Faith

I am responding to Meghan Cooney's blog question: Question: Do you think it is possible to ever have no faith of any kind in anything?

I think that is possible.... if we are talking about a rock or some other form of inanimate object. Otherwise, my answer is no. I think people will always have faith in something. My perception of faith is that it is something you trust. Something you know will happen, or not necessarily will happen, but you hope it will. I have faith towards many things. I do not have faith in the general context that you would here it being applied to though. Specifically towards god or any other form of higher being. If anything I have faith in myself to do the right thing and create a good life for myself. I think everyone has some sort of faith.
question: I find it interesting that people have so many different definitions/ perceptions of what a word is/means. Why does this happen?

Greater beings....

In response to Alex's post In repsonse to Bryan's post. I think that you do not need to believe in a greater being. I think that people create these greater beings because they are scared of the truth; that there is nothing but us in the world. And if there is a god, most of the time he's not going to help you." I think that people want to believe that they can't be hurt and that nothing unfortunate will happen to them so they create these beings. Mainly, I think that people just do not want to take responsibility for their lives. I think that Instead of praying, people need to go out and make their own miracles. I think that people can do good without believing in a higher being. We all have the same abilities, and I think as long as you have goals in life, that you will do fine. You do not need a god giving you all kinds of rules and watching you constantly, to live a good, moral life. I have nothing wrong with religion, and I think it is nice that everyone in their specific religions get along so great, but I am not religious, and I do not believe there is a being watching over me, or that if i do wrong that I will go to hell when i die. I have a good life though, and I get a lot done. I am also a fairly moral person, even though I do not go to church. I think this is because all people are good at heart and they don't need a god to tell them how to behave. I like to look at most religions as suggestions. I think that is the most productive way to go about things because then you can decide what is right and wrong for yourself.
Question: What do you think?

Is it worth it?

One thing I was wondering this week when we were discussing Buddhism was whether I could do parts of it and whether it would be worth it or not. Specifically, I was thinking about suffering's end with the end of desire. The chapter in the book says that to eliminate suffering you have to reach a neutral feeling. No anger, no happiness, just neutral. I do not know if it would be worth it to give up those feelings. I like to feel desire towards certain things and I think that suffering is worth it, if you gain happiness from it. For example, when I go to the gym I always have trouble reaching my goals, and I feel like I am going to pass out when I am done. That exhaustion is worth it when I am done working out, because I know I will look better and feel healthier later. I really like Buddhism In general, but I don't like some of the small ideas that are part of it. I think parts of it I already follow; I try to lead a moral life and stay positive, even though I do not know all the answers. On page 95 it says that you would have to renounce yourself and your desires to escape suffering. I really do not like that you have to renounce yourself. I like the things that make me, me. I could not imagine just sitting there and being neutral or not liking any of the things I do now.
question: Would you give up your feelings and your life if it meant no more suffering? if it changed the way you lived and thought?

Living Forever

In response to Laura's question, would you like to live forever?
My answer depends because after having a discussion with many of my floor mates and some of our class mates about this topic, I realized that there are different perceptions of immortality. I perceive immortality to involve living forever and never aging. Someone else suggested that you would live forever but,(similar to some Greek mythology,)over time you would age. Another suggestion was that you could be immortal, but there is something that could kill you, which i personally think is contradictory, so I will not be addressing that as an option. If I had the chance to live forever but I had to age, I think I would do it as long as I had the ability to change my appearance. If I had regenerating skin or something and I could not have plastic surgery and stuff then I wouldn't do it, because I would not be happy being that old looking. I know that sounds shallow, but everyone is at least a little shallow, so whatever. If the case of the matter was that you never aged, then I would definitely do it, despite the consequences. I think I would be sad watching all my friends and family members dying around me, but the positive experiences I gained would outweigh the pain I would experience. I would be around long enough to collect money, and see the world. After awhile, I would have enough money to make a difference. I would also have an extended knowledge of the world and the way things work. There are so many things to learn in this world and I think it would be fantastic to learn them all. One thing in-particular I think about is my art. All these famous painters spent lifetimes creating their masterpieces. I wonder what could be done if someone were to live forever, and whether the artwork would actually be any better. I mean, there is only so much you can do before something becomes overdone, but at the same time, there is so much detail in the world we don't notice. Do you think having an infinite amount of time will make a difference when creating a masterpiece?

Natural selection...

The other day we talked about why Darwin's views have political flaws. We said one reason was because people do not like the idea that they will be separated into groups and that natural selection would occur. I think Hitler had an idea that related to Darwinism and it is just not morally acceptable with people. You cannot have superior races I think. There are just too many different traits that apply to different people that work for them, that it would be too difficult to pick and choose which traits are the right ones and the wrong ones. Also, Natural selection is a problem because you do not want it to happen to you, and I believe people have a natural inclination to help one another. I do not think natural selection could occur because people would not just sit by and watch their fellow man die.
I think that genocide is very closely related to the ideas of natural selection, and it worries me because when you put the words down on paper you're like" I would never let something like this happen, that is terrible!" but we let it happen all the time. There have been genocides going on for years in different places, and we all say that it is awful, but i feel like we don't do anything to fix the problem.I do not like the idea of natural selection, so am i being biased by thinking that it does not/ would not take place amongst people? I feel like people are naturally good; if this is true, then why do they let genocides happen? What is going on in the world right now? ( Concerning genocide or anything related to natural selection.)

No more gym class?

One day in class, we talked briefly about gym classes and the presidential fitness tests and stuff that you had to pass in order to graduate. I thought that was really interesting and I wanted to talk more about it. It bothers me that people don't have to exercise as much as they used to. Here is what bothers me the most. When I was a little girl, I didn't have a lot of toys and things to maintain my attention, so I would play outside. I remember more then anything that all the neighborhood kids would drop everything to go outside and play too. Where I lived, you went home from school, got your homework done as fast as you could, and played outside. There are so many things to do now a days, that I feel like no one wants to go and play outside. Television and the internet have made people lazy. In gym class, everyone complains about having to walk, not even run, but walk the one mile around the track. I used to look forward to gym class. I thought it was like having extended recess. I think that more should be done to keep kids in shape in schools. They should have gym class at least 3 times a week all year. It's just healthier that way.
question: Do you think that it is better to have gym, or be done with it? Do we really need gym classes? Will our society eventually break into parts where we have the hardly active shut-ins, and the extremely active people who exercise all the time? If that did happen, Could these two groups coexist? or would Darwin's theory of evolution kick in? (you dont have to answer all the questions, I just wanted to ask all these because they were on my mind.)

Pinocchio Paradox

Awhile ago in class we talked about a paradox with Pinocchio's nose. I recently found a website with a statement claiming to refute this paradox and I found it quite interesting. I think it is slightly ridiculous but I liked the points it made all the same. Maybe you will like it too. Here is the link- http://www.dump.com/2010/02/13/pinocchio-paradox-solved/