Is this Sanity

The finite consciousness of thought is unaware that it is shared by all humans. Thus, we aren’t aware that our consciousness is part of a “universal consciousness.” Thought also unaware of the illusionary concepts it creates and stories which substantiate them. The fragmentation of thought causes part of it to deduce the illusionary concepts created by another part of it to be real and accurate. Consequently, they become part of the universal consciousness. We perceive these illusions are real and accurate because they are in accord or agreement with our perception, which is our authority.

Over seven billion people share a common consciousness. This consciousness contains billions of thoughts, all of which are oblivious of each other. In other words, thought is fragmented. The fragmentation of thought causes it to unknowingly create illusions and stories which substantiate them that in conflict and oppose other illusions it has created. Because thought sees them as being real they become part of whose perception is in accord with them.

We are oblivious of how many illusionary concepts comprise our perception. We become aware of them when we become disturbed, upset, or angry about any concept that conflicts with our perception. That’s because we are emotionally attached to illusionary concepts. Whereas, there is no emotional attachment with real concepts. Every emotional disagreement, debate, or argument we have is counterproductive. It creates conflict, perpetuates thought’s illusionary concepts, and prevents us from examining our perception. And, everyone loses because illusion versus illusion equals illusion.

The debate between atheists and those who believe in God is an example of the two illusions perpetuating what thought created. Human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought. Consequently, it is an unsolvable debate because illusion versus illusion equals illusion. The debate between them has been going on for thousands of years and will continue to go on until we realize both are illusions created by thought. The realization of this gives new meaning to the duality of thought.

Yes, both are illusions depending on a certain perspective one looks at reality. The screen you are reading from is solid from one perspective but is a an illusion from another.

However from a consequential perspective of reality, we need to assess which is less illusory thus more optimal to the individual[s] and the collective.

The question of which is more illusory is based on which is based on objectivity [more, less or none at all].
Point is there is no objective grounds for theism at all.

As for atheism it is something indifferent and neutral by itself. A non-theist will consider objectivity on a case to case basis for any thing that claims to be objective. Thus for any claim, i.e. “P is true and objective”, then prove it.

While theism is at the worst end of being illusory and not-objective [i.e. subjective and faith] it is nevertheless has critical utility for the majority of people since it emerge to the present. In addition theism also has its cons.

In the current increasing trend within reality, the cons of theism is outweighing its pros as reflected in the manifesting terrible evils and violence from one religion, i.e. Islam. It is about time theism human wean off theism [very illusory] and replace it with solutions [less illusory] that are more optimal which are net-positive for humanity.

So illusion is not an issue since everything is illusory to some extent. What matters is the consequences of these illusions and their contribution of the well being of humanity. The basis from consequences of deeds and ideas is not insanity.

p.s. I am in the other forum PCF, will post the same there.

Bayes’ theorem expresses: With the Bayesian probability interpretation, the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of related evidence.

Prismatic56 – You miss the whole point of this post if you focus your attention on the example, about our perception of atheism and God. Most people don’t realize how much of their perception contains illusionary concepts created by thought. You begin to realize the magnitude of this if you pay attention to all the times you become upset, disturbed, or angry over something that conflicts with our perception. Observe all the conflict it creates. Furthermore, your response is an example of how perception justifies or defends itself. Thus nothing new is seen or learned because you don’t question and examine your perception.

Why is atheism an illusion?

Interesting

I think this is a great question Magnus Anderson. Hopefully somebody will attempt an answer.

I am inspired to challenge anyone who wants to try and answer the opposite question:

Why is atheism not an illusion?

:laughing:

Why is the idea that theism and atheism are illusions, not an illusion?

How about what is an illusion?
How do you determine whether something is an illusion or not?

For example, I say that God does not exist. How can I determine whether that is an illusion or not?

Hmm, I don’t know. I think this might be too complicated. Too difficult for our brains. Let’s just go back to making assertions and pretending we are justified in our beliefs.

This page was left blank.

Well, that explains that. :smiley:

If illusions are only illusions, and nothing but, then it explains it. But illusions are not pure, they are part illusion, part fact, based on evident reality. The difference is hard to tell to the point of incredulity.
Pure, unadulterated illusions are hard to come by, as do absolute verifiable truths.

So reality is cut up, on basis of belief, that belief changing contextually. The unbelievable stuff is separated from the so called obvious and sensible.
That the sensible is also manufactured, often times, doesen’t enter most awareness, mostly it’s an automatic response.

Eagle wrote

The whole point of our consciousness becoming separated and placed in a human body was for the purpose of individualism. When our physical human body ceases to function, our consciousnesses may or may not rejoin the universal consciousness however I’m not convinced that thought is fragmented as if that is a bad thing. Separated does not equal fragmented when you think of children born of two beings, are the children fragmented beings or new individuals that share the same thing called life?

WendyDarlig –

If you attentively observe thought you can see that it is fragmented. You will also see that thought is incomplete. Because you can experience it, it isn’t a matter of belief or disbelief.

See, remember, or compensate? Emotionally incomplete, spiritually devoid, or spun through the rinse cycle repeatedly to no better end? I’m not following so your thought is incomplete? Why is it not a matter of belief or disbelief when memory is involved. Memory causes thought to be lost in translation (between the brain and the soul) but that is not the same as fragmented unless your recollecting a dream, then yes, it’s fragmented.

Is thought a memory as you are having it? Mobius loop deja vu, anyone? Okay, I’m gonna trip out on this possibility for a bit. No, no drugs were involved, well not of the illegal variety. As a thought is echoed back from soul to brain, am I merely remembering myself, the past, too slowly to catch up with my source of being or …

What does it mean that thought is fragmented?

Good question.

My guess is that thought is fragmented in the sense that it serves some personal interest rather than universal interest. It divides people instead of uniting them. It is based on fear rather than love.

Your turn.

WendyDarling

Actually, that is not a bad analogy. A thought is like a pattern quantification involving analogy and vicinity(time) - the memory is a hierarchical component, temporal in its nature. Each ‘quantified thought’ is generated by the ‘continuous loop’ which is in search for analogies from the past that closely fit the present circumstances involved in the thought.

What we refer to as present is close enough to be practical - all thinking is based on the past - we live up to 300 milliseconds in the past - transmission speeds among the neurons vary - synaptic speed in some cases is 1 - 5 milliseconds. When the thought is quantified it has generally taken somewhere between 10 - 300 milliseconds to reach that point.

Memory is accessed as close to now as possible - as long as the analogy found is a really close match it is used - otherwise you would ask a question - or possibly tell a lie. The further up the hierarchy of time the ‘loop’ has to search the slower the recall. When we are rushed or feel rushed to respond to our circumstance the accuracy of our response is affected.

Now as for the source of being, I believe this would be a separate conversation . . . I could possibly take a guess at it. I know the source of being is related to socializing. The seed of the source however would be what would constitutes a conversation by itself.

Just saying.

:-k

Aaron,

I like this phrase “the seed of the source,” where can we go with it? :mrgreen: If you can come up with any alternative angles in which to corral this concept, I’m all eyes. :open_mouth: