Do you believe in God and why

[Skeptic7]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a honest answer, and i agree to an extent. 

Yet if i imagine looking at our world from a distance, as a unity, i can't help to ask myself, what's the purpose of all that.

 

You say: " there's not inherent purpose "..

..I have many doubts about that, even if i have to concede that the same thought is crossing my mind on occasion. 

Sure, but just asking that question of purpose doesn't mean there is one...or any. No idea what's meant by 'as a unity'. Regardless, likely most people ponder that at some point. Some see no purpose, some "find" it, some make it, others need it, while still others are continually searching. 

 

I contend there is no inherent purpose and have little doubt. You disagree, though not 100%, but have many doubts. Since you assumed that non-believers have no purpose and proposed that question, I now feel inclined to ask you...do believers all have a purpose? If so...what is it? Is it the same purpose for all? I'm guessing surely not to that last query, which is why I said earlier that my answer of making (or finding) our own applies to non-believers as well as believers. 

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

but humans are obviously not satisfied with just existing, and that's the most striking difference between us and all the other forms of life.

Sorry. This statement needs some support. What, exactly is the difference between human existence and that of other forms of life?

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Every honest question is for scientific reasons.

Bullfeathers. "Have you seen the tv remote?"

 

Awaiting the number of degrees of separation to make that honest question scientific.

[mauGR1]

33 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Bullfeathers. "Have you seen the tv remote?"

 

Awaiting the number of degrees of separation to make that honest question scientific.

Wake up, i am obviously meaning "scientific " as "willing to know ".

I thought it was obvious. 

Science means knowledge, understand?

[mauGR1]

42 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Sorry. This statement needs some support. What, exactly is the difference between human existence and that of other forms of life?

Just look and switch on the thinking machine !

Warning: my observations may differ from yours  ????

[mauGR1]

51 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

No idea what's meant by 'as a unity'. Regardless, likely most people ponder that at some point. Some see no purpose, some "find" it, some make it, others need it, while still others are continually searching. 

 

Have you ever seen  pictures of planet earth taken from different altitudes,  there are a few taken from the moon too.

Well, it's not that difficult to imagine the planet as a unity, with all its living beings.

Some could say it's a wonderful work of engineering. 

As for the individual sense of purpose, yep everyone is different, sometimes extremely complicated, , as a great master said,  every single human, in a way, is a species himself. 

[Sunmaster]

I think the purpose of life is certainly more than passing on one's genes, at least for me.
Without going into too much metaphysical stuff, I think life's purpose is simply learning. Learning about your true self and re-connecting with All There Is.
Learning is good, whether you believe in reincarnation, an eternal afterlife or nothing at all.
For someone like me, who believes in reincarnation, this learning just fits into a bigger context compared to someone who believes death is the end of all.

Also, from reading the latest posts, it seems we are looking at each other's believe systems (believers VS non believers) with the suspicion that the other side might not live life to its fullest. 
Atheists look at believers and think believers don't live in the moment, because they either have a safety net called heaven, or get another chance in the next life.

Believers look at atheists and can't imagine that they could enjoy life in all of its nuances, because they can't see the bigger picture and see them living in a world where nothing really matters.

 

There is probably some truth in all of these, but I think that generally speaking, we all try to make the best out of it with whatever cards we were dealt with.
Most of my friends are atheists and on the surface I see them coping with the same struggles and enjoying the good times like everyone else. It's only when you dig deeper that you find the bigger differences. Many of them are afraid of death and even avoid talking about it, which in my mind is really weird. Personally, I'm not afraid of dying. It actually fascinates me greatly and I think that, together with birth and giving birth, it's the most significant moment in one's life.

[Skeptic7]

57 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Believers look at atheists and can't imagine that they could enjoy life in all of its nuances, because they can't see the bigger picture and see them living in a world where nothing really matters.

I know you're generalizing and saying many believers look at atheists living in a world where nothing really matters...but that stigma, that stereotype couldn't be more inaccurate and undeserved. Just to clarify and correct this false attribute...many/most of my friends are atheists too and all live their lives like EVERYTHING really matters. From personal responsibility, children and family, friends and loved ones to pets, environment and simply being decent people. 

 

To be clear...I don't believe you think this, but majority of believers do and it just couldn't be further from the truth and reality. 

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Just to clarify and correct this false attribute...many/most of my friends are atheists too and all live their lives like EVERYTHING really matters. From personal responsibility, children and family, friends and loved ones to pets, environment and simply being decent people. 

 

To be clear...I don't believe you think this, but majority of believers do and it just couldn't be further from the truth and reality. 

Ok, so after praising yourself and your atheist friends as the true pillars or society, you are saying that most of the dumb, biased believers couldn't be further from truth and reality...

That sounds so unbiased,  why didn't i think about it before...

Oh well, perhaps I should consider becoming an atheist then ????

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I know you're generalizing and saying many believers look at atheists living in a world where nothing really matters...but that stigma, that stereotype couldn't be more inaccurate and undeserved. Just to clarify and correct this false attribute...many/most of my friends are atheists too and all live their lives like EVERYTHING really matters. From personal responsibility, children and family, friends and loved ones to pets, environment and simply being decent people. 

 

To be clear...I don't believe you think this, but majority of believers do and it just couldn't be further from the truth and reality. 

Yes, that's what I mean. 

I think there is really no difference in the way a believer or non believer live their lives. Believing doesn't make you a better person, nor a more caring one, nor a more responsible one. Same thing for non believers. 

Of course, by now you probably know that I consider "believing" is not enough and therefore always push for direct experience. I don't consider believing as an indicator for moral or ethical behavior. Remember the bible thumpers here on the thread....praising the Lord on one hand, and with the other dispensing eternal damnation? ????

 

I think that it is the direct experience that is the true jump in quality and no amount of mere believing will equal even a short moment of true direct experience. That said, direct experience can come in many forms....a sudden insight for example...and doesn't have to be linked by the recipient to anything spiritual or mystical. With that I want to say that everyone is always linked to All-There-Is, and All-There-Is is always in communication with us. How we interpret this communication, either from an atheist or theist point of view or somewhere in between, is where we can see what kind of a person someone is.

 

Sorry for the convoluted post, but I'm writing while thinking, so it may not make much sense.

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

In fact i was talking about existence in general, including basic elements, minerals,  plants and animals, while the quote I added refers to human existence. 

In that case, there are trillions upon trillions of answers. If you were to ask what is the purpose of just one type of atom, such as Carbon, there'd be millions of answers. You'd have to explore all the many different chemicals that include Carbon as an essential element, and explore their numerous, essential benefits for specific outcomes.

 

For example, Carbon is essential for all types of life. No Carbon = No Life. However, the Carbon atoms are attached to many other atoms in different ways and quantities, and the resulting molecules have different purposes.

 

A very basic example is Carbon Dioxide, which consists of one Carbon atom joined to two Oxygen atoms. This molecule is essential for all plant growth. If there was no Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, there'd be no plants, no forests, no animals, no biodiversity. What a terrible pollutant is CO2. ????

 

"Imho, reproduction and the drive to reproduce should be included into "mere existence ", but humans are obviously not satisfied with just existing, and that's the most striking difference between us and all the other forms of life."

 

Are you not aware that all species fight and compete, not only for survival, but to reproduce? Do you think that cuddly creatures like Koala Bears are satisfied with 'mere existence'? If so, why do male Koala Bears sometimes fight to the death with another male in order to mate with a female, as do so many other species?

 

Some animals are able to organize themselves into tribes or societies. Jane Goodall was one of the first to observe a tribe of Chimpanzees marching through a forest to attack another group that would have been competing for food resources, thus demolishing the then-accepted idea that humans were the only species that conducted group warfare.

 

There is a deep, embedded instinct in all animals to reproduce, and they will fight to the death to expand their territory and eliminate competitors for resources. Even though humans have much more complex societies than any other species, we are still driven by that basic instinct to reproduce.

 

Of course that instinct in humans often expresses itself as a striving for wealth and power which might appear to be disassociated from the sexual drive, but don't kid yourself. ????

"So, no, I would not consider reproduction as the purpose of existence, but just a way for existence to renew and evolve itself."

 

Just a way? What do you mean? Is there another way? Surely it's the only way. It's the most fundamental characteristic that defines life and is shared by all life forms. Even if you are infertile, your health is dependent upon trillions of bacteria in your gut, which reproduce continually as they help digest your food. Without them you'd soon die.
 

[mauGR1]

50 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

we are still driven by that basic instinct to reproduce.

 

There's a difference between "being driven " and "having a purpose ".

Do i really need to explain it to you ?

Well, no, pls try to find out by yourself ????

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

There's a difference between "being driven " and "having a purpose ".

Do i really need to explain it to you ?

Well, no, pls try to find out by yourself ????

There are differences between every single thing that exists. Even atoms are different from each other, but things that are different often have fundamental qualities that are the same, or at least similar.

 

What you need to explain is how there can be a purpose without a 'drive' or 'motive' behind it. Perhaps you can give some examples. ????

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There are differences between every single thing that exists. Even atoms are different from each other, but things that are different often have fundamental qualities that are the same, or at least similar.

 

What you need to explain is how there can be a purpose without a 'drive' or 'motive' behind it. Perhaps you can give some examples. ????

There is a subtle difference even between 'drive' and 'motive'.

However, reproduction is a 'drive', but 'purpose ' can overcome the 'drive' if there's a 'motive'.. 

As an example, i may have a 'drive' to drink 1 more beer, but if my 'purpose' is to have longer life, 'purpose' will be at odds with 'drive'.

Sometimes 'purpose ' will win, sometimes it will be defeated by 'drive'.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

There is a subtle difference even between 'drive' and 'motive'.

However, reproduction is a 'drive', but 'purpose ' can overcome the 'drive' if there's a 'motive'.. 

As an example, i may have a 'drive' to drink 1 more beer, but if my 'purpose' is to have longer life, 'purpose' will be at odds with 'drive'.

Sometimes 'purpose ' will win, sometimes it will be defeated by 'drive'.

There are subtle differences between all words, especially 'common' words in everyday language. I'm trying to get behind those differences to identify a fundamental force behind all purposes.

 

Why, for example, would you have a 'purpose' to have a longer life? My answer would be, because that is the nature of all life, to survive and reproduce. You have a 'drive' to live a longer life which is embedded in your nature.

 

Of course, all creatures frequently make mistakes. You drink beer because it makes you feel better or more relaxed, and if there's an attractive lady nearby, an extra beer could encourage you to have sex and procreate. ????

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

There are subtle differences between all words, especially 'common' words in everyday language. I'm trying to get behind those differences to identify a fundamental force behind all purposes.

 

Why, for example, would you have a 'purpose' to have a longer life? My answer would be, because that is the nature of all life, to survive and reproduce. You have a 'drive' to live a longer life which is embedded in your nature.

 

Of course, all creatures frequently make mistakes. You drink beer because it makes you feel better or more relaxed, and if there's an attractive lady nearby, an extra beer could encourage you to have sex and procreate. ????

Yes, what you say makes sense, and i have to concede that sometimes the words 'drive' and 'purpose ' may be interchangeable. 

However, I think that 'purpose ' is more associated with reason and logic,  while 'drive ' is biological. 

By the way, when I brought 'purpose ' in the debate, it was intended as the purpose of the existence of the samsara, which of course has connections to our personal, individual purpose. 

[Sunmaster]

On 8/11/2021 at 4:58 PM, Skeptic7 said:

Been binging it lately. Really good. Here's one am quite certain both you and @mauGR1will like. It's not biased at all (if anything, goes slightly against my side at times) and the host as well as all his interviewees are highly qualified and some well known, including David Chalmers on this one. Extremely professional and well done.

 

 

Very interesting indeed.

What I don't understand is the refusal to take into account the knowledge gathered in 1000s of years by those who studied this very subject of consciousness. 
If the material approach will never be able to determine the source of consciousness as they suggest in the video, because ultimately, consciousness is a subjective experience, wouldn't it make sense to look at the data gathered by those who have in depth explored this subjective experience, instead of dismissing it as woo and such?

Let's take yoga for example, not just the Western "stretchy/feel good" version, but the ones that aim to go to the source of the self through meditation and introspection. The material sciences have validated and confirmed that yoga has indeed physical and mental benefits. Is it logical to assume that yoga is right in these 2 areas, but when it comes to the spiritual, suddenly it is wrong? Or is it more logical to assume that the material approach doesn't have the faculty to validate this area (which, being subjective, it indeed hasn't) and therefore simply denies its existence? 
I said it before: if science were true to its purpose (the search for truth), then it MUST take into account alternative explanations, even if they are uncomfortable and could turn everything we think to be true about life upside down. 
 

[Skeptic7]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Very interesting indeed.

What I don't understand is the refusal to take into account the knowledge gathered in 1000s of years by those who studied this very subject of consciousness. 
If the material approach will never be able to determine the source of consciousness as they suggest in the video, because ultimately, consciousness is a subjective experience, wouldn't it make sense to look at the data gathered by those who have in depth explored this subjective experience, instead of dismissing it as woo and such?

Let's take yoga for example, not just the Western "stretchy/feel good" version, but the ones that aim to go to the source of the self through meditation and introspection. The material sciences have validated and confirmed that yoga has indeed physical and mental benefits. Is it logical to assume that yoga is right in these 2 areas, but when it comes to the spiritual, suddenly it is wrong? Or is it more logical to assume that the material approach doesn't have the faculty to validate this area (which, being subjective, it indeed hasn't) and therefore simply denies its existence? 
I said it before: if science were true to its purpose (the search for truth), then it MUST take into account alternative explanations, even if they are uncomfortable and could turn everything we think to be true about life upside down. 
 

While I understand your point and appreciate it, now more than before...this is far removed from my areas of knowledge, especially from the "spiritual" side. Still interesting and Informative (for me). Where you see dismissals, I see the host being fair, objective and entertaining all sides. (Lots of hmmm I don't know) IMO he's very open and is genuinely seeking answers. I have watched many episodes, so can't remember individual eps in detail. 

 

Certainly it's not perfect for either side, if all we desire is more confirmation of our particular bias. Plenty of channels for that, but for me these usually keep my interest...even the ones with which I disagree. TBH, I have just turned off a few!

 

At the end of almost every show...he doesn't take a side, but rather leaves it for the viewer to decide. 

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

While I understand your point and appreciate it, now more than before...this is far removed from my areas of knowledge, especially from the "spiritual" side. Still interesting and Informative (for me). Where you see dismissals, I see the host being fair, objective and entertaining all sides. (Lots of hmmm I don't know) IMO he's very open and is genuinely seeking answers. I have watched many episodes, so can't remember individual eps in detail. 

 

Certainly it's not perfect for either side, if all we desire is more confirmation of our particular bias. Plenty of channels for that, but for me these usually keep my interest...even the ones with which I disagree. TBH, I have just turned off a few!

 

At the end of almost every show...he doesn't take a side, but rather leaves it for the viewer to decide. 

I didn't mean about this video specifically, but the scientific community in general. I found the video very balanced.
In fact, I'm watching the episode "Is death final?" right now.

 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm watching the episode "Is death final?

Yep saw it. Very unsatisfying for the host, I think, as he wants to be convinced of an afterlife and isn't presented with anything remotely convincing, nor satisfying!

 

Am sure many (you) will disagree, but personally not aware of anyone who speaks as much as Deepak Chopra, while saying absolutely nothing. 

 

[Sunmaster]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

Yep saw it. Very unsatisfying for the host, I think, as he wants to be convinced of an afterlife and isn't presented with anything remotely convincing, nor satisfying!

 

Am sure many (you) will disagree, but personally not aware of anyone who speaks as much as Deepak Chopra, while saying absolutely nothing. 

 

I thought it was unsatisfying to the host, not so much for the lack of convincing evidence, but because he really wanted his ego to be eternal and couldn't face the fact that it is not possible. And every one of his guests told him so, scientists and believers alike. ???? 

I don't like Chopra very much, but I understood very well what he was saying and agree with it. The ego is a construct we build from when we are babies and as such has a beginning and an end. As long as you identify with this impermanent construct, you will fear death, because that means the permanent end of the ego.
If, on the other hand, you learn to become the witness...meaning witness the ego for what it really is (an observable object)...then you will no longer identify with it and you will no longer be afraid of its death. That's what Chopra said and what all mystical schools have been teaching.
It's about finding the true subject within you. It's not the ego (if it can be observed, it can't be the subject), so if it's not the ego, what is it?

[VincentRJ]

The main obstacle in trying to understand the full nature of consciousness is the fact that all our understanding of anything and everything is totally dependent on our consciousness.

 

For example, a meditator can be conscious of the thoughts and experiences that arise in his mind as he sits down peacefully, but he cannot be aware of his faculty of awareness or consciousness. If he claims to be aware only of his consciousness, then one would have to ask what faculty of awareness enables him to be aware of his awareness. Another level of consciousness, perhaps?

 

In other words, there can be no 'awareness of only awareness'. There is always 'something else' required for awareness or consciousness to exist, that is, some perception or feeling either related to what's outside of oneself or what's inside of oneself.

 

Another way of putting it is, if one separates the observer from the observed, there's nothing that is observed. 
 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I thought it was unsatisfying to the host, not so much for the lack of convincing evidence, but because he really wanted his ego to be eternal and couldn't face the fact that it is not possible. And every one of his guests told him so, scientists and believers alike. ???? 

I don't like Chopra very much, but I understood very well what he was saying and agree with it. The ego is a construct we build from when we are babies and as such has a beginning and an end. As long as you identify with this impermanent construct, you will fear death, because that means the permanent end of the ego.
If, on the other hand, you learn to become the witness...meaning witness the ego for what it really is (an observable object)...then you will no longer identify with it and you will no longer be afraid of its death. That's what Chopra said and what all mystical schools have been teaching.
It's about finding the true subject within you. It's not the ego (if it can be observed, it can't be the subject), so if it's not the ego, what is it?

I appreciate your views, but respectfully disagree almost totally. I don't prescribe to most of that and I don't fear death. Another resident atheist here also stated that he didn't either. Just didn't want it to be dreadfully painful. Maybe you'll agree that shedding that ego is not unique to only believers. 

 

I do agree that the host certainly does fear death immensely! ???? So obvious that it was amusing. ????

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Maybe you'll agree that shedding that ego is not unique to only believers. 

Absolutely agree. Shedding the ego can occur due to a number of reasons and being a believer is not a prerequisite for it. However, I would say that once that ego is shed and you're faced with your true nature, well... that experience will likely (not always) make a "believer" out of you. It was exactly like that for me.

 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

every one of his guests told him so, scientists and believers alike

CORRECTION: This should have been in my previous post, but simpler here. 

 

I found myself in disagreement with all of his guests, not so much with your post. Was conflating the two. Except for the Chopra bit! ????

 

An array of really soft-ball guests on the science side, if memory serves. 

[Sunmaster]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The main obstacle in trying to understand the full nature of consciousness is the fact that all our understanding of anything and everything is totally dependent on our consciousness.

 

For example, a meditator can be conscious of the thoughts and experiences that arise in his mind as he sits down peacefully, but he cannot be aware of his faculty of awareness or consciousness. If he claims to be aware only of his consciousness, then one would have to ask what faculty of awareness enables him to be aware of his awareness. Another level of consciousness, perhaps?

 

In other words, there can be no 'awareness of only awareness'. There is always 'something else' required for awareness or consciousness to exist, that is, some perception or feeling either related to what's outside of oneself or what's inside of oneself.

 

Another way of putting it is, if one separates the observer from the observed, there's nothing that is observed. 
 

This is interesting. 
I think this is exactly the goal of meditation. To step back and witness, then step back some more and witness again, and so on. The endpoint of this practice is the merging with the eternal Self, where there are no more objects to be witnessed because all objects are within the Self and not separated from it. 
In that sense, yes, there comes a point when there is nothing to be observed.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Have you ever seen  pictures of planet earth taken from different altitudes,  there are a few taken from the moon too.

Well, it's not that difficult to imagine the planet as a unity, with all its living beings.

Some could say it's a wonderful work of engineering. 

As for the individual sense of purpose, yep everyone is different, sometimes extremely complicated, , as a great master said,  every single human, in a way, is a species himself. 

Some, like myself, regard planet earth as a living organism ( which does not bode well for humans as Gaia seems to be working on various ways to rid the planet of humanity, which is not surprising given our terrible abuse of the environment ), as everything ( except IMO humans ) fills a purpose in nature.

IMO Gaia is as much part of oneness with God as is everything in the universe, all connected.

 

Been some discussion as to purpose. I would not presume to know the answer, but I doubt not that there is one for life the universe and everything within it.

Some are saying that our purpose is to reproduce, but humans can decide not to, unlike lower species that have no control over their genetic programs. Humans are different from other species BECAUSE we have free will.

 

Seems to me that we can either believe in a creator and we are fulfilling some purpose, OR we can believe it's all some random combination of atoms that just happened to magically appear from nothing, and everything we are is in essence nothingness. We just happen and then vanish from existence, our lives without any meaning except to those that knew us, and eventually we will be forgotten by all.

I'll believe in the version with a positive outlook.

Believing in God doesn't make my life as I live it different, but it does give certainty that after my body dies "I" will continue.

[mauGR1]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some, like myself, regard planet earth as a living organism ( which does not bode well for humans as Gaia seems to be working on various ways to rid the planet of humanity, which is not surprising given our terrible abuse of the environment ), as everything ( except IMO humans ) fills a purpose in nature.

IMO Gaia is as much part of oneness with God as is everything in the universe, all connected.

 

Been some discussion as to purpose. I would not presume to know the answer, but I doubt not that there is one for life the universe and everything within it.

Some are saying that our purpose is to reproduce, but humans can decide not to, unlike lower species that have no control over their genetic programs. Humans are different from other species BECAUSE we have free will.

 

Seems to me that we can either believe in a creator and we are fulfilling some purpose, OR we can believe it's all some random combination of atoms that just happened to magically appear from nothing, and everything we are is in essence nothingness. We just happen and then vanish from existence, our lives without any meaning except to those that knew us, and eventually we will be forgotten by all.

I'll believe in the version with a positive outlook.

Believing in God doesn't make my life as I live it different, but it does give certainty that after my body dies "I" will continue.

Investigating the "I " is surely interesting on the way of spiritual development. 

While the "I " can be sometimes a burden, it's in fact a sort of a gift to humans, if we look at the other animals living on this planet. 

Some believe in suppressing the "I " as the goal, but imho, the "I " is like a multi faceted object which is to be polished, to get rid of useless parts. 

Perhaps the goal is to make of our "I " a beautiful work of art.

I am also suspecting that planets, as much as stars, are self-conscious beings. 

What is the solar system if not a giant atom, and what is an atom if not a minuscule solar system?

Space-time could be, after all, just an illusion, which exists as long as our "I " is tied to a human body.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Investigating the "I " is surely interesting on the way of spiritual development. 

While the "I " can be sometimes a burden, it's in fact a sort of a gift to humans, if we look at the other animals living on this planet. 

Some believe in suppressing the "I " as the goal, but imho, the "I " is like a multi faceted object which is to be polished, to get rid of useless parts. 

Perhaps the goal is to make of our "I " a beautiful work of art.

I am also suspecting that planets, as much as stars, are self-conscious beings. 

What is the solar system if not a giant atom, and what is an atom if not a minuscule solar system?

Space-time could be, after all, just an illusion, which exists as long as our "I " is tied to a human body.

I believe that God is outside time, and that when we return to God after our bodies die we will be part of God and also outside time.

[canthai55]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

While the "I " can be sometimes a burden, it's in fact a sort of a gift to humans, if we look at the other animals living on this planet.

You don' think other animal species have a sense of "I" ?

Or plants do not have the same ?

That is so very self centered, and Arrogant

Kinda of like humans be all like "We are the Champions" of the world.