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: 80
21
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



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


My impression of the term "god" is that it means "greater than human". This does not automatically mean an end-all take-all sort of deity.


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?


As a scientist, you should know that better than I do - considering science makes a point of doing exactly what you describe.



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.


This is why we work together.




posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
My impression of the term "god" is that it means "greater than human". This does not automatically mean an end-all take-all sort of deity.


What about other definitions that have vastly different parameters?


As a scientist, you should know that better than I do - considering science makes a point of doing exactly what you describe.


I was asking you though, and your perspective on it.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



What about other definitions that have vastly different parameters?


What is the definition of the word "god"? Professionally speaking, I mean.


I was asking you though, and your perspective on it.


Observation. How else?



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
What is the definition of the word "god"? Professionally speaking, I mean.


Does the individual, or even collective definition, define the concept? Or is it the other way around?

To use a common analogy;

Do the fingers pointing at the moon define what the moon "is?" Or, does the moon have its own distinct set of parameters that we can only point at from within our limited context?



Observation. How else?


Would you mind expanding on this? You are loosely describing your perspective, and have mentioned that indicates a loose understanding. So, are you struggling to understand what I am asking with those questions?


Do you perceive this to be a universal truth?


I was asking in reference to something you stated with the first question, about a loose description definitively pointing to a loose understanding. So, what I mean with it is, do you think this is something that is universally true, or just how you see it?


In what way could an individual description fully encompass that which it attempts to describe if it is not a part of it, itself?


How does observation address this question? By simply observing something, we do not come to much of an understanding without also implementing some type of translation and interpretation of what we are observing. One can sit and stare into "x," but how does that translate into understanding a fully encompassing mechanic?


And if it is only a part of the whole, in what way could it comprehend that which is beyond its own boundaries intrinsically?


Meaning, if we cant even understand our own perspective and how it comes to be what it is, how can we expect to do more with things we can only point towards, like the moon? We are still learning *massive* amounts about even the basics of psychology, biology, and the human "condition."

If we struggle to do that, we also struggle to understand one anothers perspective. These perspectives (humans) are only a small part of something much, much, much larger. So, when I say the word "window," are you able to automatically tell what image I am conjuring up in my mind any more than the emotional part of our brain can determine how the logical side operates?

I do have my own understanding of these concepts, I am specifically curious and intrigued by your perspective on these things (and anyone else who wishes to contribute). By doing so, we can better understand what "window" we are each imagining..
edit on 1-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



I was asking in reference to something you stated with the first question, about a loose description definitively pointing to a loose understanding. So, what I mean with it is, do you think this is something that is universally true, or just how you see it?


How would I know if it is universally true? I've never left this planet.


How does observation address this question? By simply observing something, we do not come to much of an understanding without also implementing some type of translation and interpretation of what we are observing. One can sit and stare into "x," but how does that translate into understanding a fully encompassing mechanic?


Part of "observation" is "interaction". Obviously, you're not observing much if you just sit and stare. So you make it do something. How? Trial and error. Observe what happens. Write down possible correlations and test the correlations until you have a fairly accurate description of its full range of behaviors. At this point, you should have a decent comprehension of what you are looking at. Using that comprehension, you further test it in ever more complex fashions, recording your findings and comparing them with previous results. In this way, your database expands as you flesh out your understanding. Isn't that how science works?


Meaning, if we cant even understand our own perspective and how it comes to be what it is, how can we expect to do more with things we can only point towards, like the moon? We are still learning *massive* amounts about even the basics of psychology, biology, and the human "condition."


Unless you want to put a stop to all current projects until you've decided you understand yourself sufficiently, I suppose certain educated presumptions are necessary. But they must be educated.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Just to let you know, if you didn't notice already, I replied to your questions on the previous page.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
How would I know if it is universally true? I've never left this planet.


Do you mean to insinuate that if you could leave the planet, you could find universal truth?

Do you feel it is possible to find universal truth, or at least point to it, since where we are now is a product of it?


Part of "observation" is "interaction". Obviously, you're not observing much if you just sit and stare. So you make it do something. How? Trial and error. Observe what happens. Write down possible correlations and test the correlations until you have a fairly accurate description of its full range of behaviors. At this point, you should have a decent comprehension of what you are looking at. Using that comprehension, you further test it in ever more complex fashions, recording your findings and comparing them with previous results. In this way, your database expands as you flesh out your understanding. Isn't that how science works?


Interaction is seen by me as what we do with what we observe, but it is distinct.

By sitting and staring, you are observing everything in your sight, by definition of the word. But, no interpretation/interaction occurs. This is the basis behind some methods of meditation, actually.

Since I am not sure I am able to get across the point I have, lets just skip this.


Unless you want to put a stop to all current projects until you've decided you understand yourself sufficiently, I suppose certain educated presumptions are necessary. But they must be educated.


Does our continuing education and growth of understanding of the human context go further towards the Truth, or further into the context itself? Or both/neither?



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 05:18 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.


Only/if/unless you are a pasteurized milk product.
edit on 1-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


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


I would like its cell phone number, direct extension to "multiversal cloud storage coordinator IN CHARGE". In case I get an answering machine I leave this message "I have part of an amalgamated memory there I would like to access, please get back to me for Earth coordinantes, thanking you in advance VHB, (you know who I am)".
edit on 1-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Wow. That post actually was funny. Have a star for making me chuckle.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Strangely, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing, it made a fascinating read.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Nothing really strange about it



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


What I meant by strange was...well, have you read Law of One? The link shows you a synopsis of the overall material, which you can study in full by Googling the term. It isn't hard to find PDF downloads for all three volumes, also know as the "Ra Material".

Anyway, what you've described is a rather intriguing interpretation of the principles discussed in the subject. That's why it makes a lot of sense to me.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



Do you mean to insinuate that if you could leave the planet, you could find universal truth?


As an individual subjective observer? No. I think there is an absolute theme for this universe, but the question is more, "What do we do about it?" To that end, there's a polar spectrum. And if your purposes are directed toward the direction that the universe demonstrates (i.e. order) you are more likely to find a productive outcome. However, it is diligent to note that as with all polar spectrums, your efforts are subject to variant influences of the polar opposite. At this point, it is your choice as to whether you use this polar opposite (i.e. chaos) for its logical purpose...that is, to recognize the flaws in your designs or efforts and amend them, or resist that polar opposite in order to eliminate its role in your processes. Metaphorically speaking, chaos will underline, in priority, the "weak links" in your efforts or designs, giving you the heads up necessary to improve or redirect them. People seem to think that chaos is the CAUSE of these flaws, and perhaps this is so; however, chaos will inevitably arise. The point is to ensure that chaos will not find you an easy target.

From a subjective standpoint, the word "right" or "true" is only accurate insofar as it applies to your intentions and whether or not the idea being described is conducive to those intentions. When such a term is applied relative to the universe, you are comparing it to the theme demonstrated by the overall nature of the universe. So to be "universally true", it must be "universally conducive". This, of course, demands that one must examine the part to see if it reflects the whole. Have we done this? Certainly. And at a certain level, the observable universe exhibits a universal behavior. Motion. Circular motion. Everything is spinning, rotating, swiveling, etc. Everything operates in circles. Anything else will eventually be redirected or assimilated entirely.

This is, I think, among the most important applications of Taoist philosophy. When two opposing forces meet, they have two choices: one must subside, or both must cooperate. This creates the circle, a balance of power that sustains the life in both.

I think this idea is reflected in the teachings of numerous sages throughout history. What I'm seeing now, though, is that instead of balancing these forces, we've elected to forgo one in favor of the other. We are attempting to become the highest possible embodiment of order, in the hopes that we will no longer have to fear ourselves or anything around us. Unfortunately, this comes with one small problem:

When there is nothing to detract from immaculate experience, what makes that experience immaculate?


Interaction is seen by me as what we do with what we observe, but it is distinct.

By sitting and staring, you are observing everything in your sight, by definition of the word. But, no interpretation/interaction occurs. This is the basis behind some methods of meditation, actually.


I understand exactly what you mean here. So lemme ask you this: how do you drive a car? Of course, there's the basic principles of acceleration and braking, steering, etc. But that's not all that driving is. There's a style to it, a technique. There's a dozen different ways to drive a car, and all of them work for different people.

In this way, there's dozens of different ways to observe that all teach us something. But the question remains: why are you driving? And I think that question must be answered to determine how it should be done.



Does our continuing education and growth of understanding of the human context go further towards the Truth, or further into the context itself? Or both/neither?


In my opinion, it furthers our understanding of why we want to know the truth. Why we want to know the truth inevitably affects how we handle the truth once we have it. We don't want our subconscious desires to discard any facet of reality out of pure self-interest. That's why we examine ourselves to know what we can expect on the journey. Our closest and most deadly enemy is ourselves - the enemy we don't want to suspect.
edit on 2-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


In fact, this is the first I have heard of it. It describes exactly how I see reality, and logically, most of it makes sense. The ideas of distinct, creative Logoi and "densities" of experience, however, are a bit too superstitious for my tastes, but I agree with the overall idea of the One experiencing itself through physical manifestation.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 



The ideas of distinct, creative Logoi and "densities" of experience, however, are a bit too superstitious for my tastes, but I agree with the overall idea of the One experiencing itself through physical manifestation.


Isn't that a little self-contradictory? You're willing to consider one, but not the other? Even though they mesh as neatly as oiled cogs?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


To say that each galaxy was created by different individual beings is a bit fluffy. A 'galaxy' is just a human concept, and where we draw the line between 'this galaxy' and 'that galaxy' depends also on human perception. Same goes for the densities. If all is one, there cannot be distinct 'sub-creators' and distinct 'levels of experience'. That creates a duality, which is contradictory to the non-dual nature of existence.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
People seem to think that chaos is the CAUSE of these flaws, and perhaps this is so; however, chaos will inevitably arise.


I am editing parts out so I can type a reply.


I do not believe in chaos, only in patterns that we have not recognized yet. Everything seems to be in "order," and even moments of randomness are consistently random. So, would you mind expanding a bit on how you see chaos? We might simply be using two different terms to define the same concept, and as it should be clear by now, I find the underlying concept far more relevant than any semantics or words chosen.


From a subjective standpoint, the word "right" or "true" is only accurate insofar as it applies to your intentions and whether or not the idea being described is conducive to those intentions.


Interesting viewpoint. From another perspective, one might be able to say it is all "true," at least in a mathematical sense. Wherein if the standpoint exists, it does so within the physics of the universe inherently. And its very existence proposes the idea that it is supported by what exists, as it is also a part of it and it can never be another way.


Motion. Circular motion. Everything is spinning, rotating, swiveling, etc. Everything operates in circles. Anything else will eventually be redirected or assimilated entirely.


I would say everything operates in cycles based on circles. When the 2d plane without space-time as a medium "snaps" into the 3d medium, it needs to have two data packet carriers that are associated in different phases. At this point, it will retain the same overall shape of the initial particle (circle) at certain resonances (or scales), but it will operate on a principle of two cycles, historically understood as "duality," though like every thing else, there are a variety of different semantics referring to the same concept.

The two waves could be formed since the full data of the initial particle needs to be maintained for it to be relevant/relative. At any one point in time, the full data is contained, but may not necessarily be parsed by a perspective which is based solely in movement (ourselves). Like taking a picture with a long exposure versus taking a picture with a short exposure. The same data is technically present at all times, but due to it being split into two phases, we have to use some techniques to fully parse the data.


When there is nothing to detract from immaculate experience, what makes that experience immaculate?


I feel these two forces, internally, can be seen as an observer as well as physical action. As you say, we tend to fixate on one over the other, and very, very rarely are simultaneously aware of the two. Even though we all know the issues with thinking without taking any action, or taking action without any thinking. Our perspective tends to oscillate between the two, which might be seen as an actual "flux" that is created by what we perceive as free will. It creates an instability within the system, and an "abnormal orbit."


In this way, there's dozens of different ways to observe that all teach us something. But the question remains: why are you driving? And I think that question must be answered to determine how it should be done.


As someone who used to race motorcycles, cars, and bicycles, I like the analogy.
I see only one way to observe (observation), but that it can grow to include various other parts that may not have been seen prior, while never fully encompassing the whole.

Im not 100% sure what you are trying to get at here, as it seems to be contradictory to what has been previously stated all while not addressing the points raised.


Our closest and most deadly enemy is ourselves - the enemy we don't want to suspect.


Confirmation bias can indeed be tricky, but it is inevitable as well as natural. I think that we do not grow towards the truth in any way, but merely are a manifestation on it. Our "success" in this would be akin to a plant that either grows towards the shade, and can no longer photosyntesize, versus one that grows towards light and thrives. It is also both, and neither.. We grow further within our own context inherently, but since that context is a valid representation of the universe (or it would not exist), it does all of this within the confines and boundaries of the Universe.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



I do not believe in chaos, only in patterns that we have not recognized yet. Everything seems to be in "order," and even moments of randomness are consistently random. So, would you mind expanding a bit on how you see chaos? We might simply be using two different terms to define the same concept, and as it should be clear by now, I find the underlying concept far more relevant than any semantics or words chosen.


Chaos - disorder. The derangement of previous establishment. Of course, it is but one half of a coin, whereas order is the other half. You cannot construct without destroying, cannot create new order without new chaos.


Interesting viewpoint. From another perspective, one might be able to say it is all "true," at least in a mathematical sense. Wherein if the standpoint exists, it does so within the physics of the universe inherently. And its very existence proposes the idea that it is supported by what exists, as it is also a part of it and it can never be another way.


Indeed, if existence were the goal in and of itself. But what if the goal were to manipulate existence? I buy a canvas and some paint. Boom. Done. The components for art are assembled, that's all I wanted. But then comes the manipulation of those components. See what I'm saying?


I feel these two forces, internally, can be seen as an observer as well as physical action. As you say, we tend to fixate on one over the other, and very, very rarely are simultaneously aware of the two.


Most major religions tend to foster this effect. This is why I advocate atheism - the more a deity comes into play, the more deeply we are anchored to a particular approach or understanding. With such an inflexible hook, our ability to explore and comprehend is limited. We put ourselves in a "box".


Our perspective tends to oscillate between the two, which might be seen as an actual "flux" that is created by what we perceive as free will. It creates an instability within the system, and an "abnormal orbit."


Here's where the "Holy Trinity" comes into play. That which is approaching, that which is being approached, and the approach itself. Any change within one or more must be observed by the remainder in order to maintain balance and productivity. Any "flux" must be observed and compensated for, and said flux must be adjusted in compensation for inward change. We're just learning for now...that's why we have such difficulty grasping such a comprehensive interactive observance. We're not ready for it yet.

But we are aware of it.



Im not 100% sure what you are trying to get at here, as it seems to be contradictory to what has been previously stated all while not addressing the points raised.


I thought I did well.
What are you not understanding?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 



To say that each galaxy was created by different individual beings is a bit fluffy. A 'galaxy' is just a human concept, and where we draw the line between 'this galaxy' and 'that galaxy' depends also on human perception. Same goes for the densities. If all is one, there cannot be distinct 'sub-creators' and distinct 'levels of experience'. That creates a duality, which is contradictory to the non-dual nature of existence.


I'll explain a little bit...you seem to be confused here. In order to experience itself, the In2 (Infinite Intelligence) had to divide itself to regard itself. This process, when compounded, allows a comprehensive experience that explores all possible incarnations of In2. It started out as a singular entity occupying all of existence, and wanted to experience finite multiality, the state of being many individual entities. Because of your existential disposition and experience, you wouldn't understand that desire. In essence, it all comes down to levels of awareness. For each time it divided, it created a new level of awareness and comprehension. The division is occurring in our consciousness, not in our actuality.

These bodies are manifestations of our allotted consciousness. All of reality is a manifestation of an allotted consciousness, according to 'Ra'. And all of these allotted consciousnesses are the cells composing an ultimate consciousness that embodies the aetheric substance from which the entirety of existence is built.

I hope that clears the matter up.



edit on 2-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join