Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Atheism: Another Limiting Belief System

Ever since I was young, I never really believed in the traditional God (I was raised Catholic) so in high school, I became atheist and basically anti-religious. I actually felt much happier knowing that I was in control of my fate and science was much more believable. A couple of years ago, I suddenly "woke up" and now I consider myself spiritual. I connected a bunch of dots that made me realize that I've been looking at the world in the "wrong" way. Now I see how the skepticism of atheism is actually very limiting and not that much different from religious faith. More specifically, many atheists and other skeptics are too blinded by their own belief systems to accept anything that is beyond the measurable 3D world. This doesn't mean it's bad, as we are all on our own path of understanding, so who is to say what is right or wrong? I'm not judging anyone, just pointing out my observations based on my own experience.

Everyone has their own level of consciousness or awareness that is formed from their experiences, which makes up their belief system. If a person believes in a god, he or she had to experience or learn something that was "proof" to them that a god exists--whether that is listening to a sermon, being told by their parents, experiencing a spiritual moment, reading the Bible, but most likely a huge combination of a number of reasons. The thing is, that person could have a twin sibling that experienced the exact same things at the same exact time, yet have a completely different interpretation, thus having a different belief system. What we see physically is energy interpreted by our minds (our eyes only receive that energy), so everything is literally our own interpretation. We all see the "proof" of what we believe, only because we interpret it as proof that supports our theory.


Looking back at my belief system when I was an atheist, I realized how blind I really was. I only believed in "real" things that can be seen or felt--scientific studies were the only proof I believed. Reason--yes, I was a proud woman of reason. Religion is obviously just a tool to control the masses so the rich can continue using us as cash cows. Horoscopes are so general that they could apply to anyone. I still believe these things, but in a different way, due to a greater understanding of these things.

  Now when I interact with atheists and I defend my belief in God--which is completely different from most people's idea of what I think God is--they treat me differently, like I'm "one of them" or something. They do things like try to point out my "contradictions", when I say that belief in Jesus is a matter of opinion and then state my opinion, so I realized that many atheists have limiting beliefs, but would never admit it. (That is the ego mind that puts up a wall around itself. My ego mind catches me off guard and does this too.) They are jumping to conclusions as soon as they think about the idea of "God," which, in their mind, brings about all sorts of previous experiences that puts up a red flag, and automatically disagree with me, even though they don't understand me. This is no different from a Christian that believes Jesus died for our sins and God is real, who disagrees with an atheist when an atheist shows them "proof" that god doesn't exist. Because this person has had a lifetime of experiences that makes God absolutely positively real, they cannot, and will not, see the "proof" that God doesn't exist. Vice versa for an atheist.

 ^ Wall.

The fact that people automatically reject ideas that aren't supported by scientific fact, indicates a lack of an open mind. It doesn't matter what this person believes. All things should be considered, but taken with a grain of salt. I've learned to not only listen to my feelings and body in conjunction with logical thinking and scientific fact, but to also question all of them, which has brought me more internal peace, understanding, and clarity than ever before. Your feelings don't come out of nowhere, they come up for a reason. Anybody who ignored their gut always ended up regretting it. But obviously, we aren't capable of flying, judging by countless experiences of others before us, so we have to be realistic.

My personal experience has led me to believe that we must find a balance between science and spirit, logic and intuition, as neither one is a better guide than the other. CEOs with "proven" track records can fail, and scientists always discover something new that completely changes what we thought we knew, so that shows that past experience and statistics don't guarantee anything. On the other hand, our minds can play tricks on us and it is impossible to know whose words to trust in regards to spiritual matters, so it's not safe to rely heavily on that stuff too. Richard Branson is a good example of someone who uses both--in 30 seconds of meeting someone, he can tell if he wants to do business with that person. He doesn't call it intuition, but that's what it is. He also didn't get there by being purely optimistic or praying to his maker; he put in hard work and took calculated risks.

Right now I believe the world is too heavily dependent on feeding the logical, masculine, ego side of everything on all levels of society, and that's why we are in the state we are now. The competitive nature of our society is damaging us to such an extent that we need to radically change in order to survive. First of all, we need to let go of the need to be right. We don't need to prove to each other that there is or isn't a God, and we certainly don't need to kill each other over which God actually exists (I personally think all religions are referring to the same one). Maybe we should have all the women get together to settle this once and for all.


Anonymous said...

"The fact that people automatically reject ideas that aren't supported by scientific fact, indicates a lack of an open mind."

As we rational thinkers often say: "It's ok to have an open mind. But not so open your brain falls out."

Of course scientist look at ideas which aren't currently supported by evidence. That's how we discover new things. But when the evidence says again and again "This isn't true" you must change your point of view. If, for example, I was to suggest that 600 billion years ago (before the vast majority of scientist believe the universe even existed) a galactic overlord tricked some bad guys into a volcano and then blew them up with a nuclear bomb which caused their souls to leave them AND THEN the galactic overlord capture those souls, transported them to earth in spaceships which looked exactly like a Boeing 747 and inserted those souls into us would you say "That's Bullshit"? Or would you have an open mind?

But that's exactly what a Scientologist believes. Should I have an "open mind" to that as well or are there things which are so ridiculous that they should be dismissed out of hand?

You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that rubbing blue mud into your belly button cures cancer. But if I demand proof that blue mud cures cancer before I start rubbing my belly don't tell me that I'm close minded.

Kristine Schmitt said...

Thanks for the comment!

I'm not saying that people should accept or consider anything without proof, but why do we just accept something just because a lot of people accept it as a fact? Historically, many ideas that were widely accepted as fact actually turned out to be false. If science is so limited, then why do we all regard it as the only thing we should trust? Scientists are products of an institution: they must go to school, they must think a particular way about the world, their ideas and findings must be accepted in order to gain credibility. This does not mean we should toss science out, but it must not be considered "proof" or "absolute truth". Nothing should, really. That's my point; science is no exception. Didn't history also show us that group think can be very dangerous?

As for the Scientology beliefs, can you prove that it is or isn't bullshit? They probably can't proof it either, but they were presented with some kind of evidence (which they interpreted as evidence), and probably thought, "Well, all these people believe it, so it must be true!" What gets me is how a bunch of celebrities are Scientologists, not just random people. That's the dangerous thing about cults and religion, or any other institution. I discussed this in my article, but in a different way. Obviously no one should join a cult and then sacrifice themselves, and most people know that. But science is widely accepted as fact, so ANYONE who questions it is treated the same way as the crazy guy with the "end of the world" sign. Oh, since you don't believe that gravity is real, that is just as crazy as believing in unicorns! We have a lot of faith in these institutions, so we don't want to get rid of it or consider it misleading. Even I want to believe that science is the best thing we can trust, but then I started thinking about the source of all this, and that made me question it.

People like Bruce Lipton were products of this institution, and he said he was teaching everyone that DNA determines the outcome. But in practice, he discovered it was the opposite: the environment determines whether a stem cell becomes a brain cell or skin cell. He made the connection to us, as we are just a huge community of cells and water (and most of us are "non-human" cells), and how our environment determines our outcome. If you talk negatively to water and freeze it, it looks drastically different from water that was spoken to in a positive way. Old ways of thinking don't make that kind of connection--we are still taught that DNA produces our life. It's not about accepting things without fact or proof, it is all about how we interpret it, what is considered proof. The lack of an open mind is more of a rejection of considering something as proof, or refusing to see it in another light.

That's why I say that we need to develop and hone our own bullshit detector, you know, think for yourself--because we can't accept everything that other people say, even if they have 3 PhD's and have published 10 books, or even if they appear to be the healthiest and happiest person alive. Hell, we can't even trust our own minds because it could easily play tricks on us, "seeing" something that we firmly believe. Gut feelings seem to be the best guide for us, but how can we measure that? How can we believe what someone else says based on that? What makes someone else's word more believable than someone else's?

Post a Comment