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.

 

I Converted A Catholic To Atheism

page: 79
21
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Am I a particle of a homogeneous entity?


Oh yes you are; and surprisingly some particles have more weight than others, I suppose that would mean are larger, existing in a more advanced state of being. If anyone thinks the distribution of spirit infused matter is a "fair and democratic process" we all start out with the same atomic weight they would be wrong.
edit on 30-6-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Do you know what 'homogenous' means? Equal composition throughout. All particles possess the same properties.
edit on 30-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


So in your opinion, the condition of existence inherently introduces divinity? And if so, to what degree?


Everything is equally 'divine', to an infinite degree.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Do you know what 'homogenous' means? Equal composition throughout. All particles possess the same properties.
edit on 30-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


The particle is equal to the whole, and the whole is equal to the particle.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Exactly. Now we're on the same page. So where does a 'god' come into play?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Do you know what 'homogenous' means? Equal composition throughout. All particles possess the same properties.
edit on 30-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I was speaking about the number of; not of the 'one' initial particle, with that the subatomic weight (NO WEIGHT only light energy and not physical matter YET) Your stem cells are programed to become something, liver, brain, lung tissue. They are also homogenous as in equal in function to the whole? You mean all of them contribute/are of a God aspect to first describe then to maintain the whole of the humans physical function. Unless they are not homogneous with different functions what else are they descibing if not a Creators intent to depict itself in human form?
edit on 30-6-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


That's what I'm trying to say. There is no room for any other being than what you call god. God is all there is.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Why does this 'projection' have to be a god? Which do you call it a god? Doesn't that anthropomorphize it? Or at least limit its nature? It seems to me that you are putting it in this little box that barely even begins to express its actuality...



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


How is one to accurately describe the indescribable? It cannot be done. So we use familiar words such as 'god' to speak of it. But when I say 'it' I am actually talking about mySelf, my selfless Self. So instead of 'it' we should say 'you' or 'I' or 'we' or 'us'.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Is it actually a god, then? Or is that just the best word you have for it? For me, the term 'god' does not evoke impressions of limitless power and being. 'God' could simply mean 'greater than human'.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Why does this 'projection' have to be a god? Which do you call it a god? Doesn't that anthropomorphize it? Or at least limit its nature? It seems to me that you are putting it in this little box that barely even begins to express its actuality...


Projection? are you intimating you are something other, perhaps a greater ideaform and it does not encompase a supreme creator, or are you that being? What potencial pandoras box are you discribing? As you understand actuality, explain once and for all why you are an Athiest and can prostletize to others to become one of your faith? In this thread you have not given any tenets; discribing your belief system. I must say the fact you have a solid negative you are protecting and proclimating is disturbing to me. Anyone that is so entrenched in a belief system so solid to actually impart an ideology to change anothers faith 'as an evangelical' is insane, or believes in its own self will to use it (a warped tool of reasoning to cause consequence). I do not believe A. Cooper is drowning in the bottom of a bottle, and your excuses as to its demeaner is not sound. I dont believe he exists or ever did. You could not save him? Of course not as a phantom unreality.
edit on 30-6-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Maybe you should try actually reading my posts then. Attack less, read more.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It is the experience of infinite freedom in an infinite number of aspects. It is not a discernible 'entity', because it only exists as an experience.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


A multiversal cloud, then. Like cloud storage. An amalgamated memory.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


That's a pretty good analogy, actually.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 



That's a pretty good analogy, actually.


An amalgamated memory, a "cloud storage" of all multiversal possibilities. Does this "cloud" have its own distinct consciousness? Or is it one condensed moment of pure reminiscence covering every moment of existence, like a plethora of movies all crammed into one eternal instant?

Let me be clear here: the iCloud doesn't have a conscious. It's simply data storage. Is that what you're talking about? Or is there an overarching conscious in addition to all of this data storage in the "multiversal cloud"?



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Why is it so important to you about whether or not the individual concepts of "God/s" apply to the universal whole? Inherently, they are incapable of doing so, but in the end, we all live in the same universe and are interpreting the same data sets.

If there is an alien civilization out there, do you think they refer to it as "God/s?" Somehow, I doubt they use english in the first place, nor would I expect them to have human-based concepts for anything. However, they too are using the same data set. However, to them "God" does not exist, as it is a completely irrelevant term based on a different culture, species, and even planet. The concept itself, however, is quite likely to be directly applicable.

So, do we slowly whittle away at each individual perspective, proving them "wrong," or try to approach it while considering that the same data set (the Universe) is equally available to each and every one of us?

Now, when we talk of a cohesive consciousness, are we truly able to determine this even for ourselves? Are we able to discern which parts of our brain are doing the thinking, or do we perceive them as a cohesive whole perspective? When your perspective is based on an emotional majority, it uses a different part of the brain than if you are coming from a rational base. But, are we able to determine this ourselves? And even when we use imaging to tell which parts of the brain are active during these moments, to our continuous perspective, how can one actually point to which part of their brain is providing the basis for the current experience?

Is each individual part cohesive in and of itself (comparable to one perspective vs another), or is it the perceived "whole" that we use to determine coherence. Is your "cohesive" perspective a part of a larger whole, or is it independent from the system in which it resides and arises from (the Universe)? Are you able to tell what is cohesive, in this regard, any more than the emotional part of our brain can determine it works in unison with the logical part?
edit on 1-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Part of understanding an idea is by looking at how you describe it. If you're just describing it loosely, then you only understand it loosely. Perhaps that's something to work on, no matter what you believe, eh?



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


It's hard to explain but I'll give it a try.
There is one consciousness, and you are it. Life is just a plethora of different experiences of the consciousness, which has been individuated and physically incarnated. God is completely alone to himself and is all that exists, yet at the same time God is an infinitude of separate subjectivities, all of which are completely alone to themselves and equal to the whole. It's the greatest dichotomy in existence.

Behind the infinitesimal speck of the linear experience of life is the eternal experience of pure consciousness, indescribable and infinitely free. This is the highest experience that God has. We also call this Nirvana (which translates as blowing out, extinction, or nothingness)

This experience is always available, yet you have forgotten it in order to be incarnated into the physical world. This forgetfulness we call unconsciousness. Only in unconsciousness does the ego have room to grow. But we are not born with the ego. It is slowly developed as the child grows older and becomes familiar with praise and chastisement (thank your mom, for saying things like "I love you" or "that's naughty").

99% of human beings are complete slaves to the ego without even realizing it. The constant chasing after pleasure and satisfaction which, in the long run, only results in pain and disappointment. The attachment to people, things, and situations, feeling as though you need them to survive. The non-stop worrying and feeling as though there's 'never enough'. But this is all illusory, and we need not subject ourselves to this misery. It is your choice to drop the needy 'I' identification, and remember your oneness with existence. But these habits are ingrained into our beings and breaking them can be extremely difficult.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Part of understanding an idea is by looking at how you describe it.


What is your definition of the "God/s" that do/does not exist?


If you're just describing it loosely, then you only understand it loosely.


Do you perceive this to be a universal truth? In what way could an individual description fully encompass that which it attempts to describe if it is not a part of it, itself? And if it is only a part of the whole, in what way could it comprehend that which is beyond its own boundaries intrinsically?


Perhaps that's something to work on, no matter what you believe, eh?


I would agree that growing is a good thing, and as none of us have the entire picture or truth inherently. As such, we have a vast medium for growth.
edit on 1-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join