Cigarette and Life

Listen to the sound, its horrible…Sucking the soul through the hole in a pipe. Cigarette and life….have you ever sensed the metaphorical co-incidence, did you ever feel that your whole story of life just pasted on the four wall of that tiny little cosmetic pack of cigarette. The wicked pack plays the same game what your life plays with you. It comes to you with the attraction of a devil and borrowed charm of an angel and on the other side it through you with blunt and rusty grip of truthfulness. Choice? And what do we do with that choice? I Guess our all five senses never works in tandem and whenever they work they always create illusion and the most sophisticated creature, that is who we are, always find order in illusion. One of your personality is seduced by the illusions of grandeur …the gold packet of king size with the regal insignia. An attractive implication towards glamour and wealth, a shuttle suggestion that cigarettes are indeed your royal and loyal friends and what is that, an order in the illusion of lie. Your other personality is trying to draw your attention to the flip side of discussion, written in boring bold black and white is the statement that these neat white little soldiers of deaths are in fact trying to kill you and that piece is the truth but rusty and blunt. Beauty is the darling called the death and I, you and we all are addicted to the sweet pitch of its siren. It blows me off with every puff but I find more solace in the sweet, soothing lap of a devil than the real, coarse breath of truth. I will take home the illusion ‘cause I know truth will also kill me, may be little slow, but it will not give me the pleasure of draped and dressed life. Addicted….indeed I m addicted.

blasphemy

blasphemy

Ask an atheist why it is so hard to believe on God, you will get answer like not enough evidence.

Bertrand Russell(British Philosopher), who was once asked what he would say if, after dying, he were brought into the presence of God and asked why he had not been a believer. Russell's reply: "I'd say, 'Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'". For an atheist, theism is incoherent, inconsistent and ill confirmed by the evidence. They would rather like to believe that it is unreasonable and irrational to believe in GOD. This evidentialist objection can be seen as the ground for conceptual rationality which demands a obligation on one’s belief to the strength of evidence. The argument is that, a believer who has no evidence has violated an intellectual an cognitive duty of conceptual rationality.

W.K. Clifford said “if a belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence, which may shortly master our body and spread to the rest of the town.”

But the rational against theism here is little bit questionable. Its little difficult to assume that believing on God, without evidence, could be going against intellectual duty. The simple reason behind this logic is like most of the time our own beliefs are not in our control. Suppose if somebody offers you 10 million dollar and ask you to believe that 1 is greater number than 2, would u be able to change your belief. Evidence could also be subjective in some cases, which can also distort our beliefs, for example if a person has been taught right from his childhood that number 2 is smaller than number 1 he will have difficulty to believe other way around, incidentally which might be the truth. Here the person has not failed in his intellectual obligation; nevertheless he is intellectually flawed and disfigured.

Sigmund Freud says “Religion is universal obsessional neurosis of humanity” and it is destined to disappear when human beings learn to face reality as it is, resisting the tendency to edit it to suit our fancies. Freud saw religious beliefs as “illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most insistent wishes of mankind.”He sees theistic belief as a matter of wish-fulfillment. Men are paralyzed by and appalled at the spectacle of the overwhelming, impersonal forces that control our destiny, but mindlessly take no notice, no account of us and our needs and desires; they therefore invent a heavenly father of cosmic proportions, who exceeds our earthly fathers in goodness and love as much as in power. So according to him theists are the victims of pervasive illusion inherent in our society.

A similar sentiment is offered by Karl Marx:

Religion . . . is the self-consciousness and the self-feeling of the man who has either not yet found himself, or else (having found himself) has lost himself once more. But man is not an abstract being . . . Man is the world of men, the State, society. This State, this society, produce religion, produce a perverted world consciousness, because they are a perverted world . . . Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feelings of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The people cannot be really happy until it has been deprived of illusory happiness by the abolition of religion. The demand that the people should shake itself free of illusion as to its own condition is the demand that it should abandon a condition which needs illusion.

So if we analyse these two statements it seems the theists have lost their cognitive functionality of brain ‘cause they are not able to come out of this illusionary spell. They are still not comfortable with the fact that any comfort or help we get will have to be our own devising. There is no Father in heaven to turn to, and no prospect of anything, after death, but dissolution.

Terminal clean

Scribbled, wrapped and scrawled that is what our reflection become over the time. We accumulate, accumulate and keep on doing this and making whole mechanism vigourless. We create a false impression of doing more, efficiently and productively. And most of the times we manage to satisfy ourselves with that same scribbled and scrawled logic. Logic, perception and view points are more or less like determinants but of variable nature. But the origin of these variables has such a strong hold on the originator that it becomes constant, slowly and gradually. The master becomes slave and control points start to fade away. And mistakenly we start to appreciate this deformity by calling this syndrome PERSONALITY. The design of establishing personality is so self satisfactory that we always forget about the consequences of not reaching to the real ourselves. It’s only us who insulate ourselves from innersoles.
Tracking oneself is more vital than establishing and we need to do it regularly, for that we have to clean the terminals of our thought view and logic. Since change is the only static and it’s inevitable so we got to learn from the past than unlearn by the present and stay concerned with the future.

PRADYUMN

Prisoners of our own device

Humans, the most evolved and the most distinctive species as far as their own knowledge is concerned. The more we evolved the more we degenerated our living instincts. We have designed so many unnatural devices all around us that we become the prisoners of our own device. The natural instincts of life have so many times been suppressed by each of us that we almost have forgotten the real life, the basic instinct. Every ethics, every norms designed by us have only one purpose and that is to cover up our weaknesses. We always try to defy the rule of nature, so we never succeed to employ the rule of nature. What ethics suggest to humanity is most unethical to life. Have we ever thought that what is the main purpose of ethics n why do we need the lessons of ethics…..

soul collector

Let’s talk about soul. We can imagine a world without god, but it is very difficult for most of us to imagine a world without a soul, because the soul is not an external thing like god, but here we talk about something which may be in everyone of us and this is the reason why it is so difficult. I will try to explain it logical to you, because my experience is that many people whom I have told about it, thought that they understand it, but inside they have not really understood it. We have spoken about a man without a soul, but we have not said how a man like this can live, but it is not difficult. Science thinks that human beings are a combination of atoms and molecules which make life possible. This is easy. This theory says also that human beings are made of the same matter then the whole universe. This imagination is for many people very strange and it is difficult for them to imagine it. Their first answer is how we can make of dead matter vivid matter. This classification into dead and vivid matter and the general classification into dead and vivid are subjective. When we look objective there is not a big difference. Matter is matter. When we look objective then all our feelings like love and thinking for example are movements of atoms and molecules, but when we look subjective feelings and thinking are the most important for our life. This has got many consequences. When this theory is right and I am convinced that it is right, because I am an atheist then words like natural and synthetic would not make sense. When we say that a human being is natural and the thing which had formed him is also natural, then everything which he makes is natural too, because first he is made of the same matter and second he is not more important than the thing he has made. When we want to use only the word natural, but not the word synthetic we might leave the word natural out, because without the word synthetic the word natural does not make sense. We can say that is manmade, but this word is not a so hard division like the word natural and synthetic. This means that in future it will be possible to build a human being of a chair, a table or another thing. I do not speak about cloning, but about real building. Until today it is impossible for us, because human beings are to complex. We always say that human beings are able to think and machines not, but this theory shows us that human beings are only more complex than machines. Before we will be able to build human beings, we will be able to live forever with the help of cell regeneration. This means that we will be able to make our cells younger and we will look as old as we want to look. Today scientists try to find a possibility for immortality. Many people believe about the possibility of building human begins even said that maybe it will be possible, but it will be also very sad for them, because then life would not make sense and fun. Now we can may say that we can do everything we want to do. But we are a part of the universe and we are allowed to think subjective. So we should not change our life still. We should make a good environment for our life, which is also subjective and we should make the best of life. With the knowledge that god and soul does not exist we should live more easily. It does not mean that we should fight each other, but we should make a good world. So we also have not got a reason to have a bad attitude forward people from our continents. From the beginning of the life on Earth we were like animals and we thought that we are the in the universe, but through the evolution we now see that it is not so. This theory wants to show you the objectivity of space-time. But we cannot reach the objectivity, because we are a part of the universe and as a part of a system we cannot say anything objective about this system. Most of the scientists are atheists, because they have discovered the logic of natural laws and they see that god and soul are not logical. In the end I want to say something about philosophy. Philosophy is a territory which describes the thinking and feelings of human beings very good and this is the reason why we should not forget about philosophy, even if we know this scientific theory.

Referral site: http://www.hpwt.de/Philoso2e.htm

Nonbeliever

The world is getting more and more modern, but until today for human beings there exist words like god, soul and ethics. A question which bogged me since a long time is why people believe today in the same way like they used to believe in darker days. I mean that because of new discoveries there are less and less things where we can say that they are made by a god. Nevertheless many people believe in a god in many different forms, which are called religions. We have to search the reason for all this in the past. The simplest explanation for the formation of a religion is that in former times the population was very poor and they were not able to explain many phenomenas in nature. One of the most known examples is earthquakes and eclipses of the sun. Today it is not a problem for us to explain these phenomenas, but in former times these phenomenas were explained in terms of god. One possibility was that people prayed and then they thought that the responsible god will spare their life. And this is one of the elementary emotions of human beings, fear. One reason which was because of the missing knowledge about nature was the fear; the other reason which was because of the poverty was the joy. These poor people in former times hoped to find joy in heaven. In this way it is possible to explain objective why religions has been formed, but this explanation is atheistic, because no theologian would explain it in this way. A theologian would say that in former times people has a contact to god. Maybe he will tell us something about some miracles, too. There is also another important point, which theologian always use. They say that the world is so ideal that there must be a god. This means that everything functions so good for the life of the people. Scientists say that people could live because everything functions so well. So you how easy it is to make from a scientific statement a theological statement and the other way round, you must only reverse it. Now we should look at the atheistic side. Atheists do not believe in god and in any soul. The first question for somebody who is not an atheist may be how somebody can live without something transcendental. For the most people life is something transcendental which we could not touch. My question is why and the answer is quite simple. The most people believe what they see with there eyes and what happens to them. They collect experiences in their life, they believe in them and they give it to further generations. People are convinced that human beings are something very special in the universe and because until today it is impossible to build a human being or another organism people are convinced, because of their experiences that it is impossible to build a human being. These experiences were given from one generation to the other. But we must not wonder that people think that they are better than other matter, because our brain is made so. In nature human beings had to fight like any other animals. Only the most powerful animals survive. This self-confidence of human beings goes so far that they think that they are the best of all in the universe. People with more power feel more important and they are treated with more respect by our society today. All countries and also our nature on earth are built up of power. When I look at a stone, at a table or at a chair my instinct says: "I am much better, this table has not done anything in his life, I can do everything I want to do with him. He has not got a will." But now we have to think about considerations which are unbelievable and very abstract for us. These two formulations that the table has not done anything and that it has not got a will a subjective. And this is what we always forget or we do not think about it. Human begins have invented the will. It is not a reason to say it is less important than other matter in the universe, but not more.
Before we will continue with the atheistic-scientific explanation we should look at the power in the past from the religions. We know that all world religions exist since many generations. In this connection power is a very important word. I and all atheists are of the opinion that religions have been invented to manipulate people, because with stories about gods you control people very good. But it is also connected with the fact that in former time’s people does not much about natural laws. There exist people who are called priests and they say that they have got a connection to god. They tell people that good people come into heaven and bad people into hell. I ask myself if these inventors of the world religions had believed themselves in these religions. This obedience of the people in former times is understandable, because often they were not educated like the priests. So it was possible to say these people what they have to do and they have done so, because they were afraid. Emperors like kings could strengthen their power with the help of religions. Many scientists and philosophers, who were convinced of the atheism und who explained phenomena in nature which were explained with the help of god, were very dangerous for the religions, because they discovered the real reasons and the people saw the mistakes of the religions. These scientists and philosophers had many problems, because they were called heretics. Now let us go back to the scientific explanation. For science it is not logical to believe in a god, because first there are not any proves and second it would not be logical for the natural laws. Some theologian may that we have invented logic and that it is subjective. And it is right, because it is subjective, but we must not forget that logic had never let us down in our researches. Maybe it will sound a little bit instrumentalist, but for scientists it is always more important to find the best tool to explain a natural phenomena and then to search for the real reason. And logic is a tool, this best tool and even if it is subjective we can depend on logic. This is the scientific prove that god does not exist.

Referral site:http://www.hpwt.de/Philoso2e.htm

Do you enjoy happiness or are u happy to enjoy?

The lack of a non-problematic life-world, one in which exists a structured series of beliefs, assumptions, feelings, values and cultural practices that constitute meaning in everyday life, removes the comforting sense that it is possible to live against a contextual background that speaks implicitly of firmly cemented meanings which there is no need constantly to re-justify. As a consequence, there may arise a preoccupation with ultimate questions: is it a good thing to have been born; what is the meaning of death; can individuals survive death; given the inevitability of death, how should life be lived; how may happiness be achieved; is death an evil or a good?

This condition of mind is recognisably modern, although it would be inaccurate to regard it as exclusively the product of our own century. Indeed, in going back much further, we discover that one of the central themes of Aristotle's Ethics reflects this preoccupation with the purpose of life and his intuition, that the special rational faculty of human beings is the key to our sense of purpose and fulfilment, is one that has come down to us through the centuries.

What Aristotle meant when he defined happiness in this way has to do with his belief that human beings have a function to fulfil in their lives which has to do with their proper use of the rational principle, a quality unique to mankind and not possessed by either plants or animals. He goes on to argue that when human beings function in such a way as to do excellently whatever tasks fall to them, such as playing the harp, for example, then it may be said that they are demonstrating an activity of soul in accordance with the rational principle and so in accordance also with virtue. As a result, they may be said to be leading good lives from which happiness will grow.

The view that the purpose or meaning of life may or may not have to do with the achievement of happiness and the problem of how such happiness may be defined have been and remain philosophical staples. At one point in his Gorgias, for example, Plato has Socrates and Callicles develop an argument in which the issue is to decide whether or not "a man who itches and wants to scratch and whose opportunities for scratching are unbounded" can be said to lead a happy life spent continually scratching.

Tell me once more; do you declare that pleasure is identical with good, or
are there some pleasures which are not good?

In his Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill returns to this argument. He wishes to define his Principle of Utility, or Greatest Happiness Principle, which he regards as the foundation of morals, and, in the course of this passage he asserts, that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."

One of the features characteristic of human nature is the felt need to live life seriously in regard to the choices that are made and the positions that are adopted, even though it may be perfectly apparent that other points of view and other choices might, logically, be equally acceptable. This quality of mind and general predisposition are not evident in other creatures. As Thomas Nagel makes clear in his essay "The Absurd" [Journal of Philosophy, 68 (20), 1971: Hanfling: P. 48-59], this inability to live with a diminished sense of the seriousness of life may be the fundamental reason for the sense that both Nagel and many others have that life is, in fact, absurd. He argues that the life of a mouse, for example, is not absurd because "he lacks the ... self-consciousness and self-transcendence that would enable him to see that he is only a mouse." This is very far removed from the more usual position that the lives of animals serve only as examples of meaningless existence. In the course of his argument, Nagel develops the view that the human quest for meaning and a sense of purpose in life is derived from the fact that we are preoccupied with such issues as the brevity of the human life-span, our minuteness within the universe as a whole, the inevitability of the eventual disappearance of all of mankind, our sense that life is, if possible, something to be escaped. Rather than attempt heroically to deny the truth of these perceptions and fight against the sense of our own absurdity with which they fill us, Nagel asserts, we would do well to accept what cannot be escaped and, in so doing, demonstrate our ability not only to understand our human limitations, but also to appreciate their unimportance in our situation:

If sub specie aeternitatis there is no reason to believe that anything matters, then that doesn't matter either, and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair.

Referral site: http://www.philosophypathways.com/essays/head1.html