Our Humanity

Written by Mathew Naismith

Our humanity is everything from bad to good, black to white, negative to positive, atheism to religion, humanity is phenomenally diverse and it's this diverseness that makes up the big picture, a limitless consciousness.

The small picture is conforming to certain variables only; it's simply a restriction of consciousness to certain variants creating a limited consciousness.

Humanity is the quality of being human which includes all variants of being human. Being human is not good in place of bad, white in place of black, positiveness in place of negativeness or religion in place of atheism; it's all of what is as a whole, the big picture.

Many of us desire for our variant to control and replace all other variants, thus limiting consciousness to certain perspectives and perceptions.

If we take many pieces of the jigsaw out because we don't desire them to be a part of the big picture ourselves, is the jigsaw whole?

Humanity can never be whole as long as we fight for our desired variant to replace all other variants of the whole......

Simply Not Knowing

Written by Mathew Naismith

A lot of people are feeling overwhelmed to what is going on in the world, the problem is the more aware we become, the more aware we will become of man's inhumanities. As it's a dog eat dog world in the natural environment, it's also a dog eat dog world in man's environment, it's perfectly natural for man, human consciousness, to be like this.

Accept human consciousness for what it is, it's not perfect because it's not meant to be perfect or always humane. The natural environment that influences us is passive at times and other times impassive, this is the same as humans are humane at times and inhumane at other times.

Also, try not to judge an environment negative or positive to excess, it is what it is, accept this before being overwhelmed by an environment.

We always have a choice to either be passive and human to being impassive and inhuman, just because our environment influences us to be a certain way, doesn't mean we have to go down that path. Yes, at times our choice is taken away from us but this too is a natural part of this reality, we don't always have control over our choice as our choice is but one of many in a collective consciousness.

I am an advocate against abuse/bullying, the reality at present is inundated with abuse and bullying. I don't allow this to overwhelm me as I know they know not what they do, if they did, they wouldn't be abusive or bullying, they simply couldn't be.

How do you judge something negative when it really does not know what it's doing?  When you are in the know, you simply can't......             

PS. People like me still at times judge our environment harshly, this too is a part of the environment, it's also a part of the process of becoming aware!!   

Escaping From Reality

Written by Mathew Naismith

Today's present reality is all about awareness, an awareness that was once only aware to the people experiencing or involved in a specific occurrence. A good example of this is war; war was only really experienced by the people involved in war. Through today's media this is very different, we are more than ever aware of what is occurring in the world through numerous media outlets.

If we deem war and conflicts simply negative, the effects on us will be inline with how negative we have deemed the world around us to be. The more negatively we deem the world around or the more occurrences we deem negative, the more we are going to desire to escape this reality, strangely enough, a reality of awareness.

Because the reality at present is conflictive therefore simply deemed highly negative, what we will become aware of will be inline with how negative we have deemed everything not of our reality to be. I find it strange that positive people deem so much of the world today simply negative; to me this isn't a true sense of positive thinking. A true sense of positive thinking is to desist in simply deeming everything not of your own desires and personal reality to be negative.

Is everything destructive and violent negative? This seems to be the case these days; this would mean that the sun is exceptionally negative and even demonic especially considering its present solar flares. This is inline with people not just calling other people negative but toxic, is this the new wave of positive thinking? It would certainly seem so, to people like me, this kind of mentality couldn't be further from a true sense of positive thinking. In actually it's highly negative; of course this would only be the case if I used the same mentality, that everything violent and destructive was negative.

To deem everything that is violent and destructive and not of our personal desires and reality negative and even toxic, are expressions of a high degree of violence and destructiveness. A true positive person has no will or desires to destroy everything they have deemed negative; they instead accept the reality and work with it. They certainly don't try to escape it, the desire to do so simply infer a high degree of negativity, a negativity towards everything not of their own personal desires and reality.

Becoming aware within a destructive violent reality is by noway an easy thing to do; it can be most unbecoming and upsetting. The answer isn't to become ignorant to the reality you are currently influenced by; in actuality ignorance does a lot of harm and can even exasperate (worsen) the destructive violence. If we are going to ignore everything we deem negative, all this will do is exasperate destructive violence. The trick is to not simply deem anything negative not of our own personal desires, it's really this simple.

The problem the western mind has with negatives and positive is it most often looks at them as being in conflict with each other, an opposing force rather than a complimenting force. The eastern mind looks at this differently, a good example of this is again the sun, it's highly destructive and violent but it's given life and beauty to the Earth and the solar system as a whole. Imagine looking up at the sky at night and only seeing darkness, an unawareness of other star systems and planets. Imagine not being aware of an engulfing destructive violent force that could be stopped only through awareness, of course this is presently occurring.

I know what's going on over in Syria through my own research. I don't often watch TV and especially the news but while waiting for someone I watched the news. It would have been lucky if 10% of the news broadcast on Syria was correct. The problem with the main media today, which more and more people seem to becoming aware of, is it's built on lies and deception. In this case a so-called negative has created a so-called positive, an awareness of the deception of main stream media.

When did an awareness of our present reality and the truth become negative?

I completely understand, if the psyche is unable or unwilling to face the truth as it really is, it will create its own reality; this is usually accomplished by deeming all other realities negative. As anyone into psychology knows, creating your own desired reality by deeming all else negative is an unhealthy way to live; all this will do is exasperate what you are trying to escape from. Yes, within our own ignorance we might feel good and safe, safe from real reality, the problem with this is that the real reality doesn't go anywhere because we are not dealing with it, we are simply ignoring it to feed our desires.

The problem is we desire to feel good all the time; this is while existing within an existence of extremes. The sun gives life and beauty to a world but can also take it away as it will in the end of its life. Our expectations while existing in an existence of extremes is unrealistic, however, if we work with the reality we have and desist in deeming everything negative, especially what doesn't feed our desires to feel good all the times, the extremes become less extreme simply because of our expectations are not as extreme and unrealistic themselves. 

This is not going to be easy for a lot of people to understand, only because we are conditioned to unrealistic expectations, I know because I have been there. Simply ease back the perception of negative being in opposition to positive all the times, it's simply not. The unawareness today has created an awareness, action reaction, the unawareness being the action which has crested a reaction, an awareness. Just because the present reality is not of the expectations of our desires, doesn't mean the present reality is negative or even toxic, a reality we all need to escape from.

To be truly positive is to see the positives within all the negatives and to accept the negatives for what they are, an awareness simular or dissimilar to the positives. Dissimilarities are not just simply negative; in actuality they can be highly enlightening but only if we don't treat them as an extreme, in an extreme way........              

We Know Not What We Do

Written by Mathew Naismith

These kinds of things simply come to me without exerting any effort; it's simple because there is no effort involved. I think the people who experience this as well will know exactly what I mean; it flows because you are going with the flow.

I don't always go with the flow; this is because I accept that being a part of a reality like ours, going against the flow is a part of this reality. However as of always, balance between going with the flow and against it is always a wise thing to do; everything in moderation no matter how good or right it feels.

The whole self = Our natural flow

Part of the whole self, our present reality = A flow that goes against the natural flow

A thing to consider here, is going against the flow of a reality that goes against the natural flow going against the flow of that reality? Yes, this reality is a tiny part of who we are as a whole, the whole self is of a natural flow, are not realities that are of going against this natural flow also of this natural flow?

How we think is one is against the other; if it's against the natural flow, it's in opposition to the flow. In the whole scheme of existence, there is no opposition as it's all a part of the same natural flow no matter how small that flow might be. Our present reality is a small part of the natural flow even when going against the natural flow of life. Is a fish swimming against the flow of water; not of the natural flow of the life of the water; when the fish goes against the flow of water? Are we not the fish within the water, within a particular reality like the fish!!

We simply don't think like the fish, we think more like a rock when going against the flow, in opposition to the flow. Instead of allowing ourselves to go with the flow, we are like a rock trying to swim like a fish in opposition the flow when acting/thinking like a rock. It's unnatural for a rock to go against the flow like this; we have simply forgotten we are the fish when swimming against the flow, not the rock.

The rock is in opposition when going against the flow, the fish isn't, which reality do we want to experience, the fish or the rocks reality? If it's the fish, we can go against the flow without being in opposition to the flow, if the rock, we must go with the flow at all times otherwise we are in opposition to the natural flow.

What occurred recently is I experienced a glimpse of what we are doing to ourselves. By being the rock while in opposition to its environment, mainly because we desire control of this environment to feed our desires, we have become the rock in opposition to the natural flow of life. A rock going against its environment will be destructive and disruptive to its environment; the natural flow of life, what the rock going against the flow isn't aware of is it's simply hurting itself immensely by doing so.

Being the rock in opposition to its own environment is going to lead to what it's always lead to, its own destruction. Of course any energy source in opposition to its own environment causing its own demise is a part of the natural flow of life also. If we are going to continually act like a rock going against the flow, we will naturally cause our own demise, however, if we choose to be a rock going with the flow or become the fish instead, we will be naturally going with the flow of life.

I chose to be the fish swimming against the flow at times, other people have chosen to be a rock going with the flow and many more people have chosen to be the rock in opposition to the flow. No matter what we choose to be it's all a part of the natural flow of life, it's just everything we choose to be has its own journey to ride out. Yes, the outcome of each journey is different but it still finishes up being a part of the natural flow of life no matter what journey we choose to follow.

It simply came to me, if we really knew what we do, we simply wouldn't do it; we simply wouldn't be the rock in opposition to the natural flow of life. How aware is the rock to its environment compared to the fish? We simply need stop being the rock in opposition, stop thinking in opposition like positive and negative being in opposition to each other all the times for only a rock in opposition to the flow can think like this.

Is a fish going against the flow judging the water negative while swimming against it?  Only a rock going in opposition to the flow could think like this.......

Optimism - An Optimum State

Written by Mathew Naismith

Why would I state that optimism is an optimum state? We might think that optimism is a positive mental state to be in, within this perception it's the most favourable and most rewarding state to be in. I actually don't concur (agree) with this on the grounds that optimism is a positive attribute or state of mind, however, optimism is highly constructive without having to be perceived as a positive.

Optimism looks upon human consciousness holistically, this means that optimism looks upon human consciousness in conjunction with the rest of existence. Basically, human consciousness isn't separated from the environment it's a part of where's pessimism separates everything.

Human consciousness can be highly destructive and violent, when taken in reference to the environment that human consciousness exists in, human consciousness is mild within its destructiveness and violence. A good example of this is the sun, being that the sun is one of the most violent destructive energy sources in the universe, not the most destructive and violent though. It's interesting how an optimist and a pessimist perceive the environment as I will explain.  

Definitions:

                     Optimism; Hopefulness and confidence about the future or the success of something

                     Pessimism; A general disposition to look on the dark side and to expect the worst in all things 

                     Optimum; The best, most favourable or desirable, especially under some restriction

Optimism creates rationality, a sound sense of reasoning, by confidently making reverence to its whole environment in the hope to understand it's own positioning within its existence. This is done without discounting any part of the environment for what ever reason, being it either a positive or negative perception of its environment.

Optimism takes in consideration of both negative and positive reflections, most always looking at the negatives in a favourable way or in reference to other perceived negatives. Reverence isn't made in comparison but in conjunction with. A good example of this is judging human consciousness highly negative and even toxic while excluding making reference to the rest of the environment like the sun.

The point is that optimism doesn't perceive that negatives are simply bad while at the same time making exclusions to these perceived negatives. Optimism optimistically, favourably, looks at everything with the same light, in the same value, void of separation. Perceiving that everything not of my own vibrations, my own reality, is negative or that certain forms of human consciousness are plainly negative and even toxic, is a sign of pessimism, not optimism. Pessimism irrationally looks at certain forms of human consciousness as being negative therefore bad void of making reference to the rest of the environment.

So why isn't optimism of a positive state of mind?

A positive state of mind only takes in and considers the positives while excluding what are perceived to be negative, only the positives of existence are acknowledge. You can't be of a positive mind while including the negatives, the negative state of mind or existence. The negative mind works in the same way by excluding the positives otherwise it's not of a true negative mind.

A mind set to negative or positive thinking creates a state of pessimism, all else not of its own vibrations is excluded. This sounds awfully too familiar today. To a negative mind, the positive mind is highly negative and visa-versa, this is not the same with a balanced mind because a balanced mind creates a state of optimism. Everything is seen in a favourable way through the acceptance of the whole environment the way it is, not just accepting parts of the environment we desire to be of.

Optimism is simply the middle ground between our created and perceived negatives and positives. Let's be honest here, perceptions of negatives and positives are simply perceptions, a creation brought about in the way we perceive either that be optimistically or pessimistically.

Pessimism is of both negative and positives perceptions; pessimism needs an opposing opposite to exist thus we have perceptions and creation of negatives and positives. All of a sudden numerous people are judged as being toxic, excessively negative, how optimistic is this especially in regards to what is being so critically judged and ostracised, not included? To even look at yourself as being of some kind of higher value than judged negatives is quite a dark way to exist. 

You could say that optimism is of both negative and positive energy sources working in balance, the thing is the union of negatives and positives in perfect balance negate or neutralise each other. They work as one void of separation as in the perceptions of negatives and positives.

Is it positive and optimistic to refute an obvious occurrence because it's negative? Optimism looks at the negative occurrence and tries to make the best of it, pessimism simply ignores the obvious. You can see how a true state of optimism creates a state of rationality and pessimism creates a state of irrationality. One takes in consideration of the whole picture while the other only takes in what it desires to be of, the small picture.

I really hope I have explained this better, an optimistic view........ 

The Question of Optimism and Pessimism

Written by Mathew Naismith

I was going to post this post as is below; I had an urge the next day to explain myself better.

People like me try to express balance and moderation to other people within all motions, even of the motions that makes us feel good as all motions create a counter-reaction; this is cause and effect, action reaction. It is obvious that any consciousness of an extreme is going to judge people like me negative, of course all this shows is that balance and moderation is needed in their lives. Not everything not of our own vibrations or environment is negative. I find it strange that balance, moderation and the truth in how it actually is has become simply negative these days to a lot of people.    

I completely understand why positive thinking is the new popular way of thinking, it either gets us away from what we have critically judged as negative and/or it allows us to excel or gain some kind of wealth. It can be any kind of wealth that feeds the ego, for example, anything that makes us feel good in a negative world. If it feels good it has to be good is the egos motto, the more the better of course.

As the following will explain, there is a difference between an irrational optimist and a rational optimist. An optimist is a person who is disposed to take a favourable view of things. Optimism is often mistakenly perceived as being positive, of course I wouldn't say that irrational optimism is exactly a positive, in actuality it can be excessively destructive. Optimism will also see that certain perceived negatives are actually very positive, irrational optimists won't even consider that a judged negative could actually be a positive in the first place.

Optimism is the middle ground between positive and negative thinking, it's what gives everything a balanced perspective and a perspective that is usually unbiased. Optimism is neutral territory to negative and positive thinking where pessimism is of one or the other or of both. You could relate irrational pessimism to negative thinking and rational pessimism to positive thinking. Giving that positive thinking people most often judged more things within their environment as being negative, you can see why this kind of thinking process is actually of pessimism, not optimism. It has to be of one or the other for a pessimist where the optimist it's neither one nor the other; everything is seen in a favourable view in some way no matter how negative or unfavourable it is to the pessimist. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-happiness-advantage/201103/are-you-irrational-optimist

Extract: First, "you're being an optimist" should not be an insult. What we should be saying is "you're an irrational optimist!" We are trying to say that person has a warped vision of reality, which is based on desire, not how things actually are.

Good point, irrational optimism is linked to desires where rational optimism isn't linked to desire, being that desire is often seen as an irrational expression. To ignore or have disdain for anything judged as negative is an irrational response, especially when the judged negative is only negative because it's not of our own vibrations, our own reality.

It is wise to be aware that an irrational optimist will often critically judged what's not of their environment as being negative. On the other hand, a rational optimist will only see a difference void of judging a deference, especially in comparison to their own environment.

In regards to my last post, A State of Mind and Being, I was labelled negative because of my negative vibrations. If at any time I was as negative as positive people try to label me to be, I simply wouldn't be still around or I would have simply crashed and burnt psychologically, become too mentally unstable to express rational optimism. I am not the one judging everything not of my own environment negative, these so-called self-proclaimed positive people are!!

You will feel what you perceive, so if you perceive that someone is negative, you will indeed feel negative vibrations, the funny thing is, it's usually the positive person who is creating these negative vibrations to start with. 

_________________________

          

Reply

When did having a discussion while expressing different views become negative? When did constructive debate become negative? When did people with different vibrations than ours become negative?

We are noticeably becoming less accepting, not more accepting, becoming less balanced not more balanced which infers we are actually lowering our vibrations not raising them. Is this why the world is getting worse not better?

There are more perceived negatives out there today than ever, only because we have created them. Oneness is all about being more accepting not less Christine. We have become far less accepting than ever which infers separation not oneness.

Reply

Please, go away, this is becoming Very Creepy.
And quite frankly your "negative" vibes are starting to grind. Have a good day.

My Reply

WOW, this is my post and I am the one who is supposed to go away because of my negativity. This is the mentality that positive thinking creates Christine, when did the truth become negative?

Christine, it is obvious you are into positive thinking which I have shown in my post leads to irrational optimism, you have clearly shown this here. You can release yourself from this state of mind Christine but you have got to want to do this. If you desire to continually critically label everything else not of your own vibrations as negative or even toxic, so be it.

I sincerely hope the best for people like you Christine. Be well and blessed.          

A State of Mind and Being

Written by Mathew Naismith

Can positive thinking lead to irrational optimism and self-deceptiveness? As of myself as I will explain latter, I never focused on being positive while experiencing trauma brought about by a chronic injury. Because I did this, I was able to accomplish tasks well beyond the boundaries set up by the mental and physical trauma I was experiencing. Just because one is not being negative doesn't mean one is being positive and visa-versa. This is likened to, just because we are not at war doesn't mean we are at peace, in actuality there is a lot that exists between war and peace, this is the same between negative and positive thinking. I actually prefer to stay away from extreme thinking processes, more is always better isn't true, in actuality moderation and balance is always better in the end.

 

I find articles like the following always interesting; they often go beyond the way we have been conditioned to think. 

_____________________

https://www.success.com/article/the-negative-side-of-positive-thinking

Extract: He’s not the only one who’s frustrated with what many see as America’s relentless push toward positivity and the treatment of happiness as a commodity. Not only can the happiness industry make us feel bad about ourselves, as it did with Wilson, critics say, it can topple an economy or worse, according to Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America. Unchecked positive thinking and “irrational optimism” led to the housing market crash in 2007, she contends.

Oliver Burkeman, author of The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can’t Stand Positive Thinking, says that “positive thinking has become a sort of allergy to anything negative. We are constantly on guard against negative thoughts, so that any time we feel pessimistic or bad, we want to reassure ourselves and say everything will be fine. But each time we do that, we inadvertently enforce the notion that if things don’t turn out fine, it would be a total catastrophe.” Rather than bolstering our resilience, he says, positive thinking actually undermines it.

_____________________

Today I am astounded at what I accomplished in my life, yes, I had to work within the boundaries of trauma but at no time did I see these boundaries as being negative or a positive, they were simply limitations to either overcome or let be. Never ever look at limitations as being negative, they are simply limitations created by circumstance.

We are well and truly conditioned to think if it's not one it has to be the other. I call this a black and white mentality, it's got to be one or the other when in actually most of what is, is neither of just black or white, negative or positive.

Why firstly have a dire need to only focus on the positives? The more negatives we perceive within our environment, the more of a dire need we have to be positive. What if you didn't perceive everything that creates boundaries and limitations as being simply negative, nothing else!! What is occurring to the environment because we have few limitations in the way we impact on the environment? There is no moderation in our pollutants to start with and at the same time there is no moderation, no limitations, to destroying the natural environment through clearing.

How often is our unlimited potential mentioned to us these days which is mostly based on positive thinking, a potential that is not moderate in accordance with its environment? This includes any environment. My environment was to be limited to the traumas I experienced in life even though I went beyond these limitations. When I excessively went beyond these limitations I suffered big time, I in fact compounded my trauma especially when I took no painkillers.

Most of the times I didn't need painkillers, this is because I didn't allow my pain to control me. Just because I didn't allow the pain to control me, to force me to take pain killers, doesn't mean I took control of my pain.

This is the way we are conditioned to think, if you're not allowing pain/trauma to control you, you must have control of the pain/trauma, a black and white mentality. I think anyone who has experienced severe trauma would agree with me, at no time are you in control of the pain/trauma, you just simply try not to allow the pain/trauma to control you. You take pain killer so you think you have control, what enticed you to take painkillers in the first place? Pain, pain is more in control not less when taking painkillers.

This is the same with negative and positive thinking, do you allow the negative thinking to control you to primarily have a dire need to think positive!! In cases like this negative thinking is more in control, not less, we are simply being self-deceptive here.

However, because I didn't take painkillers I now suffer with compounding trauma that can be compounded by various experiences related in some way to my life trauma. Any kind of pain can cause me further trauma beyond of what the pain should, of course this only occurs when I allow any pain to control me. If I took painkiller in sever circumstances in my life, it is unlikely I would now be suffering with compounding trauma. It's to do with moderation, moderating when pain/trauma was going to control me.

A lot of people are today confusing positive thinking with moderation, a balanced mind set in accordance with the environment we are experiencing, any and all environments. Moderation and balance is simply the grey area between negative and positive thinking, there are simply no extremes within this state of mind and being. What you can accomplish within this state of mind is utterly astounding while at the same time existing within certain limitations.   

Philosophy - Environmental Creations

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy, as of any other thinking process, is influenced by the environment the philosophy is influenced by; this includes the knowledge and awareness that the  philosophy is based or influenced by. A wise philosopher will never see another philosophy created under another environment as being incorrect to theirs; it's simply a different form of correctness based on the environment a philosophy is created under.

A person I greatly respect, mainly due to them being able to think right outside the square, outside normal human conditionings, replied to me with the following in regards to my last post, "Atheism Is Quite Correct."

.     

___________________________

Reply

I wouldn't exactly say that some of your statements are clear and unambiguous.

For many people Christ was the greatest philosopher of all time because of His ability to explain spiritual truths in a way that everyone can easily understand.

Christ often used simple stories called parables to explain those truths using examples from nature like how a tree produces fruit or how the weeds and the wheat must grow together until the harvest.

He also used examples based on human nature and the interactions that occur between people like forgiveness and kindness.

My Reply

A very good point to bring up Jeff.

How often is Jesus messages misunderstood or not understood at all? As of any philosophy, expressing philosophy using a particular environment is fine to the people who can relate to that environment, what about the people who can't relate to that environment!!

I put a Cambodian lass under my wing, I looked after her. This lass tried to assimilate into our culture to the point of trying to become a Christian and comprehend Christianity, she simply couldn't because the doctrines of Christianity didn't relate to her Buddhist environment. As I explained to her, her incomprehensibility did not make Christian doctrines and beliefs incorrect, they were simply not correct for her within her present environment.              

I also find it difficult to explain the unexplainable, words are limiting in regards to explaining about a consciousness way beyond the explanation of words. A lot of my topics seem to go beyond the explanation of words at times.

If you keep your philosophies within certain limitations, as Jesus did, using your environment to explain what you are philosophising about is easy. Of course even this, as history shows, can be incomprehensible to people of a different environment.

Your environment dictates what is correct and incorrect to you, what is comprehensible and incomprehensible to you. The beliefs and doctrines that influence our comprehensibility is an environment that is most often bias. We will naturally express bias while influenced by a particular environment, this is human consciousness. How bias and incomprehensible are rich people to poor people's dilemmas? This is their environment which makes being poor incorrect. 

What I find interesting is that people of other cultures than a western based culture, comprehend my writings a lot easier than people of a western based culture. This is interesting because a lot of eastern philosophies include short stories that relate to the environment.

When I can or it is feasible or I think of it, I do use my environment to explain where I am coming from, as I have explained, I find this difficult to do at times.

Thanks for trying to assist me by the way Jeff, always appreciated.

 ___________________________

I think Jeff wanted me to be more comprehensible on topics like this, explain myself in simpler ways and in ways that people relate to. If you can explain yourself in ways that people relate to, for example making reference to the source of all creation is less relative to most people than making reference directly to God, what you are explaining about will be more comprehensible. Trying to relay anything that other people in different environments are not conditioned to and comprehensible of is always going to be difficult.

Example: Explaining Christianity to a Buddhist or an atheist is going to be a lot harder than explaining about Christianity to a Christian and visa-versa, again it's all to do with the environment we are conditioned to.

When I say that atheism is correct in relation to there being no God, this is in relation to Buddhist (eastern) atheism. Once you reach pure awareness, what then defines a God when you are one with God, one with this state of pure awareness? However, the depiction or perception of a God, of this pure aware state, while in separation of this state of God, is to me paramount to our existence. There is simply no future in separation from this source no matter what you call it.

You can always explain yourself better so more people can comprehend what you are saying, what I actually focus on are the people who are able to comprehend me anyway. As I have been for a lot of people, conformation is always comforting; no matter how I explain myself these people will always comprehend where people like me are coming from.

People like me don't need to reach more people; we are simply conformation for a few people, not many people. I should also say it's a two way street, I have myself received conformation in the way I am thinking off of other people, it is the way it's meant to be.           

Atheism Is Quite Correct

Written by Mathew Naismith

The question of what is or isn’t correct is a funny one only because the perception of correctness is as varied and as numerous as our perceptions. To get a grasp on this one needs to look at how many different people there are, not just by race or by cultural diversity but how everyone is physically and mentally different. Is one way to look and think more correct than another way to look and think? It really comes down to what is accepted which is governed by what is accepted as being correct. If it’s not accepted, it’s usually not correct, in all, correctness is usually and mostly governed by what is accepted.

For someone like me who is quite accepting, correctness can be seen in various and even opposing perceptions and ideologies, within this way of perceiving there is no absolute correctness, there are only variations of correctness. This simply means atheism is a variation of correctness, not of absolute correctness like any other created ideological ism.

So why am I saying atheism is correct? To answer this we must first look at why I think religion is correct, especially in relation to God and divine entities.

In recent times we have seen science create the God particle and most recently a mini-universe. The question science is rightfully and wisely asking now is if man can create such things, what would a far more aware intelligent consciousness be able to create? Of course the universe we exist in comes to mind. In the whole scheme of things I don’t think man’s wisdom, awareness or intelligence rates very highly but even in this conscious state man is able to create or mimic the creation of the universe through science perspectives.

The religious perspective was to get a far less intelligent, literate and aware consciousness, in ancient times, to perceive that the universe was created by a far more aware consciousness than man. Even today religion isn’t incorrect in this as science is showing. Religion, as of any ideological ism, is governed by what is or isn’t accepted. How would you be able to get a less aware and intelligent consciousness to be able to perceive through science perspectives? This simply would not have been accepted therefore comprehended. In actuality the perception of a creator of the universe was highly intelligent in my mind, especially in ancient times.

Atheism was to accept what religious establishments were unable or unwilling to accept, perceptions and perspective based on a different kind of what is and isn’t accepted. Of course you do have one of the oldest surviving religions that also incorporate science perspectives and perceptions to one degree or another, in actuality a lot of religions today are more accepting of science perspectives and perceptions. On the other hand you have a number of new age spiritual people who totally denounce science, science perspectives and perceptions are simply not accepted therefore correct.

Atheism simply avoids calling the creator of our universe a God, a divine entity, there is no idolisation or of giving thanks and a show of appreciation to our creator. If we are of this creator, this divine consciousness, what is there to idolise and/or show appreciation to? Of course you also have atheists who can never accept that our universe was created by a far more aware consciousness; their doctrines are simply unaccepting of this. You also have atheists who look at everything created as ego, an illusion. Each perception is simply governed by what is and isn’t accepted therefore correct.

To me, the closer to the source we become, the more we become aware we have always been one with this source. If we were all aware that we are one with this source, what would then be perceived as a God?  You have to have a perception of separation to have a perception of God separate to ourselves. Yes, the separation is real but it's still simply a perception of separation, there is no true separation only a perception of separation, within this, we perceive the creator as a God and rightfully so in a state of separation in my mind.

In all, to someone like me, is atheism correct within their own perceptions and the answer would have to be yes, however, this does not mean that religion is incorrect within their own perceptions, it simply means that each ideological ism is correct within what their own doctrines are accepting of.

No ideological ism is totally correct but they’re not totally incorrect either, it’s all governed by what we accept and don’t accept as being correct. In all, what would any of us truly know……….