A Dire Metaphysical Warning to all Atheists!

reply to post by Observor


All those states, because even when you have the "ah ha!" epiphany, day to day stuff still tends to suck a person back into time and cause and effect, plus it's something we need to continually bring back to remembrance. But once the mind changes shape it really can't go back to its prior configuration there's that at least, like a bootstrap mechanism, to keep us moving forward into the realization of eternity.

As for "rule over the All", I interpret this as a reference not to "rule over" as we've come to think of it, but moreso a presiding over by the taking of the stance or posture whereby we stand in a new domain of being and becoming, that is relative to "the All". This is where astonishment kicks in, with the recognition that our state of being exists not as a separate self, but as an intrinsic part of an eternal, inseparable whole. There is a part of us, accessible via felt experience, gnosis or knowledge and understanding, who is eternal and when we come to know this self as our true self, we then realize that the idea of death as an eternal nothingness, is utterly absurd, and cannot be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Annee
Personal experiences are just that - - - they are personal experiences.

They are not fact.

Sure there are personal experiences that cannot be proved to another, but are facts nevertheless. If you are experiencing a headache, it remain a fact regardless of someone else believing you or not.

You are free to reject others' personal experiences as evidence, but those having the experience have no reason to reject them merely because someone else doesn't believe them.

It is pointless for anyone to attempt to convince another purely based on their own personal experiences, but it is equally silly for anyone to claim no one can experience anything they themselves are not capable of, which is what is behind claims like "No one knows the answers..".

"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Annee
Personal experiences are just that - - - they are personal experiences.

They are not fact.

Sure there are personal experiences that cannot be proved to another, but are facts nevertheless. If you are experiencing a headache, it remain a fact regardless of someone else believing you or not.

You are free to reject others' personal experiences as evidence, but those having the experience have no reason to reject them merely because someone else doesn't believe them.

It is pointless for anyone to attempt to convince another purely based on their own personal experiences, but it is equally silly for anyone to claim no one can experience anything they themselves are not capable of, which is what is behind claims like "No one knows the answers..".

A good way to look at that, Observor. Thanks for the addition.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

You mistake me for someone who cares a jack about what your interpretations are.

You have failed to address my posts about the OP, which by the way, you challenged me to address, when initially I showed no interest.

You could accept the OP is a load of BS as I have demonstrated it to be or simply ignore it as if nothing happened and move onto other things. You choose the latter. That to me demonstrates your integrity or lack there of. After that, any personal opinions or "knowledge" from you holds no significance.

But a realm or domain of infinite possibility, when freely presented, still requires a free choice, a receptivity or an open mind without any preconceptions or any bias. Thus, if infinite possibilty IS possible, which it must be.. and if freedom to chose is the very fulcrum of reality - you're right that the "warning" is moot, but only when understood by additional framing and context, that I've tried to offer, and from that perspective, and from an experience of knowing ie: gnosis, it may be then seen, if you follow the line of reasoning provided, in an entirely different light, one not the least bit insulting to "atheists", but instead as an act of kindness, even love and most certainly, humor. I am sorry you didn't "get it". Sad, that your only response to my efforts here is to try to belittle my thoughts as of no significance, and thus without any meaning, to you. What can I do? I might be concerned if the thread was just for you, but you know, tragically in a way it was, and so I am saddened and disappointed by your reaction to my kind gesture to try to bring you into the presence of eternity. Like I said before, please consider the whole thread nothing more than a "trial run."

Originally posted by Observor
It is pointless for anyone to attempt to convince another purely based on their own personal experiences, but it is equally silly for anyone to claim no one can experience anything they themselves are not capable of, which is what is behind claims like "No one knows the answers.".

Now that, was funny!

"No one knows the answers."

Originally posted by Hydroman
So what? We cease to exist, and that's that. We won't care after that.

Here is the other reason the "warning" is moot, unless anything is possible, then it becomes a joke, both for the atheist, and gnostic alike - but for entirely different reasons..

However, personally, I have a hard time finding my fellows man's demise humorous, when for me death is a joke that just keeps on giving, so there's my predicament. It's an issue of good-willed, good natured humor, and I refuse to lose mine, as sad as it can be at times. I had hoped you would see it and laugh with me, but that would involve a new perspective on things, a new outlook, a sense of humor, restored.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I find the singlemindedness and selectiveness almost impressive. In OP, you make QM one of your cornerstones, and when later confronted with the correct observation, that you have used the 'new-age' QM-version and not the official one, you just continue as if nothing has happened and build more speculative assumptions on top of each other.

There are actually some of your points, I would have liked to support (and do support in other contexts), but not this way, which only will take away any chance of people taking it seriously.

Originally posted by bogomil
There are actually some of your points, I would have liked to support (and do support in other contexts), but not this way, which only will take away any chance of people taking it seriously.

Isn't that the irony of it?!

If only people can be honest and admit they don't have any evidence or argument that can convince sceptics, it would have been much easier to actually discuss and share common experiences and viewpoints. Instead they have to pretend they have some "logical argument" or "scientific evidence" that is bound to convince sceptics and when the argument/evidence is thoroughly discredited, pretend as if nothing happened. No wonder no sceptic takes seriously any claims by anyone about the realm of the spirit!

reply to post by Observor


In my almost two years on this forum, I have regularly in various ways tried to further a serious dialogue between mundane science/logic and metaphysics (being a rational metaphysicist myself), but already the first paragraph in OP makes this impossible.

No-one with even a limited understanding of science etc. would accept the hijacking and twisting taking place there at the start of OP, and will most likely react with an attitude of annoyance...generally resulting in categorizing metaphysical subjects as cottage-industry fantasies not worth considering.

And mentioning 'irony', it is ironic, that serious metaphysics does have a few points, which could have been a help for theists etc. for at least pointing out a legitimate direction to slowly walk.

All I said about QM in the OP was to the effect that free will choice collapses actuality from a domain of limitless possibility and that if this were presented as a free gift by the Absolute, in the form of an opportunity, to continue to participate, if one is conditioned to reject any such offer, as well as its giver, then what could be done since freedom to choose is at the very heart of things.

A while back there was something on the tele about the Tibetan book of the dead

apparently there are a number of traps or snares to be avoided once you are dead, there is the realm of gods and goddesses, some demon to uses black and white stones to work out if you are naughty or nice and a bit where you can sense people having sex and your spirit gets caught up in the activities and so you get reincarnated

They had a Buddhist chap commenting on all this, he said theists have the hardest time avoiding the snares because of their preconceived ideas, next Buddhist would have a slightly easier time since they knew what to expect, but he said atheist would have the easiest time as they would simply see through the illusions and have no problems at all

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
All I said about QM in the OP was to the effect that free will choice collapses actuality from a domain of limitless possibility and that if this were presented as a free gift by the Absolute, in the form of an opportunity, to continue to participate, if one is conditioned to reject any such offer, as well as its giver, then what could be done since freedom to choose is at the very heart of things.

Already in line three in OP do you introduce 'god', as an option amongst QM possibilities, and later in OP you add further details along that line such as 'afterlife', 'gift' and 'free will' (the last concept given a false sheen of respectability from an overinterpretation of QM on line nine: Quote ["also at the heart of quantum physics"]).

Now all this would have been just another effort of surfing on QM to create yet a 'quantum-religion', but then you go on to hijack tibetan 'manual of dying', where you take their version of the dying-experience, but exchange THEIR content (searching the white light) with YOURS (Quote line ten: ["The possibility of God"], which is about the worst thing happening according to tibetan lore.

Then an 'eternal soul' is sneaked into the picture and the whip for not being a good theist is separation from this false QM 'possible god'.

In this present post you dig the hole even deeper by extending the 'gift' to a 'free gift of the absolute', and its 'giver' so some kind of identity can 'continue to participate'. All of which is taken straight of the christian mythological manual.

Altogether an example of christian new-age fake syncretism, hijacking and adapting components from elsewhere, so they fit with the predetermined 'answer'.

reply to post by racasan


Well that's good news then, but I wasn't aware that atheists were the least bit open to notions of life after death or a domain of spirit which can transcend the material world.

If this thread has served in some way, however small, to open the atheist door even just a crack, towards such possibilities, then it's served its purpose, because I was growing rather concerned about the potential for a loss of.humor.

I posted this before, but I think it's a good idea to repost it here. I apologize if I was imprecise in the introduction of terminology in the OP and, if I offended anyone's atheist sensibilities. It's the thought that counts.. and I don't anyone else to raise these issues.

"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 interde

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by racasan

 

Well that's good news then, but I wasn't aware that atheists were the least bit open to notions of life after death or a domain of spirit which can transcend the material world.

If this thread has served in some way, however small, to open the atheist door even just a crack, towards such possibilities, then it's served its purpose, because I was growing rather concerned about the potential for a loss of.humor.

Well, NewAgeMan, when you are dealing with a fear driven topic, such as "what happens after we die", and then have the thread title a blatant fear-mongering statement (even if it is only a joke), you aren't going to have people responding at the level of light and breezy, ready for a good belly laugh. In the fear state, people get very concrete, very focused on what they are worrying about... just ask any professor before a big important exam. Jokes are not funny, and people are more likely to get pissed than laugh.

So if you really want to open the door next time, don't use such heavy handed tactics. I'm sure you did it because you knew it would get their attention, but apparently you didn't realize that once you got it, you wouldn't be able to just jolly them out of their anger. No matter what you say, (unless they are lucky enough to see it as clearly as I do in the racial unconscious), you are not going to alleviate their fear with some rather convoluted explanations. I'm a good reader, over 600 wpm, with a BA in communications arts, and I have to confess, often I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Something to work on there, I think.

Re: The scientific basis for God - tried to quote it, but a lot it didn't carry over. Here's the whole post

post by NewAgeMan

reply to post by DragonriderGal


well, it' a very very difficult joke to get and understand, and it just so happens to reside on the far side of our worst fear..&/or disappointment/sorrows - or that very thing which, in the final analysis, would rob us of our humor making of death, not the funniest and most absurd thing in the world, but instead a type.of insult. You may be right however, that starting out with the insulting part, might not have been the best approach. If I had a do-over, I would try to place both worldview side by side to make the final distinction, and thus the joke, more obvious.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by DragonriderGal

 

well, it' a very very difficult joke to get and understand, and it just so happens to reside on the far side of our worst fear..or disappointment/sorrows.

So you are trying to make people understand a joke that is about a topic that is innately one invoking fear and NOT funny? You've heard that if you have to explain a joke, then it's not funny, right? I suspect you'd do better without the whole joke thing.

Unless it gives you some kind of sense of moral superiority to know you understand it, but other (lesser? stupider? less holy?) people can't. Still not a nice thing to do, even if it is "for their own good", eh?