If

[Tonus]

In fact there is more than one force.

"Bold claim, this is. Proof for it, you have?"

[Little Rik]

I will be back at you as soon as i got a bit of time.
In the meantime if you look back at some previous posts you already got the answer to your question.
There is no devil.
There are instead two forces that try all the time to make you go up or down in your consciousness.

There is at least 7 forces: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. You're over simplifing things again. Hense, you missed the big picture that the devil not only exist but in control.

In a way you are quite correct.
In fact there is more than one force.
Our instincts and if we can call motivations takes us here and there in order to satisfy our different senses and our different feeling that spring from different peculiarities within.
But again it would be far too complex to distinguish this from that, that is why the best thing to do is to put on one side those movement that help to improve our consciousness and on the other side those who reduce our level of consciousness.
Here i give you one more example.
Suppose you get one 5 in pride and one 7 in envy.
At the end you average vote would be a 6.
But let us coming back to your imaginary devil.
What are the motivations that push someone to do the right or the wrong thing?
Are God or the devil?
Of course not.
None of them but you.
Going up the mountain is hard work but coming down is quite easy so most of the people like more coming down than go up as most of the people stop their studies well before they get a degree even if they know that by getting a degree they would do much better in life.
This is all about freedom to go here or there nothing to do with God or the devil.
We could write a book about the philosophy of going up or down consciously speaking but i don't really want to waste my time with someone who at this stage is not at all interested in this issue.

[Little Rik]

Not at all surgen.
If i got right you said that definitions make sense because the majority dictate so that is why i said that it not necessary the majority opinion that make sense in most cases.

Society agrees on what the meaning of a word (i.e. the definition) is. This is required to be able to communicate. If you do not know how to use the words corectly, people don't understand what you're saying. Case in point.

I am talking about apples while you talk about plums.
Your plum talking related to the fact that by using an established definition everybody understand you and here i agree with you but my apples talking related to the fact that established definitions often don't mean anymore what they meant at the time that they first came in the people mouths so by letting people know their real meaning is something good to do.
The same problem spring out the spiritual messages left to us by several enlightened creatures that later on have turned into religion so if you really think that today definition shouldn't change according to their original meaning then you really behave like a religious person into thinking that today definition are the real thing when in fact they are the vandalized version of the original.

Are you really trying to argue against cause and effect? The cause is the person's taughts/desires and the effect is their actions. It is that simple.

Causes do not distinguish between thoughts and actions.
You will create effects with both.

Yes, I'm a mother fucking magician, and I don't need to win the lottery because I get all the things I want because I'm a mother fucking magician.

Oh, boy.
Didn't anybody tell you that you shouldn't use your brains when under the influences of various items?

One of the most failed logic is to dismiss something without even try to see whether it is true or not.

3 things: 1) You shouldn't start believing things just because someone said it.
2) You're ignoring the criticisms of the so called evidence.
3) You're ignoring the counter evidence.

Gimma the evidence surgen.
I believe when you give me.

You effectively quoted Sack's conclusion without looking at his reasoning that lead to the conclusion. Two example where Sacks uses other people experiments to back up his conclusion that from your source.

First Shermer rely on Sacks for his so called evidence and now we got Sacks that rely on somebody else to back up his so called evidence.
Maybe tomorrow we may learn that this last Mr. SOMEBODY rely on some other somebody and that somebody rely on a new somebody.
This actually is not only funny.
It is extremely funny.

OBEs, as Henrik Ehrsson and his fellow researchers in Stockholm have elegantly shown, can be produced experimentally, by using simple equipment -- video goggles, mannequins, rubber arms, etc. -- to confuse one's visual input and one's proprioceptive input and create an uncanny sense of disembodiedness.

But we know from the experience of Tony Cicoria and many others, that a hallucinatory journey to the bright light and beyond, a full-blown NDE, can occur in 20 or 30 seconds, even though it seems to last much longer.

You know surgen what all this remind me?
The meat saga.
Even now after so many years of studying many researchers say that meat is good.
How come then that people eating meat got so many problems with cardiovascular diseases while vegetarians are mainly free from this problem.
None the less these smart researchers still masturbate their brains thinking that they got the real bonanza

I digged a lot. The only thing I found was more soil or bedrock. Neither were very interesting. So if someone can reproduce the halluciantion then that means it was not a halluciantion. You need more than repeatability to say something exist. You need consistent predictability of something new.

In case you are not capable of solving a problem you need help.
That is why the teachers and the gurus are there to help you.

Atheist don't believe in God and generally the devil. I personally don't. I only proposed a thought experiment.

If you don't believe in something or someone what's the point in using this thing that don't exist?

Sorry, but everything is not balanced. There is only the illusion of "positive" and over abundance of "negative." The balanced you feel is trickery by the devil, and he has done a wonderful job of tricking you. Break free from your illusion and surrender to masochism.

Again you mention something that according to you does not exist.
No wonder that your experiments will fail.

[Surgenator]

In a way you are quite correct.
In fact there is more than one force.

Our instincts and if we can call motivations takes us here and there in order to satisfy our different senses and our different feeling that spring from different peculiarities within.
But again it would be far too complex to distinguish this from that,

The difficulty of a problem doesn't make the simpler answer correct.

that is why the best thing to do is to put on one side those movement that help to improve our consciousness and on the other side those who reduce our level of consciousness.

Improving or reducing consciousness??? Like drinking coffee vs drinking beer.

Your not talking about consciousness but awareness. Specifically, awareness of the spirit world. However, you cannot show to anyone else that such a spirit world exist becase the devil is giving you illusions of it.

---

Society agrees on what the meaning of a word (i.e. the definition) is. This is required to be able to communicate. If you do not know how to use the words corectly, people don't understand what you're saying. Case in point.

I am talking about apples while you talk about plums.
Your plum talking related to the fact that by using an established definition everybody understand you and here i agree with you but my apples talking related to the fact that established definitions often don't mean anymore what they meant at the time that they first came in the people mouths so by letting people know their real meaning is something good to do.
The same problem spring out the spiritual messages left to us by several enlightened creatures that later on have turned into religion so if you really think that today definition shouldn't change according to their original meaning then you really behave like a religious person into thinking that today definition are the real thing when in fact they are the vandalized version of the original.

I do use established definition while you don't. The "real meaning" of words are the established definitions not the ones you make up on the fly. Langauge is versitile enough that you can express your points using the proper definitions of words. If you can't, your point is malformed or you are failing at using language properly.

Are you really trying to argue against cause and effect? The cause is the person's taughts/desires and the effect is their actions. It is that simple.

Causes do not distinguish between thoughts and actions.
You will create effects with both.

:fasepalm: Do peoples thoughts/desires dictate their intended actions or not? This is a simple yes or no.

One of the most failed logic is to dismiss something without even try to see whether it is true or not.

3 things: 1) You shouldn't start believing things just because someone said it.
2) You're ignoring the criticisms of the so called evidence.
3) You're ignoring the counter evidence.

Gimma the evidence surgen.
I believe when you give me.

Been down this road already. I have shown you the evidence, go look at my previous post. Your retort of them is a character assassination instead of critic of the evidence itself.

You effectively quoted Sack's conclusion without looking at his reasoning that lead to the conclusion. Two example where Sacks uses other people experiments to back up his conclusion that from your source.

First Shermer rely on Sacks for his so called evidence and now we got Sacks that rely on somebody else to back up his so called evidence.
Maybe tomorrow we may learn that this last Mr. SOMEBODY rely on some other somebody and that somebody rely on a new somebody.
This actually is not only funny.
It is extremely funny.

What is actually funny is that you think you made a valid point. Sacks quoting other independent researchers evidence that supports his conclusion is not a weakness but a strength. It literally means that someone else that doesn't work with Sacks did their own experiments and get the same conclusions as Sacks.

You know surgen what all this remind me?
The meat saga.
Even now after so many years of studying many researchers say that meat is good.
How come then that people eating meat got so many problems with cardiovascular diseases while vegetarians are mainly free from this problem.
None the less these smart researchers still masturbate their brains thinking that they got the real bonanza

Oh sweet irony. But seriously, don't divert the conversation.

I digged a lot. The only thing I found was more soil or bedrock. Neither were very interesting. So if someone can reproduce the halluciantion then that means it was not a halluciantion. You need more than repeatability to say something exist. You need consistent predictability of something new.

In case you are not capable of solving a problem you need help.
That is why the teachers and the gurus are there to help you.

wooooze. There goes my point going in one ear and out the other.

Atheist don't believe in God and generally the devil. I personally don't. I only proposed a thought experiment.

If you don't believe in something or someone what's the point in using this thing that don't exist?

Thought experiments generally are used as a teaching tool. In a thought experiment, you reduce the number of parameters that might affect the results. This allows the users to focus only on the main point.

Sorry, but everything is not balanced. There is only the illusion of "positive" and over abundance of "negative." The balanced you feel is trickery by the devil, and he has done a wonderful job of tricking you. Break free from your illusion and surrender to masochism.

Again you mention something that according to you does not exist.
No wonder that your experiments will fail.

Each and everyone of us has a darkside that will harm others for our own personal gain. The devil is just the perfect darkside that harms anyone and everyone for her personal pleasure. How can you say such a being cannot exist when the evidence is in you?

[Little Rik]

The difficulty of a problem doesn't make the simpler answer correct.

If you want you are free to analyze in detail one by one our many peculiarities and see if you can come up with a practical solution.
Maybe in a thousand years you will find out how to solve each and everyone of your problems.
As far as i know i follow my guru teaching which are a lot more practical.
By working on my main glands it is a lot easier to tackle these many problems at once.

Improving or reducing consciousness??? Like drinking coffee vs drinking beer.

Consciousness doesn't spring out the mind nor is something material.
It rather the awareness of who you really are but this topic is a bit difficult to understand from an atheist point of view as you just shown above.

Your not talking about consciousness but awareness. Specifically, awareness of the spirit world. However, you cannot show to anyone else that such a spirit world exist becase the devil is giving you illusions of it.

By gaining in self awareness you also realize that you are heading toward the non-illusory dimension so the force that try to push you down get wicker and wicker.
But again you are free to say that the devil give me illusions.

I do use established definition while you don't. The "real meaning" of words are the established definitions not the ones you make up on the fly. Langauge is versitile enough that you can express your points using the proper definitions of words. If you can't, your point is malformed or you are failing at using language properly.

Not really.
If i explain the real meaning of the words most people with a little bit of brains will be rather happy to hear the real meaning.

Causes do not distinguish between thoughts and actions.
You will create effects with both.

:fasepalm: Do peoples thoughts/desires dictate their intended actions or not? This is a simple yes or no.

A though doesn't necessary dictate action or it is follow by action however it does dictate a reaction regardless.
This of course according to the karma system.

Gimma the evidence surgen.
I believe when you give me.

Been down this road already. I have shown you the evidence, go look at my previous post. Your retort of them is a character assassination instead of critic of the evidence itself.

Your evidence is the usual claim.
Been down this road again mate.

First Shermer rely on Sacks for his so called evidence and now we got Sacks that rely on somebody else to back up his so called evidence.
Maybe tomorrow we may learn that this last Mr. SOMEBODY rely on some other somebody and that somebody rely on a new somebody.
This actually is not only funny.
It is extremely funny.

What is actually funny is that you think you made a valid point. Sacks quoting other independent researchers evidence that supports his conclusion is not a weakness but a strength. It literally means that someone else that doesn't work with Sacks did their own experiments and get the same conclusions as Sacks.

I already gave the example of the meat saga in which different researchers came up with the conclusion that meat is good when in fact the evidence prove the opposite so it really doesn't matter how many researchers came to the same conclusion.
When the evidence prove them wrong that is the end of the story. Amen.

Each and everyone of us has a darkside that will harm others for our own personal gain. The devil is just the perfect darkside that harms anyone and everyone for her personal pleasure. How can you say such a being cannot exist when the evidence is in you?

To do the wrong thing doesn't give evidence that Mr. Devil is present in our life.
On the other hand there is evidence that two forces exist.
Lower forms of life like plants and animals are driven by instinct but as soon as these form of lives get emancipated to human life the instinct loose part of his grip to let the freedom to decide to emerge.
With the freedom you choose to go further up or go back down to animal or plant life.
This again is according to yoga philosophy which doesn't make any sense to an atheist.

[Surgenator]

Improving or reducing consciousness??? Like drinking coffee vs drinking beer.

Consciousness doesn't spring out the mind nor is something material.
It rather the awareness of who you really are but this topic is a bit difficult to understand from an atheist point of view as you just shown above.

Prove that consciousness can exist without a brain. Or do you think it is an amazing coincidence that consciousness only arises in brains, and no longer noticed when the brain is dead. Or that altering the brain directly affects consciousness. Some amazing coincidence as if consciousness springs out of the brain.

Your not talking about consciousness but awareness. Specifically, awareness of the spirit world. However, you cannot show to anyone else that such a spirit world exist becase the devil is giving you illusions of it.

By gaining in self awareness you also realize that you are heading toward the non-illusory dimension so the force that try to push you down get wicker and wicker.
But again you are free to say that the devil give me illusions.

Self awareness doesn't tell you anything about the environment you live in. Self awareness just tells you that you exist, nothing more. The ability to view yourself in someone elses shoes is what helps you determine if an action is "wicked" path.

I do use established definition while you don't. The "real meaning" of words are the established definitions not the ones you make up on the fly. Langauge is versitile enough that you can express your points using the proper definitions of words. If you can't, your point is malformed or you are failing at using language properly.

Not really.
If i explain the real meaning of the words most people with a little bit of brains will be rather happy to hear the real meaning.

The "real" definition is the establish definition. It is really amazing on how you don't understand this simple concept.

Causes do not distinguish between thoughts and actions.
You will create effects with both.

:fasepalm: Do peoples thoughts/desires dictate their intended actions or not? This is a simple yes or no.

A though doesn't necessary dictate action or it is follow by action however it does dictate a reaction regardless.
This of course according to the karma system.

I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time when you can't even answer a yes or no question.

Gimma the evidence surgen.
I believe when you give me.

Been down this road already. I have shown you the evidence, go look at my previous post. Your retort of them is a character assassination instead of critic of the evidence itself.

Your evidence is the usual claim.
Been down this road again mate.

And your falacies have been pointed out too.

First Shermer rely on Sacks for his so called evidence and now we got Sacks that rely on somebody else to back up his so called evidence.
Maybe tomorrow we may learn that this last Mr. SOMEBODY rely on some other somebody and that somebody rely on a new somebody.
This actually is not only funny.
It is extremely funny.

What is actually funny is that you think you made a valid point. Sacks quoting other independent researchers evidence that supports his conclusion is not a weakness but a strength. It literally means that someone else that doesn't work with Sacks did their own experiments and get the same conclusions as Sacks.

I already gave the example of the meat saga in which different researchers came up with the conclusion that meat is good when in fact the evidence prove the opposite so it really doesn't matter how many researchers came to the same conclusion.
When the evidence prove them wrong that is the end of the story. Amen.

The researchers have testible, repeatable experiments that give predictions. Predictions made by them are tested and confirmed. You don't have anything of the sort. Learn what evidence is before you claim to have any.

Each and everyone of us has a darkside that will harm others for our own personal gain. The devil is just the perfect darkside that harms anyone and everyone for her personal pleasure. How can you say such a being cannot exist when the evidence is in you?

To do the wrong thing doesn't give evidence that Mr. Devil is present in our life.
On the other hand there is evidence that two forces exist.
Lower forms of life like plants and animals are driven by instinct but as soon as these form of lives get emancipated to human life the instinct loose part of his grip to let the freedom to decide to emerge.
With the freedom you choose to go further up or go back down to animal or plant life.
This again is according to yoga philosophy which doesn't make any sense to an atheist.

You are just trying to walk up on an escalator that is going down, and you don't realize it.

[Little Rik]

Prove that consciousness can exist without a brain. Or do you think it is an amazing coincidence that consciousness only arises in brains, and no longer noticed when the brain is dead. Or that altering the brain directly affects consciousness. Some amazing coincidence as if consciousness springs out of the brain.

It is obvious that when you are alive consciousness need the body and the brain to be perceived but as thousand of NDEs tell us consciousness doesn't need the brain anymore when the body-brain are no longer there.
If you refuse to believe in these NDEs that is then your problem as it is your problem to believe that NDEs are hallucinations.

Self awareness doesn't tell you anything about the environment you live in. Self awareness just tells you that you exist, nothing more. The ability to view yourself in someone elses shoes is what helps you determine if an action is "wicked" path.

Your analysis doesn't take in consideration the vision factor.
I already explained how the system works.
Just as the clouds prevent the sun to shine also a limited amount of consciousness prevent the divinity within the be perceived.
There is a huge difference between be aware that you exist and be aware that you are God.
Suppose the consciousness vision goes from 0 to 10.
Little consciousness could be 1 while the total amount of consciousness equal to 10.
When you say............ Self awareness just tells you that you exist, nothing more........you fail very badly.
Everybody is different.
You can not say that what you perceive is what everybody else perceive.
Your judgement is total garbage.
If you never build up a relationship with the divinity within then you will never understand how the system works.

The "real" definition is the establish definition. It is really amazing on how you don't understand this simple concept.

Sorry mate.
Today is not your day.
Religions define what is the truth but as we know their so called truth are just a load of dogma or false truth.
At the same time the established definition that you are talking about follow the same fate.
After hundred or thousand of years that they first sprang out somebody mouth their original meaning has changed in order to please new waves of cultural criteria so these definitions can not possibly be called REAL DEFINITION because the real definition is only the one who first sprung out the mouth of the person who first gave a meaning but again you are free to think otherwise.

A though doesn't necessary dictate action or it is follow by action however it does dictate a reaction regardless.
This of course according to the karma system.

I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time when you can't even answer a yes or no question.

Didn't i tell you that today is not your best day?
Sorry surgen, you fail once again,
To answer your question with a yes or a no wouldn't make any sense.
Sometime a though dictate or is follow by an action, other time it doesn't as people either change their mind or realize that they will not be able to materialize an action.
So yes sometime and no other times.

The researchers have testible, repeatable experiments that give predictions. Predictions made by them are tested and confirmed. You don't have anything of the sort. Learn what evidence is before you claim to have any.

What a load of garbage surgen.
This remind me of a chap that i met years ago.
He was working for palmolive soaps.
We had a discussion about using animal fats to make soap compared to using vegetarian fats.
He said that if you analyse the fats there want be any differences as both contain the same elements.
Why then i asked a soap made with animal fat and without perfume stinks while a soap made with vegetarian fat (still without perfume) does not stinks?
If the elements are the same they both should give the same smell.
That is the time that i realize that was a waste of time trying to argue with people which knowledge only related to this material-physical world.
The same problem that Sacks and all other bunch of idiots make all the time.
For them the dimension outside this physical world is non existing so according to them they are all hallucinations.
These researchers keep on masturbating their brains especially when they find other idiots that came up with the same conclusions.

You are just trying to walk up on an escalator that is going down, and you don't realize it.

The real hallucination emerge when you think that it is the devil that push you to do the wrong thing when in reality is you that choose to give up the fight for freedom.

[Chas]

Prove that consciousness can exist without a brain. Or do you think it is an amazing coincidence that consciousness only arises in brains, and no longer noticed when the brain is dead. Or that altering the brain directly affects consciousness. Some amazing coincidence as if consciousness springs out of the brain.

It is obvious that when you are alive consciousness need the body and the brain to be perceived but as thousand of NDEs tell us consciousness doesn't need the brain anymore when the body-brain are no longer there.
If you refuse to believe in these NDEs that is then your problem as it is your problem to believe that NDEs are hallucinations.

No, Riketto, no. They are called Near Death Experiences because the person is not dead. NDEs occur in not dead brains.

[Surgenator]

It is obvious that when you are alive consciousness need the body and the brain to be perceived but as thousand of NDEs tell us consciousness doesn't need the brain anymore when the body-brain are no longer there.
If you refuse to believe in these NDEs that is then your problem as it is your problem to believe that NDEs are hallucinations.

If you refuse to believe in the non-verifiability of NDEs, then that is your problem to realize they are hallucinations.

Self awareness doesn't tell you anything about the environment you live in. Self awareness just tells you that you exist, nothing more. The ability to view yourself in someone elses shoes is what helps you determine if an action is "wicked" path.

Your analysis doesn't take in consideration the vision factor.
I already explained how the system works.
Just as the clouds prevent the sun to shine also a limited amount of consciousness prevent the divinity within the be perceived.
There is a huge difference between be aware that you exist and be aware that you are God.
Suppose the consciousness vision goes from 0 to 10.
Little consciousness could be 1 while the total amount of consciousness equal to 10.
When you say............ Self awareness just tells you that you exist, nothing more........you fail very badly.
Everybody is different.
You can not say that what you perceive is what everybody else perceive.
Your judgement is total garbage.
If you never build up a relationship with the divinity within then you will never understand how the system works.

Translation: "There are these mental blocks that prevents to go into a full delusional state. The more you tap into delusions, the smarter, wiser and stronger you will feel. Your delusion and my delusion will not be the same, but that doesn't mean that they are less real. If you never delude yourself, then you will never understand how deluded people think."

The "real" definition is the establish definition. It is really amazing on how you don't understand this simple concept.

Sorry mate.
Today is not your day.
Religions define what is the truth but as we know their so called truth are just a load of dogma or false truth.
At the same time the established definition that you are talking about follow the same fate.
After hundred or thousand of years that they first sprang out somebody mouth their original meaning has changed in order to please new waves of cultural criteria so these definitions can not possibly be called REAL DEFINITION because the real definition is only the one who first sprung out the mouth of the person who first gave a meaning but again you are free to think otherwise.

You thinking that you have special knowledge on what happen "hundred or thousand of years" ago doesn't make you right. Your special knowledge is nonsence until you can prove it. Unless you can prove the "original" meaning, you are wasting my time with this pointless discussion. Not to mention, the meaning of words do change overtime as society changes. For example the word fag. Look up the history of this word. The fact you cannot use modern terms to argue your point shows that your point is wrong.

A though doesn't necessary dictate action or it is follow by action however it does dictate a reaction regardless.
This of course according to the karma system.

I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time when you can't even answer a yes or no question.

Didn't i tell you that today is not your best day?
Sorry surgen, you fail once again,
To answer your question with a yes or a no wouldn't make any sense.
Sometime a though dictate or is follow by an action, other time it doesn't as people either change their mind or realize that they will not be able to materialize an action.
So yes sometime and no other times.

Oh sweet irony. Have you ever heard of Dunning–Kruger effect. Your displaying it here perfectly.

The researchers have testible, repeatable experiments that give predictions. Predictions made by them are tested and confirmed. You don't have anything of the sort. Learn what evidence is before you claim to have any.

What a load of garbage surgen.
This remind me of a chap that i met years ago.
He was working for palmolive soaps.
We had a discussion about using animal fats to make soap compared to using vegetarian fats.
He said that if you analyse the fats there want be any differences as both contain the same elements.
Why then i asked a soap made with animal fat and without perfume stinks while a soap made with vegetarian fat (still without perfume) does not stinks?
If the elements are the same they both should give the same smell.
That is the time that i realize that was a waste of time trying to argue with people which knowledge only related to this material-physical world.
The same problem that Sacks and all other bunch of idiots make all the time.
For them the dimension outside this physical world is non existing so according to them they are all hallucinations.
These researchers keep on masturbating their brains especially when they find other idiots that came up with the same conclusions.

Independent confirmations seem to upset you. So your best retort is a strawman argument about smelly soap. EPIC FAIL.

You are just trying to walk up on an escalator that is going down, and you don't realize it.

The real hallucination emerge when you think that it is the devil that push you to do the wrong thing when in reality is you that choose to give up the fight for freedom.

Thats what the devil wants you to think.

[Little Rik]

It is obvious that when you are alive consciousness need the body and the brain to be perceived but as thousand of NDEs tell us consciousness doesn't need the brain anymore when the body-brain are no longer there.
If you refuse to believe in these NDEs that is then your problem as it is your problem to believe that NDEs are hallucinations.

No, Riketto, no. They are called Near Death Experiences because the person is not dead. NDEs occur in not dead brains.

Gee, here we got an expert in NDEs.

Please Mr Expert tell me what should we do with the doctors that declare a person dead when in fact is not dead?
Shell we get rid of all of them and get an expert like you to find out whether these people are dead or not?

---

If you refuse to believe in the non-verifiability of NDEs, then that is your problem to realize they are hallucinations.

And your evidence that they are hallucination is.......?
Oh, sorry i forgot about Sacks.

Translation: "There are these mental blocks that prevents to go into a full delusional state. The more you tap into delusions, the smarter, wiser and stronger you will feel. Your delusion and my delusion will not be the same, but that doesn't mean that they are less real. If you never delude yourself, then you will never understand how deluded people think."

Delusions need a lot of mental energy to survive.
After sometime the strain bring the mind to the brute realty.
On the contrary the real things do not suck any energy from your mind
and therefore they last for long time.
But again how would you know what is the difference between the two when your mind is confined to the physical reality only?

You thinking that you have special knowledge on what happen "hundred or thousand of years" ago doesn't make you right. Your special knowledge is nonsence until you can prove it. Unless you can prove the "original" meaning, you are wasting my time with this pointless discussion. Not to mention, the meaning of words do change overtime as society changes. For example the word fag. Look up the history of this word. The fact you cannot use modern terms to argue your point shows that your point is wrong.

You are no different from a religious person.
Both of you are entrenched in dogmas.
For you guys the establish truth is the real truth.
Sometime ago i asked a doctor the meaning of the word CANCER.
He wouldn't know. I had to explain to him.
Do you know where the word MANGO (the fruit) come from?

Oh sweet irony. Have you ever heard of Dunning–Kruger effect. Your displaying it here perfectly.

That is funny especially when this comment is coming from someone who think that this created reality is the ultimate.

Independent confirmations seem to upset you. So your best retort is a strawman argument about smelly soap. EPIC FAIL.

When the independent analysis is made using all elements necessary to carry on such an analysis i will lift up my hat and praise these people for their work.
Unfortunately these researchers haven't use all elements necessary as their knowledge is confined to this material-physical world only making thus impossible to understand how the system works.

The real hallucination emerge when you think that it is the devil that push you to do the wrong thing when in reality is you that choose to give up the fight for freedom.

Thats what the devil wants you to think.

Please surgen, don't give up your mental fight with me.
I just start to enjoy your failings.