I have over the years seen comments by people that refer to "spiritual guidance". This is a moronic concept.
Here is the concept. A person is lost due to lack of understanding, lack of education, or just inexperience and youth. Other people decide for this lost person that they need "spiritual guidance." So they dictate what that lost person should do, behave, and THINK. Their justification for this brainwashing is for the benefit of the lost person, (they call it "lost soul").
The problem, of course, is that they DON'T actually help the person, but rather enslave them to an obedience to a corrupt political agenda. Also, the "guidance" isn't by a spirit at all. The "guidance" is by corrupt individuals that manipulate scripture" for their own greed of wealth and power. There isn't a spirit to be found anywhere in any form of "spiritual guidance."
The real crime is victimizing the lost person, by not developing them to THINK for themselves. Educating them, exposing them to different experiences and cultures, so they can make informed choices.
Now, another subject completely unrelated but for the economy of space, and the fact that I can remember it.
Technology in nature. We as arrogant humans ignore the fact that many, indeed most animals have developed technology before and vastly superior to our own. Whales have sonar and communication that extend miles and miles. Bats have RADAR that is far more acute than any that we have developed. Fish have a lateral line that detects the slightest movement in the water. Sharks have sensors that detect the tiniest electrical impulse. Owls have a highly developed night vision. Octopi can shape-shift and change color. We ignore these technologies even though the animals that have developed them have done so with clear goals in mind. If we would delve further into the insect world we should recognize the technologies that they have developed. The religious idea that man is superior and the lord over nature is arrogant and inaccurate. The fact that man has the capability to destroy everything isn't the qualification of superiority, germs can easily accomplish that aim. Nature itself holds the greatest destructive force, not man. We must respect and learn from nature not arrogantly decide that we are superior!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Whatchoo talkin bout Willis?
I agree with what you say. I probably would not ascribe technology to the animal adaptations as much as I would evolution but I get you.
For our part, we no longer need to adapt as an organism because we can utilize technology to adapt our form to fit the circumstance. In this sense, the biological process of adapting and evolving on a time line has left the building. So, in that sense we are the superior organism if we think in terms of bio-diversity rather than competitive superiority. We've transcended nature's original course for us and altered its fate, so to speak. Man, that almost sounds like I know what I'm talking about, don't it?
On the topic of belief systems, that's a moving target. People might know where their next meal is coming from and if their feet stink but beyond that they become sheep, or sheeple as the name implies, and tend to assign their fates to the dictates of those systems. It's a free-market system, though, where one buys and one sells. The former is looking for comfort and the latter is more than happy to provide it. You might argue nothing exchanges hands from the seller to the buyer but that's because you do not share the buyer's sense of values. Nor do I, but I believe he/they believe they're getting something of value and to them your opinion, nor mine, are part of the bargain.
It's very simple, yet troubling to a sentient person to accept it. I stopped mulling it over years ago through the understanding that people cannot be rid of their superstitions.
My boss is a very logical individual and will look a person square in the eye and downplay the bible as a total work of fiction. Yet, he believes in god. When I mention to him the original and only source supporting and asserting the notion/existence of a god is the bible, his reaction is that of disbelief. He believes that his god is the omni-you-name-it entity that transcends all existence, including the bible. So, even though the bible, in conjunction with a study of the historical (archeological) record supports the creation of all gods by men, he believes the inverse is the way of it. He cannot be deterred from that and I actually don't care what or who he believes in. He needs to live with his notions and I'm not Sam Harris nor Scott Bidstrup enough to pitch a bitch about it.
To me, a man who waxes genius and then bends on one knee to thank his god for his fortunes defines paradox.
An unequaled answer by you Pitar. Well thought out and unarguably correct. Thank you for insight and vision.
Spiritual Guidance:
I agree. It's like giving drugs to someone. The underlying problem is temporarily covered up, but it will inevitably resurface when the fix wears off, and instead of one problem you now have two. Religion is just a cheap fix sold by priestly pushers.
Technology in Nature:
I'm not so sure about this one. You talk about bats and whale developing radar and sonar as if they had done so consciously, or as if evolution was the result of intelligent design. These natural adaptations are the result of random mutations and natural selection over millions of years. Human technology is the result of intelligent design and conscious decisions over time scales measured in years or decades. Anything they can do we can do better.
Mykob, good friend, good to see you again. This is an interesting topic that I can't argue against. But from previous comments made by Pitar, I have come up with a question. If we were to evolve without the aid of technology could we become more efficient than through means of artificial enhancement? Could one of the first machines (the body) be just the framework for the ultimate machine?
@Seenyab4
I think so. We developed our brains because we ate carrion. As relatively weak animals, we relied on stronger predators for meat. The meat provided protein that helped evolve our brains. Our bigger brains gave us unrivaled ability to think plan and engineer. As for your idea, it is logical that we may have developed other abilities if we had not relied on the tools that we developed. Like radar, sonar, night vision, electromagnetic detection navigation, electric shock, ultra violet and or infra red vision, heat sensors, high or low frequency hearing, hibernation organ shut down capability, limb regeneration, chemical communication, and a miriad of other capabilities.
Haha, almost sounds like you're describing a superhero.
Aren't animals super heroes? Nature is super and wonderful.