Why is hard for people to let go a belief in a ? ?
Options
ohhhla
Members Posts: 10,341 ✭✭✭✭✭
Like there's no empirical evidence of one
It's on faith and people dwell on it.
It's like folks don't care if their beliefs are true.
Any theists want to point out my flaws in my criticism?
It's on faith and people dwell on it.
It's like folks don't care if their beliefs are true.
Any theists want to point out my flaws in my criticism?
Comments
-
People become addicted to their beliefs.
-
But believing in ? takes away the curiosity to learn anything.
I used to when I was 15, now 28
Believe ? did everything and he works in mysterious ways.
Now, that's not it. -
...because the issue of believing in ? is more than some scientific conquest. It's about a relationship. For motives either good or bad, people believe in ? for companionship. It just may be that science provides explanations for things, but it doesn't require that we seek some sort of union with it...and it's not meant to be.
-
A. It's all they've known in life. Family Bonds, Culture, Tradition.
B. Fear of the unknown
C. Addiction.
D. Brainwashing indoctrination.
E. Psychosis, Delusions.
F. Money, Connections, Influence, Control. -
A lot of ppl fear what they dont understand. The idea of ? existing, protecting them, and being the cause of everything gives them comfort and security in the face of the unknown. A lot of ppl are happiest when they know the least; ignorance is bliss. This is why ppl get uncomfortable when things that threaten their beliefs are brought up. For them, ? answers lifes greatest mysteries.
-
@Oceanic
That's argument of ignorance fallacy.
AND intellectual laziness.
When I bring up hypothetical like i.e santa claus, or the ghost that never lies
They discard my example and think I'm silly for it. -
Like @FuriousOne said, it's brainwashing. They're taught that their doctrines or beliefs are true and everything else is false; that nothing can compare to their beliefs. They place themselves on a pedastal and disregard the rest. This is why many American Christians are so intolerant of other religions. They mock them without being able to look at themselves because they are raised with the notion that they are right and it cannot be questioned. I was having a conversation with a woman maybe two or three months ago and expressed my non belief in ? . She asked if I worship the devil because her pastor told his congregation that anyone who does not worship ? worships the devil. I told her her pastor was wrong and that there's nothing left for me to worship if I don't believe it exists to begin with. Needless to say, she got upset and said I was lost and that eventually I would return to the right way of living (Christianity). She said that she had been raised in the church since she was a child and she's never questioned the way she was led.
-
I questioned everything when i was a kid and nobody ever had an answer other than you have to believe on some x-files ? . ? disgust. Muslims are so blatant with their fuckery and they are the enemies of the Christian West so they're looked down upon by default. Still, they have their own brand of delusions. Funny thing is, even before Islam and Christianity took hold, these people were culturally opposed with with their pagan myths. It's just weird how folks can dismiss old pagan religions as myth yet hold so bravely onto their own myths. To see weirdo religions like Scientology form and consolidate such influence in modern times through monetary means should raise red flags about all cult practices.
-
A lot of ppl fear what they dont understand. The idea of ? existing, protecting them, and being the cause of everything gives them comfort and security in the face of the unknown. A lot of ppl are happiest when they know the least; ignorance is bliss. This is why ppl get uncomfortable when things that threaten their beliefs are brought up. For them, ? answers lifes greatest mysteries.
I don't think the issue is about whether someone fears what they don't understand. The religious base what they understand about ? through religious texts and come to their own conclusions...again, their own conclusions...on whether ? is one in whom to seek comfort in or one to fear. Now if the mere existence of ? is a matter of science, then both theists and atheists have no grounds in which to make the case. They can say that they are not sure. Their are unknowns. -
alissowack wrote: »I don't think the issue is about whether someone fears what they don't understand. The religious base what they understand about ? through religious texts and come to their own conclusions..
I'm not talking about people fearing ? ; I'm talking about fear based on the unknown. Take for example, the ancients used to believe that ? created natural disasters (like earthquakes and storms) and phenomena (like lightning). They used to pray and make offerings because they feared natural phenomena, mostly and simply because they did not yet understand it. Death is the greatest unknown that man has had to face. Not surprisingly, a lot of theism revolves around the idea of life after death. The idea of an afterlife gives man comfort in knowing that one day he must face death. The idea of ? alone gives theists an explanation for things they do not understand. Surely, you have heard the phrase "? works in mysterious ways". For them, they find comfort in the midst of difficulty or uncertainty and insecurity believing that ? has a plan for their lives or that ? will work things out for them.alissowack wrote: »Now if the mere existence of ? is a matter of science, then both theists and atheists have no grounds in which to make the case.
Neither side has any scientific grounding to form a solid argument for the existence of ? but atheists aren't attempting to formulate that argument. That's the difference. Atheists disbelieve on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
-
The thing is, there is plenty of evidence dismissing many of the concepts of what a ? is in religion. Every decade brings us closer to dismissing the entire theory (or lack thereof). For instance, man thought they were the center of the universe and devise spirits lived in trees and lakes. There is also the question of whether man has a spirit and the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that our thoughts reside in our brain and our brain controls our emotional reactions. It is the religious who presented the sudo theory of ? in the first place. I don't see any evidence pointing to that sudo theory being in anyway accurate outside of faith.
On the contrary, religious text display a willful ignorance whereas science is self correcting even if it takes decades. Still a theory in science is built upon facts rather then fables and easy bake conclusions according to a ministers evaluation. Honestly, i don't require everything to be explained. Science is still a practice existing within nature because it is a practice of understanding natural events rather then studying events that are based in human created fables. -
alissowack wrote: »I don't think the issue is about whether someone fears what they don't understand. The religious base what they understand about ? through religious texts and come to their own conclusions..
I'm not talking about people fearing ? ; I'm talking about fear based on the unknown. Take for example, the ancients used to believe that ? created natural disasters (like earthquakes and storms) and phenomena (like lightning). They used to pray and make offerings because they feared natural phenomena, mostly and simply because they did not yet understand it. Death is the greatest unknown that man has had to face. Not surprisingly, a lot of theism revolves around the idea of life after death. The idea of an afterlife gives man comfort in knowing that one day he must face death. The idea of ? alone gives theists an explanation for things they do not understand. Surely, you have heard the phrase "? works in mysterious ways". For them, they find comfort in the midst of difficulty or uncertainty and insecurity believing that ? has a plan for their lives or that ? will work things out for them.alissowack wrote: »Now if the mere existence of ? is a matter of science, then both theists and atheists have no grounds in which to make the case.
Neither side has any scientific grounding to form a solid argument for the existence of ? but atheists aren't attempting to formulate that argument. That's the difference. Atheists disbelieve on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
I don't think it is clear what you mean by the unknown. If what is unknown is simply something that no one has discovered or experienced, then there is no reason to fear it. It just may be that the ancient world feared what it meant to be caught in an earthquake or struck by lightning according to religious texts but not whether they know the science behind it. I would even go as far to say that death wouldn't be feared if it is just something that hasn't been discovered or experienced. It is fearing the things the religious associate death that is more paralyzing. Besides, I don't think it would be any more comfortable getting struck by lightning if I knew "? did it" or that there is a build-up of electricity that caused it. In either case, I don't want to get struck because I don't want to die.
Some atheists make the mistake that every theist is making a scientific argument. It may be that there are philosophical and logical reasons to conclude that ? exist. It wouldn't clear things up, but it would help if they knew what type of argument is being presented. -
Maybe it is just me, but I just wonder if we have a respect for the idea of the existence of ? . Whether ? exists or not, there is this sense that...to come to any one of these conclusions means we get what we want. In either case, the conclusion must consider what it means for everybody and not for whatever selfish ventures we have. Have the religious done things out of ignorance? Sure, but so have the irreligious. Generally speaking, ignorance is something all mankind is capable of from time to time and it helps to see beyond it. Even an ignorant person tells the truth from time to time. It just doesn't mean it justifies their ignorance.
-
alissowack wrote: »
I don't think it is clear what you mean by the unknown. If what is unknown is simply something that no one has discovered or experienced, then there is no reason to fear it. It just may be that the ancient world feared what it meant to be caught in an earthquake or struck by lightning according to religious texts but not whether they know the science behind it. I would even go as far to say that death wouldn't be feared if it is just something that hasn't been discovered or experienced. It is fearing the things the religious associate death that is more paralyzing. Besides, I don't think it would be any more comfortable getting struck by lightning if I knew "? did it" or that there is a build-up of electricity that caused it. In either case, I don't want to get struck because I don't want to die.
Some atheists make the mistake that every theist is making a scientific argument. It may be that there are philosophical and logical reasons to conclude that ? exist. It wouldn't clear things up, but it would help if they knew what type of argument is being presented.
@Oceanic already made the statement that he ultimate fear is what occurs post death. We actually learned to harness the power of lightning by understanding it and we still fear it because of it's ability to fry you regardless of it's origin. No one knows what occurs post death. Even those who claimed they were dead weren't completely brain dead. I think people do know but don't want to accept that this is the one and oly life so they grasp on to something that promises a post life. Philosophy ponders while Science investigates. For instance, Philosophy pondered many human traits and why we did what we do, while science found the origins of why those traits occur and their necessity in surviving. Just because people don't know something, that doesn't give them the pass to just make ? up and indoctrinate others to believe what they came up with as an excuse because it's soothing to the soul.
Logic would dictate that you can't claim a pagan ? is a lie on the same basis that can be easily applied to your beliefs. You erase all potential correct assertions based on the evidence at hand. You wonder how accurate something is why you find that what was once considered genuine is now considered a metaphor or an event was claimed to occur from a higher power in a book but excavations and investigations showed it to be just another day in nature. If there is no evidence, then you don't make any conclusions. If there is, then you postulate a theory and try to prove it. If the evidence is obviously written by man based on their individual and then consolidated pondering or grand dreaming, then you take it with a grain of salt and ask for a show of proof, like turning on a light switch via harnessed electricity.
The funny thing is, practices that were considered philosophy at a time was actually Science and Mathematics because even the religious minded at the time investigated and showed their claims via theorems but then were burned at the stake. You can use Philosophy to argue the ethics of applying scientific discoveries on society and the means by which one obtains those discoveries. You don't require religion to do that. You do require an awareness of societal harm by being knowledgeable of the science. -
alissowack wrote: »If what is unknown is simply something that no one has discovered or experienced, then there is no reason to fear it.
That does not mean people are not afraid. Most times, fear is irrational and comes from misunderstanding.alissowack wrote: »It just may be that the ancient world feared what it meant to be caught in an earthquake or struck by lightning according to religious texts but not whether they know the science behind it. I would even go as far to say that death wouldn't be feared if it is just something that hasn't been discovered or experienced. It is fearing the things the religious associate death that is more paralyzing. Besides, I don't think it would be any more comfortable getting struck by lightning if I knew "? did it" or that there is a build-up of electricity that caused it. In either case, I don't want to get struck because I don't want to die..
These ancients did not yet fully understand natural phenomena. They explained it by attributing its happenings to the will of ? (s). They prayed and sacrificed offerings to appease the ? (s) in attempt to avoid natural disasters. Naturally, a person's fear of something increases when there is no complete knowledge of what is feared. As understanding increases, our fear decreases, in most situations. You do not fear lightning because you know enough about it to understand its causes, what it is and how being struck can be avoided.
People fear death because it is the destruction of the ego. No one has experienced death except the dead. It is the ultimate unknown and in fact it is one of the top frightening things for American people alongside public speaking. Religious commitment increases as people age. Coincidence???alissowack wrote: »It may be that there are philosophical and logical reasons to conclude that ? exist.
There are but not many are solid and none are based on enough empirical evidence, which would then spill over into scientific explanations. -
alissowack wrote: »Whether ? exists or not, there is this sense that...to come to any one of these conclusions means we get what we want.
Not completely. Just because something is true or false does not mean the outcome is what "we" "wanted".alissowack wrote: »I just wonder if we have a respect for the idea of the existence of ? .
Mankind had enough respect for the idea to at least test its validity. Turns out there is no empirical evidence to justify belief in ? (s).
-
The older I get, the easier it has become to know ? is real. Go figure.
-
The older I get, the easier it has become to know ? is real. Go figure.
Please explain. You said absolutely nothing just now to tell us how you know ? is real. I guess we should chock it up to more faith.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »
I don't think it is clear what you mean by the unknown. If what is unknown is simply something that no one has discovered or experienced, then there is no reason to fear it. It just may be that the ancient world feared what it meant to be caught in an earthquake or struck by lightning according to religious texts but not whether they know the science behind it. I would even go as far to say that death wouldn't be feared if it is just something that hasn't been discovered or experienced. It is fearing the things the religious associate death that is more paralyzing. Besides, I don't think it would be any more comfortable getting struck by lightning if I knew "? did it" or that there is a build-up of electricity that caused it. In either case, I don't want to get struck because I don't want to die.
Some atheists make the mistake that every theist is making a scientific argument. It may be that there are philosophical and logical reasons to conclude that ? exist. It wouldn't clear things up, but it would help if they knew what type of argument is being presented.
@Oceanic already made the statement that he ultimate fear is what occurs post death. We actually learned to harness the power of lightning by understanding it and we still fear it because of it's ability to fry you regardless of it's origin. No one knows what occurs post death. Even those who claimed they were dead weren't completely brain dead. I think people do know but don't want to accept that this is the one and oly life so they grasp on to something that promises a post life. Philosophy ponders while Science investigates. For instance, Philosophy pondered many human traits and why we did what we do, while science found the origins of why those traits occur and their necessity in surviving. Just because people don't know something, that doesn't give them the pass to just make ? up and indoctrinate others to believe what they came up with as an excuse because it's soothing to the soul.
Logic would dictate that you can't claim a pagan ? is a lie on the same basis that can be easily applied to your beliefs. You erase all potential correct assertions based on the evidence at hand. You wonder how accurate something is why you find that what was once considered genuine is now considered a metaphor or an event was claimed to occur from a higher power in a book but excavations and investigations showed it to be just another day in nature. If there is no evidence, then you don't make any conclusions. If there is, then you postulate a theory and try to prove it. If the evidence is obviously written by man based on their individual and then consolidated pondering or grand dreaming, then you take it with a grain of salt and ask for a show of proof, like turning on a light switch via harnessed electricity.
The funny thing is, practices that were considered philosophy at a time was actually Science and Mathematics because even the religious minded at the time investigated and showed their claims via theorems but then were burned at the stake. You can use Philosophy to argue the ethics of applying scientific discoveries on society and the means by which one obtains those discoveries. You don't require religion to do that. You do require an awareness of societal harm by being knowledgeable of the science.
You are doing exactly what I was saying. There are philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of ? , but you are only interested in the scientific argument...which put theists in a position to argue for something they are not making a case for. Coming to a philosophical and logical conclusion of the existence of a deity is not evidence. But, it helps to see that when people do think about the existence of a deity, it's not just about something miraculous or some sneaky way to indoctrinate people. -
alissowack wrote: »Whether ? exists or not, there is this sense that...to come to any one of these conclusions means we get what we want.
Not completely. Just because something is true or false does not mean the outcome is what "we" "wanted".alissowack wrote: »I just wonder if we have a respect for the idea of the existence of ? .
Mankind had enough respect for the idea to at least test its validity. Turns out there is no empirical evidence to justify belief in ? (s).
I meant that only in respect to the existence of ? . I didn't mean it for "everything else".
...and no, we don't have respect for the idea for we think everything requires some sort of "test"...or in the case of religion, everything requires some sort of "faith". At the end of the day, we want to...either through prayer and fasting or in some laboratory...come to our own conclusions about the idea. -
why is it so hard for people to let go a belief in ? ?
why is it so hard for you to realize you dont know everything about this world and that you were the first thing nor lst thing created -
whitecracker wrote: »why is it so hard for people to let go a belief in ? ?
why is it so hard for you to realize you dont know everything about this world and that you were the first thing nor lst thing created
Wow, what a way to use "Argument from Ignorance", huh? -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »
I don't think it is clear what you mean by the unknown. If what is unknown is simply something that no one has discovered or experienced, then there is no reason to fear it. It just may be that the ancient world feared what it meant to be caught in an earthquake or struck by lightning according to religious texts but not whether they know the science behind it. I would even go as far to say that death wouldn't be feared if it is just something that hasn't been discovered or experienced. It is fearing the things the religious associate death that is more paralyzing. Besides, I don't think it would be any more comfortable getting struck by lightning if I knew "? did it" or that there is a build-up of electricity that caused it. In either case, I don't want to get struck because I don't want to die.
Some atheists make the mistake that every theist is making a scientific argument. It may be that there are philosophical and logical reasons to conclude that ? exist. It wouldn't clear things up, but it would help if they knew what type of argument is being presented.
@Oceanic already made the statement that he ultimate fear is what occurs post death. We actually learned to harness the power of lightning by understanding it and we still fear it because of it's ability to fry you regardless of it's origin. No one knows what occurs post death. Even those who claimed they were dead weren't completely brain dead. I think people do know but don't want to accept that this is the one and oly life so they grasp on to something that promises a post life. Philosophy ponders while Science investigates. For instance, Philosophy pondered many human traits and why we did what we do, while science found the origins of why those traits occur and their necessity in surviving. Just because people don't know something, that doesn't give them the pass to just make ? up and indoctrinate others to believe what they came up with as an excuse because it's soothing to the soul.
Logic would dictate that you can't claim a pagan ? is a lie on the same basis that can be easily applied to your beliefs. You erase all potential correct assertions based on the evidence at hand. You wonder how accurate something is why you find that what was once considered genuine is now considered a metaphor or an event was claimed to occur from a higher power in a book but excavations and investigations showed it to be just another day in nature. If there is no evidence, then you don't make any conclusions. If there is, then you postulate a theory and try to prove it. If the evidence is obviously written by man based on their individual and then consolidated pondering or grand dreaming, then you take it with a grain of salt and ask for a show of proof, like turning on a light switch via harnessed electricity.
The funny thing is, practices that were considered philosophy at a time was actually Science and Mathematics because even the religious minded at the time investigated and showed their claims via theorems but then were burned at the stake. You can use Philosophy to argue the ethics of applying scientific discoveries on society and the means by which one obtains those discoveries. You don't require religion to do that. You do require an awareness of societal harm by being knowledgeable of the science.
You are doing exactly what I was saying. There are philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of ? , but you are only interested in the scientific argument...which put theists in a position to argue for something they are not making a case for. Coming to a philosophical and logical conclusion of the existence of a deity is not evidence. But, it helps to see that when people do think about the existence of a deity, it's not just about something miraculous or some sneaky way to indoctrinate people.
Present these arguments please. It is just an argument of convenience if you aren't using the scientific method. What else is there? You can show me a formula if you wish. Well how did one come up with that theory? Should we stick to the tenants of that theory when we know that it's origin was conceived in ignorance? The way we observe the universe is through science regardless if we call what we find ? . Until then I'll keep it moving but the fable that people currently put forward is that a grand consciousness is needed for the universe to exist. I say, prove it. If you can't, what's the ? religion based on?
If you can prove that there is something post death, that can't be dismissed by what we know through science, then please let me know? Don't tell that it has to be, it just has to.
Most people get into religion by way of indoctrination. The share fact that you are ostracized if you are not part of a religion and are surrounded by this widespread practice makes people joiners. And then there is the cult level brainwashing that took hold centuries ago in old America which found root in waring nations that forced their religions on natives. This is but a few ways in which religion initially passed from old wives tales and sacrificial promises; into emperor level forced indoctrination. -
whitecracker wrote: »why is it so hard for people to let go a belief in ? ?
why is it so hard for you to realize you dont know everything about this world and that you were the first thing nor lst thing created
If we don't know everything, maybe we shouldn't go around making things up to fill in the blanks. It is after all a human concept that there needs to be something like us that created us. -
You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
