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.

 

Why Is It So Important To Refute The Religious?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I have no idea what you mean by dissolving an ego.


I will explain then:

Lets say that you are currently identified with fear. This fear is of a speech you might have to do tommorow, it is of something that MIGHT happen, not of something that is happening NOW.

What gives this fear its charge, its energy? Time. Your mind is in the future, and not in the here and the now. If you were in the situation described above, all that is needed is to observe the thoughts of fear. You have not split yourself into two, subject and object, oberver and observed. You are the observer, the ego is the observed. Once you bring conscious presence into those thoughts, you are in the NOW. The ego then dissolves, and all consciousness that was trapped within it is free.



Love, hate, fear, lust, desire, pride, etc. are all instinctive traits that aid survival and reproduction. They are observed in other animals as well, and not just humans.


I understand, many traditions, such as modern Gnosticism, teach that these traits are gained through this process:

You are human, full of egos, and you have had many reincarnations in the physical plane. Your identification with the ego is such that you must now enter "hell". You will start to reincarnate in a downwards ladder, all while the ego is being destroyed. You will reincarnate into animals, plants, and finally mnerals, this process will take eons. Once you have completed this process you start your way back up to plants, animals, all the while gaining egos, needed for animalistic survival. After that whole process you reincarnate back into a human. Your identification with the ego is much lower than your last human reincarnation, and there is a good chance that during this lifetime you will dissolve the ego.



It isn't even plausible that satan exists


It isn't even possible that iPods exist...



, let alone that an eternal sexless being without any need would be subject to human instincts designed/evolved to promote survival and reproduction.


You are making assumptions, based on nothing but faith, upon this being we label Satan. How do you know he is sexless, how do you know he is eternal, and how do you know he has no need for egos?



The same goes for god himself. It makes no sense that he would be loving, just, jealous, etc if he is completely self sufficient and eternal.


God IS, everything else that we label him is solely the human ego that judges and generalizes things, in order to make them easier to understand.



We have created these fictional characters as reflections of our own nature. We created god and satan in our own image.


Quite right, and a big mistake it has been, we cannot hope to comprehend these "characters" with our mindset.



[edit on 7/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
What does god and satan have in common.... they cant be proved.... just like bigfoot, the lockness monster, dracula, frankenstein, etc...

They all are creatures of mans imagination... something to make us feel good, scared, puzzled, etc..

so why do one who is not a believer repute this because of the facts, the way christians act, the mockery they make of their religion. Enough that i can compare their god to bigfoot, cmon christians look at yourselves, you sound like a freak show when you start chanting some crazy quote out of the bible.

cant you see you bring it on yourself. trying to force your way upon others... does your god want this, for you to make him look foolish... thats what you do.... and because you do you are damned by your own outrageous christianity.

THINK ABOUT IT!!!







posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211
What does god and satan have in common.... they cant be proved.... just like bigfoot, the lockness monster, dracula, frankenstein, etc...


That is a poor comparison, because using your logic everything has something in common. NOTHING can be proved. Everything is based on assumptions, not objective proof. For example you cannot prove that the sun exists. I guess the sun, bigfoot, and your computer have something in common.


They all are creatures of mans imagination... something to make us feel good, scared, puzzled, etc..


Just like your computer.



so why do one who is not a believer repute this because of the facts, the way christians act, the mockery they make of their religion.


As I have stated earlier there are no facts, not all Christians act the same, and not all of them make a mockery of their religion.



Enough that i can compare their god to bigfoot, cmon christians look at yourselves, you sound like a freak show when you start chanting some crazy quote out of the bible.


I can compare bigfoot, to your foot...

You are stereotyping all, based on the actions of some.



[edit on 7/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
I will explain then:...


It didn't help. Perhaps I'm too stupid to get it.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
I understand, many traditions, such as modern Gnosticism, teach that these traits are gained through this process:

You are human, full of egos, and you have had many reincarnations in the physical plane...


The tradition of evolution teaches that only those that reproduce pass their genes on to the next generation. Whatever helps to pass them on, is likely to be passed on.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
It isn't even possible that iPods exist...


By "possible", I assume you mean "impossible"? Do you deny that ipods exist? Anything that actually exists has an absolute possibility of existence. Anything that doesn't, has a zero possibility of existence - at least in the present. The present consists of a sample of 1 as far as we can tell.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
You are making assumptions, based on nothing but faith, upon this being we label Satan. How do you know he is sexless, how do you know he is eternal, and how do you know he has no need for egos?


We know nothing about him at all, and thus have no reason at all to even suggest that he exists.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The tradition of evolution teaches that only those that reproduce pass their genes on to the next generation. Whatever helps to pass them on, is likely to be passed on.


I didn't really get what you mean by "whatever helps to pass them on (I assume "them" refers to genes), is likely to be passed on.

Other than that we have to different opinions on how animalistic instincts are passed along, no problem here.



By "possible", I assume you mean "impossible"? Do you deny that ipods exist?


You assumed wrong. I do deny iPods exist, just as you denied Satan exists. They are two diferring opinions, neither more or less superior than the other.



Anything that actually exists has an absolute possibility of existence. Anything that doesn't, has a zero possibility of existence - at least in the present. The present consists of a sample of 1 as far as we can tell.


I agree, the problem is we don't know what exists. Just because it is perceived through sensory perceptions does not mean it exists (in the true sense of the word). All iPods could really be just an illusion, and not exist at all.



We know nothing about him at all, and thus have no reason at all to even suggest that he exists.


That's better than using faith based proof in order to deny his existance. We know nothing of anything, yet we still believe in some things...


[edit on 7/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
I didn't really get what you mean by "whatever helps to pass them on (I assume "them" refers to genes), is likely to be passed on.


"Them" refers to traits in this case.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
You assumed wrong. I do deny iPods exist, just as you denied Satan exists. They are two diferring opinions, neither more or less superior than the other.


I didn't assume wrong. We simply have two differing opinions about what you meant, and neither is more or less superior that the other. In fact, I assume that when you say "ipods don't exist" you actually mean "elephants are gray". We simply have two differing opinions here, and mine is just as valid as yours. Don't you agree?


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
I agree, the problem is we don't know what exists. Just because it is perceived through sensory perceptions does not mean it exists (in the true sense of the word). All iPods could really be just an illusion, and not exist at all.


While it's true that everything could be an illusion, neither you nor I live our lives as if that were true. You probably enjoy listening to your nonexistent ipod as much as the next person.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
That's better than using faith based proof in order to deny his existance. We know nothing of anything, yet we still believe in some things...


The problem with denying knowledge, is that once you deny you know anything, you have also denied that you know you don't know anything. It's a contradiction that forces us to accept that there are things that can be known.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I didn't assume wrong. We simply have two differing opinions about what you meant, and neither is more or less superior that the other. In fact, I assume that when you say "ipods don't exist" you actually mean "elephants are gray". We simply have two differing opinions here, and mine is just as valid as yours. Don't you agree?


Agreed




While it's true that everything could be an illusion, neither you nor I live our lives as if that were true. You probably enjoy listening to your nonexistent ipod as much as the next person.


The way we live our lives seems to have no direct correlation to the probability of everything being an illusion.



The problem with denying knowledge, is that once you deny you know anything, you have also denied that you know you don't know anything. It's a contradiction that forces us to accept that there are things that can be known.


This contradiction can end when we only opiniate, not know, that we know nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join