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.

 

What Do You Believe?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Uh, not all religions were made for the purpose of spiritual explanation solely.

Suppose there was a God and he was holy and to be accepted into His special place was to meet His standards of holiness. then one of the things He would include is His standards of holiness and how people should live.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 




Keeping with the premise of this thread..

Is that what you believe and if so, Why?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by 547000
 




Keeping with the premise of this thread..

Is that what you believe and if so, Why?


I believe it because I have witnessed miracles for myself,.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


What would be the pont of our existence if our only purpose would be to "achieve a level of acceptable holiness"?

And what, exactly, is "holy"?

See, I have this notion that nature is truth. If something is natural, it must also be truthful. Because all that is our reality is nature. Our science, you and me, even the technology that we use to our benefit. It is all nature, being built on the blocks of the laws of nature. Science is but the study of these laws of nature.

So, then...where does religion fall in this? Is IT too a study of nature? Or of superstition? Or some other system? And is that system a system of nature, or of our own intellectual construct? If it be the former, then it has a chance of truth. The latter, pure fiction.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 




FWIW, a "miracle" is but an unexplained natural event. Our universe is a universe ruled by The Law Of Consequence. Nothing can happen without a catalyst to give rise to it. Or, in scientific parlance: Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
1. Believing is achieving a level of hope past the tripping point of fear, where your behaviors are modified to accommodate the new mental structure as to be true, for the time being.

2. Reality response is permanantly modifying your behaviors to accommodate a new mental/spiritual structure because an absolute has been presented to you in a form that is undeniable.

My reality response is that the Presence has shown Itself through the Door and now I have no longer have the option to return to the ways of finite response and seeking (religions, rituals, society). I realize that last sentence means nothing to most, but I can only use metaphorics since Infinite cannot be encased by finite (soul, mind, body, or societal structure) thus conveniently placed on a microscope slide for everyone to examine and peer review.

Each must do the "gut work" and get there through their own effort. No proof on a microscope slide, handing it on a sliver platter to the individual, is possible as the proof set is non-physical, displayed inside the physical worlds structural kinetics.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Do you consider stigmata a natural event?

It seems by definition you do not allow the opportunity for event that are not predetermined by the constraints of physics. Besides which, if everything has a cause, what is the first uncaused cause? There had to be a first event, but then it would be uncaused, which is a logical paradox.
edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Some religion is man trying to reach God, other religions are about explaining natural events. But if God was trying to reach man he would also teach what he wants man to strive for. I think the purpose of life is to love God and enjoy God because He set up a place for us to be with Him if we repent.
edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Only when the truth is known will all beliefs be seen as delusional. Until then they will be 'thought' to be true.
edit on 4-9-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


To say that "there had to be a first event" is an assumption, and possibly a wrong one. It is an artifact of the human minds inability to contemplate infinity. Is, always was, and always will be. From this viewpoint, such notions as the "initial event" become superfluous.

I also do not constrain anything to physics. Physics is yet another ill formed belief that seems to help prevent us from finding that truth. We must first disprove each assumption, hoping to eventually create new assumptions which must also be disproven, with the assumed goal of eventually making an assumption that cannot be disproven. That is what the religion of science is.

If Stigmata happens, it also has a cause. My lack of ability to explain that cause no more makes it unreal than your explanation of supernatural cause makes it explained.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


You, my friend, understand as much as can be understood. Well put, and you touch on the key of the philosopher: to study nature, and then attempt to recreate it in a microcosm. Thus, the ancient credo of "As above, so below". This is not just a "secret", but rather the calling and beckoning of the ancient philosopher.

To know these natural processes is to know God. To understand them is to understand Him. I suppose the greatest arguments are over who He is. That is the most irrelevant part of it all, ironically.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you see, that there is a starting cause that is uncaused is a consequence of saying all things have a cause. For if there weren't an uncaused cause there would be nothing happening, because you just said everything must have a cause. Without starting at the first domino none of the other dominoes will fall. You might want to revise your axiom of causality. You agree with the big bang or not?

Stigmata does not appear to be natural, neither does raising the dead, healing the blind without technology, walking on water, etc. Demonstrate how you can naturally explain all these things.
edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




It would seem that many here at ATS are of a philosophical nature, thus I hope this meets some eager eyes. It would seem, also, that many ATSers bandy about the term "believe" quite frequently.



That's exactly why these days I preach that "beliefs" are dangerous, while instead we should seek out guiding principles to keep us on the right track.

However, since I do tend to "believe" that 9/11 was an inside job (I have no proof) I often feel guilty that I am paying taxes into a system that uses the money to execute such schemes.

According to my own principles, I am part of the problem, and I often wonder if I'm incurring some type of karmic debt for it!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Do you want to believe or do you want to know?
A belief can be shattered in an instant.
Knowing brings peace and the end to confusion.
Forget what you believe, it is not true.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you see, that there is a starting cause that is uncaused is a consequence of saying all things have a cause. For if there weren't an uncaused cause there would be nothing happening, because you just said everything must have a cause. Without starting at the first domino none of the other dominoes will fall. You might want to revise your axiom of causality. You agree with the big bang or not?


Isee that you are still having a hard time contemplating infinity.

If it always was, then there never was a "first" action. To say that something happened first is to deny that it is infinite.



Stigmata does not appear to be natural, neither does raising the dead, healing the blind without technology, walking on water, etc. Demonstrate how you can naturally explain all these things.
edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


My inability to explain it does not make it unnatural. And just because something is uncommon does not make it unnatural.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, you see, that there is a starting cause that is uncaused is a consequence of saying all things have a cause. For if there weren't an uncaused cause there would be nothing happening, because you just said everything must have a cause. Without starting at the first domino none of the other dominoes will fall. You might want to revise your axiom of causality. You agree with the big bang or not?


Isee that you are still having a hard time contemplating infinity.

If it always was, then there never was a "first" action. To say that something happened first is to deny that it is infinite.


Here's the thing. We live in a finite universe. To invoke causality means that the parameters which things depend on are finite and so the events based on these parameters are connectable. If they are not finite then each event after another is an absurd result that can't truly be predicted because there are no fixed parameters to imply a causality. If we at least think that events are causal, then there must be finite parameters we are basing this idea on, even if we cannot explicitly define what they are. Then whatever is infinite and transcendent to our causal universe set the parameters. So there has to be both a first cause and a last cause before the universe can be set again.

Very well, can you clarify what you mean by "universe"?




Stigmata does not appear to be natural, neither does raising the dead, healing the blind without technology, walking on water, etc. Demonstrate how you can naturally explain all these things.
edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


My inability to explain it does not make it unnatural. And just because something is uncommon does not make it unnatural.


Wow. Okay. So you subscribe to naturalism, but not scientific naturalism. So, in your conception, if there is a God, he is subservient to nature and does not supersede it?
edit on 4-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


When i say "universe" i misspeak. I mean "reality". All that is.

I do not ascribe to any ideas. That goes against the whole point of this thread: i do not believe.

God is a funny concept. The word means so much different stuff to so many people. To some it is a white beareded guy on a throne. To me "he" isn't a "he", but rather just is. Male/female. Never good nor evil, always neutral. Whatever provides the creative force that drives the universe, er...reality.

It isn't some metaphysical mumbo jumbo. It is simple. Whatever creates everything is god. And god is immeasurably impersonal. At least, from my own experiences.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Great subject matter OP.
Ideally I should not believe in anything. There is no real proof that anything exists. All I have to rely on is my senses and I cannot trust them. They can be fooled easily. Hell, I cannot even prove, that I really exist. In reality I believe anything is possible, this way I have fewer expectations when dealing with life's ups and downs.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by 547000
 


When i say "universe" i misspeak. I mean "reality". All that is.

I do not ascribe to any ideas. That goes against the whole point of this thread: i do not believe.

God is a funny concept. The word means so much different stuff to so many people. To some it is a white beareded guy on a throne. To me "he" isn't a "he", but rather just is. Male/female. Never good nor evil, always neutral. Whatever provides the creative force that drives the universe, er...reality.

It isn't some metaphysical mumbo jumbo. It is simple. Whatever creates everything is god. And god is immeasurably impersonal. At least, from my own experiences.


Okay. Let's agree to disagree. I think God is personal and distinct from whatever meta-reality there is.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Diogeneser
 


Cogito ergo sum




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join