It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does striving to be a good person lead to higher consciousness?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Oh come on, that's not very fair now is it? Not all spiritual people deny science, some see it as a means to understand what is outside of self, but they also understand that science can't understand what is inside of us.

What is consciousness but the immaterial "substance" that allows for scientific discovery to take place? One leads to the other, not the other way around. You can be both scientific and spiritual at the same time, there's no need for a division between the two, they're two sides of the same coin.
edit on 5/12/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Aphorism

Oh come on, that's not very fair now is it? Not all spiritual people deny science, some see it as a means to understand what is outside of self, but they also understand that science can't understand what is inside of us.

What is consciousness but the immaterial "substance" that allows for scientific discovery to take place? One leads to the other, not the other way around. You can be both scientific and spiritual at the same time, there's no need for a division between the two, they're two sides of the same coin.


3NL- I agree. I was listening to Russell Brand speak to the Cambridge Union. He reminded us all that our eyes only see a narrow stream of light within actual reality, our ears only hear a narrow band of reality's entire frequency range, and our sense of taste, touch and feelings are all only partial interpretations of actual reality. Very wise, I'm sure these are not his original thoughts, as he is always quoting, while he rants.

So knowing all this, our understanding of Science is still only a partial understanding of universal omnipotent science. I suspect a large portion of the blanks in our understanding lies heavily within the spiritual realm. Skeptics say its all wishy washy and unreliable and un provable buts that's because it's one of our yet to be discovered blind spots in our scientific methodology. When the two roads of spirit and science finally converge only then will the veil be lifted from our consciousness; then our purpose and overstanding will be made obvious and clear.

Ahhh, glad to get that thought out. :0 have at it.


edit on 13-5-2014 by sparrowstail because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
Hitler. Stalin and Mao thought they were doing the correct thing.

originally posted by: sparrowstail
But what about those who dedicate their lives to good? Ghandi, Dali lama, mother Teresa, etc. Were these folks oscilating at a higher frequency in their purity and desire to do good?

originally posted by: Kashai
They were defined in history as people who never killed or harmed anyone...

History has been tampered with and everything we see through the eyes of the MSM is a complete illusion of reality.

His "Holiness" the Dali lama doesn't even believe in God and Ghandi was a total fraud as well.

The secrets of enlightenment and higher consciousness are all a part of this grand illusion.


"The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind" - Rousseau

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

During his period as a law student in London, he joined the Theosophical Society and may have been recruited by MI-6. Ghandi was assassinated because he was an Illuminati agent who had betrayed the Hindu cause. As a Freemason employed by MI6, Gandhi's main role was to partition India in order to set it up for future conflict. His London Diary recorded this period in his life, but all but 20 pages have mysteriously disappeared. The surviving pages actually describe Gandhi's initiation to the Third Degree of Freemasonry in coded language, something only a Freemason scholar would notice.

Was Mahatma Gandhi an Illuminati Pawn?

The Dalai Lama is just another regime change tool used and funded by the Luciferian New World Order Puppet Masters to destabilize nations and destroy many sincere people who want to get closer to their higher purpose and find meaning of their existence in this world. Mr. Tenzin Gyatsu, whilst claiming to be a spiritual leader, a holy man, and a man of peace, is actually on the payroll of the C.I.A.

The DALAI LAMA is a Luciferian Disciple

The quote below from a film called "The Perfect Stranger" (@ 28:50 min.) is much closer to reality than what mainstream propaganda tells us:


Niki: “Are you saying that to God, Mother Teresa and Hitler are essentially the same?”

Jesus: “Oh no no... Hitler was horribly evil. Mother Teresa did many good things.

Jesus: What I'm saying is Mother Teresa, in her own goodness, is no closer to bridging the gap to God than Hitler is.

Jesus: Both of them based on their own merits were still a long way from being with God.

Jesus: God's standard is perfection.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: sparrowstail
Do atheists believe in a spiritual side that can be cultivated in some way, perhaps changing the destiny or karmic potentials leading to a more prosperous life? Or do we think that there is no right or wrong or progressive evolutionary step attached to morals, values and ethics and leading a righteous life. That these concepts are only subjective applications and not universal truths.


Atheist simply means disbelief in the existence of deities. Just like any other group they are made up of a diverse range of individuals. Atheists can still be spiritual. For example, they can believe in the existence of a higher self or the existence of a higher realm/dimension that one can aspire to reach through good actions/karma/altruism.

I am agnostic, but my personal belief is that there are no right, wrong or progressive evolutionary steps attached to morals, values and ethics and leading a righteous life. I believe they are subjective applications and not universal truths.

What is the way toward spiritual growth? I don't know.


I am truly curious about the prevalent views here on ATS regarding ego, selfishness, greed, narcissism, and selflessness


This will sound pessimistic, but it seems most people tend to be "good, altruistic and selfless" because it has been ingrained into them that these ideals are to be strived for and will bring them happiness and personal fulfilment the more they can practice them.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Oh come on, that's not very fair now is it? Not all spiritual people deny science, some see it as a means to understand what is outside of self, but they also understand that science can't understand what is inside of us.

What is consciousness but the immaterial "substance" that allows for scientific discovery to take place? One leads to the other, not the other way around. You can be both scientific and spiritual at the same time, there's no need for a division between the two, they're two sides of the same coin.


Very few people believe in substance dualism any more. I see you are one of them. What if science was to say that they do not know nor cannot define consciousness? Do you simply disagree with that? How could you say it allows for anything if you nor anyone knows what it is?

I think it is fair and adequate. Every time someone says "scientists are just now discovering what the ancients have always known", I ask them to show me what the ancients knew, and I always get pointed to pseudoscience, or in other words, not science. So I'll ask you; "what are scientists just now discovering, that the ancients already knew?"

They are not two sides of the same coin. There is no coin. And you are right, there is no division between science and spirituality because they have nothing to do with each others; there is only a division between science and pseudoscience. Which one will you choose?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

I would agree that science does not know or cannot define what consciousness is. Do you disagree that consciousness allows for scientific discoveries to be made? If so, why? Just because something cannot be defined or understood does not mean it doesn't exist or doesn't allow for something else to take place.

Life allows for experience to take place, but since life is not fully understood, that means it doesn't allow for experience in your opinion? That's what I'm getting from you here.

Oh, and not very many people believed that the Earth revolved around the sun a few centuries ago, that doesn't mean the idea of it was wrong.
edit on 5/13/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




I would agree that science does not know or cannot define what consciousness is. Do you disagree that consciousness allows for scientific discoveries to be made? If so, why? Just because something cannot be defined or understood does not mean it doesn't exist or doesn't allow for something else to take place.


To answer that question I'd have to know what consciousness is. Just because something cannot be defined or understood also does not mean that it does exist or does allow for something else to take place.


Life allows for experience to take place, but since life is not fully understood, that means it doesn't allow for experience in your opinion? That's what I'm getting from you here.

Oh, and not very many people believed that the Earth revolved around the sun a few centuries ago, that doesn't mean the idea of it was wrong.


I'm speaking about consciousness, not life. They are two entirely different concepts.

A few centuries ago, everyone believed in substance dualism, just like they believed that everything evolves around the earth.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: sparrowstail

This in no way is meant to ridicule. If it comes across that way, please take me to task and accept my apologies in advance.

What does one mean by "higher consciousness"? Is this the metaphysical form, where you "evolve" you soul via multiple lifetimes and living according to a plan? If so, I get it and no further explanation is needed. If not, please elaborate so I can understand.

Beyond that, striving to be a good person can be a lame cop out. Every sociopath on the planet is always striving to be a better person. Just ask them after they screw up and they'll tell you. The difference is actually being mindful of lifes decisions.

That, once done by habit, will automatically make you a better person. People who are not mindful tend to be selfish without realizing it.

Or, to put it another way: you cannot expect to develop a consciousness without exercising via conscious acts.
Be aware of what you do and that around you, and then act mindfully.

Once you do that, who cares about the rest?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Higher or not higher conciousness. There is no strive...
:-)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Does doing good things mean you are striving towards a higher conscience. In my humble opinion, no, you are striving towards fulfilling inate drives deep inside (like lust but not wrapped up that way). My belief is that our system of right and wrong is based n the fact that deep inside we are pack animals. We need each other and acceptance from the group to survive. We are like dogs or wolves (I was told by an animal expert that the cruelest punishment you can do to a dog is turn your back on it). So doing "good things" which usually mean doing deeds for other people is showing/getting our acceptance into the pack. Would doing the "good" things be classed as good if we were lone animals?

As for higher self, this is the logical, weigh up with mathematics the correct decision, but always being pulled by the much older emotive brain.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Hey there.

I want to tell you a vague story. I used to be a questionable kid. A person most people would view as "bad" or "selfish." I had a jaded childhood, but that doesn't completely excuse some of the things I did in the past.

Now, because of those instances, I try VERY hard to be a good person. Always listen, never be the one to fly off the handle. Never be the first to strike someone. See all sides of every argument, give second chances, forgive the unforgivable, etc etc...

Its a wonderful, enlightening, and albeit exhausting way to live.

Sometimes, I'll look back and think, Why can't I just be the way I used to be? It was so much easier.

Then I remember; Oh yeah. I used to be a terrible person. Not going back there again.

It takes a lot more to step outside yourself for the sake of other people. Its much more difficult than expressing yourself based upon your own views and impulses, though while its harder, its so much better. You almost never care if people acknowledge what you're doing, because its such a pure and virtuous reward in itself.

Even if you have no spiritual beliefs, you should agree that adopting a humble and generous disposition is incredibly enlightening. Anyone who's experienced the cliche transformation from "bad" to "good" will understand me here.

As a short answer to your OP-- yes. Definitely.



edit on Xx25840431PM54 by XxNightAngelusxX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: templar knight
Does doing good things mean you are striving towards a higher conscience. In my humble opinion, no, you are striving towards fulfilling inate drives deep inside (like lust but not wrapped up that way). My belief is that our system of right and wrong is based n the fact that deep inside we are pack animals. We need each other and acceptance from the group to survive. We are like dogs or wolves (I was told by an animal expert that the cruelest punishment you can do to a dog is turn your back on it). So doing "good things" which usually mean doing deeds for other people is showing/getting our acceptance into the pack. Would doing the "good" things be classed as good if we were lone animals?

As for higher self, this is the logical, weigh up with mathematics the correct decision, but always being pulled by the much older emotive brain.


I don't think logic vs emotion is a legitimate argument, because a person is functioning incomplete without the use of both of them. I'd like you to watch something.



I know its just a scene from a video game, but consider the point that's being made. The brain cannot feel the way a person feels without those key glands and hormones, while the person cannot think logically and coldly with those glands and hormones. The character says; "So we're at an impass. I can't think the way you think, and you can't feel the way I feel."

The character also says; "Why don't we just admit we're incomplete without one another?"

Yes, the character is talking to his/her own brain. Its weird. I know.

But the point is, people truly are incomplete when they disregard either logic or emotion. They must use both and apply both in their lives, decisions, and moral choices, otherwise their decision is lacking in one respect or another.

For "enlightenment" or a "higher consciousness," wouldn't it make more sense to embrace both emotion and logic? Blinding yourself to one of them only limits you. It may be a little maddening, but both of them are needed. That's why we have them. Like Yin and Yang; One cannot exist without the other.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism
Friend you really need to fact check your comments. Just between Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism there are about 5.3 billion members.

Atheism accounts for about 150 million and the rest adhere to other systems of religious beliefs.

Science is in no position to qualify or disqualify God based upon a measurement problem. Science cannot qualify or disqualify Psi because it would need to test the population. In this case that means testing every living human on the planet, would qualify the conclusion deductively.

To Qualify or Disqualify God the same applies but in that case the population is the Universe.

That could take a Billion years or more for mankind to comprehend.

In the meantime there are ways to relate to what the ancients presented that fall outside the norm.

Any thoughts?
edit on 13-5-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Maybe for some people, but it usually just causes me to get tired of trying and get drunk and become unconscious sometimes.

So I guess I end up in a lower consciousness from trying to be a good person in a way...

I'm HALF kidding.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Raising your consciousness will naturally lead you to be a "better" person, that is really the best and the only way to do it, not the other way around.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Most people who use the word "God" attach way too much importance to that word, and believe because they know the word they also know the unknowable.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
God knows what God is.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid
Say no to drugs.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
To the OP: Striving to be a good person presupposes knowing what a good person is and knowing what a good person is presupposes knowing what a person is. Knowing what a person is is achieved through meditation. When you know what a person is, all questions related to being a person can be answered very easily.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit
One way of understanding a person is as an object that engages in non-random behavior. This in an environment that conservative scientist claim is random at the quantum scale. Based upon evidence the Universe we comprehend today
originated from quantum processes.

In context, from Quantum processes emerged Classical ones and their must be a reason.

In other words as defined a random system generated a non-random one.

Unless in a way what we do not fully comprehend is that quantum process non-random in some altogether way.

The issue of the measurement problem is one of assuming that inductive reasoning somehow is absolute by minimalists.

Minimalist claims are wrong because they are not based upon tests of populations.

Any thoughts?
edit on 13-5-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join