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, Herr Doktor Albert Einstein ... long list you see!
Well that's exactly what GOD wanted us all to do. Investigate and find out for ourselves, instead of quarreling over who's right and who's wrong.
I believe we are given some intelligence for that very purpose, and what we are able to discover is exactly proportional to our requirements.
However I have not discovered much, LOL!
This is why it doesn't pay to have beliefs. Beliefs change, or your understanding does, your knowledge changes. The more your consciousness expands, the more you see, the more your beliefs are irrelevant, (that last statement may be relevant further down the track!)
I think of beliefs in this day and age, much like I think of the politics or fashion of the young people. Eventually we all wake up, mature, and see the error in our ways.
Youth and Agility:
Socialist (or at least Democrats)
Probably believe in "a God" of some sort
Think they know it all
Age and Wisdom:
Very anti-big governemnt (or at the least Republican)
At least seriously "doubt" the existence of a "higher being"
Know they don't know the half of it...
You misunderstand the human condition quicksand to make a statement like that. Isms are divisive. Even if a atheist does not adore an icon (Jesus/god) does not mean his/her life is any easier or harder than Joe Blow next door. It's quite irrelevant when you participate in life itself. Atheists use reason, their brains, they use compassion, and empathy the same as the next person. There is a major misunderstanding that because an atheist does not buy into the iconic God/Jesus/whomever, he/she is not a beautiful person who gives to the human race.
Some of us believers, the ones who are not extremists, also use reason, compassion, and all the other cool tools that you say are used ONLY by atheists, elevating them to a pedestal above believers.
I believe that we are all equal. I never made reference to atheists not adoring icons. I do not state that atheists have any shortcomings because they do not adore anything.
I am not attempting to prove anything either. I am a mere participant in a discussion! I hope that clears YOUR misunderstanding.
I didn't say they were only used by atheists, they are used by people in general and has nothing to do with what ism they are categorized in. You can see how being put in a box sucks? I agree there is a simplicity to atheism - no rules except your own ethics and the law.
...Not true. I know many atheists who have more than a little knowledge and experience with religions and scripture, they arrived at different conclusions with the same information. That is humans for you!
So do I. Those categorized as atheists are usually well read in not only the christian bible but many esoteric texts which is why they make the decision to be atheist.
Just because you have knowledge of religious teachings doesn't mean you are religious.
I agree completely. I have studied all sorts of ancient religions for the past 25 years. I probably know the OT as well as many Jews, and most certainly better than 90% of the so-called Christians out there. I don't deal with the NT because if the OT is false, then the NT has no legs to stand on.
People have listened to what other people say is the word of God for centuries and century after century these bold and definite statements are found to be wrong. From the earliest time when Thor was supposed to be the cause of thunder though the definite holy fact that the flat world was the center of the universe the men of God speak with absolute certainty. The demand that this be the only truth and they put the fellow humans to death in the most horrible ways when someone was to think for themselves. In the name of God we destroyed the Library of Alexandria and we suppressed the scientific method created by the Ioians.
These forums speak of God in the western style and ignore the religions of the east. Do they not have an equal reason to claim theirs is the true way?
Everyone believes the way they like but you must admit to people who do not find themselves to be devout that there are a lot of questions to be answered.
I agree that there are many things that no one knows. This is why I believe all belief should be left open to debate.
Agreed so much of all of the unknowns. Maybe both atheist and religions will learn more when they realize they know nothing.
One can only debate or guess.
Well, marinealways24, there are a range of possible alternatives to the creator vs coincidence dichotomy.
Off the top of my head:
1. I was not created - I have always existed. (Opens a discussion of how we define "ourselves" in the first place.)
2. There is an order inherent in the universe, which shapes the development of life just as it shapes the movement of the planets. It does not create; it does not destroy. It just channels the existing, constant pool of Universal energy into ever-changing shapes, including from time to time human beings.
3. I don't actually exist in the first place. I am an illusion.
I don't have time to think of more just now, but give me a day or two and I could probably generate 20 or more alternatives, any of which would be a closer match to my beliefs that either of the first two you mentioned.
Thank You for adding, I would like to focus on 1 thought at a time if possible.
3. "I don't actually exist in the first place. I am an illusion."
Please explain this one in more detail. Do you believe in reason or purpose for an individual existence? Lets keep it simple as possible please.
In the thought of not having a creator, how did existance become to exist?
Belief has several causes. One of them is indoctrination. This is what atheists despise, quite rightly though. Indoctrination is submission without any form of justification. This form is easy and does not require any brainwork.
To a great extent indoctrination is good. This is because in certain cases it triggers off the thinking process and belief in a GOD becomes the result.
But it can also close off the thinking process and can be the end of free thought. Belief without experience is an unawakened sheep. You become the puppet of an authority figure.
The belief in god thing is the part that I see as dodgy. Each one of these gods seem to have an agenda I would not embrace..
The way I see it, belief in, or accepting the existence of a GOD is viewed by some as a threat to one's freedom.
And kinda risky.
There are so many gods, and most of them claim to be the One True God (or One True Pantheon).
Your chances of picking the right God to believe in are pretty slim ...
"There are so many gods," ... where? where? show me!
When the lightning strikes, and the thunder rolls, tremble in awe at the mighty Thor ...
I am not sure of the Sumerian name for it, but garlic is a god.
And if you fast and meditate for 17 days, you will meet several, including your totem or spirit guide.
Independent of the "so many gods" in your catalogue, when one ponders over the marvels of nature, over the mystery of life, over space, time, matter ... regularly, over a prolonged period of time, the awe that sets in creates some kind of a suspicion that nature is not just "nature." This "suspicion" then evolves.
Well, that's MY story. Yours may be different. That does not mean that one of us is wrong.
It should be seen as a threat to ones freedom, as the accompanying dotrine will be restrictive of anything outside the belief.
Well as for me, and me alone, I am only discussing the existence of a GOD without associating any doctrines or agendas. First things first. I believe in the existence of a GOD. This is the result of my thinking. My very own free thinking! Exploring doctrines are only secondary.
I said "triggers off" the thinking process. When the thinking process is triggered off, it acts on its own without any links to, or compulsion of any sort to be guided by the indoctrination that preceded it. Then, a belief in the existence of GOD is one possible result.
The other result of course is ... you've guessed it! Subscribing to atheism.
I too subscribe to the view that we are just an illusion. I do not remember if the Bible has any statement supporting this view, but, I do faintly recall the Islamic scriptures and Buddhist scriptures suggest that we, along with everything else are an illusion. It does make sense.
You may be right, perhaps we are an illusion.A way to be a legend in our own lunchtime so to speak. One thing I do know is that people are dillusional, and it is interesting what happens to us when we take a drug like MMDA or any of a number of chemicals that alter conciousness. It seems that the experiences are still of the self and as valid as any other experience.? Apart from the belief that all drugs are satan's work, I say opinion, ideals, morals and beliefs change with brain chemistry and that we are often better for it.
Mark, this was another thoughtful excellent question you posed to me, Thank You.
And you are not the only link in the chain. I guess you could say that the chain connecting you to your son has been broken, but there will be other chains that remain. Your sister for example (if you have a sister) would be another, separate chain that would remain - despite you being gone from both chains.
I would like to explore this a little more. Instead of using a sister for my example, lets use my mom. My mom is a manager in her work. I am her only son. If she lost my life, she and everyone she worked/interacted with on a daily basis would be affected. My death could affect her entire outlook on life affecting how she interacts with others. She could take my death "personally" and hate life and everyone in life. Would this not be a constant effect in the chain?
Lets say she keeps her job and tries to continue to live this fuqd up life at times. I can assure you that she would not be in good spirits at work. If she was a bitch to her employees from being upset about personal problems, "my death", this could have the employees going home pissed off everyday. I am just trying to throw another idea out of how this energy could continue. Thank You
I very much doubt it. Most people go through these sort of feelings after losing a loved one. I did when my first wife died at a young age. Most people seem to eventually "get over it," and realize that they still have their own life to live and should not let life (and death is a big part of life) get in the way of that.
Again, another solid point. What if you committed suicide as a result of your loss? Would this not 100% be considered a effect of your wife's energy? Very Sorry for your loss.
I would like to explore another idea in the "energy chain" as I will refer to it. You undoubtedly learned a life lesson from your wife's death, correct? Whether it was a lesson learned about yourself or how to deal with life. What if the lesson you learned was part of your loss? If you would never experienced the loss, would you understand the loss? Maybe you learned how strong your will is to survive without your wife? Again, just throwing ideas out.
On another note, I believe life is a true test of will and sanity or lack of. Possibly death is a test of this? Could we not simply be a test of life and will?
I think you are reading too much into this life business. Yes, I learned things. As I have tried to do my whole life - learn from my experiences. Some do, some don't. Some kill themselves, some die in a plane crash some never seem to get it, but live happily anyway.
Most of these tests you are describing are an internal battle, rather than an external one. Yes, you dying would be a challenge to your mother. She will either cope or not. Change or not. As far as I am concerned, women are far stronger than men in this respect (hence the need for religion and male priests) and I would think she would jump into the fray and do her best to maintain your son's links and chances of surviving.
What if she did the best she could to raise my son, yet my son was still pissed off at the world because he grew up without a father for his entire life. Would this not be a continuing energy in the chain with my influence or lack of never ending? I grew up 30 years without a dad, however I was pissed off at him most of my life. I never knew him, but his "energy"/influence or lack of has effected the better part of my life. He is unknown to me, yet his lack of humanity effected me, could this not be an example of the chain?
Mark, another idea on this "energy chain"
I would like to compare an animal death to a human death. I would say that an animal death has maybe a small percentage in the chain compared to a human death. Why is this? Are humans favored over animals in this chain of energy? If we were favored over animal life, would this be divine?
Why would you say this? Have you never seen a dove waste away after it's partner died? Have you never had a friend die and watch his dog do the same, howling into the night, never to be quite the same animal? Have you never seen anyone lose a pet?
I am not any more important than any animal. We all have our part in the way our ecosystem works. The very idea that we are more favored than other animals is part of our problem, and I believe will end in our ultimate destruction.
If I was starving and I had to choose between a human and a cow as company, guess which one I would favor?
If I was starving and I had to choose between a human and a cow as company, guess which one I would favor? What if you was raised to worship cows?
One thought to add, would that pets death have a continuous effect as much as the human death? The animal does not have as many acquaintances as the human, so how would the chain have the same impact of the animal loss compared to the human? Again, thanks for your thoughts.
I would think it would depend on who suffered the loss. I have know quite a few people who would be more upset over the loss of their cat than a family member. In fact.........
I can surely agree with that as I would probably take a few day's from work to recover when my St. Bernard dies. On another thought, my dog has only me an my wife. My dog does not have the rest of my family, friends, co-workers, new encounters I will meet in my following days. While the energy could be said to effect me and people around me to come, I can honestly say this energy would not effect me as much as losing my wife or child. Would you agree to the contrast in emotional difference between me losing my dog and losing my wife? Thank You
My dog would surely not give me thoughts of suicide as the loss of my wife or child may.
Can you say the same for all dog owners?
Of course, I would expect a human's death to have a lot more effect in general, because we are social animals and tend to make many "energy chains," so of which are stronger than others. Does it make any difference in the great scheme? If there is a great scheme? I don't know. We all have to die. Some have more impact than others.
Excellent thought again, Thank You
Maybe there could be a divine favoritism on the human side of the chain compared to the animal side? If it were divine favoritism, this would make me believe there was a creator/creators. Maybe if there is divine favoritism in the human chain, possibly there could still not be favoritism on the human end as I believe all of us could possibly have an equal purpose or role in the chain.
I still don't have my thought on the favoritism but would like to add another thought.
Mine and your energy can be displayed in the simplest forms as to say our individual energy is in the words we think and type. Afterall, if we use our words to spread hatefull messages, is this not casting off a hatefull energy? I know when I personally write something to offend someone, they will relay an emotional statement back in most cases. So in theory, my energy would connected with theirs. Could this be another link in the chain?
There aren't any "links" or "breaks" in this chain you are trying to describe. Energy is perpetual motions, something that keeps flowing without regards to anything at all.
In the micro-evolutionary (or whatever you want to call it) elements (energy of some form) attract to another without purpose. They attract because they can, if they can't they do not.
I know you are talking about energy created in the human, the production of chemicals (such as pheromones) that can transmit through what seems like empty space and that you know that when you put some "soul power" into it, it often achieves the desired outcome.
You are thinking that humans are particularity special because of it but we are not really, we are much the same as other animals. Don't sell an animal short because it doesn't speak like we do.
Other animals such as dogs also understand this process. I have a dog, she barks at other dogs but rarely barks at people. One day she went crazy and tried to bite some random man passing by.
There was no logical explanation for this at the time as far as I could tell. However, what came out of the guys mouth was despicable and yet my dog knew it before I did.
You could say he reacted negatively to my dog and that is why he said what he did. But it seems the other way around. He put out a negative energy, maybe he doesn't like dogs and my dog could feel it.
My dog has a positive connection to me and feels she needs to protect me. She shows me favoritism and to her I am not a "human" per se, I am just another animal. I favor her because I love her and I while I see her as a dog that needs to be taken care of because I have the capacity to do so. I also rely on her to take care of me as well.
Plus people who have animals, dogs and cats tend to live happier lives. No broken links in the chain, just redirection of energy.
"There aren't any "links" or "breaks" in this chain you are trying to describe. Energy is perpetual motions, something that keeps flowing without regards to anything at all."
I changed my idea on this to suggest the chain is only altered and not broken. Energy can be altered by emotions. If I die, my mom would obviously have emotions and changes due to my death, so the chain would be altered. I am not stating anything as fact. I am just throwing ideas out.
It is not logical to me to say an animals death would have the same impact as a human death.
Good, now with that said. Some people are more attached to their pets then they are to other human beings.
All in all, the sentiment of "loss" doesn't change because it is a dog or human. It's the "loss" of not being able to recreate the same bonds that one would have with a dog or a child.
If I lost my kid, I would be devastated. I would hang on to my memories of her to fulfill the physical loss of her but what I am really missing is the production of new memories that I took for granted. Meaning I have given the benefit of the doubt that she would live longer than me and I would be with her in all her creating memories.
For the most part, and don't take this for a lack of love for life, "loss" or "death" in itself isn't really about the actual death of the one who died. It's a selfish emotion, the loss of not being able to create more experiences... something like this.
Do you think an animal mind could explain something like this?
I think they are well aware enough to communicate with out English.
Dogs become depressed. Currently my dog is without her "alpha dog" her human father because he is away at the moment. She has become sad. She is less active then normal. She is expressing her loss by a lack of appetite and a lot of sleep. Which is something that humans also do... depression.
Elephants grieve the same when they lose a baby. They do actually express their emotions in much the same way as humans express emotions by way of facial expressions and such.
Like the example of birds that Mark put out for you. I have seen this occur with "love birds". One of them died and the other got depressed and died because it didn't eat... quite literally it died from starvation but what really killed it was "heart break".
-so could an animal explain something like this?-
Yes, they have their own ways of communicating and they do pass this on to their offspring, if they didn't they wouldn't know why it is just as important to them to protect their offspring.
Survival wouldn't have any importance to them yet we know that their will to survive is just as important to them as us.
Not sure if this answered you question. If not can you restate your question so that it is direct.
Sandra, this question is for you and Mark. I understand the common similarities that we share with animals without human mind. I do not understand why our minds are so different than the animal mind. I would like to know the exact link in the mind that seperates us. If a lion chases a man to eat the man, the lion will not rationalize to think "I don't want to eat the man, that would be mean, I would take the man away from his family". The lion will act on natures instinct and dine most likely. Why do animals not have the ability to rationalize thoughts instead of acting on instinct?
But the catch is (no pun intended) is that a lion will not chase a man for breakfast unless it feels threatened by it for some reason or has a lack of food.
By observation alone we know that a lion unless provoked by means of starvation or threat wont do any such thing.
Just because we seem to rationalize by saying, it is immoral to kill that person because he/she has a family and we know the importance of family. Yet, it does happen that a man will kill another man for no apparent reason with or without being provoked.
Which one seems "less" moral?
By observation alone we know that a lion unless provoked by means of starvation or threat wont do any such thing.
Would you be one to test this theory out by standing 10 yards from a lion simply to observe without feeling threatened? Would you go up to the lion and pet it as you would a person and shake hands? Why not?
I am not contesting that some individuals do not still think or act like animals. However, I believe humans have the upper hand. Any thoughts welcome.
Hey if I find myself starving and with no other food source around, somebody is coming for dinner, and I don't mean as a guest!
Scientific announcement, mid-February, 2001...
“Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!
Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form – culminating with Homo Sapiens.
The “Head-scratching” Discovery...
It was here, in tracing the "vertical" evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.
How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?
In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”
In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a "sideways" insertion of genetic material from bacteria.
Now, at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species such as ours.
The human genome is made up of about three billion neucleotides (the “letters” A-C-G-T which stand for the initials of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of "letters"). The difference between one individual person and another amounts to about one “letter” in a thousand in the DNA “alphabet.” The difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300.
So, 223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!
An analysis of the functions of these genes through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, shows that they include not only proteins involved in important physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA – the so-called “Eve” DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all the way back to a single “Eve.” That finding alone raises doubt regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.
How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?
“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.
“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.
“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.
But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?
This all sounds like the Sumerian creation tales to me. However that takes a leap of faith of a different kind...the belief that advanced alien life exists.
Evolution happened to a point, but then the "Anunnaki" took the highest form of hominid at the time and "bound" it with the "image of themselves" through some sort of "sideways" genetic manipulation. This jumped the gun on the natural evolution (that would have eventually occurred, but probably not for millions of more years).
I find this idea much more plausible than the Invisible Sky Fairy concept. If evolution had begun on another planet a mere 1% sooner than that on Earth, it would be 40 million years more advanced than we are now. If we can already create new species of creatures, such as the "Geep" now, imagine what we will be able to do in 40 million years!
So is it possible that we exist due to some alien intervention?
It's sorta where I came to believe that I will return to what was before... a star, in short... star dust.
It's pretty much known now that the origins of life didn't start on Earth but were brought here, not necessarily by a slimy green alien with huge eyes but extraterrestrial in essence.
Though I could also imagine a solar flair being the reason for the fast mutation. For reasons I wouldn't know, it seems possible that this didn't occur in plants because it's likely they would have been immediately destroyed so I am not sure that it "would" have had the same effect on them as it would on us...
I love the stars!
Onthewriteside, some may call you a freaking kook but I am a kook as well so I commend you for being brave to throw some ideas out. Very Informational Post, Thank You, Much Appreciated.
Sorry for the long post, but I thought given you all the pertinent info was necessary.
Great information. It's amazing what happens in a compost heap. Maybe we were bacteria. I can live with that. I can see an evolution from fish and a graduation to land. I don't have a problem with it. I like when science can separate our physiology and place possibilities in front of us.
Sandy, honey, you gotta learn how to CUT when you quote!
You could have deleted everything but that last question and it would have meant the same ... with a lot less scrolling!
Yea I merely threw this out here because I think it is an interesting possibility. As for where we probably came from, I would have to rank the theories thusly:
1) Evolution...plain and simple.
2) Evolution with some sort of "help".
3) A giant dinosaur took a crap, and out of this humongous terd crawled the first man and woman.
4) Some Sky Fairy waved his magic wand and, POOF!, we were here!
Why? What evidence do you have for this?
None! lol I just figured out of the 4 he listed, I agreed with number 2 as the most logical to me. I have no idea or explanation of how or when the human mind individualized. I am open to all suggestions. lol
Ah I see. In that case:
1. Actually happened
2. Happened if you cannot reconcile the facts with your belief system
3. Didn't happen
4. Not even a slight chance.
6. Desperate for some meaning in a meaningless existence.
7. Still open to all posibilities, even the one that suggest we have reason and purpose.
I like that one, too, but it could be problematic. What type of dinosaur was it?
Pretty soon, we will have a schism between Stegosaurists and the Diplodocusians. Could get messy
lol, let's make on up since I have nothing better to do for the next hour.
I will call it a Turdasaurus-hume-rous-projectus.
LOL! And the Stegosaurists will wage war upon the Diplodocusians, for they had set up, for worship, false idols of Dino Dung in every corner of the forest.
Oh, I guess we would have to know for sure if dinosaurs pooped.
We need evidence of dinosaur poop.
Can anyone prove that there is no God or creator/creators?
Doesn't that depend on what you think it is?
How about you tell me what god is and then we can go from there.
I guess nobody can prove that GOD exists. Nobody can prove otherwise either.
All we can do is discuss, and compare notes, and have fun in the process.
It is logically impossible to prove a negative. But evolution proves we were not created. A logical deduction from this is that there is not a creator.
Thanks for posting. I still do not see where the missing link is if you would throw an idea out about it. With evolution, how did our human minds evolve to what they are today? Is this possible without divine intervention? If so, it is not logical to me that "no" other life that we know of can compare to our minds capability. Why would our human mind be the only one to evolve? Our minds have "favoritism" over all other life that we currently know of. "Favoritism" is certainly not logical in my idea, yet I leave all ideas open.
Here is just a few logical, or maybe philisophical, arguement that proves of His existance.-In my opinion
An example of our "post-modern society" thinking:
Everyone knows this following FAIRYTALE STORY, right? This is what little children believe.
"The princess who found a frog and discovered if she kissed IT. Then IT would magically and INSTANTLY turn into a prince."
This what "Post-Modern scientist" would call evolutionary facts and logic:
"The princess who found a frog and "scientifically concluded" that if she kissed IT. Then IT would (Insert billions of years inplace of INSTANTLY) and it would turn into a prince."
These arent logical, but merely an example of todays thinking.
From nothing- nothing comes................Common sense and logic 101.
Cell Theory- Look that up.
Another, for those who subscribe to an explosion that brought fourth some microorganism that evolved into what we see today. Which is logic, order, and life.
This is itself a scientific fallacy, to say that an explosion could create a "state of matter" that would evolved into the world we see today.
1st. Noone has ever seen an explosion bring fourth life.
2nd Ever looked at a place after an explosion? OHC? WTC? The military doesnt drop bombes because it produces logic and life. It destroys, explosions have the exact opposite effect than that was BELIEVED to start this universe.
lol , good stuff, Thank You for adding your thoughts. I also believe in a creator/creators. It is not my logic that nothing can create something or nothing can create nothing as some like to believe. I would like to believe that someone created someone.
Want to see both sides of zeitgeist? Here is a debate, for religionists, please watch till the end. I will know if you didn't!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 7846104780
I will watch those links after work. Someone please throw a theory out of when and how the human mind seperated from the animal mind. What is the link that seperates our minds from the rest of the food chain?
It's probably impossible to say for certain. But based on what science knows to date, the first jump in brain-case size occurred between 1.5 and 2 million years ago with Homo Habilis, having a brain 30% larger than that of Australopithecus. Homo Erectus lived from 2 million to 500,000 years ago and had a brain 50% larger than that of Habilis, although these earlier brains were still configured differently than our own.
The first Homo Sapiens arrived on the scene between 200 and 400 thousand years ago, with Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern man) differentiating sometime around 250,000 years ago. Although the earliest archeological evidence for Modern Man only dates back to around 120,000 years ago, tests done on Mitochondrial DNA have traced the origins back to a primordial "Eve" who probably lived around 250,000 years ago based on the accepted rate of genetic mutation.
If we consider the appearance of Modern Humans as being the time when we achieved "sentience", then the date of around 250,000 years ago would probably be the best guess, since the first Homo Sapiens, including the Neandertals, still exhibited some brain traits of Erectus whereas Sapiens Sapiens did not.
Interestingly, the Sumerians stated that their Gods, the Anunnaki, arrived on Earth 120 Sars ago. A Sar is equivalent to 3600 Earth years. As incredible as this sounds, that would put their arrival here at 432,000 years before the time of that writing. They also state that the Anunnaki "created" Man after they had been here for 40 Sars. 40 Sars equals 144,000 years. 432,000-144,000=288,000 years ago. That falls perfectly within the range that science gives for the appearance of the first "Modern Humans". It's also interesting to note that the Bible mentions the numbers 432,000 and 144,000 several times throughout.
Is it possible that modern man was "created" by genetically combining the genes of a hominid with the genes of the Anunnaki, thus jumping the gun on evolution? Hell I don't know. I certainly think the coincidences are entertaining if nothing else.
All thoughts count when you have the balls to write them. Thank You
Talking of balls ... er no, I'll save it for a later time.
What I wanted to say is, Darwyn's theory never really did convince me. As a child I used to amuse my sister by saying that Darwyn used the same logic that Aristotle did!
Leaving Darwyn aside, have you heard of the Raelians? These guys have a less convincing but more amusing theory. They have representatives in every major capital! Some of those guys conducted a seminar in my city in the year 2001 AD!
Check out their web site pls.
Yeah big balls.
"gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart
Advocates of animal rights argue that many animals are sentient in that they can feel pleasure and pain, and that this entails being entitled to some moral or legal rights.
In eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires our respect and care.
Many cultures pray to their creator before killing animals for food. Native Americans come to mind where they lament on taking the animal's life. This would lead me to believe that they think animals are aware of the sense of pleasure and pain.
Thanks for the thoughts. Lets compare extinct animals to humans. Has the world changed since the animals have become extinct? Could you say the same if all humans were extinct?
We've been referring to the kind of "sentience" that separates Men from other animals. Of course other animals experience pleasure and pain...any animal with a central nervous system probably does. If a dog gets hit by a car, does it not yelp in agony? If you rub his belly, does he not enjoy it? But does a dog "ritualistically bury his companions" when they die? Does he perform ritual sacrifices before mealtime? It is the advent of those higher brain functions that we are trying to establish.
I don't know either, no-one does. Which means this hypothesis is as valid as any other and is best not dismissed but put in the realms of the possible.
Sorry....I'll get back on topic now...just had to throw that out there...
I may have missed this when reading, but if an explosion started evolution, who or what started the explosion? If you say the universe started the explosion, who or what started the universe? How can something come from nothing? If we did all evolve, why didn't other animal minds evolve as the human mind has evolved?
Quicksand, I do not rule out the possibility of us being created from another intelligence. This still does not explain who created the other intelligence. lol
1 problem when I saw when reading a brief on the site. They claim the intelligent life forms spoke to prophets of the bible. I do not believe this. I do not believe any intelligent life form would associate with anything in the bible. It highly makes me question their integrity of wanting to bring people to religion by making new biblical theories. However I still enjoy reading all ideas. Thanks
I wonder what Mark Knowles thinks about scientology. Would be interesting to know his opinion.
Another curiosity I forgot to mention...the ancient Mesoamerican culture also reveres the number 144,000.
But it's not 144,000 people, it's 144,000 days in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoameric … t_calendar
LOL You missed that there is a harder part of being an atheist: to use your brains and heart to make decisions, including moral ones - instead of using ancient mistranslated and misinterpreted texts. Don't know why you forgot it...
Well sometimes we believers use our brains too, although it hurts like hell!
Well, some of you definitely do, but the majority? To be fair there are atheists that don't use that stuff either. But at the second glance they appear to be believers in atheism
I realize that onthewriteside. So don't you think there needs to be a different term besides "sentient" to describe it?
Here's a tip.
"And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth."
Yeah, this isn't talking about sentience. Of course I know you are trying to push the Jebus agenda.
Besides, having dominion over the other animals would prolly have meant, "take care of them." Not slaughter them for some unseen god and then kill each other.
Your twisted. Your god is the root of all evil.
They did sacrifice a lot of animals in the bible if they weren't retarded, unclean or off color. An "aroma" pleasing to the lord. lol
I agree Sandra re having dominion could also mean taking responsibility because we have the ability to reason. I see Buddhists take this to the extreme by not harming a single creature, even an ant and the worms.
They keep rewinding up to the point when Darwyn's monkeys reached progress point. From there they hit the start button.
When asked what happened before that, they don't bother to explain. They point to various "scientific" scriptures, and then begin to lose their cool.
Rubbish, there is plenty of proof and more arriving daily.
It only takes an open mind and a google search.
I think both religionist and atheist are wrong. Religion claims to know existence of God, atheism claims there is no God. Neither has proof. Both are egotistical grouped assumptions of the unknown.
When proof of god is sourced from the bible, then there is no god is accurate enough.
The Bible old and new, describe the human condition, nothing else.
The God of the Bible and Quoran, like all the gods displays serious neurosis, is despotic and vengeful. Many humans have overcome this condition, but god has not. What a lot of ninth rate tripe!
Is not believing the bible reason for not believing in a creator?
Well, indoctrination in the initial stages certainly is useful. That is because we were given a clue as to what to look for.
Well the GOD that we believers believe in, existed before the scriptures and before religion.
Yet you only have these writings to support that.
Well, Earnest, I never ever made any reference to any writings at all! I never did! I onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnly spoke about GOD!
I must say that this true. You have never shoved your beliefs down anyone's throats with Babble quotes...and I personally appreciate that. I fully respect your entitlement to your own beliefs and opinions, and I greatly appreciate your respect for mine.
Well quicksand I apologise, I could not find any quotes from you. I am sincerely sorry, my mistake.
Ernest, I think it's Make Money you were probably thinking about. That's all he does is quote the NT...
Nope, he is actively searching commies - forgetting about his own closet thought
Thanks! Glad to know I am on the right side, onthewriteside!
I agree Misha, taking resonsibility for one's own problems and joys is not easy. Self knowledge and being prepared to be wrong is part of it.Deciding to accept that the so called devil is part of self, and then with that understanding comes emotional pain, and dealing with it requires more self examination, eg. more pain. Not the easy path at all is it?
Religion is a cop out.
I don't agree with religion at all, however I do believe in a creator.
Lets speak of a man and a woman. They have to have sex or the woman has to get an "artificial insemenation" to become pregnant. It takes "both" of them without an "artificial insemination" in which it would still take 2 of them because it would be using the mans sperm.
My point is, how can life come from nothing? The human birth shows that it takes at least 1 if not 2 for creation of human life. If it takes one - two of us to reproduce, how could we have came from "nothing"?
Just to Poke in---
I'm a Christian/believer and I have experienced healing first hand as well as seen things completely unexplainable. I'm a very logistical guy and I know there could only be a creator for all of this incredibly complex and designed world. Plus if I believe in God at least I have something to look forward to like heaven and peace instead of dust an no eternal presence. My glass is half full with that kind of a life
I don't see anything wrong with being happy with your belief. To each their own. Thanks for commenting.
"completely unexplainable" - Exactly. That is the reason why believers believe.
I've experienced these things too, and have proven to myself that these are not questions of "mind over matter."
Perhaps learning physiology and meridians and subtle bodies could explain many of these miracles. The unexplainable is explainable when you have the means to see how. And mind over matter - Hmmmm, our minds are powerful tools, we can convince ourselves of anything if given the right environment.
How about an over simplication of one fact. We can not prove that there is a God any more than I can scientifically prove that All of this isn't simply a figmant of my or your imagination. Last night I dreamed that I was an eagle or in fact am I realy an eagle who is dreaming I am a man. Maybe we are just a figmant of Gods imagination? He imagined us, His synapisis fired off in his brain ,,,Bang.. We were created. we are here. If there was a Bang comething caused it. Gods imagination created us. And the Word of God was with him (Jesus confirmed it)
Well regardless whether you think it's a figment of your imagination, you still had the experience of it and are writing about it on this thread.
I did not say that I believed that this is any sort of figment of my imagination , only mentioned the possibility. Ya just don't know what ya dont know, YA know
Some really think they know while never recognizing they don't know, you know?
Is funny, often it's the pot smokers who make that statement. They say they don't know, and don't know where they are when they say they don't know. So get confused whether where they are is an illusion or reality, and so figure reality and illusion are the same and musn't be where they think they are!
I know where I am, just not why i'm here. It has to be reality because it's too harsh to be an illusion.
Jesus is a prophet of the bible. Prophets are not real. The bible is not God.
I don't know what I know but I sure do believe what you just said.
LOL...Sorry! It's a hillbilly thing. Here's a synopsis:
Daddy is a moon-shiner. He has sex with his 13 year old daughter up on the mountain. Junior is born out of their union, and they name him Bubba. When Bubba gets old enough to start running shine, Daddy gives him a souped-up 1972 Camaro to drive. Bubba gets tired of Daddy, because Daddy is now sexing up his 12 year old grand-babies. So Bubba hops in his car, leaves the mountain and joins the Neo-Nazi's. Bubba has finally found a home and a family he can call his own. The End.
LOL Now you puzzled me even more. What is a moon-shiner? And do they mean exactly this when they call Clinton Bubba?
LOL! A moon-shiner is a back-hills guy who brews his own booze without a license and then sells it. They cal it "White-Lightning", and it became big during Prohibition. And as far as Clinton goes, I would consider him a "Bubba", although he wasn't poor like most of these hill-jacks are.
LOL Gotcha. Thanks for the lesson
No, I don't think Mike is from this company. He just got so scared of atheists and commies, that they sorta became a one big face to him, so every atheist is necessarily a commie, and every commie is atheist
Gotcha! I just got tired of him continuously trying to prove the Bible by quoting the NT after we had agreed that wasn't allowed. (I'm referring to Enderwiggins' thread)
Thanks Misha. I truly do not think that all the atheists that come in to this forum are commies. Although like so many others that come to this forum I am wondering why people that do not believe in God have to proselytize their ideas as if everyone has to believe what they believe. Atheists in this forum keep saying "religionists" keep trying to push their beliefs on everyone that comes to this Religion forum. But atheists in here do the same thing. Some atheists that come to this forum give the impression that people that follow an organized religion should not post in this Religion forum. It just makes a person wonder why someone that does not believe in God has to keep talking about God. That and the fact that Marxist/atheists governments did away with just about 100 million of their citizens in the 20th century, as well as the odd comment in here mentioning they'll be glad when religion is dead is what leads me to compare some atheists to commies. I'll leave this thread alone now and let you guys continue to hate on "religionists".
Will someone kindly explain creation without a creator/creators.
According to a recent article in the Guardian, the earth was formed from gas and dust that came from a star that exploded in our Galaxy about 4.5 Billion years ago.The moon was formed the same way, an explosion tore a piece off earth which is now our moon.Complex life began about 2.5 Billion years ago when oxygen built up in earth's atmosphere.
As for religion and a belief in god. As the sun was the giver of life it became a god, and variations of god belief followed.
I agree, something must have created the super nova and the universe, as well as other universes, but to personalize a creator or that which created in the way that religion does makes no sense to me, so until science learns more about all the Billions of planets, and their inhabitants it is foolish to think of a personal earth god of creation. As for the idea of an all seeing all powerful live god who induces fear as motivation, that is a lot of rubbish that will not stand psychological scrutiny.
Thanks for explaining Earnest.
I agree with all you say of religion. The one thing I don't understand is why do so many discount a creator just because the bible or religion is false? If sole basis for someone discounting a creator because of disagreement with the bible or religion, I don't understand this.
In response of there being a creator,
Why would a creator/inventor invent something that had/has no purpose?
If you consider us a creation of divinity or evolution, does not every creation not have to have a creator?
Who cares? Do you really believe you will get an answer to that question here? Lest a evangelist stop by and tell you how it all happened. Gimme a break.
Why does it always have to be about a purpose. Here's a purpose if you need one; learn to live together in harmony and maybe the world can come together right now.
lol What do you mean who cares? Who doesn't? I'm not expecting to get a clear answer because no one knows. I'm only asking for ideas. I don't see people coming together anytime soon. Whats not about purpose? What is the purpose to live life if you don't think life has a purpose?
If you believe there is a purpose, there is a purpose. If you believe there is a God, presto chango... there he is. The purpose is that we believe there is a purpose. Figure that one out, and let me know what I am talking about...
Nice! or maybe the purpose is to believe there is not purpose.
Marine, I meant exactly what you reiterated back to me; your never gonna get a clear answer. So like I said, just pick something and keep it for yourself as a treasure.
BEAUTIFULLY said. I love it. I love you, both.
Thanks, I love you 2 back as long as wifey doesn't see. On that note, is there a purpose to love?
What if the purpose is to find out instead of guess?
Every living thing has a purpose whether it knows it, or not. I think we do what we believe is right, and what we can, and the purpose reveals itself.
I am speaking more on purpose of creation rather than on an individual basis. Would there be a purpose of creation without a purpose for creation?
Definitely not. I am not so sure we have the capacity to know the purpose.
Maybe this is because the majority of us do not look.
Maybe there was no purpose to creation. Perhaps purpose arose as a consequence of language and comprehension.
Possibly. What about nature? Surely nature serves a purpose to the planet. If nature serves a purpose, why wouldn't we serve a purpose? We didn't define natures purpose, yet it still serves purpose.
This is what I think. I don't think our purpose is available to our level of understanding.
Maybe, if we knew the purpose we would alter it, in some way.
Can I answer this too? I agree. We operate on a tiny part of our knowledge until we learn to access more. We do not often understand our purpose, as while we are trying to understand, we have little ability to see within. Our lives are usually reactive.We react and adapt from birth. For the very brave who do not accept that daily life is to be seen as following our conciousness alone, the road least travelled is to see the tiny size of our conciousness, and try to grow it.
The sub-concious desires need to be made concious to grow our awareness of god/self. I do not use the term god usually as it's biblical connotations run my blood cold. The way to understand religiosity is to see it as indoctrination of the mind which halts the search for self.
Finding the whole self involves taking on both sides of ourselves, the dark side included.I do not have to look past my own shadow or dark side to find the axe murderer. It is me.
I am evil, good and all that is in between.
If I know my dark side can kill, I have allowed conciousness so I can think about it, which means I am unlikely to act on it.
So I claim that those who become more aware of their inner self are able to cope without killing, or committing the bad acts that happen all the time, even though they have dark feelings.
Those who would deny their dark side, or in the case of religion blame something else, or other than self.
The devil in the corner. "The devil made me do it" is always the cry, or "I have sinned" but no resonsibility for self in the act, all the bad is caused by an invisible entity. Superstitious nonsense in my view.
Putting God aside, how does understanding ourselves correlate with understanding our purpose? Great post, by the way. I would like to hear more.
Excellent thoughts Earnest,
When you mentioned knowing "self", I also believe this is a huge step in life that many do not find. I think finding "self" is a stage of enlightenment that many never reach, religious or independent.
I also share some thoughts about those placing blame. I find it far more honerable to be held accountable for my own actions in the end if there is someone to answer to. I believe "forgiveness" like the "devil" example is an "out" for those with a guilty conscious.
There are two understandings of the word self. There is the enlightened Self (as in Atman) which is that void of any external influence, it is a state of being that is very difficult to reach. There is no sense of anything external. And as the sages say, you are so out of your mind that you have no idea you were in it until you get out of it. So if you every do any serious spiritual practices (meditation) this is one state you want to reach).
Then there is the sense of self which is the ability to be totally centered and self aware in all situations. Unfortunately to really say you know yourself you have to find out what is not. What is conditioned by your upbringing, your parents, your school, your church, your peers, your work environment. Also you need to understand the difference between a response and a reaction. You have to deal with this self before you go for the higher one.
But not to be confused with selfishness which has been the understanding of Christians.
Individualism is exactly what it is Jewel. The sense of urgency and neediness no longer control us to the same extent as we become more individuated. There are very serious rivers to cross too. For many the archetypical "Dark sea Journey" dream will trigger new growth toward self knowledge. This dream scared the hell out of me for months after I had it, and I went another 5 years before I felt I gained anything from it other than testing the limits of how scared you can be while still asleep! I think it is a man thing!
Ever been skydiving? It helped me know who I was. I didn't piss my pants!
I have not been sky diving, but I raced motorcycles without losing too much bf!
Can't say I've had a Dark sea Journey dream. Have been through the Dark Night of the Soul in real time (about 18 months). I've not heard this Dark sea Journey - so what was your experience if you'd care to share.
Nature does serve a purpose, what we call nature is our living planet, and it does not concern itself with us. It gets an itch then scratches it. When it does, sometimes millions die, it does not know or care.
Chicken or the Egg? Egg or the Chicken? Chicken or the Egg. Egg or the Chicken?
I wonder what would happen if we did get the answer?
The egg would never exist without the chicken, right? If there wasn't a "first" chicken, there wouldn't have been a "first" egg. Am I missing something? lol
I don't think so. Is funny how so many people have asked this question, some keep asking it, others get a headache and let it go. I wonder who is making the best choice - holding onto it or letting it go?
It depends on how you classify "best" choice.
Ok I am still thinking about the damn chicken and the egg. Thanks a lot. I have one for you.
Which came first, you or your mother?
Well it can be taken on the same principle as the chicken and the egg. And if you buy into past lives, I could have been her mother in one of them! The whole concept circulates and evolves. In terms of the physical body I am an emanation of my mother and father in terms of genetics. In terms of consciousness - chicken or the egg or egg/chick or.......?
I am talking about logic and reality. If you want to say you came before your mother in a past life, feel free. It is my logic that my mother/father was my creator.
And what created the, and their grandparents - follow the lineage back and back and back and back.
(Understanding consciousness is not of the body, I know that my link to my parents is not a constant in terms of a continuum. But again this is not under a logic discussion.) But you have been pondering the beginnings of creation - I (personally) can't start with my parents in this life.
Because the thread is not based solely on logic does not mean a logical statement can't be made. I believe it is logical to say that I was "created" from my mother/father. To say I was my mothers creator is as irrational as the bible in my belief.
Ok. Im not trying to be a jerk. I swear. But as msot people, I hope, know by now, I have a hard tiem reading all the posts iof its more hten, 30. SOOOO I have to ask something here...even in past lives...something had to make the first thing. Right? so..if it wasnt chance, and it wasnt God, what was it?
Seriously without jerking anyone off it's the number one philosophical question of all time and it has never been answered. So get your thought processes into a mode where your brain doesn't completely turn in on itself and the act of nutting out rhyme and reason will not make you insane.
I am open to all ideas when they have bearing. You listed that you could be your mothers mother in a past life with no example/bearing. If you wish to debate that your parents didn't "create" you, be my guest.
You're misunderstanding the whole concept of creation here. Sure, in this life my mother and father united egg and sperm - and voila here I am - using a physical body created by them and influenced by genetics. My consciousness however, did not begin with my mother and father having sex. It was already in existence. Was I already in existence (my consciousness) at the time of the Fall (Adam/Eve scenario) yes I understand I was. You've read my hub on a discussion I had with a guy on consciousness thoughts and the brain - it traversed into emanations and archetypes.
If you stretch your mind to separate consciousness from the physical body it may help you to understand the continuum of consciousness and how this life (created by my immediate biological parents) is not the beginning of my existence.
I think you are making things more complicated than they are. Your idea is the same as the bible to me. It is not logical to me. However, I still appreciate the ideas.
Do you believe Adam & Eve and the bible?
No I don't believe the Adam/Eve story as portrayed. I do understand the concept of the androgyne. The bible is misinterpreted and is written for people who actually do want to transform themselves, and not pretend to be something they are not. So it is a misunderstood set of teachings.
I don't think I'm making anything complicated. I'm using my consciousness to see and through meditation and learned techniques I can see more than what's presented dimensionally with the physical eyes. I can regress to know that my current biological parents are part of my current experience, but were not my original parents.
You want answers but only within the confines of your physical eyes and the limiting experiences they give you. If you want to confine creation to your biological parents then you don't have to see much and you can get your answer by mixing sperm and the egg and your conditioned mind comes from what you have been told and shown, and external influences. And if you only look at written texts to explain the rest, you won't find the answer you're looking for, because it has never been solved and is not in a text book.
This discussion like most will end up in a circular state unless you are game enough to learn different methods. You will never understand my experiences until you start to have them yourself. You can do that and there are methods to teach you how. Unfortunately you can't mix these techniques with marijuana.
I appreciate your ideas, however I don't appreciate you selling them as you know more than me because you have a different idea and belief. You claim mine are from weed, I claim yours are from crack. No disrespect. I get my ideas from me as you get yours from the bible. I believe you have a completely wrong idea and concept of what the bible is for. However, everyone is free to their belief, as long as they do not tell anothers that their idea is less.
No, not claiming yours are from weed, just saying that there is a limited level of vision because of it.
I don't have all the answers, have never said I do. Am not interested in selling how I do things to anyone, that would make me a huge hypocrite considering my loathing of christian indoctrination.
Not sure how this got into a slanging match considering there used to be respect. Nevermind. If you want to put yourself in the category of Aristotle and Plato go ahead. You are asking the same questions that have been asked since the dawn of time. I don't have the answers, they are all able to be found - not through books and our minds are limited by our lack of expansion and lack of wanting to experience. I was surprised you don't understand the chicken and the egg scenario. That is a common question philosophers bring up. Why did that confuse you?
I don't do beliefs, I explained that. And it doesn't help to have them. You can only ever go by your own experiences, and that is the definition of truth. I won't believe you because I'm not in your body and I'm not using your mind. I'm in my body having my experiences. I've spent 10 years learning how to use other senses, along with esoteric literature.
We all have choices, we do what we do. I don't slang at you because you use weed - go ahead enjoy yourself. It is a known fact as experienced by western and eastern masters that drugs will limit your metaphysical experiences. Don't believe me, go study it. Google to your hearts content.
I'm hear to experience, to communicate, to learn, which is the main reason I use hubpages - lots of great talent and minds here. I'm not hear to take your word as truth either. I'll listen to it and share. Two way street.
Perhaps it is you who has the belief and are trying to fit meaning into them.
I base my belief on my idea of logic. Obviously we do not have the same idea of logic. I will trust the logical rather than the illogical. You say you know the limits of things from reading of others experiences. This is not possible without experiencing yourself. This is an assumption. How am I putting myself ahead of anyone? What are your thoughts on adam and eve? Thanks
There are levels to experiencing yourself. And relying on logic is great to a point. The mind is really only just being pioneered so if you are waiting for the logical scientific explanations then fine for you. It's not for me, I can't wait that long. Meditation and expansion of the mind is the ultimate in pushing limits. Science will take a while to catch up because they are relying on physical instruments to measure something non physical. I'm not talking about god here, if you've read my stuff you'd come to know that. Oh, if you think this is just me having these experiences, it's not. Would 150 to 250 people work for you. I know this number is also small, but what I'm passing here is that the "ideas and experiences" are not solely mine. And it's not for sale. You have to want to know.
Jewels....I would guess the numbers are significantly higher than that...
I am not doubting the experiences you have. I simply disagree that you claim my thought as limited from weed and not meditating because we do not have the same experiences. I agreed to try meditation. I didn't mean you are trying to "sale" me literally. I meant it as you saying my thought is not as advanced as yours. Again, I am open to all ideas while I can say I have never been my mothers father in a past life.
Consciousness is inhibited by the use of drugs. End of sentence. I'm not that pompous to say my thoughts are as advanced as yours, that's saying I'm more intelligent. Crap. I'm saying expansion of consciousness is limited by marijuana and drugs. End of sentence. Please don't put words into my mouth.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but how do you know whats limited from something you have never tried? This would be like me saying your meditation is limited when I have never tried it.
I have tried it. And it is also what is written by spiritual teachers and masters who have students doing meditation practices. It's not just my word for it. This is what I'm trying to pass and for some reason it's not passing. There are states of consciousness you reach which are far vaster than the ordinary levels of consciousness. You are out of your mind with weed - yes, you go further out of your mind through meditation. Does that help?
I have also spoken to drug users (heroine and cocaine) who can verify this. The spaces with these drugs particularly are more macabre than marijuana and end up in very dark spaces after long use. Marijuana also creates a heaviness in your body and mind that is not there with meditation. Please also understand I'm talking about full on meditation, not your weekend variety.
Understood. I guess the part i'm having trouble with is what you mean when you say states of "consciousness". I also do not think one person can assume what anothers thoughts are limited to, weed or meditation. Thank You for explaining. I appologize for any offenses.
Consciousness: your perception of reality.
After reading what you guys were saying to each other I can see why each has taken offense.
Marine- Jewels is saying that the habitual use of Marijuana limits you perception of reality in that you "forget" to address reality. At some point a person has to stop and rid themselves of all toxins to "know" what its limits are.
Lets take a more potent psychedelic drug like LSD and dive into 'consciousness'. LSD does limit a person perception of reality. Having been down LSD lane I can tell you that I have experienced an uncontrollable state of laughing, so much so that I had no control over my mind or my body. But this is extremely dangerous. Yet I repeated the use of LSD because I thought it was fun to explore my "subconscious" and bring it to life through my field of view.
However, as Jewels was pointing out about a very dark side, after repeated uses of LSD I had what is called a "bad trip". A serious subconscious darkness made itself apparent in my "field of view" and there was nothing I could do about changing the experience to make it a fun one or "change to the Disney channel".
All I could do was recognize and repeat to myself that what I was experiencing was a consequence of being subject to your subconscious through limited consciousness... a limited perception of reality.
In which case all I could do was wait it out aware that there is no turning back and continue to guide myself through a remarkable journey in which I literally had to address the nature of my true self which is another topic.
So when Jewels and I are saying that there is a limit. Literally there is a limit and at some point you have to stop in order to understand what it is.
Native Indians using peyote during a spiritual exercise is used to bring to consciousness what is buried within the subconscious. Some people have extremely bad experiences and those things need to be addressed... often times the inward journey with or without drug use is a painful and scary one.
Only meant to make you aware. After you have completed your journey, there is no need to return to as it has been brought to your attention. If you continue to use drugs you never get to address 'yourself' but only run into a secular thought with no end and no answers.
Does that make more sense? Again I do agree with Jewels about habitual use limiting a person.
I don't think you are old enough to have experienced what real "LSD-25" was all about. Anything post 1980 that I ever tried was garbage compared to what I did in the '70's. It worked, but with literally "gut-wrenching" effects. And still it was no where near as intense...more like eating Peyote or something.
The LSD that was available before it became illegal, (and for a short time thereafter), was clean, and truly psychotropic. It was by far my drug of choice back in those days. I could trip for 20-25 hours on a quarter tab of liquid LSD-25. A full 4-way tab back then would cost you about $6.
lol prolly though I wouldn't want to trip for 24 hours. That is too long for my little head.
You are right otherwriteside. The same with E. Nobody uses it for a party drug anymore.... too short a half life for parties.The stuff that is called E is not, and has a lot of speed to keep the party going.
E? I never like it. Always that it was to quack for me. Though it might be because you guys got all the good stuff and we got stuck with crap.
Yeah, yeah laugh it up! You guys were just never lucky enough to hang out with me. I would have you laughing so hard you would defecate yourself.
The first time I ever tried E I was in maryland and was in my 30's. I was partying with some 20-somethings that told me this was the "acid" of the '90's. I took a $25 tab, as did all of the rest of the people. They were tripping (at least they thought they were), and I was like...this is a complete and utter joke. I was sooooo disappointed....
Our purpose is not often visible to our concious self. We know so little about the dark side as we fear it. With conciousness of both parts of ourselves we can make heartfelt decisions from our real selves that can be lived.
We throw the baby out with the bath water if we do not see our own evil.There is much that is good in the shadowy self, and without knowing it our decisions are likely to be just new traps set by our subconcious desires to teach us another tough lesson to get us back on track. When we ignore our dark side we may live our whole life as a series of sub-concious corrections, not always nice ones... religion and god are another way of seeing self that never explains the sub-concious, because it externalized everything.
So we don't see our purpose because we refuse to even see ourselves clearly! That would be a great thread. If we could get people to explore their true selves, we could help them find their purpose... Perhaps, the ultimate purpose.
The only problem with self examination is the emotional pain.... Carl Jung had very little faith in mankind making this examination... he said man would rather walk on broken glass than glimpse the self.
In the writings of many post Jungians like Hillman, Von Franz et al there is some debate about the different personality types and ways of learning about self that are useful. My limited experience with my inner self has taught me that my ego hates the painful confontations with the dark side, and everything in me screams for distractions!
I have also learnt that you must follow your heart to learn the lessons you are not yet brave enough to learn by looking at self. In other words, self will not be denied, it will keep steering you over the cliff till you can drive!
I am intrigued. Your insights are amazing to me. I have never gone down this path with this particular subject. This is the root of all evil, literally. The boogeyman in the closet is the man in the mirror, so to speak. I am looking forward to reading all of your hubs.
Thank you very much for reading, I started on psychology about 35 years ago, and am still learning. I did dream analysis for three years and need to gt back to it again. I hated waking every single night at 3pm at first, but as I found archetypal dreams and got some insight, it grew my life, and I see a need now for me to start again. You are right about the man in the mirror.... there's ya boogyman right there!
Very enlightened comment in my idea of enlightenment. I believe a "huge" step in learning self is analyzing personal history. Personal history is not always "fun" to analyze as you mentioned, yet personal history must be seen and accepted to see forward.
Very much agreed. The most knowledge we learn in life is from "multiple" experiences, thoughts, actions. Our mistakes in life are our greatest learning tools to learn self. I believe in opposites. Mistakes = Corrections, Negative = Positive, I also believe "both" sides of "every" situation must be considered to know self.
Golly Ernest I think I need to deem you the God of Self!
Welcome to the hp godhood.
Jenny is the Godesss of Love
Misha is the Meta God
Mark is the God of No God
and I am just Goddess.
Sandra thank you Goddess! You are awsome too! I know nothing, as the good sargent Schultz would say. I am an admirer of yours too.
I hope mankind can just get over religion, collectively buys a mirror and takes a peek!
I've said the best form of corporate punishment and one which should be mandatory in the prison system is meditation and self reflection/transformation. It can be the most sadistic of punishments, yet the most rewarding in its outcome of transformation.
It was just my point of view, i'm maybe right or wrong, but still this topic seems very interesting. i believe that God exists though, hehehe, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and principles. Good day marine.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
Is atheism an anchronistic non-belief system? Of all the "isms" that has bedeviled man's existence, it could be said that atheism takes the cake for being inexplicably incongrous with modernity, for in its essence, non-belief (in somehting or anything) belies...
by yoshi97 13 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
by Eric Dierker 7 years ago
Is Atheism really just another religion or faith based concept?It seems like the notions that there is a God or there is not a God, are both founded in belief because there is not proof either way. Well there is proof, but not conclusive in either direction. So aren't organizations with set forth...
by Luke M. Simmons 6 years ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...
by Elizabeth 10 years ago
I wrote a hub on how faith is not required in order to be an atheist. Someone requested that I turn it into a forum thread as well. My position is that atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a god. Therefore, faith is not required. The common dismissive quote is...
by Rishad I Habib 13 years ago
Well like religion, i think atheism too varies from atheist to atheist..what is the standard form of atheism, its purpose and strengths over religions??
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|