Thank God for Atheists?

Thank God for Atheists?

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

August 14th, 2010, 12:31 am #1

August 13, 2010
Thank God for Atheists?
by Julie Ingersoll

Last week Rev. Michael Down spoke at three Oklahoma City churches. Scripture readings for the day included:

Exodus 21:17: "Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death."

Psalms 137:8-9: "Oh daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the man who seizesyour babies and smashes their heads against the rocks."

His talk "Thank God for the New Atheists (PDF) proposes that the criticisms raised by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others, (specifically, that the Bible contains far too much ugliness and violence for contemporary readers to seriously use it as an authoritative source for spirituality) is exactly the impetus to the evolution of Christianity 2.0:
In a way, the New Atheists have come to our rescue. They are shouting at us to collectively awaken to the dangers of revering texts and doctrines on no sounder basis than tradition and authority. Because the New Atheists put their faith, their confidence, in an evidentially formed and continuously tested view of the world, these critics of religion are well positioned to see what's real and what's important today. Its thus time for religious people to listen to the New Atheists-and to listen as if they were speaking with God's voice, because in my view they are!
Pointing to theologians such as Bultmann and Tillich, Down reminds believers that "God" is a personification of reality, not reality itself. The New Atheists' are "prophets," he says, calling on humans to "grow up." The self proclaimed "evangelist for evolution" calls evolution our "common human creation story," he looks to a time when religious leaders get their guidance and inspiration from humanity's common creation story and teach and preach the discoveries of science as God's word. When that day comes, our faith traditions will thrive and many of us will look back and exclaim, "Thank God for the New Atheists!"

Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary responded Down's Christianity 2.0 by arguing that it is not Christianity at all, but a perfect illustration of the "theological and biblical costs of embracing the evolutionary worldview."

In some ways the positions by both of these Christian leaders are rather predictable exemplars in the fundamentalist modernist divide in American religion. Yet they bring into focus something else that is interesting and much less frequently commented upon: the two sides' respective positions on human origins is about much more than where we came from. In each case the commitment to a specific view of origins undergirds the entire framework for meaning; its not just where we came from but where we're going, why we're here and what all of it means.

This is the reason that conservative Christians fight so hard over the teaching of their version of creationism. As one of them once told me in an interview: "if Genesis isn't literal, then the Fall isn't literal. If the Fall isn't literal then there is no reason for a literal Jesus."

###
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

August 14th, 2010, 12:39 am #2

Although I do admit, Sam Harris is a good writer.

There is an alternative, that is that religion allows itself to change, to take facts, to take logic etc and to remodel itself. Kind of the way science does. Science changes, as discoveries occur and theories are tested.

To hold to a faith that denies reason, that considers the intellect sinful -- will ultimately kill religion. In my view. Well, maybe not kill it. There will be a very small percentage of people that will stick to it, abandoning reason and becoming more and more violent. Yeah, the Taleban is the model for the future of fundamentalist religion.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

August 14th, 2010, 2:33 am #3

August 13, 2010
Thank God for Atheists?
by Julie Ingersoll

Last week Rev. Michael Down spoke at three Oklahoma City churches. Scripture readings for the day included:

Exodus 21:17: "Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death."

Psalms 137:8-9: "Oh daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the man who seizesyour babies and smashes their heads against the rocks."

His talk "Thank God for the New Atheists (PDF) proposes that the criticisms raised by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others, (specifically, that the Bible contains far too much ugliness and violence for contemporary readers to seriously use it as an authoritative source for spirituality) is exactly the impetus to the evolution of Christianity 2.0:
In a way, the New Atheists have come to our rescue. They are shouting at us to collectively awaken to the dangers of revering texts and doctrines on no sounder basis than tradition and authority. Because the New Atheists put their faith, their confidence, in an evidentially formed and continuously tested view of the world, these critics of religion are well positioned to see what's real and what's important today. Its thus time for religious people to listen to the New Atheists-and to listen as if they were speaking with God's voice, because in my view they are!
Pointing to theologians such as Bultmann and Tillich, Down reminds believers that "God" is a personification of reality, not reality itself. The New Atheists' are "prophets," he says, calling on humans to "grow up." The self proclaimed "evangelist for evolution" calls evolution our "common human creation story," he looks to a time when religious leaders get their guidance and inspiration from humanity's common creation story and teach and preach the discoveries of science as God's word. When that day comes, our faith traditions will thrive and many of us will look back and exclaim, "Thank God for the New Atheists!"

Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary responded Down's Christianity 2.0 by arguing that it is not Christianity at all, but a perfect illustration of the "theological and biblical costs of embracing the evolutionary worldview."

In some ways the positions by both of these Christian leaders are rather predictable exemplars in the fundamentalist modernist divide in American religion. Yet they bring into focus something else that is interesting and much less frequently commented upon: the two sides' respective positions on human origins is about much more than where we came from. In each case the commitment to a specific view of origins undergirds the entire framework for meaning; its not just where we came from but where we're going, why we're here and what all of it means.

This is the reason that conservative Christians fight so hard over the teaching of their version of creationism. As one of them once told me in an interview: "if Genesis isn't literal, then the Fall isn't literal. If the Fall isn't literal then there is no reason for a literal Jesus."

###
I think the Deist position offers the best compromise between these two extremes. Here's a quote from Thomas Paine -admittedly a fellow who heavily influenced the American Declaration of Independence...

Any person who has made observations on the state and progress of the human mind by observing his own cannot but have observed that there are two distinct classes of what are called thoughts those that we produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those that bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a rule to treat these voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining, and it is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As to the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves only, like a small capital, to put him in a way of beginning learning for himself afterward.

Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles, being a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception.


Isn't that beautiful? I think atheists would readily agree that MUCH of their own inspiration didn't come from mulling things over and systematically writing down their thoughts on paper, organizing them and then coming out with a "consensus" of logic to create the framework for their philosophy. No ... great ideas usually FLASH into one's head ... seemingly from the outside!

So, Deists attribute that to an outside unknown force. They don't claim to know WHAT it is but they recognize that the thoughts were not deliberately planned by their own brains.

There are those who cherish such spontaneous illumination and then there are those who simply MEMORIZE what they're told and practice it until they become proficient at practice. These people operate by "rote" and seemingly ... can NOT entertain any thoughts that haven't already been pre-digested for them by someone(s) else. That would be fundamentalist religionists and ... perhaps fundamentalist atheists too!~

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 8th, 2009, 11:19 pm

August 14th, 2010, 12:24 pm #4

Although I do admit, Sam Harris is a good writer.

There is an alternative, that is that religion allows itself to change, to take facts, to take logic etc and to remodel itself. Kind of the way science does. Science changes, as discoveries occur and theories are tested.

To hold to a faith that denies reason, that considers the intellect sinful -- will ultimately kill religion. In my view. Well, maybe not kill it. There will be a very small percentage of people that will stick to it, abandoning reason and becoming more and more violent. Yeah, the Taleban is the model for the future of fundamentalist religion.
Why Creationists need to yield.


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


http://richarddawkins.net - On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.

All four authors have recently received a large amount of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive, and some negative. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public's reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face the world today, and propose new strategies for going forward.

This video is provided free online by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) andhttp://RichardDawkins.net . If you would like to support our work and help us provide more videos like this, please purchase the DVD through our online storehttp://richarddawkins.net/store/index... and/or consider donating to RDFRS:http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/f...

Books by these authors:
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
"God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens
"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel Dennett

Filmed and Edited by Josh Timonen
____________________________________________

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq0p ... o1_500.jpg






Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

<i>Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.</i>

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just <b><i>band aids over bull sh!t.</b></i>

Biblical Pitfalls .http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2008, 11:52 pm

August 14th, 2010, 1:08 pm #5

I think the Deist position offers the best compromise between these two extremes. Here's a quote from Thomas Paine -admittedly a fellow who heavily influenced the American Declaration of Independence...

Any person who has made observations on the state and progress of the human mind by observing his own cannot but have observed that there are two distinct classes of what are called thoughts those that we produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those that bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a rule to treat these voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining, and it is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As to the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves only, like a small capital, to put him in a way of beginning learning for himself afterward.

Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles, being a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception.


Isn't that beautiful? I think atheists would readily agree that MUCH of their own inspiration didn't come from mulling things over and systematically writing down their thoughts on paper, organizing them and then coming out with a "consensus" of logic to create the framework for their philosophy. No ... great ideas usually FLASH into one's head ... seemingly from the outside!

So, Deists attribute that to an outside unknown force. They don't claim to know WHAT it is but they recognize that the thoughts were not deliberately planned by their own brains.

There are those who cherish such spontaneous illumination and then there are those who simply MEMORIZE what they're told and practice it until they become proficient at practice. These people operate by "rote" and seemingly ... can NOT entertain any thoughts that haven't already been pre-digested for them by someone(s) else. That would be fundamentalist religionists and ... perhaps fundamentalist atheists too!~

-Vince
I believe they are pushing people to either prove their beliefs to themselves or simply grow in their own hatred for another group that is not like them:

religion already has far too many of these groups that are not like them so atheism will be the group of all groups unless a believer becomes a "knower" of God.


Once someone "knows" Jesus Christ for example, they won't be offended if another persons ceases to believe since belief is a temporary state meant to be proven or dismissed in due time.

a scientist starts out with a theory (belief) that something can be proven true and if he is a true scientist, he will then be moved to prove it: Should be the same with a religious person: they should spend their life proving why they believe the way they do and givea "Good and ready answer for it". If they can't do that, they then will simply be discarded as a fanatic threat to society if they are in any kind of power (ability to make war on other groups for instance based on beliefs).


atheism will also force people to understand HOW PERSONAL their religion must be even though its ramifications will go to the whole world. It is one thing to preach the gospel and it is another thing to FORCE it on others and even destroy those who don't want it, and this applies to the fundemental Muslims as well in all their beliefs.


The God of Israel speaks of killing their enemies and even though this is a hidden code speaking of our "inner enemies" which even Jews are now more than aware of, it made for many bloody outcomes in the world even as the crusades did for which religion is guilty and politics is guilty to this day. Atheism will only help to bring this crisis to a head and for the good. People need to become aware of the fact that if they have the FREEDOM TO WORSHIP GOD, others have the freedom not to and should be left to not do so in peace.


In due time all atheism will be challanged by the TRUE God as he first challanges his OWN HOUSE, his people, hence it written "judgment must come first to the house of God" and so it is. Once all religious people are judged based on their beliefs (as a man thinks in his heart so is he), then the LIGHT will correct those who refuse it by revealing that the BELIEFS of religion were written down by those who EXPERIENCED this CORRECTING light but they HID the information in code for a long time because mankind as a whole was not ready to RECEIVE IT....they hadn't developed enough in desire to receive such a great UNDERSTANDING and KNOWLEDGE that religion reveals, especially CHRISTINAITY and JUDAISM that spaks of how the God of the UNIVERSE reveals himself to his creation to make them "ONE" with himself.


I don't worry about atheism because if they are true scientists, they will KNOW that God is the ONLY EXPLANATION in the end for that which can not be explained by reason when God reveals himself to them. Then their "reasoning" will be transformed as the religionists reasoning is transformed: A new heart and mind will be had by all, at least it is written to be so.


every day is a new day to die to the old and live to the newness of life
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2008, 11:52 pm

August 14th, 2010, 1:31 pm #6

well what is the purpose for all writing? TO expand consciousness: Mankinds writings without the involment of the HOLY SPIRIT will come to an end in terms of satisfying man. It has already taken so many turns with none of them ABSOLUTE that secularism has given way to absolute NOTHING as true but that which can be proven in the LAB; This is good since proving something is better than not proving it.

Religion on the other hand has held man up in tradition and meaning which is as important of an evolution as anything science can reveal to us. It has also been a two edged sword in that tradition quickly becomes fanaticism because of the structure of "egoism" that needs to be "right" about something, even if it is that NOTHING is right.


Egoism in the end will be proven to be the problem and not science or religion, but that will take a little longer: Egoism is at its height right now and even though the cracks of it are everywhere appearing, egoism is like a frightened boy whistling in the dark. It will hold out to the bitter end that everything is alright just the way it is as long as nobody steps on its toes even if there are over 6 billion of them.


The new way has emerged: Messiah is here....many are becoming aware of Christ and are being corrected in their egoistic understanding. Atheism pushes on one side, meaningless on the another, and fanaticism on another, while the BELIEVER feels more dogmatic about his beliefs than ever, and has less of a leg to stand on if he doesn't PROVE THEM to hismelf instead of to others around him.

Every man is on his own now and how he "THINKS" will truly be his truth, but he alone is stuck with it.
every day is a new day to die to the old and live to the newness of life
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

August 14th, 2010, 2:56 pm #7

I think the Deist position offers the best compromise between these two extremes. Here's a quote from Thomas Paine -admittedly a fellow who heavily influenced the American Declaration of Independence...

Any person who has made observations on the state and progress of the human mind by observing his own cannot but have observed that there are two distinct classes of what are called thoughts those that we produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those that bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a rule to treat these voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining, and it is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As to the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves only, like a small capital, to put him in a way of beginning learning for himself afterward.

Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles, being a distinct quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their place of mental residence is the understanding and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception.


Isn't that beautiful? I think atheists would readily agree that MUCH of their own inspiration didn't come from mulling things over and systematically writing down their thoughts on paper, organizing them and then coming out with a "consensus" of logic to create the framework for their philosophy. No ... great ideas usually FLASH into one's head ... seemingly from the outside!

So, Deists attribute that to an outside unknown force. They don't claim to know WHAT it is but they recognize that the thoughts were not deliberately planned by their own brains.

There are those who cherish such spontaneous illumination and then there are those who simply MEMORIZE what they're told and practice it until they become proficient at practice. These people operate by "rote" and seemingly ... can NOT entertain any thoughts that haven't already been pre-digested for them by someone(s) else. That would be fundamentalist religionists and ... perhaps fundamentalist atheists too!~

-Vince
I think we agree. The deist is able to review their "beliefs", change them, revise, expand, synthesize new material into their world view, as can an atheist, or a theist not bound to dogma. That latter is rare, but not unknown. There are a few around, and even on this forum.

As for the "spontaneous" idea. The flash. Yes, it happens like that, but not out of the blue in my experience. It is more like this problem or information is being mulled consciously, and more so, in the subconscious. Do you ever wake up with a solution to a problem? It's not magic in my view, it's the subconscious working on it in the background.

Of course we can view the subconscious as part of a greater, collective consciousness. Which might include God consciousness, depending on your beliefs.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

August 14th, 2010, 3:01 pm #8

Why Creationists need to yield.


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


http://richarddawkins.net - On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.

All four authors have recently received a large amount of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive, and some negative. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public's reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face the world today, and propose new strategies for going forward.

This video is provided free online by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) andhttp://RichardDawkins.net . If you would like to support our work and help us provide more videos like this, please purchase the DVD through our online storehttp://richarddawkins.net/store/index... and/or consider donating to RDFRS:http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/f...

Books by these authors:
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
"God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens
"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel Dennett

Filmed and Edited by Josh Timonen
I've watched part 1 of it so far and they make a lot of serious, genuine and valid points.

One of the things Dawkins said near the beginning (7:50) particularly caught my attention. He said something like, "I'm curious how religion ACQUIRED this charmed status that it has."

It fell right into line with something I only discovered myself -(call me slow if you want)- and that is "pax romana" .... peace of Rome.

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

See also...

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

Now, the IDEA behind pax romana was CONSOLIDATION of the Empire. Rome was, by nature, aggressive. Their idea of honor and meaning was to go out and conquer territory and enlarge their empire. The regular "guys" thought there was nothing more honorable than to be a brave and valiant soldier.

But this created problems with CONTROLLING that empire because ultimately, regions would revolt and break away again. So the rulers soon realized that it did no good to keep conquering unless they could find some way of KEEPING the conquered territories under submission of their own free will. That meant they needed to STOP making wars from time to time and concentrate on changing the mind of those people whom they conquered, to believe in Rome and to feel a common kinship with Rome. (Remember how the British Empire did this so effectively in the last century by drilling in the value of "God and King"?)

Ok, so -I won't say that Rome INVENTED the concept, (because the Seleucids certainly did it too, by having their ruler be a god of righteousness and wisdom; a "sopater")- but Rome (probably) saw the mistake the Seleucids had made by trying to use brute force -ie, slaughtering a pig on the alter in Jerusalem- and so Rome tried to use "gentler" methods like putting the Roman insignia on the temple and placing statues of emperors inside of the temple etc.

It didn't work too well for Rome until Constantine came along and finally consolidated all religions into one.

HOWEVER, it seems that as early as the reign of Caesar Augustus, there was this stopping/slowing down on enlarging the empire and a concentration on getting consolidation by using the religion angle. Augustus apparently bragged that in HIS reign, he'd managed to close the gates of Janus THREE times -a then Roman world record.

That kind of explains to me why the Roman hierarchy was in so thick with the political/religious leaders of the Jews all the time. The religious angle seemed to work best because people are INHERENTLY superstitious.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2008, 11:52 pm

August 14th, 2010, 3:12 pm #9

I think we agree. The deist is able to review their "beliefs", change them, revise, expand, synthesize new material into their world view, as can an atheist, or a theist not bound to dogma. That latter is rare, but not unknown. There are a few around, and even on this forum.

As for the "spontaneous" idea. The flash. Yes, it happens like that, but not out of the blue in my experience. It is more like this problem or information is being mulled consciously, and more so, in the subconscious. Do you ever wake up with a solution to a problem? It's not magic in my view, it's the subconscious working on it in the background.

Of course we can view the subconscious as part of a greater, collective consciousness. Which might include God consciousness, depending on your beliefs.
a three dimensional world would at least be able to handle the idea that we are imposed with three levels of consciousness


sensual (five senses) connected all over the brain: i.e. the temporal lobes contain where hearing is situated; the occipital lobe is where sight is situated and so on...


subconscious is a memory bank where feelings imprinted pictures of past events; since the subconcious began at birth we have a lot more memories than we do 'present day input' although if we measured all the input we could focus on it would blow our minds: The subconscious is considered deep because of its length of days but it borrows its ENERGY from the life that comes through the third part of consciousness....the BRAIN STEM


the brain stem is automatically programmed to WORK without our effort or thought: If we had to think to breathe we wouldn't last an hour. Through this stem comes the life force since it is the first part to be developed and the last part when affected that will destroy us: Our body could not live with brain stem trauma.


the EGO is built from an interaction of these three forces but there is one force that is not described here


the WILL


in the book the UNIVERSE is a GREEN DRAGON, a physicist whose name escapes me now since I read it over 20 years ago, it was written that science can LOCATE THE WILL in the brain by the MOVEMENT of LIGHT in certain directions of the brain:


hence the part of us that DECIDES where to go in the brain is the WILL and to me this is the "spirit of man";

this spirit or will must RETURN, repent away from the five senses, down through the subconscious in order to be READY to have a DOOR opened to it to the BRAIN STEM and BEYOND, out of the body that is held by THE LIGHT that holds all reality:


this is what the religious writers all experienced and I experienced 18 years ago:


the spirit of Elijah (which is given FROM OUTSIDE OF US or heaven Jesus said, given from above) is the "will to return to God" to repent to the OUTER LIGHT that is NOT WITHIN US, but outside of us in consciousness: OUTSIDE THE BODY


once this happens, you see yourself FROM OUTSIDE of yourself, UNITED with the upper light, the surrounding light and from there, you are corrected FROM OUTSIDE yourself (sitting with Christ in heaven) while a little part of your spirit is still within the body to keep it alive:


this is the sixth sense, the CONSCIOUSNESS OF MORE than the five and this gives the truth of the five and more


ps, once you are corrected by the upper light (Christ NOW in us because this is how the outer light becomes the inner light, via Christ), your whole MIND is transformed, renewed to include what your five senses alone could never tell you:
Last edited by Harpazo on August 14th, 2010, 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
every day is a new day to die to the old and live to the newness of life
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

August 14th, 2010, 3:14 pm #10

I think we agree. The deist is able to review their "beliefs", change them, revise, expand, synthesize new material into their world view, as can an atheist, or a theist not bound to dogma. That latter is rare, but not unknown. There are a few around, and even on this forum.

As for the "spontaneous" idea. The flash. Yes, it happens like that, but not out of the blue in my experience. It is more like this problem or information is being mulled consciously, and more so, in the subconscious. Do you ever wake up with a solution to a problem? It's not magic in my view, it's the subconscious working on it in the background.

Of course we can view the subconscious as part of a greater, collective consciousness. Which might include God consciousness, depending on your beliefs.
The subconscious is ever the quick answer! However, has it ever been demonstrated or proven that there's a section in our brain that does subconscious "computing" ... day and night? I don't think so. I think it's simply a stock "answer" (without substance) for something that can't -yet- be explained.

Honestly, I can't see a non-conscious section of our brain being able to do work that's far more complex than our alert calculating, comparing brains are able to comprehend.

There's no more proof for a subconscious, in my opinion, than there is for an external body of knowledge or wisdom that our minds telepathically tap into.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share