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.

 

An Atheist's Desperate Plea

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



Ah, hello again, AfterInfinity.
I think perhaps we seek meaning that originates outside of ourselves because we are a biased party. We can create our own values, but can we validate them as true?
Just a thought.


If one presents one's talents to the world through spirit and determination, one will be rewarded. This is inevitable. You just have to find a way to get the world's attention. In short, yes, we can validate them. In fact, it is our right to validate them. We all have our opinions that we can voice, but in the end, only you decide what you are worth.
edit on 29-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If one presents one's talents to the world through spirit and determination, one will be rewarded. This is inevitable. You just have to find a way to get the world's attention. In short, yes, we can validate them. In fact, it is our right to validate them. We all have our opinions that we can voice, but in the end, only you decide what you are worth.
edit on 29-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


That sounds nice, but there are a lot of human beings out there whose reward is pretty pitiful.
The world is a pretty cold place when it wants to be. No wonder people seek to derive value from something less fickle.
As far as each individual deciding what they are worth–what if we are all wrong? Or are you saying that the value of each human being is subjective?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Menedes567
 


Soooooo god told you all this, seems like you've got a really tight relationship or you're just full of kaka. I appreciate a good imagination but this drivel is comical. Why not 1000000000000000000000 levels, and then you have a few more things to take your time in epsilon. Silly silly silly, one must grow up and become responsible for your actions. Avoiding reality is absent of logic and will get you no where closer to truth than someone outright not seeking the truth.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I have to say that I haven't read through all the replies so I don't know how much of what I say will be new, but I felt so moved by your post that I wanted to share my own experience with you.

I was raised in a relatively godless household. While my father is a Coptic Orthodox Christian, my mother divorced him when I was nine or ten and then married another man, who she had previously been having an affair with. Both of them have been staunch atheists for who knows how long and are the "condescending" type which you describe in your OP. A lot of my friends are atheists, too, but I have to say I've never really understood that. I don't follow any particular religion, but I am not an atheist or agnostic. I read a lot of books about Buddhism, and I practice yoga, and I am in a deeply loving romantic relationship. I've had a few psychedelic experiences, I love to go backcountry camping, and I am a creative writer. I have to say that all these things together resonate with a higher frequency of divinity, or faith. To say it another way, I have faith, and I believe that everything is alive and that everything is listening, and that the universe or world or whatever you want to call it tends towards benevolence and harmony. So I have a difficult time understanding what it must be like for people to live in a "Godless," world, to believe that everything is random, or discrete, instead of interconnected and alive. Many of the men who you mention in your OP (Einstein, for example) believed that science was inextricably connected to God. I don't see the two as opposing, and I don't think that it's helpful to see them as opposing. I think that's an important question to ask yourself, too--is what I'm doing or believing helpful? Is it harmful?

It sounds to me that you may be feeling cut off from something, and that is what you're trying to get back to in your search for God. My advice would be to follow your intuition. Many of the things I've mentioned, and which have been very influential for me--like camping and yoga and writing--won't appeal to everyone. But I think that anything can be a spiritual experience, depending on who you are and what resonates with you. Sometimes I even find swimming and Tae Kwon Do to be spiritual experiences. Sometimes walking through the woods is a spiritual experience. Falling in love is a spiritual experience. I would suggest that rather than trying to "find God," you follow your intuition and let it lead you towards activities which create a feeling of spirituality or divinity in your life. I think that this is what people are getting at when they suggest meditation. But I suspect that you've had, at least once, some feeling of connection with a higher power, some feeling of faith. What was that feeling? What precipitated it? Is there something similar that you could try now?

Another bit of advice--I've found that reaching for something, or trying to grasp it, only makes it more elusive. In my experience, calming down and opening yourself up to the world and to yourself, and thus INVITING experiences to come to you, is the only thing that will work. You have to put yourself in a position to receive, with intention, and then let yourself experience it. Don't try too hard--it will make it almost impossible!

Also, one more thing--I think that living a life of compassion and nonviolence, as much as possible, is a big key to unlocking your feelings of love for the world and for feeling that love reflected back at you. This, for me, is a cornerstone of faith or "God." You're probably familiar with this idea of ahimsa, but it's quite life changing to actually try and live that way, and to try to shift your attitudes about things. A concrete example is to buy organic or non-GMO food, because if you buy conventional food you are almost certainly supporting practices and companies which are harming the planet. Likewise, I do not purchase products which are mass-produced overseas, as I suspect that many of these products are produced in harmful conditions, or at the very least are causing harm to the planet because they are transported (not only wasteful and unsustainable, but also using oil--and thus supporting the oil companies) across the globe. A mental example is that instead of feeling angry at the state of the world, you can feel love and compassion for the many beautiful people and things that are making it work really, really well. And instead of sending your negativity and anger out there, you can send love and healing towards those things and those people who are making the world a better place. In line with this, charitable contributions (of time or of money) may help you feel like you're making the world a better place and may increase your feeling of connectedness with God. Eventually, once you start having spiritual experiences, you will start to experience more things in your life as spiritual. For example, when my cat was unexpectedly killed by a wild animal, it had a big impact on my spiritual life. Faith, then, becomes more a way of being in the world, and interpreting the world.

Like I said, I feel very touched by your post, and I hope that the community here can help support you. I am sending loving energy your way.

Best of luck.
edit on 29-7-2013 by zandrabananza because: Added paragraph on compassion and nonviolence

edit on 29-7-2013 by zandrabananza because: clarified faith and spirituality as ways of being in the world



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by zandrabananza
 



So I have a difficult time understanding what it must be like for people to live in a "Godless," world, to believe that everything is random, or discrete, instead of interconnected and alive.


To be interconnected and alive does not require a god. Believing that a god is necessary for a coherent universe is an ignorant assumption. Given an infinity, a coherent universe will be formed with or without a sentient higher power to guide its formation. What's the point of being an intelligent species if we can't use our intelligence for the greatest purpose of all - to ascribe meaning and value to ourselves! We have the power and the right. We don't need any divine entity to do it for us.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



As far as each individual deciding what they are worth–what if we are all wrong?


"What if"s are a huge waste of time. You can ask 'what if?' all you want, but all you're doing is allowing your imagination to undermine your determination. Instead of asking 'what if?', ask 'why not?'. Don't question your ability to determine your own value. It is your right, and no one else's.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Hi AfterInfinity,

I don't mean to imply that God is necessary to create a coherent universe. What I'm trying to get at is that we can expand the conception of God, or that what is experienced as God can also be experienced as being in-tune with a world which is made of loving-kindness. I think that opening oneself up to that feeling and possibility (of being flushed and alive and connected) is the first step on any spiritual path. You could call that feeling faith. I think that some people may find that feeling faith is "God"like to them, or that it is enough as it is without being "God"like, or that experiencing faith can help them find God. But I think that faith is more accessible to a greater number of people, and as such may be a better place for the OP to start.

All best.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by zandrabananza
 


I think we might have a somewhat greater degree of success if we could consistently determine what actually qualifies a being as a god. What does "god" mean? What are the parameters of such an entity?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


You wrote, "Real faith does not come as a gift from others, it is discovered within oneself, by oneself, as a pearl within the folds of your own perceivings."

At the heart of every natural pearl is a tiny lump of toxic crud, ingested by the oyster in the process of feeding. The pearl was formed to protect the oyster from the deleterious effects of the crud.

Perhaps conventional, irrational religious beliefs are, for some, the crud needed to form the pearl.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



"What if"s are a huge waste of time. You can ask 'what if?' all you want, but all you're doing is allowing your imagination to undermine your determination. Instead of asking 'what if?', ask 'why not?'.

I think one should probably ask both questions. They both help one to examine their options. As you can see, I find them both useful from time to time.


Don't question your ability to determine your own value.

Why not?


It is your right, and no one else's.

How do you know that?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSin
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


As an atheist it seems as if I am the only one that is seeking a truth. Religion teaches you that this one and only thing, angry baby jesus, is the only truth you'll ever need then retires you to a life of piety and idol devotion. That actually sounds like your estimation of what an atheist should do.


No, you are not the only one seeking truth. There are many individuals who believe in something that they might call a "higher power," a creative force that they cannot identify. Many were atheists who have experienced unanticipated states of consciousness or inexplicable paranormal phenomena. Few of these people attend church. Yet, they remain open to a better understanding of their "higher power."

I invite you to open your own mind to a more complete understanding of the beginnings of things than those offered by all conventional belief systems, science included.

A common error made by religionists and atheists alike is to accept the modern God-concept, which describes the Creator as a singular, omnipotent, omniscient entity who has always existed, always and forever knowing everything.

Now you might protest that you do not believe in such a God. Perhaps you will be correct-- but is that not the God in which you disbelieve?

If so, I agree with you completely, for I also disbelieve in that God. The entity defined by Augustine and Aquinas as creator of the universe was defined illogically and without knowledge of the principles of physics. IMO that entity does not exist.

However, I can and will offer an alternative creator-concept that has none of the usual properties, which is derived from simple principles of basic physics. Perhaps you will examine this concept when it appears here. If so, please let me know if, and why, you disbelieve in it as well.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by zandrabananza
 


I think we might have a somewhat greater degree of success if we could consistently determine what actually qualifies a being as a god. What does "god" mean? What are the parameters of such an entity?


A "god" might be defined as an entity that is personally responsible for its own consciousness, and can manipulate isolated sections of the physical universe without the need for an intermediate mechanism (such as a body). By contrast, human consciousness is dependent upon a more or less functional brain, even if the brain itself is not the source of consciousness. However, this broad definition includes ghosts, spirit guides, and other everyday spooks. It is probably inadequate as a definition that would relate to our general understanding of the word, "god."

How about defining a god as an entity that can manipulate parts of the physical universe, and which originally developed consciousness without the assistance of a brain-body system?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
This is a very interesting thread to read through... I am myself an anti-theist...but like to read religious people's views...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mekhanics
reply to post by Pistoche
 


In death, all things shall become clear.


Well, thats positive. Bodily death, only, spirit continues and once again is in the cage with the hampster wheel of karmic retribution. Budda tried to stop the wheel, apparently if your not a Buddist you never get out the system, born to die, die to be born again in complete utter ignorance. EMOTIONAL FUEL is food for something other than the human and from what I hear its tasty, and cannot be found anywhere else in the universe than HERE.
edit on 29-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Greylorn
 



How about defining a god as an entity that can manipulate parts of the physical universe, and which originally developed consciousness without the assistance of a brain-body system?


Why should that be the defining parameters for a god? Why can't the word "god" just translate to "greater than human"? That's how all the gods were decided! Before Christianity, most gods required bodies in order to exercise their power. Without bodies, they were helpless and powerless. Modern religion has changed the definition of what it is to be a god in order to reflect what modern theists want from their god. This is the impression I have gotten.

To me, the parameters of godliness are so wide and varied that "greater than human" is the one thing they all have in common. It doesn't take much more than that to be labeled a god, or to be called godly. Our understanding of godliness has evolved over the ages. Nowadays, it takes a lot more to impress us, so we expect a lot more of our gods. It takes a lot more to be a god. But when the idea of a god was first registered, it didn't take much at all. So which do we lean upon? The first rule of thumb, or the modern rule of thumb?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by zandrabananza
 


I think we might have a somewhat greater degree of success if we could consistently determine what actually qualifies a being as a god. What does "god" mean? What are the parameters of such an entity?


There are none; "GOD CONCEPT", its not a physical being its an ideaform. You create it yourself to suite your own individual nature. If you choose not to so be it, your choice. The problem with the notion of 'Christianity' is that it supersedes the God concept, as in Yeshua becomes as Jesus a gods son. Within that paradym is an introduced HUMAN that walked the earth in 3 dimensional reality, representing God/Father. This was such a huge mistake on the part of the creators, never should have done it as it contributed to mans conceite, corruption and confusion in the "where to look for God catagory FIRST" (this provides on the surface the easy answer in not having to look within). Jesus wasnt the only offering to the human, there were others, Mohammed, Budda, Confusious, Elvis most recent.There are scores of names throughout ancient history that were represented as godly figures, Anu, Enlil, Enki etc...ad nauseum. There is no physical God other than that partical of it existing; that animates your body/soul.
edit on 29-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 

I think the idea involves the "problem" of standing next to the Godhead, one which the person and action of Jesus resolves.

"And as my father hath sent me even so send I, you."

It's better this way, because next to the Godhead as the domain of Absolute holiness and perfection, can be a rather dangerous place for a human being to stand!


Praise the holy name of Jesus Christ.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 

I think the idea involves the "problem" of standing next to the Godhead, one which the person and action of Jesus resolves. "And as my father hath sent me even so send I, you."
It's better this way, because next to the Godhead as the domain of Absolute holiness and perfection, can be a rather dangerous place for a human being to stand!
Praise the holy name of Jesus Christ.


I think that the Jesus IDEA was not clearly thought out, its led to confusion as to what the human is; its part and parcel God. We could discuss this with more equinamity if I invited you, Jesus, Siddhartha, Gandi, Judas Iscariote, Mark Twain, Stephen Colbert, Pope John Paul II (deceased), John Stuart Mill, Hirotodus, Abraham Lincoln, and Satan to the same cocktail party to really hash this out. "and as my father hath sent me even so send I, you". I wonder if Jesus found earth the same hellish condition many on this planet find it. NO MONEY GROWING FROM TREES (the olives, grapes, the figs, Afghani apricots and apples) edible but not sufficient currency unless you have miles and miles of cultivation, SOME ONE ELSE OWNS THE ORCHARDS. Actually I do look at where my feet are if I suspect God is about to shake my hand, strattling a ravine.
edit on 29-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Greylorn
 



How about defining a god as an entity that can manipulate parts of the physical universe, and which originally developed consciousness without the assistance of a brain-body system?


Why should that be the defining parameters for a god? Why can't the word "god" just translate to "greater than human"? That's how all the gods were decided! Before Christianity, most gods required bodies in order to exercise their power. Without bodies, they were helpless and powerless. Modern religion has changed the definition of what it is to be a god in order to reflect what modern theists want from their god. This is the impression I have gotten.

To me, the parameters of godliness are so wide and varied that "greater than human" is the one thing they all have in common. It doesn't take much more than that to be labeled a god, or to be called godly. Our understanding of godliness has evolved over the ages. Nowadays, it takes a lot more to impress us, so we expect a lot more of our gods. It takes a lot more to be a god. But when the idea of a god was first registered, it didn't take much at all. So which do we lean upon? The first rule of thumb, or the modern rule of thumb?


Clearly, you will define "god" however you please. I prefer to define a creator in terms of the properties necessary for creation.

This is an engineer's kind of definition. It's like defining a railroad bridge as a structure that is capable of providing a sturdy base for a section of rails, strong enough to support a fully-loaded train of freight cars, over a ditch, canyon, river, lake, or other stretch of the planet's surface that would otherwise not support a length of rails with a freight train chugging along atop them.

This simple definition accommodates a large range of structures and styles.

God need only be defined as an entity, or consortium of entities, capable of creating our universe from a portion of dark energy, and willing, for whatever reasons, to actually do so.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Greylorn
 


"Creator" and "god" are not synonymous in my mind, nor are they mutually inclusive.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join