If

[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?