 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Tom C
I really love this website! - many thanks to everyone here for not suffering in silence and reminding me how un-alone I am as an ex-Xtian. Having eagerly digested lots of the juicy philosophical debate on exchristian.net, I feel compelled to contribute some thoughts that may be relevant for some to a couple of the more popular topics here on site.
Disclaimer: I have to admit that personally I feel quite strongly about some of these things, and my enthusiasm may come through in a slightly assertive writing style at times, but let me assure you I'm not trying to convert anyone (and if I do convert someone they've seriously missed the point!) These are just thoughts, intended to inspire thoughts, and any implications of value judgments are for the most part unintentional, but left in to keep things interesting and to preserve the original flow of said thoughts.
Just see what -you- think...
***
I II III
I. Having only just left the relative comforts of blind faith in one thing, it is all too easy to jump in feet first with blind faith in the next vaguely believable thing that comes along — think spiritual 'rebounding'.
II. Leaving the spiritual and intellectual confines of the church can feel like a massive 'awakening', but (following that analogy) after such a heavy night it can be so tempting to fall asleep at the bus stop and miss the journey you were previously dreaming of.
III. An escape from oppression/depression/hell/whatever into freedom/happiness/heaven/whatever doesn't end at debunking Xtianity (though it's as good a start as any!).
---
RELIGION vs. SCIENCE
a familiar story?
1. Religion vs. Science
2. Science wins (obviously!)
3. Science claims Religion's place
4. Science becomes Religion
5. repeat from 1.
Science is deep down just as much of a religion as all the others. In it's purest form it is the religion of CHANGE, and as such is wholly commendable as far as I'm concerned. However, in a less refined sense it exhibits many of the blindness and arrogance of the less credible religions:
When pitted against other's 'stupid beliefs', Science is often fought for just as fervently, and some of it's followers seem to really enjoy convincing themselves (and others) they have the monopoly on truth (or as they call it "fact"). But under the wrong conditions it will inevitably lead to just as much of a rigid, mechanistic, impersonal and pointless an existence as Xtianity.
Once you've got your head out of your ass it's pretty easy to satisfactorily debunk a lot of the Bibles rambling narrative - after all, it's only one book's worth of information; checking it out shouldn't take too long.
But compared with Xtianity, the doctrinal material of Science is so broad and often so esoteric that it would take a ridiculously long time to satisfactorily check absolutely everythingin person. Despite this, for many the assumption is that Science doesn't need checking, that it's assertions can just be accepted by the layman as gospel.
In all its logical glory, Science is simply a vast, mostly useful collection of suppositions upon suppositions upon theories about uncertainties that it's often easiest to treat as 'fact' but are basically a 'best fit' thing. Yes certain suppositions provide useful marker points or hand/foot holds for getting things done, and are often empirically more or less on the money, but that doesn't mean to say that they are the outright and absolute 'truth'.
We can lay Scientific theories over reality in our mind, but they are not reality itself:
By this logic, perhaps the closest human beings can get to the REALITY that Science appears to be attempting to usurp would be through experiencing something you can feel through your own senses and/or interpret with your own mind.
If we as a species are ever going to get to the bottom of things, we need to avoid atomizing ourselves through our own stupidity. I reckon it's gonna to be up to each individual person — not a god, not religious leaders, not politicians, not scientists, not family values, not peer pressures — to make of reality what he or she will and to take responsibility for that highly individual choice regarding 'the truth'.
When leadership-types say, "This is how it is," we should all be rebuking their blinding assertions with, "Maybe. Let us find out for ourselves what we can and get back to you on that", instead of just nodding in compliance then defending that leader's B.S. as if it was our own.
Knowing the volumes of a pseudo-religious entity like Science will never be as satisfactory as the actual experience of reality — without first-hand experience, it is just THEORY, and if it was clearly presented as such there would probably be less of a problem with scientific religiosity. i.e.:
Of course, such wordplay quickly becomes absurd and unreadable, so a degree of shorthand inevitably becomes involved. Then things often get even more condensed. So, what we end up with is some "Statements of fact" which was derived from the reduced shorthand of a complex theory that took many years to research and check, and that realistically requires a whole bookshelf chock full of paperwork to properly explain and understand. All that's left to most of us is a single paragraph, phrase, or sound byte, not something the creator of the theory would have wanted.
It worries me to see how often scientific approximations so rapidly become "This is how it is!" in the minds of those distant to the source of a particular scientific theory. Eyes become closed to any conflicting information which should be taken into account, investigated, and maybe even used to advance a theory into something even closer to reality.
If the insidious mechanisms and metaphysical stupidities exemplified by Xtianity are ever going to become a thing of the past, we need to be careful not to let our guard down; As a catalyst for change and growth is great, but I get a very uneasy feeling about the way Science is used by leadership types to convince others to do as they want, and I worry I may be already seeing more people falling for it than for Xtianity.
Large groups of humans have always had a way of 'normalizing' themselves, subverting and consuming the 'pure' and diluting it with meaninglessness. It's probably a safety mechanism of sorts that aims to totally neutralize anything that might cause change in the group. The effect often seems to be just as strong for positive change as negative change, probably due to how difficult it can be to tell the two apart before it's too late.
But if we are able, we ourselves have an important choice to make — to either try and stay one step ahead of the consensus, or else be consumed, compartmentalized and sedated by a herd mentality. I'm not saying there's a right choice to be made there, but I know which one I'd choose.
---
-ATHEISM vs. DEISM-
Just a thought: blindly being convinced, without any doubt, and without incontrovertible evidence, that THERE IS NO GOD is just as fearfully stupid, socially/psychologically dangerous, and ultimately nonsensical as blindly being convinced without any doubt that THERE IS A GOD.
By definition one cannot prove or disprove God exists. If we proved he/she/it existed it wouldn't be God. So lengthy debates on the subject are at best tantamount to theological/philosophical masturbation; at worst there can end up being a hell of a lot of self-deception going on.
"Try telling that to the Xtians,"
Yes, I know.
All I'm saying is that if you flat out deny the existence of God, you're asking for trouble from those with the diametrically opposite viewpoint, and you won't have a logical leg to stand on. Barring personal amusement or post-Xtianity catharsis, it's kinda futile.
***
In a nutshell:
Xtianity and its notions of God seem to be very obviously manipulative B.S. when contrasted with the relative sanity offered by Science. But still, denying the possibility of the existence of 'the infinite' and then whole heartedly championing a mechanistic Victorian religion in it's place is, by it's own rules, just 'bad science' (just as pretty much 99.9999% of Jeebus freaks are, by their own rules bad xtians').
If anything, these thoughts are a call for vigilance. In the 'modern' world where god is either dying or dead already, the doctrine of Science, wielded by the unscrupulous and manipulative, is gradually beginning to offer the same bogus carrot religion did to the many fearful and confused among us:
Sound familiar?
---
Tom, 21, UK
Hail Eris! D
I really love this website! - many thanks to everyone here for not suffering in silence and reminding me how un-alone I am as an ex-Xtian. Having eagerly digested lots of the juicy philosophical debate on exchristian.net, I feel compelled to contribute some thoughts that may be relevant for some to a couple of the more popular topics here on site.
Disclaimer: I have to admit that personally I feel quite strongly about some of these things, and my enthusiasm may come through in a slightly assertive writing style at times, but let me assure you I'm not trying to convert anyone (and if I do convert someone they've seriously missed the point!) These are just thoughts, intended to inspire thoughts, and any implications of value judgments are for the most part unintentional, but left in to keep things interesting and to preserve the original flow of said thoughts.
Just see what -you- think...
***
I II III
I. Having only just left the relative comforts of blind faith in one thing, it is all too easy to jump in feet first with blind faith in the next vaguely believable thing that comes along — think spiritual 'rebounding'.
II. Leaving the spiritual and intellectual confines of the church can feel like a massive 'awakening', but (following that analogy) after such a heavy night it can be so tempting to fall asleep at the bus stop and miss the journey you were previously dreaming of.
III. An escape from oppression/depression/hell/whatever into freedom/happiness/heaven/whatever doesn't end at debunking Xtianity (though it's as good a start as any!).
---
RELIGION vs. SCIENCE
a familiar story?
1. Religion vs. Science
2. Science wins (obviously!)
3. Science claims Religion's place
4. Science becomes Religion
5. repeat from 1.
Science is deep down just as much of a religion as all the others. In it's purest form it is the religion of CHANGE, and as such is wholly commendable as far as I'm concerned. However, in a less refined sense it exhibits many of the blindness and arrogance of the less credible religions:
When pitted against other's 'stupid beliefs', Science is often fought for just as fervently, and some of it's followers seem to really enjoy convincing themselves (and others) they have the monopoly on truth (or as they call it "fact"). But under the wrong conditions it will inevitably lead to just as much of a rigid, mechanistic, impersonal and pointless an existence as Xtianity.
Once you've got your head out of your ass it's pretty easy to satisfactorily debunk a lot of the Bibles rambling narrative - after all, it's only one book's worth of information; checking it out shouldn't take too long.
But compared with Xtianity, the doctrinal material of Science is so broad and often so esoteric that it would take a ridiculously long time to satisfactorily check absolutely everythingin person. Despite this, for many the assumption is that Science doesn't need checking, that it's assertions can just be accepted by the layman as gospel.
In all its logical glory, Science is simply a vast, mostly useful collection of suppositions upon suppositions upon theories about uncertainties that it's often easiest to treat as 'fact' but are basically a 'best fit' thing. Yes certain suppositions provide useful marker points or hand/foot holds for getting things done, and are often empirically more or less on the money, but that doesn't mean to say that they are the outright and absolute 'truth'.
We can lay Scientific theories over reality in our mind, but they are not reality itself:
"The map is not the territory" [Alfred Korzybski]
By this logic, perhaps the closest human beings can get to the REALITY that Science appears to be attempting to usurp would be through experiencing something you can feel through your own senses and/or interpret with your own mind.
If we as a species are ever going to get to the bottom of things, we need to avoid atomizing ourselves through our own stupidity. I reckon it's gonna to be up to each individual person — not a god, not religious leaders, not politicians, not scientists, not family values, not peer pressures — to make of reality what he or she will and to take responsibility for that highly individual choice regarding 'the truth'.
When leadership-types say, "This is how it is," we should all be rebuking their blinding assertions with, "Maybe. Let us find out for ourselves what we can and get back to you on that", instead of just nodding in compliance then defending that leader's B.S. as if it was our own.
Knowing the volumes of a pseudo-religious entity like Science will never be as satisfactory as the actual experience of reality — without first-hand experience, it is just THEORY, and if it was clearly presented as such there would probably be less of a problem with scientific religiosity. i.e.:
"Current studies so far, using the best equipment available at the time, appear to be showing, in the majority of cases, while under lab conditions, that this might be the way this works."
Of course, such wordplay quickly becomes absurd and unreadable, so a degree of shorthand inevitably becomes involved. Then things often get even more condensed. So, what we end up with is some "Statements of fact" which was derived from the reduced shorthand of a complex theory that took many years to research and check, and that realistically requires a whole bookshelf chock full of paperwork to properly explain and understand. All that's left to most of us is a single paragraph, phrase, or sound byte, not something the creator of the theory would have wanted.
It worries me to see how often scientific approximations so rapidly become "This is how it is!" in the minds of those distant to the source of a particular scientific theory. Eyes become closed to any conflicting information which should be taken into account, investigated, and maybe even used to advance a theory into something even closer to reality.
If the insidious mechanisms and metaphysical stupidities exemplified by Xtianity are ever going to become a thing of the past, we need to be careful not to let our guard down; As a catalyst for change and growth is great, but I get a very uneasy feeling about the way Science is used by leadership types to convince others to do as they want, and I worry I may be already seeing more people falling for it than for Xtianity.
Large groups of humans have always had a way of 'normalizing' themselves, subverting and consuming the 'pure' and diluting it with meaninglessness. It's probably a safety mechanism of sorts that aims to totally neutralize anything that might cause change in the group. The effect often seems to be just as strong for positive change as negative change, probably due to how difficult it can be to tell the two apart before it's too late.
But if we are able, we ourselves have an important choice to make — to either try and stay one step ahead of the consensus, or else be consumed, compartmentalized and sedated by a herd mentality. I'm not saying there's a right choice to be made there, but I know which one I'd choose.
---
-ATHEISM vs. DEISM-
Just a thought: blindly being convinced, without any doubt, and without incontrovertible evidence, that THERE IS NO GOD is just as fearfully stupid, socially/psychologically dangerous, and ultimately nonsensical as blindly being convinced without any doubt that THERE IS A GOD.
"God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive." [Ayn Rand]
By definition one cannot prove or disprove God exists. If we proved he/she/it existed it wouldn't be God. So lengthy debates on the subject are at best tantamount to theological/philosophical masturbation; at worst there can end up being a hell of a lot of self-deception going on.
"Try telling that to the Xtians,"
Yes, I know.
All I'm saying is that if you flat out deny the existence of God, you're asking for trouble from those with the diametrically opposite viewpoint, and you won't have a logical leg to stand on. Barring personal amusement or post-Xtianity catharsis, it's kinda futile.
***
In a nutshell:
Xtianity and its notions of God seem to be very obviously manipulative B.S. when contrasted with the relative sanity offered by Science. But still, denying the possibility of the existence of 'the infinite' and then whole heartedly championing a mechanistic Victorian religion in it's place is, by it's own rules, just 'bad science' (just as pretty much 99.9999% of Jeebus freaks are, by their own rules bad xtians').
If anything, these thoughts are a call for vigilance. In the 'modern' world where god is either dying or dead already, the doctrine of Science, wielded by the unscrupulous and manipulative, is gradually beginning to offer the same bogus carrot religion did to the many fearful and confused among us:
"Here is a world of clear cut, externally mediated concepts — rules you can live by so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions... Here, let us show you how to make the total chaos surrounding you seem fair and rational... That'll be $50 please..."
Sound familiar?
---
Tom, 21, UK
Hail Eris! D
You speak of suppositions and scientific theories as if they are pulled out of thin air. They aren't; they're founded on evidence, observation, and experimentation. After exhaustive collection of data, theories are formed. Scientific findings and theories are then presented to peers of the scientists behind the theories for review. Results have to be reproducible. Finally, when all of these hurdles have been surmounted, a theory can be accepted.
That's not the end of it, though. When new data is presented or a new perspective on interpretations of data is presented to scientists, the process begins anew. Older ideas can be thrown out or revised in the light of new information.
Contrast this with religion. The religious attitude can be summed up by the bumper sticker I sometimes see, "God says it, I believe it, that settles it." No room for debate, no room for change -- God made the world in six days and that's that, or homosexuals are bad, and that's that, etc.
you science does not hold all the
answers...yet. But I think a good
comparison would be to take a current science textbook, and compare it to one from say, 75 years ago. While some of the information would be the same, the current book would show tremendous advances in knowledge. The Bible has not changed in over 2,000 years and offers only the hang-ups, fears, and stories of a long-dead civilization. As chuckyjesus
pointed out science is about the
search for evidence, along with
observation and experimentation; it might be wrong at times, but
that misinformation can change as
scientific methods advance.
Like you, I cannot say with absolute certainty there is not a God; but I also cannot say with
absolute certainty there is one. My
life experiences would lead me to
strongly believe there isn't one.
And since dumping Christianity years ago, I know I am a much better person for it.
Tom, I don't agree with your overall evaluation of science. Nonetheless,
you might enjoy George Johnson's book Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order. In it he discusses the edifice of knowledge which is science.
blindly being convinced, without any doubt, and without incontrovertible evidence, that THERE IS NO GOD, is just as fearfully stupid, socially/psychologically dangerous, and ultimately nonsensical as blindly being convinced without any doubt that THERE IS A GOD.
A couple of things...
First, to suggest that one is, or can be, "blindly convinced" of the non-existence of something, is contradictory, and simply a poor attempt at logic. You do not logically ask for evidence for a negative; that is the logical fallacy known as negative proof.
Secondly, while true, we cannot know, in an absolute sense, that something for which there is not even an objectively agreed upon definition, does not exist(which would mean it has zero "identity"), we can, however, say that a certain "thing" does not exist, and cannot exist, if it has an objective definition/indentity, and that definition/identity contradicts logic, and thus, is inconsistant with reality.
To illustrate "non-identity", if someone tells me that a "whatchamajig" has taken up residence in their garage, I would first have to know what said "thing" is, in order to confirm, or deny it. While it's true that I cannot make an absolute statement that said "thing" - whatever it is - does not exist---by equal consideration, if I simply say that I don't believe it until someone defines it, and provides evidence for it, it would be fallacious reasoning to conclude that I am "blindly convinced" of its nonexistence. That's just silly.
The same holds true of "God". If you cannot even put into objective terms what said "thing" is - and while it may be true that I cannot say said "thing" does not exist, absolutely - it would be fallacious reasoning to suggest, should I proclaim nonbelief in it, that I am "blindly convinced" of its nonexistence, or that I'm being "fearfully stupid". To the contrary, I think that suggestion is quite stupid.
Really understanding what it all means does take time, and without that time, the "relief" will be conditional.
Science is *not* faith, and people who claim otherwise do not understand it, or choose to represent what they don't like. Science constantly confirms itself in experience, which is what every other form of ism does not do.
Yes, we the general public cannot understand all of science in significant detail, but we can see enough of how it works in nearly every part of our lives to believe that it does work. And we can trace the reality of science to any depth we care to at any time we want. As literally millions have done and attest to. And we can see the difference between the real practioners of science and the fakers of it in many ways.
If there were a God as described in the Bible or the Koran, we would see His existance in violations of the regular rules of nature we observe. We see no such violations. We instead see a remarkable constancy of nature in time and space extending across the universe as we can observe it. The very fact that we can write equations describing gravity or even quantum mechanics tells us there is no such thing as a God as described in those otherwise venerable books.
Science has indeed overtaken religion in its descriptions of the natural world. Religion is helpless to prevent this. We no longer require supernatural explanations on thunder or lightning or hail or earthquakes or floods. We understand how these arise from natural processes.
To be meaningful, religion needs to accept science and somehow rise above it. That requires accepting the Bible as a collection of myths, and trying to deal with concepts like spirituality while accomodating the real, physical universe that all of us experience that is best described by science.
Many people have "faith" in RD but don't worry...they don't bow down and pray to RD. Neither is anyone likely to kill for the glory of RD. Be sensible.
Most people understand that science corrects itself - it is constantly updated and by its nature proves its own theories wrong from time to time. You can't really expect much more of it. The dodgy part comes when deciding who will impart the knowledge revealed by science. Same as when the priests were the only ones who could impart knowledge of god to the plebians. It's the people in power who we can't trust with knowledge.
To put it one way, the Null Hypothesis states that, "This is what happens when there's nothing happening." Or, "This is the expected result of this experiment simply as a result of things as they are."
Ask your Xtian friends, "What would life look like, how would it be different, if there were no god[s]?" Because the fact is that life would look exactly the way it does look today. To claim that life looks today the way it does as a function of the "fact" that there is/are god[s] is to add an element that can be entirely done without. An additional fractional multiplier in which everything in the numerator can be cancelled out with everything in the denominator.
But once you sign your convictions over to this ultimate dummy variable, it becomes very hard to see just what a gratuitous act of perversity you have committed. You have signed on to neurosis, and neurosis comes complete with its own defence mechanisms for preserving itself.
The one thing I hated most about being a Christian was the we-against-the world mentality, the we-are-right and they-are-wrong indoctrination.
As an ex-Christian, I now refuse to assert that I know it all about anything, because life has taught me that the very minute I think I know everything about something, that second I become ignorant about that which I claim expertise about.
So, in accordance with my post-Christian view of the world, I am going to affirm that, while not every ex-Christian or atheist has become religious-like in regards to science, many have.
Because it isn't an all-or-nothing deal. You can never say NOBODY or ALL. Unless, or course, you've met everybody, which I don't believe anyone has.
I agree! So, whoever's claiming to "know everything about something", either on this thread, or anywhere else, had better simmer down.(j/k)
In the mean time, the common denominator is that we, the members here, agree that Christianity is false. We all have our personal reasons for how we've arrived "here". I have my reasons; another guy/gal has theirs. One thing, however, that is not my personal opinion, is that the Christian doctrine defines its deity with attributes that are philosophically inconsistant with logic. You know the rest.
Notwithstanding, I have never gone on record to say that some other god-like "thingy" does not/cannot exist. Again, I merely say I don't believe it. There's a vast difference between the two.
boom'(Agnostic Atheist)
Issac Newton took that further and derived the mathematical formulas to describe this phenomenon called gravity. His formulas work every time down here on earth. No need for faith or religion. That is science in its purest form.
Yes, scientific theories do change, as we saw when Einstein entered the scene and unwrapped another layer of this thing called gravity. He improved the theory of gravity so it would account for really big things out in space. Did he negate what Newton showed to be true? No, he just further explained some things that Newton could not have understood.
Will someone else come along and improve on Einstein's theories? Of course. But they will never overturn the fact that when I drop a rock, the damn thing falls.
Science is about describing reality as best we can, improving the picture as we go forward. It does not rely on trusting what some guy wrote hundreds of years ago. If I doubt what Newton wrote, I can design an experiment to test if it is true or not. I do not need to trust his book.
That is the difference between religion and science. Science does NOT rely on faith. Well, wait a second, I guess science would rely on faith for those too busy or uninterested to check the data for themselves.
Chuckyjesus, carlk and others already said this same thing better than me, but I wanted to get my two cents in.
- Lance
Great analogy, Lance. And if I may add, I fail to see how one could reasonably be labeled "fearfully stupid", simply because they didn't allow room for the possibility that rocks may one day in the future not fall to the ground, when dropped.
Here's a minor correction on what I said previously, regarding this topic:
One thing, however, that transcends my personal opinion, is that the Christian doctrine defines its deity with attributes that are philosophically inconsistant with logic. You know the rest.
Of course, "the rest" being, that no such entity can exist, as defined by Christian doctrine. If Christians want to insist their bibelgod exists, and is imperfect and subject to flawed human emotions/characteristics...i.e..pettiness, jealousy, insecurity, rage, vengefulness, vindictiveness, prejudice, racism, and on and on? Then fine...I wish them the best of luck in "Heaven" with their pathelogical freak of a "God".
your arguments against science and atheism are prime examples of the Straw Man fallacy. You give your own definition of science which is totally different from that of the majority of scientists and your own definition of atheism which is totally different from that of the majority of atheists and then knock down those straw men with your arguments.
If you wish to attack science for what it is, you need to use the definitions of scientists, not your own flawed definition. Likewise, for atheism you need to look at the definition of philosophical atheists and not your straw man definition.
Your definitions of science and atheism look like the straw man definitions of creationists and xtians. Are you sure you are not a stealth xtian apologist?
After reading the article, which I see was removed by the author itself. I saw you wrote exactly what I wanted to convey, only much better than I could. I just wanted to say "Hear Hear!" Being and atheist does not mean I am void of being open to ideas, or investigating the great mysteries of life. Being an atheist simply means my mind is wide open, always questioning and thus open to new and exciting endless possibilities while refusing to believe religious doctrine and Dogma based on fear and books written by men.
Godlessandhappy
You said everything I wanted to say, only much better than I could convey.
As atheists we are not closed minds, void of any meaningful existence. Our minds are open like a sponge, free to think, ponder, study and believe anything we want while refusing to buy into religious doctrine and dogma based on control and fear -- created by men stifling free thinking while promoting ignorance. A wordy attempt by the Author of the article to quell his own doubts and fears. His removal of the article seems to me, he is just not ready to be free but doubts his own accusations. Godless - Free - Happy.
I got some fairly out of control issues going on at the moment; I have God's gang to thank for at least some of that, but I've kinda known since I was very young that I must just be a little weird in the head or something... my experience of being seems to involve an overwhelming amount of internal processing that makes experience of everything more intense than what might be closer to the middle of the bell curve. I often find it difficult to effectively say or do anything, feeling overwhelmed just sitting doing nothing.
That article was written in a pretty dark moment, and if I had slept on it and read it in the morning I would probably have just deleted it. Seen as it's out there now, it's probably best treated as a first-person-viewpoint horror story of what can happen to your mind if it just isn't strong enough to take the split from Xtianity without suffering serious damage.
I left the church about 5 years ago, after several years of intensifying emotional distress and serious doubt due to the inconsistencies and hypocrisies I was seeing everywhere. All the people were social misfits, bullies and pushovers, histrionic weirdos and misfiring dead-but-don't-know-it zombies, and those were the same people who educated me in their tiny little fundamentalist church school. Everything seems to have gotten progressively worse inside and out since I left them, but obviously I can't go back.
Lately when I stop trying to please others simply to make my own existence less painful, I can't avoid feeling completely pointless; totally faithless; I can't seem to trust or believe anything or anyone for fear of being coerced and used. I have to accept that my abnormal levels of sensitivity make me an easy target.
I often find myself in a kind of solipsistsic nightmare of complete uncertainty of everything and existence seems intensely futile
At times I feel like a singularity with nothing to percieve itself with...
At times I feel nothing.
There's a distinct lack of any workable rules or values I can bring myself to trust for any worthwhile period of time, even my own.
I can barely even read or hear anything without thinking to myself "what is their angle? what do they want? what are they trying to get me to do? how does it benefit them?"
If step back and look at everything I can see inside and everything I can see outside I can't help feeling deeply disgusted by it all.
I just hope that maybe I can keep convincing myself to stick around long enough to perhaps grow to become slightly more stable - maybe a 'troubled creative type' or something similar... but if I'm honest I don't have any hope for much more than that. "Some of the best minds were the most troubled" I keep telling myself, and for now it seems to be stopping me sinking much lower.
I regret posting the article, and I'll probably regret posting this, but what have I got to lose; it's not as if anyone's gona track me down and give me a slap for whining on about unquantifiable, unscientific things like how I feel.
and besides, this is kinda like an ex-Xtian support site, no?
Tom C/21/UK
That's the point! Rave on.
I’m new to this site, the comments are very interesting, perhaps I can end some of the conflict between science and religion.
First of all, I will lay that if there were a creator, then there would be no conflict between the creator and what was created, everything would be perfect for the purpose it was created for.
Science when correct, is truth, it is knowledge of the material world. Spiritual knowledge when correct is also truth and truth can never conflict with truth. So where have you gone wrong?
You were lead to believe in spiritual knowledge that was not truth, and your questioning and hurt, rightly turned you away from it. All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.
It fell for me, and I faced and was content with my mortality. I found a perfect peace in accepting who I was, and I still chose to remain a loving person. I needed nothing.
You now hate the idea of god because it was not the true God and you hate religion because of the hurt it caused you and now you have nothing but science to give meaning to your life. You know that there is more to your life than this.
If you type into your search, spiritual evolution the veil is torn, you will find that there is no conflict between the spiritual and science.
I found the true creator, and I can tell you, there is no greater scientist and no-one loves you more, you were never meant to be servants and you were always meant to find the truth with logic, reasoning and questioning. We are free, eternal and indestructible souls, you don’t need religion, you need love and truth.
Kind regards
William
I'm going to address each of your points:
You say:
Hi guys,
I’m new to this site, the comments are very interesting, perhaps I can end some of the conflict between science and religion.
I say:
Ok, fine.
You say:
First of all, I will lay that if there were a creator, then there would be no conflict between the creator and what was created, everything would be perfect for the purpose it was created for.
I say:
I can't speak for a "creator" that would have the power to create a universe and everything in it, but, I you would think that what you say would be true..so I don't disagree with what you postulate.
You say:
Science when correct, is truth, it is knowledge of the material world. Spiritual knowledge when correct is also truth and truth can never conflict with truth. So where have you gone wrong?
I say:
So in a nutshell, you're saying "truth is truth". So, the Flying Spaghetti Monster truth is truth, The Invisible Pink Unicorn truth is truth, got it. But, you're introducing something called "Spiritual Knowledge" as its something concrete. I have no evidence at all of any type of spiritual knowledge. It would seem that this spiritual knowledge you refer to is something that is intangible and is more of a "feeling" that would vary from individual to individual. Also, thanks for for getting ready to explain to us where we've gone wrong. From what I can tell you're being quite sincere, I look forward to your explanation.
You say:
You were lead to believe in spiritual knowledge that was not truth, and your questioning and hurt, rightly turned you away from it. All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.
I say:
So what is this spiritual knowledge that you have that IS the truth? Why are you holding it from us? How do we know that we are turning away from the truth if we don't know what the truth really is? Everyone seems to have a different version and is claiming theirs is correct.
Are we just supposed to take your word for it that there is some truth out there and we're all just turning away from it? What evidence do you have that YOUR truth is the right "truth"?
As far as religion being polluted by man's selfish desires, I think a better description is that religion was CREATED because of mans selfish desires...and I hope you're right that it will eventually fall :)
You say:
It fell for me, and I faced and was content with my mortality. I found a perfect peace in accepting who I was, and I still chose to remain a loving person. I needed nothing.
I say:
I am slightly skeptical that you need nothing. You seem to need this god belief but you may be saying you don't need the religion that comes along with it....
You say:
You now hate the idea of god because it was not the true God and you hate religion because of the hurt it caused you and now you have nothing but science to give meaning to your life. You know that there is more to your life than this.
I say:
I personally don't hate the idea of a god, I just don't see any compelling or convincing evidence for a god. Science doesn't give meaning to someones life (unless that's your life's work of course) Science is just the best way we have to determine how the real world works. That's all that I have evidence for (the real world).
To correct you; NO, I DO NOT know that there is more to life than this. That is a pretty bold statement and you should speak for yourself.
You say:
If you type into your search, spiritual evolution the veil is torn, you will find that there is no conflict between the spiritual and science.
I say:
I have really no idea what you're talking about here...sorry.
You say:
I found the true creator, and I can tell you, there is no greater scientist and no-one loves you more, you were never meant to be servants and you were always meant to find the truth with logic, reasoning and questioning. We are free, eternal and indestructible souls, you don’t need religion, you need love and truth.
I say:
So you've found the true creator? Where is he/she/it? How exactly did you find she/he/it? Let me know as I'd like to look myself and have a few words with him/she/it/whatever.
I don't want to find this thing in my mind either. I want something that other people can experience along with me....
Take care,
Mike S
Kind regards
William
Try this one:
NOTHING, refers to that which does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot be perceived because it does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot have an affect.
There can be no affect without a cause.
Nothing can be created, from nothing.
Therefore, there was always something.
That something is the Source, it existed before the creator.
or this:
Before the beginning was the Source.
In the beginning was the Word (knowledge)
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God (knowledge became consciousness).
The Source became conscious through knowledge created by chaos and then the conscious Source created order.
There is the unconscious Source that we refer to as The Source and there is the conscious Source that we refer to as God.
NB: The source always existed; God had a beginning.
or how about the definition of Love, i.e:
My security and pleasure, lies in your security and pleasure. My loneliness is ended by your companionship.
or this:
Everything we do is ultimately done for the self.
Note:
What I write is not an imposition of beliefs, it is a statement for consideration by your free will.
Before you attack me, I forgive you!! :-) I am well aware that while the soul sleeps, the animal reigns. Pat pat!! hug :-)
If you have any scientific questions concerning the Creator or creation, I'd be pleased to impose my beliefs on you! :-)
Love and kind regards
William
Hello there,
So, you find the comments "interesting", and/or, thought-provoking, but evidently, not to the point of conceding any validity to our conclusions about Christianity.(Not that that is entirely shocking)
Guest...perhaps I can end some of the conflict between science and religion.
Perhaps! Let's find out....
You said...First of all, I will [say] that if there were a creator, then there would be no conflict between the creator and what was created, everything would be perfect for the purpose it was created for.
So, there's no conflict between the "Creator" and "evil", I take it? I mean, if all that exists was "created", and if "evil" exists, then by your very own premise, "evil" was "created", and it has a "purpose". I suppose that would also go for birth defects, tapeworms, earthquakes, and a mile-long list of other things the are undesirable, and seemingly useless, but holding to your premise, were "created" with a "purpose" in mind. Is that a fair assessment?
And BTW, if the "Creator" wasn't "created", then I guess that would mean that said "Creator" doesn't have a "purpose", correct? "God" is unintended, then?
William...Science when correct, is truth, it is knowledge of the material world.
Yes!
William...Spiritual knowledge when correct is also truth and truth can never conflict with truth.
Oops, I see a "minor" problem.
Okay, for argument's sake, I'll assume that a "spirit" is immaterial..i.e..meta-physical, or, beyond physical. If that's the case, then I wonder how one would determine which "Spiritual knowledge" is "Truth", and which is false. Can you help me out with that?
William...So where have you gone wrong?
I've gone wrong in lots of places, but one place I've really gone wrong, is listening to people who believe that they have a monopoly on Ultimate Truth, while not having one shred of objective evidence to substantiate their claims. Trust me, I won't make that mistake anymore.
William continues...You were lead to believe in spiritual knowledge that was not truth, and your questioning and hurt, rightly turned you away from it.
Again, my question: How does a physical being with a material brain, determine which metaphysical/immaterial concepts are "truth", and which are not? Until you can delineate in clear terms how this plays out, it's really pointless to keep making such statements.
William...All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.
For the time being, I'll agree with that!
Now, oblige me on one thing: Name me one religious document - meaning, any "Holy" literature that consists of paper, ink, and text of any sort, that was engineered and penned by someone other than "man"---who, as you say, is innately "selfish".
William...It fell for me, and I faced and was content with my mortality. I found a perfect peace in accepting who I was, and I still chose to remain a loving person. I needed nothing.
Fine; if you say so.
William...You now hate the idea of god because it was not the true God..
Incorrect. I do NOT "hate the idea of god because it was not the true god". I despise the concept of "God", because - and this just one of several reasons - it gives people an excuse to deny reality, and responsibility.
William...and you hate religion because of the hurt it caused you and now you have nothing but science to give meaning to your life.
Again, incorrect. Yes, "science" is the best method for determining mind-independent reality..i.e..truth, however, not all "truth" is necessarily meaningful, nor particularly comforting. Meaning in life is what you make it; there is no intrinsic "meaning" to life.
William...You know that there is more to your life than this.
Yes, that's right; I do...as I just explained.
William...If you type into your search, spiritual evolution the veil is torn, you will find that there is no conflict between the spiritual and science.[bold added]
That statement is categorically false. On the contrary, there is not one scrap of scientific evidence for anything "spiritual".
William...I found the true creator..
Really? And who might that be? Allah? Hachacyum?
William...and I can tell you, there is no greater scientist and no-one loves you more..
Source?
William...you were always meant to find the truth with logic, reasoning and questioning.
Phew!..in that case, good...because I've found that there's no logical reason to believe that invisible, supernatural beings exist, or that my "personality" will float out of my physical body when I expire.
William...We are free, eternal and indestructible souls, you don’t need religion, you need love and truth.
I have love, thanks....and until someones offers evidence for anything "supernatural", I have truth in nature. So, I reckon that I'm set, then.
Shalom!
Thanks for you intelligent and courteous response.
You say:
I have no evidence at all of any type of spiritual knowledge. It would seem that this spiritual knowledge you refer to is something that is intangible and is more of a "feeling" that would vary from individual to individual. Also, thanks for getting ready to explain to us where we've gone wrong. From what I can tell you're being quite sincere, I look forward to your explanation.
I say:
I would define truth as that which is left standing when all other possibilities fall, or that which is real and unchangeable. You speak of spiritual knowledge as ‘feeling’. I agree, because we can experience nothing (spiritual or physical) without feeling. All awareness is feeling, even self awareness. Of course I will give you a full explanation of what I claim. I didn’t accept less, and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to.
You say:
….. What evidence do you have that YOUR truth is the right "truth"? As far as religion being polluted by man's selfish desires, I think a better description is that religion was CREATED because of mans selfish desires...and I hope you're right that it will eventually fall :)
I say:
I am at present putting the knowledge I have on my website www.love-themeaningoflife.com
As you can imagine, there is quite a lot, and I am trying to convey it in as simple terms as I can, so everyone can understand. Truth ends all conflict, it’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle. All the pieces fit perfectly with the rest. I guess you’ve already found a few pieces that didn’t fit. I don’t claim that the truth is mine it was given to me by a greater teacher. It’s for all of us. So I can take no credit, but I do take responsibility for what I teach.
The last thing that I would do is ask you not to question what I teach, in fact questioning is a requirement. Truth does not need evidence from anyone, it stands as its own witness.
Religion will fall because of truth.
You say:
I am slightly sceptical that you need nothing. You seem to need this god belief but you may be saying you don't need the religion that comes along with it....
I say:
I truly needed nothing, not even physical life, but now because of what I’ve learnt, I want to bring peace and happiness and an end to suffering in the world. Why? Because I know we are all family and why we are here.
You say:
I personally don't hate the idea of a god, I just don't see any compelling or convincing evidence for a god. Science doesn't give meaning to someone’s life (unless that's your life's work of course) Science is just the best way we have to determine how the real world works. That's all that I have evidence for (the real world).
To correct you; NO, I DO NOT know that there is more to life than this. That is a pretty bold statement and you should speak for yourself.
I say:
Do you believe that laying down your life for someone, or even risking it, would be rational and logical if that person was not a friend or family? Or do you think it would be irrational and illogical? How would an atheist see an act of sacrifice by someone, for someone they do not know? Are such acts to be defined as a mental defects? If you ever felt empathy or compassion then you know that there is more to life than this. Take a look at my website if you require proof of the spiritual
My cryptic sentence was for you to type Spiritual Evolution into google to find my website.
You say:
So you've found the true creator? Where is he/she/it? How exactly did you find she/he/it? Let me know as I'd like to look myself and have a few words with him/she/it/whatever.
I don't want to find this thing in my mind either. I want something that other people can experience along with me....
I say:
The most obvious is sometimes the hardest to see. The Creator is everything in existence, check the website.
Love and kind regards
William
Truth ends all conflict, it’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle. All the pieces fit perfectly with the rest. I guess you’ve already found a few pieces that didn’t fit. I don’t claim that the truth is mine it was given to me by a greater teacher. It’s for all of us. So I can take no credit, but I do take responsibility for what I teach
---
Well folks, I guess once AGAIN we have a blessed prophet within our midst, who will surely enlighten each of us; if we will just only follow his mantra.
Boomslang,
Have you by chance been keeping count of how many 'true xtians' and 'truth givers' and prophets of god, that we've had come visit us just this past year?
I say it's gosh darn about time we finally were paid a visit from someone who understands the spiritual world and can teach us all about it.
Heck, I'm all set to break-out my antique seance kit, so I can finally have those conversations with my dead family spirits, and of course, this creator god to-- while I'm at it.
Jim Arvo and Stronger,
Do you think William actually knows more about this spiritual world than our beloved Fred the Turtle?
Gee, I guess our god mascot, Fred, will now get second billing in the god hierarchy.
William,
If this was still the 1960's, I would have to suggest to you, to cut back on your LSD trips.
I just cant wait to see this evidence of this spiritual world and "great teacher" from said world !!!
ATF (Who took a peek at William's website and now wonders which planet he comes from)
My views on Christianity:
Having just finished a year long debate with an American radical Evangelist, who I virtually wiped the floor with, I think my credentials are safe.
The Bible:
OT: a little truth mixed with a lot of deceit for the purpose of a few hypocrites attaining great wealth and power over the less intelligent. It is a book that contains some of the worst atrocities in mankind’s history. It is illogical and contradictory, and it is opposed to Love and denies just about every achievement that modern man has made.
NT: Based on words of Love and truth, but twisted so badly that good and evil are indistinguishable, most of the original teachings have either been lost, destroyed or declared as heresy. This has resulted in yet another control system, based on fear and guilt that profits only the few hypocrites. Shame, the world might have been a different place. The church is now run by child abusers, multi millionaires and the poor deceived souls that are indoctrinated with deceit. It truly is the place of the abomination of desolation (without love).
Both books are multi-interpretable which has ensured their survival this far (bullshit baffles brains). The deceived can only pass on deceit.
Having said that, I forgive them all because like all of us, they were blinded by the world. How much longer will the world have to suffer?
I will address the rest of your post in my next post, but for now, here is a poem I wrote soon after I received my knowledge.
Children of the Broken Dream
Oh children of the broken dream
Victims of an evil scheme
Filled with fear and shame and guilt
On your broken souls their empire was built
They told you what you must believe
So the voice within, you had to leave
Though shalt not kill you’ve heard it said
And yet they left a trail of dead
Love your enemies, they said to you
Do as I say, not as I do
You were born a sinner they did say
Follow us we know the way
Follow blindly and you will be free
Yet the blind are those who cannot see
They said give all you have to those in need
And they took all you had for their power and greed
Their temples they built regardless of cost
And outside their doors are the cold, hungry and lost
Someone paid for your sins, they tell you with pride
But for those who’ve not heard, salvations denied
For all who have sinned both greatly and small
Just believe in their word, one payment for all
No need for hurt as repentance for sin
No need for the truth or love’s word that’s within
You thought you’d find love but they led you astray
From the one who was the Life, the Truth and the Way
If you truly have love then salvations within
So listen to that voice and let your journey begin
Love is all that is good and is true
And there is fulfilment and forgiveness for you
Search in your soul, not on earth or above
For there you’ll find heaven and God who is Love
Now, back to the discussion...
William, "True Christian" guest, is back with...You[Mike] speak of spiritual knowledge as ‘feeling’. I agree, because we can experience nothing (spiritual or physical) without feeling.
Forgive me, but I have to see this as equivocation. "Feeling" can mean "emotion", "physical touch", or "intuition". The three are not mutually inclusive, however. I can experience the "physical" touch of a loved one, without necessarily relying on "feelings" to "sense" it.
William said...Religion will fall because of truth
and previous to that, he said...
All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.
I responded to the former, with:
Repeat: Name me one "Holy" document that you consider to be non-religious, that wasn't engineered, and/or, penned by "man" - man, who is innately "selfish", according to you.
William continues..I truly needed nothing, not even physical life, but now because of what I’ve learnt, I want to bring peace and happiness and an end to suffering in the world. Why? Because I know we are all family and why we are here.
Aside from our respective biological parents engaging in sexual intercourse, why are we here? Please enlighten me, preferably with some objective evidence.
William...How would an atheist see an act of sacrifice by someone, for someone they do not know? Are such acts to be defined as a mental defects?
Here's an Atheist's perspective for you...
If someone wants to pay an alleged "debt" of mine, I would expect a few things:
- Firstly, I'd want to be sure that it's a "debt" that I incurred, NOT someone else. I certainly wouldn't want someone to pay for something that I had NO free will in, nor would I want to be charged for it.
- Secondly, if it's a crime I confess to, or it can be proven that I'm the offender, then I'd expect them to ask me if I mind if they pay it, because if they did, they'd soon find out that I have the integrity to take responsibility for my OWN "crimes", thank you very much.... again, provided that the punishment fits the crime.
William...The Creator is everything in existence, check the website.
The Creator is Allah. How do I know it's true?... "check the website": http://submission.org/God/
Have you by chance been keeping count of how many 'true xtians' and 'truth givers' and prophets of god, that we've had come visit us just this past year?
Isn't it astounding?
Boom: So, there's no conflict between the "Creator" and "evil", I take it? I mean, if all that exists was "created", and if "evil" exists, then by your very own premise, "evil" was "created", and it has a "purpose". ..And BTW, if the "Creator" wasn't "created", then I guess that would mean that said "Creator" doesn't have a "purpose", correct? "God" is unintended, then?
William: It’s a fair assessment based on the knowledge that you have at the moment. There is no conflict between the Creator and evil. The conflict is between Love and that which is opposed to Love and these only serve to give a choice to the free will of mankind. As you know the material world exists in a state of constant change and all life strives for survival. Evolution is the resulting affect of these things. With so much change in the material world, there are bound to be a mile long list of undesirable things. That is the nature of the material world. If the material world were unchanging there would be no difference between it and the spiritual world, and no need for it. I restate that all things have purpose and are perfect for the purpose they were created for. God was a result of chaos and had no purpose until the creation.
Boom: Oops, I see a "minor" problem. Okay, for argument's sake, I'll assume that a "spirit" is immaterial. i.e. meta-physical, or, beyond physical. If that's the case, then I wonder how one would determine which "Spiritual knowledge" is "Truth", and which is false. Can you help me out with that?
William: The spiritual and material are of the same source but in different forms. There is a right way and a wrong way, one results in no conflict and the other results in conflict, which is destructive. Truth is the way of no conflict.
Boom: I've gone wrong in lots of places, but one place I've really gone wrong, is listening to people who believe that they have a monopoly on Ultimate Truth, while not having one shred of objective evidence to substantiate their claims. Trust me, I won't make that mistake anymore.
William: I for one hope that you don’t go wrong again. I would not try to lead anyone anywhere. I just point a way for you to explore if you wish. There are so many people shouting that they have the truth, how do you think I feel being one of them? I offer what I was given and I ask for nothing. I do not claim or desire to be better than anyone else. What I have is a burden, if you can take it from me, I will return to my contentment before I received it.
Boom: Again, my question: How does a physical being with a material brain, determine which metaphysical/immaterial concepts are "truth", and which are not? Until you can delineate in clear terms how this plays out, it's really pointless to keep making such statements.
William: If you believe that you are no more than a physical body and that there is no creator or afterlife, then all things are permissible to you, what you can get away with that is. Who is to judge what you do? What would be the difference between an animal and a human, except the ability to do more harm? Perhaps when the world comes to deny the spiritual then we will see the true face of atheism, survival of the most powerful and the rest as expendable slaves.
Boom: Name me one religious document - meaning, any "Holy" literature that consists of paper, ink, and text of any sort, that was engineered and penned by someone other than "man"---who, as you say, is innately "selfish".
William: NONE. Now tell me one thing, what has man found in the world of sub-atomics and their present perception of the finite?
Boom: Incorrect. I do NOT "hate the idea of god because it was not the true god". I despise the concept of "God", because - and this just one of several reasons - it gives people an excuse to deny reality, and responsibility.
William: An answer based on your concept of God? Are you saying that what you can’t prove must be unreal? A great deal of science is unproven theory. It just meets the standards of acceptance based on the acquired knowledge of the acceptor. It is science that gives people an excuse to deny peace and freedom (we will all be chipped and vaporised soon because of the religion of science) how irresponsible is that reality?
Boom: Again, incorrect. Yes, "science" is the best method for determining mind-independent reality..i.e..truth, however, not all "truth" is necessarily meaningful, nor particularly comforting. Meaning in life is what you make it; there is no intrinsic "meaning" to life.
William: Science is the ultimate method of control, death and destruction. You say that there is ‘no intrinsic meaning to life’. That makes all life expendable, and everyone for themselves, perhaps you will learn when you become a victim of your doctrine.
Boom: That statement is categorically false. On the contrary, there is not one scrap of scientific evidence for anything "spiritual".
William: There is no scrap of evidence then that there is any point to life or science. Your new god is worse for the world then your old one.
Boom: Really? And who might that be? Allah? Hachacyum?
William: Careful your hurt is showing.
Boom: Source?
William: Check my website.
Boom: I've found that there's no logical reason to believe that invisible, supernatural beings exist, or that my "personality" will float out of my physical body when I expire.
William: We can all sleep safe then, knowing that science is in the hands of those who think like you! We have such a lot to thank science for, nuclear weapons, new viruses, more devices to take away our freedom, a dying planet, the list is ten miles long.
Boom: I have love, thanks....and until someone offers evidence for anything "supernatural", I have truth in nature. So, I reckon that I'm set, then.
William: Is that love or just the fulfilment of selfish desires at a cost to others loss? Oh I forgot its science, does it return your Love?
Is that the nature that science is destroying? Isn’t science just another means of control? I reckon you’re set to reap what you sow.
Having said all that, I still care about you, so don’t forget to question your new religion, you don’t want to make another mistake.
Trying to debunk what you haven’t studied seems rather unscientific.
Love and kind regards
William
Or, perhaps when the world comes to believe that you have "THE TRUTH", humanity will become your doormat to wipe your "holier than thou" feet upon, i.e. control.
Cast aspersions elswhere and pony up some credible evidence for anything supernatural, otherwise some may mistake you for a cult starter with the prerequisite delusions of grandeur.(see that kind of thing goes both ways pal)
Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere words.
But just to give you a little perspective, when I read your ideas and words, what I see is a person who is making up their own religion because they can't handle the thought that there is no afterlife.
Kudos to you for striking out on your own, as most folks are so lazy they just let others make up their religion for them. You have obviously come to the same conclusion as me that organized religion is BS.
However, from my perspective, all you are doing is making it up as you go along. It seems to be working for you, in that you are trying to be a better person, but I feel I can be a better and more loving person if I chuck the whole god concept altogether. I follow the golden rule simply because it works, no need for reward or punishment other than the direct cause and effect of my actions here.
I do applaud your struggle to understand what it means to be a human on this planet. We are all in this struggle together.
A couple questions for you: Is your creator going to send me to hell for not believing in him/her? Will I be rewarded or punished for my thoughts and actions here? Just curious.
Peace.
-Lance
Like a self-rightious, delusional cultist?
I'm right there with you man. My mind is in an eternal mystery where the feelings of love permeate the very existence of the universe. I can feel the love and compassion of the creator coursing through my veins and I want to shout, in a whisper, to the ends of the earth, that I have a purpose. I used to be confused but now I am what I consider controlled recklessness, where I am bursting with being uniquely different but commonly, normal. The angels have come to me too and have bestowed this burden upon me and now it is my mission to climb the spiritual ladder, where I can see -- my eyes have been opened to the truth. Why was it so dark, before? I was blinded by science, where do I belong?
What's in the future, I worry about the world that we live in and I'm worried by all the confusion, the lies I've been reading. I wonder where this madness is leading. Is this a road going nowhere or is someone leading us somewhere? I can't believe we're here for no reason
There must be something we can believe in? Something we can all agree upon, right, William?
If I gave you the truth, would it keep you alive? Though I'm closer to wrong, I'm no further from right and now I'm convinced on the inside that something's wrong with me. No there's nothing you say that can salvage the lie, but I'm trying to keep my intentions disguised.
And now I'm deprived of my conscience and something's got to give. Sometimes you have to dig deep, when problems come near. Why do bad things happen, to good people?
Seems that life is just a constant war between good and evil. To think such problems can arise from minor confrontations, now I'm contemplating, dark clouds over my head. I'm ready to lose my mind but instead, I use my mind and like they say, God works in a mysterious ways. So I pray, remembering the days of my youth, as I prepare to meet my moment of truth. And with that truth I have a purpose and it can be the same purpose for everyone.
The knowledge that I possess makes me feel like I am possessed, but not by demons or poltergeists -- I am possessed by the spirit of knowledge where truth meets love and love meets yourself. In the beginning, there was nothing but one universal, collective consciousness, which people refer to as "Spirit" or "God." Within this one Collective Consciousness are infinite points of consciousness. All things that ever existed in the past, and all things existing now in the present, and all things which will ever exist in the future, currently exists in an eternal spirit form as one of these infinite points of consciousness within the Collective Consciousness. Our spirit is a fractal of God. This means our spirit is both a part of the Whole and the Whole itself. Like a drop of water from the ocean, we are part of the ocean. Like a drop of water from the ocean, the very essence of the ocean is contained within us. Then, at some moment outside of time, came the desire for individuality and self-expression. This led to the creation of the cosmos and souls. The vehicle for our spirit is our soul. In the same way, the vehicle for our soul is our physical body. Our spirit is the eternal part of God. Our soul is a temporary vehicle for our spirit to experience individuality of existence between the physical realm and the spirit realm. The human body evolved from ape-men millions of years ago and it will continues to evolve until it is able do those things which fully evolved people from our past, such as Jesus and Buddha, have achieved. At some point millions of years ago, souls descended upon these ape-men and began influencing to come down out of the trees and eventually form societies. Then souls began inhabiting the bodies of these ape-men. Thus, the dawn of humanity arose on this planet. After death, our soul body leaves our physical body. The physical body decays and is lost forever. As a soul, we can then experience in various soul realms as we did every night on earth in our dreams. While in the soul realms, our soul body is the vehicle for our spirit. Our soul mind functions as our conscious awareness and our spirit mind plays the role of the subconscious mind. Ultimately, we will want to leave the soul realms and enter into the higher spirit realms. When that choice is made and the soul actually enters into the light, the soul merges fully with the light and soul body is shed much like the physical body was shed at death. The memories of the soul remain forever in the mind and the individual is now once again a pure spirit in the spirit realms. As a pure spirit, we exist once again in pure thought form in the mind of the one enormous and fantastic dream called "God." Love brings about a one-ness between people and is necessary to attaining the higher dimensions of consciousness. Practicing unconditional love leads to the manifestation of the spirit within us and in our lives and brings our spirit into conscious awareness. It is an awakening of unconditional love within us and is the manifestation of our holy spirit within us. However, it is not enough to merely believe in love. Nor is it enough to merely know about love. To be spiritual beings living in a physical world, we must live love, manifest love, and become the embodiment of love.
With sweet salutations,
--S.
SAY-WHAT?????
ATF
William:
I think it would be fair to describe an atheist as a spiritually dead person and therefore, unable to comprehend anything that is not of the material/physical. Just because someone cannot comprehend or indeed see quantum particles, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. I think a camera on every street corner, the collection of everyone’s personal details (incl. DNA), crowd control devices that are used for selective denial of free speech, all weapons used to dominate other countries (I could go on forever) can be attributed to science. Do you think science has contributed to peace and a better life for everyone?
As for the truth, if it is not in you already, then how can you ever hope to recognise it?
I think many will agree that it is science that has made a doormat of most of the world, by the few who control it. Delusions of grandeur are the domain of scientists.
A cult is the last thing we need now, especially the cult of atheism; a cult that condemns all that don’t follow it. I am no greater or lesser than anyone. I seek equality and freedom from all that is NOT good and right for everyone. I offer love and peace and the knowledge to gain them. I will not be the leader of anyone; it is side by side that free people walk together.
I do not condemn you, but rather the theology that you preach, which is anti-love and serves only to turn people into machines made of meat. It makes all tings worthless.
Love and peace
William
Nothing
Without love we have nothing but material things
No lasting joy that togetherness brings
We always feel need and there’s never enough
Of the cars and the houses and electrical stuff
We put on our jewellery, best clothes and vain face
Then we dine and we holiday in every nice place
And people they gather to know us with pride
We think we are rich but we’re bankrupt inside
We’re the beautiful people, well spoken and read
And we sleep well at night for our conscience is dead
Our friends and our lovers we buy as we need
And we get a good tax break by doing a good deed
If we lose all our riches where would we be?
For the conscience is dead and our spirits not free
We care not for others for our hearts made of stone
And we die as we live, forever alone
So ask us some day when our backs at the wall
And we’ll tell you with tears we had nothing at all
William:
I already came to the conclusion before my enlightenment, that there was no after life. I reasoned that there were only two possible outcomes after death. 1. If there is life after hen how much more would I have to suffer to end my journeys. 2. If death is the end of awareness, then I would not be affected as I wouldn’t exist (this seemed the best outcome to be honest) but either way, seemed ok with me.
Love has always been the way for me. It is both logical and good. So without the prospect for a reward, I decided that my contribution to the world would leave it a better place. If I had made the knowledge up, it would surely be flawed, it is not my own, I don’t even know why it was given to me. I left school without qualifications and have to admit that I didn’t attend a lot of the time. I still have no qualifications. Before I received the knowledge, I had given up, and the peace I found was incredible. Now that has been taken way. I am no fool Lance and I would not be here if I hadn’t received proof. The world is changing. There has to be peace and security fro everyone or there is none for anyone. You do not have to believe what I say, its enough to choose Love. The kingdom of heaven within is a state of mind, just as is the kingdom of hell. The lake of fire is inner torment. See www.love-themeaningoflife.com/hell
Believe and do what you want, the Creator will always love you and never punish you. Love can only give Love. It is only we that punish ourselves and others.
Love and kind regards
William
William: If you cannot see what is right then no-one can show you. I think your terms would apply to atheists and those who preach man-made religions.
I thought that this was a site for ex-Christians or should I say those who have been deceived and once believed in the spiritual.
If you don’t believe that there is a spiritual then why are you spending time on here, attacking those who do, instead of fulfilling your meaningless purpose in life, which I presume is just to exist and oppose?
Thanks for the post, I read your website and I think we need to chat one to one. Can you contact me? My email address is on my website which is in my profile.
We need to discuss things that are not relevant to this blog.
Love and blessings
William
I LOVED your last reply to William. I think you're trying to show by just saying a lot of supposedly deep and beautiful sounding words all in a row doesn't necessarily mean you're REALLY saying something :)
Good job.
Mike S
Anyone who thinks they are intellectual is deluding themselves. I’m not wealthy or very educated, as for my knowledge, I claim no credit for it. Narcissism? I always put others first and my empathy is what has lead me to help others. Atheists are incapable of feeling what others feel so it doesn’t bother them. Do I love myself? Yes, but my love for others is greater.
I note that you got your information from a scientific book that is based on theory, and I note your projection and displacement.
Religion has been the good mixed with evil and served up as the way. We can all see the results of that and now science has become the perfect replacement, same result. Perhaps you should try and understand why the world is in such a mess, instead of trying to understand science. Try loving your neighbour instead of his material possessions. Greater love has no scientist than he who lays down everyone’s life to prove a theory.
I prophecy that one day you will call on God and that one day soon, all of mankind’s scientific achievements will be worth nothing. Within the atheist lies the abomination of desolation. You have nothing that the world needs.
I reject your views but respect your right to hold them. I did not come alone into the world to try and save it, we are many (and not all live in my head)
<