Atheism isn't a topic I have thought about much at all, so I know little about their arguments and stances.
I was wondering what their typical responses to the ideas of oneness are? So if you were to explain that we are all the creator experiencing itself, what is the general position in regards to that type of philosophy?
In listening to some of their arguments in general, they seem very naive and basic. By that I mean they seem to spend much of their time criticizing and picking apart the rather obvious flaws of religion. "Why would God create so much suffering?"..for example. They could be asking more useful questions by considering the radical idea of being God themselves, and then approach their metaphysical issues in relation to such a philosophy. Many atheists of the West seem to conclude that there is no God based on the inherent faults of Christianity and the bible. Understandable, but perhaps they come to their conclusions too quickly. They seem trapped in victim-consciousness arguments. They also seem to heavily rely on the scientific angle, attempting to invalidate intelligent design. It would seem rather fruitless trying to prove God to an atheist through science, and the better approach would be to suggest more intuitive observations.
What are their thoughts on say, Taoism or duality in general? I imagine a certain amount of atheists study philosophy in general, which attempts to answer the nature of existence, but my impression is that many atheists are happy with their conclusions on the basis of religion not being able to provide them with reasonable answers. When it's required that one go deeper, they simply stop.
I get the feeling that there are many atheists out there who would be rather open to the idea of oneness if they simply learned how to ask the right questions, or were exposed to such a perspective in a more open and understanding attitude that sympathizes with religion's lack of a coherent explanation.
I am one of them. I thought I was an atheist(someone who doesn't believe in a creator being) but then I realized that I did and always had. It is like I went through the whole cycle of this kind of thing at an accelerated pace(instead of taking 20 to 30some years to figure it out) probably because I needed to "Awaken early" because I wouldn't have much time as harvest/graduation/ascension/whatever is a coming. And it is a coming soon(now)
-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borragus
In my experience atheists main catalyst has been organised religion, and hence due to dogma, most equate anything spiritual with their disdain for religion.
The word God for instance has far too many negative connotations (man in the cloud that judges you) for them to 'get over it' and accept it as a term for defining all that is.
I've spoken to many atheists about quantum physics and the connectedness of everything through unified energy, and they're happy with that, but predominantly only in rational, scientific mindsets. When you hint at the point there is a reason for this all happening, they start to get uncomfortable.
"A reason?! This is all random! Darwin proved that"
Which of course he didn't, but that's another discussion entirely :¬)
a lot of my friends have been atheists. i used to try to argue with them. they hardly ever open their minds to anothers' point of view and are very snooty about their intellectual abilities. it's annoying. now i just leave them be cuz it seems they like being atheists.
Atheists choose to believe in their non-belief.
i used to think i was an atheist, but i always made bets with god, as to whether or not something would happen as a child. i've always believed in a higher power indescribable from anything man has been able to comprehend.
the whole idea of some one magically creating life seemed pretty ridiculous, until i started to discover the science of spiritual fields and spiritual geometry. It being a link between science and the spiritual. it was from there i felt the need to read Law of One.
Though living in a godless world, means to be self serving. Whether of the self, or of other ones close to the self can still be selfish. I always wondered if whether or not Athiesm was a Nazi agenda, or an orion agenda, seeing as to how it fits in with their beliefs.
also there are tons of religions out there... someone had to get at least one right... turns out they are all somewhat right... just different interpretations/distortions of the same idea.
(11-23-2011, 03:31 AM)Conifer16 Wrote: [ -> ]I am one of them. I thought I was an atheist(someone who doesn't believe in a creator being) but then I realized that I did and always had.
So what kept you from realizing the greater insights?
(11-23-2011, 05:21 AM)Namaste Wrote: [ -> ]When you hint at the point there is a reason for this all happening, they start to get uncomfortable.
Have you brought up the idea of being God directly? What did they say?
(11-23-2011, 07:36 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]they hardly ever open their minds to anothers' point of view and are very snooty about their intellectual abilities.
I imagine there are many who consider themselves intellectual, but don't think critically.
(11-23-2011, 10:27 AM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]i used to think i was an atheist
Expand on why..I'm interested in understanding the frame of mind.
As far as the 'point' of atheism, I think it's possible they're here to balance themselves. They were perhaps fundamentalists that caused a lot of problems in the past. Atheists generally care about providing their idea of balance to a collective mind that is entrenched in dogma. Their task would be to approach spirituality in an entirely rational manner, except it seems many lack the exposure to such points of view.
The claims that atheist's numbers are growing are probably misleading. Many probably identify themselves as atheists because they can't claim to know the answer either way, in which case they would be considered agnostic. Atheism may rise in popularity, but it won't last.
I imagine there are many who consider themselves intellectual, but don't think critically.
(11-23-2011, 10:27 AM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]i used to think i was an atheist
Expand on why..I'm interested in understanding the frame of mind.
As far as the 'point' of atheism, I think it's possible they're here to balance themselves. They were perhaps fundamentalists that caused a lot of problems in the past. Atheists generally care about providing their idea of balance to a collective mind that is entrenched in dogma. Their task would be to approach spirituality in an entirely rational manner, except it seems many lack the exposure to such points of view.
[/quote]
I used to think I was an atheist because of all the archetypes on tv about crazy christians. i was previously brought up catholic and i had long since started to question exactly what I was reading about.
I would be at a standstill because there were so many religions that i said who's to say one is more right than the other.
i wouldn't necessarily follow any, i just always had faith in a creator, there has to be oversight... there just has to be lol.
(11-23-2011, 12:00 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]I used to think I was an atheist because of all the archetypes on tv about crazy christians. i was previously brought up catholic and i had long since started to question exactly what I was reading about.
So you were basically offended into your position..rather disappointed with the common arguments and so were turned off by the idea of spirituality. I imagine it's common.
(11-23-2011, 12:05 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2011, 12:00 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]I used to think I was an atheist because of all the archetypes on tv about crazy christians. i was previously brought up catholic and i had long since started to question exactly what I was reading about.
So you were basically offended into your position..rather disappointed with the common arguments and so were turned off by the idea of spirituality. I imagine it's common.
yea i just found christians to be so pushy and wondered why a religion based on love could be so... pushy. controlling.. inquisition, demanding,
hmm
my spiritual view changed the day after I had my first OBE
I concur with Namaste's assessment.
Organized religion promotes such an uneducated, nonsensical, negative, and contradictory view, anyone with an intellect at all will have to practice doublethink to "believe." Atheists probably cling to their stance because organized religion is so pervasive and "in your face."
The subatomic world of quantum physics is a link to explaining that there is an immenseness out there that cannot be explained in 3D. It may not explain "God" and I wouldn't use that word (I personally do not like it); maybe not "Creator" either. But how about the "unmanifested" universe? The field of potential that is infinite.
@Icaro
For some reason I can't figure out what your question is. Could you restate it? Thanks,
-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borragus
(11-23-2011, 12:33 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]my spiritual view changed the day after I had my first OBE
Yeah..such experiences can be a stepping stone.
(11-23-2011, 12:36 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]The subatomic world of quantum physics is a link to explaining that there is an immenseness out there that cannot be explained in 3D. It may not explain "God" and I wouldn't use that word (I personally do not like it); maybe not "Creator" either. But how about the "unmanifested" universe? The field of potential that is infinite.
Many skeptics and rationalists acknowledge infinity as a valid concept except that it has no inherent meaning, or that consciousness has no divine nature attached to it. I find the latter part to be a very hollow argument, in that consciousness would then have no reason to come into existence. Processes could simply be carried out with no witness, no conscious observer.
(11-23-2011, 12:54 PM)Conifer16 Wrote: [ -> ]For some reason I can't figure out what your question is. Could you restate it?
What caused you to have your beliefs? Was there a lack of a credible explanation?
Researching books on atheism, Stephen Batchelor seems to be addressing some of these issues. Some of his books are..Buddhism Without Beliefs, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, Living with the Devil.
(11-23-2011, 12:59 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2011, 12:36 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]The subatomic world of quantum physics is a link to explaining that there is an immenseness out there that cannot be explained in 3D. It may not explain "God" and I wouldn't use that word (I personally do not like it); maybe not "Creator" either. But how about the "unmanifested" universe? The field of potential that is infinite.
Many skeptics and rationalists acknowledge infinity as a valid concept except that it has no inherent meaning, or that consciousness has no divine nature attached to it. I find the latter part to be a very hollow argument, in that consciousness would then have no reason to come into existence. Processes could simply be carried out with no witness, no conscious observer.
Good points. But the observer (or some sort of direction/focus/intention) is needed to manifest from the infinite potential. This is where you can lead the discussion from infinite potential to a prime instance of manifestation.
David Bohm's
Wholeness and the Implicate Order talks about the implicate and explicate (unmanifest and manifest) universe. The idea that there is an explicate universe presupposes that some intention or focus caused something explicate.
This is an interesting topic.
I've never been an "atheist". Although, nowadays, my view could probably be classified under atheism. If the definition is solely "belief in a God", then I am atheist. At the same time, my perception of "oneness" falls into the same perception of what I originally thought of as God. I absolutely never viewed a God outside of existence that created our earth. Even when I was classified as Christian, I would get into arguments about that. To me, all the "omni-words" clearly defined "god" as everything. It still does, but as I've developed along my way, I don't have "god" in my spectrum anymore.
One disagreement I've had is with someone who literally thinks god is an alien. Like some ET that made us.
(11-23-2011, 01:50 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Good points. But the observer (or some sort of direction/focus/intention) is needed to manifest from the infinite potential. This is where you can lead the discussion from infinite potential to a prime instance of manifestation.
David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order talks about the implicate and explicate (unmanifest and manifest) universe. The idea that there is an explicate universe presupposes that some intention or focus caused something explicate.
That's how I see it..there must exist a creative potential that leads to manifestation.
(11-23-2011, 01:59 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]This is an interesting topic.
I've never been an "atheist". Although, nowadays, my view could probably be classified under atheism. If the definition is solely "belief in a God", then I am atheist. At the same time, my perception of "oneness" falls into the same perception of what I originally thought of as God. I absolutely never viewed a God outside of existence that created our earth. Even when I was classified as Christian, I would get into arguments about that. To me, all the "omni-words" clearly defined "god" as everything. It still does, but as I've developed along my way, I don't have "god" in my spectrum anymore.
One disagreement I've had is with someone who literally thinks god is an alien. Like some ET that made us.
You're basically saying that there are no deities, which seems to be the main point that atheists spend most of their energy on without going any further. A logical conclusion. So the focus should then shift to a more transcendent view such as pantheism or monism, which I don't think many atheists look into based on what I'm hearing.
Maybe they don't. A non-curious mentality is almost more difficult to grasp than interconnected ness.
Perhaps their spirit is resisting the idea that they are the negativity in the world. Not yet ready to confront that aspect of themselves, they attempt to invalidate uncomfortable ideas through the belief that there is no governing order, no unity. In this way they deny all responsibility of having to face those aspects through their projections that the external has no meaning.
As being a VERY recent atheist... I can tell you I was not a "snooty" atheist; just as previously stated that some of the advocates of organized religion seem this way. I have always disliked elitists... even when I've gotten unexpected support while trying to make an argument for atheism... Its just as annoying / rude.
My primary argument that I had for atheism was evolution: a large chunk of intelligent design advocates dont seem to believe in evolution AT ALL. Animal husbandry (ie dog breeding) / cultivation of modified plants proves that the force of evolution exists.
So since I observed that the force of evolution existed, I rationalized that intelligent design does not exist bc it didnt need to.
Smash cut to about a month ago: I could no longer discount intelligent design because of my readings of the Ra material. But I knew that through selective breeding (or natural selection in the wild) that evolution surely existed. I realized that the ideas didnt really conflict (IMHO): evolution could just be a microcosm of any of the 7 densities... Or of the whole thing. Its just evolution on a much grander scale than visualized by the average atheist.
So to directly answer your question in regards to atheist's argument: evolution exists and conflicts with intelligent design.
I'm not familiar with the evolution vs. intelligent design arguments, but it seems that one could rationalize everything if that is their prerogative. Faith is perhaps necessary, as it would require one to abandon a point of view since the physical can't ultimately answer the metaphysical. Ultimately the matter seems to lie in perception. Their consciousness, based on past experience and bias, is unable to perceive certain possibility.
Thinking aloud.
If we could accept metaphysical answers to metaphysical questions, we might have a more agreeable society. Let physical be physical. Let metaphysical be metaphysical.
Another forum I frequent occasionally has atheistic responses to spiritually-oriented posts every now and then. Some will say that only science can explain existence and if something cannot be scientifically tested/proven it does not exist. Some just do not have belief in a god due to lack of any evidence and believe this world to be all that is, eternal souls and higher dimensions and whatnot are all hogwash of the New Age variety. Most atheists however, their beef is with organized religion and their various institutions and dogmas. Their usual viewpoint though, is that this "God" is something separate from themselves, intangible, impossible to perceive, and with no way to form a personal connection with nor to directly experience it... heh. They would be surprised.
I personally still view the atheistic individual to be an aspect of the Creator, showing that there are still plenty who are not ready to awaken as well as the "other side" of things. I used to be a pretty hardcore atheist in my younger years but that has very obviously changed. I'm glad that I underwent that stage as I have something to contrast my current life to. Discovering that not only is there an One Infinite Creator, but that we in fact are ALL avatars of the One Infinite Creator, is truly an empowering, beautiful realization to have.
Sounds like more indicators that they don't take it deeper than a religious God, i.e. Dude on a Throne.
Sounds like religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin.
(11-23-2011, 03:09 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]If we could accept metaphysical answers to metaphysical questions, we might have a more agreeable society. Let physical be physical. Let metaphysical be metaphysical.
More and more with a bias towards the phenomenal will be incarnating, so atheism should fade over the years.
(11-23-2011, 03:16 PM)godwide_void Wrote: [ -> ]Most atheists however, their beef is with organized religion and their various institutions and dogmas. Their usual viewpoint though, is that this "God" is something separate from themselves, intangible, impossible to perceive, and with no way to form a personal connection with nor to directly experience it... heh. They would be surprised.
Many would perhaps be open to other insights.
(11-23-2011, 03:24 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin.
Basically. Which is why I think many atheists could have been fundamentalists..they are equal polar opposites attempting to find balance.
My best friend is an atheist, I've gotten a decent look at the perspective over the few years. What's interesting is that it's simply a case of the search for meaning in existence being unfulfilled. A lot of the lack of fulfilment comes from as has been reached in this thread- dogmatic religion.
Unfortunately any and all questions dealing with 'what lies beyond' are framed in relation to what religion provides. Eventually, all spiritual and theological ideas are labelled as fitments of the imagination. I once suggested to my friend that he consider out of body experiences- he dismissed that as 'most probably hallucination'. It's ironic that the strength of resistance is the same for religious fundamentalists and atheists- I suppose because both mentalities give some aspect of refuge one surrender and one (intellectual) sovereignty. So as to where it comes from, I'd say those with enough discernment rise from the muck of superstition in religion but take it too far in then dismissing all things metaphysical.
The rationalisations come later. Since the moment of and nature of origin of the universe/existence is necessarily something assumed the smaller assumption is that it all came from some material 'immensity' such as the big bang singularity rather than a completely unbounded, aware infinity. Questions of why or how don't even enter into such a clinical approach to assumptions. So I don't think the idea of a true infinity is acceptable. So an all encompassing oneness I don't think is something accessible from that mindset. I think though that it doesn't really matter since 'oneness' is realised more provincially from the realisation that there's a commonality of experience and not in an idea of infinity or infinite deity.
As to the 'point' of the atheist 'condition' I think the 'balancing of previous incarnation as a fundamentalist' is plausible. What seems to me to be a more immediate justifying effect is that it accelerates the choice making. Let's be honest, religion for most people doesn't provide viable perspective or guidance as regards polarisation. I think atheism is a condition imposed on the self by the Self in order to narrow the 'playing field' of life. My friend, for instance, had a period where he intensely sought out a system of ethics from within his materialistic point of view, he had the drive to understand human nature and be more able to relate. On the other hand, one can see it all as a game of materiality which advances the 'for me' mentality. So in that way I see it as a reaction to the stagnation that most religions draw people into.
Thanks for the post Ens Entium. A lot of confirmation to what I suspected. I agree that atheism, approached in the most philosophical manner could arrive at the idea of oneness based on our commonality. Not in a spiritual sense, but along the lines of Jung's observation that the society and the individual are the same.
For the atheist's sake, so what if OBE is hallucination, can you find value in it as an atheist? I think that falls in line with letting the metaphysical answer the metaphysical inquiry.
About the idea of there needing to be a creative potential so there can be something that is manifest, remember that assumptions want to be minized. Invoking a 'creative potential' is substantiating the first unsubstantiated thing with another similarly unsubstantiated thing. The same where's why's, how's etc crop up again
For me, it was a situation of being fortunate about my religion of birth- god was said to be an infinte being. This allowed to investigate along a string of metaphysical ideas that stem from a basis of infinity, finally clarified with the Ra material. It's a matter of realising that unlike the materialist I am not ignoring puzzle pieces and that as I've come to understand it, the puzzle pieces cannot fit together any other way but to necessitate and origin of infinity.
There are atheists with spiritual integrity, my friend is a shining example. To say that they are failing to acknowledge that they are the negativity in the world is a bit too much of a stretch for me.
I think it's just like any other denial of the true nature of things like illness or loss or some such thing that is there for the purpose of focusing the attention in a certain way.
For the atheist's sake... Well, not every atheist, let me cheat and say those who really want to apply discernment. Which I think is a decent number among them. The OBE is just like any piece of evidence of a phenomenon.
If one, from within a materialistic view says that 'no such non-physical phenomena are possible because my idea set dictates such' the OBE is counter-example. It only takes on counter-example. It now becomes a piece of the puzzle.
Failing to acknowledge the negativity is one plausible explanation of the dynamics of their psyche. It wasn't intended to imply to all.
I don't think it's healthy to separate lines of inquiry like that simply because in reality they aren't separate. That is making an artificial division. Contradictions must be confronted if you want to see and understand the whole picture.