Is this Sanity

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?

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.

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.

Aaron,

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

WendyDarling

Keep in mind this is but one persons thoughts on the matter(namely mine).

The story does not end here . . .

Where can we go with it indeed? My guess would be just as confined as every other theory I am afraid. I guess we would have to start with the idea of “get real”.

So how do we get real? That in itself is a big question with a simple answer. People have a tendency to confound themselves with many different notions leading to over complicating the matter of what is real and what is not real.

So the following is an example of how I choose to get real:

I do not know “nothing” and I do not know “everything”. All I understand is somewhere in between.

All I understand would constitute my version of reality - so do I believe in the concept of an atom? Kind of. I understand that atomic physics gets results so the physicist is obviously on to something. But you do not need to understand electricity to use it. I do not believe you need to get physics and chemistry one hundred percent right to exploit these disciplines either. So how do we understand things that are too small for the human eye to see? We don’t really. We have a level of precision that works - enough to be practical - in the early days we did not even understand the consequences of playing in these disciplines and still today we are paying for our misunderstanding.

So now we can say:

We do not know “nothing” and we do not know “everything”. All we understand is somewhere in between.

I am certain this is something that is permanent.

The seed of the source - gets viewed in many ways as is evident in historical contexts.

If we take two definitions from google for the word source:

General definition

1. a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.

Technical definition
2. a body or process by which energy or a particular component enters a system.

And use the following definition for the word seed:

cause (something) to begin to develop or grow

You could surmise that my definition for seed of the source is as follows:

cause a place, process, body, person or thing to originate, enter, develop or grow

We are fundamentally talking about causation - cause and effect. To some it would be GOD, to others the Big Bang. To me all theories are illusions of some kind because of what each person should probably admit to themselves:

We do not know “nothing” and we do not know “everything”. All we understand is somewhere in between.

And it is still only probability because of something similar to what I said earlier:

A subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of related evidence.

But what would I know? I am just as lost as everyone else . . . People claim they have proofs for this, that and the other but as I said in another thread:

How do we know when to accept objective reality established and accepted through science and philosophy?

None of this is to say that we can not keep increasing our understanding of reality - just that life itself and its raison d’être might remain a mystery to us.

So the seed of the source could also be - the seed(author) of the source(theory)

. . . or as today shows us . . . the seeds(authors) of the sources(theories)

I could of course explain the seed of the source in a much “prettier” way - a way that is more comfortable for a person to read and maybe accept.
To me reading what other people write is another form of socializing - we read many things that point at the truth even though they may differ.

[-o<

In the end - acceptance is belief.