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.


A Question (or two) for Atheists..

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NewAgeMan

You are presenting 'gnostic atheism' as your shadow sparring-partner, and your arguments demonstrate your own inclination towards 'gnostic theism'.

By ignoring the much more common 'agnostic atheism', you have orchestrated a scenario, where you (badly disguised) can rehash 'intelligent design' and other theist oddities.

But I'll join you in your cosmetic 'maybes' and say: "MAYBE it was the flying spaghetti monster what did it"

I see absolutely nothing in the OP's post relating to intelligent design.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Glass
I see absolutely nothing in the OP's post relating to intelligent design.

When he's saying believing in evolution hinders us, what belief is he implying not hinder us?

If he's saying our lives are meaningless from an evolutionary standpoint, what belief is he trying to make out to be the one that gives us meaning?

He spews a lot of, 'hogwash', for lack of a polite way to say it. Besides the fact that his questions are all made with previous assumptions he can't prove, they are also fairly non-linear. He gives no inclination as towards what he believes, besides the fact that he's against at least some of evolutionary theory, and that god's in the picture.

So unless he actually comes back to this thread and actually makes clear what he's getting at, I think it's safe to assume intelligent design is part of it.

Though, since it's apparent that he's not really asking questions, but trying to make a point, I don't think this topic's gonna go anywhere if he doesn't think he can substantiate said point.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:11 AM
What I'm saying I think, is that man is a phenomenon and a process, and cannot be described, especially not by a human being, as a "thing", that's the first presupposition, part of a process, then in comes non-locality, and we recognize that there's only one process, of which we are strangely, if not solipsistically, situated as it were, at the very summit of the cosmic evolutionary mountain, wound up in the upward spiral, being the last, or the latest on the scene, fresh (in the grand scheme of things) while at the same time, the highest expression of consciousness, at least in potentia. Self aware, self reflective, having the ability to stand apart from one's self and say "self, just who or what are you?" We then can recognize I believe, how our inner being, what I would call our spiritual experience in life, not the outer first impressions of sensory input, cannot be excluded - to be is to be percieved. Regardless of whatever projections we might make, whatever assumptions, prior judgements, "reality filters", we still find ourselves framed, as consciously aware beings in the fullness of time and history, the byproduct of a seemingly eternal volutionary process - organically, and non-locally.
What of alien life? They've been around longer than we have, and therefore technologically are far in advance, maybe even spiritually or pschologically perhaps they've been "doing it right" for eons now, nevertheless the human being is the last who is first - our morphogensis, our evolution, is more recent, and thus in potentia the human mind and nervous system, as an evolutionary expression of a rise to consciousness, in a non-localized, holographic universe wherein nothing is forgotten (Akashic Field - fully informed in eternity), may very well represent a being that is the highest creative expression of an eternal evolutionary process, closest to the reflection of the creative intent (beginning as always with the end in mind), and made ever more conscious, and now driven to higher levels of consciousness if through nothing else but the degree to which our suffering leads to conscious suffering.

it's a whole new ballgame, when evolutionary theory is understood within the framework of non-locality, and when we realize that our own experience cannot be cleaved from the reality of the whole process. We are then validated if you will, justified, by our very inclusion in the whole of it all in the first place and crowned king by our father in heaven (first/last cause) before we even knew what happened! Made, from the beginning, in eternity, for koinonia with God of the highest - highest spirit and truth or reality, the very heart of it all which still and MUST beat within us all, at the most fundamental level, the human being, by phi ratio proportion and extension within an evolutionary non-locality, a radiant example of the highest and fullest expression of cosmic evolutionary intent, yes intent of the will, where we ourselves, and our inclusion (kingdom shared in eternity) is/was/will be the reason and the purpose, at least in part, and if in part, then once again, a part of the larger whole ie: the whole of reality and existence or Universe as "one song", a song that we can play and listen to at the deepest depths of our being, if we would only but listen, because the same spirit, the same intrinsic truth and reality, is still operative ie: we are a work in progress, thank God (did you see what happened when the Vancouver Canucks LOST the Stanley Cup?!).

it's the kind of persistent, unrelenting hope (eternal optimism) capable of motivating our activity (1st inner), our contribution, and therefore our continued evolionary growth, if we can but overcome our fears, and our contemptuous bias prior to investigation, a surefire way to keep a man in everlasting ignorance..

There is a problem I realize with the term "God". By God I mean "the spirit and truth and reality". "God is spirit and truth" said Jesus to the woman at the well, reframing God as anywhere and everywhere and even nowhere in particular, the spirit blowing like the wind wherever it pleases, free - "I tell you a time is coming, and indeed it is already here (his own within) when people need no longer worship either in the temple or on the mountain!"

The "good news" is that is already pleased the first father of creation, as an intelligent process and as a first/last cause, driven by love (the desire to share everything and withold nothing) - to share his kingdom (everything he already owns) with all his children, including and maybe especially including, mankind, as the pearl in the gate (right now only a grain in formation within the cosmic clamshell), the jewel in the crown, and God or God-conscious realization, the very crown awaiting us all in the fullness of time and history ie: already always present through the eternally unfolding creative moment. It's the joy which exceeds all suffering, the life which transcends death, even now, this very day, today.

And it's inevitable. That's the thing!

"So do not worry little ones, nor let your hearts be troubled, because it pleased the father to share his eternal kingdom with all his children."

I am also presuming that the materialist monist framework has been usurped, by the non-local (see Bell's Theorem) evolutionary framework - and the locus of all action now occurs therefore in the expansive firmament of love and freedom our spirits were made by God, to fly in.

It's good news about our present condition, but it urges us ever onward, to continually increasing consciousness, creativity, joy, sorrow, and understanding (learning from mistakes).

We cannot falter!

In this understanding, there is repose at last, and we can all breath a sigh of relief!

Plus, we can retain our sense of humor, our mirth, our charm, and have a channel and a source for all desires and gratitude in mutual appreciation, and mutual love, which is who and what we really are, in truth.

Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.

~ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Read more:

edit on 18-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: edit

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:39 AM
I'm not an atheist (although I identified as one before coming to my senses as an agnostic) but I think I can attempt to answer at least one thing.

During our darkest days, we don't have an intrinsically linked belief system pushed onto us from an early age so when the chips are down and things are looking hopeless, there is no "God" to turn to. When things become bad or even progressively worse, again it acts as "proof" of sorts that there's no such thing because God as stated in religious texts and as believed by those of various religions is supposedly a loving entity that looks out for us.

The whole notion therefore of having to ask something we have no proof of for help and guidance is mind boggling, especially because if there was such a thing, thoughts drift as to why such a being would allow whatever bad falls at your feet to become a reality. Debt, loneliness, isolation, worry about where the next meal is coming from or illness, that sort of thing.

Also the further into that kind of negative experience you sink, the more likely it is that you'll find this God being to be nothing more than a ludicrous and unfunny joke, a prank played on the world as we know it by those seeking to control through prayer and misguided worship. You also see those who may not subscribe to prayer to a God get all the money, food, adoration etc that they truly do not deserve while those with more talents and love within them for fellow man get left on the breadline, perhaps contemplating suicide as the only escape from the hell known as life. Unfair indeed.

Hopefully that at least helps you in part and I hope too that I understand your initial questioning.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:44 PM
For some additional info regarding the framing and context I tried to put forward in the OP ie: non-locality and evolutionary theory, I offer the following to try to help clarify particularly for those of the more scientifically minded orientation.

"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.


According to James Oroc's experiences (Tryptamine Palace), when the ego is dissolved in consciousness through the temporary formation of a type of neurological "Bose Einstein Condensate", there is no real dilineation or distinction between individual consciousness and God-consciousness or the universal "akashic field" (Lazslo) aka Zero Point Field.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Free Will Resurrected

According to many leading physicists like David Bohm, and neuroscientists like Pibram, no, there is no freedom whatsoever, for the classical mind.

The classical mind, according to another Quantum Physicist by the name of Amit Goswami who authored "The Self Aware Universe", represents nothing, but an elaborate recording device, however complex. .It can really ONLY operate from all manner of stimuli and response to stimuli and can easily lie to itself to perpetuate the notion that "it" is who we are, driven by the desire to perpetuate nothing but more of "itself" (what I call "it") which can ONLY represent, a reflection of past events and past, learned behaviors.

That is not, however, the last word.

Goswami goes on to basically prove, in no uncertain terms, that the classical mind is only HALF the equation.

The human being is also in possession of a quantum holographic mind.
It is only from the perspective of THIS mind, that free will is by no means an illusion, provided we also accept the framework of a Monistic Idealism (consciousness is primary) because therein resides the final collapse of the probability wave of existence, from our end anyway.., and our mind then, instead of being not much more than mush inside our heads, is mush inside our heads - transmitting and receiving, on a quantum holographic basis, reality itself, and therefore perhaps even concievably, within a multidimensional, fractal, eternal evolutionary recurrence of SOME type. Because, when time comes to an end, and the "itself" exhausts itself (the insessant ramblings of the mind) the mind then can enter the realm of the imagination (novelty) as a quantum holographic possibility, ie: have "a thought", and then CHOOSE whatever we wish, and in CHOOSING and in choosing alone, is there an emergent, transcendant, quantum holographic self, or the REAL you, and the wave collapses in that final decision or judgement, or evaluation. The one who chooses, and your quantum hlographic mind, and everything then, is like an ever expanding dot in an infinite sphere of knowledge, and love.
as in "it pleased the first father of creation to share his kingdom with all his children". The gift of free will then still comes from God, and you also are God, in the sense that it always "takes two to tango" or two, to close the circle in Goswami's framework ("I was with you since before the very foundations of the earth). In it alone are all the quantum paradoxes resolved, and what's interesting, is it's regenerative, this conception of the world and our place within it, of something novel, something creative, something worthwhile.

And so the only question then for the REAL us, the one's who get to choose, not the memory of things past, but the choosing being, the free person, relative only to what is before us, out of the realm of all possibility, the holy of holies, is

what are we choosing?
what are we creating?

that's the fount of all inspiration, all novelty, all new history, and the question is put to US, not from any "them"... and not by the TV and the MSM, but by God.

The alternative, or a purely materialist monist, classical worldview just doesn't work, any more, and it's soon passing away, to be replaced by the type of monistic idealism advanced by this Goswami and many others, like Ervin Laszlo, Bernard Haisch and many others.

edit on 18-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: The answer to the question "why?" is "because I love you."

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

I think maybe the choice of words might be confusing people even though they are the right words.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by dizzie_lizzie79

People probably are still wondering just what I'm getting at, as it would relate to themselves in the real world.

Am I suggesting a depersonalization and a complete boundary dissolution as pure "oneness" with the world and with the other?

Hardly, since that very notion of arbitrariness and anonymity, is repulsive, and does not attract, and therefore, pardoxically, it can never operate as the unifying principal of an "omega point" or what Chardin calls the cosmogenesis of the noosphere realized in the fullness of time and history (there I go again with those strange words eh?) precisely because it does not represent the love which simultaneously unites AND continually differentiates and reintegrates as a continual evolutionary creative process.

Therefore, I too am forced to draw the same conclusion that Tielhard de Chardin has, namely, that the Omega Point in the evolution of man is represented by a personification of the underlying principal driving evolution in the first place and therefore imbedded within itself, self referrencially and emergently, organically, holographically, and while functioning as a unitive principal one the one hand, at the same time, a continual process of differentiation and reintegration - in other words, as a person, personally, and not with any loss of individuality or "ordinariness" whatsoever. We are, in truth, the love at the very heart of the matter, as a point of attraction or the "pearl in the gate" of the new heaven and the new earth. Omegapoint and Christ-mind and God-consciousness, even Cosmic Consciousness, are indestinguishable, in the same way that our innermost experience AS a human being is indestinguishable from the innermost reality of existence, since we are that very thing, near the ever rising apex of it's evolution and involution. "Thou art that".

This vioewpoint of worldview is entirely congruent with both Eastern and Western mystical traditions.

Therefore, the quest, the great work the Magnum Opus for man, even as an apparently lonely, individual journeyor, is that of an evolutionary spiritual mystic via felt experience, without any attempt at escape or to be something special, since as an individual particulate if you will, our ordinary existence, as a human being, is already extra special to begin with, as is that fact that we find ourselves emersed in this whole domain of evolutionary growth called Life.

At most, it's a reindentification of ego as self, a reframe, wherein context and framing means everyting and is decisive. It is to find our place in the world and the cosmos at last, and in so doing, arrive in rediscover, at the very same place where we first started and know it (with conscious awareness) as if for the first time, and there, in the sacred space and new domain, find peace, but not as the old world would try to give it to us, since it's no longer material, but purely of a spiritual, and a psychological nature.

It's like bringing from a storehouse of treasure, both something old and something new.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:02 PM
And so my question in the OP distills down to

How is the greatest possible realization of what is means to be a human being in the world, advanced by atheism?

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

You realize that if you had just posted that in the first place, you wouldn't have had to try re-explaining yourself continuously in this thread and others?

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by iterationzero

Yes, but framing and context means everything, and so I could only state that simple question (which surely demands an answer of some kind you'd think) after putting forward the context and the frame of reference.

The idea presented both in the OP and in additional info and clarification suggest that we are on the cusp at an involution at the crowning apex of evolution as a rise towards consciousness. Just imagine the implications of that, and what the object might be for us as a species, the quest, the goal, the Magnum Opus or the Great Work of the Ages..?!

What's been presented in this thread is a worldview and a paradigm, a re-frame, which attempts to show that this seeking and finding of God (Alpha and Omega of existence, from which arises the flow of life, freely available for any who thirst) is woven right into the very process of life itself, and here we are, made by consciousness for consciousness, to become ever more consciously aware, that we are it the final object itself (Thou Art That) created by God (first/last cause) to find God, both within ourselves and in life itself, as a whole, not just a tiny thing or as "particulate", separated from the world without, from one another, even from our truest self (in ignorance of who and what we really are), seemingly locked into an eternity of ignorance, and that's not funny, but as part of a co-creative, participative process of shared mutuality, and if possible, shared mutual enjoyment ie: love, of the kind which is eternally creative, praise God above all we can laugh again and play again under the stars of the heavens in "free-dome". Our joy, our very life is revivified at this re-cognition, don't you see?

"There is a principal which operates as a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and one which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is called contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer

So far the gist of the replies have been to the effect of "don't worry about it, we have a life to live", to which I pose the question, which life is that? What kind of life, and by life here I don't mean simply the outer expressions of sensory experience, but the inner world of a person as the very thing that makes that person a person to begin with, the "qualia" of our spiritual life as intrinsic to this larger process of life (never a mere thing), that life, the real life, the living life, as opposed to an ignorant and deathful life.

So then I pose the question - what does the Atheist worldview have to offer us, and where does it take us in the fullness of time and history ie: in eternity? Where does it leave us?

edit on 21-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
Here is an example of a guy, in this particular video, who "gets it", who has some understanding, and who would laugh uproariously I'm sure at the utterly absurd ridiculousness of atheism (no God until you can prove it to me).

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Where does atheism leave us? With more options than your paradigm of striving for some kind of end goal. If you spend the entire journey fixated on the end, you'll fail to appreciate the journey itself.

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:57 PM
P.S. You may not that I've placed this thread for the time being in my signature under the title of "My Inquisition".

Please don't get the wrong idea by the use of that term, which carries with it the historical memory of the worst evils known to man, I mean it in the true sense if that word Inquisition was not perverted and bastardized by the Roman Church in times past.

So if you happen across this thread and take a place on the "couch" (may you find repose), the only instruments being used here to "exact your confession" (gain understanding with recognition), the only "devices" are one) reason and logic, and two) love, neigther of which can possible hurt anyone (except perhaps our prior ignorance accompanied by the restoration of good-natured mirth and humor), and of course you are free to leave at any time, so just to be clear, there is no parallel with the other use of the word "Inquisition" in terms of what that word might conjur up for people.

A true inquisition, properly administered, is perhaps the most vital and important activity known to man since we cannot fully know ourselves as ourselves, except in mutual exploration and discovery with our fellow man, so it's a form of rhetorical dialogue, nothing more.

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Where does atheism leave us? With more options than your paradigm of striving for some kind of end goal. If you spend the entire journey fixated on the end, you'll fail to appreciate the journey itself.

But imbedded in every "end" is a new beginning, that's the process.

I just want the very best for everyone that is possible, so it's a pardigm of eternal optimism really, without any trace of nihilism or cynicism, and like I said, it restores us to mirth and humor when "grokked" most fully. The end is joy and love, and it's also the beginning as the "first/last" cause of life itself.

I suppose I am saying that there is no such thing as "atheism" and that it's a faulty presupposition to begin with. Agnosticism is another matter, but anti-relgious atheism doesn't take us anywhere, or worse, into a faulty understanding of our place in the world as human beings, as persons, from something intrinsic to the very heart of life, to a mere "thing", and a dead "thing", if you want to talk about ends!

This is also an argument between martialist monism (matter alone is primary and consciousness nothing but an epiphenomenon of matter) and monistic idealism (consciosness is primary).

I just don't see how atheism advances spiritual progress, in the domain of infinite potential and possibility that is the unconditioned ground of all being and becoming.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

You never construct your posts in terms of every end being a beginning, only the end result of finding God being the ultimate goal of humanity. Then you try and construct a false duality of either accepting that as the ultimate goal of humanity or being a nihilist, which you incorrectly conflate with atheism. Are there nihilistic atheists? Absolutely. Are all atheists, by definition, nihilists? Not even close. There are an uncountable number of other possibilities, not the least of which is that I, as a sentient being, am able to create my own meaning for life. I don’t need to derive my purpose, or the purpose of my entire species, from an external source.

And there's no such thing atheism? Or, to parse it another way, there's no such thing as lacking a belief in God? Ridiculous.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And so my question in the OP distills down to

How is the greatest possible realization of what is means to be a human being in the world, advanced by atheism?

I'll pass on replying to all your ideology posted and narrow it down to this.

No Gnostic belief(Theist or Atheist) will help further our understanding of humanity. A biblical god being part of discovering our meaning, isn't true there isn't such a god.

A 'force' in the universe that currently isn't understood, isn't gonna be ignored by atheists. They aren't gonna call it god, but they will try to pursue the science of reaching an understanding of it. A theist will call it god, and assume no need to further study, because they'll think it fits perfectly into their prior beliefs without study.

Bell's theorem doesn't even do as much as imply any god's existence. It's a theory(not a fact) that locality(as we know it, we may learn eventually that the laws of physics have ways we don't understand yet to connect dots) doesn't work. Bell could be wrong and we could come up with the equation to explain all the quantum happenings, or(probably most likely) we'll have to redefine how we see locality to understand what connects everything together. The idea that since we don't understand it, there must be a god giving a push and a nudge to all the quantum's to act in odd ways, is a total fallacy. Argument out of ignorance it's called, "we don't know why things work like this. Oh, let's assume it's god."

No one's gonna learn anything by stubbornly holding onto ideas that we slowly prove to be incorrect. But, if a god that was actually tangible was proven, I'm sure the average atheists would have an easier time accepting it than a theist would accepting tangible evidence their god didn't exist.

So simply, back to the original question. If there is a great realization to be made, gnostic theism is probably the worst starting point to be made, and gnostic atheism won't be to beneficial either. Retaining an open mind, while not making baseless assumptions, will keep us most open to new information that would point to that realization.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:01 PM
This post and reply might give you a sense for the type of open mindedness I'm thinking of.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by dizzie_lizzie79

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by dizzie_lizzie79

Read "The Phenomenon of Man" by Pierre Tilliard de Chardin, and "The Nature and Destiny of Man" by Reinhold Neibhur, both modern day prophets of the early 20th century. Set aside any anti-religious bias, and probe these writings for a new synthesis. It's there just waiting in the wings now for reappropriation.

The word "noosphere" is from Chardin's book.

Thank you..i had already done a search and was thinking of ordering the first one you mentioned, but thank you for directing me to those specific ones!

I don't consider myself religious...never have really...i myself wasn't raised religious even though my family is of Catholic background...i have always felt like there is a creator of some sort, and that i didn't have to worship the creator for Him/her/them to Love me as long as i live my life by being true to myself and all that i come into contact with, and even though i am not religious i feel compelled to abide by the 10 commandments for some i don't think that being anti-religious is a problem....i seek out truth and what feels right inside through my intuition. I have always believed in some sense of reincarnation(and even more so most recently) and how humans have evolved (atheist) So i would say i am pretty open minded...

Do you think thats open minded enough?

Yes, absolutely that's open minded. Added to it, that inquisitiveness and sense of playful curiosity you seem to hold in relation to ALL and everything you encounter, yourself and your inner being included, and there it is, the quest, the great work of all ages, your personal "Magnum Opus", but there's no real work involved, because it's fun! I would go so far as to say that such an inquiry, as a state of mind and being as part of a growth process is the very meaning and purpose of life itself. It is both within and without (innerant and transcenant) and among us, since no man is an island unto himself, and we are truly social beings who each reflect part of that "Divine Milieu".

Therefore, when we come to the domain of the unconditioned ground of being, or to our essential nothingness in the absurdity of the injustice of life, and face our deepest fears, head on - we discover something else, and then if we can hang on and take this through to its supra or ultra-rational conclusion, we may find ourselves starting first to smile, and then to laugh out loud!!

We were thinking, many of us, from the entirely wrong frame of reference, which isn't truth and life, and isn't very insightful eighter, but hang in there with our brothers and sisters we must, until everyone finally "gets" the cosmic joke of all ages, which was always at the expense of our own ignorance to begin with!

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by iterationzero

Not an "external source" but THE source, and the intrinsic source of all, for a creation which is not random, but which generates complexity seemingly for the purpose of giving rise to consciousness through an ascending hiearchy of forms and impression unto us and now here we are, both at the end and at the beginning.

To understand our true nature and our place in the universe, surely this has been a quest for man all along.

To find this, for real, and not as mere conjecture or speculation, is to find God.

The personal self cannot be the totality of God who is both innerant and transcendant, not an external source or external entity. "God is spirit and truth."

The problem with lack of belief in God involves the deification of the self, which is highly inappropriate, the self ascension to God which simultaneously denies God, when our inclusion in the whole of it all is a free gift FROM God as the creator, as the source of all, for whom sharing in mutuality is obviously part of the creative impulse.

We were made by consciousness to become consciously aware of being the same consciousness - it's an invitation for a mutual exploration which continues in infinity, and transcends the perishable material "thingness" of the world.

Why not try to understand what I'm describing? Why not give this whole premise the benefit of the doubt and try it on..?

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Bell's theorum is proven fact. At the quantum level, or at the deepest level, the universe is non-local. The best metaphor for it would be that of a hologram.

Within this frame of reference, nothing is insignificant. Because the universe is non-local, what we percieve as local it really matters.

The idea of the world and the human being as an infintesimal speck in an endless sea which is fundamentally IMpersonal, is false.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Bell's theorum is proven fact. At the quantum level, or at the deepest level, the universe is non-local. The best metaphor for it would be that of a hologram.

Within this frame of reference, nothing is insignificant. Because the universe is non-local, what we percieve as local it really matters.

The idea of the world and the human being as an infintesimal speck in an endless sea which is fundamentally IMpersonal, is false.

I see, they must just be too lazy to change the name to Bells Law, I presume? Doesn't help that you can't really prove a no-go theorem in the first place, only hold onto it and see if it ever get's disproven, they must've found a way.

Local and Non-local, is really semantics though. I said we'll probably be redefining locality eventually, meaning that what you call Non-local could be the same as what may be understood as Local later.

And you still haven't explained how that points to a god entity.

Claim something's true without evidence.

Ignore mentioning how it's relevant.

Then state a contradicting idea as false, while again providing no evidence.

That's not very convincing.

Also, completely ignoring you're standpoint on how atheism hinders human understanding after I gave reasons why it doesn't. Ignoring any claims you've made when challenged instead of proving you can back them up, simply drops your credibility, and thusly the credibility of your claims.
edit on 22-6-2011 by xxsomexpersonxx because: addition

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in