•A letter to an atheist by Alan McDougall

Is there a reason for living that goes beyond that of our earthly mortal life on earth? I say there is, how you can be so sure that there beyond life. Why not just try to consider that there just might be a god.

Life after death is unfortunately something neither I nor someone else can ever prove to, I, however, strongly believe we continue to exist in some form or other in dimensions of purpose, reason, beauty and that our consciousness continues to exist eternally after death. Otherwise our earthly fleeting life is nothing but a cruel joke of nature

Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator? How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?

This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter and finally life out of inanimate energy. I see this as a ridiculous assumption; I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?

Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinite complexity that the DNA molecule allows a variation of living things to life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time. Life existed on the primordial earth just a moment after its creation, again in cosmological time?

The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.

A billion trillion googolplex monkeys typing for eternity would not produce even one of Shakespeare sonnets. Another analogy, if we took a billion airplanes, filled them with water, concrete and bricks and dumped the whole continuously on the earth for a billion years, would it magically and randomly form the beautiful Taj Mahal or the Sydney Opera house? But you insist I must accept the beautiful universe a of unimaginable precision came into existence this illogical way

When life needs to evolve due to changing circumstances, does it tell itself to alter its own DNA for the new conditions or could there be a watch maker resetting the watch
I see god adjusting the DNA overlooking his own experiment if you like

Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning. Can you prove there is no god of course you can’t, can I of course I can’t, but at least I can offer circumstantial evidence... Atheism is a faith belief system just like anything that requires belief without evidence.

As an amateur astronomer leaves me with an unshakable belief that am awesome intellect created the universe and everything else

Look out the sparking water that quenshes your thirst, the fruit that feeds you, and invigorated your body. There is beauty everywhere and you must search for real ugliness. Go outside on a moonless night and reflect on the wonder of the cosmos that sparkles above you. the great snow capped mountains and streams, the blue sky and the rise of the sun at dawn and its golden glow as it sets. In the early morning go and listen to the sounds of nature, birds chirping like tiny electrons in the mind of god. The wind that you breathe the precious nourishment supplied by mother earth.

Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about. To me there is a wonderful creative behind all this glory if only we would look at it.

Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause. The universe will end but for that we will just have to wait

Even atheism scientists say our universe is precise, ordered with beautiful mathematical constants. One great astronomer said the universe was less like a great well oiled machine and more like a beautiful ongoing thought

I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless creation is bleak and cold

What do you people believe, No god or God?

Alan

God, no.
Reincarnation, yes.

... its not whether you believe in God but which God you believe in !

I just don't care for the word "God". It seems to express something outside or beyond the greater Self and my mind just can't make sense of it...and that realization is after years and years of debate from within. I am... is all there is. Consciousness is primary and it makes choices based on interpreted information. All worlds are virtual and created by the collective. I guess you can call that "God" or you can call it Consciousness, but like I say, "God" seems to imply something that restricts consciousness and I don't buy it in that package. You know, for what its worth.

I agree with you, Beau, that God is a loaded word. I just find it strange that people argue and even kill eachother over 'God' when people don't even define what they mean by 'God' ! On the whole I agree with you... I would use something else such as 'source' or 'higher conciousness'... less loaded.

Without a "Source" or "Creator" or "God" as a sense of all collective consciousness, what is there?  I have had a sense of an all knowing consciousness around me for as long as I can remember and have benefitted from the connection to it...not that I have prayed and hoped and begged, but rather I simply asked for what I would hope to happen, and it did.  There was no way my hope would be granted and it was.  It happened again, and again and it will happen again.  There is something, and leaving semantics aside, whatever you want to call it, when you believe in it and work with it, it makes life an amazing adventure with no downside.  Right now I am going through bankruptcy and am about to undergo a divorce...I have two children 16 and 11, and they are my primary concerns...everything is going the way I would plan it because of my connection to the "God/Consciousness/Source"...I ask for inspiration and am told the direction I should take and it works every time.  My children are taken care of, largely by me, and I have a whole new world to face and enjoy.  While I weigh 189 pounds, I feel incredibly light right now...wow!

As for atheism, whatever...sooner or later they'll come to their answer, and I don't have time to argue...I'm too busy living!

Ok, if we are talking "Creator", why isn't it possible that more than "Creator" emerges of out some kind of raw substance. Sooner or later they might meet, or they might not.

But why only one "Creator"?

heisenberg69 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 8:43pm:

I agree with you, Beau, that God is a loaded word. I just find it strange that people argue and even kill eachother over 'God' when people don't even define what they mean by 'God' ! On the whole I agree with you... I would use something else such as 'source' or 'higher conciousness'... less loaded.

My idea on God is that he is my heavenly father, the uncaused cause, the Alpha and Omega points, the Source of all existence, the Divine mind the unmovable rock from which all things emerge, the primordial intelligence, the First Thought, the creator of the universe, the great mathematician. The Great teacher, The Light that illuminates the darkness, my companion

The lover of my soul,

"Life"

Love

Alan

No god

signed

an atheist

Supermodel,

It would not surprise me in the least if what you've written is the case. I don't see the "afterlife" as some sort of hierarchy either. I don't think a CEO of the heavens is necessary. It's just our earthly way of looking at something beyond explanation that colors our perceptions.

Yours,
Beau

If there is one I hope She's Goddess.

Beau wrote on Dec 4^th, 2010 at 10:31am:

Supermodel, It would not surprise me in the least if what you've written is the case. I don't see the "afterlife" as some sort of hierarchy either. I don't think a CEO of the heavens is necessary. It's just our earthly way of looking at something beyond explanation that colors our perceptions. Yours, Beau

Did I ever tell you you're one of my favorite posters here?


I just don't get the point of posts like this. We all differ in our beliefs and opinions and it should just remain as such. I'm never going to post something addressing Christians or Jews because I simply don't care enough.

Frankly if there is a god after all this, I doubt he/she/they/it cares if I believe/worship or not.

supermodel wrote on Dec 4^th, 2010 at 8:46am:

No god signed an atheist

Are you sure that there is no god?

Alan McDougall wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 6:24am:

supermodel wrote on Dec 4th, 2010 at 8:46am: No god signed an atheist Are you sure that there is no god?

oh Brother.

I like you Alan. I really do. But why do you CARE?

POSTING GUIDELINES & RULES:
Stay on topic, off topic posts will be removed or moved to the Off Topic Forum without warning or notification.
Use a consistent screen name/nickname
It is a violation subject to banning to post any message that is:
Profane; vulgar; or obscene
Bullying; threatening; abusive; or harassing
Demeaning; mocking; defamatory; libelous; or hateful
An attack upon the beliefs of individuals or groups
A personal attack on another member or public figure
Racially or ethnically objectionable
Spamming; a chain letter; or a copyright infringement
Advertisement or solicitation for products and/or services
Private information (postal addresses, phone #'s, etc.)
Re-transmission of messages, to or from this board
Proselytizing
That may be construed as invasive of another's privacy
Otherwise in violation of ANY law

A lot of your posts toe the line Alan....

Yeah, absolutely, Supermodel. Your post a few months back about believing in the afterlife but not a god really got me thinking it through. If there is a god of some type I seriously doubt said god put us here to worship it. That is such a humanistic way of looking at things. I think we grow in our own way at each and every turn. The things I've learned well I've learned from my own experiences...not from a rule book on how to play this game of life. It all evens out in the end. That's my two cents for a glorious Sunday morning in which I've found I need a new refrigerator. Ugh...I can't afford it, but I have the money, you know.

Alan, maybe you can tell me if there is a specific god you think of?

Shiva, Freya, Manitou, Aphrodite, Anannuki, Osiris or Zarathustra?

I suppose, after watching this sort of debate many times, that sometimes our own 'insecurities' demand a 'god' of some kind, whether it is recognized by others as such or not. And, does it really matter? I don't know the answer to that question. Most of us just want to have a good life, to find a way to live that is happiest, for ourselves and others. It is complicated by the fact that we are ever inquisitive, and become bored, and want to experience new things, to learn and grow. It is in our nature.

Perhaps, after all is said and done, here, in these bodies, there is a 'god' or 'GOD' for those who want or need such a 'being' -- or not, as the case may be.

Perhaps it is impossible to fully describe to another human what 'god' means to us, however we interpret the meaning of this particular word.

It seems to me that we can all agree on many things, such as the miraculous nature of life itself, and the wonder we feel when we view the beauty or the terrible strength of the forces of nature around us. Other than that, we can respect each others' traditions, whatever they may be, as long as they 'do no harm'. And that will always be a point of contention, and certainly give us something to talk about, if we wish to do so.

What is certain to me is that there is power in love, and in acceptance of others, no matter what their beliefs. It is just so difficult at times to find peace, within ourselves, and we wish to have agreement with others on these issues.

But, no matter what, there is great power in silence, and it is always our choice, to accept stillness, or to accept movement. In our own heart of hearts exists all that we need, and all that we need to know, and I believe that each one of us has an appointment with our destiny. It is an appointment that will be worth waiting for, as I see it.

Well, I do believe that if you believe there is a god that lords over you then there will be one for you in the end even though it may be a creation of your own higher self. So I have no problem with someone holding the belief if they could just see clear to avoid making the discussion about their "superior" god. I don't even mind invoking a god in discussions if we could just avoid the assumption that this so called ONE GOD must work as any one person sees it. To me it's all part of the consciousness pool. Consciousness is always what it is and it animates all that is physical in one fashion or another. The limitations of the physical body can limit our ability to express our consciousness, but once the body is shed it's all equal. I mean maybe. I think its as good an explanation as an all powerful god looming over us and expecting worship.

Beau wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 10:58am:

Yeah, absolutely, Supermodel. Your post a few months back about believing in the afterlife but not a god really got me thinking it through. If there is a god of some type I seriously doubt said god put us here to worship it. That is such a humanistic way of looking at things. I think we grow in our own way at each and every turn. The things I've learned well I've learned from my own experiences...not from a rule book on how to play this game of life. It all evens out in the end. That's my two cents for a glorious Sunday morning in which I've found I need a new refrigerator. Ugh...I can't afford it, but I have the money, you know.

Agreed! If this god wanted me to worship him/her/them or whatever, they should have been more clear.

But that will just invite that pesky little free will argument that I don't have the energy to debunk.

I just did a few retrievals and I need a nap. :P


but I will debunk it

Beau,
"Well, I do believe that if you believe there is a god that lords over you then there will be one for you in the end even though it may be a creation of your own higher self."

One of many variations of handing over varying degrees of control over your self to others, whether the so called lord/master (or societal establishment) grumble or whisper. ;) My higher/total self is my god, and the idea for me to bend over backwards to my true self is silly to the point of being laughable. And a salute isn't needed nor is it a requirement to say 'yes, master' when I see the image in the mirror, or in focus 34/35. :P I can live with others' gods, as long as they stay out of my face, or I'll become in-yo-face. I connect the dots to Monroe's polite and thus somewhat diffuse explanation of gathering escape velocity, but each to his and her own progression.

I have, in my mind no doubt that there is a God, and that our consciousness is a part and parcel of the totality that is the mind of God.  As such, I absolutely do not believe in an anthropomorphic version of God as a wise being with a long flowing beard.  Yet for me, I see God as the source of our consciousness that we have forgotten.  You can deny his existence, but that separates you more and more from your true nature - and to me this is sad.

One of the key insights to me about life in on earth is that we, as pinpoint sparks of consciousness separate ourselves from God and a greater consciousness in order to explore as an individual on the earth plane.  Yet much suffering then ensues, since we see ourselves as being separate from everything else - mostly due to our withdrawing from the unity of consciousness - A false separation that creates deep loneliness and desperation seen so often in the world today. 

For those who do not believe in God, I feel .....sadness for I think they miss the forest for the trees.  God is the source of love that people on this board understand as PUL.  Emanuel Swedenborg had extensive conversations and visitations with discarnate humans he called "angels."  Eventhough he lived in the 1700s, his crystal clear texts are worth the read, for he applied his logical scientific mind to the truths which he gleaned in his cosmic conversations and journeys (centuries before Monroe):

Emanuel Swedenborg speaks of how the essence of our beings actually comes from God in his great book "Heaven and Hell," (free to download online for those interested):
In their wisdom, angels press on even further. They say that it is not just everything good and true that comes from the Lord, but every bit of life as well. They support this by pointing out that nothing can come into being from itself. Everything presupposes something prior. This means that everything has come into being from a First, which they call the essential reality of the life of everything. Everything endures in the same way, too, because enduring is a constant coming into being.  If anything were not kept in constant connection with the First, through intermediate means, it would instantly collapse and disintegrate. They add that there is only one single wellspring of life, with human life as one stream flowing from it. If it were not constantly supplied from its wellspring, it would immediately peter out.

     Still further, they say that nothing flows from that unique wellspring of life, the Lord that is not divinely good and divinely true. These affect every individual according to the way they are accepted. People who accept them into their faith and life are in heaven, while people who reject or stifle them transform them into hell. They actually change what is good into evil and what is true into falsity—life into death. Angels also support their belief that the Lord is the source of every bit of life by observing that everything in the universe goes back to what is good and true.

Our volitional life, the life of our love, goes back to what is good, while our cognitive life, the life of our faith, goes back to what is true. Since everything good and true comes to us from above, it follows that this is the source of all of our life. Because angels believe this, they decline any thanks offered them for the good they do. In fact they feel hurt and withdraw if anyone gives them credit for anything good. It bewilders them to discover that people can believe they are wise on their own or do good on their own. Doing good for one’s own sake, in their language, cannot be called “good,” because it stems from self. Doing good for its own sake is what they call “good from the Divine.” This, they say, is the kind of good that makes heaven, because this kind of good is the Lord.


He further goes on to describe why love stems from God and heaven, including the love we feel and express (or choose not to):

The reason the Divine in heaven (which in fact makes heaven) is love is that love is spiritual union. It unites angels to the Lord and unites them with each other. It does this so thoroughly that in the Lord’s sight they are like a single being.  Further, love is the essential reality of every individual life. It is therefore the source of the life of angels and the life of people here.

Anyone who weighs the matter will discover that love is our vital core. We grow warm because of its presence and cold because of its absence, and when it is completely gone, we die. We do need to realize, though, that it is the quality of our love that determines the quality of this life.


When seen in this light, it is hard to remain an atheist.  Indeed, the atheist must isolate himself/herself further and not acknowledge our true spiritual nature; that of love and unity, which is the very essence of God.  God is the foundation of our very being, and if God is the fountain of PUL, and we draw from the fountain for our very existence, how can we deny there is a source?

Matthew

Beau and Supermodel,

When you decry the notion that a God would want us to worship him, what if this worship is acknowledging and giving thanks for the love and truth in our lives?  Seen in this light, worship is simply appreciation of love and the desire to give thanks for love and truth.  I see no reason not to worship the foundation of love in our lives.  Who could not embrace that?

Just my two cents.......

Matthew, to me the problem is all the overlay that comes with the concept of God as espoused by organized religions, each of which puts forth that its view of GOD is the only right view and you will be damned if you don't fall down and worship as its followers do.  I have to reject that view of God.

What you describe, with another name besides GOD, I can accept and am inclined to believe.  I tend toward the Monroe and Campbell views of the source of creation and love or PUL.  But I don't want to use the term God and have anyone think I accept a Catholic or protestant or Muslim or whatever view of their one and only GOD.

Pat

supermodel wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 10:38am:

POSTING GUIDELINES & RULES: Stay on topic, off topic posts will be removed or moved to the Off Topic Forum without warning or notification. Use a consistent screen name/nickname It is a violation subject to banning to post any message that is: Profane; vulgar; or obscene Bullying; threatening; abusive; or harassing Demeaning; mocking; defamatory; libelous; or hateful An attack upon the beliefs of individuals or groups A personal attack on another member or public figure Racially or ethnically objectionable Spamming; a chain letter; or a copyright infringement Advertisement or solicitation for products and/or services Private information (postal addresses, phone #'s, etc.) Re-transmission of messages, to or from this board Proselytizing That may be construed as invasive of another's privacy Otherwise in violation of ANY law A lot of your posts toe the line Alan....

And some do not? Please specify which do not toe the line?

Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for the Existence of God.   




E:\Archive(2005-6) « (e)mergent Voyageurs_files\Thomas Aquinas Arguments for the Existence of God.htm

  • Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God • Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for the Existence of God. • Proof of God by Kurt Gödel • The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas: Five Arguments for the Existence of God.
Summa Theologiae, Question 2, Article 3:


It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good. Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.

Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation. It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist. All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.

But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).

Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved.

verything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing.

Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized. For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot.

Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold.

Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect.

Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence.

If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false.

Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum.

For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being.

That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."

The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design.

Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."

To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown.

___________________________________________

 

Alan McDougall wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 3:50am:

Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

Why God?

Couldn't the "first mover" be a little red devil?

Pat wrote:  'What you describe, with another name besides GOD, I can accept and am inclined to believe.  I tend toward the Monroe and Campbell views of the source of creation and love or PUL.  But I don't want to use the term God and have anyone think I accept a Catholic or protestant or Muslim or whatever view of their one and only GOD.'

I agree. It seems to me that a person may say that they are an athiest while another may regards themselves a theist. But on closer questioning, the two may actually be holding very similar views- the athiest having a vague sense of 'something bigger' while the theist rejects the 'white haired old guy in the sky' model. I think its important not to get too hung up on labels as they can give a sense of separation where none actually exists.

I don't know that being New Age or open minded should make any of us God-phobic - or loathe the idea of a God simply because certain organized religions have claimed a direct connection to God or coopted his commandments or "edicts" to follow.

And in a sense, I think this is an important discussion because those who have had NDEs and experienced God, say that to them, it is a beautiful and yet very personal and intimate experience.  So to say something akin to "yes, I reject and anthropomorphized 'old man in the sky with thunder bolt' god, but not a universal consciousness," is a bit of a cop out.  Because that universal consciousness is not just an impersonal unthinking force of nature.  It is the very intelligence and consciousness of love and light that we all strive toward.  How could we not acknowledge that?

Those who disdain the idea of god as a superman in the sky shouldn't be so quick to distance themselves from the concept of a God they are connected to in consciousness.  For, if God is the source of love, the foundation of our being, then God exists.  If God exists, then it does not make sense to ignore him, and assume that we are on our own - our own little god in the physical world.  This only furthers our separation from the source of love and light.

I understand what you are saying, Pat, but despite the Jerry Falwell preachers who were out there, and other judgemental fundamentalists of all religions, I say, it is better that we deny their version of intolerance while affirming our own idea(s) of what love is and where it comes from.  We affirm a creator of love and consciousness in our own way.  Not for fear of punishment.  But in being careful not to distance ourselves from the source.


Matthew

You all can worship the tree in your backyard if you wish.

I don't feel separated from ANY source or feel the need to figure out who or what created me so that I can give thanks to it. It's a complete and utter waste of time.

If that's what YOU want to do then by all means do it. I'm tired of posts on this board addressed to certain groups of people asking why they believe what they do.

I am an atheist that's all there is to it. I don't go around making threads to Christians or people of other religions here questioning why they believe what they do.

Thomas Aquinas arguments for  God's existence? Give me a break.

I'm not trying to go there and make this a religious debate. I don't like to get into those because I like to come here with like minded people.

That's my dos centavos on that issue.

Perhaps I can sum it up this way: I spent the better part of my life thinking there was a Supreme power outside and beyond myself that was directing me. Now I believe I am one with that force and even that doesn't describe the closeness I feel to it.

I talk to myself and myself talks to me within the confines of my ethereal mind. I know that voice is mine ultimately. I hesitate to say it is "part" of me as it IS me as I truly exist.

My mistakes are its mistakes and it offers corrections, but many of those corrections are based on my own preconceptions and conditioning that I was born into thanks to my initial upbringing.

I learn from experience rather than following the rules, even if the rules make sense beforehand. I find that many times the rules of others for seeking a higher plane aren't what I truly believe anymore.

If you don't see source as separate from yourself then it is YOU. You are universal. We feel separate because we choose the illusion and I don't really know whether it is for growth or entertainment. Perhaps it is both.

When someone says, "God did this", I can't relate anymore. They just see the same energy or whatever differently than I do. I feel this way of looking at it is my growth rather than a rejection of something.

Beau wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

Perhaps I can sum it up this way: I spent the better part of my life thinking there was a Supreme power outside and beyond myself that was directing me. Now I believe I am one with that force and even that doesn't describe the closeness I feel to it. I talk to myself and myself talks to me within the confines of my ethereal mind. I know that voice is mine ultimately. I hesitate to say it is "part" of me as it IS me as I truly exist. My mistakes are its mistakes and it offers corrections, but many of those corrections are based on my own preconceptions and conditioning that I was born into thanks to my initial upbringing. I learn from experience rather than following the rules, even if the rules make sense beforehand. I find that many times the rules of others for seeking a higher plane aren't what I truly believe anymore. If you don't see source as separate from yourself then it is YOU. You are universal. We feel separate because we choose the illusion and I don't really know whether it is for growth or entertainment. Perhaps it is both. When someone says, "God did this", I can't relate anymore. They just see the same energy or whatever differently than I do. I feel this way of looking at it is my growth rather than a rejection of something.

Very well put. ;)

I happen to agree with Supermodel that the title and tone of the thread do single out 'atheists' in a way that is rather contrary to the spirit of this forum, which is dedicated to open-minded explorers. However it is done, to question someone else's beliefs in such a pointed way could be construed as somewhat agressive, especially if it is done in exactly the same way over and over. To repeat the same posts again and again does cause one to wonder what the 'agenda' is. It is also true that this site has visitors which occasionally make deliberate attacks on others' beliefs in God....or whatever they believe in. On a forum such as this I have found that no one is 'safe' from being questioned here.

What seems to me to be most important is how we treat each other. It is highly unlikely that anyone will be 'argued' into believing in the 'God' of another's belief system -- and how would anyone prove that anyway?

Whatever 'God' you believe in is your choice. As it should be.

I have read through the thread, and I have not seen anyone proseltyzing one brand of religion, or one "true path," or condemning anyone.

Theism does not presuppose an agenda.  This is exactly my point in past posts.  Are there theists who tell you its their way or a hell?  Sure.  And they are full of it, and should be ignored.  But this represents a small number of people who are genuinely good and believe in God.

No, though I dislike the title to the thread as well, I see it as an interesting topic of discussion.  Theist or atheist, it shouldn't matter - as long as the discourse is civil, and all are entitled to their points of view, no one should be offended here.


Matthew

It WAS an interesting topic some threads ago. I think its great to discuss and even to discuss discussing, but some threads do get kinda one note when its the same thing over and over. "A Letter to an Atheist" has been covered before under the same title.

I only speak up on a thread like this so that someone coming here for the first time doesn't think everyone holds the opinion of the thread creator.

wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 1:42pm:

I happen to agree with Supermodel that the title and tone of the thread do single out 'atheists' in a way that is rather contrary to the spirit of this forum, which is dedicated to open-minded explorers. However it is done, to question someone else's beliefs in such a pointed way could be construed as somewhat agressive, especially if it is done in exactly the same way over and over. To repeat the same posts again and again does cause one to wonder what the 'agenda' is. It is also true that this site has visitors which occasionally make deliberate attacks on others' beliefs in God....or whatever they believe in. On a forum such as this I have found that no one is 'safe' from being questioned here. What seems to me to be most important is how we treat each other. It is highly unlikely that anyone will be 'argued' into believing in the 'God' of another's belief system -- and how would anyone prove that anyway? Whatever 'God' you believe in is your choice. As it should be.

I truly agree. It's getting old.

I wouldn't mind this topic if it were discussing the relationship of belief in god and belief in afterlife.  Is one necessary for the other?  Supermodel had some good thoughts on this, maybe Alan could provide his.  My two cents.

DocM wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

I have read through the thread, and I have not seen anyone proselytizing one brand of religion, or one "true path," or condemning anyone. Theism does not presuppose an agenda.  This is exactly my point in past posts.  Are there theists who tell you its their way or a hell?  Sure.  And they are full of it, and should be ignored.  But this represents a small number of people who are genuinely good and believe in God. No, though I dislike the title to the thread as well, I see it as an interesting topic of discussion.  Theist or atheist, it shouldn't matter - as long as the discourse is civil, and all are entitled to their points of view, no one should be offended here. Matthew

I'm offended by the title which was my point Doc. The discussion is civil but like B2 stated it singles a group of people out. I don't come here to talk about atheism.

But if someone makes a thread about it, I'm going to speak on it. Like if someone made a thread about black people or women or people who live in Indiana.

Don't single out a group of people and we're all good.

So then what is the purpose of the thread?

To convert atheists to believe in a creator? To make atheists reconsider their position? Before I became an atheist, I considered everything and it was a big decision for me as it is for a lot of atheists/agnostics.

It was something I didn't take lightly.

"Is there a reason for living that goes beyond that of our earthly mortal life on earth? I say there is, how you can be so sure that there beyond life. Why not just try to consider that there just might be a god. "

I happen to be an atheist that believes in an afterlife or I wouldn't be here. To assume atheists believe the same thing is ridiculous. Atheism only means you don't believe in a god/gods.

That's it. It makes no other statement, theories, or has a belief system behind it.

And I still don't get the purpose. Maybe Alan would care to explain it.

I just recently read an article called "Fifty Years on the Razor's Edge" about Huston Smith, now 90 years old, who wrote "The Religions of Man", later called "The World's Religions".  A fascinating look at an amazing man who was good friends with many equally amazing people.  But the quote I liked the best was from Huston Smith about Aldous Huxley, who was his friend for 35 years:  "One of the last things he said to me was, 'It's a little embarrassing to have spent one's entire life pondering the human situation and find oneself in the end with nothing more profound to say than try to be a little nicer.'"

Hi I am aware that this very topic has been discussed on the forum before, but in the light of new members they might be interested in discussing the pros and cons of Atheism and Theism from their own point of view.

I simple can’t fathom why any one would think I am trying to convert any one to my belief system. I am not religious, do not belong to any church or religious cult and indeed I dislike some of them intensely. If fact I despise exclusive fundamentalism who inform people outside their belief system are destined to burn in hell forever

I concur in the absolute with what Doc (Matthew) has written

If you read my letter, again, which I wrote to my brother Roger who lives in Australia, who is a ridged atheist and dismissed the whole letter, stating beyond this mortal life there is absolutely no meaning in our existence

I a rational Theist, and there you have it

Love
Alan

Then why not just post a thread on the Pros and cons of atheism and theism instead of a letter addressing atheists?

And your post makes no mention that you wrote this letter to someone else. Even though I swear I've read that somewhere else....I could be wrong....anywho...

You didn't make those distinctions up front. So it looks like you want to single atheists out especially since it's been posted before.

May not have been your intention but that's how its coming off.

I need some PUL....be back.... :-/

Supermodel, you are not the only atheist believing in an afterlife, so take heart. I personally do not believe in a "human-like entity" God either. If we are talking about the great conscoiusness that may drive the universe, that is another matter.

Theism and Atheism are two viable theories depending on which arguments you give more weight.

It appears to me that this forum belongs to Bruce Moen. Personally, I think that repeating posts such as this is on the verge of monopolising the space that he has provided for all. There are lots of posts from 'the past' which deserve attention, if anyone wants to take a look. That is their choice. Occasionally, they are brought forward, out of interest. I don't 'run' this forum, so it is just my opinion, but it seems to me that it defeats the purpose of the forum that Bruce has established to put a 'spotlight' on discussions of this nature. As a matter of fact, it may harm him, as many people are actually 'put off' by such topics. They can find them anywhere. In fact, I believe this sort of topic, as well as the resultant disagreements, were cited as a reason that he lost a professional opportunity to expand his message to a larger audience a few years ago. I think that's a shame, since his message has been one of interest to many people for many years now.

Bruce's website offers something a little different. It promotes an 'imagination' method of exploring 'unseen' worlds. I feel that focusing on those types of subjects better serve his purpose.

If 'I am" is everything then why must it be the almighty one. That seems to me very odd. Do you see that a god that claims superiority over itself makes no sense. At least it doesn't to me. I can't get behind it. I think it humanizes this god which makes it even less likely that this god is the all that is. My two cents.

I think that I am getting all this negative flack because I titled this thread as a statement rather than a question.

Thus "A letter to an atheist" should have read "are you an atheist?" or something along those lines

Sorry guys I will try to behave myself in future!!

But to suggest that I am somehow monopolizing the forum is simply nonsense

Blessings and light

Alan

DocM wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 10:37pm:

Beau and Supermodel, When you decry the notion that a God would want us to worship him, what if this worship is acknowledging and giving thanks for the love and truth in our lives?  Seen in this light, worship is simply appreciation of love and the desire to give thanks for love and truth.  I see no reason not to worship the foundation of love in our lives.  Who could not embrace that? Just my two cents.......

Hi Matthew,

I see worshiping God as an act of love, not trembling at his mightiness. God to me is like the Father Spirit, and worship of him is like hugging your earthly father, not bowing down in fear of a wrathful God

We humans seem to need a higher power, something greater than we are maybe to guide us in love and mercy

Blessings and Light

Alan

I have heard the idea that the act of loving others IS the act of loving God. I can see that that is the only way to express it. I've also heard many people claim to love God who don't seem very kind. It could just be me, Alan, but your view of God seems to give him a humongous ego. It may be that your choice of words simply triggers some kind of defense mechanism of mine.

To me, to try and explain or postulate beyond the Self is premature. I try to spend my time here getting to know and experience  me rather than telling others about something we are all completely incapable of understanding. I guess that is the point I want to make. We just see it differently. On a board like this its not so much what you do, but how you discuss it. Some make it sound as if they know something by citing ancient books. Books are proof of nothing in my opinion (Aquinas or Swedenborg). Intention is what drives our journeys. Is my intention to debate another into accepting Jesus as Lord or God as Supreme? Or am I here to better my own Self and explore the realms. I would rather learn how to improve my relations with others than read about how to honor your god. But I certainly don't deny your right to express your opinions. Just know that some of us are going to take issue with what seems like a fundamental agenda. Note I say "seems like". I don't know what your intentions are.

Beau wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 11:33am:

I have heard the idea that the act of loving others IS the act of loving God. I can see that that is the only way to express it. I've also heard many people claim to love God who don't seem very kind. It could just be me, Alan, but your view of God seems to give him a humongous ego. It may be that your choice of words simply triggers some kind of defense mechanism of mine. To me, to try and explain or postulate beyond the Self is premature. I try to spend my time here getting to know and experience  me rather than telling others about something we are all completely incapable of understanding. I guess that is the point I want to make. We just see it differently. On a board like this its not so much what you do, but how you discuss it. Some make it sound as if they know something by citing ancient books. Books are proof of nothing in my opinion (Aquinas or Swedenborg). Intention is what drives our journeys. Is my intention to debate another into accepting Jesus as Lord or God as Supreme? Or am I here to better my own Self and explore the realms. I would rather learn how to improve my relations with others than read about how to honor your god. But I certainly don't deny your right to express your opinions. Just know that some of us are going to take issue with what seems like a fundamental agenda. Note I say "seems like". I don't know what your intentions are.

Hi Beau,

A great post  :)

Love

Alan

Hi Beau,

For me there are a couple of issues on the other side of the coin.  First, let me preface this by saying that my intent is never to make anyone uncomfortable or feel singled out.  That being said, there is such a thing as being too skittish to discuss any subject that will cause a difference of opinions.  I always advise if you don't like the subject matter, pass it by.  For me, I like the dialogue, whether I agree or disagree.

With regard to your last post, I appreciate your feeling that your purpose here is self exploration.  Some take a different view, and that was my point in the thread.  I have long tried to reconcile self exploration with the selflessness of love and what many have called spirituality.  They can definitely coexist.  But it was always difficult for me to read about merging with the unity of the universe and losing my individuality. 

Until, through exploration, I realized that my individuality would still be there, but part of something bigger.  And my need for self exploration has changed too, when I realized that love of others and love of God meant a "right" action that was not always based in what I wanted for myself in isolation.

This isolation into physical bodies is a "trip" "experience," beautiful at times, and other times heart rending.  It appears, from explorations (both my own and hearing that of many others) that it is a unique experience, being here on earth.  But eventually, at some point, many are ok with evolving their search from exploring oneself, to coming back to be part of the whole.

I cite Swedenborg, because his experience was so well described, firsthand, and in such detail that it makes sense to the reader - whether or not you agree with his christian background (the church didn't agree with him and almost ex-communicated him at the time).  I would never cite a source like him to say "do what this ancient text says!" 

For me, there is a difference between loving one's fellow man/woman and loving both God and one's fellow man/woman - though it may seem like splitting hairs.  From my view, acknowledging the source of PUL (love), that is our foundation, is to say that we are part of it, and so our others, but that this source simply "is."   To deny the source of love, but acknowledge love of other people, seems  somehow incomplete to me (but that is just my take on it). 

This is not in any way to diminish the value and goodness of loving one's fellow human being alone.  Just from my explorations, I feel there is something more.....

Matthew

As far as this subject goes we don't really disagree on much, Matthew. I believe in source I just don't follow the line of thought that the source is separate from me. It is a conclusion I've come to I guess when realizing that what we are talking about is not just all around, it is within.

I too like discussing almost everything we talk about here and I enjoy reading the stuff I disagree with too.

I feel there is a duality in believing that love of one's fellow man is not the same as a love of a god. I'm not a dualist. I think its all one thing. I have to be able to simplify it to ONE thing. There is consciousness and information in my view and everything else is illusory...and really the information is a product of consciousness. So I guess you can see where that's going.

If I love my fellow man it is that aspect of consciousness I am considering. Even when I write the word "aspect" I kind of cringe because it still implies a separation that isn't really there.

And please remember that I speak only from my own brief experiences with consciousness communications: that whole 'one with everything' :) deal.

I would say that rather than feeling like I am part of something bigger that I am something as vast as everything.

As far as losing the illusion of individuality its not a big deal to a character I don't think because you grow into so much more. Imagine if Olivier only played Hamlet. And when I use the Actor analogy I don't relate it to reincarnation so much. I think of it more as the process of awakening from character to source. For me that awakening eliminates the need for a god beyond that. I'm just always awakening unto myself I guess. It's not really lonely or scary as the Self isn't lost at all, merely awakened.

I'm just driveling on here, but I appreciate your comments very much, Matthew.

Hi,

To me there are only two things that make up existence or reality if you like. They are consciousness and matter. Of course not all consciousness are the same, we humans are a minute molecule of matter and consciousness, within the great ocean, or what I like to call it the Superconsciousness/God if you like.

To simply dismiss the idea of God takes away that spark of life that bridges and consolidates all life within our universe and beyond.

Together these two things make up all of reality , mandalas of minds or consciousness merge, swirl consolidate and break up to make new states or dimensions within the heavenly planes beyond our earthly existence. These consciousnesses are not only humans they are all life forces that control and sustain the physical universe

Blessings and Light

Alan

Well I would only say, Alan, that a drop of water in the ocean IS the ocean. Paring down the idea of separation is important to me as you may have guessed by now. The other thing is I don't think ultimately that consciousness can be pluralized. Unlike physical manifestations I see consciousness as the only reality and it can only know of itself by processing information.

But I understand where you are coming from as I held many similar beliefs to yours for many years. I'm saying I'm more advanced now or anything like that, I just am working a different angle on this thing ...and so far it seems to be working out pretty well. I'm not happy every minute of every day but it's not so bad from this angle.  :)

Beau wrote on Dec 9^th, 2010 at 9:06am:

Well I would only say, Alan, that a drop of water in the ocean IS the ocean. Paring down the idea of separation is important to me as you may have guessed by now. The other thing is I don't think ultimately that consciousness can be pluralized. Unlike physical manifestations I see consciousness as the only reality and it can only know of itself by processing information. But I understand where you are coming from as I held many similar beliefs to yours for many years. I'm saying I'm more advanced now or anything like that, I just am working a different angle on this thing ...and so far it seems to be working out pretty well. I'm not happy every minute of every day but it's not so bad from this angle.  :)

Hi Beau and others!

My idea of the soul and how it fits into our reality and the God soul or mind is detailed below:_


The Soul in relation to the Cosmic Mind =GOD

The brain is not the soul of mind; it is the hard drive, the processor of your mortal body. The mind downloads constantly onto the brain right up to death and a little beyond and that is why some of us remember events from a near death experience

The “the Soul” personalized is an infinitesimal part of God in man. Just as a drop of water from the ocean has all the ingredients in the ocean, this “the Soul” has all the powers of God.

However, just as a drop of water from the ocean does not make up the ocean, the “the Soul” of one person does not make up God’s “the Soul”. All the drops joined together become the ocean; all the “the Soul’s in the universe together make up God’s Cosmic
Soul”.

Our “Soul” is a microcosm and creates the macrocosm universe and more until it all consolidates into the godhead.

. “The Soul” can become part of the environment and embrace the entire cosmos and totally merge with the Divine mind of God, who is himself but he is also us, this is the final step for us this integration of humanity into the superconsciousness some of us call God

I know this is true, because during my NDE I became like god for a few wonderful inexplicable moments outside of linear time and space. (Just thought I was godlike)

The speed of thought transfer I think is more than the speed of light. In a millisecond, “the Soul” can reach the farthest galaxy, billions of light years away.

What is thought what consciousness is??

All known tests, will not find any indication of “the Soul”.

There is no single location for the “the Soul”. The human “the Soul” is distributed throughout the human body and its environment.

Every cell has its own “the Soul” and has the ability to function independently or jointly with all the cells of the body.

For example, a neuron seems to be capable of deciding whether it will transmit information to another nerve cell and, if it will, to which one among the thousands of cells with which it is in contact.

Just as each of the thousand pieces of a splintered mirror will show the same reflection of an object as the whole mirror, each cell reflects our “the Soul” and each cell in the universe we humans etc, reflects the Universal Soul called by us as God

Beau You see we only differ in how we word our beliefs and it is just semantics that separate our thinking

Alan McDougall

I agree Alan, it is basically semantics. I like your use of fractals in your explanation. But I still say a drop of water is the whole ocean once within it. You've written a very nice piece here. ;)

It's posts like this thread's initial one that I ignore, but then again it's threads like this that I come to read after it's grown by several pages because by then the conversation and topic has changed enough that it's become an interesting read usually. 

My own use of the word God is truely my own, as I know what it means to me and that it's different from anyone else's.  I've never been religious nor believed in any type of religion.  God just happens to be a convenient word since it was the word I was taught as a young child.  As I grew up, my beliefs have grown and changed too, and I'm still growing, so my understandings and beliefs continue to grow and change. 

I think Beau's message has been saying he allows himself to grow and he accepts whatever that process is.  I am doing the same thing.  People who read my posts here know that I've also adopted words I've learned from Bruce.  Again, it's just a matter of convenience for me.  When you find words that make sense to you and how you believe them to mean, it certainly helps your own growth and thinking processes. 

I don't try to convince anyone of what I believe, but only stick to my guns in my own beliefs up until the point where I learn something new that seems to fit my growth pattern process, which is my own individual thing, and which will change and alter however it will.  And I believe we each have our own growth pattern process no matter what our religious or nonreligious beliefs may be.  There's no point in trying to convince anyone of what your own personal meaning of words, semantics, or beliefs are since we all have to stay on our own course whether we like it or not. 

The only way anyone can change who they are or their pattern of growth is if they allow it to happen in some way.  Most changes have so many parts to the process that any one part, or even the whole process, is imperceptible until a change has already taken place.  Yet, there are some changes that happen because of a conciously-made decision to do so.  Those are probably the most difficult things we do in life, make a decision to change from the comfy-ness of the complacency of who we are. 

When I see anyone defending their thoughts, feelings, or beliefs, it only points out the fact that they are struggling on the inside with their own growth pattern process.  So I let it be.  It doesn't bother me, change me, or make me feel I need to be defensive about my own self. 

Vicky

Beau,  some of the stuff you've written in this conversation is really reaching me.  You are Super Wise.  Good thing I kept coming back to this thread instead of abandoning it when I thought it was too "missionary" for my liking. 

Thanks Beau!

Thank YOU Calypso! It's really great to resonate with someone. ;)