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.