It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Through the eyes of Atheism

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Eyes, what eyes? The atheist is blind to the miracle that is life itself, and to his own life experience, since the human being is just a "thing", and free will, the soul etc. - not real.


Incorrect in every way. Atheism is simply the rejection of the claim that deities exist. Once you read more into it than that you are simply presenting a straw man argument.


I don't understand them or their reasoning.


That could be because you have a misunderstanding about what atheism is.

Deities? No, only one "deity" as in the Godhead as the alpha and omega of existence or the one source, but also one fully informed in eternity, and therefore of infinite intelligence, and self aware. The very ground of all being and becoming aka "God".

Perhaps this might help clarify things in terms of your own misundestanding of theism.


"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

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
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

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.



edit on 24-8-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SparkOfSparks6
In a metaphysical and Buddhist perspective the belief in nothing essentially means belief in self. As 0 is nothing, infinite, and in Buddhism nothing is the true self.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't seem or feel like nothing to me..



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Atheism says, there is nothing spiritual about existence and that man does not have a soul.
That anything paranormal is all BS and this mundane existance, has come about for however long. So life is simply a space between two nothings.

Atheism dosn't believe anything out of the ordinary ever does or ever has happened. But isn't it out of the ordinary, for mankind to have come into this existence, and make up
a whole part of himself that says the exact opposite? If mankind only evolved some how ? Why would he evolve
with a belief in deitys ?

Atheism limits this existance to things it finds rational. But is that even rational ?



Atheists do not adhere to a set of beliefs or dogma, randyvs, and you are generalizing here. You should know what the words atheist and atheism mean. You have been spouting off your nonsense long enough around here to know what an atheist is. This "Atheism says..." bullmess is below you.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by fenceSitter

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by fenceSitter

Atheism is a personal belief.


False.

Correct term = Disbelief


Your just playing semantics. Trying too hard to prove your point? Whether you say 'I believe there are no deities' or 'I don't believe in deities' really doesn't matter.


I apologize for trying so hard.
Next time I will simplify it more, by only using 2 words, instead of 4.


When I read my post again I realize it didn't come off so nice. Your reply came across as a little insulting. Maybe you could us a little God in your life



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
To my eyes, it appears to me that life came from somewhere, from some source, and that it's going somewhere ie: there is a purpose underpinning an evolving cosmos, and thus an intention or a will. In other words we live in a self aware universe, or put another way, the very ground of being is consciousness, within a monistic idealist framework, as opposed to a materialist monist one held by most atheists so as to preclude the notion of anything spiritual or of God from the equation we eperience as existence.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Titen

Care to rephrase this ?
you said
[That's certainly how we experience it isn't it? No memory of before you were born because you weren't alive yet, same thing after you die.]


edit on 24-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Saying you're an atheist and that you do not have a belief is like saying you're agnostic but you believe in god.

The stupidity is mind boggling.

Do atheist fight tooth and nail to deny they have a belief because they know it's a faith based belief?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Interesting topic,and thought provoking. I wonder how you all would label my beliefs,or lack there of..I posted in another thread in response to the question of the existence of ghosts,the question of the possibility of possession BY said ghosts and whether the astral plane exists and our souls can elect to travel there either by conscious choice or accident etc..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since we all tend to label everything around us,even each other,and I can't seem to find a category for my own line of thought..perhaps one or some of you would take the time and interest in reading the short thread,my responses,and then see if you can define what my beliefs or lack there of stems from.

Am I an Atheist


Every time I've hit a level of enlightenment,the initial belief that I had awakened to a higher truth or possibility,I've hit another wall shortly afterward.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Deities? No, only one "deity" as in the Godhead as the alpha and omega of existence or the one source, but also one fully informed in eternity, and therefore of infinite intelligence, and self aware. The very ground of all being and becoming aka "God".

Perhaps this might help clarify things in terms of your own misundestanding of theism.


I see.
So, in other words, I have to believe that monotheism - specifically your interpretation of it - is the only way to properly understand theism?

Fascinating.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
]Originally posted by darkendmetal




spouting off your nonsense


You betterr take that back ? Don't make me come over there ?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Saying you're an atheist and that you do not have a belief is like saying you're agnostic but you believe in god.

The stupidity is mind boggling.


Yep.

That's what happens when you're not operating with correct definitions. Once you get them these topics won't look like "stupidity" to you.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I mean that to our perception that is how life and death work. Death, to me, is going to be a lot like before I was born. I wasn't alive and I couldn't experience anything. The difference is, barring some sort of zombie apocalypse
, I'm not going to be born ever again after I die.

Penn Jilette from Penn and Teller said it kinda like this in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, I'm paraphrasing here: I'm not afraid of 1890, yet I wasn't alive then, why should I be afraid of 2090?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Saying you're an atheist and that you do not have a belief is like saying you're agnostic but you believe in god.


I'll try to help here. Theism and atheism deal with matters of belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. "Atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive.

One can be a gnostic atheist. One can also be an agnostic theist.



Do atheist fight tooth and nail to deny they have a belief because they know it's a faith based belief?


Atheism is not a faith based belief. It's the complete lack of faith.
Is not believing in bigfoot a faith based belief?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Qouth The Raven
 


I dub the Agnopaganist!
You're seem to be part agnostic and part pagan. A possible belief of gods but you do not worship any so you do not get a religion.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Because I feel joy in life and am able to be moved by other people through art and science etc: why should I ascribe that ability to feel to an outside agency as an intermediatory between myself and the other person's creative and emotional ability to move me. Why do we need this imaginary being interdicting in human affairs.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Deities? No, only one "deity" as in the Godhead as the alpha and omega of existence or the one source, but also one fully informed in eternity, and therefore of infinite intelligence, and self aware. The very ground of all being and becoming aka "God".

Perhaps this might help clarify things in terms of your own misundestanding of theism.


I see.
So, in other words, I have to believe that monotheism - specifically your interpretation of it - is the only way to properly understand theism?

Fascinating.


No, I'm saying that it's the only way to understand the nature of reality and existence itself as a function of the purpose and therefore the intent and will of a supreme being, including our own place in the grand scheme of things as evolved, conscious beings.
To look around, and within, and then say "there is no God" is, imho, absurd, when our very existence and being is an expression of God as the first/last cause and the alpha and omega of existence, in order so that God can share and enlarge and magnify, and perhaps even re-discover his own nature, through us, but this is not "process theolgy" in the sense that the Godhead is always and forever fully informed in eternity and does not "need" anything to be God.
Life, in the way, may be considered a gift of God, or what's known as koinonia, or intimate, participative, co-creative sharing, not unlike that between a bride and a bridgegroom, or in Sufi mysticism, the relationship between the beloved and beloved other ie: God is love, and for there to be love, there is always more than just one.

"I was with you since before the very foundation of the earth."



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldentorch
Because I feel joy in life and am able to be moved by other people through art and science etc: why should I ascribe that ability to feel to an outside agency as an intermediatory between myself and the other person's creative and emotional ability to move me. Why do we need this imaginary being interdicting in human affairs.

What you just described is the enjoyment of God's gift that is life itself and thus the enjoyment of God. God doesn't need to insert himself as an intermediary or external entity, only to express his love in mutuality. In this sense God as love deserves love in kind, but love isn't love unless it is free.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Deities? No, only one "deity" as in the Godhead as the alpha and omega of existence or the one source, but also one fully informed in eternity, and therefore of infinite intelligence, and self aware. The very ground of all being and becoming aka "God".

Perhaps this might help clarify things in terms of your own misundestanding of theism.


I see.
So, in other words, I have to believe that monotheism - specifically your interpretation of it - is the only way to properly understand theism?

Fascinating.


No, I'm saying that it's the only way to understand the nature of reality and existence itself as a function of the purpose and therefore the intent and will of a supreme being, including our own place in the grand scheme of things as evolved, conscious beings.
To look around, and within, and then say "there is no God" is, imho, absurd, when our very existence and being is an expression of God as the first/last cause and the alpha and omega of existence, in order so that God can share and enlarge and magnify, and perhaps even re-discover his own nature, through us, but this is not "process theolgy" in the sense that the Godhead is always and forever fully informed in eternity and does not "need" anything to be God.


Right.
So, according to you, if I am to properly interpret theism I have to conform to your definitions.

Also, I agree that saying "there is no god" is problematic. That's why I don't say it.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Agnopaganist? As funny as it sounds,I like the way it feels.


Well then,I suppose I have two fields to roam around in for a bit..That of the Pagan,and that of the Agnostic.

I feel like I've just had my tea leaves read by Ron Weasley.."You're gonna suffer,but you'll be happy about it.."




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


All I have to give vernacular to terms is the information I receive. If atheists and web dictionaries tell me atheist believe there is no god then that is terminology I must accept.

If you can somehow convince all atheist to stop proclaiming a belief and then subsequently get web dictionaries to redefine atheism, I shall accept the new definition.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join