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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Choosing between being one who is supporting unity, and being one who is supporting division.


And what indications do you have that a person is choosing unity?

First one would have to know one's self in order to recognize those personality and character traits you know of in yourself. Because, it does take one to know one.



How do you know?


I know myself, and 18 years of practicing in everyday life of having a higher reverence for individuals rather than myself operating under the primal instinct of self before service.

Once a person knows what it is that motivates them personally, then other peoples intentions become transparent, as do they. But, don't take my word for it. Listen to what everyone elses intentions are, and see how they rule those individuals' lives.


What does a person who is 'choosing division' look like? What's the basic difference?


They look like their actions and behaviors and manurisms. They look like what it is that motivates them most. They look exactly like their intentions of either serving self or serving existance itself.



Is it:

Atheist = Choosing division
Believer = Choosing unity

??


I would say no. But, ultimatley doesn't it depend on what you know? Maybe it is impossible for you to currently understand a believer does not know, where an atheist may know not. Seems to me there is more than believing in something unproven and believing in something is unproven because it doesn't exist. Perhaps there is knowing because it is proven, which is stronger than believing.



I'd like to believe both Atheists and Believers can both hold in high reverence the ideals of tolerance and unity. However, it could easily appear to either that the other does not practice tolerance of their preffered beliefs. Why can't neither be wrong from their perspective viewpoints?

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
"hate" is the door.
"Fear" is the lock.
"Love" is the key.
"Truth" is what is on the other side of the door.
"You" are the doorstop. Where are you in regards to the door? Propping it open? Blocking it shut?

How can you overcome the lock if you can not overcome the self imposed computer program of "Selfish before service"?

How can you even acknowledge that it is your own fears that keep you from the truth when it is your own fears that prevent you from even recongnizing your own fears?

As far as athiesm goes:
What will provide you the strength and courage you need to face your own fears, the same fears you have conditioned yourselves to listen to before all else. As far as you (atheists) can tell, your first impression will always be the automated response (negative emotions) that stem from fear, because you are too cowardly to resolve your fears before you permit your fears to manifest themselves in a shared reality. Proves how selfish you truly are. How can atheists open the lock (fears) with nothing greater than the ideologies of men? For, there is nothing greater than the theology and ideologies of men to serve as a basis for comparison.

Although I may not agree with the methods of the author of this thread, I can see how he/she sees it.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I thought i would revive one of my first threads here at BTS.

Although my point of view has changed some since i first authored this thread, i feel there is some strong truth behind the reasoning for my claim that a person who has always been an athiest has no basis for comparison within their own mind to make any justifiable arguement that parrallels empathy for someone who is spiritually enlightened.

Let's consider intentions for a moment.

What is your description of "good intentions"?

QUESTION:

Does one who does a good thing out of fear of the reprocussions/consequences perform actions/behaviors that still fall under the definition of good intentions?


Thanks in advance for your contributions. Please forgive me for some of the condiscending statements i have made in the past.

I appreciate your thoughts in advance
i thank you,
john.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

"Any idiot off the street can form a religion and its belief system - as has been proven in the past......and in no time there will be suckers who follow blindly singing hymns all the way. "


Great quote !! So we atheists just don't get it huh?? Yea your right....we should all just bow down to any religion out there huh? You believe in a Creator so we all should right ?? Spare Me !! If its "Unity" for all you want then why MUST we atheists follow your "god" or any "god" for that matter?? Why do you say "we atheists don't get it" because you say so ? because we don't follow some obscure diety or have the same thought process as you ??

This just proves my point of belief in a religion breeds ego.....if someone believes in a "god" they MUST be right (because no one would follow the wrong religion - right ?) and everyone else must be wrong and if you don't believe also then your just "not getting it".....so your belief in your "god" instantly makes you right and atheists wrong ?? Come on !! Brotherhood and Unity for Man can be accomplished WITHOUT having to buy into one's religion.

I am for one glad that "I don't get it" I would much rather be an atheist than a egotistical religious zealot.













[edit on 30-8-2006 by Alpha Grey]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Whereas Talmudists actually follow more than just a few paragraphs, the athiests decided only to follow the parts which they could read; or the parts which Darwin, Marx and others extracted for them.

Atheists trade in one thing (religion) and take another smaller part of it calling it "non-religiious" but in the end they are still following a religious doctrine which killed more people in just one century than all other religious wars combined have. It's perfectly fine for athiests like Stalin and Mau to murder human beings because we are no different than cattle. Well on the other hand, at least you can stay alive by arguing with the religious fanatic and try converting to another religion. But what rational argument can you offer up to an atheist who wants your liver for breakfast cause cow was not available for them today?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey

"Any idiot off the street can form a religion and its belief system - as has been proven in the past......and in no time there will be suckers who follow blindly singing hymns all the way. "


Great quote !! So we atheists just don't get it huh??


What internal mechanism which is not external provides humans the tools necessary to overcome the disfunctionality of humans' perceptions?

Is it your contention that humanity has no disfunctionality concerning our perception?


Can you prove our minds do not operate in accordance with the "Law of Association"?

Can a person fully integrate consciously new information from thier own experiences if they do not have the capability to attach the new information to the pre-requisites that must first be accepted as true by the mind of an individual?

In other words: How much will a person fully comprehend "5" as a real and truthful bit of information without any knowledge whatsoever (or denial of acceptance) of "1", "2", "3", and "4"?

When we begin kindergarden on day one does the teacher begin teaching us algebra, geometry, or Trigonometry?

No. Why? Because we do not have the building blocks necessary for our brain cells' neuro net which enable us to take us mentally from the known (from our perspective) to the unknown (from our perspective)

This is what the "Law of Association" refers to. We must be able to Associate consciously new information with pre-existing information, or we do not learn to fully understand the new information.

That is how the brain works to add new information. New information stored in our minds' (conscious minds')must attach itself to pre-existing information that we accept as factual.

So, if our minds abide by such rules as: We can only fully integrate new information to pre-accepted information, then what is the first few truths which we started with from our beginning? And do these first accepted truths in our reality serve us best to comprehend our reality, or do they hinder our progress to understand?

Well, we all begin with the first accepted truth passed on to us through our genetics, and this primary command dominates every cell that comprises us as the macro-organism.

The first truth is the instinct which exists immediatley after conception, but inherently before as well.

That instinct is "Self PreServe", which broken down means:
Self = Self, aka ME, aka I
Pre = Before
Serve= To Serve, aka AID, aka HELP

So the first accepted truth which exists at the core of our original computer (our brain), and at the core beginning of our personality, and at the core beginning of our opinions, and at the core beginning of our sense of SELF as an observer, and hence at the core beginning of how we interpret our very environment, and every experience.

So how does this affect our personality, opinions, observations, memories, experiences, and self?

We judge things in a certain way, often subconsciously, with the tools we are provided.

Think of the symbolism of having an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. We are driven by a core program that may be disfunctional, because it causes us to look at everything in usually only 2 ways, which is not always a way to understand the truth, especially where the truth can not be found by examining it by only two different ways.

Because of "Self Preservation" and the fear it introduces into our psychi, we tend to ask ourselves two questions in determining our judgment of all we contemplate.

Question #1: "How can this be used to my advantage / How is this good for me / How can this be utillized to better my existance?" (considering Self Before Serve, this would be the example of how our minds interpret it to mean self first)aka SELFISHNESS. And, this is symbolically represented as the devil on one shoulder.

Question #2: "How could this be detrimental to me / What are the negative consequences that could be / How could this hurt me? (This is considering our FEARS, and our fears of the consequences, taking into account that we must serve our own needs and wants first) And, this is symbolically represented as the angel on the other shoulder.

Summary
1) We accept new information being integrated into our minds by only being able to attach the new infomation to the existing information, but only if it is compatible.

2) Our first accepted truth only enables us to ask 2 questions when judging everything we experience: How can this benefit me? & What negative consequences to me exist?

This is how our mind works, and the first truth we have.

So, can you prove we do not operate in accordance with the above information?

Can you disprove the "Law of Association"?

Can you disprove the instinct?

Can you provide proof that an internal mechanism exists that could overide our primary genetic command that prohibits us from even considering the possibilities that lie beyond "Is it good for me, or bad for me?"

Does such an internal mechanism exist? Would you even know it was there?

I mean, let's face it. On average people are not even consciously aware of 99.99999998% of their own thoughts.

A thought is the sharing of information delivered (usually) electically between brain cells. This process can be (and has been) measured via electrodes measuring electrical impulses in the brain. What were the results?

Well, what was found is that the conscious part of the mind produces 2,000 sparks of electricity between brain cells per second. Whereas the subconscious part of the mind produces 400,000,000,000 sparks of electricity per second.

If you drop three zeros off each number and equate your brain to your own personal jet, it is the same as saying that you have your own personal aircraft capable of a speed of 400,000,000 miles per hour, but most people are only travelling about 2 miles per hour. What is the cause for this? Why is our mind fractionalized and not fully sharing information?

The state of our conscious mind dictates what information our subconscious mind is permitted to present to it. And, ALL sensory input first gets delivered to the subconscious part of your mind.

Therefor this information begs us to ask the question "Since my subconscious mind is calculating at a rate of 400,000,000,000 bits of information per second, but is only relaying 2,000 bits of information per second, why are we not consciously aware of the other 399,999,999,998 bits of information?

Alpha Grey,
What internal mechanism exists to unlock the mind, given that the above information is factual?

You said:



So we atheists just don't get it huh??



Well, i ask how can you get it (it being truth) devoid of external tools that faiths, religions, theologies, and spiritual beliefs provide?

i also ask what external variable or factor initiates or drives one to contemplate what is wrong with them as an observer to their own reality, a reality that they remain 99.999998% unable to consciously experience?





Yea your right....we should all just bow down to any religion out there huh?


i don't recall saying that exactly, but i fail to see how any religion could exist for generations without some measure of truth. I just think it would be extremely egotistical to write off the accumilated knowledge of billions that have preceded myself.


You believe in a Creator so we all should right ?? Spare Me !! If its "Unity" for all you want then why MUST we atheists follow your "god" or any "god" for that matter?? Why do you say "we atheists don't get it" because you say so ? because we don't follow some obscure diety or have the same thought process as you ??



because you say so ?


Not because i say so, but because you can not disprove the reasoning i have supplied you.


This just proves my point of belief in a religion breeds ego.....


On this issue we dissagree. I think it would be more egotistical to just disregard the beliefs of the billions of souls that preceded us, and just accept they were all delusional, all of them, generations past.



Brotherhood and Unity for Man can be accomplished WITHOUT having to buy into one's religion.


Can it be accomplished without having any religion? What internal mechanism would cause a person to defrag their own brain, or even cause them to know it needed to be defragged?


I am for one glad that "I don't get it" I would much rather be an atheist than a egotistical religious zealot.


Which validates my claims you only see two options. You can either be "An egotisticcal religious zealot" or "an athiest who does not get it".

There is no truth that even exists outside of either being an egotistical religious zealot, or an athiest?

I understand your point of view, and you frustration. I merely try to regurgitate information that definatly makes sense to me, without having to introduce over quoted bible passages.

Science and Religion seem to be coming to parralleling conclusions. Would you dissagree?

I like you Alpha Grey. I agree with the majority of your posts. I know the introduction post and title to this thread are easily interpretted as contraversial and confrontational. I started this thread about a year ago, and it seemed that unless there was some drama, people would not really pay attention to the majority of threads, at the time. So, perhaps i was wrong for the way i designed the title, and the original post.

Peace,
John

Edited to add: Your Avatar has some words i like: "Bioengeneering humanity for a better tomorrow"

Who's better tomorrow, if our genetics sentence us to a prison without walls?

[edit on 31-8-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I don't believe there is a god and think you're wrong for believing in one.

Even if there was a god, its still odds on that he will be from a different religion anyway.

Every religion is so smug in believing they are the ones that are right, it really makes me laugh.

Religion is a way of controlling the population and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
To Esoteric Teacher

And I like you too !! You have a very good approach to issues like the one we debate now.....as for your question of:


Who's better tomorrow, if our genetics sentence us to a prison without walls?


Hopefully genetics will benefit man and NOT put us in a virtual prison.


There is no truth that even exists outside of either being an egotistical religious zealot, or an athiest?


Of course there are truths outside of that box....too many to count.....however out of all niether is the correct or chosen one......numbers of followers also do not make a faith true....only what one feels in their heart does so.


Thanks John !! its always a pleasure !
Peace to you too

Alpha Grey



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
My mental visual on this Earth ridden perception is that no one truly gets it yet. I have started to, I'm just not sure if any others have ever flashed their lights down this murky path. I imagine it a metallic wall of impossibility for them not to... but who knows? Athiests are wrong because they have no definition for existence, and other religions are wrong as a result of them lacking the ability to explain what came before God, or how God came into existence in the first place. Besides the typical answer of, "it just always has been!" Which is true in one sense that is outside the contex of organized religions... but false inside the fundamental belief of God being a single divine entity or spirit being. This is why I superlatively bow down at the intangible defeat of infinite. With love, peace, and truth.
David.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by dgoodpasture]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I don't believe there is a god and think you're wrong for believing in one. Even if there was a god, its still odds on that he will be from a different religion anyway. Every religion is so smug in believing they are the ones that are right, it really makes me laugh. Religion is a way of controlling the population and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.


What does believing in God, have to do with religion controlling people? People are the reason for all laws writen BY MEN AND FOR CONTROLLING MEN - not GOD. Men created religion and not God. If you think people are wrong to beleive in God then what do you suppose would be a preference to fill in that empty space that remains in their hearts once they become an atheist? Should we fill up this empty space with sciences, porn, and other religious theories 'hiding within materialism' such like 'Darwinism'?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I don't believe there is a god and think you're wrong for believing in one.

Even if there was a god, its still odds on that he will be from a different religion anyway.

Every religion is so smug in believing they are the ones that are right, it really makes me laugh.

Religion is a way of controlling the population and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.


Actually, religion comes from the deceiver. He seeks to keep you from seeing the truth.

Religion comes from Babylon. The objective is to keep you from seeing the Messiah.

And you've fallen for it hook line and sinker.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
If you think people are wrong to beleive in God then what do you suppose would be a preference to fill in that empty space that remains in their hearts once they become an atheist? Should we fill up this empty space with sciences, porn, and other religious theories 'hiding within materialism' such like 'Darwinism'?

And how many people do you really think would have an emptiness in their heart? Even if they did then time would heal a broken heart. They could fill up the emptiness anyway they pleased as its like any habit forming activity, once you give it up and persevere with will power and other activities to help break the religious habit you would no longer need religion.
And whats wrong with porn? LOL


G



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
actually the point of the riddle was simply to show how the word problem itself and rhetoric chosen could decieve, if only for a fraction of a second.

Thank you for explaining the technique -- reifying a fallacy by means of obfuscation -- to us. This is precisely how believers deceive themselves and attempt to deceive others.

Most irreligious people began their intellectual life on 'your side of the mountain'. Unlike believers, who are usually too afraid to contemplate life without Nobodaddy, we've been there, done that, found it didn't suit us and lighted out for the country where thought is free and the air doesn't reek of incense and blood-sacrifice.

By the way, your avatar is almost supernaturally distracting. I have to hold my hand over it in order to be able to read what you are saying.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
In the above post, please read 'supernaturally' for 'almost supernaturally'.

Thank you.

After all, one doesn't want to be rude.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people.

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions.

The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people.

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions.

The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool.


Now if everyone else on the face of this planet would be willing to disregard the beliefs of the billions of souls that have preceded us who perpetuated this sham, everone will think like you.

Personally i am not willing to totally write their beliefs off as not having some basis in truth, given how the human mind works.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I kicked spirtualities ass one time.
No big deal.

Annnd...
One of those guys, they're pretty bad assed too.

Yeah.
Take that, your beliefs.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
OK. Thanks for the poetry Mozart.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I haven't read every post on here but I want to have my say anyway.

Firstly, what the hell does the sum in the original post have to do with anything? You took one piece of numerical information and twisted it so it reflected your views.

Secondly, I don't know what atheists you have been talking to, but I think most of us would actually say "Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want".
As an atheist I have many friends who all have different religions. I choose not to believe in one of them because they all seem to me to be pointless.
Religious people say its a matter of faith and my lack of belief equates to a lack of faith.
I can acceept that.

But I say to all of you who do have religion that your the ones who don't get it. While debating with a friend who is religious, he told me that religion helps him know right from wrong. Many people who argue with atheists often use this argument.

I find this just as offensive as you find someone telling you your beliefs are a steaming pile of BS.
By what right does anyone have to tell me that because I don't believe in a higher power that I lack the judgemental decision to know right from wrong? I have no criminal record, and am involved in less anti-social situations a majority of people who I know who come from various faiths.

I don't need religion. To me, religion is a way of keeping people free from taking responsibility for their actions. As long as you have a God or someone to report to, you can write it off as being part of his plan.
I'd rather take responsibility for myself, and allow you to do whatever you want to do. Its your lives, your minds and your thoughts.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

OK. Thanks for the poetry Mozart.

Anytime.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join