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 Story Of Receiving A Physical Message From 'God'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:27 PM
Labtech767: say our species will not survive? If it were not for religion, wrong or right, you would, if you existed at all, be living in a cave or a grass hut with no ethic's, moral's or social structure other than the fittest survive...

You will note that I have punctuated what I have quoted of you, as your post's meaning is quite imperceptible to follow without it.

I am making an assumption here, but I believe you are stating that without religion, man would have no sense of morals or ethics, that it was solely through religion he gained them? If this be so, I completely disagree. More people have been killed through and because of religion than of any other cause. It has killed to gain control, and it killed to maintain its control, and it is still a cause for conflict today.

I am not in the least bit religious, but I consider myself more moral than any member of any religious organisation. My morals and my ethics stem from a love of humanity, a love of the animal kingdom, and a love of the planet I live on. I have never needed a book to tell me to act like a samaritan, I do so altruistically, because I am intrinsically guided by my love of the things I have stated. Religion is the last thing I would turn to for guidance in helping others, I prefer to trust my own heart and mind, they are more grounded in reality, and I would still be the same if I lived in a cave or in a grass hut on some savannah plain.

Religion does not guide, it fractures and divides. God may be its central focus, but the flags and banners it marches under are of disparate and diametric hues, as is its memberships, wearing different uniforms and acting out different rituals, but each holding to the same destroy or deny the claims of authenticity to God the other religions claim. Don't preach to me about morals or ethics, you're not qualified.

I don't know about you but I am not an animal, the body maybe, but not the soul, and if you do not believe in that then I am afraid you are delusional...

So, I am delusional because I do not believe in the existence of the soul? Well, belief requires faith to support it, and as I don't have faith I don't have belief, but it doesn't make me delusional, its makes me pragmatic, and this is because I won't abandon 'reason' when 'understanding' demands it...its called wisdom.

...explain if you can the result of far higher than statistical probability would project of accurate account's of the hidden message that an experiment carried out in operating theatre's around the state's were the message would be placed were it could not be seen but was designed to attract the attention when seen by somebody whom was OOBE during and operation i.e. there conscious-ness floating over there body were amongst those whom claimed that they had observed there body (usually when they had a death on the operating table with a successful resuscitation) and were able to relay the hidden message - not conclusive but please open your mind as an atheist is the ultimate religeous nut so lost in there belief they regard everybody else as wrong.

I was going to punctuate your text correctly, but it would require a rewrite to enhance and make clear your question.

You happen to be asking me on a subject I am quite familiar with, having studied it for many years, and corresponded with a number of its leading protagonists. The experiment you are discussing is an on-going experiment, setup by Dr Sam Parnia of Southampton University, but whom is currently practising in America. I can let you know that since it began, not a single positive result has occurred, not one. This is not due to there being no one undergoing cardiac arrests and resuscitated in theatres where the plaques of numbers and words have been placed, but because there is no 'soul' or 'consciousness' that is capable of disembodied reconnoitre.

There is no evidence whatsoever of knowledge of anything gained by disembodied means through NDE. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but no solid evidence to support the anecdote. In a court of law, the anecdotes would act only as hearsay statements, certainly not as witness statements. After all the books that have been written on the subject, and the critical counterclaims to them, the veracity of NDE rests entirely on one factor, and that is 'timing'.

At what point during the death crisis does the NDE episode begin and end? Analysis of many NDE accounts still cannot place the point at which NDE begins or when it ends. I personally think NDE begins as consciousness is somewhat in its fading process, requiring a certain depth of loss in consciousness to kick in, and also as the patient re-acquires consciousness during resuscitation. I further think that during complete loss of consciousness, nothing of NDE is being imprinted to memory. It is only at close loss of consciousness and reacquisition of it that NDE occurs.

edit on 24/3/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by elysiumfire

And a star for that sir, I am quite lazy with my keyboard and though I may know my way around electronic's and chemistry with a interest in physic's I am no Cambridge scholar as far as dictation is concerned,.

Obviously you are more of an Agnostic than Atheist as you simply do not believe, were an atheist believe's against,. So what do I mean, well it is quite simple really religion has been the engine of change and cultural unity throughout much of the history of the human race's, sacred site's as well as giving a focus also formed hub's around which some early settlement's formed, Lepenski Viir on a bend of the Danube show's remarkable evidence of social hierarchy as long ago as 6000 year's,. No one knows which played the more important role in transforming our ancestor's from there hunter gatherer way's but agriculture appear's at about the same time in the fertile crescent as early religious administration centre's and the first city's AFTER the ice age though there may be evidence of rice paddy's in japan dating to 10000 bc.

In most culture's the holy man such as the Brahman of india or the ancient celtic druidic bard's were the equivalent of traveling encyclopedia storing and passing cultural tradition's and story's down the age's. Religeon therefore was a tool to unify, govern, settle, direct and educate people's but just as two people can disagree so do most religions but hey if you agree with Charles Darwin then war was good for the evolution of both the species and the technology's of the specie's through adaptation, an author once said were there is an altar there you will find civilisation.

Hope my grammer and spelling have not annoyed again, I'll go sit in the corner with the pointy hat eh,.

Oh by the way I have encountered paranormal activity and lack of evidence was never proof against a theory, a theory may be POSTULATED but NEVER proven and any evidence against automatically disproves the theory, this as you should remember is a fundamental scientific tenet,. As far as NDE I remember reading that further study's failed to arrive at conclusive result's and the first study was never replicated yet and I must say this the more you seek the answer the more question's you will find until that Willo the Wisp of the just out of reach understanding eludes you as indeed the grand unified field theory has every researcher in the history if science, still that does not invalidate the search now does it.

Not to read anything into it but is is interesting that you would chose the classical heaven of the ROMAN empire as you avatar name, could this be a psychologically repressed urge to worship or find a deity that you are comfortable with, Hmm, just saying.
edit on 26-3-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:32 PM

Interesting response and ending question. Perhaps I will offer a reply to the question firstly.

Elysium is the Roman paradise to which they believed they would go after death, but originally, it is of Greek origin, and was a preserve for mortals related to the gods, which was later appended to include chosen people, heroes, and the principled.

The choosing of the name is a combination of alludings - Elysium, at peace with myself, and - fire, as made from the stardust from which all material originated...creation is nothing more than Ordo Ab Chao. As is change and adaption. Order is the stillness of the flux.

Early religion, way before the organised religions of Judaism and Christianity, and perhaps Islam, were more a cultural set of imprintings, complimenting the more important aspects of tribal cultures carried through the generations by stories passed on down from father and mother to son and daughter as they instructed them in the ways of the world, and of course, the tribe. Religion was not as instructional at that time, not as rabidly controlling, but more demonstrational and exclusive in that it was a cultural role played by the shaman or witch doctor whom would seek to cajole and entreat their gods for natural bounties the whole tribe could enjoy through dance and rituals.

It does not take too great a leap of intuition to realise how modern-day religion arose out of stone age tribals.

Science is far from perfect. It has discovered much through using and sticking to certain narrow self-governing rules towards observation and experimentation and replication. It is simply another form of inquiry man has invented to achieve knowledge about the world he lives in. Replication of data and the achieving of same results is a key factor for knowledge being accepted as fact.

Many would say that there are no absolutes in the real natural world, but we know that in the abstract there are absolutes. A second remains the length of a second throughout the whole known universe, but I am not talking about time, but about duration - the measurement of an event from its beginning to its end. Today, we use transition periods of the caesium-133 atom to give us the length of a second. Observance of the transition state (event) is the measurement of its duration which we simply call 'time'. If they were no events occurring in the natural world, we would not have a sense of time. Events are simply stop/start motions, our senses detect events in a narrow spectrum, but it is wide enough for us to perceive the world in the manner that we perceive it.

Why am I talking about time and clarifying it as a measurement of the duration of an 'event'? It comes back to the discussion on the idea of disembodied consciousness, which is one aspect of 'oobe', and 'oobe' is one element of NDE.
We have physical senses that detect physical radiations and chemicals. Simple logic cannot favour a consciousness that retains faculties in such terms when it is allegedly detached from the physical body. How is such a consciousness able to detect events occurring in the physical world, process the data, and present itself with an experience matching that of the body? Especially so, when 'time' or rather duration is no longer present in the disembodied state? Duration is a most important element in real world experience, yet is not present to a disembodied consciousness.
These are the type of questions that have to be answered in order to apply any kind of credence to the idea of the disembodied conscious state. Until they are answered, and until the mechanism is discovered, following the rules of scientific investigation is the most prudent way to go, lest we allow error and misinterpretation to enter into our data and understanding.
Of course, we should also guard against being too strict and rigid in both the use of science and its investigations. We should not prohibit ourselves from investigations because the self-evidency of the subject denies its very existence. Then again, we are simply human beings, capricious and temperamental, colossal in our potential, but quite small in our realisations.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by elysiumfire

Brilliant response, but perceive the current 'theory' concerning the concept of parallel reality's now assuming these are not somehow totally cut off from our own reality, is it not conceivable that even in the event of the death or stoppage of the bio electric process that at right angles to the time space continuum in reference to the perceived flow of time that the parallel structure's may still and just possible provide sufficient reality crossover to allow the consciousness to continue on at least temporarily and if entrenched long enough to self resonate at right angle's creating a standing adaptive field sufficient to enable the consciousness and maybe the mind to still in some form exist, as for the senses how do we know we are not higher dimensional life form's and this is not just a part of the life cycle, sorry to get speculative but you must admit it does bear further investigation.
The effect of conscious observation is well documented in the field if quantumne physic's.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:34 PM

The theoretical ideas in your reply carry and raise many further (quite formidable) questions, questions requiring in the least plausible theoretical responses.

...concerning the concept of parallel realities...

Of course, parallel realities are thought to exist beyond the spectrum of frequency wavelengths within which our sense organs operate, that is to suggest beyond their 'tuned' frequency range. We know for certain that the world (reality) would be perceived and experienced quite differently if our senses were tuned to higher or lower frequency ranges. I suppose what is being said here is that reality extends omni-directionally and omni-dimensionally beyond the narrow spectrum from which we gain our 'real world' experience?

Considering this theory, I would like to present an open question to anyone willing to provide a plausible hypothetical answer: Do we have a mind that is conscious, or a conscious we perceive as mind? I do not doubt that I should receive many different ideas from respondees, and that their concepts will most certainly be based upon an interpretation of what both 'mind' and 'consciousness' constitute to them. The question is really two sub-questions, and they are wholly excluding of each other, only one part can be right. I certainly have my own concepts to the question.

Consciousness is the last untravelled frontier we must cross in order to fully understand ourselves. How we gain our 'real world' experience is the singular most important question we can ask about ourselves. It is more important than any question we could ask about our origin, because in answering it we uncover the truth of origin, but not vice-versa: the answer will both map and place our position in the scheme of existential reality. There are many whom believe the question too formidable to answer, and that it is futile to make the attempt. I disagree, personally. I think we should continually assault the question, the answer would more than repay the effort applied.

If we were able to achieve 'beyond all argument' evidence on the reality of disembodied consciousness, that consciousness does detach and survive beyond the physical body, the consequence of that discovery would propel mankind towards a growth of incredible vicissitudes, shattering beyond all recovery the world we currently live in. One such consequence would be the irrecoverable rejection of all religious thought and institutions. I would welcome the occurrence, but billions wouldn't, so entrenched are they in its furrow. The consciousness question is the key to Pandora's Box.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by elysiumfire

One answer and a question that is both metaphysical and psychological such as this will indeed have many idea's but for myself I believe the conscious to be separate to the mind as we often have to consciously direct our thought's, by that I mean there are at least two level's to the mind those being the physical, emotional and instinctual that are the sometimes difficult to control animal of the body and (what I see as the person inside) the consciousness that self awareness is best seen as the part that can see the self and see other selves in other people that is also the seat of conscious empathy, weather the conscious has senses of it's own or would need another body i.e. a soul or spirit I can not say but I do believe it is real and distinct from the mind.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:08 PM

I believe the conscious to be separate to the mind...

In terms of self-sentience, I suspect there to be only consciousness, and that mind per se, is an illusion of self-sentient perception, the quale of sentience; and consciousness per se, is nothing more than a 'state of condition', as 'wetness' is the state (or quale) of being wet. In order to understand these complex concepts it is necessary to go behind the reflecting surface and view what is reflected from the other side. By this, I mean we have to approach the enigma of consciousness from an intuitive and unbridled perspective, to emerge from the forest by the least known track.

My own understanding of consciousness does not allow for its detachment from the physical body, nor for post-mortem survival. If post-mortem survival was true, consciousness would not be that which survives, but that which continues in that which survives. Understanding this distinction helps to place consciousness closer to its truest position in my opinion. No, something 'other' would be the surviving aspect, but equally imbued with the consciousness state. Obviously, the question then begs for an answer to what actually survives? On that particular note I have no actual opinion, it is not a question I can pursue in scientific lay terms, having already gone the route and rejected what I found there.

The mechanism by which the conscious state is produced arises (imo) from the energy correspondence occurring between quantum wavefields, it is a resonance by-product of energetic interactions, but it requires very complex structures for self-sentience to arise from the conscious state.Still, none of this provides a means to our understanding of how we gain our 'real world' experience. It is believed that the brain processes the sense data into the real world experience, but I do not necessarily accept that as being the case, I think it is more raw and intimate than that, I think there is no actual processing of the data, as that would require a 'programmer', and there is no such entity apparent.

Your thoughts are not separate from consciousness, they are consciousness, nothing enters self-sentience that is not of the consciouness state, including self-sentience itself. Always understand that perception is a mis-informer, it doesn't interrogate the data, it is merely the reflecting screen. The real filters are our sense organs tuned to certain frequency wavelengths, and the internal sensing mechanisms dealing with proprioceptive data.

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:06 AM
A lot of you have posted really off-topic comments.
Most of what you guys are saying don't really relate to the opening post.

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by TheBlueShiroux

Sorry and My humblest apology you are correct the conversation drifted.

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:58 AM

Most of what you guys are saying don't really relate to the opening post.

Not directly or specifically, but the discussion remains in the same realm; but let us go back to your specific topic.

I am not and never have been religious...'God' sent me a message.

Let me state equally for the record that I too, am not religious. I don't accept the concept of God (especially the biblical concept, which is a most abhorrent one). This is not for the want of society seeking to indoctrinate me in religion during infancy, as that is when religion likes to catch its future worshippers, nor for the want of seeking to continue that indoctrination throughout my school years.

My childhood precocity and natural curiosity aided in my rejecting the concepts of religion before I left my first school, but of course, I was unable to articulate my rejection at such an early age. My rejection of religion was not because of some emotional response to it, but because I intuitively knew it to be false. Nothing in my life has changed that intuitive response, but life itself has seen fit to cement it.

So, if as you say, you are not nor ever have been religious, how is it you make a claim that 'God' sent you a message, when you ought not to have any frame of religious reference by which to make the claim? How do you know it was God, and how do you know you received a 'message' of any kind? What is it in you that takes it to be such?

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by elysiumfire

Read the opening thing I wrote and it will explain why.

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:53 PM

I'm not really saying this is proof of God existing honestly. I don't exactly believe in god myself.

I never enter into a thread without having read the 'OP', so having re-read your 'OP', I think what I quote of you here answers my earlier questions, and answers yours for the future.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by ThreeBears

Brilliant, on the money post.I see enough mealy mouth churchgoers near where i live, they wouldn't give Jesus the time of day if he walked in their church without a tie on.
They wouldn't help a blind man over a stile.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 04:23 PM
Will you choose the path of Greed or the path of Service?
It is clear that this sign was there in order to make you question such...

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 06:14 PM
i just remembered about this happening.
believe it or not since i made this post ive been on a lot of drugs and i tried to sell my soul to satan

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by TheBlueShiroux

Im curious to know how you are an Atheist and in your other thread about "D" (which is quite interesting really) said after mentioning your selling your soul to Satan, that now you are the exact opposite and praying more now etc....???

If you are praying...who are you praying too if on THIS thread youre saying you are an atheist?

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by TheBlueShiroux

Well hopefully satan didn't want ya..

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 07:54 PM
If you are atheist, you could move from the supposition that you are god, if not the closest thing to it you know.

You saw what you saw. It meant what it meant to you. A situation arises, the experience is yours, and yours alone. What it means to you is what you decide.

If Jesus truly did say that he was the son of man and the son of god, almost in the same breath, then what does that mean?

It doesn't matter, it's all just motion anyway.

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by mysterioustranger

i WAS an athiest.
i pray to the universe, which is kinda like a god i guess, but without labels.

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by Mon1k3r

so you're saying i could tell people im the messiah (i was born in 1998) if i wanted to?..

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in