I Converted A Catholic To Atheism

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by colbe

 

Thank you for sharing colbe.

At this point, it is probably clear to both of us that we do not follow the same system of faith.

That said, I feel an "awakening" is soon as well. Not necessarily in a mystic sense, but a technological sense that will require all of humanity to examine exactly how we approach each other and ourselves. So, it may in turn have a spiritual component.

Most of the population is relatively behind in understanding exactly where technology currently is. It is more profitable to control the market, and have a controlled release of technology. That said, the next discoveries are bound to be quite massive.

Weaponization of new technologies, that render atomic fission/fusion obsolete, will have a much greater potential for destruction. On the flip side, it also has a much greater potential to introduce a "golden age" of sorts (referring to the golden ticket), but we have to choose to use it that way. Should be interesting to see the inevitable clash between culture and technology that up to this point has not necessarily been a forefront issue.

Thanks for your kind reply Serdgiam,

Yes, I am thinking and reading in prophecy of a supernatural awakening.

In a way, the "golden age" is prophesied but it isn't the result man's doing and technology. Briefly, there are eight periods of God's plan. We're right now near the end of the 6th period. These periods are called
days too. The 7th Day, people know it as the Millennium. It is close, the world is going to go through the
Great Tribulation and to follow, God's Chastisement. By fire this time, then, God is going to renew the
face of the earth! Life after, in this era of peace, the 7th Day is going to be astounding. There will be charisms
given, I can't put in my own words the description of this period of time. If I post a message describing it,
people will not believe.

I tell God in prayer, do not laugh, I am going to miss it, technology. There will be no more technology.
Still, we will desire this new Earth and all God has planned for the 7th Day, the Millennium.


God bless you Serdgiam,


colbe

reply to post by colbe

You are correct about one thing, human respect is worthless. People are fickle but not everyone is out to use
you AfterInfinity. And God is never a "user." He is the most loving refuge when people hurt you.

Never a user? Ha! Yeah, he's the "most loving refuge"...for a price. For just one soul and an oath of eternal fealty, you need no longer fear the injustice and pain of your fellow man - whose cruelties are induced by yet another of "God"s creations. God wouldn't be necessary if he just destroyed Satan. Maybe that's why Satan is still around, according to scripture? Because "God" couldn't stand to not be known! He would sacrifice our peace and harmony to be recognized in his full and perpetually ineffective omnipotence!

In short: "Worship me, so that I can save you from what I would do to you if you don't worship me!"

Makes perfect sense. Kinda. A little. If you squint really hard and try not to think about it.

Here's a video to underline my point here:

While participating in another thread, I pumped out a post that I feel sheds some light on where I'm coming from in this subject:

After a bit of research, 'deism' is about as clearly defined as 'witchcraft' - that is to say, not at all. According to the linked website, deism is primarily characterized as a belief in a creative universal force that exceeds the capabilities and comprehension of homo sapiens. Other websites define deism as "...the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge."

I am inclined to agree with this...to a point. I believe in a creative universal force so far as organization may be described as creative. By which I mean, as long as it's working to remain coherent, it's clearly creative. Resistance to chaos cannot be anything other than creative, in that an organized scheme must be present to some extent to resist the chaos. In this way, I would describe the four fundamental forces of the universe - the nuclear force, strong and weak forces, and the electromagnetic force - as being creative universal forces that exceed human comprehension or capability to replicate in their full capacity.

To this extent, I can agree with deism. To this extent, deism falls in line with reason. As soon as an actual personified, conscious and intentive entity emerges, however, the logic of deism begins to wane as the universe apparently exhibits a perspective that must inherently exclude some angle or other of the whole. Thinking is a subjective activity, and any cognitive process indicative of a distinct and conscious entity must be subjective, in my opinion. We are subjective creatures, but why would an entire universe be subjective when everything that can be seen or experienced is automatically a part of its very being?

I do not have a problem with defining a "god" as a "creative universal force". I do, however, have a problem with defining "creative universal force" as anything remotely resembling the gods of old and new. I hope that makes my stance in the matter clear.

ETA: On second thought, defining the term "god" in such a way changes the face of divinity in all of its expressions. Gods are no longer divine entities, they are divine influences. A god is not a person, it's an idea. It's a style of philosophy. Literally, a "god" becomes a form of philosophy. That behavior becomes the face of that god, and those thoughts become its mind. Is this what Christians have been trying to say all along?

I do not believe in a "god" the way others do. If we were to redefine what constitutes as a "god", such as explained in my examination of deism, I might find myself a "theist". But in that sense, everyone would be "theist" - because there is no denying a philosophy. And then once you subscribe to a "god" or a philosophy, you are not religious - you are a philosopher.

I just think that's kinda cute.

Originally posted by colbe
Yes, I am thinking and reading in prophecy of a supernatural awakening.

What do you consider "supernatural?" In my mind, such a thing does not exist. Or, if it does, it is only defined by what humans consider "natural." However, if such a thing exists at all, it would seem to be natural by definition.

In a way, the "golden age" is prophesied but it isn't the result man's doing and technology. Briefly, there are eight periods of God's plan. We're right now near the end of the 6th period. These periods are called
days too. The 7th Day, people know it as the Millennium. It is close, the world is going to go through the
Great Tribulation and to follow, God's Chastisement. By fire this time, then, God is going to renew the
face of the earth! Life after, in this era of peace, the 7th Day is going to be astounding. There will be charisms
given, I can't put in my own words the description of this period of time. If I post a message describing it,
people will not believe.

To be blunt, you are already heavily questioned in this thread and others. What is your dream? There is no need for fear of judgment from other limited humans, unless you give it that power.

I tell God in prayer, do not laugh, I am going to miss it, technology. There will be no more technology.
Still, we will desire this new Earth and all God has planned for the 7th Day, the Millennium.

How do you define "technology?" In the most vague sense, someone using a rock as a tool could be considered technology.

Is there the possibility that upcoming technological innovations are inspired by God? Using anything to do anything could be considered "technology," so how will this new place operate without it?

I think that every single person alive is capable of premonition and prophecy, as it is all based in possibilities and probabilities. Though, when one starts claiming specific events and dates, I begin to assume that it is more imagination regardless of if it is accurate or not.

Sticking solely to the material though, we are undoubtedly on the verge of some incredible technology. All anyone needs to do is take a good look at where we are and where we have been. These things continue to grow, and as such, the next stages tend to be significantly more advanced than previous ones though they are still based in the same data (the Universe).

In a way, the introduction of a new technology could be viewed as a judgment for mankind. If used for destruction, then it will lead to fire in the most literal sense. Once understood though, it will be used for everyone to prosper and thrive.

Which do you feel is more realistic; A technology, inspired and delivered by God (as all technologies are based on the Universe and its forces), that does exactly what many religions foretell in their "end time" prophecies.. Or, a divine intervention the likes of which mankind has never seen that directly negates free will?

It seems more likely to me that if a judgment is to come, it will be through technology itself. Mankind will judge himself based on how that technology is used in exactly the same way as biblical prophecy foretells. I feel that this is more in line with religious teachings, actually, since it is something that is given by God that has consequences so extreme that it will lead to pure destruction or creation based on our choices of free will. It seems to fit more into the theme, and seems to be a more.. "poetic" judgment.

reply to post by Serdgiam


So did we decide that the term "god" has no definite parameter? Because it seems that everywhere I look, someone is using the word to describe a rather broad regard for one thing or another. Hell, maybe we can just start saying, "Cripes, dude, that's a godly ride!" or maybe, "You wouldn't believe how godly she looked!" It can become just as vague and loose and ubiquitously applicable a word as every other one in the English language.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

So did we decide that the term "god" has no definite parameter?

In your perspective, that does seem to be the case. However, I think that we explore and define those parameters constantly through science. It could be looked at as deism, panentheism, or pantheism. The only thing that is relevant is the objective data set that we work with.

Because it seems that everywhere I look, someone is using the word to describe a rather broad regard for one thing or another.

Thats language for ya.

It can become just as vague and loose and ubiquitously applicable a word as every other one in the English language.

Everyone has their own idea of what a word means. But, it seems you are fighting a battle over words and our individual perceptions of them, where as I attempt to figure out the data set at hand while minimizing subjectivity to the greatest degree possible (it is not possible, imo, to eliminate it entirely or we would have no need for science in the first place).

We are "fighting" entirely different battles, so to speak, they just appear similar because sometimes the lines get crossed. You are not able to grasp where I am coming from, and I am not able to help due to lack of communication skills. This essentially leaves us with irreconcilable differences where we are speaking to each other, but having completely different conversations.

To my perspective, the word itself is only used to point to a data set, it will never, ever, ever, ever encompass the entirety of the underlying concept of even a word like "vehicle," much less anything that is beyond our own understanding.

In the end, we are ALL just exploring the universe (the objective data set) through our own subjectivity, even when using math and science to limit its involvement. Some systems seem to be better at limiting the subjectivity, but none can eliminate it entirely. Its probably best to just agree to disagree, since neither of us is managing to line up our conversation with what the other is saying.

reply to post by Serdgiam

In your perspective, that does seem to be the case. However, I think that we explore and define those parameters constantly through science. It could be looked at as deism, panentheism, or pantheism. The only thing that is relevant is the objective data set that we work with.

That does seem to be a theme, from what I have observed. It's not just a single point, it's web.

Everyone has their own idea of what a word means. But, it seems you are fighting a battle over words and our individual perceptions of them, where as I attempt to figure out the data set at hand while minimizing subjectivity to the greatest degree possible (it is not possible, imo, to eliminate it entirely or we would have no need for science in the first place).

Indeed. I want to know what about the universe qualifies it to be called a god. And part of that is knowing what a god is. And that's where everyone disagrees. How can you call something a god if you don't know what a god is? The second part is the process itself. The process of identifying gods. After that, we'll have a much better understanding of where you're coming from, I suspect.

To my perspective, the word itself is only used to point to a data set, it will never, ever, ever, ever encompass the entirety of the underlying concept of even a word like "vehicle," much less anything that is beyond our own understanding.

What data set?

And see, that's the point. We're not ready for that level of understanding yet. We're better equipped to examine that divinity in ourselves, rather than obsess over its reflection in the universe. And by examining our inner divinity, I mean everything we deem to be good and holy within our chosen deities. Here's a good example:

You shall honor and worship the Creator in a fashion that suits you

You shall treat others with dignity and respect and you shall insist that others respect your dignity as well

You shall live life pragmatically and use Reason as the cornerstone for all you think, say and do

You shall be honest and not lie, cheat or steal

You shall not harm another unless it is in defense of yourself or loved ones

You shall treat others as you want to be treated

You shall take responsibility for your actions

You shall have faith in yourself

You shall honor and be faithful to your Father, your Mother and your Loved ones

You shall learn from the mistakes that you will make

You shall find awe, inspiration and beauty in the creation and the natural order of the universe

You shall search for truth and be willing to accept new ideas based on reason as you are exposed to them

These should have been the ten commandments.

In the end, we are ALL just exploring the universe (the objective data set) through our own subjectivity, even when using math and science to limit its involvement. Some systems seem to be better at limiting the subjectivity, but none can eliminate it entirely. Its probably best to just agree to disagree, since neither of us is managing to line up our conversation with what the other is saying.

I haven't given up yet. Hang in there, my good friend!

reply to post by AfterInfinity
You are forgetting the 11th,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by piequal3because14

"Respect all the 10 Commandments.


Thou that shall not respect these 10 Commandments shall suffer the punishment of the 11th Commandment."

Terms and conditions may apply.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Indeed. I want to know what about the universe qualifies it to be called a god. And part of that is knowing what a god is. And that's where everyone disagrees. How can you call something a god if you don't know what a god is? The second part is the process itself. The process of identifying gods. After that, we'll have a much better understanding of where you're coming from, I suspect.

We have already been over this though, to no avail.

What data set?

And see, that's the point. We're not ready for that level of understanding yet. We're better equipped to examine that divinity in ourselves, rather than obsess over its reflection in the universe. And by examining our inner divinity, I mean everything we deem to be good and holy within our chosen deities.

The divinity in ourselves would inherently be a reflection of the universe. Because we are a part of the universe. The universe itself is the data set, which includes us and our subjectivity. When a straw looks bent when sitting in a glass of water is that straw actually bent? No, but the light waves are. So, when looking at this part of the data set, we can see that physically the straw is not bent, however, the light waves show a different picture. Which one is true and which one is false? (trick question)

These should have been the ten commandments.

Even in the restricted realm of christianity, those commandments have already been amended.

I haven't given up yet. Hang in there, my good friend!

Its not just about you though.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by piequal3because14

 

"Respect all the 10 Commandments.


Thou that shall not respect these 10 Commandments shall suffer the punishment of the 11th Commandment."

Terms and conditions may apply.

Why?Are you the 11th?

reply to post by piequal3because14

Why?Are you the 11th?

No, but isn't that how all the advertisements work?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by piequal3because14

 

Why?Are you the 11th?

No, but isn't that how all the advertisements work?

No, but if you insists then you may be the first 11th.

reply to post by piequal3because14

No, but if you insists then you may be the first 11th.

Numerologically speaking, I am already an 11. Its one of the master numbers.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by piequal3because14

 

No, but if you insists then you may be the first 11th.

Numerologically speaking, I am already an 11. Its one of the master numbers.

edit on 8-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It's the master number of destruction and perdition.

reply to post by piequal3because14

Originally posted by piequal3because14

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by piequal3because14

 

No, but if you insists then you may be the first 11th.

Numerologically speaking, I am already an 11. Its one of the master numbers.

edit on 8-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It's the master number of destruction and perdition.

Is that so?

Numerology 11 & 22 : The Master Numbers
In Numerology all numbers are reduced down to the vibration of a single digit, for example a 25 is reduced to a 7 (2 + 5 = 7), and 18 becomes a 9 (1 + 8 = 9). However, in Numerology 11 & 22 require unique attention. These are called the 'Master Numbers'.

A person with an Expression or Life Path that reduces down fully to an 11 or 22 are said to be endowed with special gifts of high-level inspiration and leadership, but their life may also be very challenging and highly paradoxical.

www.tokenrock.com...

Regardless, we are now off topic.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

So did we decide that the term "god" has no definite parameter? Because it seems that everywhere I look, someone is using the word to describe a rather broad regard for one thing or another. Hell, maybe we can just start saying, "Cripes, dude, that's a godly ride!" or maybe, "You wouldn't believe how godly she looked!" It can become just as vague and loose and ubiquitously applicable a word as every other one in the English language.

No there is a better one; that one that encompasses is a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, dangling participles, (for starters) ; and that ONE describes simply a physical union. Godword nomenclature doesnt come close. "GOD" against the KCUF will not win out. LLEH, how dogly that person resembles godly. Ubiquitous comment intended, "Jesus Christ, Dog Damn it".

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by piequal3because14

 

No, but if you insists then you may be the first 11th.

Numerologically speaking, I am already an 11. Its one of the master numbers.

edit on 8-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

NO I AM AN 11, (numerologically speaking) Master number and I can prove it, I just have to give up my real name and birthdate; that will be 1000.00 dollars please (Richard Milhouse Nixon was a 33 master number).

reply to post by vethumanbeing


I'm talking about an idea here, not a distinct conscious entity.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

I'm talking about an idea here, not a distinct conscious entity

How can an idea be a distinct conscious entity? Are you speaking of the potencial of an ideaform becoming a possible conscious personality; lets just say you or me?