For former Mormons who became atheists

[Guest]

The glass is half full ... The glass is half empty ...

nicely done for the win (though Alfredo will still take exception to it)

Actually, the most tried and true example I would readily accept is "This statement is false." That would have been really easy.

But the glass half full and half empty isn't a self-contradiction. We accept that a glass can be half full and the other half empty. That's what we mean. Each is a half or part of the whole and we recognize the two as having different properties. Although, that doesn't make your case of the room any less mistaken.

Let me put it to you this way...

If I were to say, "'the thing is in the stuff' and 'the thing is not in the stuff' are both true", the first response (in the interest of determining if a true self-contradiction exists) would be to ask what exactly do I mean by "thing" and "stuff", right? I should have made a point of this earlier but... What do we also mean by "is in"?

Presumably, we mean it "exists inside" when we say "is in". But if I substitute your term with this definitions... we get these statements:

"Dr Shades exists in the room" and "Dr shades does not exist in the room"

One is clearly false. Then you must mean something else...

You might mean "Dr Shades is not in the room" to be "Dr Shades exists outside the room". Still doesn't prove your point because if we switch these two statement as well, your statements no longer negate the other in meaning. "Dr Shades is in the room" and "Dr Shades exists outside the room" are both true but no longer clash.

And last... presumably, we mean "part of Dr. Shades" when we say "Dr Shades is (or is not) in the room". But substituting this changes the statements so that they no longer contradict. Again, you must mean something else...

I'm not expecting your definitions to be anything special, but they may well be and you can demonstrate your contradiction but with the added benefit of robustly defined terms. Just try me. I just offered you the self-contradiction I accept, explain this one to me with just a little bit more explaining and less pointless asserting.

[Guest]

...

[_Alfredo]

Can Dr shades be in 2 rooms at once is the question.

But do you really mean "Can (parts of) Dr Shades exist inside 2 rooms at once?"...

I think it has a clear answer.

[_Molok]

what the f*** are you even talking about with that s***.

Read the rules of the forum you are posting in.

[_Lightworker]

It would seem a lot of people are atheistic and following science because its the new hip thing to do ... :

Amen to that. Blind atheism will cause the downfall of society if taken to an extreme. We need more education in the area of philosophy and spirit for young people I think. Spiritually balanced people are wise, practical, and full of common sense. I don't expect everyone to have spiritual mystical insights but if one contemplates what wisdom is for long enough they will see that ethics, morals, and love in general is the wise path, regardless of belief.

[_Lightworker]

Why feel said at all? I have a brain full of "spirit guides:" memories of people and experiences that I can "communicate" with. I can carry on whole conversations with people I've known in my head, gaining wisdom by seeing things through their eyes. The only difference between us is that I believe my spirit guides exist completely within my brain.

My spirit guides are certainly not only my own. Other people channel I know channel the same sprits; girlfriend for example. Sometimes a spirit will visit us both at the same time and we experience telepathy via that spirit. Many other things happen too, synchronicities, future visions, etc. How does this fit with what you are saying?

One thing we won't find common ground on is the meaning of paradox. In my view, paradox does not equate to some sort of deep meaning. In fact, it doesn't equate to meaning at all. To say "there is no separation" and "yet there is a separation" is meaningless.

What I mean by paradox is that both yes and no are equally true. Yin and yang and not two separate things, they are one. One thing can be true and it's complete opposite also can be true at the same time. That is the Unity, the two snakes on the caduceus, one being God one being the Devil they are actually One. With this, there is in effect no such thing as good or evil dogmatically. It depends on what is needed, what the wisdom of Love dictates.

Also, even the most advanced neuroscientist does not know what consciousness is. All they can do is explain what happens to consciousness when chemicals and electrons are manipulated. As with all things in this paradox of 2 things that are not 2, it is in fact chemicals and electrons and it also is in fact not only that. All things are interconnected, including brain chemistry and consciousness, but consciousness is not limited to brain chemistry. There is too much evidence in psychology and anthropology for an existence that transcends these limits.

What you describe here is the basic "god of the gaps" fallacy, only you are filling it with mysticism. You also are simply assuming that consciousness is something that exists separate from brain activity. When we observe a person moving in a particular way at a particular speed, we label that as "walking." That doesn't mean that "walking" is some kind of entity separate from the action of the human. Similarly, consciousness can be understood as a process of the brain -- not a thing that exists independent of the brain. A neurologist named Steven Novella blogs frequently on this topic, and can explain the evidence much more thoroughly than I can. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/another-philosopher-jumps-into-the-dualism-frey/

For me I don't think it is "god of the gaps" since I am not trying to fill a void with the wild card "God". I simply have had evidence in my life to indicate that there is a spiritual realm, and have had insights into what this is. I can't say I fully understand it though.

My reasoning for God is simply this:

Because there is a spiritual reality,
Because telepathy is real,
Because future visions happen,
Because miraculous physical healing occurs via what seems to be alchemy,
Because there really are angels and demons and animal and other spirits (I don't get human spirits quite so much)
Because there are legends and mythologies that describe these types of experiences all over the world,

IT STANDS TO REASON there must be a God, whatever that is. The God that I have met can be best described as universal, unconditional, LOVE.

With my Because, there is no "if". Too much experience has been gained for "ifs". My third eye and inner ear are open and awake. I have spiritual senses that go beyond the 5 we are familiar with. I know this is a fact. I believe it is a fact for all people, and it can be developed with spiritual practice. The evidence comes from the practice, from making life changes and commitments to follow Love. Harmonize your life with what you know is ethical and right and loving and it is likely siddhis will follow, depending on divine wisdom. In other words, such as classic Mormon terminology, repent, change your life. Have faith, the evidence doesn't come until after the faith is exerted. By repent I don't mean follow dogma, I mean follow Love in every way and live in a way that is conscious of how your decisions effect Love on the macro level. Live in harmony with the earth, and with all the inhabitants, including people.

Also thanks for the blog link it is quite long but I have it bookmarked.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

As an avowed Atheist & Humanist I'll take a moment to address your OP even though the thread is 10 pages deep.

Hi everyone! Former Mormon here. I've noticed a trend among members who leave to turn to atheism. I find this really sad and would just like to target the atheist audience here if possible. Theists feel free to join in the discussion though.

Just as you find it sad that a Believer can become a non-Believer we generally find it disheartening that Theism exists, but we also generally understand why. Specifically, I think it's because the Believer has an unresolved fear of death.

I respect atheism and skepticism and don't think atheists go to hell. I will never convert to atheism because I have knowledge, beyond just belief, of the Divine. It is possible to attain knowledge. Though I say I know, I am not dogmatic. I see all religions as One and they are all true and not true at the same time. Everybody has their own individual path of growth to knowledge, although there is only one way to get it. My way involves harmonizing my being with nature and the source and end of all existence, which is pure love and light. When this is done it can be realized that there is no separation between God and yourself. All is One, I call this the Unity.


I believe you are conflating knowledge with emotion, and are simply trying to relate a personal experience to us. That's the crux of the issue because fundamentally you'll never be able to truly help anyone else experience what you're experiencing. You're alone, and that's terrifying... Hence the need to convince others that your processes are knowable. This simply isn't the case, and your attempt to describe your personal experiences as the Divine are simply that.

The intellect, although very useful, cannot prove or disprove the Divine. It is beyond the mind. That being said don't expect perfection from my words or intellectual philosophies and ideas because I am like a baby. I have all kinds of ideas but I don't know anything really. It's in my nature to toss around ideas though so I like to debate these kinds of things, as long as the debate is heart centered. The heart is where the truth is. The mind will never figure it out, but it is possible to align the heart with the mind. When this happens glimpses of Reality occur. The being is flooded with light, much like the burning in the bosom that prophet Joseph Smith described.


I believe your concept of the Divine is simply your consciousness trying to understand its relation to the world of the known, and your attempt to equate that experience as the Divine is you reconciling your alone-ness and fear of death. Bold assertions are simply a person's attempt to quell his own anxiety and convince others can do the same, but by no means is it knowledge, fact, or anything knowable beyond your own personal experience.

I think Joseph Smith was a prophet, but not to be put on a pedestal as THE prophet. I personally know many prophets and prophetesses. They have their egos and are wrong much of the time when attached to them. Such was the fate of Smith in my opinion, but he did teach quite a bit of truth. The Spirit that testifies of these truths is real, but people have to come to terms intellectually with Spirit and they mix their own ideas and opinions about what Spirit was saying and become dogmatic about a certain way of doing things, and are led astray by their own minds. This is the not true part. The true part is the love and light from Spirit.


None of what you just wrote makes any sense within the context of Mormonism other than what's discussed within the endownment ceremony (ironically). Have you considered The Spirit simply to be a manifestation of your cognitive and emotional processes?

God/Goddess is Love. The purpose of life, in my opinion, is to learn to love, despite suffering. When in harmony with love, the being is filled with light and peace. When out of harmony, the being is sickened with darkness and despair.


That's a healthy place to be more or less. Mormonism teaches a sort of perfectionist Love, and if you fall short of perfection you discover Love is very conditional. Being more loving brings harmony to yourself and those around you. Good on you.

Now that my paradigm is stated out in the open you can know where I am coming from.

So, with all of that being said I would like to pose a question to atheists. How can you define love?

I define Love as a two-fold thing. The first being a chemical reaction that induces us to have sex, primarily for the propagation of our species, and secondly as a psycho-sexual condition in which we place the object of our affection above the morality we hold for others in order to sustain a relationship that is primarily concerned with the propagation of our species.

How can it be described scientifically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love.

How can your intellect grasp it?

Love is a pretty simple thing anyone can grasp if they're willing to think about it for a second or two.

Many atheist focus on science. I believe in science. My opinion is that creation started with the big bang and will end in a big crunch. It is simply the exhale and inhale of God. Like our own lungs and our own heart beat. Expansion and contraction, duality, is what creates time and space. There are dimensions beyond time and space however, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

You're pretty much describing the Third and Fourth dimensions. You would be the only scientific-leaning person to believe there are more dimensions. If fact... There might be 10, 11, and/or 26 dimensions.

So atheists, the only reason you don't know God is because you don't know love. Is love in the mind? If so, how can it be categorized, compartmentalized, and explained rationally? I am open for debate on this one. I'd like to know your honest opinions.

How can anyone possibly debate you on your own internal processes? That's folly.

[_Lightworker]

Hello,

As an avowed Atheist & Humanist I'll take a moment to address your OP even though the thread is 10 pages deep.

Hi everyone! Former Mormon here. I've noticed a trend among members who leave to turn to atheism. I find this really sad and would just like to target the atheist audience here if possible. Theists feel free to join in the discussion though.

Just as you find it sad that a Believer can become a non-Believer we generally find it disheartening that Theism exists, but we also generally understand why. Specifically, I think it's because the Believer has an unresolved fear of death.

I respect atheism and skepticism and don't think atheists go to hell. I will never convert to atheism because I have knowledge, beyond just belief, of the Divine. It is possible to attain knowledge. Though I say I know, I am not dogmatic. I see all religions as One and they are all true and not true at the same time. Everybody has their own individual path of growth to knowledge, although there is only one way to get it. My way involves harmonizing my being with nature and the source and end of all existence, which is pure love and light. When this is done it can be realized that there is no separation between God and yourself. All is One, I call this the Unity.


I believe you are conflating knowledge with emotion, and are simply trying to relate a personal experience to us. That's the crux of the issue because fundamentally you'll never be able to truly help anyone else experience what you're experiencing. You're alone, and that's terrifying... Hence the need to convince others that your processes are knowable. This simply isn't the case, and your attempt to describe your personal experiences as the Divine are simply that.

The intellect, although very useful, cannot prove or disprove the Divine. It is beyond the mind. That being said don't expect perfection from my words or intellectual philosophies and ideas because I am like a baby. I have all kinds of ideas but I don't know anything really. It's in my nature to toss around ideas though so I like to debate these kinds of things, as long as the debate is heart centered. The heart is where the truth is. The mind will never figure it out, but it is possible to align the heart with the mind. When this happens glimpses of Reality occur. The being is flooded with light, much like the burning in the bosom that prophet Joseph Smith described.


I believe your concept of the Divine is simply your consciousness trying to understand its relation to the world of the known, and your attempt to equate that experience as the Divine is you reconciling your alone-ness and fear of death. Bold assertions are simply a person's attempt to quell his own anxiety and convince others can do the same, but by no means is it knowledge, fact, or anything knowable beyond your own personal experience.

I think Joseph Smith was a prophet, but not to be put on a pedestal as THE prophet. I personally know many prophets and prophetesses. They have their egos and are wrong much of the time when attached to them. Such was the fate of Smith in my opinion, but he did teach quite a bit of truth. The Spirit that testifies of these truths is real, but people have to come to terms intellectually with Spirit and they mix their own ideas and opinions about what Spirit was saying and become dogmatic about a certain way of doing things, and are led astray by their own minds. This is the not true part. The true part is the love and light from Spirit.


None of what you just wrote makes any sense within the context of Mormonism other than what's discussed within the endownment ceremony (ironically). Have you considered The Spirit simply to be a manifestation of your cognitive and emotional processes?

God/Goddess is Love. The purpose of life, in my opinion, is to learn to love, despite suffering. When in harmony with love, the being is filled with light and peace. When out of harmony, the being is sickened with darkness and despair.


That's a healthy place to be more or less. Mormonism teaches a sort of perfectionist Love, and if you fall short of perfection you discover Love is very conditional. Being more loving brings harmony to yourself and those around you. Good on you.

Now that my paradigm is stated out in the open you can know where I am coming from.

So, with all of that being said I would like to pose a question to atheists. How can you define love?

I define Love as a two-fold thing. The first being a chemical reaction that induces us to have sex, primarily for the propagation of our species, and secondly as a psycho-sexual condition in which we place the object of our affection above the morality we hold for others in order to sustain a relationship that is primarily concerned with the propagation of our species.

How can it be described scientifically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love.

How can your intellect grasp it?

Love is a pretty simple thing anyone can grasp if they're willing to think about it for a second or two.

Many atheist focus on science. I believe in science. My opinion is that creation started with the big bang and will end in a big crunch. It is simply the exhale and inhale of God. Like our own lungs and our own heart beat. Expansion and contraction, duality, is what creates time and space. There are dimensions beyond time and space however, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

You're pretty much describing the Third and Fourth dimensions. You would be the only scientific-leaning person to believe there are more dimensions. If fact... There might be 10, 11, and/or 26 dimensions.

So atheists, the only reason you don't know God is because you don't know love. Is love in the mind? If so, how can it be categorized, compartmentalized, and explained rationally? I am open for debate on this one. I'd like to know your honest opinions.

How can anyone possibly debate you on your own internal processes? That's folly.

Thank you for the intelligent response. Yes this thread is 10 pages deep and I haven't even read the whole thing. I've responded to quite a bit of it though. I do have other things to do with my life.

The unresolved fear of death thing. That seems like a logical psychological assessment, if you were looking for a motivating factor behind my experiences. Perhaps you could say my mind created them in response to my fear of death, and what I experience is just some kind of hallucination or psychosis, and that I am the only person who experiences them.

There are a couple problems with this. First, I am not the only one who channels spirits, my girlfriend and I are good examples since both of us channel and have shared experiences that are spiritual/telepathic and are undeniable. So the whole "I'm the only one" argument doesn't work with me, however, from the outside I have no way of proving any of this to a random person on the internet so I can understand the skepticism. I would be skeptical of someone saying the things that I have said. It is logical.

Fear of death. I would think we all fear this. I do my best not to. It is a natural instinct to want to live and fear is a survival instinct. Apathy would be worse than fear. I honestly don't know what happens after death so there is perhaps some anticipation of the unknown. I don't think that this relates to my spiritual senses though. Whether there is a fear of death or not, I still see and hear spirits with my third eye, inner ear, and empathy (an energy sense, similar to what Mormons describe as "the Spirit". It is my experiences, aside from the whole philosophical question of "to be or not to be" that are the cause of my theism.

Multidimensionality. I am just going on what spirit guides have told me, and visions that I have had on this one. I would love to study the science behind it. My multidimensionality I am talking about can be more easily thought of, in symbolic form, as differing levels of heaven and hell. "Different realities entirely" as my spirits put it. What is heaven to one is hell to another and vice versa. Depends. Hard to describe and I am not really even going to try since it is beyond my comprehension anyway.

I have had visions of the beginning and the end of time and how all things are actually One thing, and all came from this one source and will return to it, which I define as Love. Love is the energy that is actually what our atoms are constructed of apparently. I have many other mystics that agree with me here too. I'm not a scientists but I don't think science understands this, the fundamental energy that is the source of all existence. I don't think true science would contradict me though.

It is certainly not easy to show an atheist any kind of spiritual proof. I don't expect to be able to. I just like understanding people who think differently than I do. I think atheists have a tendency to look at theism with disgust and I can understand, since it sucks to be duped by dogma. I was for years as a Mormon. If possible I would like to bring more credibility to theism simply by showing that it is not a cause - effect situation. Specifically, it is not a psychological response to fear of death, but it is based on experiences that can be found in every culture on the planet spanning space and time. Atheists tend to ignore that part.

[_subgenius]

Hello,

As an avowed Atheist & Humanist I'll take a moment to address your OP even though the thread is 10 pages deep.

notwithstanding your frivolous introduction......moderators tend to not like it when you post your text in "red".

(unless you were informing us of your Atheism and Humanism in order that we may be aware of the handicap you are bringing to the discussion?)

[_subgenius]

Just as you find it sad that a Believer can become a non-Believer we generally find it disheartening that Theism exists, but we also generally understand why. Specifically, I think it's because the Believer has an unresolved fear of death.

that is odd....if the specific thinking is an unresolved fear of death....then whatever is the general understanding you speak of?
Your statement here is a standard "reason" cited by amateur atheists who either have a misconception about Theism or no knowledge at all on the subject. It is an understandable position given the options available to an atheist/humanist.

I believe you are conflating knowledge with emotion, and are simply trying to relate a personal experience to us. That's the crux of the issue because fundamentally you'll never be able to truly help anyone else experience what you're experiencing. You're alone, and that's terrifying... Hence the need to convince others that your processes are knowable. This simply isn't the case, and your attempt to describe your personal experiences as the Divine are simply that.

Nice speculation, but mostly just silliness.
The "conflating" emotion argument is weak and always without support. To assume that a person is unable to make the emotion/knowledge distinction is absurd and unfounded. The atheist/humanist always relies on some sort of imaginary intellectual high ground.

I believe your concept of the Divine is simply your consciousness trying to understand its relation to the world of the known, and your attempt to equate that experience as the Divine is you reconciling your alone-ness and fear of death. Bold assertions are simply a person's attempt to quell his own anxiety and convince others can do the same, but by no means is it knowledge, fact, or anything knowable beyond your own personal experience.

speaking of trying to convince others.....
Bold assertions are also a person's attempt to convey the truth.

How can anyone possibly debate you on your own internal processes? That's folly.

ugh...i decided it was best to cut to the chase....
The way it is possible to debate on one's internal processes(whatever those are??) is by recognizing that internal processes are objective and not subjective. We recognize this simple fact in society through concepts like "insanity", "schizophrenia", "normal" etc...

As an atheist/humanist you must surely recognize, accept, and promote that the laws of nature are immutable by a human being and therefore every human being is incapable of choosing otherwise...that every human being's behavior, thought, emotion, action, etc.. is bound and beholden to the same laws of the universe. Therefore, every human "process" is predictable and consistent. These "processes" have but one manner and but one philosophy...to obey the laws of the universe...and it does not matter if it is "normal", "defective", or "mutated"...there can be no escape.
The complexity of these processes, according to the atheist/humanist, can not escape these laws anymore than the laws of gravity can be circumvented.
Your position is primitive and narrow...man progressed towards Theism from atheism....atheists are, at best when considering their minority presence throughout history, a defective social entity.