But I don't think it is something that can be fully understood by man, how can a consciousness fully comprehend consciousness?

Psychology deigns to comprehend consciousness, neuroscience seeks to define its perameters of operation

```Even though I’m a nonbeliever, would I be scared to learn that God really does exist? No. Far from it. The belief that God desires praise, worship, and violent retribution, comes from a lack of understanding about what it’s like to be an enlightened being. It is ignorance projecting ignorance.

The theist view of God is actually far more insulting than the atheist view. It is commonly held that the atheist is the offensive one, that the nonbeliever must walk on eggshells, and be considerate of the beliefs of others. That seems backwards to me. What if there is a god and that god is offended at the thought of people believing he desires worship and praise, demands it even, for eternity - like some petty narcissist? What if that god is disappointed in those who expected him to torture their enemies? What if the believers and the nonbelievers are made to face their creator, and it is the believers who must answer for their offensive beliefs? Even if that’s the case, I don’t think any of us would have anything to worry about, believer and nonbeliever alike, because any mind capable of creating this universe would be enlightened to the point of being beyond such petty concerns.```

That is an apt way of describing it.

You think I take offense when you talk shit about religion?

Also the idea that world without religion would be an enlightened paradise is idiotic.

Even if you believe atheism is good you cannot concede that in of itself it is the ultimate redemptive ideology for man.

its not ideology

And if atheism lead to utopia the Soviet Union would've been a utopia.

Also God doesn't need or desire praise.

You gain strength through union with God.

Your will is empowered, you join yourself to a higher principle, one that supersedes material law.

If atheism lead to more prosperous societies it would have become commonplace in distinct structured societies around the world.

Instead, the only indigenous human tribes we've encountered that were atheists were the ones with the lowest iq

Is it possible for a consciousness that exists due to being comprised of the different parts of the human body coalescing into a conscious being, to be joined with another consciousness without being destroyed?

You let it into yourself.

By your definition, that consciousness is unique to your own body

i dont think atheism leads to utopia.
and correlation does not imply causation😉

and i rather go back to roots and go pagan.

Well, I perceive consciousness as being able to exist through a union of a body/brain, soul/mind, and spirit/subconscious.

If you take away any one of these you would no longer be a conscious entity.

I've heard that perspective before

Yeah, common in Gnosticism and many other groups.

Mine would lean toward them being one and the same

I also think you can apply the three parts of your being to your three deaths; the death of your body, the death of your memory, and the death of your actions.

One main question I would have is: Is it possible for the physiological brain to contain more than one consciousness

Like split-personality disorder?

When we have not yet determined how it can contain a single consciousness, how can it contain a second

No, like how you say it joins with god

I believe that your soul is your own and it is your soul that gives you will. You don't have direct will over your body or your spirit/subconscious being, but you have the power to shape your body and spirit through your actions in the world.

So I wouldn't call it multi-conscious because they are all codependent on each other to maintain a consciousness.

That would infer that you were incapable of exerting your own will

No, but to exert your will you have to contest both with your body and your subconscious mind.

People do not have free will innately

According to a Christian perspective your will is either a slave to sin or righteousness

My perspective would be that your will is your intent, and your actions are the embodiment of your intent

Gnostics generally deny the idea of objective sin, since a sin is only perceptual.

Therefore your will is free

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” - Heinlein

Similarly there is no original sin, Humanity was just in eating from the Tree of Knowledge because it granted them consciousness and free will.

Because of that, Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Notzri) was not seen as a figure meant to be the redeemer of Humanity, but as a Buddhic figure brought into the world to share divine insight and enlightenment.

The Christian argument is that it is because of free will that the decision to eat the fruit ocurred, not the result