Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Thursday, 23 June 2016

Wisdom v Extremism, Religion and Atheism


Written by Mathew Naismith

First of all, I'm not equating religion to wisdom and atheism to extremism, this would be a pretty dopey thing to do for obvious reasons, what I am going to write about is the seriousness of extremism and how extremisms are anti-wisdom even though they might be pro-knowledge. With all the knowledge we have today, why are we still warring more than ever and destroying ourselves and the environment we rely on for our existence to the degree we are? This to me is a sign that we have lost or exterminated wisdom within human consciousness, basically, through our extremist perceptions or more precisely, preconceptions.

I was going to write this post up differently to what I have but the replies I received in regards to my last post, determined the way I was actually going to write this post. I will start this post of  with some wise words from another person who replied to my last post, I am also going to insert other peoples replies and my own replies back to them.


Reply
Hi Mathew. Hope you are well. When I was more religious I had problems with atheists myself.

If you post this blog to an atheist/agnostic site you will get a lot of push back from them.

I had a deep religious experience years ago, so l know I can tap into the power of reality itself and have always just given it an intimate name calling it God. This is probably a personification of all of reality. I like giving it the proper name of God so I can have more of a deeper relationship with this infinite source of consciousness (as you say). 

When I was having problems with the atheists I noticed there was some power they were taping into as well. I couldn't understand for the life of me why anyone would even consider being an atheist. So I did some research on atheism and different atheists and had what I call a freethinker experience. I started thinking strictly from my own brain and mind and now understand what they are talking about. They just want reason and evidence to back up every assertion made.

At heart I am more of a theist, not an atheist because I experience "God" in everything and have a real connection with all of life. But to be honest I'm not sure atheist or theist are great words to use in the first place. They are divisive words.

We are all human beings just looking for love and truth from the reality we live in.

I think God and Reality are synonyms. God is a spiritual word for a personification of reality which in my opiniin is so important. And reality is just a secular word. Both are pointing to whatever that objective/consciousness/infinite/eternal/cause is.

A good site which helped me was
thankgodforevolution.com

My Reply
Wise words indeed as usual Sal.

I'm the same Sal, I call this wise energy source God as well as most people relate to this better if I call this kind of creative energy source God. I certainly don't have a fear of using the word God anymore like I did.

My upbringing was atheistic, however, not extreme like the atheism that we are all experiencing today, a little more balanced and open minded but still anti-God. What changed this was the actual experiences I went through, I however thoroughly understand why anyone who hasn't had these same or simular experiences, would be anti-God or fearful of God existing. The point is, why turn atheism into but another extremist ideology? I know why but isn't it a bit stupid to do so, haven't we got enough extremism in the world today? Wisdom tells us so I believe.

I however disagree that most atheists  just want reason and evidence to back up every assertion made, they disregarded every bit of information based on scientific evidence I give them, I proved this so many times it's not funny when interacting with atheists. The only reason to deny such evidence and collective information is the following of an extreme ideology/belief system. It doesn't matter how you present this, they will not have it. The threat being that their belief system might be proved to be a fallacy built upon utter blind faith. I know why most atheists fear this kind of knowledge, however, not all atheists are extreme within their beliefs like this, this is important to remember.

By the way, I've confronted atheists head on, on their own ground in regards to these matters, this has given me a much better insight as I'm not just talking from the research point of view but from my own actual experiences.

Much Blessings My Friend,
Mathew     

Reply

My Reply
I utterly agree with this, thank you.

Extremism isn't keeping our feet on the ground, this is evident to me, this is why I try to convey balance is the key, not extremism in any ism. I must then ask myself, am I anti-extremism? No, the reason being that if this is the path that some must tread, so be it but please beware that you don't have to tread this path, there are always other paths to tread that keep your feet on the ground without creating a continuous flow of drama in our lives.

I'm going to use our interaction here in my next post. Thank you BE......

____________________


Now the following reply was from an atheist it would seem, its actually quite surprisingly sedate, I didn't however insert our whole conversion in this post, I couldn't see the need, as I didn't insert other atheists responses as they were, to me,  too preconceived. I should point out that I use the word preconceived because once we perceive from a particular box (ism), we often have preconceived ideas about everybody else's perceptions, this has been evident in the eight years I have been on the net.   

____________________

Reply
I won't waste too much time on your blogpost, as I already have done that by reading it. And boy do you spam Google+ by advertising your blog post in multiple communities, (probably in facebook too)

You claim about atheism that:

1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief  

What dictionary do you use? One written by Ken Ham or Pat Robertson? Mine says: lacking religious belief or a particular religious faithNotice the word "lacking".

2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so.

How can one not defend what one thinks. I do not think that your god doesn't exist. I think that there are no gods whatsoever, no gnomes too, no mermaids, no spirits. So I also think there is no Zeus, no Allah, no Toothfairy. Does that make me a a-toothfairy-ist? BTW, what are your thoughts about Lono?

That's enough, I'm going to do more important things.


My Reply
My friend, you have proven my point once again, you will to the utter end defend your belief system which clearly indicates an extreme ideological belief system. Why be so defensive of atheism being related to a belief in the first place when the concept/belief of atheism is not based on utter facts but assumptions? The thorough denial of this just shows how preconceived atheism is, it's my way or nothing. Sound awfully religious to me.

This is exactly what I mean about preconceived perceptions, you preconceived this is my God, show me where is my God, prove that I have a God....Science has shown me there is more to us than what we perceive and that it's quite possible the universe was created from a much more advanced consciousness, end of story. I do call this God's consciousnesses as more people without your preconceptions relate to this better. Your fear of this God existing is so evident it's not funny Wilko.

Now do you see how atheism has given you bias preconceived perceptions, big mistake my friend and atheists are supposed to be more intelligent. I cannot think of any other belief system that is any more ignorant than atheism except religious extremist ideologies. If the truth hurts Wilko, ask yourself why is the truth so hurtful. Just a bit of wisdom that your extremist atheism is trying to destroy and that too is true.

Why choose to believe in an obvious extreme ism, why not agnosticism? Because atheism is acting against religion which again proves my point within my posts. Wilko, you have given me more material to work on, thank you and I am sincere in this, not that you would want to believe that.

____________________

"It would seem to me that extremism is anti-wisdom, no extremism is conducive to wisdom, human history quite clearly shows us this"........Mathew G 

Why indeed choose a more radical extremist view in opposition to but another radical extremist view, not that religion itself is extremist as atheism isn't extremist but most often, especially these days, it's the people of these isms that are extreme within their views.

Now it's interesting to why and how these radical extremist views are killing off the wisdom in the world, what is occurring in regards to religious extremists is but one example, my way or nothing, meaning, it's my perceptions and beliefs or nothing. I have actually received the same exact response from atheists, no matter how much evidence I supplied from people far more intelligent then they are to support my claims, it was there way or nothing. They said they wanted to discus these claims but it was in their way. It was evident it had to be in line with their own preconceived perceptions of what my claims were, why would anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence enter into a discussion totally built upon preconceived perceptions? They needed to control what I was stating because it was a threat to their belief system atheism, I wasn't going there, what would be the point!!

I bet a lot of atheists are not aware of a ruler, around 1000 AD, in the Middle-East who sought out wisdom and knowledge from around the world, there not all barbarian, in actuality, atheism today is.

It is noticeably barbaric to make people ill so you can live off of them, we are not talking about believers here but people who have no ethics or moral to guide them like so many other isms do. Warring is also necessary to keep the economy going only so that the elite can live off of warring, if this isn't barbaric, what is? This is only the tip of the iceberg.

We might then look upon the believers and in how barbaric they are even with the guidance of ethics and morals within their isms? As any true believer knows, anyone who expresses barbarism, isn't a true believer, this includes all the high church officials. It is obvious they are not true believers but non-believers. Would any true believer who is full of fear of going to hell, for example, commit any kind of barbarism that would lead to hell? It is obvious they had no belief at all, in actuality, it is clear these people weren't true believers, they were non-believers, atheists. Indeed, this goes way back to the religious Dark-Ages and even further.

Atheism is often cloaked in many different colours, look at the deception in society and the media today, it's rampant because there are no ethic or moral standards, anything goes. Religion hasn't proved it's worthiness either, the deception of non-believing is staggering. Science is the same, look at the horror and terror science has created, weapons of mutilation on a huge scale, pollution on a massive scale and the creation of medicines and other toxic substance to keep us ill so that the elite can live off of us.

You should now start to get an idea off why there is so little wisdom left in the world, knowledge yes, wisdom no.

Just say a religious group or atheism took control of the entire world, we would first thing that we would have peace an harmony, no, for the simple reason that both religion and atheism will be engulfed by different factions and without a doubt, radical extremist factions. Is there any balance in a world of one kind of preconceptions, it's this or nothing? We are suppose to have different perceptions, different isms and ideologies. Void of extremism, these different isms and ideologies give us balance and wisdom. If these isms and ideologies become controlled by extremisms, all we have is an unbalanced existence with no sight of peace and harmony in sight, certainly no morals or ethics or wisdom but plenty of knowledge to destroy ourselves and each other.

This next part will most likely not go down too well with some Westerners.

The first country in the world to embrace wisdom, will influence the rest of the world for eternity, I'm afraid it won't be a Western country but an Eastern country. If you look at the amount of wisdom of the Middle-East, China and India, it is most likely that the country that will embrace wisdom, will come from one or maybe two of these countries or areas of the world. Don't make the mistake of judging these countries or areas of the world by the present, this again would be a preconception perception brought about by our own bias created by being only able to perceive in certain ways. Fixating ourselves to certain perceptions only isn't wisdom, it's anarchy and will only create anarchy.

Note: I think it's also a mistake to equate Western style atheism to Buddhism, Buddhism can never be extreme within it's philosophies, if it does, it's no longer Buddhism!!  




Wednesday, 22 June 2016

The Truth of Isms and Ideologies




Written by Mathew Naismith

Bare with me on this, it gets quite interesting and informative, This is probably one of my most impartial posts I've ever written, at first this isn't apparent though.

Atheism: While on a particular site, it was obvious I was being bullied by an atheist who didn't want to know if any of my perceptions were valid or not, basically, from the start this person had a preconceived perception, nothing I was going to say was going to change this fixated perception based on atheistic ideologies. There was no point from the start in a continuous discussion on anything remotely intellectual that was of my perception but I persevered. 

Even when evidence was obtained from various sources backing my perceptions, I was still called a liar, in actuality, once I provided such evidence, this person became even more noticeably aggressive to the eventual point of using harassment and bullying tactics. The sources I supplied included, quantum physics, psychiatry and philosophy perspectives endorsing my perceptions. The main problem was, if I was remotely correct in my perceptions that a consciousness can indeed exist outside of the brain, it immediately  questions the beliefs of atheism. Now this brings us to atheism being a belief and even a belief system that is purely based on fear alone.

I then posted a post inferring that atheism is a belief system by using the definition from a dictionary as follow, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God". What followed was astonishing to say the least, they were defending their atheism in the same exact way that a religious person with extreme ideologies would. I am talking from actual experiences here. Lets collate some evidence together to get a better picture of this.

1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief     

2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so

3: If their science is unable to prove the existence of God either way, this clearly means atheism isn't based on facts but assumptions and speculations

4: Seen as atheism is not based on facts, it must be based on assumptions and speculations  

5: To have such a blind faith in assumptions and speculations, means atheism is also of  faith. This of course depends on the faith an atheist has in regards to pure assumptions and speculations. In this case and other cases where I approached atheists on the same matter, they reacted as if they had utter blind faith of atheism which is purely based on, not facts, but assumptions and speculations.

6: Faith clearly infers a belief. Definition of faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Is not science controlling our destiny?

7: Fear: A belief in an ism (atheism) opposing another ism, such as religion, denotes a reaction that infers fear. Why follow an opposing ism if one is not fearful of another ism?

8: With the reactions I had received from atheists on this site and other sites, they fear there atheism being questioned in anyway what so ever

9: If atheism is the be and end all, why express so much fear resulting in uncivil behaviour? If atheism were of facts, what would they have to fear when atheistic beliefs are questioned? Atheists obviously know that atheism can be questioned but they still stick to atheism as if it's the be and end all, a clear depiction of utter blind faith and dogmatism.

I think all the evidence that has been collated here, infers that atheism is indeed a belief system and based purely on fear, a fear that purposely stays ignorant to any other perceptions not of atheistic beliefs because of fear. Consider this, don't atheists often criticise religion for expressing these same traits that atheists obviously express as well? You can then add hypocritical to their biases. I should point out in all fairness, not all atheists are like this, some atheists, very few it would seem, are quite open minded, they just don't believe in a God or divine entities but I have found out some of them do believe in a consciousness existing beyond the brain.      

Science; like atheism, is purely based on assumptions and speculations, there are no facts in science, if there were, science would be dogmatic within their concepts, science can't be this dogmatic because science knows that the whole of existence evolves and changes, there can be no fixated concepts which means no utter facts. This of course doesn't stop people into science stating that science is about facts which of course infers dogmas, a fixated preconception of concepts and perceptions that can no longer be further proved. This analogy of course is again only an assumption.

General science might be fixated to these facts (dogmas) but quantum physics and metaphysics isn't, when two protons can communicate, not just interact, between each other, physicists know that consciousness isn't just of the brain. Consider this also, what caused the human brain to grow bigger over time, was it the brain miraculously growing bigger through evolution for some reason or was it consciousness causing the brain to grow bigger over time? Our brain grew because of our expanding consciousness, not our consciousness grew because of our expanding brain, conscious awareness causes the brain to grow, this is well known in science to occur. Consciousness before the brain...

Let's take this further, science can now computer emulate creating a mini-universe, did this not take a creative consciousness to do this? This infers that the universe we exist in, could have been created by a consciousness way beyond human comprehension, in actuality, some scientists believe that is exactly what occurred. It's a good idea to do your own research on this, you just might come across something I didn't. I don't want to detract from what you discover through my own perceptions, this is well known to occur.

New Age spirituality; is also based on fear, the fear of fearing and the fear of being in judgement and the fear of expressing the ego altogether. To know that fear is of being of fear, one has to judge what is and isn't fear. What makes us feel fear? A judgment of fear when fear can be highly beneficial to making us more aware. It's a bit silly denouncing fear when it can be so beneficial to us if used correctly.

How often do new age spiritually aware people denounce religion as being based on fear? Is this also not of judgment and slightly hypocritical? How often do these same people judge science as being some how of a lower vibration or less worthy in some way to their own beliefs? Consider this, is not all of what was created, from the same source of energy? Isn't everything of this source therefore worthy within it's own right? Everything has equal value, this also includes atheism and agnosticism.

Religion: The way religion is expressed by church leaders, especially in the west, can be totally based of fear at times, the bible can also be interpreted as being based on fear and on fables. The bible however can be interpreted in many different ways. I found if you read the bible as a non-fiction book, the bible makes no sense until you read it as a fiction book. When you read the bible as a friction book, you begin to become aware of the hidden meaning of the bible which then refer to a book based on non-fiction. The bible is encoded and if you are unable to read in symbols, the bible will stay a fiction book based on fear and fables. It's very difficult to read something that is of the infinite with finite perceptions. 

All these isms and ideologies are based on assumptions and speculations, a person into science or atheism  might say that science is  more of factual assumptions and speculations than religion or any other ideology, of course a religious person would state otherwise. People into science/atheism and religion might also state that their ism and ideology are more than assumptions and speculations but this is purely based on their own perceptions, not on other perceptions. In actuality,  no ism or ideology is more worthy than another when they were all created from the same source.

How many isms actually concur impartially to all this? Very few because each ism has it's own fixated preconceived perceptions based on their own perceptions. It's preconceived because usually each ism has it's own perceptions, anything out side these perceptions are usually denounced as being somehow less worthy of consideration.


The point is, everything was created from an infinite source of energy, facts however are of a finite perception because they have limitations where assumptions and speculations are infinite. For any ism or ideology to proclaim their of facts, their actually stating their perceptions are only of the finite, religious people and atheists mistakenly, in my mind, do this on a regular basis, especially when they are in opposing opposition with one another. It's this act of opposing that causes a consciousness to perceive primarily in the finite, which to me is always going to lead to conflict, this I believe will only stop when we start to perceive in the infinite. In a religious/spiritual sense, this infinite represents the connection to the source of all creation known to many as God or the source of all creation, I'm not sure if atheism and science have a name for this infinite source of energy but matter itself, matter and anti-matter.     

Saturday, 6 February 2016

Religions, Ideologies and Paths


Written by Mathew Naismith

The importance of religions, ideologies and paths to the human psyche is quite apparent as human history plainly shows, after all, most of our history is made up from such attachments. 

Recently I had a person state that their religion (ideology)  isn't an ideology, it's a path, of course if it's not an ideology it's also not a religion. Buddhism is certainly a religion, it has doctrines and belief systems that define what Buddhism is about, without such guidelines, the human psyche would have nothing to attach itself to.  Basically,  the human psyche represents the ego in some way, in a true sense, the ego is unable to attach itself or comprehend an ideology without labels. For starters Buddhism, like any religion, has a label, Buddhism is obviously of the ego for the ego created it.

It would seem the human psyche needs the ego to comprehend anything, to do this of course entails the ego to attach labels on anything it wishes to comprehend. Of course the ego goes further than this when an attachment occurs to such labels, with such labels in this case, doctrines and concepts are formed, basically making such ideologies the be and end all. One example is to state that God doesn't exist in any sense, of course not all Buddhists conform to this doctrine, such Buddhists are able to perceive that everything has come from one source that a lot of religions call God. In a sense, there is a God in one source but not as in a deity of any kind for all of what is, is of this one source.

You also have religions that have more than one God and Goddesses, Buddhism see this as an attachment to the ego, in doing so, looks upon it's own ideology as being more correct in some way above these other religions. Having to have a label to follow is ego, to express it's own ideology (path) as being more correct in any sense is even more of an ego. I should point out that not all Buddhists express themselves in this way, there is no need for all has it's place within this one source for it is of this one source no matter how it expresses itself.

I should also point out here that Christianity is also well known to be the path to righteousness, this known path doesn't make Christianity not an ideology just because it's all to do with a path to righteousness!! 

I've noticed that certain Buddhists and Christians also talk down Hinduism when Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist. Hindus don't have to be governed by strict doctrines or barriers that stop a Hindu from perceiving beyond normal human perception, all ideological concepts and beliefs are obviously accepted within Hinduism. In a sense, Hinduism seems to represent all of existence, being the oldest surviving religions probably says it all.  Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating Hinduism over  and above all other ideologies, I'm just stating that Hinduism seems to have no doctrines and barriers that other religions have taken on. Think on this, advocating there is only one God period or that God doesn't exist in any sense, is the ego setting up barriers when consciousness itself has no such barriers. Consciousness itself isn't limited to certain perception of one kind or another,  it's boundless for it has no controlling ego telling this consciousness what and what not to perceive.

I love synchronicity. I recently experienced  a state of just being, there was no labels therefore no ideologies or paths or past and future, only the present of just being.  Within this state, there was interaction of individual forms and energy sources but not in the same sense as in our state of consciousness. Within this state, there was just being for no purpose or intention which gave this state a sense of serenity. The reason for this serenity was obvious to me, labels, ideologies, paths and the perception of a past and future gives consciousness more motion, as soon as we give any energy form more motion, the less serene it becomes.

Look at it in this way, a racing car speeding at 200 miles per hour is less stable than driving at 10 miles per hour, especially on a slippery surface. The more movement we drive the racing car at, the less stable it becomes, we are no different to a racing car. The more labels and ideologies we have, the more motion we create thus the more unstable a consciousness is going to become.

A racing car on a slippery surface becomes unstable because of it's interaction with another energy source, being a racing track,  that isn't conductive of another energy source driving at high speed on it.


In our case, we have ideologies or paths that are non-conducive to other ideologies and paths, the more motion we express within our fixation of our  own ideologies, the more unstable we make consciousness. This instability will of course cause us trauma and chaos.!!           

Monday, 26 January 2015

Religion, is it Rational???


Written by Mathew Naismith

This post was inspired by a bloke called Sal C; the following was a reply I received from him. I have a feeling this is an important topic to bring forth, is religion questionable and the answer would be for sure, however, instead of looking at the negative effects of religion how about we look at the positives of religion for once keeping in mind I’m not religious myself; actually I don’t follow any ism period however I do try to be aware of the positive and negative effects of isms mainly because they have a direct and/or indirect impact on us all.  It’s a bit silly sticking our heads in the sand when these isms impact on our lives so much.  

Hey Matt, I want to know your opinion on religion. We hear so much on how it can be limiting to your growth and unscientific. I feel it can be very beneficial, even life saving, providing you don't get so entrenched in the beliefs as to disregard reason and logic all together. I feel if people look to a higher aspect of life, seeing God as life or consciousness itself, loving yourself and others and getting a good sense of community, then it is wonderful. I would like to hear your opinion. Your friend Sal

A very good point Sal C; being entrenched or fixated to any ism to the point of irrationalism isn’t going to be good to anyone, this is one of the reasons religion itself has a bad name, what is happening presently quite clearly shows this. Any kind of irrational thinking could indeed make a sound religion seem totally irrational and ending up as extremism. The point is, is it the religion or the people who are being irrational?  It’s of course the people of a religion who are being irrational not the religion itself. We could say certain religious doctrines are totally irrational therefore it’s the religion itself that is irrational making the people of that religion irrational and sometimes leading to an extremist mentality.

Doesn’t scientism (science) follow certain science principles and guidelines and at times irrationally disregarding anything beyond these principles and guidelines?  To me this is where science is falling short, it’s not looking beyond these doctrines (principles and guidelines) however not all scientists irrationally follow such strict doctrines as we are finding out.

So what this seems to be saying is it’s the doctrines (principles and guidelines) that are making us irrational, however, the scientists who are going beyond these doctrines show us quit clearly it’s  the people who are irrational not the ism itself.     


To me it would certainly seem doctrines are referring to principles and guidelines. What seems to be happening is people within any ism takes these principles and guidelines as the be and end all, it’s the people who are being irrational in religion not the religion itself.  Religion to me gives us certain guidelines to live by, they should never be the be and end all as I feel Sal C is pointing out, especially to the point of being irrational and even extremist within our thinking.   

I find that any ism, including scientism, can become irrational and extremists within it’s doctrines, religion itself certainly hasn’t got this on it’s own.  To me it is clear it’s not the doctrines (principles and guidelines) of any ism that is the irrational; it’s the people who are irrational. Doctrines are only principles and guidelines that we can follow with any ism but within a rational sense not in an irrational sense.

If you think on this, religion itself has always looked beyond human set boundaries; it looks at a God, super consciousness, energy source etc. by allowing us to perceive something that is in us that is beyond normal human perception and understanding.  Religion has always done this right throughout human history; I think it’s quite amazing actually.   

So does this mean we should all turn religious? Not on your nelly, this would be like saying we should all become atheistic or political, it’s each to their own space and their own path.  What we need to be aware of is our judgement especially negative judgment of someone else’s space.  

How many of us say we don’t judge and then we say religion or some other ism is this that or the other?  Be aware of this because it’s this judgment that can make us irrational and possibly extreme within our thinking which again can possibly lead to extremism. What is happening in present times is a good indication of how judgment can fundamentally influence good people to become extremists, it really all comes down to people becoming aware.  
        
I thought I would end off by adding a couple of links looking at the good side of religion.


Religious impact on the arts and human creative development.


Looking at religion philosophically.



I’m not religious myself but I don’t judge religion itself as being irrational or extreme within it’s doctrines and beliefs, once people start judging, anything can happen and it most often does, irrational thinking and extremism is but two of these effects.   

Sunday, 6 July 2014

Religion and Science-Controlling Ego


Written by Mathew Naismith

Are the ideological principles of science and religion/spirituality flawed? Well actually no not until you bring in dogmatism, once one becomes dogmatic about any such ideological principles that is when flaws start to appear, not in the principles themselves, but in the people who are expressive of such ideological principles.

When we are dogmatic, what are we expressive of, what human trait does dogmatism rely on to exists, it can’t exist without this particular human trait?  Dogmatism can’t exist without a controlling ego, once the ego takes control of us there is a good chance we will become dogmatic within any ideological principle we take on.

Recently I have been in a discussion with science minded people concerning my last post titled Philosophical Views and the Sciences. The response I got was very typical of anyone arguing on behalf of their own ideological principles they abide by in life, in this case the principles where scientific principles. Science isn’t conductive to dogmas and basically how dare I relate religious mentality with science mentality in this way.  The problem was, the more they argued with me the more dogmatic they sounded which was of course proving my point.

I also showed how corrupt science of today is and how some of these scientists will falsify findings to obtain more funding and prestige.  https://explorable.com/scientific-falsification

I also showed how atheists are just as if not more dogmatic than religious/spiritually aware people.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201309/dogmatism-and-openness-experience-in-the-non-religious

Like anyone who has an ideological principle that they see is the be and end all, they will defend these principles to the utter end which is exactly what happened, the discussion is still going on.

I thought I would insert one of my responses to a science minded person about the question religion/spirituality doesn’t give evidence so it’s not credible.

I agree, we form a hypothesis /philosophical view takes inductive reasoning but to formulate a non-conjectural outcome of a hypothesis we use deductive reasoning. 

You said there is no evidence, what is evidence to theorist is different to what is evidence to a realist, if we relied totally on a realists deduction we wouldn’t get anywhere because all theories at first can’t be proven so a realist would disclaim theories from the start because there is no solid proof that a theory is fact.  A good scientist is a theorist and a realist but that is obviously not the case for a lot of science minded people these days.

Now let’s look at evidence again between a realist and an idealist (religion), what one calls evidence isn’t evidence to the other and visa-versa, which one is more correct? Someone who is dogmatic will say their ideological principles are, how often do science minded people proclaim their ideological principles are right over all other principles? Is this any different to religious dogmatisms?  Of course not…..

In a thousand years’ time do you honestly think the present scientific principles used today built solely on logics is still going to be in use? Most science minded people will dogmatically say most defiantly negating how science has evolved in human history so far from philosophy and mysticism. Modern day science will keep evolving unless dogma take it’s toll on such progression, quantum physics is a good example of this in how it will evolve. Quantum physics borders on a kind of mysticism at times which is why other dogmatic science minded people refute any claims made by such sciences. I’ve even had dogmatic science minded people try to tell me psychology isn’t a science and of course I proved them incorrect. 


The controlling factors of the ego have infested science minded peoples scientific principles making their science investigations flawed. This is no different to the Dark Ages when religion was infested by the controlling factors of the ego. I showed how simular Dark Age religion and modern day science is within their mentality, this of course didn’t go down to well mainly because of the controlling effects of the ego. 


Spiritual awareness is about awareness and being aware of the connections between dogmatism and ego in any ideological principle.  Spiritually aware people know, once the ego is no longer in control dogmatism just won’t (can’t) exist and what a shame that would be…….not.(:- 

Monday, 3 March 2014

Our Own Story Lived


Written by Mathew Naismith

This is going on from my last couple of posts to do with living our own story or path. We obviously all have our own story we want to live or are living by, each story is unique, no two stories are exactly alike mainly because of the influences of other people living out their story directly around us. This doesn’t or shouldn’t stop us from living out our own story, yes we are influenced but others around us however we still have our own story to live. If we want to allow other stories to influence our own story that is up to us as a whole however we must remember we are all living in a greater story!!  It’s like a story within a much larger story; these much larger stories do & can influence us against our will changing our story, war is a good example & so is consumerist materialism. These are stories that are more collective therefore more influential than our own individual story.

Living our own story doesn’t seem collective but what makes up a collective? What makes up a collective is smaller stories so everyone who is living in their own story is being collective within a larger story. At the moment we are talking about war or consumerist materialism being the larger collective story here, what about becoming spiritually aware, is it not collective to be as one as well and what gives us oneness? It’s a collective condition of multiple stories under one story; in this case we have replaced the larger story of war or consumerist materialism with oneness however we are still being influenced by war & consumerist materialism but to a far lesser extent, they are no longer the main influential story we live under.  

We can take on the main story as being our own, many people do this. A soldier becomes a soldier because of having to have armed forces & a multinational becomes a multinational because of consumers consuming material goods.  Without individuals living out their own story & being coaxed into the main story the main collective story wouldn’t exist. It takes many individual stories to make a collective, you can’t have true oneness if one story or person wanted to become at one. I think oneness only exists because of a collective, if you don’t have a collective you don’t have true oneness. Because everything is consciousness, either it be of a God or an intelligent energy source, it takes a conscious collective consciousness to create things like war & oneness.

What creates a religion, it’s not one person just living out their own story separate to every other conscious source, it’s a collective coming together to be influenced by one story.  There are so many stories we can live under either it be by choice or not, the real question is now, are any of these stories wrong for us to become influenced by? Is it wrong to believe in a God as opposed to an intelligent conscious source or to join in a collective like religion or consumerist materialism?  The collective that it creates itself isn’t wrong but we must realise it can do harm onto others or force other to join under a collective story that they don’t want to be influenced by. We do have a choice in what story we live by however sometimes in making that choice we do have to suffer.

We all at one stage or another feel non-accepting of other people’s individual & collective stories like the many different religions out there for example. As soon as we become non-accepting we have allowed these other stories to influence us like for example a lot of people don’t like the word God. As soon as we have reacted to this word & what it means we have become influenced by it.   God, to a lot of spiritually aware people these days, doesn’t mean a white bearded man or even a higher supreme being but a consciousness that is more aware than our own individual or even collective conscious selves.  Yes a lot of non-religious people have a problem with religion & the belief in a God. The problem is that religion &/or the belief in a God hasn’t proven itself to be reliable or even ethical in the past, religion & the belief in a God in itself has done a lot of harm right throughout history but of course it’s done a lot of good as well.

I use to have a problem with religion & the belief in a supreme God myself but I don’t anymore for the main reason I have accepted other people’s stories that they wish to live under, as soon as I push my story onto others I have become what religion has done at times in human history.  We must allow others to think for themselves & live by any story they wish. Accepting others people’s stories doesn’t mean we are going to live by their story nor does it mean we should allow them to hurt us in anyway through living their story, what acceptance does is to disallow any influence of these stories we don’t want to live by to influence us period. Like I said, as soon as we respond by disliking someone else’s story we have allowed that story to influence us.


So many spiritually aware people these days have a problem with the word God or anything relating to religion period, this is allowing these stories we don’t accept to influence us.  Once we accept that others have a right to live by their own stories, like we do, these stories have very little effect on our own stories lived.  This is sort of like reverse psychology funny enough!!!       

Saturday, 18 January 2014

The Kingdom of God? –Awareness


Written by Mathew Naismith

I was asked recently about my idea about the Kingdom of God? The following was my reply.  



G'day Ali

The kingdom of God, in a religious sense I have no idea, what the kingdom of God means for one religion isn't accepted by another religion.

 What does it mean to me? I believe we are in the kingdom of God, where not aware of this & some of us don't want to be aware of this. As soon as we become spiritually aware enough to know we have always been in the kingdom of God we realise all it took to know this was awareness. Religion has tried to make us aware but at times people within a certain religious order have gone astray, we are but human after all. Some people say religion is dying a slow death mainly because of people with flaws within these religious orders but I don't think so, religious people like anything else will evolve & become aware of their errors within these religious orders in time. We must be aware of the past & learn from it.

 I had an experience a few months ago with the souls of entities who were set on evil intent, they utterly fear awareness beyond what they know, they just don't want to know. I felt a real kindred to them because I could see within their souls they too were of the light, they just didn't want to know this.

How & why become set on evil intent? The controlling factors of the ego I believe has a lot to do with it, once one becomes totally fixated to these controlling factors, especially at the soul level, the soul no longer wants anything that will take this control away. Imagine fearing to your utter depth of your soul in losing control!!

 Spirituality is about awareness & releasing control not gaining it & this is where people within these religious orders have gone off mark. The kingdom of God to me represents awareness to the max.

Sorry if the above has offended anyone as that was not my intention, my intention is to be honest & straight forward within my views & beliefs to anyone who reads my posts. I am not what you would call a religious person however I do realise the importance of religion within human society remembering the word religion actually refers to a belief, creed or a conviction of any kind however religious more or less refers to actual religious (spiritual) practices.  In saying this I do however practice in sitting within my own quietness which of course you could call a religious practice.  

In all I call all of what is the kingdom of God or the source or consciousness itself & I believe the more aware you are, differentiated from knowledge,   the closer you are to the kingdom of God or the more connected you are to the source itself. All this I believe comes from being aware & to do this we need to beware of the controlling factors of the ego remembering this is where people in certain religious orders have gone astray. Spirituality isn’t about control but releasing control, we must be aware of this if we want things to change for the better.   


One more thing, the reason I mentioned awareness being differentiated from knowledge is knowledge can be controlling as opposed to spiritual awareness releasing control!!

Friday, 24 May 2013

The World of True Spiritual Acceptance pt.5


gods
Written by Mathew Naismith

God’s Acceptance:  Let me ask a question here, is the creator or creative consciousness fully accepting or non-accepting of everything? It of course would have to be all accepting so why aren’t we? Recently I had a reply to my concept of acceptance of all which said that one can’t be accepting of other spiritual ideologies because of their own beliefs in their own ideologies so there is always going to be some sort of divide between different ideologies.  What this is saying, because of our own ideologies conflicts between different ideological beliefs are going to continue no matter what.

As previously stated on this subject, one must first distant oneself from past ideologies to allow the concept of acceptance to fully take place before & during our process of becoming aware through various chosen methods. It’s these ideologies that are clouding our true existence by rejecting or refusing to acknowledge all ideologies to one extent or another.  To reject any other form of ideology other than your own is conflictive & non-accepting. Of course by accepting another ideology one doesn’t have to take on that ideology as well it just means one should become accepting of other ideologies & not dogmatically just following our own ideologies as being the only ideology everyone should follow, this isn’t of God is it?

What this is saying if anyone is fixated on one ideology & is non-accepting of other ideologies they are no closer to the creator than if they had no ideology because the creator is of all consciousness therefore is all accepting of itself with no conflicts towards any ideology, it is all of these ideologies otherwise they wouldn’t exist.  What have humans consistently done throughout history?  Conflicted with other ideologies spiritual & otherwise & we have always been in conflict because of why? Different ideological belief systems but does the creator have this problem?

religiousReligious within Our Religion: Religion refers to belief in anything like political preference or a belief that my race is better than yours & so forth, religious convictions to a certain doctrine are no different to any other conviction as it also doesn’t accept other so called apposing convictions/ideologies.  Is this type of conviction towards certain ideologies close to God/the creative source? Strangely not but we persist in having our own ideological belief systems that are conflictive & non-accepting towards so called apposing ideologies, we couldn’t be further from God even if we wanted too with this sort of non-acceptance.

The question here would be if God is all accepting this must mean he’s accepting of our misery & of all things horrid to us? Yes because we have done those things to ourselves, if God/ the source were non-accepting of such things it would also be in conflict which doesn’t exist within the consciousness of the source accept through us.  The creative source does not have religious convictions; we do which make us conflictive towards other convictions different to ours. We could say here if we all had one religious conviction there would be no conflicts & total acceptance!! Is this acceptance of everything we know now? Not at all because only through total acceptance of all can we find true peace & harmony in the world.