Another very good question. That’s one that I haven’t thought of as much.
There are a lot of different things about my beliefs that fulfill me and make me happy. I think I could easily feel very removed from everything, but my beliefs…well, I believe that everything’s connected. It may not sound like a lot but it’s something that makes me more…peaceful, I suppose. It makes me happy.
There are a lot of different aspects of my beliefs that fulfill me and make me who I am.
It helped me to explain the root of an addiction I had, and currently helps me to keep away from falling into patterns that would bring me back to unhealthiness.
I also think it’s cool that you’re as happy as you are. Like I said in my OP, it’s nice to see a thread like this one pop up in a place other than GD.
My entire belief system is extrapolated from the existence of my own consciousness. I make the analogy that mind:body::physical universe:“God” or universal consciousness. The laws of physics are the same as consciousness, and therefore everything is conscious, since everything acts in accordance with the laws of physics. All living things have a special sort of consciousness, which, while essentially the same because it arises from that living thing’s component particles acting in accordance with natural laws, it also introduces the concepts of identity and self-interest, and with them, the concepts of pain and pleasure. A river, according to my belief system, is conscious, but its consciousness is not separable from the consciousness of the entire universe, or universal consciousness.
Natural laws, or universal consciousness, act in such a manner as to bring about living beings, which have a more concentrated form of consciousness. This principle is illustrated by the fact I am about 135 pounds of organic matter, but I’m only actually conscious of that matter when it triggers my nervous system somehow. I’m not aware of every blood cell flowing through my blood vessels. The consciousness of my entire body is concentrated in my nervous system, thereby enabling me to act in a more focused manner than say, a river.
(I’m not quite sure how plants fit into this system. So sue me.)
Now, when one dies and their nervous system ceases to function, their consciousness dissipates and rejoins the universal consciousness. The consciousness of “me” can only exist in the exact life form which I am, so “I” can never be conscious as any other being except as the upper primate named Joe. However, I can rejoin general consciousness, a consciousness devoid of pain or pleasure.
To make a weak analogy, imagine universal consciousness as a lake. Every conscious life form is represented by a bucket of water which is removed from the lake. When it dies, the water is poured back into the lake. Now, there are flaws to this analogy, because some of the water molecules that have previously been poured back into the lake can be taken out in another bucket. But since every life form’s concentrated consciousness is discrete unto itself, that means that a life form’s consciousness is not recycled into another life form.
I’m something of a determinist and don’t really much believe in quantum probability. I believe that to a being with perfect knowledge of all natural laws, the probablistic element of quantum physics would vanish. In that scenario, universal consciousness would be able to extrapolate all the way backwards and forwards through time and therefore would be conscious of all time at once. This would imply that universal consciousness is separate from time and is therefore a static consciousness, aware of the entire universe and every quark within it at every time simultaneously.
If quantum probability is indeed true, then that means that there is a “now” from the perspective of universal consciousness and that time passes until the eventual heat death of the universe. Or the Big Crunch, or whatever happens. In the case of the heat death, that would probably represent a state where universal consciousness is at its purest form, void. That would be a state similiar to Buddhist Nirvana, as I understand it (not very well).
Now, this system is not without ambiguities (You must be kidding, Tzel, it all seems so clear! Please, do elaborate! :rolleyes:) Well, for one, will “I” retain memory of my living consciousness when I rejoin universal consciousness. (As it is quite a paradox to speak of an “I” after rejoining UC, as I would be* UC.)
It’s hard to imagine whether or not UC “understands” the consciousness of living beings. It would know all of their actions, but could it interpret every neural activity of a being and therefore understand the nature of that being’s consciousness? My guess would be yes. However, as UC is nothing but pure consciousness, being aware of the nature of that being’s consciousness is much the same as “being” that being. So after one dies and reverts to universal consciousness, they would actually “be” every living being, albeit from a less limited perspective, not experiencing their pain and pleasure, but being aware of it.
One thing that is inherent in this belief system is that death means a complete loss of identity, individuality, and ego. That kind of sucks. It also means instant omniscience, which is kind of cool.
Frankly, this is the first time I’ve actually distilled my rather nebulous belief system into something that makes sense (feel free to contradict me here). It’s also the first time I’ve taken my basic premises to their logical conclusions. It has some positives, like I’ve always wanted to know everything that everyone ever thought or said about me. That would happen with this system. However, I would lack the ability to interpret this knowledge in light of my individual existence. I wouldn’t even know who “I” was.
Wow, I must give sincere thanks to anyone who actually read this. I’d love to hear what people think of it.
snip
Damn, I should preview. The ironic thing is that while typing out the tags, I remembered “posting styles you like/don’t like” thread where someone mentioned hating reading half of someone’s post in italics. Just fyi, I typed an end bold tag. Many apologies. Here’s the remainder of my post in regular text.
It’s hard to imagine whether or not UC “understands” the consciousness of living beings. It would know all of their actions, but could it interpret every neural activity of a being and therefore understand the nature of that being’s consciousness? My guess would be yes. However, as UC is nothing but pure consciousness, being aware of the nature of that being’s consciousness is much the same as “being” that being. So after one dies and reverts to universal consciousness, they would actually “be” every living being, albeit from a less limited perspective, not experiencing their pain and pleasure, but being aware of it.
One thing that is inherent in this belief system is that death means a complete loss of identity, individuality, and ego. That kind of sucks. It also means instant omniscience, which is kind of cool.
Frankly, this is the first time I’ve actually distilled my rather nebulous belief system into something that makes sense (feel free to contradict me here). It’s also the first time I’ve taken my basic premises to their logical conclusions. It has some positives, like I’ve always wanted to know everything that everyone ever thought or said about me. That would happen with this system. However, I would lack the ability to interpret this knowledge in light of my individual existence. I wouldn’t even know who “I” was.
Wow, I must give sincere thanks to anyone who actually read this. I’d love to hear what people think of it.
Due in part to my being raised by godless atheists, I am very scientific-minded and suspicious of ideas that require faith.
So it might seem contradictory to say that I am a practicing Jew. I don’t necessarily believe everything in the Torah, but it is very important to me to participate in the traditions of my people. (Does that sound corny?) I can’t wait to be on my own, so I can do more (i.e., keep Pesach kosher, which isn’t really possible here).
I believe that there is a God who is intimately involved in the our lives. I believe He created the world, and that it doesn’t matter much how. I believe evolution is a distinct possibility.
I believe that God is love, and that God loves His creations equally. I believe, however, that humans sin, and that God’s not too fond of that. I believe that God allowed humans to sin because it is paramount to our relationship with Him–the validity and depth of it–that we be allowed choice.
I believe that in order to overcome sin, God sent His only Son to be an untainted sacrifice, and to take on the sin of the world. I believe that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God in human form, was crucified, and resurrected after three days. I believe that Jesus allows us to have a relationship with God.
I believe that nowhere in all scripture–with a very few exceptions–does it say that one sin’s worse than another. All have sinned. All fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23[paraphrase]). So it’s absurd to look down on others because of the “stigma” of sins, because we’re just as guilty as they.
I don’t believe that God hates anybody else, though many in my religion feel obligated to inform more or less everyone that God hates them for something-or-other. I’m rather certain that if He dislikes anybody, it’s fundies who corrupt his intentions and make Him look bad. But I’m quite certain that He loves even them.
I have a strong moral code, and I try my best to adhere to that, though I falter like everyone does at times. I vehemently believe that I have no right to put my moral code into law, nor do any of the members of the church, no matter how moral or how much of a majority. The equally-moral minority has every right to believe what they want.
I believe that Eve 6 is one of the greatest bands ever, but that’s a little less spiritual.
Conservative to mainstream christian, depending on who’s asking.
I believe oddly, I suppose. Once was pretty mainstream Protestant (ok, maybe a bit radical, but the harmless kind), but I don’t know how well that applies anymore. At this point, a lot of things have changed me - some of which are my own research into just what Christianity is based on, others are just noticing that how I behave doesn’t coorespond to how I think I believe, making me think it over. In the end, I think it all comes down to a few things:
I guess that about covers the basics… and looking back, it’s a moderately clouded version of what I believe - sorry I can’t think more clearly at this hour.
As for why I believe what I do… well, I’ve always thought that other people are more important than I am; this gives me leave to act on that. Maybe I’m adjusting my beliefs to what’s comfortable, but if I am, I don’t think putting others first is a bad thing no matter why it’s done.
That’s it from me… I’m afraid enough as it is. If anyone feels like asking me about it, e-mail me. Heck, e-mail me anyway - I could use the attention 
Le Sang
I believe in the cradle and the grave. Nothing else makes sense to me. In between birth and death, I believe in living a life filled with such ethical behavior and moral coding as one deems appropriate for their existence. I believe in honor and that everyone has unlimited freedom…until it counters the unlimited freedom of anyone else.
I believe that death is final and the grave is the final home for us all. The only continuity I can believe in past the grave is that the nutrients that were my physical composition will return to the soil, enriching it so that a plant may flourish in my place, which it turn will be consumed by an animal, and again in turn be consumed, and again. This is what I believe to be the true meaning of life and can be observed in the natural world.
I am only here once and that is enough. It is pretty amazing that I am here at all. I don’t need more than that. I do not require fairy tales to explain to me that I am an
eternal being.
God is a concept, and a good one for those who rely on it. But, the only God I see is in other people and in those gentle places of honor within my heart. My God will die
with me, just as will my other philosophies.
Am I an athiest? I suppose some will call me that. But, I believe that there are many routes to similar truths. This is mine. I learn from the natural world and nothing I’ve witnessed from this world leads me to believe that there is an afterlife.
Thank you again all who have answered. (Juice and cookies to be served later)
c_goat, this may be done better through long e-mails, and any answer I give you could be called wrong by someone else. CS is pretty individual, but some of the members have a nasty habit of thinking there’s only one way to do it. (There’s usually enough of the rest of us, very, very good people, that the silly ones are pretty quiet…but they are there) The Science part fits in with a use of logic from basic starting truths. (I personally thing Christian Geometry would be a more honest title, but it doesn’t have the same ring and I didn’t name it so…) It starts from the idea of Man being made in God’s image and likeness and works outward from there. One of my more favorite thought paths is the idea of birthright, that everyone has been given gifts from God that no one can take away. If you want to learn about CS go drop by that church, some overly happy person should offer you a book. We don’t have people to interpret for us, just the Bible and Science and Health and services consist of people reading from them. (Why I like Sunday School which is discussion…it will be a sad day when I turn 21 and get kicked out into the big church.)Or you can e-mail me and get more of my slap happy version of CS.
Gambit, thanks for the kind words, I like sharing religion (read: I’m nosey) but GD, while the stated forum for witnessing, gets rough and I don’t want to debate religion. I just want to share and see. (As far as I’m concered if you feel happy and fulfilled, you’re doing it right…if it causes pain, there might be something there, but otherwise, you get yours, I get mine, and we’re all happy all around)
It used to be all so clear, black and white. I was a happy little contented Lutheran (Missouri Synod). There were a couple little grey areas of philosophy, but coming from a small town with rigidly conservative parents, things were pretty much cut-and-dried. Abortion was evil (thou shalt not kill). Capital punishment made sense (if a man sheds blood, so by man’s hand shall his blood be shed). God created the earth in a literal seven days. Evolution? Must be creative misinterpretation. I’d describe it as basic Christian fundamentalism:
But starting in college, seeds of thought were planted, especially in dealing with a friend over the whole sex before marriage issue. At some point (I think after college), my parents happened to introduce me to Kent Hovind’s Creation Science “stuff”. Sweet vindication for something that I had wondered a little about… or so I thought. I hadn’t been introduced to the counter-arguments until I ran headlong into our very own DavidB. Yep, some of my first posts were in GD supporting Creationism.
Over the past two years or so, influenced heavily by the wide variety of perspectives here, but also outside events, the world has changed for me from black and white to a vast world of grey. I’ve come to the realization that I just don’t know. Intellectually, I must concede that there’s no way to logically verify any of my beliefs that are based on faith. I still believe in points 1 and 2. But number 3… well, that’s fuzzy to the point of being undeterminable now. How can I or anyone else possibly presume to know the mind of God? How do I know what method he chose to create the universe with? And does it really even matter how? Who am I to question God’s plan for humanity? Am I believing in God because I want to believe or because it’s the truth?
In short, I just a confused little Lutheran. I still go to church, still believe the basics, still accept the existence of God, heaven, hell, a separate spiritual soul, good & evil, but wonder just how right my interpretation of it is. The whole idea that yes, I really could be wrong about something that seems so important is a rather scary prospect.
The one thing I am certain of, though, is that love is the ultimate expression of all that is good in the universe. Patient, kind, selfless love just as Le Sang describes as number 3 on his list. I believe in Love that stands boldly in the face of horrible evil, but yet is gentle and tender as a baby’s smile. (If that makes any sense at all.)
[Incidentally, if David is reading this, I’d like to thank him for helping to open my eyes to wider world. Despite our obvious disagreements (which you may have forgotten by now), I have a great deal of respect for you. It’s people like you, knowingly or not, who have helped teach me the real meaning of tolerance and respect for divergent opinions; for that I am sincerely grateful.]
How? You assume they do. They certainly used to. I had a coherent picture of the universe and liked it. Now, I just don’t know. The ideal of love–the Christian concept of it as I interpret it–that part is fulfilling. It makes the idea of existence a warmer one, a meaningful one. (It’s the reason I like your philosophies on life, Kathryn.) Beyond that, I’m not sure the rest makes me happy or fulfills me in any way, yet I don’t feel comfortable giving it up because I think there is some truth there, some reality that can’t be dismissed. In some ways, it actually saddens me.
[Kathryn, we can discuss this in e-mail if you’d like…]
Yes, you are. 