time to take the finger off the ignition switch

[Dontaskme]

Whatever I have and am doing happens in whatever way it is happening. I do not change what is not a theory into a theory and vice versa. I am just learning how to re-arrange words in a way that can be best understood by ALL people. This it could be said IS a continual process, which will be better understood later on.

I am currently under construction. Thank you for your patience.

[ken]

Maybe the person can't help what they say or do, maybe it's got Asperger syndrome...or a severe kind of Autism.

Or, just maybe the only thing its got is a belief, which is holding them back.

Asperger or any autism syndrome is easy to spot and notice.

The people who believe they are right are the ones I am talking about.

NOW, if you want to play a game of "human drama", which I am totally ready to play, then let us play.

But what does 'human drama" mean to you here first?

Dear ken, I want to be your friend. I've changed my mind about you ..and didn't mean the things I said when I thought you were a bit controlling. Shall we be kind to each other from now on...and get on, and play nicely. I want to learn and be open to what it is you are saying.

I was never not a friend.

Whatever is said here does not affect Me

Human drama means to me... I don't actually know, I just made it up... ...and that's being totally honest...

Yes i thought that was the case after you tried to dodge my clarifying question the first time.

Or maybe human drama is about wanting to be right all the time and in doing so it's getting into all sorts of mental mind games with others to prove their point..of who they think and believe is right or wrong...or something like that..

The thing with ALL adult human beings when they say things and if questioned what do they actually mean it is very hard to get a straightforward response from them. This happens because the brain in young children is so quick in being able to take in words and the general definition or sense of a word and remember it that the actual definition is not fully memorized. Usually because the elder one passing the word and its meaning on usually does not have a full grasp of the word themselves. The brain in a younger body, because of the open Mind, is able to learn and understand just from seeing and hearing others, but if the "others" are not really sure themselves then this also gets passed on. There is probably a "million" things just here to discuss, explain with each of them fitting in or backing up the other to form the puzzle, which will show the big picture of Life, but best leave it here for now.

I find it sad and a pity that sthitapragya can't find it in his heart to be more welcoming and accepting of other peoples shortcomings on his own thread.

Have you been welcoming and accepting in ALL of other peoples shortcomings on your own thread?

By definition 'other peoples shortcomings' are going to cause some sort of frustration in the person who says, "Another's shortcomings" is it not? The use of the word 'shortcoming' is meant to mean the unwelcoming and nonacceptance of the "other's" doing, right?

I don't care if people want to call me a moron, because I don't believe it, I already know the real truth of me.

If truth be known there is some sort of "care" otherwise you would not have brought it up here and now. But way way deep down there is an 'I do not care'. That comes from the big 'I' or Knower or whatever we decide to call IT. But if we are to be honest with ourselves on a personal level there is a "care", somewhere.

Ask them to define 'moron' or any other, out of context word, without a dictionary and see how quick they can reply back and what actual reply you get back. Usually the response is something like, "You know". Every person has a general sense of what a word means but actually being able to define it is a lot different. This is of course for the people who study words and the very intellectual people who have a great memory. I think you will find that generally most people are not really positive of a words full and varied definition/s and how a definition could possibly relate to another person in the actual context that they are using it in. But this is not so easy to show and prove on a website forum.

I do not like to use any word that is derogatory. See, just now if some one asked me to define and explain derogatory then I would not know, but i have a general sense of it meaning to "put some one down", whatever that now actually means. I could go on forever like this.

Some people here might have thought that when i was referring to them or others as 'stupid' i was doing this in a "put down" or "lesser person" way. This is exactly what i was NOT doing. I was using that word, after I looked it up in a dictionary, as just a person who is believing (in) something, i.e., a person who is not open. I call a person who is open intelligent and a person who is closed unintelligent. The dictionary stated that a stupid person was an unintelligent person. Not being fully open is something every adult has and does do from "time to time", when they are believing (in) something.

attofishpi thinks dontaskme is a moron...but that's ok I can take it.

Thinking is NOT knowing. So there is NOTHING to worry about.

This is sthitaprayga's thread, so do you want to take this back to your "mental chatter" thread and start again where I left of saying, 'I' am God. That by the way is absolutely OPEN, to change.

[Dontaskme]

The thing with ALL adult human beings when they say things and if questioned what do they actually mean it is very hard to get a straightforward response from them. This happens because the brain in young children is so quick in being able to take in words and the general definition or sense of a word and remember it that the actual definition is not fully memorized. Usually because the elder one passing the word and its meaning on usually does not have a full grasp of the word themselves. The brain in a younger body, because of the open Mind, is able to learn and understand just from seeing and hearing others, but if the "others" are not really sure themselves then this also gets passed on.

I understand this so much. Young children do not have filters like adults do, so i know where you are coming from now, i get what you are saying, they absorb everything because they are open minded. Babies can even learn to speak 3 languages at the same time because they are open to it.

[Dontaskme]

This is sthitaprayga's thread, so do you want to take this back to your "mental chatter" thread and start again where I left of saying, 'I' am God. That by the way is absolutely OPEN, to change.

yes, lets go back to my place ken...after you ...gentlemen first ...

[Dontaskme]

I call a person who is open intelligent and a person who is closed unintelligent. The dictionary stated that a stupid person was an unintelligent person. Not being fully open is something every adult has and does do from "time to time", when they are believing (in) something.

I agree, it's funny how people like to make sweeping assumptions about other people even when they don't know them, it's all projection and their own insecurities.

Open people are intelligent, life is open and it is very intelligent, it made a living breathing walking talking human without thinking about how it was going to do it...that is what i call intelligence.

I see you are a very intelligent person ken. I like intelligent people.

[Dontaskme]

Ask them to define 'moron' or any other, out of context word, without a dictionary and see how quick they can reply back and what actual reply you get back.

I don't mind people name calling at me, it's quite entertaining for me. It gives me an excuse to act like a right asshole instead of having to live up to high expectations all the time. It means I can let me hair down now and again without feeling embarrassed about it because well I've been told I'm a moron so it's alright to act like one then.. It's like yip hee..welcome to the human zoo full of loony tics.

[sthitapragya]

sthitapragya

You think you can tell me what I am, what I do, and what I think. You are unable to prove this, let alone be able to know what the truth is. Only I know what 'I' am, what thoughts are within this head, and what this body does. Therefore, 'you' are WRONG in just about everything you have said here in relation to Me. I can prove this, you can not.

You say, "You cannot get by without belief. Your life would come to a complete standstill if you did not believe." "I am saying that you are ignorant if you say you can get by without beliefs. You would not be able to survive."

Before you could even begin to prove this belief you will have to answer and explain exactly these questions:
1. Why exactly would I not be able to survive, without beliefs?
2. What comes to a "complete standstill", if i did not believe?
3. How exactly would a "complete standstill" happen if people did not believe?
For example, does the body I am in just stop breathing and pumping blood if I do not believe, or does the body just stop moving, or does life itself just completely stop around me? Or, does something else happen?

You say, "EVERYONE believes".
I say, they do not have to believe.

The difference between the two is unlike you I am not saying what people have to do. As soon as you tell Me or others that we HAVE TO do something, then you better be able to back that up with some proof and evidence. Until then what right do you have in telling others what they have to do.

I just say that it is not necessary to believe or disbelieve, and if and when a person does, then they are far more open to learning far more.

I have said, "By the way how do new born babies live? They do not have beliefs nor do they make certain assumptions."

I have backed up what i say with some proof and evidence, which you totally ignore or refuse to look at and answer, your inability or refusal to answer that question is proof and evidence that is needed. I am able to back up what I say because unlike you I am not saying what others HAVE TO do, I am just saying what is possible and actually already happens.

Either back up what you say with some proof or evidence, or refute what i say by just answering the question that i have provided you with. I have given you an opportunity to prove me wrong by giving you a simple, easy and straightforward appropriate question. Here i will make it even easier for you to prove Me wrong and you right:

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

(By the way if you would like me to pick apart everything else you have written, then I am more than willing to do so. But I will await your reply to this first.)

Ken,

I could prove you wrong or understand you and accept you are right, only if 'you' (or is it you?) come up with words to differentiate between the two.

I do however think that you (or 'you') believe that there is a mind removed from the brain and independent of it. If you(or 'you') do not believe that, then I have misunderstood you(or 'you'). If you(or 'you') do believe that, then It is your(or 'your') belief because there is no way you(or 'you') can prove that. If you(or 'you') can prove that, then that would be amazing, and I would learn something new.

But till you prove that, everything you (or 'you') say that flows from that premise is a hypothesis or beliefs.

[sthitapragya]

Why did you even bother with another response to DontAskMoron. I thought he was just a 'drip on a green folliage' but now more obvious as a little blabbing baby.

I thought he would get the hint that I was really not reading what he wrote and that he should take his crap elsewhere. Apparently he is made of much sterner stuff than I am. So I quit again. You are right. It is like banging your head against a brick wall made of nothing. I just shouldn't have bothered to reply.

[ken]

sthitapragya

You think you can tell me what I am, what I do, and what I think. You are unable to prove this, let alone be able to know what the truth is. Only I know what 'I' am, what thoughts are within this head, and what this body does. Therefore, 'you' are WRONG in just about everything you have said here in relation to Me. I can prove this, you can not.

You say, "You cannot get by without belief. Your life would come to a complete standstill if you did not believe." "I am saying that you are ignorant if you say you can get by without beliefs. You would not be able to survive."

Before you could even begin to prove this belief you will have to answer and explain exactly these questions:
1. Why exactly would I not be able to survive, without beliefs?
2. What comes to a "complete standstill", if i did not believe?
3. How exactly would a "complete standstill" happen if people did not believe?
For example, does the body I am in just stop breathing and pumping blood if I do not believe, or does the body just stop moving, or does life itself just completely stop around me? Or, does something else happen?

You say, "EVERYONE believes".
I say, they do not have to believe.

The difference between the two is unlike you I am not saying what people have to do. As soon as you tell Me or others that we HAVE TO do something, then you better be able to back that up with some proof and evidence. Until then what right do you have in telling others what they have to do.

I just say that it is not necessary to believe or disbelieve, and if and when a person does, then they are far more open to learning far more.

I have said, "By the way how do new born babies live? They do not have beliefs nor do they make certain assumptions."

I have backed up what i say with some proof and evidence, which you totally ignore or refuse to look at and answer, your inability or refusal to answer that question is proof and evidence that is needed. I am able to back up what I say because unlike you I am not saying what others HAVE TO do, I am just saying what is possible and actually already happens.

Either back up what you say with some proof or evidence, or refute what i say by just answering the question that i have provided you with. I have given you an opportunity to prove me wrong by giving you a simple, easy and straightforward appropriate question. Here i will make it even easier for you to prove Me wrong and you right:

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

(By the way if you would like me to pick apart everything else you have written, then I am more than willing to do so. But I will await your reply to this first.)

Ken,

I could prove you wrong or understand you and accept you are right, only if 'you' (or is it you?) come up with words to differentiate between the two.

Why would you NEED that now. Last time you asked me to differentiate between 'I' and 'i' then we could start talking again. I did that now you want me to do it again with 'you' and you. How about sth just be honest here and just admit sth does not want to answer the questions I asked in relation to those beliefs.

I will not use 'you' or you again in discussions with sth. So now there is no excuse not to answer the questions.

AFTER the answers to the questions are given then I will differentiate between the two.

Stop 'trying' to turn this around and just answer the questions so we can see what arises, and then we can move on.

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

[Dontaskme]

Why did you even bother with another response to DontAskMoron. I thought he was just a 'drip on a green folliage' but now more obvious as a little blabbing baby.

I thought he would get the hint that I was really not reading what he wrote and that he should take his crap elsewhere. Apparently he is made of much sterner stuff than I am. So I quit again. You are right. It is like banging your head against a brick wall made of nothing. I just shouldn't have bothered to reply.

Try knocking down the wall you've build around you ..that may help you see and engage with others more clearly without the obvious obstacle you like to put between yourself and others... we're all human you know, we've all got our little stubborn ways about us.

I guess with me you see nothing there to bounce off so you leave. That's what you're doing, you see nothing to bounce your ideas off, because I have no wall up, unlike you.

[sthitapragya]

sthitapragya

You think you can tell me what I am, what I do, and what I think. You are unable to prove this, let alone be able to know what the truth is. Only I know what 'I' am, what thoughts are within this head, and what this body does. Therefore, 'you' are WRONG in just about everything you have said here in relation to Me. I can prove this, you can not.

You say, "You cannot get by without belief. Your life would come to a complete standstill if you did not believe." "I am saying that you are ignorant if you say you can get by without beliefs. You would not be able to survive."

Before you could even begin to prove this belief you will have to answer and explain exactly these questions:
1. Why exactly would I not be able to survive, without beliefs?
2. What comes to a "complete standstill", if i did not believe?
3. How exactly would a "complete standstill" happen if people did not believe?
For example, does the body I am in just stop breathing and pumping blood if I do not believe, or does the body just stop moving, or does life itself just completely stop around me? Or, does something else happen?

You say, "EVERYONE believes".
I say, they do not have to believe.

The difference between the two is unlike you I am not saying what people have to do. As soon as you tell Me or others that we HAVE TO do something, then you better be able to back that up with some proof and evidence. Until then what right do you have in telling others what they have to do.

I just say that it is not necessary to believe or disbelieve, and if and when a person does, then they are far more open to learning far more.

I have said, "By the way how do new born babies live? They do not have beliefs nor do they make certain assumptions."

I have backed up what i say with some proof and evidence, which you totally ignore or refuse to look at and answer, your inability or refusal to answer that question is proof and evidence that is needed. I am able to back up what I say because unlike you I am not saying what others HAVE TO do, I am just saying what is possible and actually already happens.

Either back up what you say with some proof or evidence, or refute what i say by just answering the question that i have provided you with. I have given you an opportunity to prove me wrong by giving you a simple, easy and straightforward appropriate question. Here i will make it even easier for you to prove Me wrong and you right:

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

(By the way if you would like me to pick apart everything else you have written, then I am more than willing to do so. But I will await your reply to this first.)

Ken,

I could prove you wrong or understand you and accept you are right, only if 'you' (or is it you?) come up with words to differentiate between the two.

Why would you NEED that now. Last time you asked me to differentiate between 'I' and 'i' then we could start talking again. I did that now you want me to do it again with 'you' and you. How about sth just be honest here and just admit sth does not want to answer the questions I asked in relation to those beliefs.

I will not use 'you' or you again in discussions with sth. So now there is no excuse not to answer the questions.

AFTER the answers to the questions are given then I will differentiate between the two.

Stop 'trying' to turn this around and just answer the questions so we can see what arises, and then we can move on.

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

Any word or letter which has two meanings with and without apostrophes must be differentiated. If you are willing to do that fine. Otherwise you can believe that I am just arguing for the sake of argument. You do not seem to be able to understand how tough it is for other people to grasp and keep remembering which is which.

Babies are completely dependent on other people. Leave a baby alone for a day. It will become critically Ill or die. So wrong example.

[ken]

Ken,

I could prove you wrong or understand you and accept you are right, only if 'you' (or is it you?) come up with words to differentiate between the two.

Why would you NEED that now. Last time you asked me to differentiate between 'I' and 'i' then we could start talking again. I did that now you want me to do it again with 'you' and you. How about sth just be honest here and just admit sth does not want to answer the questions I asked in relation to those beliefs.

I will not use 'you' or you again in discussions with sth. So now there is no excuse not to answer the questions.

AFTER the answers to the questions are given then I will differentiate between the two.

Stop 'trying' to turn this around and just answer the questions so we can see what arises, and then we can move on.

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

Any word or letter which has two meanings with and without apostrophes must be differentiated.

Yes ok, when I discover a way to successfully differentiate the two i will let you know. Until then just continue doing what sth has been always doing up to now with ALL words, which have two AND MORE different meanings, , i.e., just assume what the person is saying.

Otherwise you can believe that I am just arguing for the sake of argument.

Well what is sth actually arguing for exactly?

What is that point that sth wants to put across?

You do not seem to be able to understand how tough it is for other people to grasp and keep remembering which is which.

I do UNDERSTAND completely and the very reason WHY i am here in order to learn how to better express so that I can and will be fully understood. I use letters/words like i, I, 'i', 'I', you, and 'you', for the purpose to see what reactions I get. I am using people here to study their reactions, as well as also to show future generations how people react to the way I write. This is in order to prove with evidence of how the Mind and the brain can actually work together and/or independently of each other.

The very reason human beings are confused in the days when this is written is because of the way people continually use words confusingly.

Babies are completely dependent on other people. Leave a baby alone for a day. It will become critically Ill or die. So wrong example.

[/quote]

Wrong example for what exactly?

Babies will not necessarily become critically ill if left alone or die in just a day. But again that may depend on what age you are talking about here. I will not ask sth to clarify this because if sth did attempt to answer this question but not attempt the the other two questions then that would just be another attempt by sth to side step the whole and main issue here.

In case you have completely forgotten to answer, purposely reject to answer the two questions, did not read them, or are purposely trying to circumvent AGAIN the issue here, or maybe for some other reason you will NOT answer the two questions, then here they are again. Let see if you will answer them this time:

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing from within, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

I underlined the two questions so that it makes them easy for sth to notice.

Because you believe and insist that we ALL MUST HAVE and HAVE TO have beliefs and assumptions otherwise we will die if we do not, then that also means that I too must have to assume and believe things also. Therefore, if you do not answer these two questions this time, to prove what you believe is absolutely true, right and correct, then I also supposedly MUST HAVE TO assume and believe the reason why sth does not answer the questions this time. The reason why sth will NOT answer these two questions is so obvious anyway, to Me already.

[sthitapragya]

Babies will not necessarily become critically ill if left alone or die in just a day. But again that may depend on what age you are talking about here. I will not ask sth to clarify this because if sth did attempt to answer this question but not attempt the the other two questions then that would just be another attempt by sth to side step the whole and main issue here.

In case you have completely forgotten to answer, purposely reject to answer the two questions, did not read them, or are purposely trying to circumvent AGAIN the issue here, or maybe for some other reason you will NOT answer the two questions, then here they are again. Let see if you will answer them this time:

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing from within, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

I underlined the two questions so that it makes them easy for sth to notice.

Because you believe and insist that we ALL MUST HAVE and HAVE TO have beliefs and assumptions otherwise we will die if we do not, then that also means that I too must have to assume and believe things also. Therefore, if you do not answer these two questions this time, to prove what you believe is absolutely true, right and correct, then I also supposedly MUST HAVE TO assume and believe the reason why sth does not answer the questions this time. The reason why sth will NOT answer these two questions is so obvious anyway, to Me already.

Although your questions have nothing to do with your beliefs, I will attempt to answer your questions.
Babies are kept alive by the constant watch of their parents. Left alone, they will die, in a day or a week or a month.

As soon as they are able to understand cause and effect and start doing things independently, belief creeps in. It is unavoidable. When a child will become independent varies from child to child but essentially the more they become independent, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become. It is a relationship between understanding cause and effect, knowledge, ability to make assumptions using the knowledge and independence.

All this however has nothing to do with your theory, which is built on beliefs. You believe that there is one mind within all people. You have no proof of that. You believe I and 'I' are different. You have no proof of that. You whole theory is based on this belief. You refuse to consider the possibility that there is only I. You refuse to consider the possibility that there is no mind independent of the brain even though all evidence suggests that there is no mind independent of the brain. These are beliefs of a closed mind.

[ken]

Babies will not necessarily become critically ill if left alone or die in just a day. But again that may depend on what age you are talking about here. I will not ask sth to clarify this because if sth did attempt to answer this question but not attempt the the other two questions then that would just be another attempt by sth to side step the whole and main issue here.

In case you have completely forgotten to answer, purposely reject to answer the two questions, did not read them, or are purposely trying to circumvent AGAIN the issue here, or maybe for some other reason you will NOT answer the two questions, then here they are again. Let see if you will answer them this time:

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing from within, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

I underlined the two questions so that it makes them easy for sth to notice.

Because you believe and insist that we ALL MUST HAVE and HAVE TO have beliefs and assumptions otherwise we will die if we do not, then that also means that I too must have to assume and believe things also. Therefore, if you do not answer these two questions this time, to prove what you believe is absolutely true, right and correct, then I also supposedly MUST HAVE TO assume and believe the reason why sth does not answer the questions this time. The reason why sth will NOT answer these two questions is so obvious anyway, to Me already.

Although your questions have nothing to do with your beliefs, I will attempt to answer your questions.

sth is right here in that those questions have nothing to do with what is thought to be right, but those quesstions have everything to do with the belief that a person can not exist without beliefs has. And, where again did that belief come from? That belief certainly did NOT come from Me.

Babies are kept alive by the constant watch of their parents. Left alone, they will die, in a day or a week or a month.

See that is more correct. More and new true, right and correct knowledge is found from the open Mind. Just some people need this pointed out to them more than others. If sth had been looking from the open Mind in the beginning, then the Truth here could have been spotted and seen earlier. In fact I would not have had to point out the Truth to sth if sth was not looking and writing from beliefs and assumptions.

By the way this is not about how babies are kept alive and for how long without what is necessary. This is about at what age does a human being start having beliefs and assumptions so then I will learn at what a human beings will stop existing when they do not have and maintain beliefs and assumptions, as is what is believed here.

sth BELIEVES that every human being has to HAVE assumptions and beliefs otherwise they will stop existing.

I THINK it is possible to exist without having assumptions and beliefs. This follows on with and fits in with everything else that I want to say in regards to how it is possible to learn how everyone could be living together in peace and harmony.

If sth is absolutely right, meaning that that unchangeable belief that we ALL will stop existing if we stop believing is absolutely correct, then what is the point of learning and knowing this here? What is it exactly that is trying to be expressed by sharing that knowledge? What will happen when that ultra informative knowledge is known, and then believed in?

As soon as they are able to understand cause and effect and start doing things independently, belief creeps in. It is unavoidable.

If it is true, then what is being believed here is right. And, if and when belief creeps in, is that when people can not keep existing if they stop having beliefs? Is that what is true?

When a child will become independent varies from child to child but essentially the more they become independent, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become.

This issue was never about when a child becomes independent. This issue is about when a child/adult will stop existing because they are not yet forming and holding onto those beliefs and assumptions.

By the way what is the age range that varies from child to child? What is the earliest and the latest age range?

So, is this what sth is affirming: the more independent one becomes, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become. Besides the fact that i think that does not logically follow, are you also saying that those assumptions mentioned here are the same as those assumptions that may or may not be true, or false, right?

And if this is the assumption that sth is making now there really is no one who knows if it is true or false because sth makes assumptions on the basis that those assumptions could be true but they could also be false. Is that right and/or could be wrong also, right?

It is a relationship between understanding cause and effect, knowledge, ability to make assumptions using the knowledge and independence.

Ok thanks. That is much clearer now. NOT.

All this however has nothing to do with your theory, which is built on beliefs. You believe that there is one mind within all people. You have no proof of that.

Do I believe that? Is sth absolutely positively sure of these four beliefs? Are these beliefs absolutely true or are only some or all of those beliefs, which are just assumptions that either may or may not be right, correct or incorrect? Or, are they assumptions which may or may not in fact be true OR false?

You believe I and 'I' are different.

Again sth assumptions are (or could be) absolutely and totally wrong here.

I know what the answer IS because I know the thoughts within this brain and/or body.

You have no proof of that.

Do you have proof that a human body will stop existing when there is no beliefs?

No proof of what exactly? If sth does not know what the difference is between I and 'I', which there would be no way of knowing because that has never been explained previously, then how in any way possibly known could sth know that I have no proof of "that", whatever that is.

You whole theory is based on this belief.

On what belief again? And what theory is being talked about here?

You refuse to consider the possibility that there is only I.

Why would sth even suggest that I refuse that possibility when that possibility has never been discussed here yet. So is this just another assumption that could be so totally wrong that this is getting unbelievable to other readers?

You refuse to consider the possibility that there is no mind independent of the brain even though all evidence suggests that there is no mind independent of the brain. These are beliefs of a closed mind.

By the very stupidity and nonsensical of these two statements together states for itself as proof of beliefs stopping people from learning more and anew.

Please explain how the beliefs of a closed mind stops a person from considering and seeing the that there is no mind independent of the brain?

sth wrote the statement for ALL to see that the beliefs of a closed mind stops a person from seeing and understanding that there is no mind, independent of the brain.

In case you have not noticed yet, which I find totally impossible not to see, if there is a closed mind, then how could there also be no mind, opened or closed, independent or dependent on the brain? If there is no mind, then there can not also be a closed mind.

Either there is a mind or there is no mind, which way would sth like it to be now?

Also would not the refusal to consider something different from a belief itself stop and prevent one from seeing and learning more and/or anew? If so, then I thought that was what I was arguing for. I thought sth began arguing for the exact opposite of this.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

You can switch this thought.
There is no doubt that human curiosity and enquiry led to the concept of God; it was just the wrong answer and too soon. We do not owe to science anything about the idea of God, as that was a dangerous and disabling backwater of "knowledge" which impeded progress for millennia.

The big questions do not come FROM the idea of God; God is just the wrong answer to what might even be the wrong type of questions. Given the idea that questions are not even valid we can say that the answer "GOD", is an the scientists are like to say "not even wrong".