PDA

View Full Version : Gut Feeling vs. What You Were Raised to Believe



Tesla_WTC_Solution
24th June 2013, 03:02
Hi there!

It's time for an UN-PC question for you all:

when you REALLY sit down and think about your life experience,
what does your estimation support the most:

the religious notions many of us were raised to propagate,
or the Darwinist "chaos theory" sort of mindset that modern science seeks to establish?

I find myself continually assaulted by a cacophony of contradictory experience...
meaning, I believe in natural selection and synchronicity at the same time.

What does that really mean?

/enddrunkrant

Heartsong
24th June 2013, 03:44
A Bahai quote:

If religion and science are in conflict, neither are correct.

Another1
24th June 2013, 03:45
~ this may cause an aneurysm if read by some of the folks trying to school me ore the years but I'll take a shot at replying:
Out of what may appear as total chaos from up close, I see synchronicity as capable of helping lead a person to a system of order (balance)

At the simplest of levels ~ If I trust my gut for something even as simple as when to leave the house to go buy smokes, it can reward me with a merry meet of some long lost friend who was out buying a soda at the same store.

When I was experimenting some years ago, I found that prayers/needs of one person can be met 'n answered by the prayers/needs of a total stranger on other side of the city. This did not require formal prayers as in getting on knees and using some magical name. It was more like, Stranded person says, "Wow, I really need a ride quick," combined with a new taxi driver getting lost in big city and stopping to ask a stranger for directions.

Religion lost me with their god that condones genocide to prove a point or that would break my legs or something in order to help me learn. Somehow I have retained the concept of a 'Loving Father' but now He has a wife in my reality and we are much happier.

sigma6
24th June 2013, 06:30
I'm with another 1... as hard as it is to wrap my brain around, as counterintuitive and as remote from everyday experience it seems, the idea of consciousness as the central thing in the universe has a lot of good scientific 'conjecture' backing it up... and was probably what was trying to be captured in various "religions" and spiritual philosophies... I think we are approaching another renaissance period, about to lift us out of this philosophical and spiritual bankruptcy we are drowning in.

The quantum physics idea is not new. All of the above must further taken within the context of ancient wisdom and philosophy. It can't be a coincidence. Even Oppenheimer was quoting Vedic text, how much more obvious can it get?

And I have also had those type of experiences too, and it is just like Another says, when you go with your instinct. Mind you getting back there (in my case) is a lot harder today then it was when I was a naive kid, trippin' on serendipity... alas, I have to get back into some kind of mental exercise, or bio-feedback or silva or something... I would even consider hallucinogens, now that studies have come out touting their positive side effects regarding spiritual insight ...

As far as Darwin vs Religion that is just too small a sphere of perspectives today... a mickey mouse dialectic designed to ensnare just awoken would be truth seekers, if they ever got that far to ask such a question. In my mind both are clearly suspect... Darwin may have been a serious scientist, but he didn't have the context of science today to see what he was looking at... and "evolution" is such an over used, abused, catch all phrase now, it means anything anybody wants it to mean, thus it is meaningless to me, but used strictly in the sense he did, he was mistaking adaptation for a hypothetical "mutation process" with no explanation how all these mutations were supposed to line up with perfect timing to create super complex and specialized functionality... I don't believe if a million monkeys typing at a million computers for a million years one is going to accidentally write a Shakespearian Classic... but lest we forget, within the context of what is known today, that is exactly what Darwin is proposing... and it just ain't so... (he didn't know about genes, or DNA nor the complex computer language that exists within it, and had he would he not have changed his theory? Of course he would have...

There is currently no explanation for complex self checking programs found within DNA... or the spontaneous generation of DNA from the "vacuum", etc, etc. close but no cigar... not by a long shot...

And as for "religion" it is not complete unless we study the context it is hiding away from the public... what is night without day? or hot without cold? what is "religion" without the occult world that is hiding within it and around it, and that it is derived from? btw the Santos Bonacci clip someone put up was interesting, some analysis of Revelations being another freemason symbol system, of astrology (it's almost passe these days, it's so in our faces... lol)

that's where it is at ...alternative interpretations of what is really going on... "truth is stranger than fiction" seek truth... isn't that the best of both worlds?

4Talismans
24th June 2013, 15:51
I really thought about it since you asked. And religion is useless to me. The outdated notion of a skydaddy that the Abrahamic religions espouse is almost silly. And the earlier notions of earth/goddess are not as silly but they lack balance. These two religious scenarios actually give a sketch of the history. Before biology was a science, women were thought to be the powerful givers of life, hence goddess worship. Later, men rose to power, hence skydaddy worship.
Now, I am not saying there is no god. I am just saying I do not believe it's either of these. If we continue to evolve spiritually, perhaps men and women together will create a new dynamic that is more balanced.
Science is very useful and I have a lot of respect for it. Science itself is not the problem. It's the humans using the science that are the problem. Monsanto, anyone?
Perhaps you believe in synchronicity because you have experienced it so often. Just because spirit is not visible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because it can't be defined and measured, well, it can still be experienced.

chocolate
24th June 2013, 17:24
To be able to see from where I come from, during my childhood religion was forbidden in the country (the whole communism and that story). Later on the western way was brought right into our faces. And I never quite connected to either. Probably because I was lucky to have been raised to have my own opinion, quite often miss-understood, but still.

From experience and gut feeling right now I am using a very simple mixture of both. I trust first my gut feeling, and after I analyze and "understand".

I also happened to find out for myself how much real religion (in my understanding) coincides with science.

For me there is no difference between religion (gnosis) and science- they are the two faces of the same coin. The explanation depends on on which side you look at the coin.

I believe in many sciences, and in many strange concepts at the same time.
As 4Talismans mentioned before me, the fact that science cannot explain something doesn't mean that that thing does not exist.
So I/you can believe in whatever sounds right to you and to your gut feeling :)

Camilo
24th June 2013, 18:22
Hi there!

It's time for an UN-PC question for you all:

when you REALLY sit down and think about your life experience,
what does your estimation support the most:

the religious notions many of us were raised to propagate,
or the Darwinist "chaos theory" sort of mindset that modern science seeks to establish?

I find myself continually assaulted by a cacophony of contradictory experience...
meaning, I believe in natural selection and synchronicity at the same time.

What does that really mean?

/enddrunkrant

Neither one, as they both are total BS, just follow your spirit (gut feeling, intuition, etc) without hesitation and you'll be fine (being at the right place, at the right time, with the right people, doing the right thing for you).

The Truth Is In There
25th June 2013, 11:57
imo new experiments are started all the time (new species created) by "higher" beings, perhaps occasionally nudged, but then they run pretty much without interference and here they follow "darwinian" laws, such as "the strong survive and the weak perish". if life were created by chance through darwinian principles the universe would still try to find the right sequence of nucleic acids to form a monocellular organism, so consciousness is elementary.

Mark (Star Mariner)
25th June 2013, 12:37
It's a great question. Me, personally speaking, they are both wrong in of themselves, but they are also both correct.

In brief, very basic terms:

Evolution is correct in that there has been a process of natural selection over millions of years. The purely rational thinking Darwinist, may not understand, however, that a Divine hand has steered and guided this process. It would not have been able to occur without guidance. In everything there is intelligent design. There are no accidents. This evolution, this progression, is observable in the fossil record, and we can see the correlations in the animal kingdom we observe today.

It took a physical intervention – a different kind of guidance, however, for early Human-kind to take root on earth, so 'we' have not quite followed the same evolutionary path as would have been purely ‘naturally’ ordained. The primitive proto-hominid was 'upgraded', engineered if you will, to house spiritual intelligence – to be vehicles of incarnation for developing spiritual beings – us. And we were 'made' in 'God's' image – God here not being the Source, the overriding super-entity of love that pervades the Universe, but our actual ancestors, far more advanced than us, which early, backward man perceived as God, that comprised multiple extra-terrestrial races. It was they who seeded the Earth, a grand experiment and a new civilization – but still spiritually guided for a higher purpose. And here we all are, still to this day.

That is what I believe in a nutshell, which answers your question, and tries to establish why both answers are correct and incorrect at the same time. Small wonder then that each camp, Creationism and Darwinism, Religion vs Evolution, are trapped in their own philosophy; are left grasping, trying to find the ultimate answer. It's because each one alone does not have it. Both camps contain truth. Both camps have perhaps one third of the whole. The final third, the extraterrestrial factor, has yet to be revealed to mainstream science.

Tesla_WTC_Solution
26th June 2013, 19:02
I suppose if Big Bang theory prevails,
what came out from it was not just infinite space and matter,
but the "Infinite Potential", all realities.
Also the "Infinite Perfection" came out, which is an idea I find hard to understand but remain convinced is true.

the thing I can't reconcile is the idea of time -- is life and intelligence really dynamic enough, adaptable enough,
that given the believed youth of the universe, it can exist as such?

I really do hope/pray that there is a Higher Intelligence somewhere who holds the keys to all potential outcomes and the path to perfection.

It would be a waste of time to leave that in human hands, lol