I Converted A Catholic To Atheism

reply to post by colbe

"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,

No need to bless me. We all know you say it to appease your own vanity, to make yourself appear pious to others. Your piety affects nothing but how you think about yourself and how you wish others would think of you. It's actually quite transparent. Naked I see you.

You've done nothing but twisted pseudo-scientific endeavours to fit your own distorted outlook. All experiments on prayer have been entirely inconclusive, meaning the same result can be achieved by not praying. The Shroud of Turin has been dated to the Medieval period. You're not talking science, you're speaking your religion.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Thank you, LesMisanthrope,

Right on time!

It seems subjective musings tell us more about ourselves than it does about the universe
. . .
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.

That summarizes the issue quite clearly. Plus, it shows what the hook is with regards to the Law of One material. From the passage I quoted above:

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.

What is offered by Ra is purpose. Of all of the consolations from chaos that you've listed: (purpose, reward, immortality, easing of suffering) purpose seems to be the strongest motivator. With purpose a person can push on and overcome in the face of practically any adversity.

My current working hypothesis that Atheism is logical is supported by the observation that the Atheist consciously chooses his own purpose for his life based upon his own observations of subjective interaction with the environment in which he lives and breathes. The corollary being, he can change and modify his goal and path without fear of offense to anyone but himself.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
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?

Indeed, and perhaps we are similar in that we use this, and the inevitable clash of subjectivity, to learn more about ourselves. Everything I type I read again and again, and various dates down the road. I have learned more from this one activity than any discourse with anyone else.

The musings of the universe are a confession of its author.

You strongly remind me of an old friend named Will. The strength of the literary prose and style is so very similar. You seem to be able to have a stronger grasp of the discourse I truly look for, where one does not need to constantly assert that it is their own opinion or perspective without running the risk of it devolving. Both have their uses, but one is much more tiring to me.

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.

I appreciate your words, as always. Saying exactly what I am attempting to, except from a different perspective. While my strength may not necessarily be in words, yours most definitely is. I suppose I can consider it lucky that someone can seemingly speak my own perspective with such flourish.

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.

I think the is the most interesting part about it. Since that subjectivity is inherently part of what is, then how exactly does it interact? What patterns are there, and how do the mechanics work? The question "why" tends to be a pursuit of philosophy, but the other questions are ones that we might just be able to find the answers. This is where the aforementioned "flux" comes into play. Observation seems to be part of a different rule set than interaction.

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.

What is the purpose of involving the emotion, specifically that of love?

Regardless, any of our concepts of a God are flawed from the start. If one truly believes that their perspective is able to fully encompass that which is inherently beyond it, then some difficulties arise. At the same point, one can realize that their concept is much like the old adage of "pointing towards the moon." Instead of making movement and oscillation with an arm, we instead make one with our thoughts and words.

You use the term chaos, in what way do you see chaos present? I.E. where do you see something where no patterns or rules exist whatsoever?

reply to post by HarryTZ


What's the point of detachment? That's like choosing to be depressed. And happy July 4th everybody! Be safe out there and have fun!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What's the point of detachment? That's like choosing to be depressed. And happy July 4th everybody! Be safe out there and have fun!

Detachment just means not clinging to people, things places and situations. You can still enjoy them (in fact even more so), but still know that your happiness is not dependent on them. You've got it mixed up, detaching is choosingnot to be depressed. Attaching is choosing to be depressed.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I Converted A Catholic To Atheism,

So is your friend still converted?is he still alive?

Just asking....

reply to post by piequal3because14


He claims to have reverted. Then again, he's been a fair ways off from sober lately.

reply to post by HarryTZ


What you described is unconditional detachment. As in not caring at all about anything. Seems like a lonely life.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What you described is unconditional detachment. As in not caring at all about anything.

There's nothing to care about because nothing is important. One day you'll die and you will know that nothing in eternity matters but eternity itself. You can either fight against this truth and fabricate your own petty concepts of so-called 'meaning', or you can accept it and remember what true, lighthearted joy and satisfaction is, unconditional and untouchable.

Seems like a lonely life.

Loneliness is just another emotion that we feel when we are convinced we are not complete and whole unto ourselves. We convince ourselves that we need someone else in our lives, but soon realize that the hole cannot be filled from the outside. In fact, relationships can and usually do make one feel even more lonely and isolated, because both parties go in expecting something out of it. It's like a contract; be here for me and I'll be there for you. It's quite sad really. But once your true completeness enlightens your life experience, there is no more loneliness.

reply to post by HarryTZ



Wow that's depressing. And not necessarily correct either. I feel sorry if that's how you view the world.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Wow that's depressing. And not necessarily correct either. I feel sorry if that's how you view the world.

What's depressing about it, I don't understand.

reply to post by HarryTZ


That nothing matters. That's pretty depressing.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

That nothing matters. That's pretty depressing.

This moment matters because it is the only moment in existence. But it only matters in this moment. In the next moment, it is completely meaningless (in fact, it doesn't even exist). Nothing matters for the 'future', there isn't a 'story' which many of us like to believe. There is just right now, and right now matters right now and right now only.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

He claims to have reverted. Then again, he's been a fair ways off from sober lately.

What about you AfterInfinity can you let the pain you have in your soul to go,and come back to God?

reply to post by HarryTZ


Nope. Don't need one.

reply to post by piequal3because14

can you let the pain you have in your soul to go,and come back to God?

On another thread I posted a link to Bob Seger's song Against the Wind. The song is in the 1st person perspective, that is, from the perspective of the person who experienced the events and the reaction to the experiences. "and I remember" features quite prominently in the song.

For contrast, I'd like to offer another song, from the 3rd person perspective: The Eagles - Desperado.

Basically, since the song is from the 3rd person perspective, the singer has no real clue as to what the desperado has or hasn't experienced. It's all based on the observer's feelings and beliefs.

Personally, I would feel that if the desperado allowed himself to be beat down and worn out to the extent of just giving up and submitting there would be no little amount of defeat involved.

I much prefer Running Against the Wind. But that's just my personal preference.

reply to post by HarryTZ

This moment matters because it is the only moment in existence. But it only matters in this moment. In the next moment, it is completely meaningless (in fact, it doesn't even exist).Nothing matters for the 'future', there isn't a 'story' which many of us like to believe.

Speaking to the Wind

As I was speaking to the wind one day
he interrupted me to say,
"Why bother speaking to the wind,
I've heard it all before.
Nothing changes from day to day
It goes on forever more."

I used to think that the poem I wrote would be self explanatory. That's just the beginning of it. It's actually fairly long. No one who read it or heard me perform it seemed to get it. I suppose that no one actually realizes how revolting the notions are of inevitability, inaction, meaninglessness, emptiness, bliss.

The actor on the stage is seriously going to get bounced if he stands chanting to himself "this isn't real, this doesn't matter" instead of acting his part with all the passion he can muster.

The person with no past and no future has a serious problem.

There was a psychopath that I used to converse with. He described some very horrendous scenes of things he evidently participated in. Then he would say, "but then I prayed, and God took me out of there, and made it so that it never happened." So the past is null in your belief system? That seems psychotic to me.

Here's a quote from AfterInfinity that seems to fit the context somewhat:

Conceivably, such a being cannot be trusted because it would be so easy to force an essentially peaceful person to commit an atrocity, then replace their memories with all the images and thoughts of someone who would have willingly done that deed. That's just one example of how such a being might be dangerous.
Love vs Tyranny

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Nope. Don't need one.

???

reply to post by HarryTZ


What part of what I said was unclear? I don't need a god and I don't recognize any.

reply to post by pthena


I am very interested in reading the rest of your poem. I feel that it could help this discussion, plus I really liked the first stanza