Thinking As One Mind

 

Written by Mathew Naismith

It has occurred before in times of great persecution and trauma, where of one mind becomes apparent, obvious to many minds. The trick is to become of this one mind instead of simply aware of this one mind, in other words instead of participating in being aware of this one mind, observe through this one mind to become of this one mind.

As in science and religion, awareness is one thing, becoming involved in what you are observing is something else.

No, communism and fascism and alike are not of becoming of one mind, it is one mind set simply enslaving all other minds to a mind set. To do this persecution is dealt out in a way to give fear of being locked down, isolated from all other minds except for a particular mind set. Instead of being of a one mind, every mind becomes subservient to a mind set.

Now the difference between being of one mind and being of a mind set, is being of one mind is of the observer, where being of a mind set is being observed. As we are seeing today, especially through the degree of censorship we are seeing, observing this kind of mind set is heavily discouraged. The subservient to this mind set are not allowed to observe, simply learn to become subservient. Yes, you are then no longer of this one mind or even of your own mind.

To a person who has an interest in science and spirituality overall, not being able to freely observe what is observable is a travesty observer wise. You are only able to observe in accordance with the mind set and as any mind set, this is limited to the mind set, however, thinking as one mind has no limitations to what can be observed, in actuality it is of observation of what is observable within it's entirety. It amazes me today how many scientists are content in being subservient to this very limiting mind set, a state of mind often witnessed occurring through being subservient to religious fanaticism, being subservient to a mind set instead of being guided by thinking as one mind.

So we are thinking as one mind and one mind only, is this not very limiting?

If we were all going to just religiously think and not scientifically think as well or visa-versa, this is not being of one mind, one mind is the ability to think as of all minds, be it of different minds. I may think more of spiritual matters, others may think more of science matters, thinking as one they are of one mind. The mind set of communism or fascism on the other hand wants everyone to be of separate minds, within this mind set you are only able to observe in accordance with the mind set, thinking as one mind on the other hand allows all minds to observe all other minds withhold hindrance.

So being subservient to a mind set seems to be all powerful over the subservient mind, this is an illusion of being all powerful. We feel and witnesses the great power and control the mind set has over the subservient. What power and control? So it is all powerful making all other minds subservient to one mind set, minds that are vulnerable to the influence of mind sets like communism and fascism. Notice only in times of great peril and trauma can this occur!!

So this is what the mind set wants you to believe is all powerful and controlling, minds that are vulnerable. Now if this mind set was to hold power and control over an equal devious and immoral mind set, I would say there is some kind of limited power and control but no, having power and control over the vulnerable mind is not all powerful. On top of this, the mind set itself has to stay ignorant to everything else it is unable to control. For a particular mind set to exist takes a particular degree of observational awareness, all else that is observable is ignored or disposed of, as we are seeing today.

Would this supposed all powerful mind set actually hold up to or have some degree of control over a mind thinking as one mind? There is no comparison to begin with, this is why these very limiting and limited mind sets have to always gain control of the influence of thinking as one mind has on minds. Why the persecution of the Christians all over again, and eventually of any spirituality of teaching of one mind? Actually, I have seen science go the same way, the mind set that profits come before science, in the process creating profiteering science as opposed to real science, a real science that puts science before profits and any other bias. I am not sure why spiritual people and atheists are not coming together on this, where we all simply become subservient to a mind set of great limitations.

So you may look at China and see no limitations of technological advancements, the same China that has live organ harvesting, literal slave labour, filthy rich while the poor go hungry, degradation of forests like in Africa at present, the building of hundreds of coal driven power plants, etc. This is the minds set Chinese style globalisation of communism, a country that outlaws males being expressive of femininity in any sense. This is a mind set of communist atheism, where spirituality is only tolerated when under the strictest control of communist mind set, if you are lucky. Was atheism allowed to express itself freely under religious observation in the modern era? This globalisation of communist style mind set is not so gracious or moral, it is it's way or no way. This should sound awfully like religious fanaticism, because that is what it is as of any extremism.

So in saying all this, no, mind sets like this are not all powerful and controlling over this one mind Yes, over minds that are vulnerable but not over this one mind, where all is observed, not just of what is desired to be observed in accordance with a mind set.

You have today a leader of a communist country replacing images of Jesus with his own image, yes, they are this delusional, thinking they have any resemblance to the one mind. I know this one mind idea is hard to imagine for a lot of people, but when we are to freely as a human species allowed to think in our own way, altogether we think as one mind. Excluding one part of this one mind is not of one mind, simply a mind set which scientifically and spiritually we should avoid. Yes, religion once went down this track of mind setting, and now it's communist atheists turn it would seem.

Will we ever start learning from the past instead of suffering from the past as a collective species? Yes, when we start thinking as one mind. I am not just referring to the one mind of the human species either, but that is my preference.

Atheism in Support of Religion!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

What if I said to you that atheism is in full support of religion, so many people of course would say that I am mad, delusional. Think on this, could a disbelief exist without a belief being disbelieved in in the first place? Atheists believe or disbelieve that a God like consciousness could not at all, no matter what, have created the universe therefore everything within this universe. Either it be of belief or disbelief, atheism is to start with in support of beliefs, also, “no matter what” determines that atheism is of dogmatic principles as well!!

It is strange to think that religion, believing in a God like creative consciousness, also created atheism and it's doctrines, not that a lot of people, understandably, think this to be strange. Yes, atheism has doctrines. Apart from many atheists simply believing that all wars were religiously caused, and that we are all born atheistic, which is cognitively impossible, they also express a great deal of faith in theories of how the universe was created, like the big bang theory. There are actually several different types of theories of the creation of the universe for atheists to have faith in, the big bang theory is just one of them. To have this much faith in a simple theory, not fact, is indeed religious, to base an entire belief or disbelief system on faith is also indeed religious. Yes, by heart even atheists express a great sense of religion!!

Don't get me wrong, I think having faith and theories is cognitively healthy and vital for the good health of human cognition, I strongly believe this to be true.

I can't believe that people like me have become so controversial today, but look at how this has come about. Be it of extremism of religion, atheism, right and left wing politics, communism or fascism, black and white. etc, you can see why people like me are now looked at being so controversial. So many people are embarrassing extremist ideologies at a phenomenal rate, usually in counteraction to another extremism, be it that the extremism is made up or not.

We are indeed in an age of extremism, where even vaccines that are known to kill and maim people for life are not just accepted but marketed and even enforced onto everybody else by so many people. The question is, have people like me become more controversial or has the world around us become more of the embarrassment and acceptance of extremism, in the process making people like me seem more controversial!! Yes, even in new age spirituality extremism in counteraction to other extremism's, made up or not, abounds sadly enough.

Only in the absence of a balanced disposition will human consciousness fail itself.

Thinking in Infinite Terms

Written by Mathew Naismith

I was brought up in a dogmatic left wing atheist environment, as I found out I couldn't have been influenced by a more ignorant environment, very much in line with extremist religion, where it is only my way. As soon as religion or atheism dictates it is only my way, like with right and left wing politics, the credibility is shot with people like me.

So the big bang theory, remember it is only a theory, is right no matter what!! A truly rational mind would not primarily base doctrines or beliefs on known theorisations like this.

Theory: A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

Atheism is primarily based on a particular theory as many religions are primarily based on a particular belief. A rational mind thinks, “That if humans can create what they have created in the unwise and unaware state they literally shows themselves to be in, what would a far more collective wiser and aware consciousness create?” The atheist of course can't perceive a far greater wiser and aware consciousness but many spiritually aware people can. Why? Because most often spiritually aware people's consciousness are not limited to time and space perspectives, we can also think in infinite terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pUXDX4RyqU

Oh For the Glory of Oneness

Written by Mathew Naismith

I am a oneness kind of bloke, not just in relation to other people or even animals but oneness with existence as a whole. The best way for me to describe this so that other people understand it, it is all interconnected energy no matter what that energy is. As I should be, I am always interested at what keeps separating this energy. Think on it, the hippy era was one of the biggest eras of love and light, did this make much of a difference and why other love and light eras will end up changing nothing in relation to inhumanity? Let's be honest, not much has improved for the better for all this love and light, if anything it is worse but why? Love and light is of togetherness, it has nothing to do with anti-social disorders, quite the opposite.

Oneness is not about separating dark from light, negative from positive, etc, sadly, this most often occurs. Sociopathic tendencies is not just to do with not being sociable but spiritually speaking, anti-social to energy as a whole. I really do mean it, anti-social behaviour to energy as a whole!!

What is occurring in the world at present? Sociopathic comes to mind, a known disorder, remember the word disorder, that is of anti-social behaviour. Sociopath, antisocial personality disorder. What is occurring right at this moment in time? Would you equate it to antisocial activities, the new normal created from disorder? It gets even more interesting, try to remember, only in ignorance can we be so abusive and destructive/disorderly.

Atheism and the occult with sociopathic personality structures. You should be able to see this by now in society. Yes, inhumanity is being exposed within humanity but so is humanity within humanity!! Humanity is definitely coming to the fore.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Occult

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/secularism-is-not-atheism_b_1699588

“Secularism must be the most misunderstood and mangled ism in the American political lexicon. Commentators on the right and the left routinely equate it with Stalinism, Nazism and Socialism, among other dreaded isms. “

Obviously, the article above is not altogether correct concerning the present circumstances. Secularism, a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations. If you look at what is being so abusively expressed by a number of atheist groups at present, Stalinism, Nazism and Socialism is certainly being openly expressed. This is not of an interconnection to energy as a whole.

When you dig even deeper you will realise that groups like BLM, ANTIFA, satanist paedophilia, atheist occultism, etc, have one thing in common, extremist atheism. We are not talking about main stream atheism here, we are talking about an occultist atheism that even atheists should denounce. Yes, I know a number of atheists recognise that this is occurring, some atheists turning away from atheism to agnosticism. Be it of a belief or disbelief, one not need to be of this inhumanity of obvious abuse and destruction.

Oh indeed, it is of enlightening times.........

Q Prediction

Written by Mathew Naismith

Firstly, Q represents a new revolution that is occurring in a number of countries that is not being reported by mainstream governments or media in a real sense. This movement is basically in opposition to governments of creating a reality of fear, paranoia, hysteria and deception. Basically, Q is a movement away from Nazi style governmental systems.

I would myself refrain from turning this Q revolution into a religious revolution; it is a revolution of all consciousness that oppose Nazi style ruling. However the question is, what is this going to mean to ideologies and isms like atheism?

Two present doctrines of atheism clearly and quite dogmatically state, it would seem, that we are all born atheists and that if you are not a theist, you are an atheist!!

We are seeing quite a number of pedophile rings currently being dismantled by Q authorities who are devil worshipers in one sense or another. Devil worshipers being the opposite of theism. So if we are all born atheistic, it is understandable that theists can also have a tendency of being a pedophile and a devil worshiper!! Also, if devil worshiping is the opposite of theism, you have to be an atheist to be a devil worshiping pedophile!!

The prediction in relation to atheism is that atheism is going to be seen as a undesirable, but an ideology that will still be allowed to exist. I will explain. Another prediction of mine is that no one in the future will be incarcerated and not just because crime will plummet. It will be known that incarceration is harmful to the collective consciousness as a whole. Yes, this also means releasing all the present incarcerated people, but in time. For the new consciousness, unknown by many to have always existed, will need time for the collective human consciousness to adapt to.

Imagine just for a moment, no incarceration whatsoever in the whole entire world.

Yes, devil worshipers will be allowed to walk among us freely, eventually. You need to understand how this new consciousness, to many, works. This consciousness will no longer and forevermore be or become a threat to humanity. These people of this consciousness won't become outcasts but simply an undesirable consciousness to integrate with on a conscious level. Atheism, through their own actions and dogmatic doctrines, will become an undesirable however, atheism will eventually shift it's emphasis on anti-theism and change it's doctrines forever. Even today not all atheists are anti-theist nor of the doctrines like, we are all born atheistic and that if you are not a theist, you have to be an atheist.

The way we use ideologies and isms will dramatically change for most of us, no longer will an ideology or ism be allowed to be abused for the good of only a few. It will be for the good of all or not at all. Eventually you won't even think of abusing ideologies and isms in this way, it won't even enter your mind to do so.

So where does this leave countries like Israel that seem to be plagued/controlled by Zionism to a massive extent? Not all Israelis are Zionist nor do they agree with Zionist actions or ideologies, even and especially towards the Palestinians. Israeli's consciousness has been controlled by Nazi ideologies for some time now, ideologies that existed way before the rise of the Nazi party or in fact Zionism. I won't go into this. Israel, like many other countries, will be treated as a consciousness that was lead down a very sinister dark road, that is all. There is a however. At no time go along with a consciousness of vengeance or retaliation of any kind upon another race as this will also occur at first. Just allow this consciousness to envelope you in an easy caring way.

https://drop.space/watch/the-fall-of-the-cabal-complete-part-1-10_dkeUc9eKTiETOBG.html?fbclid=IwAR1MOch1iJfqARurmr7xCvjzk6A-yhpTKNaEV8nVO1AgJsV0t7ILk17V_mg

Previous prediction prior to watching the video above.

“What an exhilarating time to be around, the final days of a system of government that has been strangulating the world for some years now. Finally, in desperation they have exposed themselves thinking that they have control, a governmental system of known fear, paranoia, hysteria and deception. Make no mistake, if you are thinking this kind of governance sounds familiar, you need not look past Nazi fascism. Far better educated people than I seem to be now calling our present governing system fascism.

Fascism: A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism).

Nazism: The far-right ideology of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party, esp. including a totalitarian government and racial superiority.

Authoritarianism in our case refers to an absolute rule instead of a ruler, based primarily on fear, COVID-19. This is so familiar in how the German people in regards to the rise of Adolf Hitler were deceived through fear, paranoia, hysteria and deception, by using so-called undesirables of the state as a tool to gain power. In our case the undesirable is COVID-19.

So to get to how I predict it is going to end. This is my own prediction, no one else so don’t take it to heart.

After these people have exposed themselves through the use of fear, they will be seen as undesirables, not just to a state or country but to humanity as a whole. They will be stripped of everything they have gained and more through years of deception, treachery and manipulation. No one in the future is going to want to marry into their families; their families will simply cease to exist in the end.

It will be recognised that no governmental system based on fear, paranoia, hysteria and deception is appropriate to the good of all humanity, in the process ending forever any governmental system based on these concepts and idealisms.

A new form of worldwide governing will be based on fearlessness, sanity, harmony and truth, these will be the main concepts and idealisms for any governing system in the world. Yes, this means no more wars or conflicts. The world will seem alien at first but then everyone will see how this new world was always a part of us all along. We simply lost this world in the process of becoming as one humanity, no longer many different humanities fighting it out with each other for gain of some kind.

This had to occur to move on from our present accepted governing systems. Actually, these people, who will end up being undesirable to humanity as a whole, will seem to people like me as a blessing for without them being who they are, our destiny most likely wouldn’t have ended up so harmonious as it will be. Many people won’t see this until we find worldwide harmony. These disharmonious people of fear will be seen as a blessing in the future, not a curse, by many believe it or not.”

Back in the Comfort Zone

Written by Mathew Naismith

There are some fundamental differences between atheism and theism/agnosticism/oneness psychology as I will explain. My own sense of oneness is of a different psychology to atheism for a very good reason.     

Gee whiz, what a discomforting experience to experience. Yes, I am back from experiencing something exceptionally distorted and discomforting but on the other hand also very aware building or enlightening. If you wonder why you get that creepy feeling up the spine being a spiritually aware person who is aware and probably empathic, this is why. To be simply in the absence of fear in any environment, this is what truly being fearless really is. Unbeknownst to these people, they had no hope in instilling fear in me or recruiting me. Yes, they tried a number of times to recruit me in their ranks as well.

Yes, atheists are on a big pilgrimage or recruiting drive. I say pilgrimage because quite a number of atheists are on a road to a world of total atheistic domination, of course along the way they must try to recruit more people to accomplish this world domination. Of course this takes a fair amount of atheistic preaching, deceitfulness and trickery. It would seem one of their exceptionally dogmatic doctrines quite clearly states, “If you are not a theist, you must then be an atheist.” Their stance on this seemed dogmatic to an extreme, but there is something a little strange in the psyche implemented here as I will explain.

Under the unbiased definitions of atheism, you have the doctrines of the belief that there are no deities, or, a disbelief that there is no deities. The new atheist doctrine states, which isn’t in the dictionary I use, is atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of deities. This is supposed to be the new up to date atheist doctrine of today, which to me is simply of deception. Why?

Agnosticism: “A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)”, also, “Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.”

Atheism is strictly of the commitment that the existence of deities don’t exist and can never exist, however, the agnostics stance isn’t of commitment at all in relation to the existence of deities. No joke, it was stated by a very active member of this group that you are then classed an agnostic atheist, under the present atheistic doctrines of course. In all honesty, so many atheists used agnostic principles when their commitment and dogmas where exceptionally evidently atheistic to someone like me.

There is also another difference between agnostics and even theists/spiritually aware people. Atheism, through science, is psychologically governed by facts where agnostics and spiritually aware people as a whole try to be governed by truth. As I have shown in my previous posts, facts can actually distort reality and truth. Add the fact that fraud is obviously a problem in today’s science, going by facts alone using science alone isn’t of wisdom but complete blind faith, as I found out as they didn’t know about the fraud within today’s science. The possibility that they didn’t want to know is probably more probable with some atheists. Yes, in my mind so many seemed to be also of deliberate self-deception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Extract: Agnosticism; is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

Atheism: Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

I find it strange psychology and reasoning that you have to be either an atheist, agnostic atheist or an atheist agnostic, or, a theist agnostic or an agnostic theist. Of course simply being an agnostic didn’t come into this kind of psychology by the looks of it. Truly, I didn’t know there were so many difference sects of atheism and there is even more. For someone into oneness, were you have a quality of seeing everything as one, such as energy instead of separated energy entities, this kind of psychology and reasoning is beyond me. Or if you like, behind me.

Oneness; can be described as being One with God, or One with nature or being One with all Life…. but these are only words pointing to the Truth…. they are not the Truth. Oneness closes the gap between the observer and the observed, between a person and God, between a person and nature, between a person and Life.

You could say that facts also point to the truth as well. In theory, facts are supposed to point to truth when in actuality facts can often distort the truth. DNA didn’t exist until the facts proved DNA existed, even when DNA existed way before the facts determined DNA to have existed!! So the universe couldn’t have existed before the facts proved the existence of the universe!! Facts, like the perception of oneness, can point to the truth, but of course not necessarily.

So is oneness governed by the same principles as facts when pointing towards truth?

Through general science, energy is separated into separate entities, where oneness simply sees all energy being as one no matter how different they are to each other. Within the perception of oneness, everything is connected and acts as one entity even though we as humans are unable to detect this. Just because we are unable to detect this, therefore being of facts, doesn’t mean it’s not true but it does to someone whose psyche is totally reliant on facts!!  I would not myself feel comfortable reasoning like this, in all honesty to me, it is not proper practical reasoning pointing towards facts in the absence of truth.

As it is, atheists, through science, are of facts where spirituality and agnostics, which includes oneness, is more pointing towards the truth being the primary source of awareness, not facts. The difference to someone like me is obvious. Don’t make the mistake though, that atheism is a separate entity to spirituality and oneness, what would atheists have to disbelieve if it wasn’t for spiritually and oneness!!                   

Beyond the Comfort Zone II

Written by Mathew Naismith

It is funny but spirituality as a whole within its wisdom looks for the truth, even in the absence of facts, where’s science looks for the facts often in the absence of truth!!

This may sound strange, “At no time is fact directly related to truth, only when facts have been verified to be true.” As I will explain through my reply to a self-proclaimed atheist, facts don’t necessarily lead to truth. Actually, quite often facts can distort the truth, also, truth is often found within beliefs in the absence of facts. I also gave an example of this. Facts don’t verify the truth, truth verifies the facts or beliefs. A belief can simply be a hypothesis and still be truth in the absence of facts. Facts are simply of perceptions until they become verified truths, however, a belief can be of truth in the absence of facts. There is no truth within a fact until verified as being of truth!!

Science is simply of facts, not truth, and atheism is of neither facts nor truth within itself. Atheism, unlike other belief systems, is an empty shell on its own but other belief systems on the other hand can be of facts and/or truths. A belief system of doctrines of disbeliefs, such as atheism, has no substance to it, no value to become aware or knowing but to simply disbelieve in the absence of facts and truth on its own, unlike other belief systems. As one of the atheist doctrines state, “A lack of belief”, is a play on words to deceive that atheists simply believe there are no proven existing deities.       

“Here are scientific facts that were verified to be fact but obviously not true, of truth.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/10-false-science-facts.htm

https://www.rd.com/culture/science-myths/ 

If facts were directly related to truth, why would one then need truth to begin with? Not all facts produce truth to start with, even when seemingly verified. No, facts often don’t lead to truth. On top of this, you have a science that is known to be fraudulent at times.

It is obvious that truth is simply in the absence of untruths be it of verified facts or not. 

Science or atheism isn’t about truth, to the lead up to a hopeful truth, science is simply about facts. Why do atheists only refer to science being about facts instead of truth? Because science isn’t about truth, it can only hopefully lead to truth.

Actually, science should never be about truth itself, but to lead to truth. Why? Because once truth is discovered, that is the end of the story. Science is meant to keep evolving, it has to, which is different to religion. Sadly, unlike spirituality as a whole, atheism itself is neither about truth nor facts, itself. Beliefs can lead to truths like hypothesises where unbelief’s are simply an empty shell on their own. Facts can be distorted, truth can’t.

Hypothesising: To believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds

Belief systems can lead to truths, where unbelief’s systems on their own lead to, an empty shell. Atheism has only science it would seem to find truth, which isn’t within itself about truth, obviously!! Don’t get me wrong, science often leads to truth as well but so do beliefs. Facts have been known to distort the truth, probably on the same level as beliefs.

Before DNA was known to exist, DNA couldn’t have existed without science proving so, even when it did!! However, in the absence of facts, beliefs could tell us otherwise as in a Hypothesis. Facts often distort reality and truth. No, facts don’t always lead to truth but beliefs can lead to truth in the absence of facts.  

Mistakenly in my mind, atheists search for facts through science instead of the truth through science. To an atheist, DNA couldn’t have ever or ever will exist in the absence of facts, even when the belief in the existence of DNA was of truth in the absence of facts!! Without a doubt, facts can often distort the truth either leading to falsehood’s (fraud) or lead to missing the truth altogether.

Facts are of science therefore atheism. Faith is of spirituality as a whole. I think it is the faith that allows us in spirituality to look for the truth instead of unwisely looking for the facts instead. Faith won’t always lead to the truth but neither will the facts, so don’t be fooled in relying on the facts in the absence of truth. 

Some people think what I write about is dysfunctional (negative). I don't ever find the truth negative in any sense, unless the truth is distorted through facts and reasoning based on biases. I don't have  bias in favour of the positives as truth also comes in negatives as well.        

Beyond the Comfort Zone

Written by Mathew Naismith

This is what comes from going way outside your comfort zone can reveal at times.

Quote: “At no time is fact directly related to truth, only when facts have been verified to be true. This is interesting, which I never thought of before, atheists often refer to facts instead of truth, but spiritually aware people often refer to truth instead of facts.  Hmmmm, this is why I am not an atheist!!  Let’s be honest, one of the doctrines or laws of atheism is it must be of facts, not truth. Seen as more people are becoming atheistic, is the fraud in today’s science linked to this? Is today’s mess in the world linked to this? Add immoral deceptive militants to this equation, why not!!”

This will make more sense when you read on to the reply I sent to an atheist on the topic of atheist doctrines based on fiction, not facts.  So many atheists also totally believe, obviously in the absence of truth, that we are born an atheist or theist, also, that you can only be an atheist or a theist!! Yes, these two firmly believed doctrines of atheism are simply based on fiction it would seem.     

But, if you are not a theist, you are an atheist does I suppose!! True and false are often used in a different context to fact and fiction, so you are saying fact is exactly the same as true and false is exactly the same as fiction!! This is exactly what you seem to be saying Junious. I did make reference to fact and fiction, not true and false.

Fact:  A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

Truth: A fact that has been verified

Fiction: The creation of something in the mind

False: Not in accordance with the fact, reality or actuality

As previously quoted: At no time is fact directly related to truth, only when facts have been verified to be true. This is interesting, which I never thought of before, atheists often refer to facts instead of truth, but spiritually aware people often refer to truth instead of facts.  Hmmmm, this is why I am not an atheist!!  Let’s be honest, one of the doctrines or laws of atheism is it must be of facts, not truth. Seen as more people are becoming atheistic, is the fraud in today’s science linked to this? Is today’s mess in the world linked to this? Add immoral deceptive militants to this equation, why not!!     

In relation to fiction and falseness, they seem the same but there not Junious. Fiction can often be based on fact and even truth, falseness is never based on fact and certainly not truth.

I hope you didn’t do this on purpose, used words manipulatively to serve your own purpose. Junious, we use quite different reasoning processes, I think this should be obvious to you now.

The doctrine of lack of belief, disbelief or whatever you want to change it to, is not based on truth or facts.  So if it is not based on truth or facts, what is it? The only fact there is, at this point in time, is that deities can’t scientifically be proven to exist but can in other ways. Are these other ways accepted by atheists? No, but they are to many others. This is not truth by atheists Junious, as atheists obviously don’t work on truths, which is a huge error in my mind. Hones.yt, I can’t ever remember an atheist making a number of references to truth, only facts which isn’t truth until proven to be true.

The problem with belief systems, including atheism, is militants, and yes, atheism without a doubt has its militants or radicals as well.  Can you now see the way you and so many other atheists, not all, reasoning are quite incorrect?

What you have done here disappoints me, not that should worry you of course.

I was encouraged by the creator of this atheist group to join the discussions on this group. I have a funny feeling they regret this now.  Yes, I am open minded and often honest within my truths, but this also includes being open minded and honest with my truths in relation to beliefs systems like atheism.  I was simply a shock to the system being as openly honest as I was.

It is not about changing people’s minds, it is about freely expressing one’s own views. 

Atheism in Denial

Written by Mathew Naismith

I know a lot of people don't like me pointing out the obvious, but to not do so in my mind would be of the denial of the real truth in favour of a desired truth. As I experienced recently in search of a free thinking group of people, denial in atheism of the real truth in favour of a desired truth was too obvious to ignore. I was looking for a group of people who are of free thinking, was I stupid looking for free thinking people in an atheist group? Not at all, especially when atheism in the West proclaims it's about free thinking, a thought process not governed by the biases of dogmatic doctrines!!

One of my first responses to the question of free thinking within this atheist group was to blatantly assume I was a theist, only because I stated true atheism. It would seem stating that there was a true form of atheism, as opposed to a false form of atheism, was an immediate sign, by the creator of this group, I was a theist. I was subsequently treated as such without any supporting evidence to this claim that I was a theist in any sense of the word. In the end I was also accused of being an internet troll and you guessed it, without any supporting evidence whatsoever. This made perfect sense as I supplied numerous forms of material to support my claims; this obviously did not go down to well. At no time did anyone in this group supply any kind of evidence to support their numerous claims.

Atheists in this group, as I have found in other Western atheist groups, totally denied that atheism was governed by dogmatic doctrines, even after supplying various supporting material to this claim and obvious fact. This was strange because this atheist group boasted it was against any claims that are false. It certainly seems this only referred to any theist claims, not to atheist claims as I found out. Atheists in this group made numerous unfounded claims, even to claim over and over again atheism wasn't of dogmatic doctrines as atheism was only of the disbelief of deities of any kind. Of course it was also stated they were also against any false claims as well!! Again at no point was any supporting evidence supplied to their counterclaims that atheism wasn't of dogmatic doctrines.

Faith also came up in the discussion; the total denial of atheist having any kind of faith was too evident. Even after supplying supporting matterial to the claim even atheist express a form of faith, this was denied over and over again. I even supplied material from a psychology today which clearly stated everyone expresses some form of faith. As of one of the examples I gave, going from (A) to (B) to these atheists is not of faith but of statistics, even though the definition of faith is simply a confidence of getting from one point to another and not of statistics. Once again no supporting material was supplied to support their counterclaims that atheists don't express a form of faith. In the end I was of course removed from participating in this group any further.

Supplying evidence to your claims can indeed create a very volatile response, often a response that is irrational and abusive. You must consider the circumstances you are in when supplying evidence to your claims as this can be taken offensively. Yes, telling the actual truth is often scorned upon in favour of a desired truth in accordance with our own isms and/or ideologies.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ambigamy/201309/faith-what-is-it-and-who-has-it

https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Doctrine-of-atheism-Myth-no-more-20130527

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……….    

Using Ideologies and Isms Correctly

Written By Mathew Naismith

Having consorted on this topic with a number of people recently, including clashes with atheists of one kind or another, it is obvious to me we are using isms and ideologies incorrectly. We are using them as a be and end all, or, an ultimate state of thinking that should suite everyone. Personally, I don't know of any ism or ideology that would suite every, thankfully, on a collective scale, we are too diverse, too unlimited in consciousness for that.

Why limit human consciousness to one consort, one ideological view which dominates and limits our consciousness to one ideological stance? For me, I couldn't imagine being this limited, this encaged by a singular ideology. In saying this though, diversity of consciousness also includes people being very content within their own ideological stance.  

In my own mind, all isms and ideologies should be used as a guide, not a be and end all, an ultimate state of being for all. I would not like to think that human consciousness could ever reach this state of encaged consciousness, a consciousness totally limited by its own conscious limitations. Diversity is the key an ever evolving consciousness.

Having also researched on this topic, I found the following quite interesting and very truthful. It is wise to know that isms and ideologies can and do create bias and even disdain, especially towards an opposing ism or ideology. Once influenced by such isms and ideologies, especially dogmatically, truth becomes a blur, truth basically becomes less truthful.                              

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2011/06/23/the-danger-of-isms/

Extract: One of my bigger regrets is publicly declaring myself an atheist.

Not because I’ve made a recent conversion to faith—I’m still confident in my original opinion. Rather, because I believe “-isms” are dangerous, whether it is theism, atheism, vegetarianism, Buddhism or any other philosophy.

http://www.thefreethinkinglife.com/the-end-of-isms-2/

I do find the rigid conscious limited stance of atheists that treat atheism, materialism and science as a be an end, as an ultimate all powerful God like ideological ism, are as bad if not worse within their religion than extremist religion. Again, atheism, like any ideological ism, should be treated as guide, not some ultimate all powerful God like entity because this is exactly what is occurring.  

I personally know of a number of atheists, I was once an atheist myself, even my stepdaughter confirms that she is an atheist, for every good reasons I might add. They are not into extremist atheism, an ism that is being treated far more than just a guide to life to think and live by.      

The following will show how some of these kinds of atheists think, to me, there is no logics to the way they think and live. This is an example of westernised atheism, not eastern atheism, there is a difference.

_____________________________

As I have stated before, not all experiences and observations can be proven factually, it doesn't make them untrue to the observer or experiencer. The materialist/atheist stance is, to me, too rigid/dogmatic and illogical.

Everyone dreams including materialists, so if a dream can't be substantiated by hard core facts, the dream didn't occur. This would mean a materialist can't discuss their dreams void of solid evidence that they had an actual dream!! Strange logic's for a people who have a go at other people's logic's or lack of.

I do understand materialist/atheist ideological views, especially when limited to primary materialist perspectives.

I do however use a lot of actual experiences and observation, at times supported by scientific evidence. In a sense, I have a right to talk about my dreams void of physical evidence. How do you debate or even question a non-psychical occurrence void of actual evidence? It's totally illogical to even try but materialists do exactly this which shows how illogical they too can be!!

Fact and truth; I had a number of dreams last night.

Fact and truth; there is no knowable evidence of me having these dreams.

Fact and truth; I had these dreams even when the lack of evidence proves otherwise.

Fact and truth; the reliance on evidence to prove an occurrence occurred can often be flawed.

In my mind, we need to be more truthful with ourselves, evidence can be and is often flawed, this doesn't include actual tampering of evidence either!!

_____________________________

You have got to understand this stance of a lot of westernised atheists. To acknowledge observation and actual experience as evidence, would be to open themselves up to observation and actual experiences from opposing ideologies as evidence as well. The deception here is that atheists also rely on observation and actual experience as a prime source of evidence at times as well.

If you label an opposing ideology hypocritical, this deceptively takes the emphasis off their own hypocrisy, yes, its fraudulent behaviour by a lot of westernised atheists of today. It's sad that many atheists have turned atheism and science into yet another religion, yet another be and end all ism/ideology!!