Are we being deceived?

[obe4life]

Hi Guys & gals I have a question and I hope someone will give me a convincing answer.
Is it possible that OBEs and astral projections are an evil traps setup by demons and evil spirits and dark energies to deceive us? to brain wash us by false visions and lies about reincarnation and the absence of God and so on? What guarantee that those are not evil entities masquerading as angels and light beings?

[Volgerle]

... the usual conspiracy theory, usualls set up by religionists to keep their flock from projecting and discovering their truth on their own instead of obeying the dogma ...

who says that this dubious 'conspiracy' isn't made up by deceivers?

[obe4life]

Take it easy 
I am not that close minded, religious fanatic you think I am. I had lots of both spontaneous and induced OBEs. I read a lot about astral projections and stuff. I am just saying that if we accept the fact that OBEs do exist,  why not  accept the fact that some negative energy beings/demons/entities/whatever, may exist  too and may want to harm us and make us embrace false concepts? Lots of questions need answers  like: who made that energy body? why  do we need such complicated physical body, equipped with means of reproduction and survival generation after generation? our energy body is the ultimate stage of our evolution , so why do we need such inferior physical form? what is the point here? to learn? to get experience? all we do when in the physical is to learn how to evolve to the energy body to learn and gain experience! so again: what is the point?
Just asking, I don't mean to offend any body.
Have a nice time

[Stillwater]

Yes. It is entirely possible that everything about projection is the work of devils and demons.

But then, it is also possible about literally every other thing in the world.

Sex could be the devil.

The internet could be the devil.

The Christian Church could be the devil.

Math could be the devil.

Thinking could be the devil.

It is a well known concept, and it is called "Cartesian Doubt". Basically, the idea is simple, and it just states that for any "x", "x" may be be a product of supreme deception from on high. For more information about this concept, read the 1630's treatise by Descartes:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation1.html

The thing is though, if everything could be the devil, doesn't that just put us in the same place with respect to everything? Meaning we just have to explore things for ourselves to see what is what. And what if this metaphysical stuff is the devil without us realizing it? Then we are already doomed, because we have no faculties for telling the difference in that case. So either we can tell the difference ourselves, in which case you have the mental faculties for finding out, or we can't, in which case we are already making every other conceivable error anyhow.

So in this line of thought, what reasoning do you have to suggest projection is deception anymore than the internet is deception, or waking life is deception?

[Xanth]

The truth is obvious here... Stillwater is the devil.  

Seriously speaking for a second here...
Your consciousness is being projected into this physical reality right this very second.  You're projecting RIGHT NOW.
There's, literally, no difference between your consciousness being projected here versus your consciousness projecting anywhere else (ie: dreaming). 

That also provides one important fact: there is no devil or demons.  Because YOU are everything and everything is YOU.  If there's a demon, you are it.

[LightBeam]

If evil is characterized with fear, negativity, darkness, sadness, etc, then if I experience during OBEs ultimate love, beauty, harmony, light, magnificence and on top of that I get stronger and wiser (all characteristics of the creative source), your theory's equation can not be solved.

[Stillwater]

The truth is obvious here... Stillwater is the devil.   evil grin

Man I hope not... I am not doing very well if so.

Next cosmos I am the devil, someone better point it out.

[Volgerle]

Take it easy  
I am not that close minded, religious fanatic you think I am. I had lots of both spontaneous and induced OBEs.

You miss understood me, sorry for that. I wasn't thinking that (especially not of s.o. with the nick obe4life   ). I just assumed that you took up on this line of 'reasoning' which is normally done by these people.

On topic again: You can make kind of "infinite regress" strategy in the discussion that leads us to nowhere. It is also what religious people or other dogmatic believers who want to deny any other belief do. Just say after ever statement you hear: "yeah, but what if that's a trick (of the devil, of the brain, of evil ETs, put what you will) played to you too".

Conspiracies go so far on some websites and forums that some "experts" there 'advise' people that if you ever should have an NDE do NOT go into the light, it's just "a trap" by ETs or evil entities or the devil or the gnostic "Archons".

Even Star Trek took this up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79lVNKthCw

What can we say here, how can we argue? If we say we found out this and that or believe by inution or say we were at higher levels experiencing Oneness with the universe (God) and Cosmic consciousness and everything was known to you, then they apply again the "infinte regress" strategy and say, "yes, but maybe it was a trick ....".

Interestingly, while they deny every experience as "real" (like the materialists do too) with their strategy they (the religionists) have no problem assuming the reality of the devil, etc. So they do not see this inner contradiction. They just make it fit how they want it for their belief system. Cognitive dissonance in a way.

You see? This discussion leads to nowhere imv.

Yes, so maybe nothing is really certain, but one: Stillwater is the devil. I'm glad we solved that. Case closed.

[obe4life]

Thanks everybody for such constructive discussion. Yeah, it seems like everything should be examined from a very close distance. I mean what if an agnostic or an atheist had an OBE in which a "light being" told him that there's a God out there for sure. would he "the atheist" believe in God? or will he just say: Oh! it's all about subconscious and delusions stuff. But if the "light being" told him that there's no God, the atheist would confirm the idea and embrace it completely because it fits perfectly with his "belief system"-yes even an atheist has a belief system.

[777Sloan]

Thanks everybody for such constructive discussion. Yeah, it seems like everything should be examined from a very close distance. I mean what if an agnostic or an atheist had an OBE in which a "light being" told him that there's a God out there for sure. would he "the atheist" believe in God? or will he just say: Oh! it's all about subconscious and delusions stuff. But if the "light being" told him that there's no God, the atheist would confirm the idea and embrace it completely because it fits perfectly with his "belief system"-yes even an atheist has a belief system.

It would be what you think. And it would be for the athiest, what it thinks.

Folks tend to ever re-create their perception of reality in accordance with what they will. So thoughts, feelings, and experiences will be consciously or unconsciously chosen according to how it can fit what they desire to perceive. An atheist will tend to experience realities confirming what they desire be true...though the markedly questionable foundation intrinsic in atheism will hopefully become apparent as one realizes they themselves are a "creator." The key resides in conscious vs. unconscious creating, and the hope that an atheist might develop enough Consciousness over time to become aware that they themselves create what they will.

If we are all creators at some level, what then is "God" in the atheist's mind? Does the atheist continue to deny that it itself cyclically creates its own experience of ideological "godlessness," even as the atheist is creator of its own reality? It has to do with the atheist's capacity to grow in Consciousness to become aware beyond this seeming paradoxical conundrum. If the atheist does not develop sufficient sentience for such...I presume some sort of defunct realities rewind in its experience until it develops the requisite Consciousness to become a conscious creator. Either that, or a kind Soul may mercifully guide them if they so request.

[jadrian70]

It has to do with the atheist's capacity to grow in Consciousness to become aware beyond this seeming paradoxical conundrum. If the atheist does not develop sufficient sentience for such...I presume some sort of defunct realities rewind in its experience until it develops the requisite Consciousness to become a conscious creator. Either that, or a kind Soul may mercifully guide them if they so request.

Was it your intent to sound like a condescending butt?   Do you hang out with atheists a lot?  Your continued references to them as "it" makes it sound like you consider them things instead of people.   

As an atheist I don't believe in invisible deities that control the lives of mortals.  That pretty much covers it.   And from what we've discussed at our secret atheist meetings, I can tell you that at no time did the grand poobah ever denounce consciousness or the double slit experiment.   

[777Sloan]

Was it your intent to sound like a condescending butt?   Do you hang out with atheists a lot?  Your continued references to them as "it" makes it sound like you consider them things instead of people.   

As an atheist I don't believe in invisible deities that control the lives of mortals.  That pretty much covers it.   And from what we've discussed at our secret atheist meetings, I can tell you that at no time did the grand poobah ever denounce consciousness or the double slit experiment.   

Hello jadrian70. I appreciate your response and openly expressed feelings on this topic.

Now then, "it" is referring to individuated Consciousness detached from a human body that identifies itself as "atheist." This is the intent behind the use of "it."

I respect your beliefs whatever they be. That said, what individual atheists do or do not believe in publicly or during the alluded meetings, while I'm sure very meaningful, is not too much of a personal concern. Indeed, the previous response merely seeks to address another's question in a manner hopefully helpful.

[Xanth]

First, I just wanted to say that I see no issue with what Sloan had posted, but then I understood what he was saying. 

Thanks everybody for such constructive discussion. Yeah, it seems like everything should be examined from a very close distance. I mean what if an agnostic or an atheist had an OBE in which a "light being" told him that there's a God out there for sure. would he "the atheist" believe in God? or will he just say: Oh! it's all about subconscious and delusions stuff. But if the "light being" told him that there's no God, the atheist would confirm the idea and embrace it completely because it fits perfectly with his "belief system"-yes even an atheist has a belief system.

I'm kind of following along with what Sloan is saying in regards to this.

They *probably* wouldn't have such an experience to begin with.  And if for some reason they did have this kind of experience, it probably wouldn't change them... OR if it did, then they were already consciously or subconsciously leaning towards that to begin with... and this then leads back to what Sloan was referring to.

Intent...
Belief...
Expectations...

Those three things and probably much more all come together to form your non-physical experiences.  The caveat being that "beliefs" don't have to be something consciously known to yourself.  We all have OODLES of subconscious beliefs and expectations which drive our actions and even drives our Intent on a daily basis... and we haven't the slightest clue that this is occurring. 

[777Sloan]

First, I just wanted to say that I see no issue with what Sloan had posted, but then I understood what he was saying. 
I'm kind of following along with what Sloan is saying in regards to this.

They *probably* wouldn't have such an experience to begin with.  And if for some reason they did have this kind of experience, it probably wouldn't change them... OR if it did, then they were already consciously or subconsciously leaning towards that to begin with... and this then leads back to what Sloan was referring to.

Intent...
Belief...
Expectations...

Those three things and probably much more all come together to form your non-physical experiences.  The caveat being that "beliefs" don't have to be something consciously known to yourself.  We all have OODLES of subconscious beliefs and expectations which drive our actions and even drives our Intent on a daily basis... and we haven't the slightest clue that this is occurring. 

Thank you, Xanth.  I appreciate you understanding what I am meaning to express.  I feel what you elucidate regarding subconscious beliefs and expectations not needing to be consciously known in order to influence our actions and intent, is particularly insightful.  In my experience, growing in Consciousness is key to becoming aware of subconscious beliefs and expectations. In becoming conscious of the subconscious, we can better free ourselves to choose what we wish to experience, rather than experiencing the machinations of unwitting subconscious influences.

[obe4life]

In my opinion, astral realms are just like physical realms. What you perceive is what you believe to be the ultimate truth. But I think it's no near to any ultimate truth. it's just your own perception of what you witness. For example: in the physical world there are sun, moon, planets, human beings, countless life forms.....etc. religious people perceive those things to be God's creation and claim they have the ultimate fact and the 100% true answer of what's going on. On the other side, agnostics and atheists perceive the same exact objects and life forms as a creation of coincidence and mere randomness, and they too claim to have the ultimate knowledge and the unquestionable proofs. everyone MUST have his own experience, his own perception and his own beliefs, and no body has the right to claim having the true answer, and try to convince others with his conclusions.

[777Sloan]

In my opinion, astral realms are just like physical realms. What you perceive is what you believe to be the ultimate truth. But I think it's no near to any ultimate truth. it's just your own perception of what you witness. For example: in the physical world there are sun, moon, planets, human beings, countless life forms.....etc. religious people perceive those things to be God's creation and claim they have the ultimate fact and the 100% true answer of what's going on. On the other side, agnostics and atheists perceive the same exact objects and life forms as a creation of coincidence and mere randomness, and they too claim to have the ultimate knowledge and the unquestionable proofs. everyone MUST have his own experience, his own perception and his own beliefs, and no body has the right to claim having the true answer, and try to convince others with his conclusions.

Well said, obe4life. I more or less feel the same. What you express is one reason I tend to take various religions, philosophies, and atheism with an inquisitive, but tentative perspective. Whatever ultimate truth is...I suspect it may well be beyond these relative cultural belief systems. For me, seeking truth is intensely subjective. And so, while I sense the aforementioned belief systems generally mean well, I feel they may be something akin to training wheels...helpful in the beginning, but after a while they just hold you back.

[jadrian70]

Now then, "it" is referring to individuated Consciousness detached from a human body that identifies itself as "atheist." This is the intent behind the use of "it."

Thanks for clarifying. I understand the intent of the original discussion. My objection was aimed at the continued use of the atheist label to illustrate the point, and the later statements made as though they were facts.  "An atheist will tend to experience realities confirming what they desire to be true..."    You could say that about pretty much anyone, but it is not necessarily true.

I freely acknowledge that I don't know what I don't know.  I am well aware that some or perhaps all of my APs could be the contrivance of my wily subconscious. Nevertheless, I make every effort in my APs to expect nothing, yet hope for truth.

At the end of the day, all any of us have is subjective conjecture.   

[777Sloan]

Thanks for clarifying. I understand the intent of the original discussion. My objection was aimed at the continued use of the atheist label to illustrate the point, and the later statements made as though they were facts.  "An atheist will tend to experience realities confirming what they desire to be true…”    You could say that about pretty much anyone, but it is not necessarily true.

I freely acknowledge that I don’t know what I don’t know.  I am well aware that some or perhaps all of my APs could be the contrivance of my wily subconscious. Nevertheless, I make every effort in my APs to expect nothing, yet hope for truth.

At the end of the day, all any of us have is subjective conjecture.   

Excellent points jadrian70.  Particularly with regard to: "An atheist will tend to experience realities confirming what they desire to be true…”  You could say that about pretty much anyone, but it is not necessarily true.

The quoted be more so intended as generalization that only specifies a particular group given nature of context. It be just as well the quoted be attributed to religious fundamentalists, quantum physicists, animists, the local barber, or myself. Regardless, it is not necessarily true. It's merely passing generalization perhaps helpful for some, perhaps not for others.

I appreciate your humble honesty regarding these topics. It is just as true that I also know very little, perhaps more so. As Consciousness appears to be the one pointer I have stumbled upon...that may approach something resembling "truth."

[Szaxx]

As we only eat the cake in many varieties, we are not the bakers.

I think that sums up the topic. Many differing viewpoints are all coming up with the same conclusion. As usual the many groups of differing belief systems will have their own label and argue over the differences.
Don't labels cause confusion.

[Xanth]

As we only eat the cake in many varieties, we are not the bakers.

I think that sums up the topic. Many differing viewpoints are all coming up with the same conclusion. As usual the many groups of differing belief systems will have their own label and argue over the differences.
Don't labels cause confusion.

Exactly!

If you break everything down to the action that takes place, yet remove the labels, you quickly find a lot of commonalities between everything.  So many commonalities, that it simply can't be ignored.