Forums » Spirituality & Philosophy

List of newest posts

    • September 26, 2014 10:57:40 AM PDT
    • Sadly I think i have to agree with sierra. Another thought that would quickly arise is "S***! I hope I turn back before i have my period!"

    • June 26, 2014 3:48:12 PM PDT
    • I would dress in a way that is going to make all the other girls feel bad about themselves. That makes the other girls cry.

    • April 5, 2013 7:20:36 PM PDT
    • I think anyone who doesn't put masturbation somewhere in their answer is lying.

    • March 24, 2013 9:13:27 AM PDT
    • hehe, interesting question...

      I do however think the logical first thing anyone would do would be to look into the mirror or slap themselves in the face to make sure they are awake.
      Tho I assume this is supposed to be after the whole shock phase.

      I wouldn't consciously do anything different however. After all, we are but the sum of our lives (and personality) and I'd still have my memories intact and I'd still be an INTJ enneagram 6w5 So/Sp tritype: 649 so I'd go about the world the same way as ever.

      Problems to be taken into account:

      A: I don't exist as a woman according to my country and thus it would be really hard to get into the system or have it changed to my new... situation.

      B: I would be alienated from family and friends since they wouldn't really know me or rather, it would be hard for them to understand that I am their child/sibling/friend since they don't remember my physical appearance.

      Then ofc the whole thing about me wanting a child in time would come up as an issue since I would still be attracted to girls and would want a child that has mine and her DNA and not some random person. This however is less of a problem in modern society since we are getting closer (if we haven't succeeded already) to by medical means allow 2 girls to have a child together without the requirement of a guy in the process.

      If this was only for a day, I would mess with people's heads. Maybe even finish it by inviting some lightly intoxicated guy over for the night so he wakes up to my male self and thinks he was so drunk that he went home with another guy. XD

    • September 12, 2014 1:46:51 AM PDT
    • There are many ways that a person can think. Here are some summaries of thinking categories circulating on the Internet. Thanks to Ken Wilber, Descartes, Freud, Skinner, Gadamer and Marx.

      Artistry/Work and Art Criticism/Work Compensation Thinking: Art and work have long undergone subjective and objective criticism and evaluation. Art and work are analyzed by criteria possessed by a second party or audience, separate in identity from the artist or worker. Thus there are three things involved: The artist, the piece of work and the evaluator (observer).
      It is the artist's intention to meet as much of the criteria held by the evaluator befitting a good, inspiring job. This is a small-scale, person-to-person social contract. The artist wants a win-win outcome.
      It is the evaluator's (observer's) intention to see that his/her subjective or objective criteria have been met. Ergo, that the piece of work is good and inspiring. The evaluator wants gradated (if/then) outcomes. These could be, for example, if the art is truly inspiring then the observer will compensate the artist generously, subsequently if the art is substandard then the observer will compensate the artists less-generously. The freedom of the evaluator to decide on the degree of compensation for the artist's work is an important element of the social transaction contract.
      This is essentially a quid pro quo way of thinking.

      Past, Present and Future Thinking: This is a way of thinking that represents different cultural leanings. Focusing on the past or the good old days can be nice but may lead to the phenomenon of sitting-on-your-laurels. Focusing on the present can be Dionysian or self-indulging (living for the moment.) Focusing on the future can be good because it requires the individual to set priorities based on Maslow's hierarchy of actualizational needs and establish a plan of action accordingly.

      Low-causal Thinking: This is a sort of meditative process of contemplation and seeking of awareness of the eternal in all of us. Some may see Brahma, others Buddha, others a field of light and warmth, etc.

      High-causal Thinking: This is another sort of meditative process that is more transcending of specific deities or God images. It is a sort of Nir-vana or no-thingness that reflects a more subdued, selfless, egoless consciousness. I imagine the vastness of the deep cosmos, even beyond galaxies, as it were.

      Nondual Thinking: This is a way of seeing reality as a nondual union of emptiness and forms. Dependent, co-arising elements of self, others and other things in the universe becomes observable.

      Cartesian Dualism Thinking: The physical brain and the mind's conscious processing of interior and exterior stimuli or qualia are not one and the same. This is a centuries-old, ongoing philosophical study of mind-body differences. There are quite a few opinions on this.

      Big Mind Thinking: Transcending the ego or the self with all its material needs and goals, this meditative quest seeks an awareness of the blessed, divine or eternal in all people, things, etc. Dennis Merzel talks in depth about a reverence or respect for the ongoing process of life and being alive and conscious. He also mentions focusing on a rapport of love emerging from the heart and the head for self and others, too.

      Shadow Consciousness Thinking: This is a focused searching for the underlying meaning behind perceived emotional, physical states, such as fear. A person, while meditating, may feel fear and need to realize after some time that it is anger that has been suppressed or sublimated into the deep subconscious. This is also a subject of ongoing discussion on the Internet.

      There are many other ways of thinking. I look forward to learning more about the ones listed here and others, too.

    • September 3, 2014 9:30:06 PM PDT
    • I believe that the universe has been around for a long time. Things are really stepping up, though. Modern humans (homo sapiens) have gone through some amazing behavior patterns and organizational changes in the last 10,000 years. These have commonly been categorized as hunter-gatherer, agrarian, industrial and post-industrial. Recent categories continuing along this line would be integral and post-integral. Technology, like post-integral consciousness, is developing and diffusing at an exponential rate. This is especially true for the progress of microprocessors. Smart phones do today what large room-sized processors couldn't do in the 1950's and 1960's. This dive by collective society into the computer age has created a speedy and individual-thought focused culture of perpetual discussion and close, up-to-the-minute contact with the goings-on of the world at large. The exchange of ideas and information is the new economy as much as the exchange of livestock and crop seeds was in the recent past. I think Ram Dass' philosophy of awareness is pertinent to the lingering differences in the availability of resources around the world. Clearly not all nations yet possess super highways, masses of universities and regular and representative democratic elections. Ram Dass brought focus in his speaking on awareness to the truth that these imbalances are separate from the quintessential humanity of all people. Worldwide education is a must and should match the quickness of the progress of the microprocessors in recent decades. This is also true for human rights, availability of quality healthcare and spiritual freedom. There is enough food produced on this planet to feed everyone. What the world needs to finally end hunger and malnutrition is infrastructure and freedom to mete Maslow's hierarchy of actualizational requirements.

    • August 9, 2014 5:18:10 AM PDT
    • ThreePointtFG said:
      I may be doubling up my post here; if so, my apologies! I believe we can't know where the universe came from. After all, it must have appeared from nothing, or have always been here, and I contend that our brains are not capable of comprehending either scenario, leaving the origins of the universe an eternal mystery to humans. I believe our brains have emerged from natural selection good at survival, not at truth-seeking, and thus we are not very good at, or even capable, of seeing things as they "really are."

      It's just another one of the monsters in the universe. In science nothing can be created or destroyed, it just shifts from one to another. If you were to take a mug and smash it with a hammer, you didn't destroy the mug at all rather you moved its particles around, every little or large piece of it still exists. Our bodies consume compounds, break them down into elements and reuses them again. Even ourselves don't cease to exist our bodies decompose, get consumed by other organisms, and our materials breaks down becoming parts of other compounds. You could say we've always existed and will continue to exist, just as other materials that came before and that comes after. Was there anything before the Big Bang, in the space we occupy now probably not, that does not mean the universe was created from that point rather everything the universe of today once occupied a very tiny space that is the epicenter of the event we know as the Big Bang. That itself could have been another "universe" that was there before ours, the properties of that old universe shifted into our known universe.

    • August 3, 2014 9:25:55 PM PDT
    • I may be doubling up my post here; if so, my apologies! I believe we can't know where the universe came from. After all, it must have appeared from nothing, or have always been here, and I contend that our brains are not capable of comprehending either scenario, leaving the origins of the universe an eternal mystery to humans.

      I believe our brains have emerged from natural selection good at survival, not at truth-seeking, and thus we are not very good at, or even capable, of seeing things as they "really are."

    • July 28, 2014 5:41:08 PM PDT
    • I'm an atheist. However I believe the fact that the word "atheist" exists is silly. Afterall, we don't have words for people that don't do/believe in other things.

      I think that the lack of disproof for something is not a reason to believe in something. My decisions are based on logic and my beliefs evolve as I learn. As I learn more, my beliefs will change. However a belief should be tucked away in the corner of ones mind as a hunch to be verified later on, a suspicion if you will. I find it ridiculous that people are willing to die for their beliefs or deny overwhelming evidence in favor of them.

      Everyone has beliefs, but logic and evidence should rule how we behave.

    • July 17, 2014 5:47:58 AM PDT
    • I am still analyzing/assessing the religions. For now, i would have to say that I am Deist.

    • July 16, 2014 4:39:39 AM PDT
    • I can't say too much. I will say it is a real religion. I was raised Methodist. I am not anything which would be considered popular or readily available to the general public.

    • July 15, 2014 5:45:38 PM PDT
    • I was raised Anglican. Around high school, I explored Eastern religions out of curiousity, starting with Islam. Read some of the Koran (English trans.) During college I took several courses on religion, the philosophy of religion, and Eastern relgions and Eastern philosophy. Read the Tao Te Ching and the Dhammapada.

      Right now, I have the belief that God isn't personified. It's about us being part of the One and the One being in all. It's complicated, yet so simple.

      I recommend reading "As A Man Thinketh", this sums up what I currently try to follow.

    • May 26, 2014 5:41:27 PM PDT
    • I see, an Agnostic Atheist... so you're not sure if atheists exist. There might be Atheists in the world, but one can never be certain. Got it. :D

    • May 12, 2014 8:30:34 PM PDT
    • I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist, where Agnosticism is a position of knowledge and Atheism is a position of belief. I don't know if a god or gods exist, I think the existence is unknowable, and I see no reason to believe in their existence. A Gnostic Atheist would claim to know with absolute certainty and reject the existence altogether. I've just never been a believer although my family are largely non-denominational. I found a passion for science before I was made aware of The Holy Bible.

      As far as any kind of spirituality, I do have some views, that are largely science driven, which are similar to the views of a good friend and vocalist for our band, who considers himself a Secular Buddhist as well as an INFP. Ah, we do have some great conversations with regards to the complexities of the human experience and nature of the universe.

    • April 7, 2014 4:25:11 AM PDT
    • <blockquote><strong><a href="/profile/DKmarsh">DKmarsh</a> said:</strong><br />I'm a dietist like Thomas Jefferson. I think that whatever created the origin of the universe and the Big Bang had some kind of a higher power, but what came after purely follows the laws of physics set forth by the original creator.</blockquote><br />LOL @ dietist:) deist you meant, I guess (this shouldn't come as a surprise from an INFJ)

      I'll have to agree with TimidTraveler, what you said there sounds quite like me. I'd like to consider myself eclectic, but I'm mostly science oriented, keeping in mind that everything is to be questioned and humankind is far from perfect and omniscient. Since I consider faith to be immanent and inherent (yes, to me, even atheism is a belief-system of not believeing in a Creator), if I had to pick an already existing moral and spiritual codex, it would definitely be Buddhism. In the way Bertrand Russell did.

    • March 26, 2014 10:58:01 AM PDT
    • I simply think that the beauty of the universe and the complexity of people could only have been created by another Person all powerful and without a beginning. As a scientist I look for adequate causes. The Christian God seems to fit that description the best.

    • March 24, 2014 12:16:00 AM PDT
    • I am Agnostic/Buddhist. I follow the Buddhist mindset of showing unbiased compassion, non-violent actions, and seeing equal value in all living things (not a vegetarian though); however, I don't believe in reincarnation or having a soul. I think it may be easier to accomplish the Buddhist teachings as an INTP when the belief itself tells you to question whatever ideas you don't agree with to have open discussions, to see things from every angle and view the world without judgement.

      I have been asked if I believe in God I said no then they asked why. My response "If God exists then God exists, if God doesn't exist then God doesn't exist; whether or not I choose to believe is irrelevant, it changes nothing."

      I am however science driven, I have no qualms about a Universe that formed without the aid of a higher entity. I have many theory ideas that I need to get off my ass, write the proposals, and submit them in, but I tend to put it off all the time. I said I would do it 4 months ago and here I am still haven't done it.

    • March 23, 2014 6:25:55 PM PDT
    • Interesting. I see people leaving their religion every day. I think I may leave mine for life, but I'm not honestly sure yet. We'll see. :)

    • March 23, 2014 5:46:43 AM PDT
    • Also along the lines of religion, I was talking with my mother the other day and her friend told her of a study that only one or two percent of people in the world are able to leave their original faith for an other faith. Sounded like it was just too much for the rest of the population, too intense. I have met people that stopped being religious and they don't want to have anything to do with any other religion after leaving their particular faith. I have also met people that have left their faith in order to pursue an other one. I wonder what the relation between personality types and that are???

      If you know of this article/study please share.

    • March 23, 2014 5:25:40 AM PDT
    • I've studied Christianity my whole life (used to be one til 3 years ago) Judaism, Islam and various other religions from a historical and scientific view. I would say I adhere to Judaism but I don't want to convert and it's difficult to understand the whole "God" concept.

      This is a really great video on the existence of a "God", "Entity" or "Creator" from a scientific standpoint. It doesn't subscribe to any religion except toward the end it claims all the evidence proves one particular religion but they give no evidence at all to back that up. Anyhow it's a great video, I watch it all the time.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE
      "The Signs of God's Existence"

    • March 13, 2014 11:50:45 AM PDT
    • Logical reasoning implies that if a house had a designer, builder, then objects with greater complexity require greater complexity of design, and higher intelligence to create. The earth is more complex than a house. DNA is so complex it had to be designed, and the universe could not have happened by mere chance. The book of creation points to a Grand Designer. The Bible gives him a name: Jehovah.

    • March 11, 2014 9:15:27 PM PDT
    • I believe that every soul is part of the conscious universe, that separation is an illusion, that to harm one harms all to help one helps all. I'm influenced by taoism, buddhism, confucianism, new age thought shamanism, and consider myself a pantheistic shaman complete with spirit quests (I use meditation techniques not drugs). I go to a Unitarian Universalist church with people of all faiths and non-faiths. I have strong roots in christianity and after a grieving period I went through have learned to be glad for the wisdom there too. I'm also an avid believer in the scientific method.

    • February 20, 2014 1:38:06 PM PST
    • PremiumG said:
      Thank you all for your input! :D I was raised in a United Methodist Christian family; however, a few years through college, and a wonderful book later, I am starting to open my mind towards another option: Taoism. Granted, I have only read the Tao Te Ching once, and have not had any family issues regarding our spiritual beliefs and practices. I always wish and intend to stay open minded towards all beliefs.

      One of my former teachers identified as Taoist, and seemed very peaceful and content with his beliefs. I've wondered about the specifics of them ever since . . . struck me as very interesting.

    • January 4, 2014 12:06:40 AM PST
    • I'm fairly thoroughly agnostic, but as I enjoy creating and utilizing models and systems, I've created my own religion, and I have a Doctor Of Divinity from the Universal Life Church to back it up. Philosophically, I'm somewhere in between Taosim and Epicureanism, while theisticly speaking, I believe in an atheistic (ex nihilo) creation of the universe, but tend to model the entire universe as a pantheistic super-organism. I practice Chaos Magick (a psycholocial form of occultism), freely mixed with Haitian Vodou, Obeah, Quimbanda, traditional Mayan and Aztec religion, Slavic paganism, relgious Taoism, Buddhism, Sufism, Thelema, fairy faith, modern and acient scientific theories and anthing else that strikes my fancy, or seems to be useful in some way. I've created my own, cosmology, cosmogenesis, sacred alphabet, language, and numerological system (based on the repeating 24 number sequence of the digital root of the fibonacci sequence), If anyone is interested, or would like to join (or sell their soul to me), I can draw, and send you a pamphlet, which would rival that of any Chick Publication.

      Generally, when anyone asks, I either tell then that I'm agnostic, that I'm a philosophical Taoist, or that I practice Vodou. All of which are equally true and false...ect. I don't exactly take anything seriously, but neither to I consider it a joke, exactly.

    • July 16, 2013 6:36:03 AM PDT
    • A system of ordered chaos