I Converted A Catholic To Atheism

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

I understand, however the idea that there are distince sub-creators and planetary and galactic consciousnesses doesn't really seem that likely or important.

I also understand that desire, however I feel an existential approach to life is more realistic, and in fact makes spiritual development much less of a burden. If you cloud your perception with concepts of meaning and purpose, and then cling to those concepts, you are just making detachment that much harder.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

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.

Okay, but you still must remember that all these apparent 'divisions' are just illusions being witnessed by the non-dual One.

May I ask, do you subscribe to this view?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

I figured that might be what you meant with it. I just call it change, as only the form is destroyed. Luckily for science though, even if disorder exists in small quantities (of which I have all the doubt I can muster), mostly everything happen according to specifics. Even the destruction takes place in an orderly and predictable fashion.

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 do, but Im not so sure it is reciprocal. If the goal were to manipulate existence, it would still be existence. It would still be manifestations of the original source (whatever you see that to be) fractaled out over time and space, according to a stable foundation of rules that all mimic the initial particle that snapped into a different medium. We inherently "manipulate" existence even down to our breathing, where we exchange products in the air into a usable form.

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".

I consider any title (and even our perspectives themselves) to be a box, so that might be a difference of opinion. I dont see how a deity coming into play does anything of what you are suggesting. Though, the battle for control between what we know as religion and science has certainly sowed those seeds of division itself. Its not beholden to any ideaology either, as we inevitably reside in the box of our perspective. Even if it grows, it will still have boundaries and limits.

Though, if one is preaching atheism over religion, then it would be just as prudent to discard God as it is for religion to discard those seemingly "without" their brand of faith. Belief, or lack of, in a God/s does not introduce inflexibility, the fight between the two dualities does that and it manifests in a peculiar way when involving free will. That "hook" is present regardless of a "box."

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.

Ahh, but how does one "compensate" for the flux without introducing more divisionary discordance? They both exist simultaneously, so does continuing down the same path on the same mountain, but walking backwards instead of forwards, lead to a different location?

If we are not ready for it, yet it is part of us inherently and constantly, which part of us is "not ready?"

But we are aware of it.

Perhaps, but never in its entirety and rarely even the entirety of our own "box."

reply to post by Serdgiam

I do, but Im not so sure it is reciprocal. If the goal were to manipulate existence, it would still be existence. It would still be manifestations of the original source (whatever you see that to be) fractaled out over time and space, according to a stable foundation of rules that all mimic the initial particle that snapped into a different medium. We inherently "manipulate" existence even down to our breathing, where we exchange products in the air into a usable form.

True, but there's possibilities and actualities. We take a variety of possibilities and produce one potentiality through our interactions, which we select based on what potentiality we want to produce. You seem to be implying that "truth" is inherent in the condition of existence itself, because it occurs according to the laws of the universe. That's why there are shades of truth. If you're talking from a minimalist standpoint, then yes, you could just leave it at that.

But minimalism tends to invite the failure of conditional existence.

I consider any title (and even our perspectives themselves) to be a box, so that might be a difference of opinion. I dont see how a deity coming into play does anything of what you are suggesting. Though, the battle for control between what we know as religion and science has certainly sowed those seeds of division itself. Its not beholden to any ideaology either, as we inevitably reside in the box of our perspective. Even if it grows, it will still have boundaries and limits.

A deity requires a personality, correct? A personality requires a certain set of mannerisms which support a certain set of principles which support a certain set of guidelines intended to ease the process of servitude, which is where humans come into the equation. When a deity is introduced, a philosophy seeps into that culture and molds society into a model designed for the satisfaction of that deity. The simplest explanation is that a deity provides an easy solution to things we have no control over, as well as a sense of meaning.

That meaning is defined by that deity, and that deity defines our understanding of the world, and our understanding defines our approach.

Though, if one is preaching atheism over religion, then it would be just as prudent to discard God as it is for religion to discard those seemingly "without" their brand of faith. Belief, or lack of, in a God/s does not introduce inflexibility, the fight between the two dualities does that and it manifests in a peculiar way when involving free will. That "hook" is present regardless of a "box."

It introduces inflexibility when your mind becomes itself own prison. Certain approaches teach you to observe and interpret using specific techniques proven to be effective to a certain end - i.e. understanding what the world actually is and what you actually are.

Preaching? I am explaining for the benefit of those who are sincerely interested. If you are offended, then I don't expect you to stick around and whine about being offended.

Ahh, but how does one "compensate" for the flux without introducing more divisionary discordance? They both exist simultaneously, so does continuing down the same path on the same mountain, but walking backwards instead of forwards, lead to a different location?

It leads to a different understanding of the same location.

Perhaps, but never in its entirety and rarely even the entirety of our own "box."

And when we do, we're ready to move on.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
True, but there's possibilities and actualities.

Well, of course! Thats the whole idea of several paragraphs I have written in just the past couple posts!

We take a variety of possibilities and produce one potentiality through our interactions, which we select based on what potentiality we want to produce. You seem to be implying that "truth" is inherent in the condition of existence itself, because it occurs according to the laws of the universe. That's why there are shades of truth. If you're talking from a minimalist standpoint, then yes, you could just leave it at that.

There are only shades of truth within subjectivity, which itself is inextricably part of the universe as a whole.

You perceive me to be implying something that I am not. It is not because it adheres to the laws of the universe. Being bound to those rules is a given. Truth is inherent to existence itself because, quite simply, that which exists.. exists. There is no philosophical meandering that adds to it. How the universe exists changes over time, but its all made of the same constituents oscillating in the medium of space-time (like how sound oscillates through the medium of air). The very basic concept is proposed with string theory, but it is not comprehensive.

The label of "minimalism" may be used to further ones individual understanding, or force it further into a box. What I am saying can be seen as minimalist in exactly the same way as science (the pursuit, not the industry) could be seen as minimalist.

A deity requires a personality, correct? A personality requires a certain set of mannerisms which support a certain set of principles which support a certain set of guidelines intended to ease the process of servitude, which is where humans come into the equation. When a deity is introduced, a philosophy seeps into that culture and molds society into a model designed for the satisfaction of that deity. The simplest explanation is that a deity provides an easy solution to things we have no control over, as well as a sense of meaning.

I am not sure the term "personality" or any of its nuances apply beyond humans. The "personality" of the God I speak of, its mannerism, and sets of principles, are explored through science. Perhaps you see it as an easy solution, but that does not apply beyond how you approach it. Thats very important.

That meaning is defined by that deity, and that deity defines our understanding of the world, and our understanding defines our approach.

If you can look at it in the way I propose right above, then you will see that I undoubtedly agree with this.

It introduces inflexibility when your mind becomes itself own prison. Certain approaches teach you to observe and interpret using specific techniques proven to be effective to a certain end - i.e. understanding what the world actually is and what you actually are.

Is something not a prison just because you can not see the walls?

Preaching? I am explaining for the benefit of those who are sincerely interested. If you are offended, then I don't expect you to stick around and whine about being offended.

It was a general statement, no need to defend your actions unless it struck a nerve. If it did, it might require some introspection. Not necessarily relevant to this specific discussion though.

It leads to a different understanding of the same location.

Indeed. However, where ever we may roam, we are in 3d. One may walk forward or backward or even charmingly strange (if you get the reference ), but the direction is all in the mind. When we can perceive it simply as movement, with no connotations of one direction leading to further growth than another inherently, perhaps is when we can truly move with a solid structure to house our findings within.

reply to post by Serdgiam

The label of "minimalism" may be used to further ones individual understanding, or force it further into a box. What I am saying can be seen as minimalist in exactly the same way as science (the pursuit, not the industry) could be seen as minimalist.

Industry is what the human species is about.

I am not sure the term "personality" or any of its nuances apply beyond humans. The "personality" of the God I speak of, its mannerism, and sets of principles, are explored through science. Perhaps you see it as an easy solution, but that does not apply beyond how you approach it. Thats very important.

Is the god you speak of a conscious, distinct entity? Because if not, then it isn't really an entity at all. It's a law, not a god. A principle of physics.

If you can look at it in the way I propose right above, then you will see that I undoubtedly agree with this.

Certainly, but I fail to understand the specifics of this deity you believe in.

Is something not a prison just because you can not see the walls?

Cannot see, or refuse to see?

It was a general statement, no need to defend your actions unless it struck a nerve. If it did, it might require some introspection. Not necessarily relevant to this specific discussion though.

I was covering my bases. Good to see that I need not have bothered.

but the direction is all in the mind. When we can perceive it simply as movement, with no connotations of one direction leading to further growth than another inherently, perhaps is when we can truly move with a solid structure to house our findings within.

Biologically speaking, we are not suited for that sort of existence. We're not space rocks, drifting through the cosmos with no purpose other than to float around and sleep.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Industry is what the human species is about.

In some contexts, that may be true. But, it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Is the god you speak of a conscious, distinct entity? Because if not, then it isn't really an entity at all. It's a law, not a god. A principle of physics.

The Earth is an entity, so is the sun. Perhaps you were thinking of another word? That word, specifically, has a lot of contradictions in its application. If you mean something that is "separate," then no, it is not an entity but it would still be distinct and conscious.

The God I speak of is the universe itself. We all try to fit it into our own understanding, which it appears is what you are doing when you say a lot of these things. Simply put, we are not looking at it the same way, and in saying "well, its not that, its this" is based on nothing more than defining boxes to better enable our own understanding.

Certainly, but I fail to understand the specifics of this deity you believe in.

I am not sure how to explain it any better at this point, honestly. Do you have any specific questions that would help?

Cannot see, or refuse to see?

In this context, they are the same difference with the same result. Either way, is it still a prison?

Biologically speaking, we are not suited for that sort of existence. We're not space rocks, drifting through the cosmos with no purpose other than to float around and sleep.

Interesting that you took it that way.. What part of our biology inhibits us from being what we already are? Do you have evidence that show we are incapable of such things?

reply to post by Serdgiam

The God I speak of is the universe itself. We all try to fit it into our own understanding, which it appears is what you are doing when you say a lot of these things. Simply put, we are not looking at it the same way, and in saying "well, its not that, its this" is based on nothing more than defining boxes to better enable our own understanding.

Then why call it a god?

I am not sure how to explain it any better at this point, honestly. Do you have any specific questions that would help?

Start with the one above. You're doing great.

In this context, they are the same difference with the same result. Either way, is it still a prison?

I suppose a prison is only a prison if the man wants to get out, eh? Otherwise, it's a castle.

What if he wants out, but doesn't realize it or refuses to admit it?

Interesting that you took it that way.. What part of our biology inhibits us from being what we already are? Do you have evidence that show we are incapable of such things?

We're space rocks?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Then why call it a god?

Because the only difference between what we know as the Universe, and what others know as God, is purely cultural and nothing more. Again, the word used is not relevant. That isnt to say you dont find relevance it in, since innately, an atheist is fighting against a word.

What if he wants out, but doesn't realize it or refuses to admit it?

Is this specific to religion, or the human perspective?

We're space rocks?

Technically, we are made of the same constituents, but in different forms. But yet again, that wasnt what I was talking about. Ill restate our conversation to perhaps clarify;

I said:

When we can perceive it simply as movement, with no connotations of one direction leading to further growth than another inherently, perhaps is when we can truly move with a solid structure to house our findings within.

You said:

Biologically speaking, we are not suited for that sort of existence.

I said:

What part of our biology inhibits us from being what we already are? Do you have evidence that show we are incapable of such things?

It is pointing to the idea that while part of us is subjective, the existence of the subjectivity and even our very being, are not. Which allows for access to this through countless different ways. Historically, it has been addressed in everything from buddhism, to advaita, to hinduism, to taoism, and even in sports (getting in "the zone").

It is also entirely possible that our perspectives are so vastly different that without significant effort from both parties, we will end up doing nothing but a dance where we step on each others toes..

reply to post by Serdgiam

Because the only difference between what we know as the Universe, and what others know as God, is purely cultural and nothing more. Again, the word used is not relevant. That isnt to say you dont find relevance it in, since innately, an atheist is fighting against a word.

Baggage. The word carries baggage, which influences any idea to which it may be connected regardless of whether the baggage is actually applicable or not.

Is this specific to religion, or the human perspective?

Any perspective, really. You may say it's not a prison, but what if we're conditioned to be satisfied with a contained perspective?

It is pointing to the idea that while part of us is subjective, the existence of the subjectivity and even our very being, are not. Which allows for access to this through countless different ways. Historically, it has been addressed in everything from buddhism, to advaita, to hinduism, to taoism, and even in sports (getting in "the zone").

It is also entirely possible that our perspectives are so vastly different that without significant effort from both parties, we will end up doing nothing but a dance where we step on each others toes..

Oh. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, there is an absolute part to it, but even that absolute part is registered through a subjective lens...which, I daresay, rather dilutes the absolute nature of it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Baggage. The word carries baggage, which influences any idea to which it may be connected regardless of whether the baggage is actually applicable or not.

Yup, it does carry baggage. Just like every term in existence! Atheism does too, so why do you claim it?

Any perspective, really. You may say it's not a prison, but what if we're conditioned to be satisfied with a contained perspective?

Well, we are conditioned that way... Like I have said, not only can our perspective not be simultaneously aware of the whole of the system, it struggles to be simultaneously aware of even its containing system. Most people are not able to be aware of their heart beating at the same time as their lungs breathing at the same time as their thoughts recognizing the process. Much less are able to do so while recognizing the independence (but not separation) of the parts of the whole.

Oh. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, there is an absolute part to it, but even that absolute part is registered through a subjective lens...which, I daresay, rather dilutes the absolute nature of it.

How does it dilute anything? Wouldnt the absolute nature of anything also include the subjectivity itself regardless of what the subjectivity asserts? And why would our biology disable us from being a part of the whole if that is what we are already?

Parts of the whole will inherently be limited by their very nature, so why would that be grounds for asserting their limitations as a dilution of any sort of absolute nature?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Preaching? I am explaining for the benefit of those who are sincerely interested. If you are offended, then I don't expect you to stick around and whine about being offended

Please continue. Now I'm glad that I read the first 2 Ra sessions before starting Book 1, because I got to read them again. I think my first reading was hampered by preconceived notions, the second reading, without as much preconception was less distorted.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
Baggage. The word carries baggage, which influences any idea to which it may be connected regardless of whether the baggage is actually applicable or not.

Yes, absolutely.

reply to post by Serdgiam

How does it dilute anything? Wouldnt the absolute nature of anything also include the subjectivity itself regardless of what the subjectivity asserts? And why would our biology disable us from being a part of the whole if that is what we are already?

The gods themselves are dependent upon distortion fields in order to manifest. Our biological senses get distorted also as a result, such as, spatial definition and distance perception gets lost. What you subjectively see is of necessity filtered through mental symbolism mechanisms just to register at all.

What you see bears no resemblance to absolute nature as far as the gods are concerned. So atheism is a more logical approach.

Originally posted by pthena
The gods themselves are dependent upon distortion fields in order to manifest. Our biological senses get distorted also as a result, such as, spatial definition and distance perception gets lost. What you subjectively see is of necessity filtered through mental symbolism mechanisms just to register at all.

That doesnt answer the question, but I see what you are getting at. However, by necessity of an absolute, the distortion itself would just be another part of the whole. Its just another variable that is contained in the same equation. It still does not explain why we would not be able to access our part of the whole. Even if its distorted (which has been said in different words for the last couple of pages), we still have access to it inherently.

What you see bears no resemblance to absolute nature as far as the gods are concerned. So atheism is a more logical approach.

I dont follow you on this at all, there seems to be a massive contradiction from one sentence to the next. Would you mind explaining?

reply to post by Serdgiam

I dont follow you on this at all, there seems to be a massive contradiction from one sentence to the next. Would you mind explaining?

This also goes back to

Its just another variable that is contained in the same equation. It still does not explain why we would not be able to access our part of the whole.

Suppose one day I was conversing with a tree. After the conversation, in a fit of euphoria, I said "Now I know everything", to everyone I saw, dancing and skipping about.

Much later, upon analysis of the conversation, the only useful information I got from the tree was the fact that my attempt at conversing with the wind was futile. Whoops! That's embarrassing!

But to compound the embarrassment, some people actually believed my claim to know everything. And I actually tried to explain everything to these people. At some point I would have to back up and explain, "I'm sorry, but I was mistaken, I don't know everything."

The people would then have to discard whatever I had told them, because what I had told them was mixed in with the false assumption that I knew what I was talking about.

Some one would say, "But then you are an agnostic!" No, because I do know something. Then some one will say, "You believe in God then". The tree wasn't God. It was a tree.

Where everything is One is before all gods, even the supposed monotheistic god. I wish I was an Atheist, but I haven't made it yet, so, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by pthena
Suppose one day I was conversing with a tree. After the conversation, in a fit of euphoria, I said "Now I know everything", to everyone I saw, dancing and skipping about.

Much later, upon analysis of the conversation, the only useful information I got from the tree was the fact that my attempt at conversing with the wind was futile. Whoops! That's embarrassing!

But to compound the embarrassment, some people actually believed my claim to know everything. And I actually tried to explain everything to these people. At some point I would have to back up and explain, "I'm sorry, but I was mistaken, I don't know everything."

The people would then have to discard whatever I had told them, because what I had told them was mixed in with the false assumption that I knew what I was talking about.

Right. This is what AI and I have been speaking about. The difference between subjective perception, and whether or not that is included in the system that it arises from (whether that is just the human body or the Universe). The main question, at this point is; "Does the subjective musings of one part of the whole determine the absolute nature of all that is beyond the subjectivity itself?"

The variables within the equation of the subjective perception may change, but does that change the absolute nature of the universe? Or, is it accounted for in the overall equation since it balances out all the same, evidenced by the concept that it can exist and thrive regardless of the specific perspective.

Some one would say, "But then you are an agnostic!" No, because I do know something. Then some one will say, "You believe in God then". The tree wasn't God. It was a tree.

Where everything is One is before all gods, even the supposed monotheistic god. I wish I was an Atheist, but I haven't made it yet, so, I don't know what I'm talking about.

I fail to see where you are making this specific jump to belief systems though. One could believe in a God, such as myself, and see that tree as part of the universe/god. One who is an atheist would just see it in the way that they do individually without including an absolute nature.

In both ways, the tree exists for observation and interpretation. Neither determines what can be learned about the involved biology, botany, and physics involved. Nor do the biology, botany, or physics determine what beliefs stem from it in the strictest sense.

If you wish to be an atheist, then be one!

reply to post by Serdgiam

"Does the subjective musings of one part of the whole determine the absolute nature of all that is beyond the subjectivity itself?"

The variables within the equation of the subjective perception may change, but does that change the absolute nature of the universe?

I think that you are jumping too quickly toward The Absolute Nature and The Universe. I think that AI(if that's ok as an abbreviation) has already explained that not having left the planet is a limiting factor.

To continue with limiting factors with reference to Absolute Nature: Consider that Infinityin algebra is not usable in equations, as in it serves no practical use, although there may be theoretical uses It isn't until the Cartesian Coordinate System is developed into Analytic Geometry leading to Differential Calculus with emphasis in Limits that Infinity becomes a useful element. Even then, it's the approaching of the Limit that is meaningful and useful in practical terms.

For the subjective musings I think I'll just be lame and quote from Ra material:

Questioner: If an individual makes efforts to act as a catalyst in general to
increase the awareness of planetary consciousness, is he of any aid in that
direction, or is he doing nothing but acting upon himself?

Ra: . . . The few whom you will
illuminate by sharing your light are far more than enough reason for the
greatest possible effort. To serve one is to serve all. Therefore, we offer the
question back to you to state that indeed it is the only activity worth doing:
to learn/teach or teach/learn. There is nothing else which is of aid in
demonstrating the original thought except your very being, and the
distortions that come from the unexplained, inarticulate, or mystery-clad
being are many.
The Law of One, Book 1 pg 72,73

The Ultimate is already Infinite yet always moving. Our musings do change movement, but I think that's all I can say.

I fail to see where you are making this specific jump to belief systems though. One could believe in a God, such as myself, and see that tree as part of the universe/god. One who is an atheist would just see it in the way that they do individually without including an absolute nature.

Talking to trees isn't much of a mark of distinction, at least not a good mark. I understand this. I seriously doubt that you and AI interact with trees any differently. I could be wrong though.

If you wish to be an atheist, then be one!

Remember the limits. My daughter is an Atheist, so I know at least what the difference is, Atheists don't need a god. A god serves no practical purpose for an Atheist.

I'm a shaman. It is axiomatic that shamans are broken. They can't continue to function without a god. See Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. If the daemon is cut from the child, the child dies. That's a limit that I will probably not get past. I may be wrong though.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Good discussion.

"Does the subjective musings of one part of the whole determine the absolute nature of all that is beyond the subjectivity itself?"

It seems subjective musings tell us more about ourselves than it does about the universe—what else are we able to talk about but what we see through our own eyes and interpret with our own minds? Every time we think, we are simply peering into our own imagination and memory. When we think about someone else we are in fact not thinking about them, but thinking about our own interaction with them, or how we might interact with them in whatever situations we create in the imagination. The musings of the universe are a confession of its author.

But in order to comprehend anything, experience anything and muse about something, there first must be something to muse about. The subject must have context; there must first be an object. Any subject is at first an object. There is, by necessity, an objective world that the minds of men must perceive and conceive, in order to offer a subjective interpretation of it. Indeed we are a part of this objective world. Of course, the objective world is mind-independent, it doesn't need anything to perceive or conceive it, but is nonetheless where all subjectivity arises from.

If this is the case, subjectivity and objectivity are impossible or are one and the same, as at no time, except for perhaps before birth and after death, is the subject/object relationship severed. Subjectivity is still objectivity—objects existing—but in our case, these objects are capable of expressing the universe symbolically, never capable of being a direct one-to-one ratio, but utilizing them when practical or impractical to our needs.

Behind the belief in God, or anything for that matter, is a desire—the desire to have a relationship with something we can love. We dress up the object of the subject/object relationship, we idealize it, so that it suits this desire, so that the objective is sufficient enough. It is difficult, when faced with the eternal grind of life, to love that which leads us to suffer; but in order to stand the sight of the world, and in turn ourselves, we choose to believe in any consolation to the chaos around us—anything with a purpose, a reward, immortality and easing of suffering. We therefore hide the naked chaos under our costumes.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Good discussion.

"Does the subjective musings of one part of the whole determine the absolute nature of all that is beyond the subjectivity itself?"

It seems subjective musings tell us more about ourselves than it does about the universe—what else are we able to talk about but what we see through our own eyes and interpret with our own minds? Every time we think, we are simply peering into our own imagination and memory. When we think about someone else we are in fact not thinking about them, but thinking about our own interaction with them, or how we might interact with them in whatever situations we create in the imagination. The musings of the universe are a confession of its author.

But in order to comprehend anything, experience anything and muse about something, there first must be something to muse about. The subject must have context; there must first be an object. Any subject is at first an object. There is, by necessity, an objective world that the minds of men must perceive and conceive, in order to offer a subjective interpretation of it. Indeed we are a part of this objective world. Of course, the objective world is mind-independent, it doesn't need anything to perceive or conceive it, but is nonetheless where all subjectivity arises from.

If this is the case, subjectivity and objectivity are impossible or are one and the same, as at no time, except for perhaps before birth and after death, is the subject/object relationship severed. Subjectivity is still objectivity—objects existing—but in our case, these objects are capable of expressing the universe symbolically, never capable of being a direct one-to-one ratio, but utilizing them when practical or impractical to our needs.

Behind the belief in God, or anything for that matter, is a desire—the desire to have a relationship with something we can love. We dress up the object of the subject/object relationship, we idealize it, so that it suits this desire, so that the objective is sufficient enough. It is difficult, when faced with the eternal grind of life, to love that which leads us to suffer; but in order to stand the sight of the world, and in turn ourselves, we choose to believe in any consolation to the chaos around us—anything with a purpose, a reward, immortality and easing of suffering. We therefore hide the naked chaos under our costumes.

"Dress up", no sir. All the mystical SCIENCE tested (disbeliever's God) point to Jesus Christ.

How do you explain the latest findings on the Shroud? There aren't enough man-made UV rays to create the marks made on the Shroud. Jesus arose, 2000 years ago!

How do you explain physical healing from a mental prayer offered? Testimonies in the millions to prayers answered. Is everyone of those witnesses a liar? Many a doctor, surgeon has converted seeing these miracles.

Why can't Science name the material used to make the image on the Tilma of Guadalupe? Science says it is not of this earth.

You should read some conversion stories, atheist to Roman Catholciism.


God bless you LesM,