It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Psychology Of A Theistic Mind

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:18 PM
This topic has enticed me for years now. I've been curious to discover why people believe in what they believe in, and what makes them feel so threatened towards other beliefs that have no sights of those persons beliefs anywhere near their focal point.

I live in Canada - and for those that don't know - the top two views of religion is Christianity (at 77%) and 'none' [Atheist/agnostic/non-religious] at 16.2%. Regardless of growing up in a strong Jewish family with very avid Christian/Catholic close relatives, I've never believed in a god/gods/higher power. I've never considered myself Jewish, Christian, or Catholic, and like the entire human race I was born without a belief in a god or religion (I just happened to maintain that disbelief).

It's always struck me as curious as to why people have believed in these deities, and from what I can tell, there are a lot of reasons. For the vast majority of those reasons they have had strong psychological properties to them. By this I mean through a feeling of loneliness, hopelessness, or simply comfort in a difficult time. Others have told me they aren't sure why they believe, they just do, which we can usually assume is through indoctrination from relatives and or family members or the community itself. To me, these all make perfect sense. It's completely understandable as to why someone would resort to a being they can tell everything to and they know who loves them. After all, we are a social species, we thrive on social experiences, teamwork and relations. What better way to accomplish these social connections than to have an ever present being that knows all about you and who you believe is there for assistance?

The reasons that strike me as the most interesting, however, is personal experiences. The experiences that drive people to say "you had to be there, that's the only way you'd understand". These ones are the most interesting because it's based on what the individual has perceived an event to portray. And there are a lot of factors that take place when these events occur.

Take for example a person who's going through a time in there life where religious preachers are on their mind for whatever reason. A sentence may have been said to trigger some sort of epiphany which makes this person focus on a specific god or a specific religion. They decide to ask a god for assistance "Dear god, if you are really out there, show me a sign". Within some time (maybe a minute, maybe an hour, maybe a week or month goes past) they see a whole bunch of crosses and words that point to Jesus and Christianity.

I've met a person who gave this reason as the reason they are now a Christian. To many theists, this really is a sign. But what they fail to see is those little factors that took place to create this wondrous 'sign'. The same individual lived in 'the bible belt' of the United States, A place where the most religious population tend to accumulate. With this one factor, this "sign" all of a sudden unfolds. Chances are he's going to see a lot of crosses driving anywhere in the area he lives. After all, there were an over abundance of churches surrounding his community. There were also a lot of active preachers, ones that tended to shout out their beliefs on the side of the road and so on. We now have our trigger which would most likely have eventually happened given the right amount of time. Our biggest factor, however, is the psychological one, the one that lead this person to start avidly thinking about religion/god, there for placing him in a psychological state in which he started looking for a sign. Eventually, regardless of how long he had to wait, his prayer would have been "answered". And the chances of that being answered by the Christian Religion were quite high considering his area and community.

This, I do also understand. They strike me as a bit more interesting than the first reasons simply because of all these causes and affects that seem to play out.

The ones that are by far the most interesting are the ones that people tend to post on this board. The ones that are nearly unexplainable. The true "you had to be there to believe it" stories. A baby falls off the couch and stops just inches before hitting the floor when she/he is slowly placed on the ground unharmed. Of course, we usually have no proof other than the words of the witness, so we don't have much to work with to explain it away. But, because of this lack of Proof, it still doesn't render me in a state to which I am willing to convert. It needs more structure than that.

But, I'm not in a state of "There is absolutely no possibility of god, there for nothing you say or do or any event that could or has ever happened will change my mind". After all, that is the exact state in which I despise. A state in which no form of evidence can change a persons mind. This tends to especially occur in religious fanatics.

Blindly following something with the intense stubbornness to disallow new information to change a perspective is practically insulting to man kind. We've always grown through knowledge, and when you retard the influence of new information, that is when progression ceases to continue. People ask questions to further themselves in life, and when you stop, prevent or are forced to resist that questioning, you are at a stand still in life.

Which brings me to my next curiosity. But before I touch up on that, let me explain a few things to some people that may not see the difference between the minds of Theists alone.

As a simple example, we have a Theist, a Christian who takes the bible as 100% literal. Everything happened the way it says, every story occurred the way it did and the earth is a mere few thousand years old.

You then have a Theist, Also a Christian, who takes the bible as true, yet with some (or many) hyperbolic points added to the stories. A person who thinks "ok, well we don't have actual proof of a global flood, in fact, everything we do have kind of points against it. So, chances are it was over a large area, and a man took all of his family and his animals to live on their ark for a few days until this flood dissipated, that i can see actually happening".

The main difference between these two people is that the second Theist has the ability to see both the point of the story, being a good person, as well as the rational concepts behind the entire bit. Where as Theist number one can only view it as "Global or your wrong". They have this inability to accept outside information that - even though the facts may be perfectly obvious - may prove their side to be a tad bit over-the-top.

In one hand we have a person who can live and apply rationally through information and their beliefs, and on the other we have a potentially dangerous mind in which no amount of truth can persuade them to alter their belief. Progression, in that case, has ceased.

One of my most favorite topics is Evolution. Not because it disproves Christianity (because frankly, it doesn't), but because it's so unbelievably misunderstood when it comes to theists. It's not that these people are incapable of understanding it, or that the ones that can are 'so much smarter'. It usually comes down to simply being misguided by an individual who they may look to for support (priest for example), that also doesn't understand the topic too well.

Think of it this way; We have a teacher who teaches math to students, this teacher loves math, math is their life and they've put a great deal of study into the practice. Chances are these students are going to be taught the correct ways of applying this math to life, or at the very least answer the questions in a test correctly at a higher rate.

We have another teacher who hates math and doesn't usually teach it or ever really uses it. This teacher despises math. Yet the good math teacher is sick and this one has to step in. Chances are that this bias this new teacher has towards mathematics will reflect on what the students are being taught. They won't get the proper instruction, there for the test results are much lower.

You can apply this same principle to Science as well.

The sad truth is is that the majority of preachers and priests and anyone high up in religious stature isn't well versed in the scientific community. In fact, some of these preachers and priests may dislike the idea of any science that they tell their followers all the bad that comes out of it, and nothing anyone who accepts any bit of science knows what they are talking about. "science is an attack on god" yada yada yada... The test results are low.

Back to Evolution though. The ONLY thing Evolution revolves around is the gradual change of organic life. It has nothing to do with how life started on a planet, or who started it or anything like that. It ONLY describes gradual change in organic life that has already existed. Which is why many theists (Christians are a great example) can still accept Evolution and continue to believe in their god and/or religion.

But the individuals that interest me are the ones that reject any information about anything to do with evolution. In fact, if you are one of these individuals, you've probably already forgotten or chose to ignore the fact that I just said, that being "evolution has nothing to do with how life started on this planet" because you've been driven to believe that whatever comes spewing out of my mouth is a lie and false.

This is one thing I can't help but not understand. Why would you want to live a life of complete disregard of everything that doesn't fit inside your bubble that now can never expand? If there is no new information added, then you are stuck, you can never progress, and you can never learn. And the fact that you allow this to happen to yourself means that you may be enticing this same act upon other people, which may just be the ultimate form of inhumanity.
edit on 23/12/10 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:09 AM
reply to post by Ghost147

Why are interesting threads like this never flagged, then you find a thread explaining that "Jesus" has been found on a bit of toast and it gets spammed with flags.

I can't agree with you more OP. Religion and the theistic mind is a infectious mindset that causes all sorts of prejudice. They use the same techniques as the Hitler youth did; however, they try to sugar coat this indoctrination with some half-baked sloppy moral relativism derived from an ancient book, it's laughable.

I have no concerns with Deism/Pantheist and my arguments with them are normally very short. How can a Theist even claim to reveal wisdom regarding the source or creation of the universe? How can they also know his/her/it's desires, or whether "it" even has any at all?

What's the most ironic thing about all this nonsense that every religious person is an Atheist. They are atheist in regards to every other religion but their own.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins, "The Root of All Evil", UK Channel 4, 2006
British ethologist, geneticist, & popularizer of genetics (1941 - )

edit on 26/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by Ghost147

Why would you want to live a life of complete disregard of everything that doesn't fit inside your bubble that now can never expand?

I can only speak from a Christian point of view but I'd say it has a lot to do with who a Christian interacts with the most after their conversion. If one is to interact with your stereotypical young earth creationist types, in particular a pastor, for example, he's going to just accept what Pastor X says, since Pastor X is teaching what the Bible says and he wants to grow in his faith. It's difficult to shake off a believe that comes so close after a big experience like a religious conversion. So it's not so much that a person wants to live in this bubble of theirs. It is just difficult sometimes for people to see how they can "swap out" a belief and the bubble not pop. It can, and does, happen though. (And not everyone has a bubble that can't grow from the outset.)

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:55 PM
When I wonder about what it takes to embrace a logically indefensible certainty, where I tend to focus is on the very first person to think that seemingly unthinkable thought, and what could've inspired that thought.

The average knucklehead know-it-all will simply point to a basic human need (fear of inevitable nonexistence) and state "It's obvious. People invented the concept of an eternal God to stave off their terror of ceasing to exist, and that by inventing this eternal God, it opened the door to the possibility of their own eternal existence." And all the other surface thinkers will toss stars all over his post and move on to weightier questions. Now, while this conclusion may seem perfectly reasonable on the face of it, it's only a reasonable assertion if you don't think too deeply into it as a complete explanation. The truth is that as an explanation, it only works if you ignore the first 1/3 of what it'd take for such a concept to evolve into what it's become. Then again, the thinkers that clog up the roads that lead to wisdom have always been those who haven't the sense or humility to realize when they're only holding a segment of the information chain. And usually only a small segment at that.

If you can answer the real question - what allowed the first human mind to conceive of an invisible personage that could possibly exist as real and effectual, while not being perceivable in any way whatsoever - then you can begin to properly address the issue of what causes the theist (not simply the bandwagon rider, who latches onto whichever notion is least objectionable as he/she coasts through corporeal existence) to embrace the belief in a god or gods. If you can't do any better than stating "People invented it to convince themselves that when they die, they'll get to live on" then you haven't even gotten into the time zone of this mystery. Even the classic "noise in the dark" premise - as the inspiration for the idea of invisible people - is ludicrous, since ancient humans had plenty of experience with scary noises in the dark, and all those experiences involved predatory animals - whether confronted or left out there in that darkness.

It seems as though most people have no capacity to associate themselves, or the human race in general, with the mundane realm of corporeal existence, and because of this, they can't appreciate just how extremely counterintuitive the concept of non-corporeal existence - especially intelligent non-corporeal existence - really is. Being capable of actually associating ones own nature with such non-corporeal existence is even more of an intense violation of what should be the go-to response to whatever might be an internal or external item of stimulation, that to attribute such a response to a primitive lack of intellectual sophistication is to completely miss the boat on how difficult the original notion had to have been to invent - that is, if it was invented at all.

21st Century humans believe that they are the epitome of human existence on Planet Earth, just as 12th Century BCE humans did. If it's true and we are the epitome, then humanity didn't invent the concept of the non-corporeal intelligent (and interactive) being. If this is not true, then we have no idea what else we don't realize about our own species' run on this planet. Either choice should cause one to sit back and think fresh about the whole theism versus atheism debate. But it won't. No other realization ever has.

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:12 PM
I don't really want to get into a debate on this, but would like to say that the atheists are for the most part, operating on the basis of a false assumption and a projection relative to people of faith, belief and/or gnosis or awareness. Theirs is a completely different frame of reference, which might even be no frame of reference, at all.

For me, the creation of world is itself a truimph of persuasion, over force.

Anyway, I'd just like to leave off with this quote

"God cannot be explained, He cannot be argued about, He cannot be theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood. God can only be lived...

To understand the infinite, eternal Reality is not the GOAL of individualized beigns in the Illusion of Creation, because the Reality can never be understood; it is to be realized by conscious experience.

Therefore, the GOAL is to realize the Reality and attain the "I am God" (of God) state in human form."

~ Meher Baba, "God Speaks" (bracketed "of God" statement added by me)

"And as my father hath sent me, even so send I you."
~ Jesus of Nazareth

At the same time, just to show where some are coming from, in positing the notion of an Absolute Godhead relative to which we are, and have life, and function, as individualized beings in the creation, I would also offer this, from a couple of the leading scientific minds of our time.

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.

Be biggest challenge I think, for the psychology of the theistic mind, is how not to be insulted by the assumptions and projections of atheists relative to their believing and seeking brothers and sisters, that's what I struggle with, how not to be unsulted and hurt by it, and pained at the degree of ignorance involved.

edit on 26-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

I'm pleased to report that I've resolved that painful aspect, by recognizing the extraordinary humor of it, in such a way that it's possible to rejoice, with both believer and atheist alike, since no man is an island, and I refuse believe in any sort of exclusive Godhead within the context of the relativity of human being. And it's a pretty funny joke coming from my fellow man, who assures me in no uncertain terms, that there is no God, so I can thank you then, for that, and never scorn anyone for it, since it is their absolute right, as free people, set free for the sake of all good things, including fellowship, and mutual understanding, free to live, to laugh, and to rejoice together, even at the wonderment of finding ourselves together in this life, in disagreement about it's meaning and purpose, origins and destiny, how wonderful, absurd, and humorous that is - something that would be lacking absent the atheist, don't you see?!
And no I am not laughing at anyone, just with you all at the utter absurdity of our predicament, no matter what you might think it is, or is FOR.
There's God in that.. as an experience in koinonia or intimate participation, and that (the brotherhood of man) is the only thing that matters in the final analysis, and, at the end of the day, someone on "my end", on the side of the believers, has to have the courage and the balls to leave the temple..
That said I still think it's the atheist's loss for not having had the opportunity to see it's walls, its frame and dome, that still saddens me to a degree, but for the sake of love, and mutuality, such a sacrifice is worthwhile, and of course, in extending one's self for the sake of love in this way, he will come to know that's what's done is done in God!

"I can't explain", The Who?

Got a feeling inside (Can't explain)
It's a certain kind (Can't explain)
I feel hot and cold (Can't explain)
Yeah, down in my soul, yeah (Can't explain)

I said ... (Can't explain)
I'm feeling good now, yeah, but (Can't explain)

Dizzy in the head and I'm feeling blue
The things you've said, well, maybe they're true
I'm gettin' funny dreams again and again
I know what it means, but …

Can't explain
I think it's love
Try to say it to you
When I feel blue

But I can't explain (Can't explain)
Yeah, hear what I'm saying, girl (Can't explain)

Dizzy in the head and I'm feeling bad
The things you've said have got me real mad
I'm gettin' funny dreams again and again
I know what it means but

Can't explain
I think it's love
Try to say it to you
When I feel blue

But I can't explain (Can't explain)
Forgive me one more time, now (Can't explain)


I said I can't explain, yeah
You drive me out of my mind
Yeah, I'm the worrying kind, babe
I said I can't explain


And God Bless!


edit on 26-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: slight edit

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

God is nothing more than a conjuring trick.

Every religion has their own idea of God, no one can confirm it objectively. Every religious person is atheistic to any other theory which i find incredibly ironic.

Every human is agnostic in regards to the creation of the entire universe and beyond. No one knows. Anyone claiming to is simply guessing, anyone claiming to know it as truth is simply hiding behind their own unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Sagan and many other intellectuals have long since defeated the petty argument for Creationism.

Unless someone can demonstrate with irrefutable empirical evidence, i will NOT renounce my Atheism.

Atheism is not equal to Theism. Theism makes the positive assertion of "GOD" and claims to know the demands of the GOD. The burden of proof is on them, like in any other scientific application.

Don't trust any Theist when they state "Science is untrustworthy, it is always changing it's mind". This is nonsense; science is a tool. Video for reference: "YOU CAN'T TRUST SCIENCE" Argument.

Atheism is a LACK of belief in their proposed theory, the clear lack of evidence being reason enough to doubt their theories.

Atheism isn't a religion, we don't have dogma, it's not a philosophy, it's not politics, we don't tell people how to live their lives; it's simply a lack of belief.

Similarly, someone might say "Astrology works" - although i don't consider myself an Anti-Astrologist - i can safely say that there is no evidence to suggest this works, that celestial bodies can dictate the future human affairs, this is nonsense.

Personal experience is always a card drawn by the Theistic mind, as if personal experiences with other phenomenen such as Ghosts have ever stood up to scientific tests, or logic.

I could have seen a Volcano erupt 2000 years ago, and without critical knowledge,i might have guessed this is a "GOD".

Please i urge anywone to read our comments and research atheism and agnosticism.

I present to you the Symphony of Science by Carl Sagan
edit on 27/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:59 AM
Science should be enough to deter anyone from such presumptuous unfalsifiable theories of "GOD"


posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:01 AM
Comfort... some (many) people prefer to choose a safe anchor (i.e. religion) over a curious stare into the (frightening) abyss of uncertainty and utterly mysterious and alien Universe we find ourselves in; a bottomless pit, devoid of meaning (as we humans invented and understand the term) and all that.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by MrVortex

indeed, the REASON to believe should overule the WANT to believe.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by MrVortex
Comfort... some (many) people prefer to choose a safe anchor (i.e. religion) over a curious stare into the (frightening) abyss of uncertainty and utterly mysterious and alien Universe we find ourselves in; a bottomless pit, devoid of meaning (as we humans invented and understand the term) and all that.

Like I said - explain the initial notion of an invisible entity that can't be physically perceived in any manner whatsoever, created out of whole cloth by a corporeal being that lives in a physical realm that features absolutely no linkage at all with such a completely incompatible idea. If you can do this, then you can blithely suggest that "comfort" is what caused the first human mind to invent, and then psychologically embrace, such a concept as being comforting. Frankly, I've tried to resolve this obvious dilemma, and have tried to find anyone - including the heavily quoted theorists featured in this thread - who's even come close to resolving this mystery - and to date, it has not been resolved.

The question is simple.

If a human being invented the concept of a being that cannot be perceived in any manner whatsoever, then what was the intellectual linkage that existed (or still exists) to make that original invention possible? If you say that it was anything other than what we can easily perceive with our 5 corporeal senses, then you need to explain how it could be logically feasible for a mind that was never introduced to the concept of non-corporeal existence to suddenly invent the concept of non-corporeal existence. Then, you have to logically progress that notion to the point where the human mind could possibly conceive of that invisible intelligent being that it invented (that can never be perceived in any manner whatsoever) as being preeminent and possessing absolute dominion over all that the human being CAN perceive with its 5 corporeal senses.

Oh, and simply asserting that such an invention was originally the result of a person being crazy; think again. Insanity is not spectacularly creative - as anyone who's ever dealt with people suffering from schizophrenia will readily agree - and delusions are generally mundane copies or pedestrian elaborations of well-worn premises that have been kicking around for quite a while. In fact, it's often the case that you end up thinking the person is being purposely sophomoric in their delusional landscape. Insanity just isn't very inventive. The kind of spectacular leap of thought that resulted in the concept of non-corporeal intelligent existence - from an absolute void of any such possible notion within a perceivable realm that completely opposes any such notion as being create-able without extremely directive inspiration and/or guidance - is the kind of leap in thought that has never occurred again on this planet in association with any human advancement of any kind. Everything else that's been imagined has featured intellectual linkage to something else. Even huiman flight can be directly linked to the fact that other creatures fly. Not creative thought by any means, but simply an engineering puzzle to be worked out.

You can choose to ignore this one critical requirement, but if you do, then you've failed in your effort to prove or disprove the theistic notion. It's as simple as that.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:23 AM
Ok, here's my take:
I always believed the Bible, Santa, Easter Bunny was all fantasy, was somewhat of an agnostic/atheist in college, but then started to research.

My research led me to find that what the mystics & philosophers say about God is very in tune with what Quantum Mechanics says about reality, albeit the wording is a little different. Not only that, these ancient texts have techniques on how to experience God.

So guess what? I treated it as a "spiritual scientist" examining, testing, probing the techniques and realities of whether this is true. The result? Something phenominal happened. Its as if I was awoken from a great slumber and began to use more of the brain, the heart, a soul, new faculties that make standard logic and reason look like fools. It was a great awakening into the experience of a God reality, infinite, timeless, beyond words.....and took me on a path to know myself, master myself, to be a master of self.

So now in retrospect, those without this awakening, are operating in an old dying mode of duality, illusion, and not knowing. This is something far beyond belief or no belief in things. It is testable results, or should I say the experience of objectivity to the subjective individual. It is knowing God, where as everyone else is speculating a belief in and or a non belief in.

In reality, the mind itself is a projector of illusion, labels, and beliefs .....and the zinger? The mind is not who you are. It was originally a tool to be used and put down when done, but has hi-jacked identity.

Bottom line being if folks would spend some time going within, investigating where thoughts come from, investigating every aspect of themselves ...they would find vast universes, light, and a soul within themselves. They would find and start to remember that they pre-existed before taking on a body.

But suit yourselves ......I was once atheist/agnostic (on the fence) myself, and that all ends up a dead end to real true Gnosis.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by dominicus

If you know of God, why don't you explain your subjective experience of it, him or her. Whether it has emotions, whether it's just the force of nature, whether it has desires of your life and so on.

Are you not just simply experiencing nature/concsiousness and labelleing that "GOD"?

Basically, i don't get what you know that i don't, me being an agnostic. And i'm not ignorant enough or close-minded to say i don't want to know, so tell me


posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

If you know of God, why don't you explain your subjective experience of it, him or her. Whether it has emotions, whether it's just the force of nature, whether it has desires of your life and so on.

God is completely beyond words, can only be experienced directly to be known otherwise we now approach the realm of semantics, lost in translation, etc.

Best way put, it is pure objectivity, all things at once and unadulterated by the mind and its ideas, thoughts, labels. A living infinity that is timeless, the eternal Now. It is more real and alive than the mode I was in and functioning before the experience of this happened and is entirely in tune with science, except that this isn't exactly a material that can be prodded under a microscope ala the materialism that science studies.

Very precise and mathematical. The way that from number zero to number 1, you can slice pieces into tenths, hundreds, thousands, millionths, etc, and then take each of those slices and continue slicing infinitely.

It is a real living allegory of the Cave. The truest potential with which a human can be, live, exist. Before this, reason is a slave to the passions (lust, hunger, brainwashing, etc) but this is completely beyond and more advanced than any systemic set of logic and/or reason that a human mind can create.

Are you not just simply experiencing nature/concsiousness and labelleing that "GOD"?

It very well may be so, but compared to my own consciousness ...this God like experience is an objective consciousness that is everywhere and infinite and infinitely intelligent and in all things at once, and knows you better than you know yourself.

This is the problem with religion and dogma partially, because someone who came upon this awesomeness would try and revert (that which is beyond words) back into words and thus people create all types of dogma, logic, reason, and understanding about something that is completely beyond this all, and yet closer to you than your own breathing.

Its just that in my context, I decided to test the theories of what monks, mystics, and those who have experienced God have said .... they laid out techniques, practices, formulas that if one is to follow will result in the experience of a real God.

The result to me is something that is more real than anything I ave ever come across and is infinite, never ending, without a beginning, timeless, and very mysterious because is completely beyond the mind..... but yet the best thing in the world. I would trade all the money, power, sex, fame, food in the world just to have this as a direct experience or even just to let you pr any stranger have a taste of this.

Basically, i don't get what you know that i don't, me being an agnostic. And i'm not ignorant enough or close-minded to say i don't want to know, so tell me

Well, for example I've spend the last decade studying everything I can get my hands on about direct experiences of God no matter what the source and tried dozens of the techniques. Not just "religions" but also philosophy, east and west, quantum mechanics, mediation, have taken myself out of comfort zones, tested myself mentally living minimalistically, watched my own mind and all of its intricacies, etc.

Basically scoured info from around the world and did not discriminate against it, whether it be from plato, sufi's, empedocles, mystics, advaita, jesus, etc. This was key to me. There was always for me this inner hunch when I was agnostic, that a man who goes and leaves everything and spends a year in meditation, solitude, and de-programming himself from that which culture, peers, race, gender, creed, programs into us from birth ....will reach some sort of original state or original truth that is prior to the programming this world comes with. And that this will be more real and pure than everything else.

Well this has proven true to me as well. The big key came with studying Advaita Vedanta and seeing how that corresponds with the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Basically the thought of a rock is not the same as an actual rock. The thought of something is not the actual something.

Which means that thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc are all unreal. They are not reality the way reality without labels is pure and unadulterated.

Well, if the thought of something is not the actual something ....then who do you think you are ? Or who do I think I am? You see the paradox?

Well this led into lots of insights, wrestling with my own logic and reason, mediation, for hours on end just questioning the reality or illusion of everything ....and eventually out of that my identity, ego, I, dropped away and revealed this Living Infinity that is absolute, and objective, yet also subjective at the same time. It was a real awakening from an extremely deep slumber ....yet from that awakening there s no 'I' to awaken to this reality of Infinity. There is only that without labels, yet living, breathing, aliveness, intelligence, all-knowing because it is everywhere and in everything, etc etc.

And then the dilemma occurs. Coming back to everyone elses' subjective realities that are filtered by their own minds does one even begin to explain these things to others when everyone is completely wrapped up in their own bubbles, biases, addictions, psychological, habits, labels, etc.

This is a state/reality without any of that ....trying to explain to someone wrapped up in all of that. It becomes a joke to people, another belief, or they don't have time for it, or only what science says, or fill in excuse here_______. Yet the amazing thing is that some people "get it" and in that getting their own bubbles, subjectivity, biases, etc begin crumbling all around them. Which the end result is the complete freedom for all ideas, angles, points of view at once. Pure unadulteration of everything.

Which then in retrospect it makes complete sense what Jesus was trying to say, what Buddha was trying to say, the Tao, Socrates (who himself even though he could have escaped, drank the hemlock for the sake of dying for this absolute truth ...a self sacrifice knowing that he isn't the mind or the body but something completely beyond) is then that the heart/core of most religions makes sense and then one sees how they lost their way, the creation of more dogma, more ideas, more concepts, rituals, etc pretty much all but covering up the absolute truth that is so simple yet so infinitely complex.

In the end, Atheism has it partially correct ...the lack of a belief in God. Yet they are still operating in the realm of thoughts, concepts, ideas ...etc all of which are illusions just like a belief is. So the best way to settle it is see for yourself. Dig and dig and dig until you know for sure that God isn't real, that you are not an illusion, and so on.

I dug and I found that God is real, that technically 'I' is an illusion, have remembered pre-existing ...or at least some sort of pre-existing state of being before having a body, and many other amazing truths. It simply is a specific radio frequency that requires all of your knobs and Antennae tuned into.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:27 PM
Interesting view and juxtaposition of the psychology of both the theistic mind, and the atheist mind. Intriguing.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by dominicus

This is exactly why Gnosticism failed miserably when challenged by Literalism back when the Romans decided to create a religion from the Hebrew's edition of the Hellensitic mystery craze sweeping the Mediterranean 2,000 year ago. There's nothing shareable here. Nothing that anyone can possibly relate to or learn from. Reality is experiencable, and everyone experiences it. This version of experience is so nebulous as to only exist within the immediate perception of one individual, and if it does actually represent the true nature of the human being, then the human being has no true relationship with the reality that sits in front of everyone's face - including the face of the initiate during 99.99999999999% of their own lifetime. If you can't see the obvious problem with presenting this quick flash of altered perception as the true physical nature of humanity, then you simply have no capacity for perceiving the obvious.

If something that is alleged to be fundamental - such as the true nature of the human being - is actually fundamental, then it must be overwhelmingly pervasive within the confines of its theater of influence. This whatever-it-is-that-you-guys-can't-even-describe doesn't really fill that requirement. Hell, you can't even describe it, and when I go searching for details on this whatever-it-is, I run into the same "you'll know it if you achieve it" copout, regardless of what expert I buy a book from. Beyond that, no one has any answers as to what it actually is or how it actually relates to everything else that is way too common within the realm of human existence.

Maybe if you folks got together and solidified what it is that you're talking about you might come to a conclusion concerning at least the overview. Then again, if this has been going on for 6,000+ years already, and you're still walking around and trying to describe the color of sound (essentially) then I'm not optimistic that this will ever happen.

Meanwhile, you can always look at the rest of us as idiots, I suppose. Whatever.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:54 PM
I still say that in light of all the evidence (life, and love), the no-God hypothesis is utterly absurd, even if God cannot be subjected to a complete understanding and experience by the human being as the Absolute. It's amuzing, and curious. No God? ...

That's hilarious. If only the atheists could understand why that is so funny from the perspective of the theistic mind, I wish they knew, then we could be real friends.

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

The atheist and theist can never be "friends". In essense they are enemies in debate. I believe, as do other atheists, that theism is a direct threat to the survival of our species. Especially, considering the nuclear weaponisation of theocratic states in the middle east and elsewhere. Who knows what people are capable when they think they are doing the "will" of God. The next holy war could be the last.

And don't misunderstand me, to me it's just an ideology that someone has, i have no problem in being friends with a Theist, or a "vague" Christian for example, but i will call Theism my enemy, and i will fight against it, and not physically may i add.

I'm not calling for hatred, I'm just calling for reason and an intelligent fight back against the idiocy of theocracy, and the terrible things it can do for society, and for someone's critical thinking faculties.
edit on 27/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:26 PM
It seems that the devout atheist, and the devout theist are of the same cloth. They are so caught up in their answer to the question of existence, and universal causality, that they feel the need to prove others wrong. It seems both are egotists who feel the need to prove others wrong to raise their own self worth. I do not mean this as a judgment, but only an observation. I was raised in the Bible belt, and then became an atheist. Later, after certain events and experiences I recognized that there are powers beyond my mind to linguistically articulate. That knowledge does not cause me to reject science, disregard other cultures or faiths, or act is if I have the answers that all you mere mortal atheists can only dream of. Quite the opposite in fact. My connection to the creator allows me to love all I interact with, and if you are convinced that there is no higher power that is wonderful. It is your ride, and I cannot judge anyone for their own path. If a theist or an atheist is caught up in showing the other wrong they have missed the point. Spiritual faith is welcoming to all, and divine love emanates for all to enjoy. If the theist feels he must condemn someone of a different path then they have lost the love that the creator has for all. Similarly, the atheist who needs to disprove the theist has lost the point of rational development. Science and material development comes from multiple parties working together, and reaching different conclusions. Over time these disparate conclusions are combined, changed, and grow into a recognizable theory of existence. If an atheist rejects other theories out of hand than he has lost the keys to moving forward.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in