Maybe we're simply being distracted!

Did you ever ask yourself why are we dying? Why did the nature bestowed us the solicitousness to survive as long as we can? Why do we want to live forever?- (I am not talking about why we think we should live forever, I am talking about why did nature made us think so and want so...).
Almost everything we eat or do is killing us! did you notice that? Animals fat is unhealthy at all, but that is what the prehistoric man ate without thinking twice.
LOTS of types of food are causing cancer, and so not only food. The sun, which is so natural and we couldn't be without it... And chalks for an example are also causing cancer... And so much more things, and when I think about it almost everything we do causes except the goodness in it also some health troubles.
Now, in assumption that the human's nature is to excel and rise above the reality's nature (which so far I believe it is true), a theory crossed my mind, it is only thoughts that came up on my mind yesterday so don't tell me I am wrong because I know it has no base and might be nothing more than my developed imagination (well and actually, I am pretty sure it is just me, since the is nothing for sure, but a number which is aspires to one hundred per cent). I am just sharing with you my unreality thoughts.
It goes like this:
Maybe, everything's so complex and sophisticated because something want us to be distracted (by figuring out) so we'll miss the point which is right behind us. Maybe the answers of everything are right here but we decided to figure out the unexplanble things that were actually existed and designed for us, for making sure we won't get the real thing and will be godlike. Maybe it is a simple system, much more simple than what known to us, so simple which we can't see. Maybe we are being distracted by the sophistication so we won't see what's really going on. Maybe the nature has deceived us, maybe it is just too simple for us to see, because we never saw something so obvious, too evident for noticing, we took it all along as something which is too much self-explanatory, never thought about it.
Maybe the reason we are living is to produce energy and the reason we die is to provide that energy for the something which don't want us to realize the real thing. Maybe we are programmed to try and survive as long as we can so there will be more energy. Maybe only after we die the energy is being produced, and so as long we are alive it is being programmed to grow and increase oneself (by thinking of all the sophistication).
In supposition it is all true, I was also thinking that maybe if we shall live forever than there will be no energy provided and too much energy produced as for the something who needs that energy.
Maby it hasn't took into account the fact that we, the humankind believe that the human's nature is to excel and rise above the the reality's nature and that we believe everything is possible and we are able to do everything (and so the simplest ever thing that so far we weren't able to see), so maybe after all, if we will get immortality we will be more than what it has expected us and so ruin the real thing that is based on our energy of figuring out which is being produced by doing that and increasing itself, and of course being provided only once we're dead. That shall mean that we were cunning upon the nature's slyness and shrewdness after all, and will be godlike.
Than, with time we shall understand nothing really matters, too compex to be real, we shall expose the real world which we can't live in, because it needs our energy being provided, but we don't want it to be provided, we want it to be procuded for ourselves and be preserved for eternity, we've been working hard to get immortality, we love challenges and sophistication, we shall ruin the simplicity, rull. That will prove us we were always right about that the human's nature is to excel and rise above the the reality's nature, nothing is for sure, but everything is possible, the hard shall be done today, and the impossible shall be done tomorrow.
Long live the immortalsts.

Yours truthfuly
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 03 February 2005 - 11:48 PM.

Caution: life is deadly.

I want to live forever, but better still, exist forever with rationality or my human intelligence, preferably sharpened and broadened; because thee are so many things I still want to know, like is Buddhism a lot of nonsense and is dense writing indispensable in philosophy?

At present I seem to have come to a kind of eureka, that knowledge can be divided into the creational as opposed to the recreational.

Creational knowledge has to do with the mundane, drab, dismal routines of life, for example, looking for a small screw dropped on the floor or finding a solution to war in man's behavior, as opposed to such Enterprise as searching for Nirvana by meditation, which even the Nirvana itself is not understood or concurred upon uniformly by its proponents, or a lot of the dense musings of contemporary philosophers.

And I consign all knowledge which is not creational to the realm of recreational, like amusement, entertainment, pastime, play, games, sports, fantasies, and horror of horrors, religion and philosophy and arts.

When all such activities can be relevated to some concrete purpose in the mundane, dismal, drab, and creational world of everyday life, like keeping alive and comfortable and getting things done: quicker, easier, surer, and safer, if for no other reasons than to see whether something works.


Susma

Susma, I always find myself having understanding problems when it comes to your posts, I am reading 2-3 times the caption and than begining to realize what you actually were trying to say. Is it because of my English which is not the first language or you are simply speaking mysteriously...? Anyway, I shall take it as my problem which I am pretty sure it is, I think I got your point- finaly!
Let me interpret [I'm still not number-that-aspires-to-one-hundred-per-cent sure (no such thing one-hundred per-cent in my opinion, only aspiration to it, since nothing is for sure...)], you are having agreement with that theory aren't you?
Now, I did manage to see you are basing on all the knowledge- creational and recreational, which now I understand what you meant here:
http://www.imminst.o...234
too... (below):

susmariosep Posted: Feb 1, 2005 | link



Group: Basic Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 357
I am a skeptic, and an atheist, and also a theist, an agnostic, and a deist, and what you have, all at the same time.

But I don't jump off the say 20th floor of a tall buildinng.

You see, when it is a matter of physical realities which are examined by the experimental sciences like physics, chemistry, biology, I am not irrational enough as to maintain a skeptical attitude.

But when it has to do with non-physical scenarios like the existence of God, or how we can know God, then I reserve to myself the luxury of belief and disbelief.

Skepticism, atheism, theism, agnosticism, and deism, all at the same time? Impossible? I assure you it is very possible, because all these scenarios are not the same as jumping out of the 20th floor of a building.

That is why I mention in several threads here that my religion is rational, provisional, and optional.

Susma

However, thanks for sharing. I have to admit I am quite different than you, I am skeptic about lots of things, I am simply skeptic; and you, you seem to use all of what you know, lean on it and base your thoughts on it.
Everyone with his unique way to live...

Alright thank you
Yours truthfully
~Infernity

All minds in one mind

Thanks, Infernity, for your understanding.

Have you read that part in some of my posts where I mention that at this very moment and maybe until when man shall have arrived at complete knowledge of all facts, there are a very big number of people possessed of vast learning and the most keen of intelligence, who declare themselves to be theists, or deists, or Catholics, or Protestant Christians, or Buddhists, or atheists, or agnostics, and adherents to other systems of religion and philosophy, and of course scientists claiming to enjoy scientific certainty.

Look at it this way, if all these brilliant and most informed minds are possessed among themselves of divergent and contradictory views on religion and philosophy, and some of them are the most accomplished in sciences and in the arts notwithstanding, why should it be incomprehensible for one mind, like mine, to have all these views at the same time; so that in effect I can play the characters of all these persons and their variegated and even opposing mental scenarios at the same time -- in my mind.

Maybe I am the quintessential troll. To the credit of the Infidels forum where I had been suspended for a month but I have not gone back yet after its lapse, trolling is not one category of posting where they have any kind of penalties like suspension, banning, or relocation of posts. I guess they came to the conclusion early on that one man's trolling is another man's advocacy of an issue he feels profoundly for.

But try to read the understatement of cynical humor in my posts also.

Susma

Susma,

Have you read that part in some of my posts where I mention that at this very moment and maybe until when man shall have arrived at complete knowledge of all facts, there are a very big number of people possessed of vast learning and the most keen of intelligence, who declare themselves to be theists, or deists, or Catholics, or Protestant Christians, or Buddhists, or atheists, or agnostics, and adherents to other systems of religion and philosophy, and of course scientists claiming to enjoy scientific certainty.

Gee, what a long sentence, you remind me of myself a month ago... I used to write a whole paragraph as a one sentence which was valid, but hard for others to understand. Sometimes because of the longness I forgot the point I was trying to say, and that's what just happend to you; Did you notice you started the sentence as a question and lost yourself?
One tip for making your posts clearer- don't use too long sentences, I'd say no more than two-three lines, four maximum, it is confusing; not only the readers but yourself too.
I personaly got it somehow, but it is just because I stopped doing it only something like a month ago, thus I know how it is working...

Look at it this way, if all these brilliant and most informed minds are possessed among themselves of divergent and contradictory views on religion and philosophy, and some of them are the most accomplished in sciences and in the arts notwithstanding, why should it be incomprehensible for one mind, like mine, to have all these views at the same time; so that in effect I can play the characters of all these persons and their variegated and even opposing mental scenarios at the same time -- in my mind

I think that a believe in god is just a primitive notion of the olden days due lack of developed technology which would bring them the measures to figure out all the unexplanble things. I mean, the humankind has received the aspiration of knowing everything, the attribute of being currious. The mankind is partitioned to two main groups- spiritualists and materialists. I believe that the spiritualists are people that simply are too indolent to seek for the trues so they're building there own trues, which is mendacious. It is much easyer to have an answer to everything which is simply "god"... even the most unreasonable thing that points on god as stupid, they shall say that the ways of the lord are covert... yeah right. In the past, people were the same as currious as today, the only difference was that today we have a very developed technology which is always increasing oneself. The materialists are people who don't become satisfied by the fallacious trues, that's because they prefer to know the truthfully trues and seek for answers whether if they're gonna find it or nor that, and whether if it is hard or easy to decipher. They are not interested in the false which ostensibly explains everything, with the same stupid boring answer: "God"...

I hope you understood what I meant, I just have it all in my head, and I wrote about it in my work and I am too tired to read what I wrote again so I might be missing few necessary details, you know, everything I wrote and know is mixed up all together...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Your original question.


"Maybe we're simply being distracted!, Are we missing the point and being used?"


This may sound simplistic, but here goes:

You have in your mind in a confused manner a blind universe and a personalistic universe intermingled. Let me explain.

You are about your own business walking to where you have to get to; then suddenly some bird's feces lands on your head. You get angry.

That bird's feces lands on your head is an instance of the blind universe.

That you get angry is an instance of your personalistic universe.

The big problem which up to now philosophers have not given a good answer is whether the universe is personalistic or it is blind.

Scientists tell us it is blind but personalism emerges and here we are humans who are personalistic and see everything personalistically.

But if scientists would be scientific consistently they have to admit that they are to be consistent faced with the question of how a blind universe can steer itself towards into the present state of being personalistic as with mankind.

No, I have no answer either.

But the existence of a personalistic God seems to be a soothing answer if nothing else. And I think if we make this God finite and not infinite then things will be more cerebrally digestible than otherwise.


Very often the genius is not in the answers but in the questions. Only fools have no questions only answers -- from others.

Susma

I think that little theory is exactly how people are starting believing in god. One comes up with that crazy thing, and some believe it. They tell about it- and some believe. Of course everyone is adding some of his mind so it has few changes, and the base of trues that exists in most of the religions is the trues which the first person to make it up knew, if he was smart and learned alot- it has a bigger base of true, if he is not and did not- it has the very base of just reality, and logic, all the other is totaly rebuted due the imagination.

Very often the genius is not in the answers but in the questions. Only fools have no questions only answers -- from others.

True. Religious people are having answers to everything- all the same answer- god. God, god, god, all is arround god, all is god, because of god, for god, god, god, god. So piteous... These are answers that was given by other fools, that got the same answer by others that got the same answer from others etcetera. That means it is old, primitive, and conclude while technology was in it's diaper and there was no scientific knowledge. It is all a mind of one person who wanted answers, simply lots of people heard his story and thought it is reasonable since it answers all of their qustions. You know for how much the religion has managed to change, don't you... Definitely alot!
The first one who thought about all that, he was smart, he was creative, he had no means to know anything else, but if he would have lived today, he would have be surprised of how many people believe in his nonsense and how much it has managed to change. He would not be religious any longer, he would try to make people realize it is all nothing, but obviously, it is almost impossible to change it now... Since it has turned to lots and lots of religions, not all of them are inspiration of the same man.
Smart people have questions- whenever. If they ask and the answer is simply "God..." with the addition of why it is so, and how...- the wise guy shall find another question. If the questions are getting deeper on god himself- he shall get less answers like "all is mystery, but god knows what he's doing, he want it to be mystery..." etcetera, so he shall understand that for getting answers- he have to learn and research, and be skeptic about simple answers since nothing is simple. If the questions that he shall ask are not about god, he shall get the same answers all the time... God... God... God... He shall have two choises: prove himself as smart- ask questions about god because he wants to know more about that annoying answer, or shall simply believe it and understand what they mean in god, and "buy" it- because it's easy.

And that was my analyses of your very true sentence, now you see why you were contradicting yourself?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 25 February 2005 - 03:15 PM.

In other words?


And that was my analyses of your very true sentence, now you see why you were contradicting yourself? -- Infern

Dear Infern, I normally think that I do not contradict myself; but tell me where in this thread I did contradict myself, and I will try to explain why it is not so.

But try to do that in fifty words or less -- if I may impose this favor on you.

Susma

Susma,
Well you simply believe also with all the things you believe in- in god. don't you? (I mean tell me if I'm incorrect, because that's the impression I got from you).
So I wrote what is actually believing in god, and why it is not right to believe in it in my humble opinion.

Fifty words are not enough for me, sorry, I don't like to be thrifty in words, but I made this short for you.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Yes, I believe in God.


As a matter of fact, that is what some people here find it impossible to accept, that I can be a theist, an atheist, a deist, an agnostic, and what have you, all at the same time.

But in their respective individual aspect, each one of those isms.

For example, I pray to God, the Christian one, and to Jesus, and to the Holy Spirit, on my belief in the Trinity as I have learned it from my inherited faith of Catholicism, even though I call myself now a postgraduate Catholic.

Yet I can appreciate the arguments of atheists against the existence of God, in respect of my critical assessment and in a mind conformist with atheists and agnostics and others who are not religiously sympathetic to the idea of a God.

And for this reason I can also call myself an atheist, and other kinds of theoreticians in respect of such religious matters like God, heaven, spirits, miracles.

Think about this, all the world is a stage and all the men and women thereof are mere players. Only I will remove that word 'mere', and retain everything else.

So I am many things at the same time but not in the same script. You find that contradictory? In which case you should study more seriously and deeply how many scripts you are playing as you go about everyday in your life.

More later.

Susma

Susma, I totaly understand.

Now, as for the main of the theory- I have the answer, two for a matter of fact:
1. the simple one- God
as I said in the theory, it was here all along, and we knew it.
2. the BEQest- DEATH.
so simple, you cannot even be, think, matches the whole theory I think...

I understand you becaue it has just happend to me. I belive this theory is true and the answer is simply death, but I shall never let that way lead me- I am skeptic, death is contrarian my main value- life, living, DHL. I choose to live, detailed, hard, long, sophisticated, interesting, comlicated life, full of everything- except death!
I hope you understood me, I'm getting tired, I may wrote it by mistake, we shall see tomorrow... [sleep]

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Did you ever ask yourself why are we dying?

There are different theories on this. One would be that our bodies are programmed by evolution to die (senescence). The other is that our bodies gradually wear out.

Why did the nature bestowed us the solicitousness to survive as long as we can?

I have always found that evolution and its logic is almost axiomatic. Why do we live? To produce off spring. We, as individuals, are part of a successive chain of individuals- an ancestory if you will. We wouldn't be around if it weren't for this "line of descent" and the only way for this "line of decent" to survive is for each of its pieces/units/parts/individuals/people to have an extremely strong imperative to live (and reproduce). If this weren't the case, then the "line of decent" wouldn't exist in the first place! The desire to live, or to choose living over dying is, at a fundamental level, instinctual.

Why do we want to live forever?

Ah, but now this is different. Wanting to live forever is very different from just wanting to live. This is a difficult question. I think that there is common thread through out humanity of the desire for the "eternal". Some try to supress it (the dogmatic atheists), some embrace it as a meta-physical reality (your common religionists) and others, like us, wish to attain it through rational means.

Okay, I think I have an interesting way of thinking about this one. Try to tear it apart if you see any weaknesses. [thumb]

As I see it, there are two possible desires regarding life: (1) the desire to live or (2) the desire to die.

Let me ask you this question Infernity. Can you imagine *not living*? Pretty difficult right? I know I can't imagine not living. Well then, how can you desire something that you can not imagine, conceptualize, etc? It seems logically impossible to me to desire something that you can't imagine.

I can definitely imagine what it is like to be alive! Therefore it is logically possible for me to desire being alive.

we shall expose the real world which we can't live in, because it needs our energy being provided, but we don't want it to be provided

I don't quite understand what you mean by this part. I guess I should read the rest of this thread before I make any assumptions.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this part. I guess I should read the rest of this thread before I make any assumptions.

Yes Don, always read the whole thread since answering after reading just a part of it shall cost problems since your question has the answer, and obviously you didn't read the posts after it too, I do know the answers of all the questions you answered, this is just a sort of a wondering which is mendacious and I know that, there is no point in answering my questions over there since I have them all. This is just another perspective (and that was a word I was looking for a long time, I always forgot [tung] lol).
keep on reading it all replys...

Later

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Actually Infernity, I looked over this thread and it does not appear that anyone supplied my answer previously:

Why do we want to live forever? 


Ah, but now this is different. Wanting to live forever is very different from just wanting to live. This is a difficult question. I think that there is common thread through out humanity of the desire for the "eternal". Some try to supress it (the dogmatic atheists), some embrace it as a meta-physical reality (your common religionists) and others, like us, wish to attain it through rational means.

Okay, I think I have an interesting way of thinking about this one. Try to tear it apart if you see any weaknesses. 

As I see it, there are two possible desires regarding life: (1) the desire to live or (2) the desire to die.

Let me ask you this question Infernity. Can you imagine *not living*? Pretty difficult right? I know I can't imagine not living. Well then, how can you desire something that you can not imagine, conceptualize, etc? It seems logically impossible to me to desire something that you can't imagine.

I can definitely imagine what it is like to be alive! Therefore it is logically possible for me to desire being alive.

If I am mistaken then mea culpa mea culpa...

Got you there, DonS.


"If I am mistaken then mea culpa mea culpa... " You said that, DonS!

So you were an altar boy, a Catholic once. But now you are what, correct me, a transcendentalist agnostic? Just call yourself like me, a postgraduate Catholic.

About the desire to die, for there being only two desires in regard to life, to live or to die -- you said.

I beg to disagree with you; because you make it as though it's a choice like either you are going to desire a motor vehicle or a horse; but the matter is of a drastic absence of choice. There can be no choice to die or to not die, we all will die in our lifetime and in the very foreseeable future.

What you mean is that by way of aberration the desire to die is an exceptional abnormality owing to a wrong appreciation of what is good for a living man.

Why do we desire to live? Simple, life is here and we want to keep it and it is good after everything is said against staying alive, at least for the greatest majority of living men. The answer is then simply: life is good.

Susma

we all will die in our lifetime and in the very foreseeable future.

I cannot prove a dead man he is wrong. I am not planning to die and so lots of us. You may die because you dont believe physical immortality and that's a pity.
We also cannot prove you that forever shall be the infinite lifespan since forever is endless, when exactly in the forever I should come and declare I am alive? whenever, it won't be after that forever since it is not reasonable at all if you understood...
Moreover, life after the brains death is just another way to calm down, another lie, primitive lie, as all the religions, one's inspiration........... etcetera (don't make me repeat myself again! you shall die from receiving the same information whole over again, I am freaking out of it! you got my point).

Don, since I cannot upload myself, and I cannot force you to read all of my posts, and you cannot force me to blow by repeating myself again, I am doubt about that you shall realize all of what I mean.
Sorry, it will be harder for me to handle the fact you didn't understand me than type myself again, and I wish to face that challenge, since I have to learn how to deal with my spesific problem which appears to me alot.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 27 February 2005 - 07:25 PM.

Susma

Got you there, DonS.

"If I am mistaken then mea culpa mea culpa... " You said that, DonS!

So you were an altar boy, a Catholic once. But now you are what, correct me, a transcendentalist agnostic? Just call yourself like me, a postgraduate Catholic.

I'm not following you Susma. No, I was never an altar boy. Yes, I attended mass on a regular basis during my childhood. No, I never believed in Christian mythology -- NEVER. I would not call myself a "post graduate catholic" because I am not a catholic, nor have I ever been a catholic. Also, you made up the term "post graduate catholic" so it therefore does not have any measure of recognition within the english language. It is arbitrary terminology created by yourself and is virtually meaningless to other people.

Ehh, I just put forth the first idea that came to my head (about the nature of desire), but now I find it to be unsatisfactory.

The lady protests too much.

Susma

Got you there, DonS.

"If I am mistaken then mea culpa mea culpa... " You said that, DonS!

So you were an altar boy, a Catholic once. But now you are what, correct me, a transcendentalist agnostic? Just call yourself like me, a postgraduate Catholic.

I'm not following you Susma. No, I was never an altar boy. Yes, I attended mass on a regular basis during my childhood. No, I never believed in Christian mythology -- NEVER. I would not call myself a "post graduate catholic" because I am not a catholic, nor have I ever been a catholic. Also, you made up the term "post graduate catholic" so it therefore does not have any measure of recognition within the english language. It is arbitrary terminology created by yourself and is virtually meaningless to other people.

Anyway, back to life and death.

I have come across Chip stating that he does not know death because he has not experienced it yet and he is not intending to experience it -- something along that line.

I got news for you guys who think along that line.

Even though you do not know death, death knows you. And being intelligent and being a member of society as you can't otherwise be unless you want to go into the most remote of isolation away from all mankind to live by yourself, you have got to put things in order, your affairs, your debts for example, your properties to whom to leave them to, and other things, before death catches up with you.

Why? Because you owe it to your intelligence not to leave a mess behind and cause lengthy disputes among people and with society about your intentions in regard even as to the disposition of your bodily remains and how you care to be put out of sight, that is, buried.

So, please don't go about proclaiming that you don't know death and you do not intend to die. That is pure hokum rhetoric.

Susma