We are One Step Away from Utopia and that Step is Breaking Down Our Beliefs.
Human species took pride in their knowledge and among their first knowledge is what's good for them and what's bad for them. They had been so proud of this knowledge that some of them even believed that it was one of the two things that allowed them to become as one of God: the second thing is living forever, they said that God hid the tree of life in order for humans not to be able to become one of God. The truth is, there is no hiding anything and even though humans can live forever, they won't be able to become as one of God.
Now let's see where humans' pride has taken them: the conflicts, the killing, the concept of afterlife, the condemning, the folklores, the stories, the conspiracies, and the killing again, the judicial system, the bias, the justifications, the convictions, the musings, the worships, the conceptualizing God, the scriptures.
HUMANS PLAY GOD.
Some can say that this is due to God's absence and humans' curiosity makes them feel the need to fill the void. Humans need to fill it to explain the mysteries of life and consciousness, and success and failure.
There's actually no void. And instead of trying to fill it by assumptions that had cost us many lives (our heroes, our villains), I and many people decided to learn what is there and corrected the old views. What I found works better: /author_blog...
You can decide too:
1. To leave the past behind and start over.
2. To refuse to evolve and keep doing the same thing.
My choice is clear and I'm pursuing a research to store our memories.
/author_blog...
Absolutely no harm will come from 'no death and dearth' policy. We didn't know this policy in the past and look how much it had cost us, all the time and resources and lives. We should've done the researches a long time ago, instead of warring and saying there is an afterlife because we are very lazy and we find it easier to take our life and beloved beautiful Earth for granted which will be fatal. No time is better than now. The Earth is changing and Mars is getting closer.
Even the literature's 'Satans and Gods' will finally be at peace if they apply the 'no death and dearth' policy.
Because I wonder whether you think I said there's no God.
Because never once have I ever said that �. Please check all my posts. What I said was: you shouldn't conceptualize God. Study it instead.
I think I'm sure I never said there is no god except a few days ago, when I and my goodreads friends were discussing creationism/evolution. In fact, the first reviewers know that the original description of my book said 'There is a creator', but I had to erase it because apparently many people thought I was talking about creationism.
No God will object to PEACE ON EARTH, only presumptuous humans will.
If we put a tiger and a cat in one room with limited resources for a year, it is most likely that the cat will die first. The universe doesn't care for who is right or wrong. The universe lets both happen and the universe lets both end. A natural disaster claims all lives.
"THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG. No matter who you are or what you are, you must never harm life and you must never spend resources! These are the ones that matter."
This works in all conflict scenarios:
Let's say someone hits your car, who is right and who is wrong then? Here, both of you should understand that it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, because according to the universe it doesn't matter. What matters is both your lives and the resources. You and the other driver should instead adhere to the policy "no death or dearth". If you adhere to this, no conflict will ensue because conflict will consume life and resources. Both individuals will come to an agreement that is acceptable as common purpose.
The Israelis and Palestinians should never care for who is right and who is wrong. They should instead take care of the thing that matters: life and resources.
This knowledge will also safeguard our lives and bring them toward the true heaven: where there is no death and dearth. Or would any of us prefer an oblivion type of paradise after death? If we lose the neurons, all these concepts of out-of-body experience, other dimensions, transcendental meditation, including all we can possibly think of as heaven will not be felt as something that exists, therefore lack of consciousness/neurons will cause all that to cease to matter. Any ideas of an afterlife, all the other concepts that have any slightest possibility of being true, ALL THE CONCEPTS THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY DREAM OF will cease to exist for us if we die. This isn't arguable. There is nothing anyone can say to defend the concept of afterlife, because beyond what we can possibly think of or subconsciously dream of is nothing.
I shared this with you so that if God were up there, He could say:
I gave them the universe, finally, the humans get it. They finally get what consciousness is for. The bacteria, dinosaurs, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis didn't get it. Homo sapiens didn't get it before with their religious scriptures that they claimed to have heard from Me or from the other species before them, and their subjective, speculative nature and moral values that have harmed and killed many.
Now let's see where humans' pride has taken them: the conflicts, the killing, the concept of afterlife, the condemning, the folklores, the stories, the conspiracies, and the killing again, the judicial system, the bias, the justifications, the convictions, the musings, the worships, the conceptualizing God, the scriptures.
HUMANS PLAY GOD.
Some can say that this is due to God's absence and humans' curiosity makes them feel the need to fill the void. Humans need to fill it to explain the mysteries of life and consciousness, and success and failure.
There's actually no void. And instead of trying to fill it by assumptions that had cost us many lives (our heroes, our villains), I and many people decided to learn what is there and corrected the old views. What I found works better: /author_blog...
You can decide too:
1. To leave the past behind and start over.
2. To refuse to evolve and keep doing the same thing.
My choice is clear and I'm pursuing a research to store our memories.
/author_blog...
Absolutely no harm will come from 'no death and dearth' policy. We didn't know this policy in the past and look how much it had cost us, all the time and resources and lives. We should've done the researches a long time ago, instead of warring and saying there is an afterlife because we are very lazy and we find it easier to take our life and beloved beautiful Earth for granted which will be fatal. No time is better than now. The Earth is changing and Mars is getting closer.
Even the literature's 'Satans and Gods' will finally be at peace if they apply the 'no death and dearth' policy.
Because I wonder whether you think I said there's no God.
Because never once have I ever said that �. Please check all my posts. What I said was: you shouldn't conceptualize God. Study it instead.
I think I'm sure I never said there is no god except a few days ago, when I and my goodreads friends were discussing creationism/evolution. In fact, the first reviewers know that the original description of my book said 'There is a creator', but I had to erase it because apparently many people thought I was talking about creationism.
No God will object to PEACE ON EARTH, only presumptuous humans will.
If we put a tiger and a cat in one room with limited resources for a year, it is most likely that the cat will die first. The universe doesn't care for who is right or wrong. The universe lets both happen and the universe lets both end. A natural disaster claims all lives.
"THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG. No matter who you are or what you are, you must never harm life and you must never spend resources! These are the ones that matter."
This works in all conflict scenarios:
Let's say someone hits your car, who is right and who is wrong then? Here, both of you should understand that it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, because according to the universe it doesn't matter. What matters is both your lives and the resources. You and the other driver should instead adhere to the policy "no death or dearth". If you adhere to this, no conflict will ensue because conflict will consume life and resources. Both individuals will come to an agreement that is acceptable as common purpose.
The Israelis and Palestinians should never care for who is right and who is wrong. They should instead take care of the thing that matters: life and resources.
This knowledge will also safeguard our lives and bring them toward the true heaven: where there is no death and dearth. Or would any of us prefer an oblivion type of paradise after death? If we lose the neurons, all these concepts of out-of-body experience, other dimensions, transcendental meditation, including all we can possibly think of as heaven will not be felt as something that exists, therefore lack of consciousness/neurons will cause all that to cease to matter. Any ideas of an afterlife, all the other concepts that have any slightest possibility of being true, ALL THE CONCEPTS THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY DREAM OF will cease to exist for us if we die. This isn't arguable. There is nothing anyone can say to defend the concept of afterlife, because beyond what we can possibly think of or subconsciously dream of is nothing.
I shared this with you so that if God were up there, He could say:
I gave them the universe, finally, the humans get it. They finally get what consciousness is for. The bacteria, dinosaurs, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis didn't get it. Homo sapiens didn't get it before with their religious scriptures that they claimed to have heard from Me or from the other species before them, and their subjective, speculative nature and moral values that have harmed and killed many.
date
newest »
newest »
Hi Lavrentiy.Thank you for the comment.
I should say that your comment was a well-written one. Your writing style was fun, rampant is fun; but I think one could demand that you reevaluate your judging the content of one's book using rampant words as if these rampant words were objectively factual.
No one I care about academically has ever glorified science; at least these scientists have known better about that than you do, because they actually know science. Reading the comment you wrote, I would guess, first, that you probably have known that this 'objective' thing called science has failed, and second, that you probably don't know that science has admitted its failure a very, very long time ago.
You could've given me something hard to discuss, like subjectivity and aesthetics, which all of us (or probably just the scientists) have found to be beyond our (or probably just their) comprehension. But it is curious that you chose to speak about my book and my degree. Well, you got me at that point, I don't have many degrees and I did get my degree for a very cheap price.
I need to tell you something: scientists take time to think before they become territorial about 'truth'.
Let me bring you an example. Many economists, like a few religious people, don't like to take time to think. They are more of a doer than a learner. I am not talking about right or wrong, I merely ask that you be honest about what this means. Being a doer means one would sooner point out other's failure than admit one's own and being a doer means eventually fucking other people/species up. If they had taken enough time to think, they would have stopped claiming that their 'truth' was a universal one a long time ago. The barter system, like a few religions, was invented by people � of course, with all their subjectivity and aesthetics � because they were egotistical and didn't want to share. For me, I have no problem with people being egotistical and territorial, but a lot of people are having a hard time understanding why people are egotistical and don't want to share when they universalize a system that was invented by people � of course, with all their subjectivity and aesthetics � because they were egotistical and didn't want to share.
Economists are slow learners, which is probably OK. They enjoy stopping learning and keeping doing what they are doing (they keep claiming that they are right), which is probably OK. They don't like to admit their failure but they like to say that they act on behalf of something great, which is probably OK. And they also think that they are God, which is also probably OK.
Thank you again for the comment.
358 pages of insensible ramblings, which you can find on certain unlucky street-corners in any big city. You know the ones I mean. Ever seen those guys? Louse-ridden, unwashed dingbats blathering their off-the-shirtcuff philosophies.
Question: did this jabbering, wild-eyed, incoherent yahoo purchase his supposed 'degree' online somewhere for $30? The ravings he promulgates present some of the most painfully asinine twaddle I've ever had stuck on the bottom of my shoe.
He clearly grew up exposed to too much fantasy and SF lit. What he doesn't seem to grasp AT ALL is that scientism running rampant--is just as bad as religious zealotry running rampant.
And science has just as much 'blood on it's hands' as organized religion does. Remember, as bad as organized religion was, it never threatened the entire planet and all it's species with obliteration.
As far as I can tell, his 'message' (which he proclaims with bombast like 'first time in history, truth is revealed', can you believe the gall?) is this:
"Smart people ...informed by science know better than to do wrong things, so ...err..umm...once everyone is smart there will be no more need to even think any more about right or wrong".
Oh yer, this is real brilliant stuff, folks. It's the dizzy limit. All hail to the self-publishing market for bringing this genius to us! He makes even a stooge like Richard Dawkins look golden...