Why is hard for people to let go a belief in a ? ?
Options
Comments
-
Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
-
Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
The extremities of this world that's why.
Whether it's positive and negative you have some people that have not succumb to the pressures of it and didn't blow their brains out or other extremes to escape it, even in the lowest points of their lives and still be able to walk and handle it with discipline and a balanced life.
People must come to realize this world is too large for the human mind/body/psyche to handle by themselves. -
alissowack wrote: »I meant that only in respect to the existence of ? . I didn't mean it for "everything else".
Again, not completely. Not everybody wants the same thing; even if ? did exist, the ? that hypothetically would exist may not be the kind of ? that the theists wanted. Atheists don't really "want" anything out of the ? theory. If ? proved his existence tomorrow, I could not say that his existence was what I wanted or didn't want. I just didn't believe in it.alissowack wrote: »...and no, we don't have respect for the idea for we think everything requires some sort of "test"...
Even the Bible tells its readers to test everything:
If we cannot test something by way of our senses either directly or indirectly, why should we hold it to be truth?1 Thessalonians 5:21 wrote: »Test all things; hold fast that which is good. -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
The extremities of this world that's why.
Whether it's positive and negative you have some people that have not succumb to the pressures of it and didn't blow their brains out or other extremes to escape it, even in the lowest points of their lives and still be able to walk and handle it with discipline and a balanced life.
People must come to realize this world is too large for the human mind/body/psyche to handle by themselves.
So, there's a supernatural being but we can't understand it because we are mortals?
Why should people bother with that, if you don't have any evidence?
Why don't you take time to investigate instead of going on blind faith? -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
The extremities of this world that's why.
Whether it's positive and negative you have some people that have not succumb to the pressures of it and didn't blow their brains out or other extremes to escape it, even in the lowest points of their lives and still be able to walk and handle it with discipline and a balanced life.
People must come to realize this world is too large for the human mind/body/psyche to handle by themselves.
So, there's a supernatural being but we can't understand it because we are mortals?
Why should people bother with that, if you don't have any evidence?
Why don't you take time to investigate instead of going on blind faith?
I have "investigated" and "examined" ...with my own life. Your own life is the only "evidence" you need, but then again you can live your life however you wish.
And how do you define "blind faith"? That's term is just crazy religious. -
Faith can't be explained. It can't be reasoned away either because its not based on reason or logic.
-
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
The extremities of this world that's why.
Whether it's positive and negative you have some people that have not succumb to the pressures of it and didn't blow their brains out or other extremes to escape it, even in the lowest points of their lives and still be able to walk and handle it with discipline and a balanced life.
People must come to realize this world is too large for the human mind/body/psyche to handle by themselves.
So, there's a supernatural being but we can't understand it because we are mortals?
Why should people bother with that, if you don't have any evidence?
Why don't you take time to investigate instead of going on blind faith?
I have "investigated" and "examined" ...with my own life. Your own life is the only "evidence" you need, but then again you can live your life however you wish.
And how do you define "blind faith"? That's term is just crazy religious.
Ether'd. -
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
The extremities of this world that's why.
Whether it's positive and negative you have some people that have not succumb to the pressures of it and didn't blow their brains out or other extremes to escape it, even in the lowest points of their lives and still be able to walk and handle it with discipline and a balanced life.
People must come to realize this world is too large for the human mind/body/psyche to handle by themselves.
So, there's a supernatural being but we can't understand it because we are mortals?
Why should people bother with that, if you don't have any evidence?
Why don't you take time to investigate instead of going on blind faith?
I have "investigated" and "examined" ...with my own life. Your own life is the only "evidence" you need, but then again you can live your life however you wish.
And how do you define "blind faith"? That's term is just crazy religious.
Ether'd.
The reason I said that is because to have faith to be blind when you have scriptures (for the believer) to give you insight to "see through"..
-
Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »Disciplined InSight wrote: »You don't believe in The Most High..we get it...for the 200 millionth time.
I'm asking the theists.
Why is it so hard for you to let go?
Can you point out the flaw in my opening sentence.
The extremities of this world that's why.
Whether it's positive and negative you have some people that have not succumb to the pressures of it and didn't blow their brains out or other extremes to escape it, even in the lowest points of their lives and still be able to walk and handle it with discipline and a balanced life.
People must come to realize this world is too large for the human mind/body/psyche to handle by themselves.
So, there's a supernatural being but we can't understand it because we are mortals?
Why should people bother with that, if you don't have any evidence?
Why don't you take time to investigate instead of going on blind faith?
I have "investigated" and "examined" ...with my own life. Your own life is the only "evidence" you need, but then again you can live your life however you wish.
And how do you define "blind faith"? That's term is just crazy religious.
Ether'd.
The reason I said that is because to have faith to be blind when you have scriptures (for the believer) to give you insight to "see through"..
Do you think other religions or people who believe in ? but not Jesus are wrong?
-
The Flaw in your opening sentence is that you assume that we believers have some sort of need or want to let go. Why would we want to let go when in our view we are in order with all of Creation? Its a flawed premise.
-
The Flaw in your opening sentence is that you assume that we believers have some sort of need or want to let go. Why would we want to let go when in our view we are in order with all of Creation? Its a flawed premise.
I think he's speaking of questioning and overlooking improbable and blatant inconsistencies in the ? logic while wearing rose colored glasses. -
The issue really is religion. The Bible is not meant to be taken literately. But there is much wisdom that you can get from it, especially in the Old Testament.
Here is the thing that we must never lose focus on when it comes to discerning whether something is of ? or not. There are no contradictions in the things of ? (that is why he is the "I AM"). In Nature, in the Universe, in Mathematics there are no contradictions. These things are what the are and thus can be accepted as they are.
Anything that man has had his hand in needs to be examined, reexamined and researched. The moment man put ink to paper to scribe the Bible, he corrupted it whether the words where inspired by ? or not. Everything has to be looked at in it's proper context. -
The issue really is religion. The Bible is not meant to be taken literately.
^^^ this is what theists usually say when they realize certain parts of the Bible are madness. Which parts are supposed to be taken literally? How do we know the concept of ? is supposed to be taken literally? How do we know any of the Bible is to be taken literally??But there is much wisdom that you can get from it, especially in the Old Testament. .
Theoretically speaking, you can get wisdom from anything. What is special about any wisdom obtained from reading the Bible??There are no contradictions in the things of ? (that is why he is the "I AM"). In Nature, in the Universe, in Mathematics there are no contradictions. These things are what the are and thus can be accepted as they are..
There are contradictions in the classical description of ? . Now, if you define ? outside of classical theism and suppose "? " to be synonymous with "nature", you could carry that argument further. Some people see ? as the personification of infinite possibility and mother nature as the personification of the manifestation of "? 's" power. I'd have to ask, though, why would we need to personify natural phenomena or even go as far as worshipping them??The moment man put ink to paper to scribe the Bible, he corrupted it
What stops us from reaching the conclusion that the whole concept of ? is corruption in itself since at the end of the day, man wrote the Bible, not some divine being?? -
Essentially because humans don't like to give up things and go into the unknown.
-
Essentially because humans don't like to give up things and go into the unknown.
Thanks, babycakes.
-
There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
-
There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist. -
FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism. -
FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine? -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits
Lol, smh. Do you know anything about odds? Are you implying that your belief as you practiced it kept you out the bin because you were true believer? You missed my entire point. So i guess those people that were left to rot on your mountain weren't true believers. You seem to be ignoring fact that people have found success (I never mentioned money) and happiness without your doctrine, so how does that support the validity of your doctrine. It tells me that your doctrine isn't required to arrive at that point. You can make connections joining a frat or in school. You can make connections in life just being a descent and approachable, and knowledgeable person. Give yourself some credit. Your requirements of connecting with people seems limited. Is your religion so stringent with the connections it generates that it ignores and individuals talent and human characteristics? -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »There is no need too, plus you can gain more by theism than from non-theism.
You can gain more from learning things in life than you can gain from theism. Non-theism isn't a thing. It's just the absence of theism. Weren't you just having this discussion in another thread? There is far more out there to fill that non-void left by not being a theist.
I can learn everything this would has to learn and still keep my ? . having my belief grounds me and connects me to a larger group it also gives me examples that prove the wisdom of the doctrine.
I came from a third world nation were I was literaly born on mountain. To now I don't even have to work if I don't want too. I survived what I did because I followed the doctrine of my theism. ? has not proven to be a hinderence but a help to me and mines.
The absence of theism is not atheism.
I I I I.. The I's have it. Why is it that you must use you awesome situation as proof of ? or the wisdom of it's doctrine. You just said you can learn anything, so what you learned didn't get you there? You're skills couldn't connect you to people who require those skills? Smh. I'm glad you followed the doctrine and found great success. Still there are others who did the same and found their dead bodies in a trash bin. Also, you're life story dismisses the chance that somebody could be more successful without following your doctrine?
I can learn anything but what I learned from the world did not get me into the great situation I am in. What I gained from my doctrine was not just money that came but it was never the goal of my doctrine to give me that. I could have ended up in the bin, success is following the doctrine for it's own sake so I still would have won. My doctrine did not only connect me with people who need me but with those I need and don't need.
People can say what they want but I know for a fact that belief has Many enormous benefits
Lol, smh. Do you know anything about odds? Are you implying that your belief as you practiced it kept you out the bin because you were true believer? You missed my entire point. So i guess those people that were left to rot on your mountain weren't true believers. You seem to be ignoring fact that people have found success (I never mentioned money) and happiness without your doctrine, so how does that support the validity of your doctrine. It tells me that your doctrine isn't required to arrive at that point. You can make connections joining a frat or in school. You can make connections in life just being a descent and approachable, and knowledgeable person. Give yourself some credit. Your requirements of connecting with people seems limited. Is your religion so stringent with the connections it generates that it ignores and individuals talent and human characteristics?
I am saying that my belief Helped me when nothing else could have, but it did not promise me the nice physical things I enjoy ,it rains on those who believe and those who don't. Death comes to all even the innocent. Jesus is the perfect example of that.
The kinds of connections that are made by religion is unlike any other. These connections are not requirements they are extras just like the money. You can have every thing in this world without ? or you can have all the good things in this world with ? . Man is wonderful we are great. But ? is greater. Belief in ? keeps man ego in control.
What you really get from belief is a calmness of mind, a joy and a fearlessness that is beyond anything words can describe and a deep deep love and unselfish reason for being. It changes your reality -
That does not mean people are not afraid. Most times, fear is irrational and comes from misunderstanding.
When I made that post, it was in respect to fearing the unknown only. I wasn't saying that there isn't other reasons to be afraid of anything else. You are correct that fear can come from a misunderstanding. But, you made it seem as if there was reason to fear something that no one has even pondered on.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???
I don't particularly see how an increase in knowledge gets rid of the fear of the destructive nature of things. The ancient world may have thought the gods were doing this, but they knew what lightning, earthquakes and volcanoes would do if they encountered them. My understanding of what they are is not going to make me go out into a thunderstorm, go camp out on the San Andreas Fault or try to scoop up lava with my bare hands from Kilauea. If anything, it is a healthy fear...one of respect for the elements.
As far as why people fear death...it is so much more to that than a play on the ego. It just sounds like it is an embarrassment if someone somehow knew that their dying was going to cramp their style. Fear of death is in those who think that in their death, they will lose all the things that made life worth living.There are but not many are solid and none are based on enough empirical evidence, which would then spill over into scientific explanations.
This is where it helps to know what type of argument is being presented. There are arguments made that are not about providing empirical evidence. Yet, when the argument is presented, it is being interpreted as empirical evidence by those against the argument about ? 's Existence. It's like...because someone presents something to be philosophically and logically true, then it means they proved that ? exist on a empirical level...when it's not the case. -
FuriousOne wrote: »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.
Well...consider the cosmological argument. The first premise says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The second premise says the universe began to exist. The conclusion says the universe has a cause.
Now logically it checks out...but it is not a slam dunk in respect to proving the existence of ? . But, because of a misunderstanding of what the argument is, it is dismissed as an attempt to provide scientific evidence. Some of those against the argument don't want to argue that way for whatever reason and think all that is being done is further religious causes. -
alissowack wrote: »I meant that only in respect to the existence of ? . I didn't mean it for "everything else".
Again, not completely. Not everybody wants the same thing; even if ? did exist, the ? that hypothetically would exist may not be the kind of ? that the theists wanted. Atheists don't really "want" anything out of the ? theory. If ? proved his existence tomorrow, I could not say that his existence was what I wanted or didn't want. I just didn't believe in it.alissowack wrote: »...and no, we don't have respect for the idea for we think everything requires some sort of "test"...
Even the Bible tells its readers to test everything:
If we cannot test something by way of our senses either directly or indirectly, why should we hold it to be truth?1 Thessalonians 5:21 wrote: »Test all things; hold fast that which is good.
Being a theist or an atheist doesn't require that you have a preference. They both assert that ? either exist or doesn't exist. If ? exists, generally speaking, the theists would get what they want. Now whether ? is the ? of Christianity, Islam, Mormonism and other theistic religions is where there are preferences to consider...hmmm...if atheism is proven to be true, what does that make of definitions such as strong and weak atheism? Would they no longer exist?
What you are doing with that verse is what a lot of religious people do...and that is take it out of context. I think you have a limited sense of the word "test". I could be wrong, but when you think test, you are thinking in a laboratory setting with all the bells and whistles (I put test in quotations to stress that very reason in the previous post). Test can be...a show of patience, perseverance, trust, faith...and others in order to come to the truth. A lot of scientific discoveries wouldn't come to be if it wasn't for those things yet you seem to think it is only by the instruments themselves they will provide the truth.
