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 Atheists Just Don't Get IT.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What concept of God?
The concept of a man in the sky? The concept of an omnipresent spirit? The concept of a unity of all? The concept of a goddess? The concept of an omnipotent entity?


Whatever the interpreter interprets the concept of God to be.



That's why I don't accept that the concept exists (for me - I know it does for others), because I have no clue. No idea, no concept of what or if God is. I just don't know.


I don't think any of us know.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by AkashicWanderer]




posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Even if someone became an Atheist as a teenager, they would still have experienced church, prayer, baptism, circumcision, and the conecpt of believing in an omnipresent omnipotent entity.(Assuming were talking about the Christian God)


Exellent point. I guess the appropriately simple counter idea would be:

"I'm not dissagreeing with you that they understood the concept of believeing in an omnipresent omnipotent monothiestic entity, I'm saying they never truly believed in an omnipresent omnipotent monothiestic Supreme being."

Anyone who makes me think is appreciated. The greatest thing in this world is humanity, the worst thing in this world is that which divides humanity and seperate us from eachother. I know a part of you believes that to be a true statement, and I know a part of you could counter that statement with totally justified logic.

I see how people are contemplating the pros and cons and their future actions are determinable by the tell tale signs they telegraph to others, not even aware that they are doing it.

It is as though people really have a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other shoulder constantly listening to both before deciding on one or the other. The devil obviously is a metaphore for hate and evil. The angel is percieved as holy and all that is good.

What is the opposite of love?

Hate?

But, how can you be justified in your hate within your own mind (be true to yourself) unless you were not first afraid that the thing you hate had already or had the potential to take away from you something you love?

You may view the angel on the other shoulder as organized religion, or others precepts of God's messenger.

I think the angel is nothing more than a metaphore for fear. Always reminding you of the possible worse case scenerio consequences of your adverse choices. "If you listen to the devil on the other side what will happen will be ..... "

If atheists could recognize that they are servants to their own fears and own hates, and that others use their fears and hates to control them, and that fear is what they feel inside as a result of loosing something they hold in reverence (even if it is only an idea) and hate is the overt reaction they exhibit as a result of their fear without having believed in God, then I'm sure it would open their minds to percieve at least the duality in man, but will they recognize the head they have between the devil and angel?

Mankind is more than a duality.

P.S. I like the way you think. I'm not offering a destination. It is not my goal to convert. It is my goal to show the ultimate arguements for both sides and just help people ask themselves their own right questions.

Personal Reflection when you hold yourself to the standards of man is not personal reflection at all. It is you reflecting on yourself by living through the eyes and ideals of others. No one else can tell you who you are. No one else can define the relationship OUR God chooses to have with you.

It may seem it is all full of descrepancies and conflicting information, but I assure you it is all the very much more similar than you have chosen to see it.

Again, this makes me no better or worse, nor you any better or worse. Why do I say this? My accepted truths permit me to acknowledge the perceptions of the differences, without objectivity or judgement, but still see more than what is presented.

If I were to spin a globe and throw a dart at the globe, no matter where it hit that is where you start from. Now start walking in any direction in a straight line, never changing your direction and you will eventually return to where you started. That is a good goal. Because after traversing the globe how many ever times you had, once you reach the starting point you retain all the knowledge of your experiences, but still know you are only who you are in the end. And you get to define who you are.

How many metaphors exist to express the same idea?

Countless, if you know what your looking for.

The answers aren't external, your answers are within.

Any question your mind can concieve on the conscious level, already has an answer in the subliminal.

And, your subliminal answer will be far better than any conscious answer you can find in the external environment.

Look at yourself. Seriously.
When you were younger you used to think "Who are they to judge me, they've never been in my shoes, and they don't know me"?

Yet, here you are all grown up and passing judgement and prescribing your objectivity on absolutely everything and everyone.

Your first impression, good or bad, is made before you hear any thought from an approaching individual.

What they are wearing, what they smell like, how their teeth look ..... all help you form whatever first impression you'll have. And you are first analyzing from the first precept of "Self Preservation", looking for weaknesses to give you the advantage over them at all levels of comprehension you can equate your own experiences to.

Please know when I use the word "you", I don't mean you, but people in general, to include myself.

As for the definition of God:

What is your idea of the fairest form of Supreme Being? I don't need or expect an answer to this question, just to have yourself ask the question and write it down in your diary or journal. Not keeping one? Start today.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Why then, let them define GOD for you?


No one defined God for me. Let me give another example. If I was asked, "Do you like blue"? The asker most likely has a color (shade) in their mind. I might say, "It depends on the shade of blue. For pizza? No. For the sky, yes, very much. Navy blue? Not really, I prefer cobalt. But for me to simply answer "Yes." would not be entirely true, nor would it be entirely false. So my answer would depend on their definition of blue. They do not define blue for me, I just wish to communicate as clearly as possible and not to mislead.



However if GOD is not seperate from us, then GOD must also be within organized religion, even if it be for the purpose of their learning (on a curve, perhaps).


IF there is this thing called God, and I don't know what that means, so I cannot say that religion is of God.



However if it were not for organized religion, the seed to question the existance of anything superior to mankind would not exist.


You speak so surely of all you believe in. I am not so sure. I do not understand how you can know that. You would have to prove to me that that is a fact and not simply your opinion.



I truly and thoroughly enjoyed thinking on your points and agree with you on all of it, but also know it would be able to counter all your points with logical reasoning.


Fortunately, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am right. I am just telling what I believe.



To clarify the purpose of the thread to me:
Explain why athiests know believers are wrong when they have no experience being a true believer.


I do not think believers are wrong. I think they're right. For them.



Explain how Atheists are justified in their even making an arguement when it is apparent Atheists never believed in a God, but those who do believe have an insight into what it was not to believe in God.


Well, I'm not an Atheist.
I am not interested in arguing whether or not I have ever believed.
And I don't agree that believers have the 'advantage' in understanding the whole picture over the Atheist, because they have somehow experienced both sides and an Atheist has never truly believed. Again, I don't see how you could know this. But I do see how it could be your opinion.



But, I'm not the one standing in judgment of the beliefs of over a trillion souls over the last 8,000 + years.


Neither am I.



I simply accept their must be truth in it because God exists. You accept their is no God because their beliefs existed in the form your opinion tells you they interpreted God, having never believed their was one in the first place.


I never said I accept there is no God. That's not true. And I did have a belief in God at one time, although I won't try to convince you of that. You seem convinced otherwise.
Your assumptions about my beliefs, though, are incorrect.

The title of my PODcast (Why I don't believe in God) was explained in the text of it, and not a literal statement. 'Not believing' in something isn't the same as 'believing it doesn't exist'. I am not an Atheist.



What most atheists don't percieve...


That entire post is SOOOO assuming. You speak as if you know how Atheists think, why they feel the way they do, how they would feel if they "changed their beliefs"... if they "chose" different beliefs... You almost sound like someone who is trying to convince a gay person to be straight. It sounds to me like you want Atheists to believe in a higher power. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Maybe this is one of those devil's advocate's things... I don't know...

You say you're not trying to convert, but I get a very different feeling.



If atheists could recognize that they are servants to their own fears and own hates, and that others use their fears and hates to control them, and that fear is what they feel inside as a result of loosing something they hold in reverence (even if it is only an idea)


I could say the exact same thing about believers.

I get the impression that you believe that a belief in God is the default. That if we would all just let go of our fears we would all naturally believe in some sort of God.

An Agnostic would probably say just the opposite. That not knowing is the ultimate renouncement of fear. To not know and accept the fact that we don't know is where true personal freedom and love exist.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The simple truth of it is that unless you accept unconditionally that all things are interconnected somehow, then you can not begin to percieve how similar things you currently percieve are absolutely unrelated are. You are preprogrammed to first and foremost compartmentalize experiences and concepts into the different filing cabinets in your mind. Since our minds learn through association, you can not associate one thing to another if in you mind there is no correlation between the two. This slows the learning process down, because you set up boundries within your mind that prevent one brain cell from having any short-term or long-term connection in your neuro net due to the fact your brain is water and conducts electricity that is produced in the brain to process a bith of information. You are trying to not let one brain cell spark, but trying to get another nearby brain cell to spark without activating the information release of another nearby brain cell.

Was all that is science fact first science fiction, or was all that is and was science fiction first science fact?

Perception and Point of View, not personal experience and genetics, dictate which answer to the above question is what you are most likey to decide upon.

So how does one enhance and re-enforce their own neuro-net and cognitive powers without first being able to view the world through eyes that already know it is all very much the same concept behind everything.

Example # 1:
Football & Sperm.

Within the last 10 years scientists have discovered that not all sperm are programmed with the purpose of fertilizing the egg. Some sperm are merely blockers programmed to block other men's sperm, and some sperm actually tackle and aggressively attack other men's fertilizing sperm, and still other sperm make a run straight for the egg trying to avoid other men's blocking and attacking sperm.

Football has blockers, tacklers, and also players who run for the inzone with the ball.

Now what inside men inspired them to create such a testosterone based sport that performs the same acts as the micro-organisms within the macro-organisms, or is it just coincidence that the sport and the reproductive cells actions parallel eachother?

We serve those who comprise us, and if you define consciousness as an entity that can incorporate information about its environment and affect its environment, our cells are consciousnesses.

Yet, we know 0 + 0 = 0

We know 0 + 0 + (0 to the infinitum) still = 0.

We look in the mirror and think to ourselves we are looking at 1 entity.

So how can a bunch of 0 self consciousnesses add up to make only 1 self consciousness?

If enough people tell you enough times you are ugly, you may start to believe it.

If enough people tell you enough times you are stupid, you may start to believe it.

So the cells forming your thoughts for you are forced to deny their very existance to provide you the thought when you look into the mirror that their is only 1. You are convincing those that comprise you that they do not exists, if they were/are conscious.

By compartmentalizing thoughts and ideas and disciplines you are conditioning your brain cells to not correlate ideas within your own mind, you are conditioning brain cells to divorce other brain cells, effectively limiting the acceptance of information.

The acceptance in the belief of an all encompassing consciousness only serves to be a catalyst for reaching one's potential, whereas conditioning brain cells to not interconnect serves as a catalyst to limit incoming information to you at the conscious level. Subconsciously you already know different, but consciously you are denying yourself the information collected by your subconscious.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
"I'm not dissagreeing with you that they understood the concept of believeing in an omnipresent omnipotent monothiestic entity, I'm saying they never truly believed in an omnipresent omnipotent monothiestic Supreme being."


Yes but I think it's different as a child, they take everything at face value. As an example think of, lets say Santa Claus. Now they've never seen him, or sensed him in any way but they are told he exists. There are the presents in front of them, what else could it be? As they grow older they start to question his plausability, but at frist never give it a second thought.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If atheists could recognize that they are servants to their own fears and own hates, and that others use their fears and hates to control them, and that fear is what they feel inside as a result of loosing something they hold in reverence (even if it is only an idea) and hate is the overt reaction they exhibit as a result of their fear without having believed in God,


Honestly I think it is organized religion that uses fear and hate to control people. Religious leaders realized that even if people did not fear what happend to them in this life, they could certainly be manipulated by the fear of an eternity in hell. Countless wars fueled by the hate of those who go against their God.

I dont understand how an atheist can lose something that isnt there. We all fear the unknown. The best I can figure is that even if someone just thinks they know more, they will be less afraid.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Yet, here you are all grown up and passing judgement and prescribing your objectivity on absolutely everything and everyone. Your first impression, good or bad, is made before you hear any thought from an approaching individual.


Everyone does these things whether they mean to or not. its just human nature. All you can do is try to think before you act.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

I dont understand how an atheist can lose something that isnt there. We all fear the unknown.


I know. That is why I introduced the topic of this thread.


The best I can figure is that even if someone just thinks they know more, they will be less afraid.


They don't know more. You know just as much as they do, but their faith opens the doors to what their subconscious harbors in dormant form from a non-believer's subconscious, where as neuro-pathways are opening up for believers. People who are "enlightened" know no more than those who are not, they are just aware of it.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Yet, here you are all grown up and passing judgement and prescribing your objectivity on absolutely everything and everyone. Your first impression, good or bad, is made before you hear any thought from an approaching individual.



Everyone does these things whether they mean to or not. its just human nature. All you can do is try to think before you act.


That is where organized religion and I part on accepted ideals. Orgaized religion believes they can use methods to impose on vast numbers to get them to re-program or defrag their brain. They (individuals within their respective faiths, not the faiths as a whole) attempt to force the gift on those who currently can't percieve it, from a perspective that does not provide them the empathy to comprehend how a non-believer percieves them to be imposing their will upon them.

The beauty of it is there is a state of mind that provides you the perspective to not have to think before you act because you know you are just speaking your mind which is what you accept as absolute truth, therefore you can not lie to another, because you no longer lie to yourself. You lie to yourself when you offer to others that which they have come to expect. They expect according to their opinion. However, their opinion is not your truths. Therefore by living up to how you percieve their expectations to be, without knowing yourself, you are living your life, but subjugated by others's opinions you have chosen to accept as fact, when that fact is based in an opinion built up from fear and hate.

I agree with those thoughts presented in your post, and see how you conclude them. I offer this statement to be pondered:

Peoples intentions dictate what they are looking for, and you only can see what it is you know to look for. Therefore: Peoples' intentions dictate what they experience.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Which is worse?

People who defined/created their GOD in their image, or people who attribute the existance of peoples faith in GOD to people themselves?

Can people truly prove any perception of faith in a higher being is a direct result of mankinds' creation alone?

Or is that arguement in itself mute when it is also peoples' perspectives that created the belief and faith that peoples' faith and beliefs in a higher being wasn't created by any GOD, but soley a product of humanity?

Which is the better excuse to justify whether one is correct and one is not from the respected perceptions?

Which is the easier cop-out to discontinue the contemplation within one's own mind?



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Which is worse?

People who defined/created their GOD in their image, or people who attribute the existance of peoples faith in GOD to people themselves?


Neither, in my opinion. They're both just ideas. Not right or wrong, true or false, or good or bad.



Can people truly prove any perception of faith in a higher being is a direct result of mankinds' creation alone?


I cannot. Neither can I prove it's 'divinely inspired'. Can you?



Or is that arguement in itself mute when it is also peoples' perspectives that created the belief and faith that peoples' faith and beliefs in a higher being wasn't created by any GOD, but soley a product of humanity?


I think you mean 'moot'. And again, to me, it doesn't matter. I guess it is moot. It's all just opinion. I don't care why or if someone believes in a higher power. Whether it is a belief inspired by fear or love or by God itself. To me, it doesn't matter. I just accept their beliefs as THEIR beliefs.

I don't believe in One Truth that we're all searching to find, necessarily. "Many paths to the same destination" may not be true at all.



Which is the better excuse to justify whether one is correct and one is not from the respected perceptions?


I don't see a point in justifying either. In my world, we are allowed to believe 2 totally different things and both be right.
And justification for personal beliefs isn't necessary.



Which is the easier cop-out to discontinue the contemplation within one's own mind?


If one has contemplation in their minds, I would encourage them to explore it. If contemplation is not present, I don't believe it's necessary to create it. And I wouldn't consider that a cop-out.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I've read through your post Benevolent, and will respond tomorrow, because I have to leave right now.

Good points!



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I havn't read the last page to this post, but its way past my daily meditation time. It is all about interpretation of your belief. Personally I dont believe we are capable of truley interpreting what God is or isnt.

It is hard going through life without putting a label upon the devine. My feeling, everything is the devine, and we are as much a part of the devine as we are human.

I must say this though. IMHO I think most atheists have never experienced a miraculous event, or a series of them. Of course the problem isnt that they have not been witness, but that it was interpreted differently. Being a Firefighter/EMS I have seen many things that cannot be explained. Feelings an intuitive person like myself cannot deny. When you talk to someone afterwords you can feel it, like standing next to a high voltage supply it goes right into you.

I have heard things from a phsychic friend of my wife and I that cannot be denied in any way shape or form. Sometimes when "God" speaks we do not hear it. Sometimes though he/she makes sure you DO hear it. Sometimes your path never brings you to a face to face with God/Goddess. On the job though, I cannot deny it, God/Goddess seems to always be with me! Thankfully.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

I found strong atheists and weak atheists get mixed in together. The things you argue are against only strong atheism, as weak atheism isnt even a belief.


Do you care to explain what a weak athiest is?
Cheers Xpert11.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Expert999
Do you care to explain what a weak athiest is?


I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but sure. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in a god, opposed to strong atheism which is a disbelief in god.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Peoples intentions dictate what they are looking for, and you only can see what it is you know to look for. Therefore: Peoples' intentions dictate what they experience.


I think you meant"...when you know what to look for". In that case yes I agree. If someone wants to experience something bad enough, all things unrelated suddenly take on a warped signifigance. Someone wants to see a UFO, they see a UFO. Someone wants to see bigfoot, they see bigfoot. Someone wants to communicate with God.......



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but sure. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in a god, opposed to strong atheism which is a disbelief in god.


I don't think it was sarcasm.

An Atheist believes there is no God. Period. "weak atheist" really isn't a proper term. Either you believe there is no God or you don't.

An Agnostic doesn't know if there's a God or not. They don't think it's possible to know for sure.

A believer is someone who believes there is a God.

Someone who doesn't believe in God could be an agnostic or an atheist or someone who just refuses to be put in a category.
They could be someone who just doesn't think about it.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I've re-read through the entire thread twice, and realized neither myself or others have offered support or a counter thought to some very well stated ideas. But one question stands out as being a very profound one, offered by Benevolent Heretic:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher


Can people truly prove any perception of faith in a higher being is a direct result of mankinds' creation alone?


I cannot. Neither can I prove it's 'divinely inspired'. Can you?



That is really the jist of it. Isn't it?

No matter the response, the only next logical question (from both sides of the fence) would be either:

No, I can't prove there is no God, can you prove there is one?
or .....
No, I can't prove there is a God, can you prove there isn't one?




Not only is that question the purpose of this forum, but it may very well be the reason for all other forums as well.

That question and that question alone has the potential to release humanities potential.

But, what a paradox.

"No, I can't prove there is no God, can you prove there is one?"

No one really expects anyone provide a believable answer to that question.
So, why don't we explore all posible responses to that question, and (being true to ourselves) just consider as many of the possible reprocussions of actually addressing it as we can. The question must be addressed to continue with the dialogue in a forward manner.

But, I must admit in the effort put forth to ponder such a question, Benevolent Heretic has taken me into uncharted territory, indeed.


"No, I can't prove there is no God, can you prove there is one?"

If I were to answer NO, then the negative response immediatley causes your neuro-net to to reach the only logical conclusion it can: If I can not prove GOD exists, then how can I possibly know GOD exists? Therefore I must not percieve rational logic as you percieve logical rational thinking. And, that could only be equated to you concluding I am neither accepting facts rationally, nor do I acknowledge logical thinking when utilizing deductive reasoning. In slang form: You'd think I was nuts whether it invoked your pitty for me, or your distain.

Any opposing response to the negative one would result in the immediate conclusion to your manner of deductive reasoning ..... that I am arrogant and have the highest level of audacity of perhaps anyone you've known.

It seems we've reached a fork in the road.

It seems we may have reached an impass. But, if there is a God, it must be a path that is negotiable (I use the word negotiable in the context that there must be a way to traverse through this question, through this path of thought).

So, the only possible recourse to take in order to get past this obsticle and enable us to continue this dialogue is:

Yes, I can prove God exists.

I know I can prove God exists, because I know God exists, therefore, since it has been proven to me, I must be able to prove it.

But ..... . .

Can I prove it to you?

Possible answers (feel free to supply additional possible answers to the question):

1) No, not alone.
2) No, if I do it by offending my God.
3) No, if I do not incorporate your cooperation.
4) No, if I do not recognize the guidlines you set forth.

5) Yes, but not alone.
6) Yes, but not outside the parameters of the rules/Laws.
7) Yes, but not without your assistance and cooperation.
8) Yes, but not outside the parameters you define.


Now, pause for a few minutes and go and so something totally unrelated to anything that makes you think about anything in this thread. Pause for awhile before you read on and totally brain dump/disregard all that we've discussed thus far and then return with a clear mind.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disregarding all else, I want you to consider the following scenario:

You have misplaced your keys. You know you had them a short time ago. And, you know you were the last person to have them.

You accept these as facts:
1) No one but you touched your keys last.
2) You were the last person to have them.
3) You had them a short while ago.
4) You know you can not recall where your keys are.

What is it that dissables you and prevents you from being able to recall or remember where you left your keys? Something external? Do you blame the world, or some external force within the realm of your environment?

What prevents you from remembering or recalling where last you left your keys, if not you yourself? And, why won't you let yourself remember where your keys are?






[edit on 13-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Oooh! A key game! All right I'll play.
(I'm very curious about where this is going.)



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
You have misplaced your keys. You know you had them a short time ago. And, you know you were the last person to have them.


Although it was another item, not keys, I just experienced this yesterday.



What is it that dissables you and prevents you from being able to recall or remember where you left your keys? Something external? Do you blame the world, or some external force within the realm of your environment?


No. Not something external. I don't blame the world or an external force. I know the fault is mine.



What prevents you from remembering or recalling where last you left your keys, if not you yourself? And, why won't you let yourself remember where your keys are?


What prevents me from remembering is a malfunction or misfiring of synapses in my brain, or something very similar. An inability to access the information at that moment in time.

Why won't I let myself remember where my keys are? I'm not too sure of the 'why' of it. Other than there were many things on my mind. Once I took care of them and relaxed, then thought of different possibilities, I was able to access the data and I remembered.

Or do you mean more of a 'cosmic' why? If so, I'd have to say, I don't think there necessarily was a cosmic why.

What's the next step? Or did I get voted off?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
interesting subject, but in the end it really doesnt matter. that is, unless the whole hell thing is actually true, then non-believers would be screwed for sure. just believe whatever makes you feel true. live life. but never forget that everything you believe could be wrong...



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
An Atheist believes there is no God. Period. "weak atheist" really isn't a proper term. Either you believe there is no God or you don't.


There is a big difference between a lack of belief and a disbelief. Just because I'mn not convinced of something, doesnt mean I believe it never happened. Weak atheism would tend to go hand in hand with Agnosticism, but not always. I'm sure If you google the term "weak atheism", you'll get alot of hits.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think this question about keys relates back to our previous discussion. If I lost my keys, I would accept my memory is shot and move on. If your looking to find deeper meaning in events that have none, you'll probably start seeing things that aren't there.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oooh! A key game! All right I'll play.
(I'm very curious about where this is going.)



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

What prevents you from remembering or recalling where last you left your keys, if not you yourself? And, why won't you let yourself remember where your keys are?


What prevents me from remembering is a malfunction or misfiring of synapses in my brain, or something very similar. An inability to access the information at that moment in time.

Why won't I let myself remember where my keys are? I'm not too sure of the 'why' of it. Other than there were many things on my mind. Once I took care of them and relaxed, then thought of different possibilities, I was able to access the data and I remembered.

Or do you mean more of a 'cosmic' why? If so, I'd have to say, I don't think there necessarily was a cosmic why.

What's the next step? Or did I get voted off?


I stated before you had led me into uncharted territory when we sailed this ship in this direction, please don't leave me now, or we'll never reach the other side.

What is the next step?

Good question.

Considering it took me about 3 hours of reflexion time last night to contemplate my response to your question of all time, I may have to think about this one for awhile as well.

I don't fully accept at face value the misfiring of synapses idea, not without the cause of the synapses misfiring. Perhaps we should invite a few scientists or neuro-surgeons into our thread?

I see more than a duality in people. Something else resides within us. If we hold ourselves to the standards and expectations we have on others, and apply them to ourselves, things change.

There must have been some level of consciousness that witheld the information we were seeking, even if it was our own consciousness that did it. But, how can our own consciousness withold that information from us with our conscious state of mind being unaware of it?

Is it you that prevented you from knowing what you already knew that you knew?

Saying that you may have had too much on your mind is still excusing your not knowing what you know by providing the excuse you had too much on your mind.

If your brain calculates information at a speed of 400,000,000,000 biths of information a second, then surely it (your brain) is aware of where you left whatever it is you are looking for.

Or, maybe it was your subconscious that was forcing you to slow down to think clearly in the first place, because your subconscious was aware it would somehow benefit you.

But even if it were our subconsciousnesses that was controlling us at that particular moment, then their must be another you within you battling for control over the driver's seat.

I'm trying to balance the arguement from multiple viewpoints, because that is how my brain works. But this one needs some more ponderance.

I've got to go for now, will be back on tommorrow.

Peace ,and thanks Benevolent Heritic,
Staff Sergeant John P. Goede, USAF.
Station Captain / Fire Inspector / EMT
Nellis Air Force Base Fire Department
Las Vegas, NV

(just wanted to introduce myself, figured you earned at least that by the way you've inspired the thought process between my ears.)



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I don't fully accept at face value the misfiring of synapses idea, not without the cause of the synapses misfiring. Perhaps we should invite a few scientists or neuro-surgeons into our thread?


Maybe it's easy for me to accept this 'synapse theory' because since I was 14, I've had seizures and had it explained to me by neurosurgeons (in layman terms, of course).

It seems the cause or origination of the seizure lasts only a fraction of a second. One single misfire. But the effects of the 'misfiring' can (and have) lasted up to 45 minutes, a grand mal seizure. So I can understand how the brain could kind of misplace something or forget where it's put temporarily.




Something else resides within us.


I totally agree that something besides the brain is in there. I am a soul (spirit) and I am in possession of a body (that houses the physical brain) and a mind (which is the non-physical 'brain' or personality).

The physical part of me runs about my daily life, my mind inspires and drives me and my soul is the observer. Yes, I believe I am a miracle! I am a wondrous being with several inputs and outputs. I am more than a single being. I have no doubt about that. And sometimes there is confusion. I feel 2 ways at once about the same thing. I know I know something but cannot access it.

However, because there are multiple facets to the wondrous miracle that is me (or you or anyone) it doesn't necessarily follow (in my opinion) that there must be an external cause or creator of this being I call me.

A snowflake is a miracle, fractals, chaos, it's all miraculous. Nature is a miracle. But does is necessarily follow that something external influenced all of this? Not necessarily. Maybe so, maybe not. But as of yet, for me to assume that an external 'creator' is a given, is just that. An assumption.

It's good to meet you and you definitely deserve to know who I am, but I don't put that information out there willingly. Yes, they probably already have it, but just in case, I'm not going to make it easy for them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join