The Growth of Atheism and What it Means for Our Future

reply to post by nicolee123nd


I'll agree on some points but I disagree on others because it is inconclusive. Will the world become better with Atheism ruling? Well we won't know until we get there. For all we know it could be a worse place where the only rules are to move society forward, by any means.

We seen what happens when one person's ideology becomes a problem for everyone else, what separates atheist humans from their religious counterparts? Are they not susceptible to the same pressures and faults as non-atheists?

What would it take for an Atheist to take that ideology too far and start to wipe out every other person who doesn't hold the same thoughts? The reason I am asking this is because I know what we humans are capable. Everyone is making it seem like once Atheism is in place all the evil will be gone from the world and everyone will hold hands and sing coombaya around the campfire.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
The Godhead and the creator (first/last cause) seeks to express the true nature of his creative impulse and perfect will, through mankind, and realize the object of his desire, to know thyself, while sharing within a family framework the riches of the whole of creation.

Please tell me what is wrong with this conception..

For additional clarification, please consider the following:

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

ie: complexity arises "from above" as source of life, from a realm or domain of limitless possibility limiting itself in actuality, like a "towrope" from heaven (tangled hierarchy), drawing what is low and corruptible back into relationship with God as the absolute. It is the story of a koinonia or an intimate sharing and participation.

Do the atheists have a better hypothesis..?

Why would we throw away our heritage and our inheritance, and our destiny, framed for us and leading inexorably to us "from before the very foundations of the earth"..?

We all understand or many of us do, that the religions (a word which means "to rejoin") are masks of God formed by man's desire to understand his place in the creation and relationship to and with the creator.

But to throw away those masks, is to throw away the frame of reference which points to an extraordinary revelation and realization, in favor of ignorance in the face of an unknown which might have been radiant, instead of vaccuous, meaningless and purposeless - how absurd!

reply to post by SaturnFX


Thanks, and I pretty much agree with you. I think many atheists are over-eager to say "I KNOW there is no god, and all religion is the source of evil," etc. But when you press these people on the hypothetical question "what would you do if you discovered solid evidence for the existence of God," they scratch their heads, and eventually admit that they would change their belief. You cannot prove a negative in science. You can only operate on the assumption of that negative until there is evidence for a positive.

As for myself, I tend to be an agnostic atheist, but lately I'm leaning slightly toward agnostic theist... in my context, meaning "someone who only believes in one religion, but does not know whether or not that religion is true." There is a reason for this, and that is because I had a UFO sighting that involved some curiously Christian phenomena. But there are multiple possible explanations for my sighting, so in principle, I am still an agnostic atheist.


... Additionally, I have a hypothesis that any sufficiently intelligent species, given enough time, will advance itself to the formation of a more or less all-powerful, all-knowing unity of minds, or essentially, God. This is a little different than the bearded old man of common Christian depictions, of course. To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, read "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. It's a short story you can read online:

The Last Question - Isaac Asimov

So I guess that's another reason why I'm a little in limbo these days, between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism.

Ahhhhh ..... the evolution of mind has atheism as the next step.

However devoid of spirituality, all types of craziness will be justified.

Intuition is spiritual, and its universal and come from within. Morals/ethics come from this still small inner voice. And when its not tapped into it becomes atrophied and this drone like MIND takes over that justifies all types of rediculousness.

Its the different between heart and mind. Atheist cuts of heart and embraces completely the mind.

In a sense, as a collective we have yet to see what happens when the majority embraces Atheism. I fear that day and am glad I won't be here to see its fruition.

Note**** There was nothing "religious" brought up in this post. Just a lack of spirituality and the disasterous results that I feel deep within my intuition will eventually follow.

Originally posted by Magnus47
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Thanks, and I pretty much agree with you. I think many atheists are over-eager to say "I KNOW there is no god, and all religion is the source of evil," etc. But when you press these people on the hypothetical question "what would you do if you discovered solid evidence for the existence of God," they scratch their heads, and eventually admit that they would change their belief. You cannot prove a negative in science. You can only operate on the assumption of that negative until there is evidence for a positive.

As for myself, I tend to be an agnostic atheist, but lately I'm leaning slightly toward agnostic theist... in my context, meaning "someone who only believes in one religion, but does not know whether or not that religion is true." There is a reason for this, and that is because I had a UFO sighting that involved some curiously Christian phenomena. But there are multiple possible explanations for my sighting, so in principle, I am still an agnostic atheist.

Theism v atheism really comes down to a belief in a deity.
You say you had a UFO experience with christian themes..well, thats nice, but in reality, that may be even more proof of no deity.
Keep in mind, the deity in question is the supernatural creator of all dimensions...not just a super advanced race of beings. Sure, a demigod style alien would impress the pants off of locals, however, anything short of the end all, be all of everything throughout all of eternity is just an advanced race...even if they exist in a different dimension, created this entire dimension, and collect souls/merge...that still doesn't make them deitys..just really kickarse aliens.

you can fully subscribe to the alien hypothesis, believe that in fact super beings may have come to earth and created us out of mud and ribs, and still be atheist (although your skepticism may need to be considered if you believe in anything without proof)...atheist simply means does not believe in god due to lack of evidence...not aspects of religion, or other supernatural or paranormal stuff. (however, as mentioned, skepticism seems to be a fairly well represented trait for your typical atheist...skepticism is often mistaken for cynicism and "debunking" religiously)

We are all born atheists, and the belief in a supernatural diety/being, or Jabberwocky, is taught to us by our parents or guardians. That's my opinion.

reply to post by nicolee123nd


I completely and whole heartily agree with you.

Lil' story:

I was raised Christian, but in 7th grade I actually became devout. Me and my friends would hold Bible Studies after school and after Graduation in 2005 I was going to go to Lee University to major in Youth Ministry.

Skip ahead about 6 years and I have a completely different view on, well everything. When I was in High school I fought with our Biology teacher everyday in class because Evilution was, well...Evil and that God Created the world and said world was only 6000 years old, yadda yadda yadda. On one of my final exams I actually answered all questions as a Creationist and got sent to the Principles Office, I ended up passing by putting the "Suggested" answers, but thats how stubborn I was.

Yes, I said stubborn, because I would not listen to hard facts, I relied on FAITH. I have learned in the last 6 years that Faith is a crutch, but I'll digress.

I am of the opinion that our Ancestors misconstrued Extraterrestrials as gods, and I'm sure a lot of you agree with me. But if we did get rid of Religion and Money, our society would be a lot more peaceful and a LOT more technologically advanced.

This is in direct correlation with both the Zeitgeist and the Venus Project Movements. Its too bad a lot of people don't take them serious because "We cant exist without money".

I dont know, thats my 2 cents, great thread, thanks for sharing!

Mac

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes, but note that I never said the UFO was alien. It is a common assumption that UFO's must be alien in origin. The simple truth is that I don't know what the thing I saw was. I do believe it is possible that the true explanation for my sighting could be completely outside of any theories you or I may possess, in other words, if we DID learn the truth we could very well be left thinking, "wow, I totally never thought of that." Who knows? It's an unknown, by definition of "UFO."

It could be evidence to support atheism. It could be evidence to support theism. But the Christian themes are evidence of theology... or, of an attempt to imitate theology. In either case I am forced into a state of limbo because I have no choice but to consider all evidence at my disposal.

Anyway I don't want to turn this thread into a UFO discussion. That would belong in a different forum.

I believe in god, just not one anyone else tells me to believe in because that is puppetry. I don't think a godless society is any better, there must always be a voice of dissent somewhere to stop us from doing stupid things. weren't these religious folk, some of them, also responsible for protesting against monsanto? When science decides to play god I hardly ever see any atheists there to stop them. I think we are better off having those from both walks in life.

reply to post by nicolee123nd


Religion starts war? Not anymore it doesn't its all about resources

i am an atheist for several reasons . i dont l;ike religion being rammed down my neck. i will never question a person about there beliefs ,its there choice.However on sunday i was going through the channels on sky, overshot and ended up on the god channel. What i saw amazed me , there was a preacher telling the audience that they needed to raise at least 70,000 dollars so they could buy a light controller for there studio so people didnt have to walk around turning on light switches, and people were donateing thousands. Also as a tradesman i work in peoples homes alot. if i see the fish symbol on there car i know that i will not be offered a coffee, will not be tipped[not that i expect it]and will normally get a complaint when i get back to the office. this is not a dig at christians it is purely from personal experience. These people seem to be able to upset the rest of us because they get there slate wiped clean every sunday

reply to post by mac420

It's not a literalist all-or-nothing proposition ie: if the world wasn't created in six earth days 6000 years ago, the whole thing is bunk, that's absurd, but, that's the way many atheists like to roll when it comes to debunking something they don't understand.

OP says: “I am Atheist. I’m gonna admit, I think religion is holding us back from advancing, scientifically and spiritually.”
Confusing. There are no deities or spirits in the Atheist’s world.
Magnus 47 says: “I do not believe in deity… but I am open to the concept of one…”
Confusing. One either believes or not. If I believe or not, I am Atheist.if I do not know I am Agnostic.
I’m also confused and I’ll quote my old and confused friend Confucius:
“Man who lost all of his money, lost a lot. Man who lost his faith, lost everything.”……..
…and hi is not referring to god/s.

I'm not atheist or christian, I do believe in a "higher power" but not just by the name of God or Jesus.

I feel that science and technology would have been way more advance, we would have been way more advanced, it held us back from advancing in our knowledge of what is really beyond our sun and moon, with the whole Galileo Affair

The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, during which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Aristotelian scientific view of the universe (supported by the Catholic Church), over his support of Copernican astronomy.[1]
In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed severe difficulties with the scientific understanding of the universe that had been around since the beginning of science, and raised new interest in studies such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543).
Many scientists attacked the theory because it disagreed with Aristotle's model of the universe, as well as several passages of Scripture. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy, and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.

www.ask.com...

Sadly, I fear the Church did not want us "knowing" or even thinking there was something other than their false words. If they had not made people so scared to study true science, philosophy, physics, etc. Man would have now been hundreds maybe even thousands of years more advanced than where we are now.

If there was a choice for us to go back and change how things were I would be the one of the first to step forth and take on the burden, then again it is never too late for change. Man needs to take back our true freedom from this so called "Christianity" or any religion that claims only God's Word is true. It is merely holding us back from our true potential.

This growth in believing in man other than a make believe friend will be in end what is best, Man needs to refind himself and discover the true meaning of His life. Don't let a man in a dress or a thousand year old rule books run your life!

Nice post, S&F!

Agree with most of what you said. In my case, my mom is Catholic, and my dad atheist. When I was born, they decided to let me pick a religion (if any) once I am intelligent enough to look at things rationally...which lead me to the only rational conclusion, religion isn't based on rationality or facts...ergo, I won't accept it as a guiding force in my life.

If I invest in real estate (my main job), I base it on facts and objective evidence, which has always served me well. I'm doing the same with the rest of my life, and don't need to follow or make up fairy tales to cope with the FACT that we don't have all the answers. The god of the gaps can go to hell for all I care

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by mac420

 

It's not a literalist all-or-nothing proposition ie: if the world wasn't created in six earth days 6000 years ago, the whole thing is bunk, that's absurd, but, that's the way many atheists like to roll when it comes to debunking something they don't understand.

As many now Atheists came from a religious background.

Please stop telling us we don't understand. We do.

My only qualm about this is that there still needs to be a moral core of ethics taught to children replacing religion. Otherwise a few generations of atheists in, we may be sheeples to law and not questioning it.

Originally posted by furzball
My only qualm about this is that there still needs to be a moral core of ethics taught to children replacing religion. Otherwise a few generations of atheists in, we may be sheeples to law and not questioning it.

Claiming morals are only come from religion is complete and utter nonsense!! Society imposas moral guidelines, not religion.

Take Switzerland for example, or Sweden, both with really high % of atheists...both have a crime rate FAR bellow that of the US or even countries with draconian religious laws like Saudi Arabia.

In short: Morals do NOT come from religion!

Originally posted by nicolee123nd
If you ever get into a religious conversation with an atheist, at one point the person almost always says "I was raised Christian..." How come you never hear a person say "I was born an atheist..."?

everyone is born an atheist...religion is then introduced to them in life.

im glad more people today realise its bullsh!t.

Originally posted by TheLastStand

When science decides to play god I hardly ever see any atheists there to stop them. I think we are better off having those from both walks in life.

When science decides to play god, I personally cheer loudly
after all, who doesn't enjoy the benefits of modern day medicine (I prefer asprin over a hole drilled in my head to let the bad spirits out personally).

What your discussing is corporate innovation by pseudo-scientists, not science itself.
innovation is good so long as its properly tested. the concept of creating the best crop is not a new concept, people have been selectively breeding plants and animals for ages to benefit mankind, and this is not natural, but it is accepted.
Now we are having the ability to alter the genetic code to streamline this process..however, it is not understood enough yet...this is where a ruthless and "bad" scientist uses science irresponsibily.

But back on the point...science never "plays god"...it is impossible to even suggest it can. if it is in the domain of god only, then we will never, ever be able to do it...and if we can do it, then it is in the domain of man, no playing god is in the factor.

if we can create life from scratch, then that is not playing god, that is understanding what we as humans are capable of...key is to be responsible with our abilities and understand fully before we act.