Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why humans need a physical god.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
everyone has their own opinion




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtraemeQ.E.D. humans need a physical god because "scarcity is the root of all evil" and is unavoidable across time and space.


I also posted in your other thread so will assume you have read those comments first.

I can see how you arrived at your conclusion and I think your argument is sound based on your assumptions. however I think your assumption that scarcity is a necessary quality of life is incorrect. I also disagree that we need an external power to make things fair.

In an abundance based system there would be no war-like cultures. Because what reason is there to go to war when you have everything you need? Ideas and different beliefs. The idea that we need to fight over our beliefs can also be changed.

The main idea that causes war are religions. Gods. Most of our religions and all gods are based on the assumption that humans need a master to look up to. They've all been created by us in various times in our history based on the idea of scarcity and the assumed need for this external governing power as you have pointed out (Note I am not saying they aren't real - they are because they are belief systems). In an abundance based system, the power will be returned to the individual - you will choose where to live, what you do, what you believe. People would be free to explore their own interests. They will become their own god in a sense. This is because there is no incentive to try to control other people and value is placed back on individual lives intrinsically rather than the products they can create.

Yes you would need systems to determine how the resources are distributed, but this can be based on need and designed to maximise sustainability and minimise waste. e.g. Having a global computer network that monitors all resources and distributes them based on requests by people who are undertaking certain projects. Add in recycling and renewable energy for a truly sustainable system. Perhaps we won't be constructing massive skyscrapers, but what's the point of that anyway?

As for returning to "ignorance" - how about "innocence" instead? And why can't we return there while still maintaining our current technology? It is possible in an abundance based system.

So that's earth covered. What about if we run into hostile aliens out there in space?

IMO a race can't become space-faring until they have learned to be sustainable on their own planet and have solved the whole question about living peacefully with each other. IMO the corner stone of that is free energy.

Assuming for a moment that we don't gain access to FTL travel or "wormhole" technology any time soon (which we might!). Assume also that we have the technology to do it. Consider the magnitude of building a space ship capable of bringing a colony to even the closest neighbour (Alpha Centauri I think). IMO it would take a global effort with every person working towards the common goal, not to mention allocating massive amounts of physical resources. This would simply not be possible if people were still fighting over resources and not cooperating.

The other possibility is for a supreme dictator to take over, enslave the entire population and put them to work on it. However I don't see this working as when you oppress people you automatically cause rebellions. Rebellions and dissent eventually turn into revolution and the dictatorship crumbles. Yes even if the NWO succeed I think we still have a fighting chance


So I don't think that other alien races could become space-faring unless they had also figured out this problem.

So basically, I don't think scarcity is a necessity because we can swap to an abundance based system. IMO an abundance based system would promote both individuality and cooperation as well as making the sole valuable thing on our planet life itself (as it should be!). Therefore we would not need to look to external leaders and therefore not need physical or theoretical gods.

All of that said though, it would definately be an awesome and humbling sensation to stand in the physical prescence of a god (If we could accept them as a god being physical and all). I imagine it would overwhelm you with a sense of tranquility and security if they were benevolent, or absolute terror if they were malevolent.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
After more thought I've been able to argue persuasively that scarcity is separate from morality. However scarcity drives all moral decisions (it even drives the concept of the aesthetic and teleogical purposivness). Put another way, for something to be a moral choice their must be some loss, therefore if scarcity is not an issue there is no chance for loss because everything is overly abundant. Thus scarcity encapsulates all of morality. So it would be over-reaching on my part to say they are one in the same thing.


I agree with this statement but only to the extent that morality is arbitrary and created by humans in the same way that religions are. I don't believe the universe cares about any of us personally. I don't mean that in a cold way, just that it wouldn't favour any one life over another and the universe allows billtions of creatures each day to die. You and I will be no different in the end.

I agree with your comment about loss, but it also applies to a percieved loss - for example choosing wether to go to Bali or to Thailand for your next holiday. You can only choose one so which one would be better? Will you be losing out on an eperience by chosing one or the other? In an abundant world you wouldn't need to choose. You would go to Bali first and then Thailand or the other way around. The only reason you couldn't do both before was because you were limited by money and time - artificially imposed scarcity.

Morality is all about value judgements. Which do you value more? 1 cow or 1 carrot? Is it any more ethical to kill the carrot than the cow? What about if its 1 cow or 100 carrots? Life feeds on life - this is necessary. All value judgements are arbitrary.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Humans require a physical hierarchy, value based ordering system, to meet the exigences of a human society. And thus we have our physical Gods, although they go by a different name. What are these Gods? That which we give the most of our limited resources to protect, the stuff behind the gates/walls/security/locked boxes/etc.. The things important for our survival and the things important for the culture of a decadent civilization.

Wealth and power are the gate-keepers to the dwelling places of the Gods.

Thus it was written, so let it be done.
edit on 17-3-2011 by NearPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I am just a meger study of polarity, societies, space - terresterial and nonterresterial - relative and quantitive, species within and out, theology, rituals, psychology, biology .......and all other things that drives ATS! Currently I am trying to break through duality!; fell upon this thread and it deserves more than props and could not be "boosted" into conversation with just the word bump, and hopefully not die on recent posts....BUMP- BBBUUUMMMMP!






new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join