Fear – Is It Fear That Forms Your World?
Lately I seem to be trying to point out the amazing capabilities of the human brain. It is a complex thing with which we build a model of the universe around us and through this model we evaluate all the sensory data that we receive. Our ability to manipulate and use such a model is what makes us so adaptable and so capable.
In fact, we perceive ourselves to exist inside the model of the universe that we use. More importantly, we can remake that model at will in response to random thoughts (creativity) or external information (senses, blogs, books, tv etc.). That is to say that we live in one of billions of billions of possible universes. In your model of the universe it may be possible for ghosts to exist but when we exchange information and compare notes, you might decide to remake your model of the universe such that it does not include the existence of ghosts. Nothing about the physical world/universe changed. The only thing that changed was how you decide to model the universe that you perceive yourself to exist in.
We mammals (especially humans) have a natural tendency to try to validate aspects of our model of the universe which have no explanation, often settling on explanations which may not be true but which work well enough to keep us alive. The more information that we have and the more information that we share, the more accurate our model of the universe becomes. In short, this is basically how science works. We have no guarantee that the explanation is absolutely true but we can refine that explanation over time until there is no reason left to doubt the explanation.
The idea that gods can exist is one that is without any credible evidence. All the evidence which is offered is or relies on anecdotal evidence. Such evidence is suspect and in every part of the believer’s life they will be suspect of claims without evidence – except for those things they want to be true about their model of the universe.
It takes effort to explain how the brain can confuse itself, both for good and bad, but there are people who have gone to such lengths to explain why and how the brain can cause positive reinforcement of invalid aspects of our model of the universe. This happens largely through lack of information. With that, I’ll ask you to watch these videos.
and part 2
There are natural reasons that our brains might convince us that our shared model of the universe is not quite right. This video shows how perception changes understanding of our model, and how we can change our model to match what we perceived – whether it is real or not.
Now, let us visit with William of Occam:
While there is evidence that our brains can construct the universe model that we think we live in, there is no reason to add extra bits of explanation which have no explanation themselves.
So to expect a person to believe in a god, one need necessarily explain why it is that the human brain does not explain your beliefs in the first place. That is to say; If your notion has no credible evidence there is little if any reason to think it more than a trick of the brain, a misunderstanding, or simply confusion borne of lack of knowledge.
The assertion that gods can exist is without credible evidence.
myatheistlife 
Great post… excellent thoughts and you should explore it more.
Freud: “Life, as we find it is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks.” To bear it, he said, we invent, employ, and deploy three principle solutions, or what he called “palliative measures:” ‘powerful deflections,’ which cause us to make light of our misery; ‘substitutive satisfactions,’ which diminish it; and ‘intoxicating substances,’ which make us insensitive to it. Religion, it can be argued, draws upon all three. It promotes suffering by selling the notion of reward – an afterlife – for endurance in the face of hardship where suffering is celebrated and tallied by the devout like the accumulation of chips at a casino. Religion employs substitutive deflections by promoting the displacement of responsibility. And lastly, religion as an intoxicant is perhaps the most powerful palliative measure as it quite literally emboldens the devout to wilfully ignore reality; a deflection perhaps nowhere more recklessly displayed today than in Kentucky’s Creation Museum or in the abhorrent actions of a suicide bomber.
Sorry, that should be “substitutive deflections” not satisfactions. My bad.
Thanks for that. I must read more of Freud. So much to do, so little time… sigh
I have to admit i’m not a huge fan of Freud but i at least found this idea of his interesting. Hey i just linked your post to one i just put up.
Thanks for the link! Awesome. I’d not been a big fan of Freud but it seems I’ve missed a couple things.
I can understand this concept. I worded it a bit differently but it’s all the same in the end.
The act of “Belief” be it false or not can move mountains. This is why I choose not to push for or against believing in God. 🙂
As you know I’m on the fence, but I think you know what I mean.
I understand the concept of creating the universe with our mind, I jst have not fully truly embraced it as of yet.
One thing I do know, man’s words mean little… I don’t care how much education they have had, in the end we are all left guessing, arguing and philosophizing. 🙂
If one can find happiness in their universe, God or God, more power to them. I put away my preachers book a long time ago and always express my philosophy to merely that of opinion. Just that, it’s an opinion like the billions of humans who have walked the earth since the beginning of time.
In case you didn’t notice, I don’t give much weight towards science. 🙂
When we create the universe that we live in, so to speak, is it absolute certainty or the act of looking for a universe that works which is more important. To many, knowledge and getting the most accurate model possible which is important, yet truth cares not for models. Consider that an autistic person can live a full and fulfilling life and NEVER have an accurate model of the universe. Truth is not the accuracy of the model I think, no, it is more what we do with the model that become truth. Autism may forever flaw the model for some, but do they use that model to harm others or allow harm? Truth… it’s a fucked up thing.
Well, I don’t know… lol
My brain has been mush for the past 4 months…
I’ve nothing in which to believe in, which hurts in the worst way for some reason…
In a slump I try to crawl out of, being on the fence has hurt.
Ignorance must relate to autism in the context of your definition of autism.
I find this to be very accurate. I sought the truth and in the end nearly lost my mind.
Somethings are better off left alone…
You know what really sucks? Once one walks from ignorance or has a mishap, both scenarios in my case, there is no way to go back to a previous mindset. Or it would be very difficult doing so.
At one point I was happy, but I know too much now, knowledge has effectively gutted me…
I sometimes just want to be a simpleton like most. Oblivious to what I know now.
I encourage people to learn self awareness and all, but I advise caution in not digging too deep…
I think it was the Moody Blues that sang about not being able to go home. It never remains as we remember, time does not rewind.
There are some links there too.
Returning home is just getting back behind the wall.
Each ride is different every time you get on. The trick is to enjoy the ride because it’s a ride, not because of what special things it does. No matter if it is the silly tea cups for kiddies or the baddest coaster ever … enjoy it because it is a ride.
Fucking tease…
I like your responses. 🙂
I’m writing a post now. But you just summed it up, how can I get back behind that wall? That’s nearly impossible, unless one is under the influence 24/7…
Yeah, sometimes it’s better to walk around the wall to a different point of view. Then some days, well, it all sucks. Flip a quarter and it will seldom stand on it’s edge. The trick is learning to be happy whether it’s heads or tails, at least for long enough to flip it again.
Is being agnostic rational? I don’t think so. Most them I have previously encountered were players-safe who act like more intelligent than the atheist and theist side, always deciding that every discussion about God will end up undecided.
Right that agnosticism is like flipping a coin and standing on it’s edge.
It looks more to me like being confused or hypocrite than being intelligent.
They limit man’s ability of understanding to potentially everything and gets embarrassed upon bumping into new discoveries.
I am a skeptic atheist and as curious as I am I do not end up in agnosticism. For me, it’s like being skeptic, questioning everything and just end up with questions.
They create many questions in mind but won’t care to find the answer.
Theists, on the other hand, already presumes the answer before getting a question.
So that leaves atheism often in line with science. Science which never became perfect, never able to explain everything, as how theists and agnostics describe it.
But that’s it. The point of being alive is to learn. Understand. Study. Discover.
I became an atheist because at one point of my life, my thoughts were just full of questions and contradicting answers.
I learned to question these questions and realized I’m actually deceived by my questions.
“How the universe began?”
This is the most deceptive question I ever encountered. Being analyzed, starting with this problem and finding the answer leads you to either an array of theories scientifically formulated, or joining a religion after being convinced with flowery talks.
It is where my skepticism started.
“Did the universe began?”
Fairly, I wrote this to notify people to be skeptic with just as any question given or any question being thought of.
Like, “Which is the true religion?”
Whereas you haven’t answered yet the question, “Is there a true religion?”
“How do I get saved from eternal damnation?”
Must be criticized with questions, “Do we really need salvation?” and “Is there really an eternal damnation?”
Getting to answer these questions made me see clearer the true nature of the universe in a macro scale.
I’ve concluded that “Who created everything/ the universe/ you/ us?” is not a valid question to everything. We can’t say that everything is created by someone. I’ve developed a hypothesis that this question was often a result of negligence in distinguishing natural and artificial objects. We all know that a building, a bread, the computer, houses, roads, etcetera were bound by the question, “Who created which?” because these are artificial objects. Are, by common sense, proven to be man made.
Beavers create river reefs, and those are, too, artificial.
A flawed argument often raised when discussing reasons is by asking “Who created the universe?” and is raised, of course, to assert the existence of a ‘creator”.
But wait! Why do we need to ask who created the universe?
“Was the universe created?”
“Did the universe began?”
Were, with apologies of not knowing the proper term so I coined my own, predecisive questions needed to be answered first.
Predecisive questions are questions of skepticism raised against a, another coined term, conclusive question, like “How large is your vagina?”. The question is invalid being asked to a male, and already conclude that the person being asked is a female, so complying to answer it is agreeing with the hidden conclusion of the question, that you’re a female.
Of course, it should be criticized by the question, “Do I have a vagina to answer that?” especially when you’re a male.
Now going back, theists will give you deceptive arguments like, “The building were made by engineers, construction workers, etc., breads are made by bakers, bicycles, papers, all have creators. So, do you know who created the world, the universe?”
“I don’t know.”
“I did. It’s God.”
Now they got you. Until one day, I came crashing the game.
“The building were made by engineers, construction workers, etc., breads are made by bakers, bicycles, papers, all have creators. So, do you know who created the world, the universe?”
Is a flawed argument because it puts artificial objects and natural ones on the same line, and so asserts that natural things, too are created.
But! The building, paper, bicycle, etc. were not even created. They’re all made, not created. All made from natural ones, under the intervention of living things, particularly intelligent beings like beavers and man. They’re not created from nothing, but made/ transformed from resources, things that were already there.
This realization rejects the very idea of Creationism where an alleged Creator created everything from nothing. It’s irrational, illogical, and doesn’t follow common sense, on this case, explains that it’s impossible to make artificial things from nothingness. It’s only possible with natural ones.
Now, if natural things are not created, where did this objects came from?
It’s another flawed question. The answer was already there. They’re not made. They’re pre-existing, co-existing and post existing.
You might be shaken with my implication now that natural things are infinite, but it’s completely logical.
Since: there are no strong foundations that everything began from whatever during whenever, then, we’re on the conclusion that the universe did not began. On this point, any possibility of God is already invalid.
What more? I discovered another hypothesis, though not actually claiming to be the first, that the reason why we assume everything have a beginning and ending is because of how we observe life. Order.
We see people, animals, given birth, and die. A beginning and ending. But we do see that what we are seeing is a part of reproduction ALREADY HAPPENING BEFORE living come to life, and cease from life. We see that a living dying is not the end of life.
There’s extinction but it doesn’t mark the end of all races but of failing species.
We see things in order and we observe them get ruined, deformed, destroyed, return back to order, and so on. But this is not to be mistaken to be a beginning – end process. We now have the Law of CoE, which states that E can never be created nor destroyed, it can only TRANSFORM from one to another.
Everything is made up of energy, matter is actually a materialized energy. So, we have to observe clearly that the destruction of an object is actually just a transformation. There will always be something that remains of it. Even burning something leaves ashes or at least release smoke behind. Heat transform into other forms. Light. All form of energy. Artificial objects are actually transformed objects from older natural .ones or former artificials too.
Even time has no beginning itself. The calendar we’re using, the current date, the clock, all were actually illusions we, exclusively as humans, synchronize, with each other. Our records and tracking of time is never accurate. Time has no beginning. It cannot be observed because it itself is an observation by nature.
We can assume a second is derived from every Lub and Dub of the heart, then we begin measuring larger time scales.
Time is actually an illusion made by the incapability of the brain to perceive at once, in a single shot. The brain process perceptions in sequence. This sequencing leads to recording and labeling of the subconscious, of perceived data going to the brain.
This is very evident even to you as you read this text. Of course, you read the texts letter by letter, character by character, identifying them, delimiting with white spaces, grouping into words, into paragraphs. Fast process, but still sequential.
Time has no beginning and ending, definitely knowing it’s beginning is two way impossible. First, it do not begin. Second, we can’t be accurate because we can’t synchronize our synchronized illusion to the universe. All objects record its own time. That’s why carbon dating makes different scope of time tracing than dating with other elements.
Now, we’ve understood that our minds have been hi jacked with the deception of a start end concept. start – end concept is actually “a time when you begin observing what’s already there to the time ceasing this observation”, change observation into action, etc.
It’s the heart of my River Flow hypothesis.
Consider a river. It’s already there. What we observe as a beginning is actually when you look at it and when you stop looking at it. Walking on it. swimming on it.
Consider the universe as the river. Time as the river. You’ll realize soon that start end concept is not actually a single line process but “a process taken from an infinite process.”
Like making a video of a scene.
Like clipping a part of a story.
Start end is only relative to observation and not to any natural process.
Even the Law of Interaction becomes flawed because it’s been hijacked for asserting a First Mover whereas in fact a first mover is impossibly be UNOBSERVABLE especially if it is AS POWERFUL AS IT IS DESCRIBED TO BE A FORCE THAT CAN CREATE UNIVERSES, EVERYTHINGS. (Multiverse is another fictional concept.)
The Big Bang is formulated from the question How the Universe began, that’s why this theory is always as flawed as it is today. Because it doesn’t follow the real natural flow of natural laws. The universe as an infinite.
Since the universe is presumed finite in the first place, it gives the theory limits, then filled by God of the Gaps arguments.
The Big Bang is another hijacked theory.
Evolution is a hijacked theory.
All searching for an “origin” that was ALWAYS NEGLECTED FOR QUESTIONING OF ITS EXISTENCE.
The origin of life and the universe. Said scientific rational theories but are obviously traceable of theologic backgrounds regarding the beginning and end of something as always as the favorite subject of the pastors, priests, etc.
THERE IS NO BEGINNING. THERE IS NO END. THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE. LIFE AND NONLIVING ARE COEXISTING SINCE INFINITE TIME AND WILL ALWAYS COEXIST UNTIL INFINITE TIME.
Quit searching for answers to questions that are always made in favor of the assertive theists. Quit searching for an origin. For the end of time.
They’re not existing. Science will always fail to find it and theists will always succeed to assert God in a game they designed for sure winning.
This is the truth. The code hidden in every thought that have been used to deceive humanity by humanity itself.
Be critical. Be skeptic. Think rational. Think natural. And most of all, maintain emotion nihilism at all cost!
I agree with you on the validity of the questions being asked and why many people ask them. I have some personal theories on whether or not time is infinite and possible origin of the universe that we know about, but they are theories without evidence at the moment and generally fall in line with M-theory.
It is very important to ask the question: Is the universe that we know really something that came from nothing? What is nothing? and so on.
I agree completely. Be critical, skeptical, and think rationally, and emotional nihilism is important to my way of thinking also.
Thanks for commenting. Very interesting.