~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by sthitapragya »

ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:
If that is what sth thinks, then so be it. But I think it will be found some one else here is more confused than what I am.



Thus, the reason I do not have beliefs. Why would i or any person have a belief in something, if its truth is not yet proved?

I can not think of any reason why to do so. Maybe others can, which they will then explain to us on here?



So, AGAIN, why belief in something, especially if you might be proved wrong?



Somewhat confusing. But 'dogma' is a belief held by any person or group of people without being questioned or doubted, have I got sth's definition given right?



I see the difference sth has given, but because sth has given it here does that make it an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?

'Dogma', is a belief held without being questioned or doubted, and the difference between that and 'belief' is accepted as true, especially without proof.

So, how in hell does one person separate what is dogma from what is belief from another person when what is generally stated is, "I believe (in)..." because I wonder how many times people have actually stated, "I have dogma (in)..."?

Also, if a person states, "I believe (in)..." is that a belief or dogma? And, how long before that belief or dogma remains without being questioned or doubted? If another person questions or doubts them does that dogma instantly then become a belief? Or is this solely depended upon the person holding and maintaining the dogma? But then this brings us to the fact that a person who has and maintains a belief would do so without questioning or doubting it because it is already accepted as being true, especially without even needing any proof, so would then this instantly become dogma?

Wow so many things to question and think about when one really wants to delve into this hey?

I much prefer My far, far simpler and much more easily to understand definitions and language, which by the way fit in with everything else, very simply, easily, and quickly to learn, comprehend, and understand.



NO, I DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT AT ALL.

I can start by thinking something may be true, and then just keep thinking that for ever more.

I could also start to have view that something may be true, and then just keep having that view for ever more.

I could even also start seeing that something may be true, and then just keep seeing that for ever more.

I NEVER have to try to prove anything, at all.

Why do you believe that I have to do that?



They were not on your last attempt to define them. Last time you said something similar to: Beliefs are, what is assumed to be true.

What has changed now? In fact why has it taken so long to even get to this point? What is it that sth is actually struggling with here?

By the way why is it unfortunate that assumption and belief are now supposedly synonyms?



Again, sth may HAVE TO DO this, but I certainly Do NOT.

And also again, at what age does this HAVE TO start believing supposedly start kicking in?



LOL That is nonsensical and ridiculous BUT that may be to Me only.

I have asked previously WHY NOT just think or have a view or see something is true, then you DO NOT HAVE TO change a belief? That is just looking from the open Mind. Or, what is generally known as just being open, which the Mind is always anyway.

I have already, I think, asked you if what you believed were not true, then would you want to hear it?

Answer Me that. Also answer, Would you believe in something if it were not true?

Your answers will help to bring more light out onto and into this subject.



LOL
LOL
LOL

So is that a ridiculous thing to do, or not? sth logic is hard to follow sometimes, but it is amusing and funny also.



There is a lot to delve into in sth's logic here, but let us begin:

1. Although I continually say I do not have beliefs sth will reject this wholeheartedly and persist in saying otherwise and thus is telling Me what I do. Rather than listening to Me I am told what I actually do.
2. How in any world can a belief be open minded? What is the mind to sth?
3. YES I THINK THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. Loud and clear enough for sth?
4. By the use of the word 'think', YES I consider it to be true.
5. That is NOT a belief as it is not what I believe to be true. I think this could get any simpler than that.
6. Where, exactly, did you get the idea that what has been proved or not follows on from a belief?
7. The contradiction in believing open minded and belief are related is obvious, is it not?
8. Of course I am prepared for the possibility that what I say might be wrong. The very reason I do not have any beliefs is so that what may be wrong can be very easily pointed out to Me. I do not have to be prepared for this piece of enlightenment and wisdom.

sth logic is YOU HAVE TO believe (in) something otherwise you will die. And, YOU HAVE TO start believing (in) something that may in fact be absolutely and totally actually false, wrong, and incorrect because if you believe (in) something without any doubt that is in fact dogma and not a belief.

NOW that all that is cleared up for every person reading this what was the actual point of clearing all of this up for us?



LOL I did the exact opposite. I used to say things like, "I believe...", and, "I don't believe...". That was until one day I was saying something about what happened and another person was laughing. I said, "Are you assuming something else?" They said, "Yes". I said, "What about I got another person in here to say what happened", they said, "I wouldn't believe it". I wondered what would make a person say that and what is stopping them from seeing the truth. I went and looked in a dictionary and it said something similar to, 'belief', something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion, so from then on I realized if having a belief can stop a person from actually seeing the Truth, then it would be best to not have any belief at all. That happened about 15 years ago for Me.

How long ago did you look in a dictionary and then started believing? And, more so why so?

Also, how long was sth making the statement, "I have no beliefs" for?

And, by the way, how in hell did sth keep existing and living whilst sth was not having any beliefs at that time?

Any, but preferably ALL, questions answered would be very much appreciated.

By the way you seem to change and swap around and think or believe differently all depending on what it is that sth wants to argue for or against.

ken wrote:The exact same thing? If so, then we can make one word completely redundant hey?

By the way just imagine if sth believed that belief and assumption were different. I imagine it would have taken a bit longer to become wiser to fact that actually belief and assumption are now not different at all and are actually the exact same thing.

So what happens now, does sth believe that belief and assumption are the same thing and that this is now accepted as true, or, is this only what sth thinks is true? If this belief changes, once again, is sth also going to propose it like it was done last time, after the fact, that that was what was thought to be true. Why was it not stated as, "I believed that belief and assumption were different...."

There is really no point to this. You just replaced "Believe" with "think".
I did NOT just do it now. This is what I have been doing and saying from the beginning of this discussion. Please do not tell me you have only just noticed now.
sthitapragya wrote:Without proof, everything you think is a belief. You just don't seem to get that.
Okay just for humorous sake, on this logic, if, without proof, everything you think is a belief, then what is it if we have something with proof, then what is everything you think then? What are you know going to call that?

i just realized i do not know why i continue to ask sth questions because only on the very, very rare occasions they are answered.

And, sth does not seem to get that I do NOT HAVE TO have a belief, if I choose not to.

It is possible, i hope sth realizes, that something can be thought of as being right instead of believing it is right.

Could I make this any simpler?
sthitapragya wrote:That is not me talking. That is the dictionary talking.
Does sth yet realize or know we use the exact same dictionary and definition for 'belief'?

I surely hope so because I have written that down previously.
sthitapragya wrote:You are so dogmatic that you refuse to even accept the dictionary.
It appears that the belief system is really placing a very hard time on sth now to be able to see and notice what has really being going on here.

What is happening now will actually be further evidence and proof of how the belief system can take over and control the brains ability to logically reason.

I KNEW there was a reason to keep continuing to discuss with sth.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Mind can set out and plan for the future, by providing evidence and proof here now in these writings from within not just this brain but also from within other brains also.

ALL the evidence and proof of exactly HOW the Mind and the brain work, and HOW they work independently of each other, is being produced and shown here in this forum for all future generations to see. This, along with the evidence and proof for scientific inquiry also to study will not just verify this but also verify how the belief system works within a brain, and there was also something else proven with evidence the other day, which this brain forgets right now, which also can and will be verified by science, "one day".

By the way sth I did not use the words 'think' or 'view' this time because I KNOW science can and WILL use the evidence and proof within this forum to verify what I WILL say.

sthitapragya wrote:You believe that you don't believe.
If that is what sth believes, so be it.

By the was sth there is a subliminal message in there that sth will probably not even notice, but I KNOW future generations will see it and understand it.

If 'what is' is believed, then that is what you are.

I really do not care what is believed. By sth's own definition it may or may not be right, anyway. What I care about is 'what is' already KNOWN.

sthitapragya wrote:And yes, assumption and belief mean the same thing. I cannot do anything about it. If you want to make one redundant, you can stop using one. The only difference I can see is that a belief might be associated with a claim made by somebody else and an assumption might be a claim made by self.

For example, You create a theory without proof. You have made assumptions. You accept the theory to be true without proof. You believe. I accept the same theory without proof. I believe.
If that is what sth does, then that is fine by Me. sth can do whatever sth wants to do.

I do NOT choose to work in that type of way.

I may, however, choose to just write A Story, which contains absolutely no beliefs nor assumptions, BUT, what is found in the Story may actually be verified scientifically and proven to be true, right, and correct, "one day".

Is this even a possibility in sth's MUST HAVE beliefs world?
sthitapragya wrote:So you have created a theory in which you accept the existence of Oneness to be true without proof. That is a belief.
Have I really created a theory?

Where is it, what does it look like, what is it about?
sthitapragya wrote:Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation of assumption and it could very well mean that assumption and belief are the same irrespective of who creates it. In which case, every theory you create without proof is a belief and every theory you accept without proof is a belief.
ken wrote: Is this 'you' directed at Me or is that 'you' directed at every person?

I am unsure how 'you' is being used here.

If this belief, which is trying to be held onto and maintained so strongly by sth, is wrong does sth know what that means to sth?

Does sth realize how much time and effort sth has actually spent trying to tell Me that I must believe? Even coming up with ridiculous suggestions like if I do not believe, then I will die?

The reason sth is "fighting" so strongly that is the power of beliefs. Beliefs work on a system of fooling the brain into not being able to distinguish between truth and falsehoods. If I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, then this statement goes against the what is believed and stored within the brain in which sth is now existing. sth will fight this statement to the "death" because the belief system in that brain will not allow its self to lose. it would prefer to die than lose, i.e., be wrong. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, then that means I am right and sth is wrong. Beliefs, by their nature, can not be wrong. If a belief could be wrong, then that belief would just be a guess or a thought.

If the truth of something is not yet known, then i just view as that, what it actually is, to me, i.e., something unknown, which by the way is the Truth. See, again Truth can be so simply, easily, and quickly found while remaining open. How I would then generally refer to this Truth is just what i think is right, or just a view i have of it, which may or may not be right, or only how i see it, which again may or may not be right or wrong. But i would never refer to something, which was especially open to being right or wrong, as have a belief, in or of it, nor of believing (in) it. To say that I believe (in) something that may or may not even yet be true nor right nor correct, i think, would be an absolute contradiction in and of itself. I find this extremely funny to even contemplate. I find it even funnier that some people actually believe that they HAVE TO do that. Even funnier still they even believe that if they do not do that, then they will die.

Does sth still want to keep disagreeing with what I do do?

Why does sth just tell us what sth does instead of trying tell every one of us what we do and HAVE TO do?

Unless sth is some sort of "God", and is therefore able to tell all of us what we do and that we HAVE TO do it, which may or may not be the case. But until then, if sth is just another person, then, in all truth, sth is just a person who can really only speak for itself only and tell us what sth does and what sth HAS TO do only.
Bye. You are too full of yourself to waste my time on. Just another weirdo with an outdated theory.
Post Reply