It's time to end humanity.

Here is something I was reading from Mooji earlier today, I think it fits the thread's topic quite well:

"You say, you don't want your person anymore.
You are tired of it, you say.
And all you want is for it to leave you alone.
You, who says this, is who?
Clarify this.
Is the pure Awareness, the Self, saying these things?
Look into it now.
Who is so disturbed?
The one who says ' I want the person to leave me alone', leave that one alone and stay as the voiceless One."

~ Mooji

I have to TOTALLY AGREE! Which button do I push? As an angry monkey in good standing, i face many challenges every day. but i have to tell you, these "humans", they take the cake! Apparently, they can hook up with some all seeing all knowing thing that nobody else can see and nobody else can know! and that makes them far superioir to us every-day, fur collar, hard working angry monkeys! according to the "humans" we should end humanity, and replace it with something different. I suggest shag carpet, or possibly one of those cool camp cots that's a bed and a tent at the same time (those are so awesome!) Just a request. let me know before you push the button. I want to go out and watch the sky melt for one last time. yes, ending "humanity" would be a great idea. it's not as if it existed in the first place! rock on flying spaghetti monsters everywhere!

reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi


To understand the truth as concept, one can look upon honest individuals as trustworthy, to understand responsibility is to pertain that "leaders" suffer punishments for dishonouring thier people.

This is only known through repuation.

AfterInfinity

Chamberf=6
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I think your definition of evolution and mine are a wee bit different.

The changes that marked the transitions between homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo sapiens should illustrate the foundation of my projections. Evolution does have psychological effects, you know.

edit on 18-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Yet I was talking about changes made in just a couple of thousand years in the post before to you, you know.

If you're just talking about slow changes in thinking, well of course--I addressed that earlier to you, you know. But then you said this:

I don't know what evolution will bring us. I do, however, feel that this isn't the end of the road. If a meteor doesn't finish us, we are bound to evolve. Since previous evolutions have yielded leaps in comprehension and imagination, I can only assume the next stage will bring more of the same. We build space shuttles and virtual worlds. We've walked on the moon and photographed atomic shadows. Just imagine what we'll do in a few milennia. As our vision expands, so will our spirituality.

All started with you talking about a new religion created by something other than human, and when asked to clarify you said "evolution will tell".

Are you switching back and forth between physical evolution of whatever the correct term for us walking meat sacks, and the much quicker cultural, psychological, and spiritual evolution meat sacks experience?

I'm asking since you do use the word evolution in both ways, but make it seem like it's all the "same" kind of evolution, you know. If you're going to use the meanings interchangeably from post to post it doesn't really clarify things.

Never! I will let humanity go extinct forever! Because I want to live forever with the help of Star Wars Type III Civilization to colonize other planets across the galaxy!

reply to post by Kashai


I am detecting either a contrarian, or an all knowing monk with an attitude and a liking for one liners meant to sound deep or zen.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Well, you don't see monkeys building rockets, do you? Evolution enabled us to do that. And spirituality is a byproduct of evolution. Monkeys don't bury their dead, but early hominids did. They didn't gather at holy places to worship, but we do. What does that tell you?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Well, you don't see monkeys building rockets, do you? Evolution enabled us to do that.

No kidding! Really?

I think you may have missed a post www.abovetopsecret.com....

But wait! You replied to it and totally missed (or ignored) what I was talking about.

Then in just the last few minutes, you reply above to me after I asked:

Are you switching back and forth between physical evolution of whatever the correct term for us walking meat sacks, and the much quicker cultural, psychological, and spiritual evolution meat sacks experience?

I'm asking since you do use the word evolution, in both ways but make it seem like it's all the "same" kind of evolution, you know. If you're going to use the meanings interchangeably from post to post it doesn't really clarify things.

You ask:

What does that tell you?

It tells me you're not reading my replies to you very well.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

More like God, considering we are made in His image and His likeness. One thing God has never done and that's control His creation. He gave us free will. Choices. People choose to be slaves.

I think it's obvious that this thread isn't about how great God is. Feel free to continue your blind praises, but just remember, you have no customers here. God is not the center of attention. Rather...we are.

edit on 18-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

No one ever mentioned God being great, but you; so what's that say?

WonderBoi

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

More like God, considering we are made in His image and His likeness. One thing God has never done and that's control His creation. He gave us free will. Choices. People choose to be slaves.

I think it's obvious that this thread isn't about how great God is. Feel free to continue your blind praises, but just remember, you have no customers here. God is not the center of attention. Rather...we are.

edit on 18-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

No one ever mentioned God being great, but you; so what's that say?

I've been around ATS long enough to know how the spiel goes. Anyway, let's get back on topic, shall we?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The word "human" being derived from the word "dirt" is speaking about our physical form, the bodies we inhabit. We are not our bodies, we are not dirt and therefore worthless. We are what inhabits our body, we are the observers observing ourselves through the image that we see with. The image we see (vision) is the image of God and we are made in it wnd are it. You never see anything outside of your own perspective so you are your image, not your body.

That's the most dehumanizing, demeaning and contradictory thing I've ever heard said about a human being. This is the result of a conceptualized human up until now: that we are worthless bag of chemicals and bones. I would be happy to facilitate the shedding of the body for people who hold views like this.

reply to post by Aphorism

IMO I took it as him saying "We are not our bodies." (we are more than that--spiritual beings)

And "We are not dirt" (so it means we are not) "therefore worthless".

But maybe that is what you took offense to, so nvm.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

IMO I took it as him saying "We are not our bodies." (we are more than that--spiritual beings)

And "We are not dirt" (so it means we are not) "therefore worthless".

That's exactly how I took him saying it. How are we not our bodies? If we are not our bodies, we are only less-than, and can never be more-than without it. A new conception of human would include the body, wouldn't you agree?

If you think we are not our bodies, you should expedite the process as quick as possible, because frankly we're running out of space around here.

Aphorism
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

IMO I took it as him saying "We are not our bodies." (we are more than that--spiritual beings)

And "We are not dirt" (so it means we are not) "therefore worthless".

That's exactly how I took him saying it. How are we not our bodies? If we are not our bodies, we are only less-than, and can never be more-than without it. A new conception of human would include the body, wouldn't you agree?

If you think we are not our bodies, you should expedite the process as quick as possible, because frankly we're running out of space around here.

So are you saying our essence is our body with nothing inside -- no consciousness/soul/spirit? Your brain uses electrical impulses from neuron to neuron, but does that alone make a person think, feel, have a sense of who they are, interprets their perceptions?

Of course at this moment in time (right this second, and now this second, and now this second) we need our bodies and some people only see us as how our bodies look or move. Others also see the us inside--our thoughts, emotions, how we express our essence (for lack of a better word).

BTW that's real nice that you say in a barely veiled way you would help his body die and suggesting that I kill my body too.

If you think we are not our bodies, you should expedite the process as quick as possible, because frankly we're running out of space around here.

Sorry, am I standing on your foot?

Aphorism
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

IMO I took it as him saying "We are not our bodies." (we are more than that--spiritual beings)

And "We are not dirt" (so it means we are not) "therefore worthless".

That's exactly how I took him saying it. How are we not our bodies? If we are not our bodies, we are only less-than, and can never be more-than without it. A new conception of human would include the body, wouldn't you agree?

If you think we are not our bodies, you should expedite the process as quick as possible, because frankly we're running out of space around here.

Or perhaps, a new conception would reflect the fact that we are essentially the universe observing itself. That's not merely a matter of being physical. That's a matter of your finger acquiring a consciousness of its own and questioning its role in the total function of your anatomy. That's beyond merely being something. That's being someone. You possess identity, and that distinguishes you from the simple reality of pure existence. Like a rock. Rocks possess no feeling, no awareness. They are chunks of mineral. They are inert. You...you have hopes, dreams, fears, and doubts. You have passions and dislikes, loved ones and enemies. You have relationships and you have fruits of your labors. You are someone. Just think about that for a second. Atoms forged in the hearts of stars billions of years ago have coalesced into an organism capable of expressing that history through paintings and songs that inspire thousands of other organisms for just as many years. Or, in your case, a family who will lead by example in the community and demonstrate what it is to be a responsible human being. Hopefully. Things like that aren't as simple as just obeying the laws of physics. That's comprehending the thousands of ways we can go about living every moment of our lives, and choosing to maintain the health and functionality of our society as a team. This affects our communities, our environment, and our future. This is going out of your way to determine the path your people will take, and encouraging others to do the same. Not laying down for the laws of physics to wipe their boots on. Not blindly throwing your cards to the winds of chance and letting the cogs of probability mold your fate. Taking the wheel of fate and steering it. Picking the road you travel. So just because we have bodies, doesn't make us as inconsequential as rocks in the desert. Our bodies are not what define us as a species, but rather, what we do with them. That's what separates us from animals. We do not exist merely to continue existing. We exist to reach higher, further, longer, better. For as long as we are alive, we strive to be better at what we do. To think the excrement of stars long dead has achieved such a stunning transformation is nothing short of awesome. And I think that perhaps this new conception should reflect something of that. Not just the body in and of itself, but the context which gives it meaning and significance. That's my whole point behind the evolution comment I made to Chamber. Evolution is the next "patch" in the game. The next transformation in our star matter. Or so I hope.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

So are you saying our essence is our body with nothing inside -- no consciousness/soul/spirit? Your brain uses electrical impulses from neuron to neuron, but does that alone make a person think, feel, have a sense of who they are, interprets their perceptions?

Of course at this moment in time (right this second, and now this second, and now this second) we need our bodies and some people only see us as how our bodies look or move. Others also see the us inside--our thoughts, emotions, how we express our essence (for lack of a better word).

BTW that's real nice that you say in a barely veiled way you would help his body die and suggesting that I kill my body too.

You minus the body equals what? An "essence"? This might be the most poorly demonstrated concept ever conceived.

What is it besides the body that feels, senses and interprets? Nothing as far as I can tell.

I am saying that people who wish to do without their bodies should do so, quit disparaging it and take that next spiritual step, and prove the body is of little worth.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So just because we have bodies, doesn't make us as inconsequential as rocks in the desert. Our bodies are not what define us as a species, but rather, what we do with them.

Sure that sounds nice and poetic enough for my tastes.

But yes, our bodies are us. We are not rocks in a desert. Our bodies only define our boundaries, and it becomes not what we do with our bodies, but what we do with ourselves.

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

So just because we have bodies, doesn't make us as inconsequential as rocks in the desert. Our bodies are not what define us as a species, but rather, what we do with them.

Sure that sounds nice and poetic enough for my tastes.

But yes, our bodies are us. We are not rocks in a desert. Our bodies only define our boundaries, and it becomes not what we do with our bodies, but what we do with ourselves.

The point was not to sound "nice and poetic". If we are to transcend the traditional understanding of humanity's place in the universe, then we must transcend the traditional understanding of humanity and what it means to be human.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

The point was not to sound "nice and poetic". If we are to transcend the traditional understanding of humanity's place in the universe, then we must transcend the traditional understanding of humanity and what it means to be human.

Absolutely. The universe observing itself might be a little too grand a concept for a purely limited species, however. Maybe the universe observing a tiny tiny piece of itself would suffice?

Thank you, everyone for contributing to this thread and making it a most enjoyable read!

I had a large posting here, but I decided to make it a thread of it's own.
The topic moved too far off this one. Sorry about that. But please, feel free to join me in the other thread.

The thread is called: "Why is there anything instead of nothing?"
It expands on topics that emerged in this one. Like our true nature.

Until next time.