Faith in a higher power

Belief:- Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: the free dictiinary

How and why should one accept something as true or false. Should it be blindly or reasonabhly?

Faith:- Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. wikipidia

1) Faith is a type of belief

2) Faith is a step taken to believe in something when a belief is not strong, concrete or justifiable enough to be absolutely sure.

3)  Even so, to have faith in something still needs some kind of evidence.
There is no faith without evidence
  eg :- To have faith in someone when giving that someone an important task, one atleast needs an evidence of the capability of the person.

4) Faith is naturaly believing in something when there is a probability in one's mind that that something may not occure, happen or be there. But if one has faith towards it, the probability in one's mind weighs towards the thing that one has put one's faith on. Meaning that one would somehow put one's confidence in that thing that one has put one's faith on occuring, happening or beaing there.

5) Faith is natural and is determined unconsciously rather than consciously
eg1:- To have faith on one's friend lending one money when one is in need, that faith is predetermined by the way that friend acted before during such situations. The faith one would have would be predetermined by the previous situations and the courage to ask would also be predetermined subconsciously by the previous actions. If that friend is a type of person that would get angry at such situations, one's subconscious mind wouldn't give one the courage to ask. (This would be observed to a greater magnitude if, at the time of the incident, one stops and thinks to decide whether one has faith in that particular situation or not)

eg2:- To have faith that the car one is in would reach the destination safely would greately depend on the history of the driver's driving record. If one has had too many accidents already, the faith will decrease to a great extent. Even more so, if the driver has never driven. So faith is predetermined subconsciously.(This would be observed to a greater magnitude if, at the time of the incident, one stops and thinks to decide whether one has faith in that particular situation or not)

            Faith in a higher power

Should faith in a higher power be blind or should it be based on reason? As I have mentioned above(with proof), there can be no faith without some kind of basic proof or evidence.
eg:- To be a christian, one either has to grow up in a christian family, where one trusts one's parents and the parent's faith affects one's faith. By beaing indoctrined christianity from childhood one would fill the unexplainabe(as there are many unexplainables in life) in life by the doctrines of christianity as an obvious answer. Or one has to be convinced through reasoning and evidence that fits and defeates one's mind and one's reasoning in that particular subject.

That beaing so, should the questioning and evidence searching stop at a certain level like what many theists do?(this is solely from my observation) Or should the questioning continue until one's reasonable questions towards that query is fully answered?

               Questions

1) Should one have believe in a higher power in order to gain something in this life and or after or should one believe because of the simple fact that it is true?

2) Would a reasonable higher power expect us to believe in him/her blindly?

3) Would he/she reward those that believed in him/her blindly or those that believe in him/her with evidence?

4) Is it faith blindly or faith with evidence that is stronger and unshakable?

5) What is the big deal about believing? What difference does that bring to the higher power or self?

6) Say the higher power one believes in has no power over one in life nor in death, would one still worship that power?

         Things I have observed

From the religions that I know of, even though most to all are not conscious of it, unconsciously, the reason that people have faith in a higher power is

i) for that higher power to help them in their daily lives

ii) To live a better or ever blissful life forever after this life.

iii) To avoid punishment in this life and after from that certain higher power.

Proof

- There is no mention of other objectives in the motives as to why one should believe in a particular sect of faith than the promise of good life, reward after death and avoidance of punishment here and after life.
- If the motive for following a particular path of faith in a higher power is just because that it is a true path, the belief system should be based on evidence and search of truth rather than just faith.

Posted via Blogaway

Morality

Morality(from the Latin moralitas"manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper functions and those which involve the omission of proper functions, the disjunction between right and wrong.[1]Morality canbe a body of standards or principles derived from acode of conductfrom a particularphilosophy,religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should beuniversal.[2]Morality may also be specifically synonymous with"goodness" or "rightness." wikipidia

1) Morality is an ideological set of rules that one followes in one's standard of thinking and acting.

2) One's morality may be derived from society, religion, comprehention and nature.

3) Morality is an inescapable characteristc that a normal human beaing has and is unseparable from a thinking human.

Proof:-

3.1) A normal human beaing has to have a say(to self) about what one thinks is right and what one thinks is wrong about any thing or something that one comes across in one's life. One can't just stay indifferent to everything in life.

3.2) If one has one's own view about anything based on anything be it based on religion or social values or self value, one has morality.

4) The set of values that one has because of one's morality is not an an indefinite constant and are prone to change.

Proof:-

4.1) Say I believe in God and have certain values based on my belief in God and the commandments. Then say that I got into science and got convinced that there may not be a God.

4.2) I start following a different set of moral values that are not based on religion.
Which is a possible outcome

5) Moral values are set to be kept but are not always kept

Proof

5.1) Say I believe that premarital sex is wrong I shouldn't get involved in it because of my religious convictions.

5.2) I meet a tempting woman at a tempting situation.

5.2.1) I fell my values and have premarital sex.
Which is a possible outcome

6) Moral values do get in conflict with instincts.

Proof
6.1) Take 5.1, 5.2 and 5.2.1

6.2) Why did I fell my moral values and have premarital sex?

6.2.1) I fell because I had an instinctive desire to have sex.

6.2.2) But I also had a morality that forbid me from doing such an act.
Thus those two entities are in one and are in conflict.

7) Morality or moral values are not kept because the strength in which those beliefs have a pull on one is not strong enough to overcome the strength in which those instincts that oposes those moral values have a pull on one

Proof

7.1) Take examples 5.1 - 6.2.2 Which indicated that the pull that was exerted on one by instinct was greater in force than the pull that was exerted on one by one's morality.
If that was not the case the results would have been otherwise(One is a different entity)

8) What if the pull exerted on one by both is equal.

8.1) (One is a different entity)

8.1.1) When in the process of making a decision, one choice has to be made

8.2) In the case where both forces are equal, decision would be made according to the inclination one takes during the time of decision.

8.2.1) So if these two forces are a pull, they get stronger when closer and weaker when farther just like gravity.

8.2.2) Getting closer is entertaining the idea more. Farther is not entertaining the idea

8.2.2.1) The more one entertaines either of the pulls, the more force either of the pulls have on one and vice versa.

8.3) So one can either strengthen or weaken a pull by entertaining it or by not entertaining it.

9) This is only true, if both forces are true.

Posted via Blogaway

Ten reasons why it is not moraly wrong to eat meat. (Criticism on veganism)

I have read a couple of arguments stressing the idea of how moraly wrong it is to eat meat and dairy products. We have to know that like every argument, there are two sides to the debate. Today I am here to argue beaing in the side that it is not as wrong as pro vegetarians or pro vegans are claiming it to be.
Keeping the reasons why it is moraly wrong to eat meat aside, here are some reasons why it is not moraly wrong to eat meat.

1) Nature, By nature I mean that we have naturally adoped to eating meat. We are omnivorous animals. Meaning nature has given us the go ahead to eat both meat and vegitables. If we wern't given the ok by nature,
- we wouldn't have canine teeth
- we wouldn't be able to digest meat properly, and it would have been poisonous to us.
- we wouldn't be naturally atracted to eating it.

2) Most animals that we have adopted to eating have sentiment free goalless lives. Animals excluding humans have no goals, aspirations, deep sentimental feelings, moral convictions and other values that would have made it moraly a lot more challenging for us to kill them.

3) Other animals eat other animals naturally anyway. Both carnivorous and omnivorous animals eat other animals. It is natural. The don't argue wheather they should eat them or not. We have to remember here that we are omnivorous animals.

4) This practice has been passed down from generation to generation since the begining of the existance of humans where things when done purely by instincts and the natural way of doing things. They were not wrong to eat meat then because they did it out of instincts. We, their forechildren, the same spicies naturally wouldn't be wrong by doing the same thing.

5) Naturally, they provide energy for our survival.

6) This reality to begine with is a " survival of the fittest" reality.

7) They are not aware of it

8) They dont show any moral objection nor resistance about their dying.

9) We are one of their natural preditors

10) They would eat us alive if they ate meat and had a chance to like all meat eating animals do to other animals.

It is still a moral battle between the left side and the right side. Morally, we should still let them live as decently as possible as long as they are alive. The argument on wheather it is moraly right to kill animals for our consumption is very debatable as everything we do is debatable. I would say according to nature it is not. Moraly, It is not compleatly wrong to do so since nature has burdened us with the ability and collective desire to eat meat and by instinct we have done so since the begining of the existance of human kind. Nature giving us tools to do so(like desire, natural ability to kill, chew and digest)  means it is the go ahead sign from nature. Go ahead sign from nature means its natural. Ok its natural. We got that out of the way. But the thing is we have a choice and we can live without eating meat. The debate is the desire to eat meat vs the life of an animal. Animals that we eat have no goals, no dreams, no knowledge of whats happening, no sentiment and other qualities which would have made it a lot more difficult morally to argue that it would be ok to kill them for the sake of enjoyment or survival. The other factor that would have made it really hard moraly to kill them is the knowledge of dying and the resistance that would be put in order for that not to happen which animals don't seem to have. Even if animals switch to fight or flight mode when they are in danger and in pain they don't really know and think about death like we do. Also aside from the fight or flight mode of struggle that they show, they don't have a moral objection and moral resistance themselves which would have made it morally impossible for us to kill them for our enjoyment or survival.

Life of an animal or enjoyment?
Like everything else in life, things should be looked at and be done in accordance to balance. So when we look at this case, it is between the worth of the animals life and our desire to eat meat. Why shouldn't we enjoy our meat? Trying to be morally right right? Well, whether we know it or not, like everything we do, trying to be moraly right is something that we do for our benefit. How so?  to benefit our consciousness or not to be at conflict with our consciousness. Becsuse not beaing right with our consciousness would have consequenses. So we have to balance the two in our mind to be moraly right for ouselves and do things we like, it would I think come down to our personal feelings and consciousness and would ultimately come down to which outweighs which.

We don't own ourselves and are slaves to another force.

We human beaings are very different from our animal counterparts that exist alongside us. We have a complicated mind that asks questions and tries its hardest to find the answers by complicated way of thinking, reason and complicated methods of solving problems. Even if a first generation doesn't solve a problem, we have ways of conserving and passing down information to others and another generation so that they can start from where we left.

It is in our nature to ask questions. Curiousity is part of our natural behavior. The amount of our undertanding is limited by our natural ability and the amount of knowledge we have.
Though curious by nature, we naturally don't ask the question "who's are we". What I mean to say is to whoom does our soul, body and mind belong to? We may think that since our body, mind, soul is ours, we own it. I am here to argue logically that some other force ownes us and we are slaves to that force.
Here are the logical points to my argument.

1) To own something one can't be that thing itself
The very simple logic that owning something needs two parties, the owner and the owned

2) We didn't begin ourselves
To begin with, beaing alive is what we are, if we owned ourselves, we would have been the one's that began ourselves. We got here unknowingly and without consent. But still we have to bear the burdens of life.

3) We had no control on what would look like and what our capabilities would be
We got here whether we liked it or not. Then, we found ourselves beaing human, black or white, tall or short or whatever. If we owned ourselves, we would be in control of what we would be and how we would be like.

4) We are burdened with things and feelings we don't like.
Lets face it. If I owned myself, I wouldn't give myself the feeling of pain, sorrow, and whatever. If we owned ourselves, we would only have feelings that we wantef.

5) There is a clear benrfitiary from our living, survival and reprooduction
Yes, nature wants us to live, procreate and evolve to a better spicies. This is very clear from the evidences of evolution

6) Our likes, dislikes, needs and desires are influenced by nature for our survival and thus survival of the spicies.
Every part of ourselves is designed for us that we would use it for our survival. Thats not it. Nature doesn't care for the survival of an individual but for the whole spicies. Thus individual survival collectively increases the chance of the survival of the whole spicies. This also is a very accepted idea in science by those who support the theory of evolution. Which basically is most of the scientific comunity.

7) If we owned ourselves, everything of ours would be at our disposal.
We would feel the way we wanted. Look the way we wanted, have abilities the way we wanted etc.

8) If we owned ourselves, life itself would be at our hands and wouldn't have to live or die unless we wanted to.
Yes if we owned ourselves, we would also own our life. Comming to existance and going out of it would be at our disposal.
.

To live or to die?

To live or to die. Which is better? Obviously it is in our nature to want to live and continue living unless of course life gets too rough and we can't stand the pressure of continuing to live anymore. We by our natute may choose death as an escape in extreem cases. Unless that, it is our nature to want to continue living. It is our name. It is our nature. We are life forms. Living is our nature and our interest. Not living is against our nature and against our interest and no interest in it for us as we ourselves won't exist. But instead a loss of ourselves.

Life is existance. It is in the realm of existance. Death(true death), (though  unknown what is after death of the phisical self), true and full death is in the realm of non existance. So by nature, since life is in the realm of existance, all things that are able to exist exist be it good or bad. So when living, one has to face all that exists in this realm of existance, especially things around one be it good or bad. So when one is living one has to face everything good and bad. But when one is dead, one wouldn't have to face anything.

Like everything else an argument should be based on reason, logic and by looking at both sides of the argument.

Here are the pros and cons of life and death

                       LIFE

Pros:-

1) Chance for general experience:-
Death is total inexperience. Living would give a chance to experience whatever in general.

2) Good experience:-
Life has both good and bad experience in its package. If one is lucky, eventhough it is almost imposible to escape bad experience all togather all of one's life, one can more or less have a good life. This applies more to humans as they can have goals and accept things they can not controll but still try to beat the challenges.

3) Hope, a never ending promise of life:-
When one is alive, one always has hope. Hope that life might be better in the future or even maybe unending blissful life forever. Who knows? The sky is the limit and literally it may be especially for us humans.

4) Good experience is better than no experience. It is bad experience that is not better than no experience:-
As the heading states it is bad experience that is not better than no experience. It is in the occasion of extreem bad ecperience that we may choose to die naturally. But good experience is or at least it seems to be a lot better than no experience . Life has good experiences in it. Infact if lucky one may be able to overlook the bad ones and enjoy and look forword to the good ones.

5) Mystery:-
There has been and is and always will be this unknown mystery in life about life. Who knows what it could be. Maybe something extraordinary.

6) Life is simply just our nature
For us life forms, life is just our nature and living is what we are. It wouldn't benifit us life forms in any way not to live but is against our nature.

Cons:-

1) Probable suffering:-
Since life is in the realm of existance, in the realm of existance all things that can exist do exist if with legitimacy. Thus, suffering(being in the realm of existance itself), is something that any living has to come across and cope with.

2) Burdened with need:-
Eventhough we may think that we are free, we really are not. We are burdened with many things that we have no controll of. Not only that but those things that we are burdened with have too much grip on us that it is impossible to deny or ignore them. This is because we are not legaly the owners of ourselves. Nature ownes us. Thus, whatever nature burdened us with, we can try to beat it using the laws of nature itself, but it is impossible otherwise.
eg:- pain, sadness and senses and feelings in general.
We, eventhough we dont know it, are slaves to nature and It is impossible to be free unless using the laws of nature itself. Eg we can not be free of the need to eat as we can not survive without it.

3) There is no such thing as perfect:-
Yes, whatever may happen, its always not perfect.

                         DEATH

Pros

1) Relatively free:-
As I mentioned above, to live is to be a slave to self. But if dead, there is no need, no want and no burden.

2) We are meant to die one day anyway:-
However we maybe afraid of death, it is inevitable. As life is our nature, as lifeforms we are meant to die one day and thus in our nature.

3) Nothing
As death itself is nothing and does not exist, there is no pros to it as there is no cons to it from the prespective of one who is dead

CONS

1) Nothing to be gained from not living:-
As we are life itself there is nothing we as lifeforms can gain from not living. As life, it is impossible to gain anything from not living.

2) Losing whole of life:-
When one dies one loses everything including life.

3) Nothing:-
As death itself is nothing and does not exist, there is co cons to it as there is no pros to it from the prespective of one who is dead.







Approved for "True philosophy", "Philosophical critics on interesting topics" and "Into philosophy".

The dangers of trying to be enlightened

RULE 1:- Dont try to act instictictively because that comes instinctively and not by trying.
RULE 2:- Dont try to act instinctively when you need to think because instincts is going to be yelling for you to think.

Enlightenment as its popular interpretation and popular ideology currently would be being in the most blissful of states because of the light in which one sees things. It is claimed that when one is enlightened, one would see things in "the whole picture" type of view. That view and state of being is achieved by getting rid of the ego, not being trapped in the scheme of the mind and knowing how to be in the now and having a distant relationship with thought. According to the most popular theory of being enlightened, there is a mind created state " the I" and Killing the mind created state "the I", would kill the old preception of self, create a whole new preceptiom of self into one with more true and whole prespective into things including and especially about self.

Though it is right to be skeptical, it may also be wrong to say that it is false. It may be true. We may need to be enlightened in such a way to see the whole picture. We may need to get rid of the deceptions of our own mind to see the whole picture about things, life and ourselves.
Obviously it would be great if one gets enlightened, but should one go all out in trying to be enlightened. How should one go about in trying to be enlightened.

My argument here is that it is God/nature that enlightenes meaning to say that beaing enlightened should come naturally and should not be the result of an effort and our way of beaing should be effortless.
Just beaing is exaactly what it is, just beaing. I mean that's the whole point right? If you are trying to be enlightened then you are trying. You are not just beaing. Meaning to say you havn't freed your self yet while the whole point of being enlightened is beaing free.

From what I understand trying to be enlightened is trying to be free. Beaing free should be and is natural. If God/nature has deemed you not free you will never be free no matter how much you try. So if one is trying to be free, one should try in a natural way because one is trying to achieve a natural thing.

I am not saying that one should not try to be enlightened but one's trying should not interfere in one's life and one's already gotten freedom.
As I understand it, there are very popular teachings that teach that in order to be enlightened, one should kill the ego, be in the now, forget about the past and future and think only when one desires not when one's mind desires. I am not saying that their claim is wrong. It may be right. But that doesn't mean that one should live one's life trying and take the God given freedom for granted. By doing that one would be missing out on life that is at hand and would be living a very unnatural life of trying to be free when one already has freedom.

I would suggest that if one wants to go in the path of trying to be enlightened, one should set up times when one would try such practices and maybe grow slowly in such ideas if they are natural. It should be done within program. After such a program one should live one's normal life as one would normaly do. But if one tries to apply such practices in a day to day life and wholy, as a principle in one's life, it would be unnatural because to begin with the whole point of beaing enlightned is beaing free. But here one is living a life trying to achieve freedom which already is granted naturally with the only requirement of not trying anything and just living as the heart wants.

Through evolution we have already adopted to a certain way of living, beaing and acting and reacting towards situations. Nature by itself has made us adopt and has decided and granted a certain natural way of beaing for us. Any way of beaing that doesn't come instinctively comes from our thought process. So generally one of the characteristics of beaing free is basically acting instinctively during times where we don't need thought process or times when we are better off without it because in this prespective beaing free is already having enough and not struggling for anything. So in such times trying to obtain some way of beaing would be against nature and can be considered a sin against nature. Because in the process one is trying to act instinctively and freely while acting instnctively comes instinctively and not by trying.

Living a life wholly trying to be enlightened is guaranteed a hell lot less enjoyable and with a lot less freedom than that of just living life as nature has made us to be. Not only that but one would be thinking and acting unnaturally and would be in a lot of unconfortable situations because of the fact that it is simply a sin against nature itself.

It should be noted that if one wants to live a life of enlightenment wholly as one's way of life, one should be in the path of nature. It is only God/nature that can enlighten. If one is truely enlightened, one shouldn't have to try anything to achieve any state of beaing because that state of being would come naturally. All one would have to do is forget about the idea of trying to achieve any state of beaing, forget about enlightenment and just live and be.

POLITICS

Ok Politics, what is it? Politics by definition would be the art or science of government. Politics is a way things are run in a certain society. Yes politics is a dirty, dangerous and decieving game more in some places than others but generally fits that category. It is definately a topic which may bring one to argument with self on wheather or not one should get involved in it. Getting involved doesn't necessarly mean beaing in a governing position but being participant in different levels from the level of just having the knowledge about it to being social activist to being in a position in power. Eventhough it is a sensitive topic and even if it might heat up emotions, since we are logical beings we should do things reasonably and logically. So now my question here is should one or shouldnt one get involved in politics. Well it is all up to the interest of the individual. I wouldnt say that one should or shouldnt and I personally believe that nobody would be right to say that to anybody since it all depends on the personal interest, inclination and on what gravitates one.
When is it a must to get involved and when is it a must to not get involved? Can one really say that one should or shouldn't?
I believe that things should be done according to reason and interest. Well putting interest aside, since everything has pros and cons here are the reasons why one should or shouldn't get involved in politics.

REASONS AND TIMES WHY ONE SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS

1) COLLECTIVE AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION ALWAYS GIVES PUSH TOWORDS CHANGE:-
One should be aware and participate in the politics of one's country to a certain extent because of the fact that collective awareness and participation to a cerain extent is always helpfull in giving a push towards a change in accordance to the likes and benifit of the society.
2) MAY BE INTERESTING TO TALK ABOUT
It is a topic of discussion just like any other topic and might be interesting to talk about.
3) MAYBE PERSONAL NATURAL INCLINATION
If one's inclination is towards politics one should give it a go in attaining one's interest.
4) IF PARTICIPATION WILL SHURELY BRING CHANGE
In a situation where one is sure that one's participation will bring about change for a reasonable amount of time it may be reasonable for one to give it a go.
5) IF CONSCIOUS COMPELLS ONE
If one's conscious compells one into participating and participating in different degrees according to the situation.
6) IF ONE IS HARDCORE POLITITIAN BY NATURE
If one naturally is inclined towards it and has decided without a doubt to be involved no matter what because of ones carrier calling. Hardcore polititians probably fit in this catigory.
7) TO BRING SOLUTION TO A BURNING PROBLEM AT HAND
If there is a burning problem at hand that needs to be solved by getting involved and if not solving it would be unbearable.
8) IF THERE IS A GOOD MATERIAL, IDEOLOGICAL OR POLITICAL GAIN
If the gain (be it political, ideological or material), to be made is significant.
9) JUST HAVING KNOWLEDGE COUNTS AS A POTENTIAL TO USEFULL PARTICIPATION AND KNOWING DOESNT HURT
The mere act of having knowledge is in some way participating because knowing is half the battle and is a huge potential. There is no harm in knowing and there is no gain in not knowing. But having the mere knowledge has a potential.
10) PARTICIPATION MAY BRING CHANGE IN THE FUTURE
It is always a balance between self survival and conscious and doing something for the next generation. If one personally strongly believes that it is better to sacrifice self survival for the future generation it is up to the person's convictions.
11) PLAIN MORAL CONVICTION
Whatever the reason maybe(as there can be lots) if one is totally convinced he/she should go for it.
12) WITHOUT A CHOICE
Sometimes one gets involved in politics without one's choice. Even when one doesn't want to get involved at all one might get dragged into it.

REASONS AND TIMES WHY ONE SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS

1) THE CHANGE ALWAYS CHANGES
After sacrifices are made, a lot of struggles done and results gained, the change that was aquired does change again in the future maybe in the opposite direction. But of course the responsibility can be given to the comming generation of strugglers. But it is still a reason that may give one a second thought.
2) MAY BE DANGEROUS 
Any form of participation in politics maybe extreemly dangerous in some places and situations. So it again comes down to survival or sacrifice.
3) LACK OF FUNDEMENTAL REASON
In situations where one has to balance and choose between survival and sacrifice, if one thinks things thoroughly, one may find it hard to come up with a solid and unchanging reason why one should sacrifice one's  life for. The reason beaing that everything about politics changes in time. Even geographical boundaries, cultures and racial divisions for which people usually sacrifice themselves for change in time.
4) TOO COMPLICATED TO CHOOSE ONE PURE PATH
Politics by nature is extreemly complicated and by nature will always have faults. Like everything else one path has pros and cons. Based on that if one chooses one path and becomes a hardline follower there will always be opositions with different ideologies and different pros and cons and also hardliners.
5) IF THERE IS NO PERSONAL CONVICTION
Just the mere reality of not having the moral conviction to go out and confront the challenges of being involved and work for a better something is a deal breaker for getting involved since there maybe serious threats for one's well being.
6) IF REASON FOR SURVIVAL AND PEACE OUTWAYS REASON FOR SACRIFICE
At the end of the day it all comes down to the weighing done between survival and sacrifice. If after reasoning, the reason for survival and life without the consequences of being involved outways the reason for paying whatever sacrifices one would pay by being involved it again is reasonable to not get involved.