On why I am not a serf of authority and nation

Every man possesses free will as a self-evident self-owner and is free to do whatever he/she wishes so long as their actions do not impinge upon the freedom of another.

No man knows what is best for any other man, let alone everyone.

Humans are merely fortunate primates with a powerful evolutionary tool; we do not own the earth or its creatures and cosmic functionality does not revolve around us.

We do not matter and anyone who thinks otherwise about themselves is self-deluded with pride and egocentrism.

Faith is a leap of logic and rationality and therefore lack of. Logic and rationality is bounded but it is the best tool that we have in order to reach our true potential.

We do not owe any allegiance to any authority or nation; we only owe loving actions to each other on a humanistic level.

Multiverse up to 10th dimension :)

Finally! I understand up to the 10th dimension and can explain (as best as I can in my own words) and illustrate with diagrams!

0: a single point
1: length
2: four directional movement from a point
3: length, height and depth
4: length, height, depth and duration (3 dimension universe at time x -> 3 dimension universe at time x +1)
5: one origin point deviating out into different 4 dimensional possibilities created by chance and decisions etc
6: connections between the different 4 dimensional possibilities/ timelines
7: an infinite universe (infinite timelines from a single origin point) and connections between these infinite universes
8: deviations off connections between different and distinct infinite universes (branes) [because there is infinite scope of movement and choice allowed in the 8th dimension)
9: ability to fold into a previous infinite universe (destination) that I deviated away from
10: infinite interactions between infinite universes to form a single point of infinity (connections, deviations and interactions between deviations)

Now onto 11th...which requires me to understand string theory...which I will get to later :)

Jesse Bering- The God instinct

Some new things that I have learned with regard to this topic from an evolutionary-psychological point of analysis.

I really like Nicholas Humprey's term “society of selves” where we are all but singular bubble of consciousness pressed up against each other essentially inviolate. This reminds me of Dawa's phrase 'familiar strangers'.

More readings on the ‘Theory of mind’ which I first came into contact with by browsing Dawkins.

I seek to find answers on why God and God-related phenomenon such as purpose of life questions are still so seductive and recalcitrant in the 'todays of modern science.'
One interesting example that Bering brought up is the recrded fact that even Helen Keller (uninfluenced by socialization) instinctively asked herself existentialist questions.

The following are the reasons on why God and God-related phenomenon such as purpose of life questions are still so seductive and recalcitrant in the 'todays of modern science.'

1) Piaget’s theory of cognitive development of ‘artificialism’ where children see asoecrs and features of the natural world as existing solely to solve human problems or at least meant for human use never go away; instead they continue cropping up in our mental representations in very subtle ways.

2) We cannot help but apply the ‘intentional stance’ when reasoning about others and events. Natural event which happens by chance is taken as a sign. We try to get into God’s head to explain the unknown. We are more likely to search for meaning whenever others’ behaviors violate our expectations. Autistic individuals have difficult conceptualizing about a God.

3) Egocentrism: Each of us is soundly convinced that God shares our opinions and points of view and thus he would be motivated to help us by giving us hints here and there. That we are more than just animals because we have a brain (our evolutionary tool) which allows us to think that we are not. This coincides with our egocentric approach to the material world and even cosmology (astrology for example with its assumption that the planetary movements have a connection to the mundane events in our lives. It is as if the cosmos "owed us a living.")

4) Death: we cannot imagine it because we have not experienced it. So we use everyday terms and experiences to describe death. We also have person permanence; the idea that someone you know but are not currently seeing is off somewhere doing something. Our language and thoughts about Death are from our experiences while being alive. How then can we not conceptualise of an afterlife? In addition, the theory of an afterlife exists to assuage us about what would otherwise be the crippling anxiety about the ego’s inexistence.

5) Life as fair: searching for fairness in life presupposes an intelligent, morally concerned agent. When it comes to unexpected heartache and tragedy, we crave for meaning. When there is no obvious human agent to blame, we see the hand of God: a ‘God of Gaps’. This is a result of our evolutionary-designed tendency to problem solve. Even when we were occasionally right, it is still a lot better than never attempting to understand and thus solve the problem.

6) God as adaptive illusion: we humans have complex social emotions such as shame and pride which are inhibitory in nature. In laboratory experiments, participants are more likely to act more prosocially (cheat) when cues in the environment suggest that they are being observed. If and when others see us 'cheating'. they become carriers of strategic information and if they tell, we may be punished sooner or later. Other child development studies have shown that as soon as children start talking, tattling to authority figures is rampant and in contras, tootling is vitrually unheard of. This would explain why gossiping has replaced grooming in humans since it is vital to collect strategic information, make adaptive decisions, sew facts and lis ito other's heads that would spread and serve our own selfish interests. But why would we be concerned of negative gossip and being caught cheating? Not cheating is beneficial to us as cheaters are punished, possibly ostracised. Non-cheaters would stand a higher chance of belonging to a larger social group which offered increased protection against threats. In all religions, we then see a similarity in which the central God possesses a deep knowing of people- of thier souls and hearts. This is a common feature of invasive individuation.

All the above features are building blocks upon which transcend religion and cuts acrss almost every single human society. Religion then adapts and comprises the specific content of belief, not what drives belief itself. Thus the famous saying 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."