My two conflicting views on life

Lea said: ↑

I think to these ultimate things like creation of the world is hard to find any evidence. I don´t know what I said is really the truth, but it´s a theory which seems to me most logical.

Well there's a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Anyone can come up with a theory out of thin air, like I just did with my Foomanshu pissing god:D. But a scientific theory is a collection of indisputable facts, like the Big Bang Theory.

So if you want to believe something, based on no evidence, simply because it's comforting... well you're welcome to 😀. But I prefer the truth.

What is comforting on my theory?

Lea said: ↑

What is comforting on my theory?

Believing there's an intelligence behind the universe is comforting: it implies that there's a greater purpose and meaning to existence. It's comforting in the same sense that all other religions are comforting. As I said I prefer the cold truth whether it's comforting or not, and there is no evidence to believe in such a supernatural intelligence.

I definitely always prefer truth, whether comforting or not. If I wanted comfort, I would choose some simple nice religion. What you think about universe being a sick joke, I understand that was exactly what I believed at about 16, 17. For me the world was a casual happening, dog eat dog place, where only stronger survives nothing more. I thought with death everything is over. I didn´t want to live, be in this horrible place but was scared to die also. But this theory isn´t realistical, it´s foolish because now I know more. At least I think so. I´ve read so many books since then that to believe what I believed before is impossible. It isn´t that I wanted comfort, I want the truth but the sick joke theory seems to me so primitive that I can´t believe it anymore. There must be much more to this world than simple biological surviving. If it isn´t, why do you live at all, why don´t you commit suicide right now if life has no meaning? And if life is only about the survival of stronger, why to have any ethic, why don´t you kill someone for stealing his posessions etc.

Lea said: ↑

I definitely always prefer truth, whether comforting or not. If I wanted comfort, I would choose some simple nice religion. What you think about universe being a sick joke, I understand that was exactly what I believed at about 16, 17. For me the world was a casual happening, dog eat dog place, where only stronger survives nothing more. I thought with death everything is over. I didn´t want to live, be in this horrible place but was scared to die also. But this theory isn´t realistical, it´s foolish because now I know more. At least I think so.

It's probably not intentional, but you're using the same condescending tone that most religious fanatics use - "I was once lost like you, but now I have faith."

Lea said: ↑

I´ve read so many books since then that to believe what I believed before is impossible.

Should we have a competition to see who's read more books? 😀 What kind of books are you talking about? I study science thoroughly, and nothing in science points toward your conclusion.

Lea said: ↑

It isn´t that I wanted comfort, I want the truth but the sick joke theory seems to me so primitive that I can´t believe it anymore.

The sick joke theory, I like that 😀, but I'd say it's honest, not primitive.

Lea said: ↑

There must be much more to this world than simple biological surviving.

See that's what I mean by the comfort argument. "This can't be it, there just had to be more than this!" It's unsettling to think there's no greater purpose to existence, so we (humans) convince ourselves there's got to be more to it... "Perhaps there's a supernatural intelligence behind everything!"

Lea said: ↑

If it isn´t, why do you live at all, why don´t you commit suicide right now if life has no meaning?

Because I know this is the only life I'll get, and I rather enjoy it actually 😀

Lea said: ↑

And if life is only about the survival of stronger, why to have any ethic, why don´t you kill someone for stealing his posessions etc.

For a couple of reasons. First, as a mentally healthy human, I have a moral code. Second, there are consequences for disobeying the law 😉.

Sorry if it sounded condescending to you, it wasn´t meant to I didn´t realize.

Do you want competition who read more books? I don´t care for competing and showing I am better. I really read many before I had internet (now I read mostly junk like this site 😀). I used to borrow them in the library or bought and I have loads of them at home, also bought in Germany or England or spanish speaking countries or wherever I could get what I was looking for, I have mania about books like others have for clothes. I don´t even remember names of all, some I already mentioned somewhere on this site. But you wouldn´t read it anyway I suppose because you would say in advance that it is junk.

I forgot to ask, why humans have moral code? You mentioned it but it seems a bit above your "sick joke" theory. World cannot be so bad then. Or rather shouldn´t be. Where love comes from?

What I find interesting is go to an Aspergers forum or gathering and ask how many of them believe in God. You will find very few if any. I think it shows the extent of faith being socially derived in some manner. Asperger people have full intelligence, but lack the social connection to others (somewhat different to people with typical SA). Just something I find interesting.

cosmosis said: ↑

What I find interesting is go to an Aspergers forum or gathering and ask how many of them believe in God. You will find very few if any. I think it shows the extent of faith being socially derived in some manner. Asperger people have full intelligence, but lack the social connection to others (somewhat different to people with typical SA). Just something I find interesting.

I was told to have Aspergers but I believe in God, but not in the form of human, for me it is some kind of thought or universal intelligence. Does it count?

Lea said: ↑

I forgot to ask, why humans have moral code? You mentioned it but it seems a bit above your "sick joke" theory. World cannot be so bad then. Or rather shouldn´t be. Where love comes from?

Morality/altruism/love develop in social animals, because it's beneficial to survival. If one animal does a favor for another, the other is likely to reciprocate. Forming strong social bonds increases the chance of survival.

cosmosis said: ↑

What I find interesting is go to an Aspergers forum or gathering and ask how many of them believe in God. You will find very few if any. I think it shows the extent of faith being socially derived in some manner. Asperger people have full intelligence, but lack the social connection to others (somewhat different to people with typical SA). Just something I find interesting.

It's because having faith requires a strong sense of empathy. Love, requires empathy.

SickJoke said: ↑

Morality/altruism/love develop in social animals, because it's beneficial to survival. If one animal does a favor for another, the other is likely to reciprocate. Forming strong social bonds increases the chance of survival.

That is not love, that's pretty horrible really. One can be utterly selfless and die poor and hated. We are not animals.

Doomed2Die said: ↑

That is not love, that's pretty horrible really.

Are you saying love isn't a strong social bond? And what's horrible about it?

Doomed2Die said: ↑

One can be utterly selfless and die poor and hated.

Sure that's possible. Our instincts are outdated. In contemporary society, altruistic acts toward strangers aren't guaranteed to be reciprocated.

Doomed2Die said: ↑

We are not animals.

Are you really disputing the fact that we, homo sapiens, are animals?

Doomed2Die said: ↑

We are not animals.

unfortunately this is the ultimate finding of scientists!!!! like Dawkins:
we are only modern animals

Lea said: ↑

I was told to have Aspergers but I believe in God, but not in the form of human, for me it is some kind of thought or universal intelligence. Does it count?

In other words, you see much of the absurdity of religion (which is good) but will still hold on to the core belief no matter what because its your premise from which all other thoughts stem from. It can never be changed because its become such an intangible (a thought, an idea, a ultimate intelligence) that it can withstand any contrary thought. And funny enough, it is similar to atheistic thought in everything but name. The only difference between that and atheism, is that atheists see the possibility of a universal thought, we just don't believe we can be privy to it or whether it even matters to us.

cosmosis said: ↑

The only difference between that and atheism, is that atheists see the possibility of a universal thought, we just don't believe we can be privy to it or whether it even matters to us.

And I'd go a step farther and say it's highly improbable. Complex things, such as intelligence, come into being after a slow, steady progression such as evolution. It's absurd to claim that intelligence came BEFORE the universe.

cosmosis said: ↑

In other words, you see much of the absurdity of religion (which is good) but will still hold on to the core belief no matter what because its your premise from which all other thoughts stem from. It can never be changed because its become such an intangible (a thought, an idea, a ultimate intelligence) that it can withstand any contrary thought. And funny enough, it is similar to atheistic thought in everything but name. The only difference between that and atheism, is that atheists see the possibility of a universal thought, we just don't believe we can be privy to it or whether it even matters to us.

You are an atheist Cosmosis? I wouldn´t say my belief is sentimental and I am certainly not a sentimental person. But I think I am deeply emphatical. Certainly no monster without emotions, even though I was diagnosed with asperger. But I think not all aspergers are emotionless monsters, many of them have on the contrary too much empathy - only perhaps don´t know how to express it in the right manner or are confused and overwhelmed by their emotions. That´s what I´ve read in one book and by me I think it´s true.

cosmosis said: ↑

In other words, you see much of the absurdity of religion (which is good) but will still hold on to the core belief no matter what because its your premise from which all other thoughts stem from. It can never be changed because its become such an intangible (a thought, an idea, a ultimate intelligence) that it can withstand any contrary thought. And funny enough, it is similar to atheistic thought in everything but name. The only difference between that and atheism, is that atheists see the possibility of a universal thought, we just don't believe we can be privy to it or whether it even matters to us.

I have aspergers, I had next to no trouble in understanding the concept of a creator. Prehaps be it due to my own aspergers "lack of empathy" being rather low compared to others or due to rather indepth learning from bible study with Jehovah Witnesses I'm not certain.

What I am sure however is empathy, something which a loved one lacks very much and struggles with (and myself at oft times) is essential for any kind of deep relationship, nothing can be more of a deeper relationship than that of one between a man and his god. Heh, or rather a man and Yahweh.

Interestingly however, people without Aspergers can lack Empathy and not care at all.

Well the actual word animal can apply to both the scientific species and/or.

2. any such living thing other than a human being.
5. an inhuman person

So, eh.

But to continue a previous question, animals do not have free will, they can act uniquely based on situations and intelligence, but a bear is not going to get up and wonder why on earth is it alive and question the purpose or cause of it. Or say, help another bear for any reason other than personal survival.

Doomed2Die said: ↑

nothing can be more of a deeper relationship than that of one between a man and his god. Heh, or rather a man and Yahweh.

What's deeper:

(a)a relationship with an imaginary friend, or
(b)a REAL friendship?

(a)praising an imaginary father figure, or
(b)the REAL bond between a father and his son

Personally I choose reality. 😉

Doomed2Die said: ↑

Well the actual word animal can apply to both the scientific species and/or.

2. any such living thing other than a human being.
5. an inhuman person

So, eh.

😮 Whoa, where'd you take your science classes? Plants are a type of animal in your worldview? Please, for your own good: Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit: I read your definition as "any living thing other than a human being." There probably was a previous definition that you didn't include in your post, so nevermind, just a mixup 🙂 Anyway, the scientific definition of animals includes humans.

Doomed2Die said: ↑

But to continue a previous question, animals do not have free will, they can act uniquely based on situations and intelligence, but a bear is not going to get up and wonder why on earth is it alive and question the purpose or cause of it. Or say, help another bear for any reason other than personal survival.

Free will is the ability to choose - free will is NOT the ability to contemplate existence. Yes, our intelligence is highly evolved and we have the ability to occupy ourselves with such thoughts. So what?