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