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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
What I mean by this is they simply can not fathom what those who do believe in God do comprehend.


Up to your old tricks again I see. You are negelecting the vast majority of atheists who were once believers! Do you think we all just forgot what it was like because we quit believing?


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Everyone who does truly view everything with the belief and absolute faith that the whole of it is closely inter-related and of a supreme being is able to see how everything that is … .


Those of us who have seen faith from both sides have a perspective you don't. It is larger than yours, not smaller.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Individuals who do not view the world as it is so closely inter-related and do not believe in a creator deity, supreme consciousness, or God operate with a brain that tends to compartmentalize all information.


I was right to have you on my ignore list for a time. Apparently, I'm a better judge of character than I thought. It probably comes from conceptualizing thoughts into abstract patterns that can then be used to integrate information that is otherwise unconnected.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Three guys rent a hotel room for a night that costs $30.00.
Each of the three pays $10.00, which adds up to the total cost of $30.00.
The next morning the manager decides that because of a cable TV outage she will reimburse the three guys $5.00.
She gives the $5.00 to the bellhop to take up to the three guys.
On the way up to the room the bellhop puts $2.00 in his pocket and keeps it.
The bellhop then gives the remaining $3.00 to the three gentlemen.
So, now instead of each of the three guys being charged $10.00 for the room, they in fact each got $1.00 back and only paid $9.00 a piece for the room.
$9.00 times three guys equals $27.00.
Plus the $2.00 the bellhop kept for himself equals $29.00.
If: 9x3=27, and 27+2=29 …. What happened to the other dollar?
We started with $30.00, but only $29.00 is accounted for.


30 - 5 = 25.
25+2 = 27.
27+3 = 30.

Apparently us compartmentalizers do better at math than you nonsensicalizers.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Thanks for reading all that, and thanks in advance for your contributions. And thanks specifically to Spamandham for the inspiration for this thread.


You're welcome. For future reference, I would aprreciate a u2u if the OP calls me out by name.




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:06 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.


There is some flawed thinking at work here. The lack of belief in god would suggest that some one has lost faith in there choosen belief system. Given that the person in question thinks that a god exists they cant be atheist.

Im an athiest because I dont think that a higher power exists not because I have lost faith in something that appears in books.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Im an athiest because I dont think that a higher power exists not because I have lost faith in something that appears in books.


I havent lost faith in anything either. I think saying there is no God is jumping to the same conclusions as a religous person. I don't believe in god but I'm not going to go so far as to say I know for sure there isn't. I know that may sounds like I would fall under the category of Agnostic, but really its both.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Charlie I remember I asked my dad once if god exits and he said he couldnt say either way.
Cheers Xpert11.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

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.


On that we agree. But, we must have the courage to find a way to differentiate between those in their faith who spread their message of tolerance with tolerance and those in their respective faiths who demonstrate their intolerances and prejudices for the ways others spread parrellel messages of tolerance. Once we overcome our own fears which are our own personal catalysts for how we justify our hate, then and only then will we be able to recognize those who have also shed themselves from the fears and hates that determine their intentions. And it is our intentions that determine what information we strive to understand, what information we focus upon, what information we integrate. Therefore if we are not operating with the intentions that unite us with all of it, we are operating with the intentions that seperate us from all of it. Courage to overcome the fears that motivate us and condition us to respond to certain stimuli in ways that we either interpret as negative or positive. And, being how people seem to be creatures of habit ......

Good Point Charlie.


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.


Your intent or purpose of the second sentence eludes me, however the first sentence I can relate to. I offer this counter point:

Having never percieved/accepted that something is there, you'd never fully comprehend what you have never enjoyed the benefits of, therefore you'd have no correlation process within your mind to utilize for comparrison, for there is no experience to compare it to, seeing only that there was nothing to loose. Just because you don't see that there is a trophy, does not mean that there is not one.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
What I mean by this is they simply can not fathom what those who do believe in God do comprehend.


Up to your old tricks again I see.


The word "tricks" in this specific context implies my attempt to decieve. If this is correct then it is immediately associated with negativity in my mind, possibly.


You are negelecting the vast majority of atheists who were once believers!


I am neglecting. I am percieved by at least one to be a person lacking in the empathy or desire required within to make any attempt to understand a legitimate point of view. The word "neglecting" in this specific context implies my lack of attempt or inner drive to understand other peoples' intentions and motivations. Also the word "neglecting" immediately instills a negative correlation association within my mind, possibly.



Do you think we all just forgot what it was like because we quit believing?

I recognize there is a difference between believing and knowing. You can not know and forget. You can not believe and forget. You can believe and suppress what you knew you believed, but knowing and suppressing may be another story all together.



Those of us who have seen faith from both sides have a perspective you don't. It is larger than yours, not smaller.


A single perspective that is larger is different than accepting multiple perspectives simultaneously. Furthermore to judge mankind by the standards of mankind is the pinacle of what perspective any atheist can achieve, for mankind's standards are all they can recognize as being the highest available standards.





Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Individuals who do not view the world as it is so closely inter-related and do not believe in a creator deity, supreme consciousness, or God operate with a brain that tends to compartmentalize all information.


I was right to have you on my ignore list for a time. Apparently, I'm a better judge of character than I thought. It probably comes from conceptualizing thoughts into abstract patterns that can then be used to integrate information that is otherwise unconnected.




I was right to have you on my ignore list for a time.


True. For you it may have been a necessity. However, your actions by doing so demonstrate a level of disregard to the introduction of new and possibly never contemplated ideas. If you had the capability to offer effective counter-ideas or opposing thoughts to balance out the perspectives of the specific topic, you more than likely would have.

I have never put anyone on my ignore list. Perhaps I hold other peoples opinions and their process of deuductive reasoning in higher reverence. Perhaps. But, only you can determine the cause for justifying why you choose to disregard in totality any individual because they have drawn certain conclusions from their rational logical deductive reasoning and experiences and presented their opinions/thoughts/conclusions/assumptions in a manner you had no previous knowledge to compare what you accept as true and present effectively the contrast.

Others may see your voluntary withdrawl from other perspectives as a retreat, or defence mechanism. Why? In their minds their may be various reasons they could equate your intentions, but ultimately their evaluation of your actions will still be compared to what they know. No one else can tell you why, but they will make their own assumptions based upon what they know. Only you know the real reason you felt so compelled to do so.

I neither sit in judgement, nor view through objectivity. All I can do is calculate the why, and acknowledge your actions and behaviours, knowing I truly may not know your motives for such a choice.

Are you denying yourself their knowledge from their experiences, or are you punishing them by removing your superior intellect from acknowledging them?


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Three guys rent a hotel room for a night that costs $30.00.
Each of the three pays $10.00, which adds up to the total cost of $30.00.
The next morning the manager decides that because of a cable TV outage she will reimburse the three guys $5.00.
She gives the $5.00 to the bellhop to take up to the three guys.
On the way up to the room the bellhop puts $2.00 in his pocket and keeps it.
The bellhop then gives the remaining $3.00 to the three gentlemen.
So, now instead of each of the three guys being charged $10.00 for the room, they in fact each got $1.00 back and only paid $9.00 a piece for the room.
$9.00 times three guys equals $27.00.
Plus the $2.00 the bellhop kept for himself equals $29.00.
If: 9x3=27, and 27+2=29 …. What happened to the other dollar?
We started with $30.00, but only $29.00 is accounted for.



30 - 5 = 25.
25+2 = 27.
27+3 = 30.

Apparently us compartmentalizers do better at math than you nonsensicalizers.


Demonstrating a belittling attitude towards others. Demonstrating through your rhetoric how superior you are for knowing an answer to the question, yet devoid of the prospect of tolerance and understanding by not acknowledging other ways to solve the same problem, or seeing it as others do. You simply presented your solution and followed it by a statement that tells all readers you know you are superior because you "apparently compartmentalize better at math than nonsensicalizers".

And, you call who ever "you" refers to as a nonsensicalizer.

You have already decided ever word of it is nonsense. A choice that propels intolerance and seperation. It propels intolerance because the thought presented are percieved by you as nonsense. And why would anyone tolerate nonsense?



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Thanks for reading all that, and thanks in advance for your contributions. And thanks specifically to Spamandham for the inspiration for this thread.


You're welcome. For future reference, I would aprreciate a u2u if the OP calls me out by name.


I opologize profusely, however:
It is in your perception that tells you that was a call out. I honestly meant it as a complement for having made me think.

However, you are right. A U2U would have been the polite thing to do, but I assumed the title of the thread, and our past inter-personal relationship would have drawn your attention.

If I thought I had nothing to learn from you, I wouldn't pay you as much attention.

I see how our beliefs are not that dissimiliar from eachother. There are more than a few ideas that you have presented in numerous threads I do strongly relate to. Some times you get overly defensive and shut down or close off the communication, which I don't agree with, but recognize the reasonings behind it.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The word "tricks" in this specific context implies my attempt to decieve. If this is correct then it is immediately associated with negativity in my mind, possibly.


Read through the OP from the perspective of an atheist and you will see it is filled with stereotyping and condescension.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The word "neglecting" in this specific context implies my lack of attempt or inner drive to understand other peoples' intentions and motivations.


In this specific context, "neglecting" refers to overlooking the largest category of atheists - those who were once believers.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Also the word "neglecting" immediately instills a negative correlation association within my mind, possibly.


I'd say that's a correct perception in this case.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
You can not know and forget. You can not believe and forget. You can believe and suppress what you knew you believed, but knowing and suppressing may be another story all together.


You can also receive new information that changes what you know and what you believe, or you can think about the information you do know and believe and realize your conclusion had been based on faulty reasoning.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Furthermore to judge mankind by the standards of mankind is the pinacle of what perspective any atheist can achieve, for mankind's standards are all they can recognize as being the highest available standards.


The pinnacle of standards for someone who believes standards originate at a higher level, are the standards someone else told them was a higher standard. Even if god himself handed these to you via divine revelation, how do you know you haven't been deceived?


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
However, your actions by doing so demonstrate a level of disregard to the introduction of new and possibly never contemplated ideas.


You are generalizing your experience with me to my interactions with others. This assumes there is no interdependence between my behavior and the behavior of other posters.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I have never put anyone on my ignore list. Perhaps I hold other peoples opinions and their process of deuductive reasoning in higher reverence.


As best I can tell, you pretty much dismiss the reasoning of atheists with the argument that they can not properly empathize because they do not believe. Now you've added to that an accusation of general inability to think outside the box.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Only you know the real reason you felt so compelled to do so.


Anyone who wants to know could just ask.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Are you denying yourself their knowledge from their experiences, or are you punishing them by removing your superior intellect from acknowledging them?


I'm saving myself aggravation. I can not possibly converse with everyone online. I can either let random chance dictate who's posts I read/respond to, or I can play a more active role. Why bother with people who annoy me when there are 100 others waiting in the wings with their experiences to offer? If someone demonstrates an unusual level of knowledge or reasoning skills, I tend to put up with more bunk.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Demonstrating a belittling attitude towards others.


Tit for tat. Yes, I'm somewhat petty in that regard.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
You simply presented your solution and followed it by a statement that tells all readers you know you are superior because you "apparently compartmentalize better at math than nonsensicalizers".


You presented a problem with the implication that atheists would not be able to see how to solve it because their minds compartmentalize. You trivialize atheists, with a nonsensical argument about the way their minds work. Then you trivialize them again with the rediculous argument that they have nothing to contribute in spiritual discussions because they can not empathize properly since they don't believe. What you are saying is belittling horse hockey, and you deserve an in-your-face style response.

Who am I to deny you that which you've worked so hard to receive?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Read through the OP from the perspective of an atheist and you will see it is filled with stereotyping and condescension.


Only from the way they have chosen to interpret it. I am well aware the title of the thread, and the first few sentences were designed in a way that could be construde in a negative way, but that does not mean it was intended that way. If you view yourself in a way that you do fall into the category described as a stereotype, then you interpret it as such.

Be honest with yourself. If the title had a name that couldn't possibly be associated with a "fight" I doubt there would be more than 500+ viewings of it in less than week. Looking through the eyes of others gave me the insight to know those looking for a fight would come. But, I know to tone down the rhetoric and actually continue to absorb your input.

If there is no conflict to either observe, or participate in, many would not contribute. Without dialogue there would be no discussion. The goal I set forth for myself is to see how far this discussion can take us, through examining possible perspectives.



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The word "neglecting" in this specific context implies my lack of attempt or inner drive to understand other peoples' intentions and motivations.


In this specific context, "neglecting" refers to overlooking the largest category of atheists - those who were once believers.


Believing is believing you believe. Believing is knowing you believe. Believing is believing you know. Believing is not knowing.



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Also the word "neglecting" immediately instills a negative correlation association within my mind, possibly.


I'd say that's a correct perception in this case.


Is this fortunate for you?
Is this fortunate for me?
Is this unfortunate for you?
Is this unfortunate for me?

How much have either of us benefitted from this?




Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
You can not know and forget. You can not believe and forget. You can believe and suppress what you knew you believed, but knowing and suppressing may be another story all together.


You can also receive new information that changes what you know and what you believe, or you can think about the information you do know and believe and realize your conclusion had been based on faulty reasoning.


Contemplation of opinions whose roots lie within the confines of one's intentions.




The pinnacle of standards for someone who believes standards originate at a higher level, are the standards someone else told them was a higher standard. Even if god himself handed these to you via divine revelation, how do you know you haven't been deceived?


One of the most powerful counter-points I've recieved from you to date. My response you may or may not relate to. But, a way above you get!
I guess what others were saying was partially the seed, but when you hear the same from so many sources, so many different faiths, and recognize the duality+ in people you come to a conclusion that shows you the parallels and patterns of thought that connect us, not divide us.


You are generalizing your experience with me to my interactions with others. This assumes there is no interdependence between my behavior and the behavior of other posters.


Not neccessarily. I knew my intent was only to convey a thought. You took offense to an idea I had presented and put me on your ignore list. Something within your thought process interpretted what I contributed as a personal attack, when it may not have been my intentions to present it as such. Which leaves me in the situation: Do I opologize for something because it was interpretted by another in an offensive manner, or do I opologize for intentions I do not believe were there?

Or, the best answer:
I opologize for having offended you.

By the way,
I opologize for having offended you.

Don't feel so compelled to take my words as a personal attack on you. I do not view your contributions as personal attacks on me, just expressing your current thought, or idea.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I have never put anyone on my ignore list. Perhaps I hold other peoples opinions and their process of deuductive reasoning in higher reverence.



As best I can tell, you pretty much dismiss the reasoning of atheists with the argument that they can not properly empathize because they do not believe. Now you've added to that an accusation of general inability to think outside the box.


As best as you can tell.


I'm saving myself aggravation.


What would provide you the inner peace and self confidence to not permit yourself to be aggravated by your interpretations of how you choose to regard such ideas and thinking. It is not I who aggravates you. It is you who permit yourself to get aggravated. Further it is not I who aggravates you, merely either the way I have chosen to convey an idea or the idea/thought itself which runs contrary to your personal accepted truths.

I will keep this in mind, and will better my effort to present ideas in a way that is less hostile, or less apt to be interpretted as such a delivery.



Why bother with people who annoy me when there are 100 others waiting in the wings with their experiences to offer?


Why permit yourself to be annoyed to the extent that you no longer feel any necessity to examine their experiences? (this is a question meant for you to answer, not one I need to hear the answer to.)



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Demonstrating a belittling attitude towards others.


Tit for tat. Yes, I'm somewhat petty in that regard.


Why show me I have that power? People are creatures of habit. Everyone strives to better themselves (Almost everyone). So, by letting people see they can control your emotions, then you show them they have some amount of power over your way of thinking. The only reason anyone has the ability to piss you off (or any other emotional state), is because you empower them. The only power anyone has over you is granted to them by you.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
You simply presented your solution and followed it by a statement that tells all readers you know you are superior because you "apparently compartmentalize better at math than nonsensicalizers".



You presented a problem with the implication that atheists would not be able to see how to solve it because their minds compartmentalize. You trivialize atheists, with a nonsensical argument about the way their minds work. Then you trivialize them again with the rediculous argument that they have nothing to contribute in spiritual discussions because they can not empathize properly since they don't believe. What you are saying is belittling horse hockey, and you deserve an in-your-face style response.


My intentions may elude you. But, belittling horse hockey certainly was not my intentions. Horse Hockey serves many great purposes, throwing it at atheists isn't one of them. (have a sense of humor)

Seriously though: How can anyone experience how are things have no degree of measurable seperation, and then forget how all things are connected? This concept elludes me. To state you go from knowing all things must not be seperate in any measure and conditioning the brain to create active synapses between previously unrelated subjects to make a brain that is more effecient to reversing that process presents an unusual paradox. A choice.

Who am I to deny you that which you've worked so hard to receive?

I do have some more thoughts going back to what Benevolent Heretic and I were discussing yesterday, but I don't have the time to continue this right now.

Spamandham,
Thanks for being you. I do appreciate your contributions, and see how mine may be either to deep or too far off in left or right field at times.

But let us all agree:
We are having a discussion. We are having a dialogue. We are both presenting thoughts and ideas and analyzing/contemplating other ideas and thoughts.

Read through the entire thread again. Try to understand how others were thinking when they state the things they do.

The key scenario.

The Question:
"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 is one?

Without identifying, and adressing all conceivable answers, we will be limiting what we get out of this thread.

Sincerely,
Esoteric Student



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Sincerely,
Esoteric Student


That's the best thing I've seen come out of this thread!


I just wanted to remind you that I'm here.



The Question:
"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 is [not] one?

Without identifying, and adressing all conceivable answers, we will be limiting what we get out of this thread.


As regards this line of thinking, is it possible for there to be a God in your existence and there NOT to be one in mine? Can you fathom the possibility that we're both right and that there's no reason to prove a thing to one another?

Neither of these can be proved. (Barring the big man Himself floating down on a cloud, of course.) But in a quantum type of reality, we're both right.

See, I refuse to get offended or argumentative about this subject. It's a waste of time and energy to argue the existence of God. However, the discussions we're having here have been of the mind-opening, thought provoking variety. My type of discussion!



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Believing is believing you believe. Believing is knowing you believe. Believing is believing you know. Believing is not knowing.


It depends on what you mean by "know". The word is not magically dependent on theism, at least not according to any commonly accepted definition I'm aware of.




Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Also the word "neglecting" immediately instills a negative correlation association within my mind, possibly.


I'd say that's a correct perception in this case.


Is this fortunate for you?
Is this fortunate for me?
Is this unfortunate for you?
Is this unfortunate for me?

How much have either of us benefitted from this?

You have already admitted you learned something valuable - to tone things down a bit. Don't you consider that fortunate?


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Not neccessarily. I knew my intent was only to convey a thought. You took offense to an idea I had presented and put me on your ignore list. Something within your thought process interpretted what I contributed as a personal attack, when it may not have been my intentions to present it as such.


You clearly stated I had nothing to offer from your perspective. This forum is for dialog from my perspective. I can not hold a meaningful conversation with someone who has defined my perspectives away, which you continue to try to do.

That isn't to say I'm beyond ignoring people simply for being obnoxious, as long as they have little to offer. Roger pearse is an excellent example of that. Although he has much to offer, he won't share it and prefers to simply be obnoxious - he's a d*&k. Who needs aggravation like that?


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I opologize for having offended you.


Ok then, for what it's worth.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
What would provide you the inner peace and self confidence to not permit yourself to be aggravated by your interpretations of how you choose to regard such ideas and thinking.


Apparently, I am not the only one who took your OP the way I did. If you wish to communicate rather than inflame, I suggest empathizing with other posters before you hit post. It doesn't help much to say "oh you just interpreted it that way". By then, the damage is already done.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It is not I who aggravates you. It is you who permit yourself to get aggravated.


That's true. Hence I resort to the ignore feature to aid me in dealing with this flaw. I don't expect perfection from myself any more than I do from others.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Further it is not I who aggravates you, merely either the way I have chosen to convey an idea or the idea/thought itself which runs contrary to your personal accepted truths.


Condecension and dismissal really get on my nerves. I don't mind having my preconceptions challenged though. I relish it as long as I'm not teated like a farm animal along the way. There are several posters with whom I regularly disagree that I think would concur. I sometimes see them come to my defense, so I know there is mutual respect on a personal level, even though we do not share perspectives.

I know I tend to behave in ways I myself find offensive from time to time, as much as I try not to. I will never start a topic that says "Thesist are all stupid idiots", although I might post a thread that says "Faith is intentional ignorance (aka stupidity)". See the difference? You can beliitle a position without belittling the holders of that position (unless of course they are incapable of compartmentalizing their beliefs from their person - hey!).


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Why permit yourself to be annoyed to the extent that you no longer feel any necessity to examine their experiences? (this is a question meant for you to answer, not one I need to hear the answer to.)


I'll answer it anyway - I'm only human.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Why show me I have that power?


You already know you have it don't you? I have the same power over you. The fact that you dwell so much on the issue of me previously ignoring you tells me it bothered you. (temptation to hit "ignore" becomes almost irresitable - holding pinky to corner of mouth)


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Seriously though: How can anyone experience how are things have no degree of measurable seperation, and then forget how all things are connected? This concept elludes me.


I think your concept of god is different than mine.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Thanks for being you. I do appreciate your contributions, and see how mine may be either to deep or too far off in left or right field at times.


Reread that from my perspective, realizing I do not consider myself your intellectual inferior, nor do I know you well enough to judge myself your superior.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The Question:
"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 is one?


A more fundamental question is "what does 'god' mean".

[edit on 14-11-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I will respond to previous points later today. I just have other priorities right now (at work, but on lunch).

Here is a portion of a contribution I made in another thread that I think re-states in a different way some of the points we've been talking about in this thread:

(Quoting myself):


I'm not saying we must know ourselves as others see us. Knowing ourselves opens up those perspectives for us. Knowing what we want is the first step to recognizing what we want. I'm not talking about any tangible thing, but what our inside voice tells us. But, first we must be of one mind, not operating with two. Knock the devil and the angel off both of our shoulders and listen to the head that has been between the two. Third eye. Mind's eye. Whatever you equate it to.

If there is doubt, if there is question, if there is a need to contemplate . .. .... then are we just doing what we know is right, or are we responding to the external stimuli in a way that we are juggling the balance within our mind between WHAT BENEFITS YOU and THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES?

Our truth is not:

Identifying and balancing WHAT BENEFITS ME THE MOST verses WHAT POSSIBLE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES COULD RESULT.

That process provides us only a risk management perspective. And we have been conditioned by this world to pick, never having recognized the option of what is simply the best thing to do, by your standards, not the standards of man. If there is no God, we only recognize the standards as the standards of man and we judge those standards accordingly, by comparing them to our own standards. But, if those standards are the standards of God, then we permit ourselves to take more in.


Interesting what lies beyond the duality. But, what within us provides what prerequisites we need to recognize ourselves as more than 1 mind?

Can we reach this level if our world is percieved as a Godless one. Can this be achieved without direction inspired from knowing there is a consciousness that supercedes the collective will of mankind?

This is an addressable question. I have some good replies and thoughts on this subject that I will share soon.

Your thoughts?

This may sound like a "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" question, but maybe it is not.

Which came first? The knowing of the duality of man without our knowledge of an all encompassing Godlike figure head, or the belief of man in an all encompassing Godlike figure head that enabled us to see we were not of one mind?

Was GOD a creation of man that when we chose to know, not just believe, or was it an intangible process that created the perceived necessity of God?

This seems to be another question we are asking ourselves, collectively.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I know you're not talking to me anymore, but yes... I'm still here and I will just talk to this wall over here...



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But, what within us provides what prerequisites we need to recognize ourselves as more than 1 mind?


More of me. I am a miracle, remember. I am a mind, a body and a spirit and who knows what else? Why does 'myself' have to end at - or be limited by - my conscious awareness of myself? Surely with dreams, deja vu, intuition and psychic connection, there's much more to 'me' than meets the eye (or conscious mind).



Can we reach this level if our world is percieved as a Godless one.


Yes. I have the same abilities as anyone else. Whether they have a God or not. I have the same capability (perhaps more) to explore my psyche, my whole self. I am not limited by my conscious awareness or a strictly physical understanding of myself. I am open to greater possibilities. I don't say. "That's God." I say, "That's me"! and therefore I believe I have access to it and I long to understand it. If I thought it was something external, some God figure, I may never hope to understand it.



Can this be achieved without direction inspired from knowing there is a consciousness that supercedes the collective will of mankind?


Of course. Why must the direction come from something larger, stronger, more authoratative? Why must there be a consciousness that supercedes our will? Our will works great.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
If there is no absolute moral truth, or if there is no way to be certain of it, then cost/benefit analysis is the best you can hope for.

Even if you believe there is an absolute standard of some kind, you do not have any means of learning it with certainty, since it is handed to you via an uncertain mechanism. Even divine revelation is uncertain, as there is no way for you to be sure that it truly is divine revelation.

You are stuck weighing your perception of that absolute standard against your own cost/benefit analysis, and the end result is no different than had you ignored the concept of absolute standards to begin with. We are all moral relativists whether we like it or not.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by deafence#
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...


People manifest unresolved inner torments/pains/fears in their everyday life and in every moment of their existance. What they think is what becomes of the world they live in, and defines how they percieve their existance.

With the accepted idea that everything a person believes could be wrong, then we condition ourselves to manifest that which we fear is wrong. And if everything (as we percieve it) is uncertain and has the potential to be incorrect, then what is worth taking the time to know?

This brand of thinking is not necessarily acting as a catalyst to make man greater than man is, for there is no re-enforcing facts to cement what's known. It is like only having one phone line to each house. What if that one phone line is cut, there is no back up line in existance. Now, what if there were multiple phone lines to every house? One line breaks, no disconnection.

Conditioning ourselves to form numerous connections to each brain cell promotes communication (between neuro-cells) within our minds. Accepting that the information may be faulty conditions our brain cells not to form numerous connections with a brain cell, because the bith of information in that cell is viewed by the neuro-net collective as being something that may not be correct.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Originally posted by Esoteric:

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.


Misfiring of synapses. Interesting, but is it plausible? Brain cells have numerous apendages, like arms. To communicate with certain nearby cells in their neighborhood of the neuro net they just move their apendage to the appropriate cell. They should remember where the signal should go. Maybe dehydration or nutrition plays a part. Maybe genetics, but I'm unaware of many such conditions. Even autism provides gifts most mortals could not understand. Rain Man and the like.

Sorry Guys. I'm not blowing anyone off. Just experiencing time management issues, and obligations.

I still have a few pages in my binder with thoughts from page 3 of this thread I havn't posted, yet.

Keep going without me,
I'll be back on Wed. afternoon.

See you guys tomorrow, and thanks.

I'm focussing on thoughts and ideas concerning the human brain creating God and God opening the human mind up as to think as 1 brain, not the duality.

God from necessity verses necessity from God. Not the end all be all answer, but does parrallel the "Prove God does or doesn't exist" questions.



[edit on 15-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Misfiring of synapses. Interesting, but is it plausible?


I already answered this. Perhaps you missed it. Bottom of page 3.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Misfiring of synapses. Interesting, but is it plausible?


I already answered this. Perhaps you missed it. Bottom of page 3.


Scary. I was thinking of the reply when you were thinking of it as well. Previous post of mine I admit I'm falling a bit behind.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Scary. I was thinking of the reply when you were thinking of it as well. Previous post of mine I admit I'm falling a bit behind.


That's ok. I enjoyed it while we were 'pondering'. This feels more like an argument, in a way, and I can see that you're very busy, so I'll see you around.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Scary. I was thinking of the reply when you were thinking of it as well. Previous post of mine I admit I'm falling a bit behind.


That's ok. I enjoyed it while we were 'pondering'. This feels more like an argument, in a way, and I can see that you're very busy, so I'll see you around.


An arguement is not what I want. I'm not percieving this as such. I do have some good points to present, just not the time to post them right now.

We'll continue, and in a positive manner, not a negative one; That is if we choose to do so. We are having a progressive dialogue that will continue, so we can see what it progresses into. The most we can hope for is and understanding of eachothers thought processes, thought processes that are usually adapting and overcoming our obsticles. But, those obsicles are obsticles of our choosing.

Till tommorrow,
John.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Going from the known to the unknown can be an extremely mind boggling experience for all of us. We challenge ourselves to be more than the sum of our parts. We find our understanding of how things are to be over scrutinized, and perceive others as a threat when what others know contrast with what we know. Going from the known to the unknown always requires us to re-evaluate what we accept as truth, and forces us to recognize that we do not know what we do not know. The hurtle we are trying to overcome can easily be perceived as being too high. In some cases it is easier to just go under the hurtle, which gets us to the same place as someone who went over the hurtle. Do we need to go over the hurtle, or is that concept our interpretation of the expectations others place upon the whole of society?

The hurtle is your hurtle. The hurtle represents where we are on our journey. Our hurtles must be acknowledged by us before we can recognize what is preventing us from excelling at whatever it is we want to excel at. We are creatures of habit, and it has been our habit to treat the symptoms. We tend to forget the symptoms are the result of the condition or disease, and we tend to neglect the condition or disease, because it is the symptoms that concern us first.

Information.

Knowledge.

Wisdom.

Opinion.

Intent.

Again: We are creatures of habit.

We have a tendency to initially integrate all incoming information as: “How does this affect me?”, but we do this under the guise of our genetic disposition. Our “genetic disposition” of “Self Preservation”, the first rule of humanity is our deepest instinct. Instincts are knowledge passed down from the information our ancestors accepted as truth, out of necessity (or perceived necessity). So, let us collectively and openly consider how it is our brains work to see if it is possible to create a concept of God when there is no God. Sure, we assume it is an impossible task. If it weren’t an impossible task we assume someone in the past few thousand years would have been able to make a strong enough case to stick. Incidentally, perhaps some did, which is (maybe?) why we have some evidence of it scattered and hidden away in religions, and numerous other mediums as well.

Our perceptions and definitions may vary slightly, but consider the possibility of the following ways to describe the intangible concepts they represent. They may vary slightly from your perspective, but just consider the perspective exists, even if it is only the result of their (our) deductive reasoning. At the very least the following concepts deserve consideration. How are we (the observers) observing? What constitutes an observation?

Information is acquired knowledge/wisdom perceived under the constraints of our opinions.

Knowledge is the conclusions we come to accept as truth, drawing these conclusions from how our opinions and intent cause us to perceive the information.

Opinions are the assumptions we come to, and use to fill in the blanks with our best educated guess, that guess being the result of our observations and analysis of our interactions with others.

Wisdom is experience using knowledge.

Intent is ultimately demonstrated by us when we are forced to make the toughest of decisions. Intent is ultimately represented by the genetic disposition of “Self Preservation”, or “Self Preserve”, AKA “Self Before I Serve”, or at least that is how we recognize it.

Law Of Association is how we perceive the brain to work. We teach our children how to count and work our way “up” to trigonometry, not visa-versa.

We tend to say either out loud or to ourselves: “I know your kind”. But, ultimately what we know relies on how we choose to determine what the above Bold words mean to us, along with a few other words. And, if someone chooses to say to people “I know your kind”, people choose to know they don’t. Being known is perceived as not always beneficial, due to the perceptions we have that it does not benefit us (Self Preserve) to be known to others. We are fearful of being known. We hide behind screen names and choose only to open up how we think, our most passionate and intimate thoughts, to people we perceive as being separated by great distances and far away.

Perhaps we don’t know what we don’t know until we choose to view (and then experience) the world and every aspect there in as “How does this affect everything”, instead of “How does this effect me”.

Perhaps there is no “Eye” until there is no “I”. In thought. In practice. Information, Knowledge, Opinion, Wisdom, Intent.

“How does this affect me?”

Verses . … .. . . . . .

“How does this effect all of existence?”

Everyone wants to belong. People tend to fear being known for who they are out of fear of not belonging.

What do you guys think?


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join