That's why religion is one of the two biggest scams on the planet, the other being patriotism.Greatest I am wrote:I agree but think it also inflates the ego to think one has God's ear.bobevenson wrote:No, just stupid and divorced from reality.Greatest I am wrote:Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Regards
DL
Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
If we see the question in terms of phycology.the super ego layes down its life in limited existance for the ego which it dearly loves.inspite of the id.the event identity.
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
There is sure a lot of thinking and redundancy going on in the mind you see. Rather a waste of good neurons for back ups of the back ups. Nature does not usually do redundant. It is a waste of energy.jackles wrote:If we see the question in terms of phycology.the super ego layes down its life in limited existance for the ego which it dearly loves.inspite of the id.the event identity.
Regards
DL
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Yes that comes directly from id logic.the enemy of the super ego.
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
This is an aside and not pertaining to the topic in this thread but let me suggest to you to post on redundancy and the human mind in the "Intelligent Design: a Catechism" thread. My feeling is that the concept of redundancy would add a different perspective to the discussion over there.Greatest I am wrote:There is sure a lot of thinking and redundancy going on in the mind you see. Rather a waste of good neurons for back ups of the back ups. Nature does not usually do redundant. It is a waste of energy.jackles wrote:If we see the question in terms of phycology.the super ego layes down its life in limited existance for the ego which it dearly loves.inspite of the id.the event identity.
Regards
DL
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Somebody needs a remedial course in biology.Greatest I am wrote: Nature does not usually do redundant.
PS - the Freud reference was by way of a modest joke.
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
I do not believe in the various types of consciousness that are spoken of here so I don't think I would be a good candidate to just pop in, laugh at the notions there and then just leave. Not my style that. We cannot know at this time if we only have the one consciousness or many.QMan wrote:This is an aside and not pertaining to the topic in this thread but let me suggest to you to post on redundancy and the human mind in the "Intelligent Design: a Catechism" thread. My feeling is that the concept of redundancy would add a different perspective to the discussion over there.Greatest I am wrote:There is sure a lot of thinking and redundancy going on in the mind you see. Rather a waste of good neurons for back ups of the back ups. Nature does not usually do redundant. It is a waste of energy.jackles wrote:If we see the question in terms of phycology.the super ego layes down its life in limited existance for the ego which it dearly loves.inspite of the id.the event identity.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
??jackles wrote:Yes that comes directly from id logic.the enemy of the super ego.
A mind cannot be it's own enemy unless you are talking the insane.
We naturally seek our best possible end and fighting ourselves internally is counter to nature.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Thanks for correcting me.Skip wrote:Somebody needs a remedial course in biology.Greatest I am wrote: Nature does not usually do redundant.
PS - the Freud reference was by way of a modest joke.
It would have taken if you had a few examples to show.
Regards
DL
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/357
Nature has no design and no intentions. Evolution is a messy business: all trial and error, with a very big scrap-heap out back. Who knows, maybe even some gods. But they didn't die for me - they just died.
Changing conditions require existing ribosomes, cells and organs to perform new functions, and when biological entities are modified, some of the old material that's no longer useful stays behind. If it's not detrimental, it's not worth eradicating. You were right about energy, but that very conservation produces creatures carrying around unnecessary bits. Then again, some of the extra bits might be pressed into service when conditions change again.
And, yes, actually, the human mind does that, too. Not using extra neurons, but creating the same protective device encoded in several different ... what? formats/ images /messages/ files ... in overlapping networks. Something like where the externalized superego, Jehovah (for reasons I can't pretend to fathom) says "Don't boil a kid in its mother's milk." and a whole nation, for 150 generations, keeps separate sets of kitchen utensils for meat and dairy, to prevent that ever happening by any fluke. That's some majorly redundant system!
Nature has no design and no intentions. Evolution is a messy business: all trial and error, with a very big scrap-heap out back. Who knows, maybe even some gods. But they didn't die for me - they just died.
Changing conditions require existing ribosomes, cells and organs to perform new functions, and when biological entities are modified, some of the old material that's no longer useful stays behind. If it's not detrimental, it's not worth eradicating. You were right about energy, but that very conservation produces creatures carrying around unnecessary bits. Then again, some of the extra bits might be pressed into service when conditions change again.
And, yes, actually, the human mind does that, too. Not using extra neurons, but creating the same protective device encoded in several different ... what? formats/ images /messages/ files ... in overlapping networks. Something like where the externalized superego, Jehovah (for reasons I can't pretend to fathom) says "Don't boil a kid in its mother's milk." and a whole nation, for 150 generations, keeps separate sets of kitchen utensils for meat and dairy, to prevent that ever happening by any fluke. That's some majorly redundant system!
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Thanks for this.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Yes both egoistical and delusional.
-
- Posts: 7349
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Giving anthropomorphic qualities to God are you?Greatest I am wrote:I think it also inflates the ego to think one has God's ear
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
+ 1HexHammer wrote:Yes both egoistical and delusional.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Nothing out of the ordinary there. Most religions have done just that.bobevenson wrote:Giving anthropomorphic qualities to God are you?Greatest I am wrote:I think it also inflates the ego to think one has God's ear
Regards
DL