I'm glad you have a better understanding, but science isn't about semantics. More specifically, it's intentionally precise - you don't want people to be confused as to what you mean. That's a big part of the reason why your attempts to define theist and atheist differently than common parlance keep failing in such a big way. You mean them one way, but the people you're talking to understand them another way. More to the point, you come across like a religious devotee, which makes your attempts to describe your beliefs as if they're scientific fall totally flat.
Ok I understand - And I am trying to keep it very simple and very narrow. The word Theist the word life and the word consciousness the word truth and the word love and what it means to the self conscious - us.
Very simply, if you want to promote what you believe as if it's scientific, you need to show scientific evidence to support it. Diaries and the like don't really count - they're useful, but you can't verify that what's written in the diary actually took place, nor can you show that the things that they write about have an independent existence.
It is a self aware process. Consciousness is in the individual. How do you know whether you are being good to someone or bad to them? It is not the document it is in the observation. Writing it down makes you document it. That is your observation resulting in "Father forgive me for I have sinned". It is your observation, it your determination to do better to become more aware and stop sinning. However that is if you are understanding the process of self realisation.
In scientific methodology, stuff gets checked repeatedly. Basically, one person does an experiment, then other people do the same experiment to see if they get the same results, and so on and so forth. That's why science puts so much stock into reproducible experiments; if you can't reproduce what someone else does, how can you possibly tell whether their results are valid? You would just have to take their word for it (which is essentially what you're pushing), which collapses the whole framework that science is built on.
That is also what theists say - people have their conscious awareness - they should be aware of the negative influences being direct at them or from in their mind and not engage its illusions. Far too many want to judge the others in that experiment but not themselves. They should not kill, lie cheat, covet etc -- they should all see why their minds are doing these things and observe it and prevent the hurt that it will inflict on another - they should use their intellect for a higher purpose as they observes what is causing and promoting suffering in action and reaction. This repetitive problem creates more and disharmony in the environment and every individual should be aware what God and the theists are saying -- "be aware" of your self - you will reap what you sow - it is the law of the eternal consciousness!! There is someone going on in the human mind bringing suffering and chaos to all life.
Diaries are useful in a subjective sense, but you can't use them to prove that something really happened. It's like keeping a dream diary - you can become more and more aware of your dreams, but you can't ever show that those dreams were real.
We are talking about an individuals thought words and deeds - born out of the present moment - it is a science of the self for him to progress if he says he wants to know God. If he is lying on his own experiment he does not really want to know God he might be trying to impress someone else. Dreams are not being discussed as conscious awareness.
The interaction with another human being is recorded only to establish the truth of the nature of the individual observing him/herself and making changes to what is observed to become a better human being. Conscious good intentional thoughts words and deeds create a better working environment for all.
Another point you seem to have missed is that if someone is coming to Earth, it's possible to go to the same place more than once (a specific city would be recognizable as the same city whether it's summer or winter, although it would look different), and it's possible for multiple people to go to that same place. Yet as far as I know, nobody who's done this astral traveling (or whatever you call it) has managed to encounter a single other person or realistically gone to the same place more than once. That means their experiences are more like lucid dreaming than them actually going somewhere.
Where are the works of these astral travellers you know? Maybe we should ask for the documents from those that teach the method openly and have them of their students. Paul Twitchell went against protocols. Chances are there are lots of documents with the teacher.
This is the problem and it has always been the problem. You refuse to provide evidence to support your assertions, and you expect people to just read through books written by people who make grandiose claims but can't provide any real evidence either. So why should anyone care? It sounds like just another religious belief, complete with unverifiable stories which seem to support the whole idea.
I am not the holder of all the info. But the evidence is there that people go within. They pass through the single or third eye located between the eye brows. This place has a well know and documented experience. If thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light. It might sound mystical and wooish but it is the same experience for all going through this inner door way of the body at this point. Theists say silenced mind and a perfect teacher can get one into the higher realms where they can witness the same things be taught in the same classrooms. That is not the problem for the followers it is our problem for not doing the science or for not wanting to know perhaps because to go within requires us to be moral and ethical. I am sure if we were in such a class we would have done the experiment. We too would have known the same truths.
That is not what I mean by publishing. Scientists publish papers describing their experiments and whatnot in journals which are read and reviewed by their peers and which are also open to the general public. The point being that other scientists in the same field can review what they did, repeat the experiments, publish comments and criticism, and so on.
Exactly but I would have no way of interpreting these journals. Only people trained in science can appreciate these works that are written. I just accept that they have done this and this is the work. I do not understand most of it. I have not been trained to, nor do I have any interest. But it exists. Same with the Theists, Their work with their students are determined by the students making the effort, keeping a record, fine tuning themselves. It is that fine tuning that allows their attention to become focused at the third eye with no mind intervention.
No doubt you'll claim that this is exactly like what advocates of Eck do, but it really isn't. First off, they're promoting a religious belief - you have to believe for it to work. Second, there's no realistic way to verify what someone else comes up with; they could easily claim they just went somewhere else in the "astral plane" or whatever it is, and nobody could disprove it. There would be no way to falsify anyone's specific results. And third, you have to rely on purely subjective perceptions, when those subjective perceptions are notoriously unreliable (as evidenced by the unreliability of eyewitness testimony).
I'm not a spokesman for Eckankar nor anyone else. I am saying there is a method and there is a process that allows one to go into a higher realm. It is not some mind woo for the consciously aware it can be to some doing this with their mind illusion for the uncontrolled mind can create all sorts of harry potter fictional characters - so if it is a mental process then one can imagine whatever they want and make it real - but for it to be the science of the self aware it must be done over a fully conscious and fully aware self observing their minds - it is the minds nature to delude the consciousness.
What does that have to do with anything?
The authority or teacher of the class where the science experiment is being done must already know what needs to be achieved at each step in the experiment or it is not the experiment that the students are investigating.
I'm not your student, so don't treat me like it.
I was talking about your humanism, not your studentship.
The reason I made that comment is because you're throwing around similar terms yourself, and it isn't doing you any good. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to treat them seriously, and you really haven't been treating anyone here seriously since you first started posting. It gets frustrating. I had to take a break because I was getting too annoyed with you.
You are only human. I take my breaks too. I am offended very little. Perhaps too stupid to recoginse how important it is for you and others to convince me on how right you are. For that please forgive me.
No, I mean, unless someone believes that their methods work, they won't work for them. The gurus get the methods passed down to them from 'god' and then pass it on to believers. Meaning, if someone isn't a believer, it won't work for them.
I have no idea where you get this information from. IMO such a teacher although exists would have no real authority. Every human being is taught about this world by the people in it. It is their determination to know something that sets them on a path to find the answers to that inner question. Every one that knows about God is taught by another how to know scientifically through the awareness of the self. A truthful Master Disciple relationship. When they claim divine intervention we should be very wary of this weirdness. Not that people do not have divine interventions but they are not the authority on earth. For such they will say "There cometh one who is far more worthy than I am", because each teacher is adding more awareness to the pot of the students and not taking away. When Jesus said in my fathers kingdom there are many mansions he was talking about the various dimensions. But few understood this and he did not get to teach his followers everything. The religious and dogmatic of the day killed him out before his wisdom could have been fully given out.
What makes you think these teachers know 'god' in the first place?
I am only aware of what they write. The parallels when it come to why they are trying to raise mankind's awareness becomes obvious. God.
You've been asked this and asked this and asked this, and you've never really even acknowledged it.
Maybe people do not recognise or understand or even like what I have said. but I have said.
You define theist and atheist in your own way and aren't even willing to admit that other people define it differently, at least not as far as I've seen.
I know how they define it. It results with no progression. What has anyone changed with these definitions of theirs when it comes to understanding the theists? Nothing! - the situation is getting worse. Theism has an authority and atheism has no authority. One knows because of an authority and one does not because it is without direction. It makes sense.
The fact of the matter is that you believe in what these teachers say, and you believe in the god they preach about, whereas the people here do not do either.
An authority would be nice change rather than listening forever to the garbage of a bunch of headless chickens.
So you're seen as a liar by most of the people here because you keep claiming to be an atheist even though you clearly have a religious belief in Eck.
Nonsense. I agreed with add hom that paul twitchell did lie about who his Masters were in his book - simply for money and fame. The law of God is thou shall not lie. Why have you missed this crucial point? I have got another of his books to read.
It would be like someone claiming to be an atheist but promoting the religious doctrine of Christianity.
Well Jesus was an atheist to the Jews. I am an atheists to most Christians and an atheist to most Hindus or Buddhists because I say to them I want to question Buddha or Jesus or Mahavira about their work. As soon as I find someone trust worthy of teaching me about God then I might consider it if he can answer my questions. These guys are dead so I am an atheists to those that are fixated on the dead teacher. - I am not closed minded though I need to weigh up all the evidence. What I am presenting is the core of that evidence. Consciousness and life. Its what theists promote. My title that theists know and I an atheist don't allows me to examine the real world the real people in it and find out who really knows and who does not. Atheists on here reject that that is even possible. That in my opinion is dogmatic and rigid. It is asking me to deny what is evidence worthy of investigative questioning in a scientific way.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but when a person makes a claim, it's their responsibility to support it with evidence.
By what reasoning or why do you think I would find this difficult to understand? I insist atheist prove theists are liars that life does not come from God that consciousness is not part of the all conscious. So long as they are lying or ignoring what the theists are saying it does not bode well for them as being scientific level minded or intelligent. It just proves they are ignoring the method of knowing -- usually the moral ethical compassionate way of living. That is not a good rock to build a foundation on. it will crumble in time to the more consciously aware.
There are simply too many people who make claims like yours without evidence to have it any other way.
The world is filled with liars. That does not mean I have to be one or agree with them, there is enough on here, in the work place; in the banks; in the politics; in the teaching professions; and the the documentaries provided as proof for this thing or the other. It makes me wonder why someone like a theist would want to be a honest person when all are liars seeking some selfish interest. For the love of God is the only thought.
If a person isn't willing to provide evidence, or is unable to, then they have no right to expect anyone else to take them seriously.
Every human being is conscious -- it is how they expand that conscious awareness -- ----- is embedded in their consciousness the ability to turn the other cheek or is it sprouting an eye for and eye. It is about what is going on in them that reveals to me who they are. That is the evidence of the consciousness on other conscious beings.
In short, if you want the people here to take you seriously, then you need to provide scientific evidence which supports what you're claiming. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.
Consciousness is already with them. Life is already with them. Theists say God is realized with these things nothing else. This is the evidence. There is no other evidence but that of the self aware.
You've been making claims since the very first day you got here. "Theists know God, atheists don't" is a claim, for example, and that's hardly the only one. What people here have been trying to do is to get you to provide evidence to support what you're saying.
There is a reasoning for that title. There was a notion that man created God out of thin air. I was saying he did not. It is taught to man by man and as man evolves he becomes more humane or less depending on if he was influenced by a teacher or not - the more aware is influenced and educated on how to be more aware. Gandhi neurons or observing a teacher allows him to evolve like the the teacher.
Christians follow Christ, not the volcano god, Buddhists follow Buddha not some earth goddess, Sikhs follow Nanak not some God of thunder. Atheists are mixing up reality with fiction. That nonsense and unscientific deduction has to stop.
Man teaches man. We need to pin down the men. They are the theists - those who know.
No, it is not documented. This is the thing that you just don't seem to get. Just because you're willing to accept that these people somehow know 'god' doesn't mean they actually do, and it doesn't relieve you (and them) of the responsibility to prove it.
Well you can ditch all the works from pre history to the present day but you cannot ditch the living teacher of the day. And that is what it is really. The present is real and we have to take that into account before accessing history. But it is not how you gel - you imagine a scenario of the past and build on it. Which is a load of old cobblers since the truth is being created now and that ends up as history.
Writings in a religious book do not serve as evidence that the original writer somehow knew 'god'. You need to understand this, Jesuis.
I do. That is why I say life and consciousness is already in you with you and aware of your intents. You do not have to go anywhere but to yourself to know which direction you are heading in. These things are only intellectual entertainment. Do you understand this point? The only truths is what you actually thing say and do. That is your karma.
Humans are really good at figuring out patterns, even patterns that don't actually mean anything. People see images in clouds all the time; or they see a pattern and assume that some intelligence was responsible, then make up stories about that intelligence when they don't even know whether it's real or not.
A pattern of a man teaching about God - a religion forming around his teachings. The point of this pattern is a theist who knows God through his conscious awareness and lives that life he asks other to live so that they too can know the same truths.
Simply put, I'm just too much of a skeptic to take your word, or anyone's word, for it, unless I already know and trust them very well, and sometimes not even then.
Well that is just like me -- but I'm not closed that there is no God. Theists say there is. I am on a journey maybe I will find a theist one day. But can a gnostic atheist say such a thing? Wouldn't that be dogmatic relative to the wisdom of the theist one who knows God?.
It has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with the fact that you keep making claims that you won't support and keep expecting other people to just jump right in and take your word for it by going and reading all the books that you think prove your case. There are way too many people in this world who will try to take advantage of the credulousness of others, or even just want to promote their own credulousness as fact. I've fallen for a few schemes like that myself, but not many - and it's only because I'm a skeptic and don't take their word for it.
Listen -- you have to first think most people know that parents, teachers, politicians, lawyers, police enforcers, doctors, etc. - do not really know every thing. But some are convinced they can learn something from another or that they can teach another a little more than what they know. This humanity exists across the world and we are all part of its working. See how some people get upset when they try to teach me something that they know is good for me. That is how theists feel when they try to teach people something that they know is good for them but they are being killed or ridiculed for it.
That means you and your belief, too. If you aren't willing to give enough of a damn to provide the evidence you need to support what you believe, then you have no business expecting anyone else to give enough of a damn to care about what you believe and are trying to promote.
I cannot give you what you already have.
The only reason I'm still responding is because I've learned to cultivate a huge amount of patience when dealing with other people.
And you think that is not what I do too????? You just have me -- I have everyone else on here. I doubt you have that much patience. But please stick around. I might learn something.