What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Arising_uk]

Actually this is not an accurate account, from my perspective. I see that in this case, as with many humans, you reconstruct only those points, that in such a reiteration, support your defense of self, at the offense of another. This is common with humans. And I see it as an immaturity.

Do you? I see it as immature to not offer your perspective and then spout your psycho-babble.

So, are you saying that what you actually meant was 'up to and including the clear'? And it was what followed after that that got you all snippy. Or was it, as your words implied, the 'clearer' itself?

With respect to the "you reconstruct only those points", I don't. I address pretty much all the points. Its why I use the quote function the way I do as it allows me to easily trace back the conversation.

No, you see it as insecurities, because it suits your needs of supporting self. The truth is that I see much more in peoples meaning/conveyance than most are aware of. I seek one that is truly enlightened as to these conveyances and is capable of controlling them, as slights are falsehoods of preconception and are unfair, and distracting to a truly pleasant, rational, unemotional, intellectual conversation.

I wait for the day you can have one. As so far you tend to flare at any question asked about your thoughts or ones that challenge what you believe. What I hear is that you just want to talk to those who agree with you. You also read your own slights into this ability of 'seeing' "... much more in peoples meaning/conveyance than most are aware of". And pardon me if I place this ability up there with your 'gender intuition'. Me, I just try to hold to the maxim, "The meaning of ones words is the response they get".

For me it is not merely a subject to converse about over tea, it is a way of life, my life, all life!

See how you make sweeping generalizations about others?

Did you somehow miss the fact that I attended college and studied some philosophy, and that it was to be my major? Have you read 'all' books? <--rhetorical. If not you can stop with your slights; for that matter, even if so, for the 'truly' enlightened that is!

See the words 'some' and 'was'? I've heard your approach to the canon of philosophy, read until you find a disagreement and then stop.

So you believe that this actually matters? Great minds think alike, which is good enough for me. I don't tread over previous paths just for it's sake alone. I'll tread over them again and again and again, until such time, as the people actually listen and take heart, through action. Do you really believe that philosophy is a subject that you simply talk about over tea, as with the weather? As long as you can recite a book verbatim, you're good, to move on to the next topic?

No, I think it a subject that has addressed and answered many questions but that many appear intent upon re-inventing the wheel in the belief that they are great.

So what are you actually trying to tell me here, that wasn't self evident before your telling?

My mistake, your words led me to think you were not aware of this part of Philosophy.

I don't have to show you anything, I'm not your subordinate. Are you trying to coerce your version of being out of me, as if you are the standard, that I have to live up to? Why do you 'believe' that your misunderstanding is necessarily my burden of proof.

Because the meaning of your words is the response they get. If you think that I've not understood what you meant by your words and you have something to say then you should be able to say it another way. Else I just think you've not made your thoughts congruent with the words used to express it.

No, yours controls you, as much as mine controls me. The difference between us is that I have apologized for all those instances where I was the initiator. It's not my fault that you failed to accept, so that you can easily believe you have the moral high ground, so that you can feel justified in delivering future blows. Unless you truly believe that you are flawless, never making mistakes, thus never are required to apologize or accept. But that's a completely different problem of a more serious nature.

No, its not. And your reply is what I'm talking about as the reason why I don't often apologise is that my words match my thoughts and intentions. Take a look at the 'apologies' that you have offered me, qualified each and everyone. From where I sit they are just to salve what you perceive as your own lack of control and an attempt to regain your high-handed sense of moral righteousness.

See above, as I obviously don't take it as lightly as you apparently do.

You think three years and the economic hardship involved is taking it lightly. Studying a subject pretty much derided in western society and one considered useless is taking it lightly?

No you don't understand, we're not talking about your growing tired of Godfree's spiel, I'm saying that your particular credentials do not give you the right to necessarily speak on the truth of cosmology.

If you'd bothered to read my conversation with him rather than just jumping on your white horse you'd see that I discussed only philosophy with him. So yes, I do think my qualification gave me the right to speak to him about why what he was doing was not philosophy nor physics.

You don't! I'm saying that just as well as he can't say with 'authority,' neither can you.

Yes I can, as I was talking philosophically.

[No, like I've said, you and I have a problem with one another, we don't speak the same language. As I say things that I believe illuminate other things, you apparently can't see this, and ask of that which I see as already being answered, which is frustrating. And I see that the opposite is apparently true, of your preconceptions. So I see that we more readily butt heads. And once I see that you slight me, forget it, I'm as stubborn as a star, you'll not get anything out of me, other than sitting there burning, because it's not deserved, especially when it takes so much of me to deliver it. I can't touch-type, have sticky keys, 15 feet away from the screen, have bad eyes (although I did recently get my first pair of glasses) but it's taking me a while to get used to them, they are bifocals, fat fingertips, because of my stature. No, at that point no one deserves my effort, then you get the brain dead fucks that are oblivious to the possibility of such complications, that thoughtlessly complain about spelling, word usage, punctuation, etc, that are a result of such difficulties. Yes, unworthy in deed!

So you keep saying but I note that you reply pretty tout suite when it suits you. We do speak the same language, its called English. I think you identified the issue a while back, you don't know what you are going to type until you type it.

They're only numb because you're endlessly sucking on them. And that's Mrs Loser, for you.

Another closet case and one who pretends he's a female to stay safely in it.

We all do this, to some extent or another. I see it in your preconceived ideas as well, but that's one of the differences between us, if I pay strict attention, I'm able to see these things more readily, than a lot of people.

You need to stop with this 'We all' idea. Along with this idea that it's only your inattention that stops you being a mystical reader.

State the components of 'clearly' so as to include everyone. I have seen some of his text so that I laugh at his assertion.

Which books? "Clearly" seems to be a sticking point with you and given your condition I can maybe understand why. So try adding 'felt' or 'heard' or 'understood' after it to get what I think he meant. For myself, to state something 'clearly' one should have built a coherent thought that involves all the sense representations and then use words that maximise the listeners application of their preferred sense representations. So I should not really use 'clear' when talking to you but 'understood' or 'make more sense', etc.

Wrong, I apologized, you failed to accept such that you now almost always add sarcasm as a means to slight, for my past aggression. The convenience of non acceptance so as to vent your aggression. Such is included in your initial post that started this particular bout, of interaction.

Nope, all I did was answer your question with my opinion about where 'truth' is in modern philosophy.

Like I said, you qualify your apologies so I think them not worth much.

God you are a fool then, that does not understand the power of a nuke, as a million nukes would end everything, everyone has ever written in a mere minute, killing all life on planet earth as well as all that was written. And even if per chance a word or two remained, it would be meaningless.

Not all life as the Earth has had more power than your nukes unleashed upon it and life returns. What you mean is that Man will disappear.

So Bill Hicks is an authority? No, Bill Hicks is a fool, in this instance! I find it hard to believe that someone could be gullible enough to believe the words of a third party, as if they could possibly actually know, such that one would attempt to parrot him, with authority. I believe that, that's called hearsay here in the US court system, and is thrown out as inadmissible. Oh and there you go again, seeing me as a nation, I've never personally had any nukes, but I have stood immediately next to a live nuke, and that was enough for me, especially after all the videos.

Has it made you do anything to try and stop them? Did you march against them? Advocate unilateral disarmament? Write to your politicians? Band with others to try change things, I did. Did this experience cause you to stop helping build weapons? Did you leave the forces?

You are a female, one way or another! You do realize that we are all of female origin, right?

You believe in parthenogenesis for the human female? You think you are christ? So no, I think we are all born of male and female.

I not only broke boards and concrete blocks with various parts of my body, but disarmed many a karateka wielding all sorts of nasty hand held weapons. William J. Dometrich was my sensi whom was a military man of the Korean war, also the chief of a, then, local police force that worked closely with the FBI. His solution was not that cowardly, and as such, with his training, a good karateka, as I was, can disarm anyone, with any weapon, if the weapon wielder is foolish enough, to be as close, as any weapon, except that of a projectile weapon, could only afford. You see, you don't understand where the advantage lies in fighting, as I do. And that is in fact the problem when you parrot, just anyone.

You watched Dimitri's Senshido? These karateka coming at you full speed, full force with the intent to kill you? I doubt it. With respect to the gun, close-up would be the only chance you'd have against one, and you'd better hope they were stupid enough to nearly touch you with it. That you think there is 'cowardly' in fighting shows the dojo training mentality. I also think all that breaking is why your hands are fucked, stupid practice.

So, you can see into the future?

You said I'd be stabbing you in the back.

At this age, I too fight to win, at all costs.

At any age is what I teach my kids but I teach them to not be there in the first place, run if they can and then and only then to win at all costs, but within the UK's self-defence laws, so only such force as will be considered reasonable in the circumstances, which over here can be up to killing and maiming if in fear of ones life.

Wrong, as an adult, none other than kumite. I told you, I have penetrating eyes, that have been described as twin black holes, that along with my physique, tend to intimidate, such that I don't have to fight. From a defense standpoint, it's a great place to be, but from a relationship standpoint, it has a lot of lonely moments.

You have my sympathy but try smiling and not use this 'knowing more' 'ability' of yours. Is this kumite where you got the idea that you can easily defend against edged weapons?

See here, your preconception sees <snip> as adversarial, but I was around in the early 90's when in was coined on USENET, and it is merely informational, so as to inform the passerby that they have to read higher in the thread as content has been deleted for clarities sake. You jump to conclusions because of your preconceptions and hold me accountable with your words.

Fair enough. Time to upgrade your protocols then as its the 21st century. Remember what I said what the meaning of ones words is? That you play it out rather than just explaining shows me the games you like to play. Is this why you print in colours, still think you are on IRC?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually this is not an accurate account, from my perspective. I see that in this case, as with many humans, you reconstruct only those points, that in such a reiteration, support your defense of self, at the offense of another. This is common with humans. And I see it as an immaturity.

Do you? I see it as immature to not offer your perspective and then spout your psycho-babble.
OK, This is all I'll address because the rest is pretty much the same and I grow weary of fighting, splitting hairs, as to the meaning of groups of words due to a difference in preconceived ideas between people, as to what's specifically contained within them (different languages). This and the fact that we do not agree on so many fronts, for example that the meaning of words is in how the words are taken. This is total bullshit, stupid, selfish, in considerate, full of lies, and actually I see that it's evil, because meaning is in the mind of the wielder of the words, first and foremost. The idea is to effectively convey an idea using words. If in fact a listener finds that the words are abrasive/offensive or are somehow incorrect they have the responsibility to ensure that they are correct, as to what was meant, before they assault the wielder, because otherwise, they, the listener, is responsible for the potential war of intent, due to their jumping to conclusions, before they've gathered all the facts, a war of misconception, born of the listener.

For instance, many years ago, I was amongst both blacks and whites, male and female. A white female was almost always whining and complaining about doing various jobs, she wasn't there all the time, it was during her cross training. Her title, as to this cross training mode of employment was Training Active Reserve (TAR). After hearing one of her whining sessions, I characterized her behavior as being a baby, but for some strange reason I combined the word baby with TAR, such that I called her a TAR baby, a Training Active Reserve that was acting like a baby. Now, upon post delivery, the only reason I could think of, that I put those two together, was because of a children's book I had read to my child many years prior, having to do with a character called bur rabbit. In the story it was either he or another character that caused the Tar and Feathering of another younger character and they characterized the end result as a tar baby. The book had pictures to go along with the story, and I had laughed as I read it to my child, thinking it was cute and funny due to the expression on the victims face and the way the imagery was composed. At no time had I found it slanderous. This was the only time I had been aware of the phrase tar baby, and found it innocent. Well it just so happened that a black male walked by, and after hearing my utterance complained to his supervisor. I was called into the supervisors office to be held accountable for my words, and asked to apologize for using "tar baby" because apparently, historically it had been used as a racial slur against blacks. I refused to apologize, because I was TOTALLY UNAWARE that "tar baby" was a black racial slur, and after all I hadn't said that, I had said "TAR baby" or actually "T.A.R. baby," if you will, and she whom I spoke of was in fact white, she never complained. It was a black passerby that was essentially eavesdropping on a conversation that wouldn't necessarily understand in what context the words had been uttered. There was no way in hell I was going to apologize in such a situation. The meaning of words is contained in the intent of their wielder and no where else. I'd be damned if I'd be raked over coals due to someone else's unwarranted fears. Actually it just so happened that the black male in question was only present in that particular environment due to disciplinary actions, he was continually screaming, black this, or black that, claiming everyone was cheating him because he was black, he was actually a bigger baby than she was. It would eventually lead to his expulsion by the employer.

You're 100% incorrect, and I don't care whom you quote, the meaning (intent) to be found in anyone's words, rests with the wielder of the words, that a simple question or two by the listener would assure complete understanding, before they go off half cocked, because it's absolutely absurd to insist that one is responsible for their ignorance. There are those that can recite a dictionary, verbatim and those that can't understand one word in it, and hundreds of thousands of differing percentages of understandings in between. Your absurd notion would have everyone of a lower tier of dictionary knowledge, answerable to those immediately higher and above, for any misconception, another form of elitism, as 'everyone' once knew of no words in the dictionary. And who better to untangle the misconception than those more familiar with a dictionaries contents, they shirk their responsibility with your way of thinking. What the hell do you think knowledge is anyway, just another weapon for you to wield against those of a lessor understanding? That's pure evil, whether a club with a spike in it, an atomic bomb, money or words. To use anything against another is selfish and elitist, unless it's self defense.

So clearly, as with words, you can't necessarily know of an offense aimed at you, unless you ask the question, otherwise it shall be you that is the offender.

So now, here is your original quote that you interjected into a conversation that you had not been a part of, up until that point:

... Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

Where it should, in Formal and Symbolic Logic.

Clearly, we can see that everything to the left of the comma is uncalled for and lends absolutely nothing so as to be informative. Everything to the right stands on it's own merit as information so as to answer the question I posed. Since the left most part in not required, in any way shape or form, as to the factual information, it can only be seen as sarcastic so as to demean me for not already being aware of such information. If not, explain how it's pertinent to the information at hand. Admit it, it is sarcasm left over from previous instances of our entanglements, such that I responded, in my defense:

Sorry but the word "should" as used, from my perspective, is an opinion, and in this case is merely self ego stroking, therefore it's useless, to anyone but you.

What I say here is 100% correct. As to where something necessarily 'should' be, is not for anyone to say, as should, in this case, means that there can be no other place where it could be, and that's a falsehood, because your placement is with that of time, and time is always ticking, such that modern philosophy shall be elsewhere tomorrow. Additionally I 'know' that it is impossible for you to actually know where it was at that particular moment, in my asking, as books and magazines are behind the time from 6 months to a couple years, such that it would take someone that was omnipotent, so as to peak over the shoulders of every single philosopher across the globe, at that very instant of my asking, to see what they were writing, in order to provide factual comment on where modern philosophy should be found. Finally, my question could have been rhetorical, which would require no response at all, instead it would require ones thinking as to my point. In fact I had meant it as rhetorical.

All of the preceding you failed to consider before responding, as to where it should be. It is obvious that you were being sarcastic, so like I further said, it my quote above, it's inclusion was only for your sake, so that you could pat yourself on the back, stroke your ego, demean your opponent. Which shows me that you are obviously, not a true philosopher, or at least not a very mature one. Because of this attitude you display, you don't know what philosophy is, or at least you don't live it. Because it is in the seeking of the actuality, truth if you will, of ALL things, yes even when approaching a conversation, one can practice philosophy, in the way one proceeds, so as to make things clear and actual, factual, during the exchange, and requires unbiased listening, questioning, and constructive explanations, or one is merely an elitist, in it purely, for their egoism.

I'm not saying I'm flawless, not guilty of the very same thing, but I for one am currently trying to change so as to display a little more wisdom in the exchange, except for those few, that are too far gone, those deranged few, that require no introduction.

QUESTION: Who's the bigger fool, the one that words their proposition in such a way that is not conducive to any particular persons approach, as if they could necessarily know each and every permutation of approach, for the entirety of the worlds population, or the one that is incapable, or to lazy, to apply the knowledge of their approach, so as to sense a foreign formulation, not compatible with theirs, such that, instead of asking questions, in order to clarify, they end up making assumptions, and blindly running with it, and then warring with the wielder (author), due to their misconception?

ANSWER: I say, it's definitely the latter, because while the wielder of words doesn't necessarily know everyone's approach, the listener should surely know their own, and be able to question until such time that they bridge the incompatibility gap, or at least one would think so, if the listener is truly, either as intelligent, or more intelligent, than the wielder!

<snipped redundancy>

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the 'what' of the OP can be illustrated from the experiment of blindsightedness re the 'Did not see the Gorilla' experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY

Humans being are programed and conditioned by their own set or perspectives of truths. This program is a fundamental and primal impulse which is inherent in all human beings.

Since human beings has similar generic properties, there are generic truths, e.g. the Sun rise in the morning and set at the end of the day, but even this has rare exceptions. Due to the similarity in properties with variations in environmental and nurturing factors, there are a variation in different sets of shared-truths.

IMO, shared-truths prevails and there is no 'the truth' (Truth), i.e. an absolute truth.
This is reflected in the philosophy of,
Nietzsche - 'there is no absolute truth, there are only perspectives.
Foucault - truth is relative to the games of truths, and regime of truth, e.g. scientific framework, common sense, etc.

There are also many philosophical theories of truth, i.e. correspondence, coherence, etc.

The question of why a person or group is inclined toward one set of truths rather than another can be inferred from the 'no gorilla' experiment above.

[attofishpi]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

BOOKS.

[chaz wyman]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

BOOKS.

A book is not an active agency and can't STOP you doing anything, unless you believe in it.

[attofishpi]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

BOOKS.

A book is not an active agency and can't STOP you doing anything, unless you believe in it.

Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

[chaz wyman]

]Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

[attofishpi]

Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

God exists..all atheists including those atheist philosophers that you espouse to are wrong.
We all carry the same torch, the only difference between an atheist and everyone else is that when the word God is mentioned, the atheist turns the torch off.

[chaz wyman]

Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

God exists..all atheists including those atheist philosophers that you espouse to are wrong.
We all carry the same torch, the only difference between an atheist and everyone else is that when the word God is mentioned, the atheist turns the torch off.

All you are doing is smelling your own shit. Keep it to yourself

[mtmynd1]

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

You state: "God is not the truth" as if you have discovered this on a personal pilgrimage and had an awakening. Is that 'true'? Is this why you also added the search is akin to "searching fro [sic] red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours"? It says to me that you have searched for (a) god but failed at finding this god you searched for. Yes?

Again, you state: "TO know the truth you have to just look." What would you expect to see by looking if you are seeking god? Surely you have some 'thing' in mind before you begin the search, would you not? You understand that this 'god' is a visible entity that resembles ... what?

I bring this up, Chaz, because there is absolute confusion amongst hu'manity as to what god ('God') is... i.e., this 'god' is more often than not referred to as 'He', at least in our common language. That would indicate 'God' as having a gender, specifically male. The Bible is said by those who have been well indoctrinated that the book is 'the word' of God and even written by 'Him'. This belief would insist on 'god' having not only gender but a mouth and even hands to write with. Is it no wonder skeptics and atheists abound in our world? How many logical and rational thinking people could possibly believe such a thing?

Take away these initial ideas of gender and hu'man qualities. What are we left with? Is that proof enough "God" does not exist? Why does a profound atheist even believe in the non-existence of this god? Is it because their initial religious indoctrination illogical... so illogical that the atheist cannot possibly believe in such an imaginary being. But is that alone evidence enough that there is no 'God"? If our encyclopedia never had the word, "Teotihuacan", would that mean that place did not exist?

The experience of knowing is an ongoing journey for all. Along this journey we each, as individuals, have our interests that spark our curiosities and we generally pursue them if we are fortunate enough. The journey to find or even understand what we've all been told exists, i.e. "God", is not a journey for the faint of heart. Yogananda wrote that a full 80% of seekers of God end up lost or even crazed, so dangerous a journey it truly is. So why would anyone risk their health and sanity for that search? Once you can understand that, perhaps you will realize there is indeed a presence that brings a state of freedom from all that we know and believe that it truly is the Greatest Gift of all. There is no conclusive word for that experience as each individual experience which has had that 'meeting' comes away with a meaning as individual of the person their self... and that is called enlightenment, awakened to Truth.

Ateists, Agnostics and any other non-believer of such an experience fall into the category can be lumped together into confused... unable to grasp the reality of an Absolute they come up with absurdities on such an existence actually being without a clue as to what they are talking about... disseminating false information to anyone who would listen them in hopes of finding like-minded folks to cuddle up to and talk to about all those people who actual believe there is a "God." When it is those same folks that are simply misinformed and perpetuating that belief of misinformation wherever they go.

Do not over-use the mind for it is only a tool. Mind is nothing more. Use it wisely but give it a rest occasionally and experience the joy of surrender.

Peace...

[chaz wyman]

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

You state: "God is not the truth" as if you have discovered this on a personal pilgrimage and had an awakening. Is that 'true'? Is this why you also added the search is akin to "searching fro [sic] red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours"? It says to me that you have searched for (a) god but failed at finding this god you searched for. Yes?

Again, you state: "TO know the truth you have to just look." What would you expect to see by looking if you are seeking god? Surely you have some 'thing' in mind before you begin the search, would you not? You understand that this 'god' is a visible entity that resembles ... what?

I bring this up, Chaz, because there is absolute confusion amongst hu'manity as to what god ('God') is... i.e., this 'god' is more often than not referred to as 'He', at least in our common language. That would indicate 'God' as having a gender, specifically male. The Bible is said by those who have been well indoctrinated that the book is 'the word' of God and even written by 'Him'. This belief would insist on 'god' having not only gender but a mouth and even hands to write with. Is it no wonder skeptics and atheists abound in our world? How many logical and rational thinking people could possibly believe such a thing?

Take away these initial ideas of gender and hu'man qualities. What are we left with? Is that proof enough "God" does not exist? Why does a profound atheist even believe in the non-existence of this god? Is it because their initial religious indoctrination illogical... so illogical that the atheist cannot possibly believe in such an imaginary being. But is that alone evidence enough that there is no 'God"? If our encyclopedia never had the word, "Teotihuacan", would that mean that place did not exist?

The experience of knowing is an ongoing journey for all. Along this journey we each, as individuals, have our interests that spark our curiosities and we generally pursue them if we are fortunate enough. The journey to find or even understand what we've all been told exists, i.e. "God", is not a journey for the faint of heart. Yogananda wrote that a full 80% of seekers of God end up lost or even crazed, so dangerous a journey it truly is. So why would anyone risk their health and sanity for that search? Once you can understand that, perhaps you will realize there is indeed a presence that brings a state of freedom from all that we know and believe that it truly is the Greatest Gift of all. There is no conclusive word for that experience as each individual experience which has had that 'meeting' comes away with a meaning as individual of the person their self... and that is called enlightenment, awakened to Truth.

Ateists, Agnostics and any other non-believer of such an experience fall into the category can be lumped together into confused... unable to grasp the reality of an Absolute they come up with absurdities on such an existence actually being without a clue as to what they are talking about... disseminating false information to anyone who would listen them in hopes of finding like-minded folks to cuddle up to and talk to about all those people who actual believe there is a "God." When it is those same folks that are simply misinformed and perpetuating that belief of misinformation wherever they go.

Do not over-use the mind for it is only a tool. Mind is nothing more. Use it wisely but give it a rest occasionally and experience the joy of surrender.

Peace...

God, as defined by attopifish (whazziname) is false.
I know this by seeking, not by seeking god.
If you are satisfied by other people's revelations, then you have to be satisfied with mine.

[mtmynd1]

"I know this by seeking, not by seeking god".

Seeking? What is it you are seeking? The truth or The Truth? Would you recognize what it is you are seeking when you see it with your own eyes?

"If you are satisfied by other people's revelations, then you have to be satisfied with mine.

Who is this directed at..? If it is me what is your revelation that I have to be satisfied with..?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You state: "God is not the truth" as if you have discovered this on a personal pilgrimage and had an awakening. Is that 'true'? Is this why you also added the search is akin to "searching fro [sic] red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours"? It says to me that you have searched for (a) god but failed at finding this god you searched for. Yes?

Sounds like a magic mushroom quest to me, or maybe DMT, which is found naturally in our brains, though it's function is not fully realized, but many believe it attributes to consciousness somehow.

When the human animal undertakes a long journey to find something, especially an arduous one, they're likely to believe anything, because that was the point at the onset, right? I would say that the journey, even for nomads, is not as preferable as setting up camp near a warm fire, with plenty of water, food and shelter, surrounded by a more beautiful nature.

I'm saying that the journey is biased at the onset, and that they find what they 'want' to find, in the face of adversity, anything to end the adversity. The quicker they find it, the sooner they can make back and sit in front of that warm hearth, with their loved ones, peacefully.

In the face of an arduous journey, one can only find peace with it's conclusion.

[mtmynd1]

I would say that the journey, even for nomads, is not as preferable as setting up camp near a warm fire, with plenty of water, food and shelter, surrounded by a more beautiful nature...

(and)

....the sooner they can make back and sit in front of that warm hearth, with their loved ones, peacefully.

You sound like a comfort-seeking homebody, SOB.

Once the restless mind is at rest, so is the body that inhabits the mind.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I would say that the journey, even for nomads, is not as preferable as setting up camp near a warm fire, with plenty of water, food and shelter, surrounded by a more beautiful nature...

(and)

....the sooner they can make back and sit in front of that warm hearth, with their loved ones, peacefully.

You sound like a comfort-seeking homebody, SOB.

Once the restless mind is at rest, so is the body that inhabits the mind.

You think I speak of only me?? I speak of humanity! Oh and by the way unfortunately your mentioning "the restless mind" only proves my point further.

It's true that my body requires more exercise, but my mind gets it here! And so I thank you all.