Is this Sanity?

[Eaglerising]

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.

[Dark Matter]

Good post! Now, watch someone say to me, "How can you say that? You’re a theist!"

[-1-]

You can also think of the same thing this way:

There is no shared common consciousness. We are all individuals who had come off the evolutionary tree with the same set of values and concerns, most of which concern survival and procreation.

The illusion of a common consciousness stems from the fact that our thoughts and mental processes are eerily similar. This is not magic, once you think about how we all share the same DNA that makes us human.

-- Updated 2017 June 10th, 10:32 pm to add the following --

May I add that the real magic lies in atheismus. We all had been formed to explain the inexplicable by imbuing a god-figure with qualities that make the inexplicable happen.

The real magic comes on when we learned how to explain those things, and reject the necessity of a god's presence.

This is magic because we had been genetically programmed to believe, yet our intellect can override our DNA's commandment.

[Spectrum]

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 an illusion from another.

Note Russell's:

Before we go farther it will be well to consider for a moment what it is that we have discovered so far. It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort that is supposed to be known by the senses, what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us, but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object. Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind. But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

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 to the well being of humanity. The basis from consequences of deeds and ideas is not insanity.

[Eaglerising]

Spectrum _

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

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.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum _

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

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.

The quote from Russell I introduced is the starting point of analyzing our perception.
There are many philosophers who had given attention and analyze the human perception, note Hume's the self is an illusion, cause is custom/habit, etc. Kant is very deep into perception. Understanding our perception and its consequences are critical.

However it is no insanity if we are to direct our attention to its consequences and understand its basis.

if you pay attention to all the times you become upset, disturbed, or angry over something that conflicts with our perception.

Not sure of your point here.
What is critical with emotions is one must understand the why and how emotion works [machinery], thus effecting perception and one need to put in effort to modulate one's emotions.

Insanity is when the illusions, emotions, perceptions within the person are disjointed, disorganized and flying all over the place.

[Dark Matter]

Insanity is when the illusions, emotions, perceptions within the person are disjointed, disorganized and flying all over the place.

Yup. That's why I call atheism a kind of insanity.

[Spectrum]

Yup. That's why I call atheism a kind of insanity.

The above unsupported response is truly from insanity.

Atheism is a state of indifference to the existence of God and do not hold any views by itself.
If a so-called atheist hold the view that he can fly by his/her own power, that would be insanity.
Thus for any atheist or anyone, one can only criticize their respective views/claims they hold.

The best way for any theist is to bring empirical evidence to show God exists as real, that would immediately wake up the non-theist to verify it and if true, they will have to believe God really exists.

[Eaglerising]

The title “Is this Sanity?” was to get you attention and examine your perception. Surely, debating, arguing, fighting over religion or God for thousands of is not sanity.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

[-1-]

The title “Is this Sanity?” was to get you attention and examine your perception. Surely, debating, arguing, fighting over religion or God for thousands of is not sanity.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

This would have some punch if the fight against the belief of gods were completely fruitless and futile. THEN AND ONLY THEN COULD YOU APPLY EINSTEIN'S MAXIM OF INSANITY TO ATHEISM.

But alas to you, there are more and more atheists in this world. In both absolute numbers and in relative ratios.

This proves that the argument against gods is not futile; therefore the results are obtained and not imagined or only wished for.

Therefore arguing about gods' existence is not insanity, because it DOES at times bring about different results from the expected.

[Eaglerising]

-1-

This would have some punch if the fight against the belief of gods were completely fruitless and futile. THEN AND ONLY THEN COULD YOU APPLY EINSTEIN'S MAXIM OF INSANITY TO ATHEISM.

I am not saying that believing in God or not believing in God is pointless. The key word here is PERCEPTION. People have different perceptions of atheists and God.

-1-

But alas to you, there are more and more atheists in this world. In both absolute numbers and in relative ratios.

How do you know with absolute certainty your perception of an atheist is accurate? I know some people who call themselves an atheist because they haven’t found a better label that applies to them. Does any label define who you are? You might want to examine why your concerned about the number of atheists.

-1-

This proves that the argument against gods is not futile; therefore, the results are obtained and not imagined or only wished for.

Your argument only proves you missed the key element and objective of my post.

-1-

Therefore arguing about gods' existence is not insanity, because it DOES at times bring about different results from the expected.

Defending your belief and perception is preventing you from seeing the whole point of my post.

Is your present perception providing you the peace, happiness, and the quality of life you desire? If it is not, then you might want to start examining it, which cannot be achieved by thought or knowledge.

[Dark Matter]

Yup. That's why I call atheism a kind of insanity.

The above unsupported response is truly from insanity.

Atheism is a state of indifference to the existence of God and do not hold any views by itself.
If a so-called atheist hold the view that he can fly by his/her own power, that would be insanity.
Thus for any atheist or anyone, one can only criticize their respective views/claims they hold.

The best way for any theist is to bring empirical evidence to show God exists as real, that would immediately wake up the non-theist to verify it and if true, they will have to believe God really exists.

There's support, but it somehow manages to get deleted.

The demand for empirical evidence is irrational at best. How can there be empirical evidence, material evidence, for something that is categorically different than matter? How can there be e pirical evidence for a Universal that underlies and sustains all things and beings?

The tension in the idea of God is transformed into the fundamental philosophical question how being-itself, if taken in its absolute sense, can account for the relativities of reality. The power of being must transcend every being that participates in it. This is the motive which pushes philosophical thought to the absolute, to the negation of any content, to the transnumerical One, to pure identity. On the other hand, the power of being is the power of everything that is, in so far as it is. This is the motive which drives philosophical thought to pluralistic principles, to relational or process descriptions of being, to the idea of difference. The double movement of philosophical thought from the relative to the absolute and from the absolute to the relative and the many attempts to find a balance between the two movements determine much philosophical thought throughout its history. They represent a theoretical transformation of the tension within the idea of God and within man’s ultimate concern. And this tension, in the last analysis, is the expression of man’s basic situation: man is finite, yet at the same time he transcends his finitude. (Paul Tillich )

[Fooloso4]

Eaglerising:

Consequently, it is an unsolvable debate because illusion versus illusion equals illusion.

I am not going to argue whether or not it is a debate between one illusion and another. I will, however, suggest that it may be that this juxtapostion itself is an illusion based on the belief that we can somehow move beyond human thought. What I would like to address is the question of whether the debate itself can be of value. I think it can.

First, I suggest that while philosophical arguments typically amount to little more the defense of a position, it can serve the purpose of critically examining one’s own position in light of what others say in response. It can also lead to a kind of intellectual flexibility that allows us to see that there is more than one way to look at and see things.

Second, even though persuading someone of something contrary to their strongly held views is rare, there are many here who choose to listen and not talk. Their views may not be so set. They may have doubts and questions that are addressed in the debate. They may come to see things differently or in clearer focus.

Third, some are interested in our intellectual and spiritual history and heritage. Relevant texts and authors that others may not be aware of may be introduced during the debate.

Fourth, it may become clear that some areas of disagreement are not simply between atheists and theists but between theists themselves. Theists in generally tend to be less hostile and defensive when arguing with other theists than when arguing against atheists. Realizing that it is not a matter of us versus them might make for a more civil, open-minded discussion.

[-1-]

-1-

This would have some punch if the fight against the belief of gods were completely fruitless and futile. THEN AND ONLY THEN COULD YOU APPLY EINSTEIN'S MAXIM OF INSANITY TO ATHEISM.

I am not saying that believing in God or not believing in God is pointless. The key word here is PERCEPTION. People have different perceptions of atheists and God. You are certainly right about that. Atheists and gods have little impression shared by both that they leave on people.


-1-

But alas to you, there are more and more atheists in this world. In both absolute numbers and in relative ratios.

How do you know with absolute certainty your perception of an atheist is accurate? What sort of a question is that? O, I see no question asked. Can you differentiate with a consistent accuracy hit-and-miss ratio between a question and a statement? Where did you see me write "the preception of an atheist is accurate"? You are committing the most blatant and obvious Strawman fallacy. I know some people who call themselves an atheist because they haven’t found a better label that applies to them. Does any label define who you are? You might want to examine why your concerned about the number of atheists.

-1-

This proves that the argument against gods is not futile; therefore, the results are obtained and not imagined or only wished for.

Your argument only proves you missed the key element and objective of my post. I did not miss the key element of the post I REPLIED TO. I never even read your other posts fully. I did not reply to your other posts. I replied to the post quoted by me. Why do you keep on misplacing references, and why do you keep putting words and opinions in my mouth? Why do you accuse me of misreading you when I haven't even read most of the stuff you wrote? Please understand that I answered the very post I answered, not any of your other posts. To assume that is not the correct thing by you to do.

-1-

Therefore arguing about gods' existence is not insanity, because it DOES at times bring about different results from the expected.

Defending your belief and perception is preventing you from seeing the whole point of my post. I wasn't defending my belief and my perception. I quoted a simple fact. If that defends my position, so be it, but that's YOUR perception.

Is your present perception providing you the peace, happiness, and the quality of life you desire? If it is not, then you might want to start examining it, which cannot be achieved by thought or knowledge. You are not even closely making a philosophical argument here.

[Spectrum]

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.

The title “Is this Sanity?” was to get you attention and examine your perception. Surely, debating, arguing, fighting over religion or God for thousands of is not sanity.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

The point is you raised the concept of perception in this "Philosophy of Religion, Theism .. and Mythology" section thus implied it is related to God or or religious issue. This is why I mentioned it along this vein and others.

The concept of Perception is generally discussed in general Philosophy or Epistemology & Metaphysics. If you want a general discussion of 'Why Perception can be illusional', then you should have introduced it in the General or Epistemological section.

This topic of 'Perception [philosophy] can be discussed within the following areas;

• 1. In general everything [physical or mental] is illusional in the ultimate sense.
  2. The 'Self' is an illusion [Hume, Buddhism, etc.], thus every perceived is illusory.
  3. How perception based on the empirical is conceptualized.
  4. How perception is conceptualized then idealized as the metaphysical and supernatural.
  5. Why and how the illusions above are reified in various forms and degrees.
  6. God is an illusory idea.

Each of the above are wide subject by themselves and will require a few OP to discuss on.

The above are very serious topics and I would not want to associate them with 'insanity' just to attract attention that can stir others to make silly remarks.

As I had mentioned above we should not conflate the illusory [philosophical] with what is empirical and philosophical reality that is critical to humanity.

So if one need to discuss the illusional [philosophical] one must associate it with some purpose.

Since you did not mention the ulterior motive of your OP, I infer from the OP you are concluding everything, every discussion, whatever, are actually useless and hopeless if and when we know and understand the reality [perception and concepts] underlying it are illusional.
This is why I stated one must differentiate between the concept of illusion and pragmatism [human survival].

Note Buddhism has one of the most sophisticated philosophy to support its thesis that everything is illusory, i.e. the concept of emptiness and nothingness. The purpose for this is for soteriological reason to manage an existential crisis. But Buddhism regard this as only one truth whereas there are other truths that deal with reality and being pragmatic to survive optimally.