Religious Competition and Evolution

How religion has outlived its evolutionary usefulness.

Which religion will best serve the evolution of our species? At this point in time I would say atheism (no religion). According to anthropologists, religion served a useful purpose increasing genetic copies through cooperation, gathering, multiplying, creating security to advance the almighty gene. Moving civilization from small groups, to large, insulated groups with multiple failsafes. Religion, through its ruthless hard-copy mandate, also regulated those numbers to maintain ecological balances by widespread culling and killing haplotypes it deemed inferior, only leaving behind those most cooperative, submissive traits to build its kingdom. It is a over-superb success story now on the verge of backfire.

How do we turn it off? The watchful eye-in-the-sky has proven vastly a effective ploy. The gene has put in the mind of the man a gullible and behaviorally superstitious trait that is easily duplicated study after study. It is so effective that it makes many question their very sanity to ignore it. Those not blessed with the gene have also benefitted from its ability to create copies, surrounding the unbeliever with billions of replicas that, against all common sense now continue to replicate.

Shut. It. Down! Slow it down! The Darwin Award may just very well go to…all of us, if we can’t figure out a way to stop the continued onslaught. Remember the Sorcerers Apprentice—Mickey cuts the broom into a million pieces? Slowly the replicas came to life and grabbed water buckets and flooded the house. The pool is now full. Religion had its day. Shut it down. The one thing religions have in common?—too many copies. Enough is enough!

HERE is an interesting read.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

106 thoughts on “Religious Competition and Evolution”

    1. I’ve just been reading some William James. Here in the states we are a little slow to abandon the proven failures and myths because of big money. Anything would be a step up from this competitive breeding of monotheism.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. I see a lot of positives in panpsychism. No displacement of responsibility, no vicarious redemption, and it fills the emotional needs of people who turn to religion because they fear death.

        Liked by 5 people

        Reply

        1. I like it better too. A sense of togetherness without the restrictive properties of religious pseudo-morality. The passengers in charge of the ship 🚢

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          2. Get in a plane and spend 3-6 months interviewing all leading proponents of Integrated Information Theory, Max Tegmark (for his consciousness is a 4th state of matter), and Roger Penrose and his disciples. Ram all that fruit into a book of essays and give it a dangerously catchy title.

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            2. Itd be fun, but no. I had thought about doing that for Rabbis/Israeli Archeologists, though. A one-stop-book for “Fuck Right Off, The Origin Narrative/Egypt/Exodus/Conquest is All Bullshit, Here’s the Guys and Girls Who Know.”

              Liked by 2 people

            4. Be pretty easy, too. Just needs an editorial essay as an intro, then the rest is other people’s work. Royalties would be a nightmare, but it’d be a fun project.

              Liked by 1 person

    2. Doesn’t Wild Mel support many of the teachings of Aristotle and Plato? Seems these two were fairly relevant in this discipline — and from my understanding, it’s contrary to what he teaches.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Does he? I guess it depends on what day it is 😉 He HATES panpsychism. Absolutely detests it. Even I was shocked at how viciously he lashed out it, which of course is just an indication of how afraid he is of it.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. Education instead of indoctrination would be nice. Protecting the bubble of even religious diversity is stunting. Be nice if the competition for followers would stop its quests for world domination. How? ¡Lo no sé!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    1. Nope. But, bit by bit we can piss on it. How it will end I have no idea, but it refuses to die a peaceful death. Been a smoldering corpse since the time of Nietzsche. Just have to get it past the dollars and get the info out into protected circles.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  4. Religion is the cheaters quide to primitive humanities answers to life’s questions. I would argue that atheism is not a religion. Ya da ya da. You know the drill. Secularism is more to the mark but it’s not a religion either. I suggest the notion of supernaturalism aka theism be listed as a failed human construct that has retarded the maturation thus the well-being and advancement of humanity by proffering anti-reality as a pathway to knowledge.

    The notion that a person would subscribe to the belief that a sentient thing is responsible for existence itself should be viewed the same as someone that thinks the world is flat or Hobbits hitched a ride on walking trees.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Psychologist have to have a differential diagnosis to separate healthy religious belief from psychosis. It’s a fine line that crosses quite nicely in auditory and visual hallucinations. Thanks. Great comment. Good to see you Nope

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. To be clear, I’m all for studying what happens when mice get a whiff of cat or rabbit urine. Just skeptical about fanciful over-interpretations. And very skeptical about reducing “I” to a mindless non-unique automaton. That would be a life not worth living.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. Because…you are failing to see the big picture. Isn’t it fascinating in the article? The possibilities are endlessly awesome everywhere I turn. This wouldn’t turn you into a mindless, non unique individual…it’s called imagining the possibilities and making connections. Life not worth living? Holy moly I see your eyes have not yet been opened. There’s a whole diametric world of discovery outside the lens of faith. An appreciation for life. But it’s not for everyone. It comes with personal responsibility.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. I would say exactly the opposite: It is faith that makes me personally responsible, that opens my eyes to discover and appreciate the endlessly awesome possibilities of a full life well-lived, that emboldens me to pursue the truth about that life.

            Speculating about the “big picture” based a single interesting study of the olfactory instincts of mice is not doing justice to science, let alone the broader quest for truth.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            1. I think that we have a quest for knowledge. I found faith stifling, delaying many interests that conflicted my faith, because of faith. You see it differently. Would you like me to post 100 different articles on animal studies? Of course that is just one, but imagine the possibilities. What’s in our heads to make us join a herd wherever we go? How is this done, if it is us in control, or a mere mite? It’s a question that can drive exploration. I’ll move to another topic soon (as I am prone to do) so you don’t accuse me of fanaticism. Not only do I make connections to irreligiousity, but many other genres as well. This is an atheism blog if you haven’t noticed. I have other writings as well. You?

              Liked by 2 people

            2. I’m all for studying brains and even more enthusiastic about using them. As I said, I’m just skeptical about unfounded interpretations and philosophizing. I hope your atheist blog has benefited from an additional perspective.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. You bet. It’s been very interesting, as well as this comment “I’m just skeptical about unfounded interpretations and philosophizing”—yet your a believer? It’s an interesting phenomena to say the least.

              Liked by 4 people

            4. I was thinking the same thing myself about religious belief. Believing in a creator is one thing and is not necessarily unfounded, as there is nature to help bolster a claim that this world was created. It’s not provable but you can make a decent case that based on the order of nature and by using the “fine tuning” argument, a creator is a plausible explanation. But when you claim that a specific god, not just a creator, but a specific god did it all, then that interpretation is unfounded as there is no evidence to back that up. None. Not one shred of evidence exists out there that proves any of the Bible story is true or any other religious view for that matter.

              Christianity makes very, very specific claims about a lot of things. None of them can be verified. So to make the jump from a deistic view to a theistic view with a very specific god is unfounded. I can attest to this personally as I have always thought, even as a child, that the world was created by something or someone. That is vastly different than saying those feelings I had about a possible creator means that Jesus was real or the Apostles or Moses or Abraham. Thinking that there is possibly a great creator out there does not make the Exodus real or the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection. I had to be taught about those characters and events because without being taught, they would never have existed in my mind. They are names attached to stories I had never heard of when sitting at my window as a young child looking at the trees as the wind blew through them thinking, “there has to be a creator.”

              I can honestly say that I am now an agnostic, leaning more towards atheism every day due to the fact that there is no evidence. None. I am open to believing in a god or gods if the evidence presents itself at some point. If it doesn’t, then belief is nothing more than wishful thinking based on ancient fiction.

              Liked by 7 people

            5. There are more answers outside of religion than non answers, if one is to merely look. But here in the states, actual knowledge is scoffed and guarded from the closed systems. Preachers poison the well with their anti science sentiments, so the masses rarely look at serious scholarship. What if man creates life in a test tube by recreating prehistoric atmospheric conditions, and these cells replicate and create their own DNA? What if I told you they already have? But, who’s looking? Certainly not many.

              Liked by 3 people

            6. All the things you mention here Jim were lies and conspiracies created by a secular, sinful society….when I was a believer. That’s what I once thought. That’s what we’re taught and that’s what we believe. Once free of religion, we can see there is a whole world out there that we never knew existed. Science (actual science) becomes true and religious science becomes dogma rather than fact. Many things we avoided because they were labeled as sinful become personal preferences that are not bad in any way. Natural human urges and desires should not be suppressed because of a book that says they’re bad. When a book says “All have sinned” then whoever wrote that acknowledges that none of us have the power to ignore what comes naturally to us. Either the god who made up the rules is unjust and cruel by setting us up in a system doomed to fail or he doesn’t exist.

              Liked by 4 people

            7. I know you guys are pretty committed to your views of “faith” — which of course I respect as entirely your prerogative — but it must be said: So-called “faith” that does not liberate is not faith; it is the opposite of faith. So-called “faith” that is “anti-science” is not pro-God; it insults God.

              Liked by 2 people

            11. I speak for no one but myself, and I don’t claim this is any special talent, but… I do know an insult when I hear one.

              Liked by 2 people

    2. The article doesn’t say that at all. I swear the things you extract from an article Loy, boggles the mind It simply says non-belief wasn’t as useful as belief. That’s it. The fact that at one time religion was more useful as a system, doesn’t change the fact that it is nothing more than human tool. A man-made construct that has benefits for survival. That doesn’t make any of it true. You can have faith about anything. You are fond of calling atheism a religion…well then as it turns out my faith that there is no God is just as useful as your faith that there is one. As it turns out, all the article says is faith for it’s own sake provides positive health outcomes, it makes no mention of what one must have faith in.

      Nobody here argues Loy that your religious belief isn’t useful, what we argue is that no particular religion is true. There are obviously valuable elements that can be extracted by religion, but this is no way means that Mary gave birth as a virgin.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  7. Hello Jim,  we “turn it off” through self empowerment.  Once an individual is self empowered, they know there is neither help, salvation (what for?) nor damnation “out there”.  The choice is made from within and the fear of being wrong; of making the wrong choice, can be greatly reduced by choosing the path of the compassionate to go along with that newly discovered and strange power.  The self empowered compassionate can then interact positively and beneficently with all others for compassion has many tools within, including discernment.

    Quote: “Which religion will best serve the evolution of our species? At this point in time, September 29, 2018, I would say atheism.” I thought I read from previous posts of yours that “atheism” was NOT a religion, or are you being facetious here? The way I look at it, if atheism heavily indulges itself on beating up on various religions, then it becomes a religion by proselytizing in reverse. If it’s just that a person chooses to relegate the entire God business to mythology and leaves it at that, not caring what others do with it as long as they aren’t, well, criminally imposing their beliefs on any other, particularly the helpless and weak, then it’s a simpler way of life.

    Discussion?

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    1. Sure. I could have replaced it with secularism/humanism. Maybe wording it lumped as a possible religion was a poor phraseology. I don’t think of it as a religion so No religion in place of the word atheism is the same to me. Not my intent there. I do agree that self empowered compassion would be the key, but right now seems like a drop in the bucket when more are still joining than leaving the foray.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. You still can’t but beer in Texas on Sunday? Lol. Sounds like Utah before the 90’s. now they have all beer with reduced alcohol. Wtf? Always a reason to cross the border…or plan ahead. Somehow your beer comment is like a parable sound. Remember the ten virgins? They went to buy beer, not oil!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. I get it! No beer breath for Sunday morning service! Perfect sense. Love your new advice column. Massive potential. I have an idea for that if you’re interested.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

  9. Dear Jim:-) ❤ Is not believing in God something that every person should be allowed choose for themselves? When you think more fundamentally about it, what then ought to be next? Maybe gullible reincarnation? Astrology perhaps? Believing in ghosts? Furthermore, who should be in charge of supervising our human minds? Would not this be a power comparable to religions so-called mind control? The very concept of excluding ideas and beliefs whatever they may be is not considered freedom. There are religious systems that are controlling, but by what method do you fix it? Take control or allow freedom? Is the freedom you proclaim Jim, really freedom? I mean you literally know best on behalf of the entire human species, and by removing all personal beliefs; you are giving us freedom?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Hello Ms Hiatus, Good to see you! Yes, I would have to be the boss of it all, lol. That is a lot of questions to sum up in a blog reply, so I’ll give two ideas. Whence the mind is open, education gives both the ability to operate outside the system of “supervised human minds” (self governing) and opens a life to be lived and lived on your terms. I’m not too happy about the surveillance society that is growing. I would be in favor of a third way, but a life on camera seems to be heading our way. Maybe that will be the new morality, being watched? Yuk, but the kids are already getting numb to it. You are unique in the fact your experience led you to inquiry of the sciences and a more balanced reality, but for most it leads to a life of fanaticism. The states is a pretty good example of what religion does. It poisons the well ahead of scholarship and blocks critical learning and thinking. They still teach the garden of eden and Noah’s ark as fact and deny climate science and physics. It’s hard to get anywhere like that. I think it’s time. There are many that could benefit from life outside faith, and many more who are not ready yet. Blue pill or red pill?

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Well thank you Jim for your answers to my many questions. Ms. Hiatus tries to narrow it down to when she has something wise and relevant to say;-) I completely understand that the situation at your location is very different. I took the red pill some time ago. With all that increased monitoring and surveillance it is much needed to stay awake. “What gets you into trouble is not what you do not know, it is what you know for sure that just is not so!”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Cute. Speaking from experience? Haha. Oh I hear you. Good to keep your mind open and your search engines on. Things are not always what they seem, even after they seem like it.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

  10. It’s apparent that people in general need or prefer some kind of all-encompassing belief system. We humans crave certainty, and there is so much about reality and our existence which we simply do not understand. Life is uncertain, and that’s a big problem for us. Religion fills this void, but it does so at great cost; and, it is the world’s three prominent monotheistic religions which induce the greatest costs for they are inherently farcical.

    If you replace one subjective belief system with another, you cannot solve the problem. You can only shift the costs.

    I don’t know if we will ever evolve sufficiently to get over our fear of the unknown, or if it’s even possible for us to do so, but the survival of our species may depend on it. Those words, “I don’t know,” aren’t spoken nearly enough especially concerning the profound existential questions which religion arrogantly presumes to answer. They do not know, and neither does anyone else.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks. I hope we can wrestle through this. Not only just fear either, but despair and insecurity. One thing I’ve heard many times after losing faith and abandoning church was “how do you have hope, or what if, or must be lonely, or whatever? People would rather attach themselves to a fake crutch than just limp along with their own capabilities, which is what your doing anyway without the imagination that someone is looking out for you. We’ve got this, and we’ve proven it by the power of prayer. Mere mindfulness is all we need to solve our problems, not ostriching the realities of life. It’s hard sometimes. So what? We’ve got this. Always have.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Missionaries reach out into the poorest regions, the only places there is still growth. The majority of islams growth is through fertility. High birth rates continue to be the most effective missionary tool, making more copies and assigning a faith before they can even walk or talk. 2050 is the estimate that Islam will overtake Christianity. If only by birth it appears there’s no stopping that from happening.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. Aah, good point. Interfaith marriage used to be taboo. Now it’s a missionary tool. My wife joined my church solely for family unity. She never believed a word of it, but was illusions into believing it would make our life and family more peaceful. We found the best part after dumping faith completely.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

            1. I do think world turmoil could set everything back quickly. The need to bind in groups is often spearheaded through common cause and faith is hope. Most of us atheist are going it alone and that doesn’t bode well in tumultuous times.

              Like

            2. You know, back when I was in college, my classmates were younger than me and they were so orthodox, they had no intention of letting their future wives work. They don’t get along well with people from lower castes and other religions.

              Liked by 1 person

  12. Religious competition is a product of the Monotheist Gods wanting their way. That is They don’t play well with others. So the belief system which is now almost ubiquitous demands that everyone compete for the “right true” religion. Buddhists in Japan had this problem battling between the “pure land” sect and the “true land” sect.

    Polytheism doesn’t have competition. What it does have is people trying to entice various Gods to leave their enemies and come over on their side. Culturally, people added Gods to their devotions.

    Shutting it down requires an intensive battle with the Monotheistic Filter which is burrowing everyone’s minds. The Filter needs to be examined and exposed for what it is. A means of mental control over people.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Panpshycism would allow for everyone to find spirituality to meet their own personal needs. Sounds like a step away from polytheism. Not a one size fits all indoctrination.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. I have an acquaintance that has little shrines and trails built all over his property. His “shrine to the stone spirits” is pretty cool. He’s a different duck but walks his trails and leaves little improvements and offerings at all his different altars. Kinda cool, but for me, what’s the point? It all within (imo), but he’s a peaceful old guy not infringing on anyone.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  13. I see religion as a manifestation of human cultural practices and values. The culture creates religion to be like a 3rd person view of what the culture itself values. Religion reflects the culture of its adherents because it was created by that culture! Sort of the feedback loop of art imitating life, but then life imitating art in return… 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Great perspective. Ive looked at it just slightly different. They create a god based on the morals and customs of the day. With abrahamic faith it came from a violent time. It’s definitely reflected in the scripture. I think I like your idea better. Third person view sums it up well.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. The more modern offshoots like Mormon, JW, and SDA, are definitely examples of that. The fringe cults and wackos use their ideas of the miserable world and find likeminded people to bond, then create more copies by fertility or polygamy. There’s always a rush to gain a foothold before the end of the world. Fear is still a great selling point isn’t it, or saving the world?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  14. In my understanding of the universe as it is, Jim, religion is still a necessity, though it is slowly losing its power to attrition–meaning the growth of atheism. You fear that atheism is in danger because it is unorganized, when that is really its greatest strength. Numbers do not matter, understanding does, and however a person comes to atheism, they come to understand for themselves, and thus cannot be battered by the millions or billions of religious believers, because they are safe in their individuality.
    However, without religion, how would we know we are atheists? Yes, if there had NEVER been religions, there would be no need for atheists–but there have been and still continue to be religions, and thus we have the ability to be atheists. My next statement is going to seem paradoxical to most, arrogant to religious believers, and downright unbelievable, but when looking at spiritual evolution as I see it, atheism is the next step on the rung of the ladder of spirituality after religion. We started with nothing but fear, developed nature spirits, then gods, then monotheistic god, and now we are moving away from such supernatural beings. I do not expect you or any of your readers to move beyond atheism with me, but that is not necessary. Right now atheists are on the highest well-occupied rung of the ladder, and eventually all present religionists will climb to our height. Such is the way of spiritual evolution, which is forward oriented, unlike physical evolution, which is built on chaos. And despite the continuation of religions, they will eventually all disappear, and atheists will no longer have to live as atheists, but just as people, which we cannot truly do at this time, for the most part.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. Thank you. I was hoping you would have some of your insightful questions, that might take me to yet more new areas of thought and understanding. I so often miss the obvious by looking at the whole, or vice versa. You seem to see right through the forest at the glade in the middle, or the prairie on the other side. People such as yourself are invaluble to me, and those like me…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. Your conclusion is pretty spot-on I do believe. From animism to polytheism to hedonism to monotheism the next logical step would be atheism. However, statistically the loners in evolution, those that break from the pack are easy targets. Being right doesn’t really offer the safety of the group. Groups historically are strongest through falsehoods and deception. Just the way it is with the gullible mind. And as religion would bode well during an apocalypse, so would gangs. But alone? Maybe in seclusion like that Russian family found in the mountains since WWII. I don’t think we’re close to suffering like that here any time soon, but when things get bad, religion starts to win with fulfilled prophecy (based on cyclical norms) they prove they’re right.
      I do like the idea of alternatives to faith or atheism. There’s always a third way, and anytime two choices are all we get, they’re both wrong. The universe is probably much more electric and alive than we give it credit for. That electricity flows through all of us, and everything, and is most likely that LIFE that you speak of, that spark mixed with a conscious world we draw from that well when the biology permits. It’s within a very fine set of perimeters. (I think). Lol.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. My only problem with what you say concerns the age-old belief that there is strength in numbers. While this may be true in a physical sense, it does not necessarily apply in a spiritual sense. My own take on this is 1 is the strongest number in existence. It cannot be divided (except by itself,) nor can it be betrayed. If you are strong enough to move away from the crowd, you are strong enough to withstand the onslaught of the crowd, possibly even to the point of death, depending on the individual. If faced with a choice between believing and death, I would hope I would refuse to believe.
        It was the 1970s when I was first challenged by someone how I could possibly dispute the existence of god in spite of the great number of people who believed, to which I replied that I believed in myself. My challenger started to shake, whether out of anger or fear I could not be sure, but he ended the conversation there, and never spoke to me again. I like to think I challeged his belief beyond his ability to cope, though I will never know.
        I am 1. You are another 1. Others are their own 1s. We may not be the same 1s, but that is irrelevent. We are each 1, indivisible, unbreakable.

        Like

        Reply

        1. rawgod, I think I understand your “1” philosophy — in fact, I think I tend to live by it. However, to some it might seem selfish and uncaring. Or perhaps a bit “hermit-like.”

          Thoughts?

          Like

          Reply

        2. The I is the individual power and is probably mostly correct in a philosophy, but in a pinch, in a physical survival it has not proven true. Dead people pass on nothing. No compliant genes were eradicated for over a thousand years, and just by occasional selection does it still raise its head from time to time.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I guess if I had to, I would have to label myself rebellious (or revolutionary, depending),but I could not define that from my DNA, though nor will I dispute the possibility. From my earliest memories I was gullible, but also precocious. If there was a way to annoy the adults around me, I would find it. Eventually, as I started to understand that adults told lies, I became rebellious, not willing to continue trusting what I was told by authorities. I think that was more from nurture than nature, but I do not know that for sure. Maybe it was a combination of the two. Still, if I had compliant genes, I overrode them, just as did most of us who call ourselves atheists, IMO. I have no offspring, no way to tell if any little mes would have been like me in my rebelliousness. Whether you can say from watching uour own children mature, I cannot say, but I would be surprised if things went that way. You look at DNA to see what children might be like–I would look at their past incarnations (if I could see them) to predict who they will be in life.
            As it is, I have to look at young adults to see where they may have been in past incarnations, though nothing like that would show in DNA. One is spiritual, the other is physical.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. There may not be a difference between the two. I know they each are born with very distinct personalities. But, so are most animals. The Russian fox experiment is one of my favorites. They bred for good temperament only, and within ten years had a completely different animal. A lovable and different looking dog. There’s a lot to consider. Too bad there’s no rawgod jr on the horizon. Cloning?? Hehe

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Cloning might interest my ego, but not my spirit, lol. Poor fox-dogs, humans playing god all over again.
              Your kids, not sure how old they are, but the older they get, the more different they will become. Hope I’m around in ten years to ask you this question again…

              Liked by 2 people

            4. I take it that suggests a different mother, which makes the nature vs nurture observations even more complicated. But it would make no difference if being observed for spiritual backgrounds. If only science could look there, what incredibilities it might find! If any…

              Liked by 2 people

        1. Awareness of the foibles of human gullibility can thwart lot of it. My first instinct is to believe people, but I have reversed that with active skepticism and education on various disciplines. Accepting that’s who we are and educating ourselves is a great step towards understanding how easily we are fooled. One reason I blog is to validate my ideas with all the readers, then adjust my thinking according to better ideas. It can be done.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I have what might be called the opposite of that problem. First, I want to trust others, that they will be honest with me. Some are, most aren’t, but I try to give them all a chance to show they are. I am mostly wrong, but at least I try.
            Meanwhile, I do not blog, or comment, to test my theories, but to further understand my theories. As I think I said earlier today, I love to have people challenge me, but not to change my ideas, but to enhance them. I grew up having to depend on myself for most every gain I made in my life. I do not adopt an idea until I am at least 99% sure it is worth adopting, and the 1% left over is the room to improve on it. It is an ego kind of thing, despite the fact I do not give my ego much room in which to manuever. Ego directs physical life, spirit obviously directs spiritual life. I never know how well I explain this dichotomy of thought, though it is clear to me inside my head. I just don’t always have the words I need.
            Still change is always possible, though it is much easier for some than others. (Could Trump really change into a loving, caring humanist?) I had to go through a lot of changes to be where I am today. You are no different. You know how to change, and when to change. And I appreciate you very much.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

  15. Religion has probably played a role in our inaction. In fact I’d go so far as to say it has been the primary cause — if you consider capitalism a religion. Maybe the word religion isn’t quite right. Maybe demonic death cult is a better fit? I don’t know how else to explain their persistent drive to deliberately extinguish all life. Nobody loves their gods with half as much fervour as they worship money and wealth.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Those of us that want to live simply have a hard time believing such motives at life actually exist. Therefore, always behind the 8 ball scratching to keep in the game.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. It occurred to me just now, that Facebook is more a god than any religious nonsense. FB actually does keep up with everything you do and say…

    Religiots unite! Worship the new god FB!

    Me? Im taking my lack of a religion gene and going home 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment