Originally posted by Senatsu Sakizakura
There is no selfishness that is bad. You said it yourself «don't neglect yourself». This is a basic religious prejudice, which can easily be aimed at controlling others («This is for the greater good, don't be selfish!»).
The problem, in today society, is certainly not selfishness (nor egocentrism, nor individualism). It is, simply, complete insanity. People don't reflect, don't reason, don't analyze, and they cause problems, for everyone, themselves included, often immediately. How can it be selfishness, when you are just destroying yourself, and the rest of the world (where you are living in), in the process?
As for the rest, the idea of «service», notably «to others», and, even more, the idea of «union with everything» (the «all together» idea), are quite problematic, as far as individualism is concerned. Global peace is, of course, fundamental, but it is in no way, contradictory, to independence, which is even very good, for this global peace (which is, first and foremost, the peace of each one).
More importantely, it does not answer anything, as to what is positive, or negative, in this «service». You are only describing a process. What are these «living energies»? what is the «union with everything»? Where does this lead to? Why would you do this?
As most people who think a bit about it, you are still missing a few steps of reason, to properly anchor your ideas, in pure materialism. The text you quote, destabilize a lot, without much reason (which, again, can easily lead to vulnerability, and control, in reaction to the fear).
I would also like to add that those who use the term "the greater good" or "service to others" set up an impossible task of pleasing everyone except for themselves. They never define "the greater good" and what is less clear is the means by which the wish to achieve that goal. We have many records of history to what happens to societies that sacrifice the individual for the collective. Every time is has resulted in death of the body but more importantly, death of the mind. The only thing that is possible is to find your own selfish pleasure so that you will be happy.
Except for a few details (on origin, notably), a god (which sure is a belief among various others), can very well exist. If you cannot accept this possibility, you are only rejecting a possible truth. «Cause and effect», sure is not only «what you observe».
With regard to origins. There is no possible way to find out origins of earth or life unless we could observe it with our eyes. But, and this is a big but, that does not give us an excuse to answer those questions without reason or logic. Which sounds more reasonable: An omnipotent being who created the earth in seven days, less than 10,000 years ago, who later writes a book which is full of contradictions which nobody seems to understand. Or that the origin of life was a gradual step by step process and with each progressive step life became more and more fantastic.
Just to note, I am not totally convinced by evolution as it is mans first attempt to use reason to answer the question of origins. But having said that, it is much more reasonable than any faith based answer to the question of origins that is based on no reason, no logic and no evidence.
You can well consider, without believing in it.
Absolutely. See previous answer. But certainly more consideration should be given to those ideas that are based on logic and reason.
This was the end of a sentence (sorry for my long parenthesis). I said you were *believing* in the impossibility of absolue possibilities (that is, you have prejudices, and erroneous beliefs, as negating an absolute belief, is erroneous), to try to protect yourself from today religions (which, as I said, sure have nothing much to do with serious beliefs, and they generally even just contradict themselves, even fundamentally).
Thank you for clearing that up.