Encouragement From A Believers Perspective

Davidjay writes: Actually the angels said it because they were awesome and scary in power, so that the viewers would settle down and listen to the message rather than fearing the messenger.

Worth quoting because you actually got it right for once.

Yes, Ringo..... its a good point, that us humans, and those HEREIN should concentrate on the message rather than fearing and cowering away from the messenger. Same principle, study the concept, the principle, the facts, the revelations, the message, the math ... rather than trying to save face among their peers or congregation.

Stay objective rather than becoming subjective.

In another topic, you commented to percy

...it's more important that those who believe in these things actually justify what they believe and the justification is not in the bible stories, it's in the logic of their belief in them. eg how can you believe in a loving god that condemns 90% of all humanity to everlasting torture for something a distant parent allegedly did?

You do have a valid point that few believers share rationale for what they believe or why they believe it.

In this thread, you also commented when I stated that A peaceful, successful, and mentally healthy life can not be gained solely through secular psychology---we need our belief and the stories that come with it.

Tangle writes: The problem you have Phat is that your premise is just wrong. Billions of people lead content and happy lives without the prop of an imaginary god looking afetr them. I'm one of them. You live in your own bubble and can't imagine how people outside it live. Western Europe is mostly secular you know. Scandinavia is 80% atheist but has the happiest countries in the world. Relieving yourself from the obvious burden of your conflicting religious beliefs would do you a power of good.

You claim that believers are becoming a dwindling minority and will soon be such, but I estimate that your prognosis is quite a long way off. Rationality can still be hopefully discussed between us, however.

Lets take this most recent hurricane, Maria. It devastated Puerto Rico, and a local mayor commented:

quote:

---

As the storm's intense winds and high storm surge wreaked havoc on Puerto Rico yesterday, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz called for help from the mainland U.S., saying, "The Puerto Rico and San Juan we knew yesterday is no longer there."

It is that bad," she said. "I mean, there is devastation. People with wooden houses are no longer there. And all of the forests and palm trees — they're not there. It's bare soil. It is devastating, and I hope we can recover soon."

---

To me, you have illogical assumptions about God---and resort to the Bible to rest your case---even though you tell Percy that a believer shouldn't believe based on the stories but on logic, reason, and reality.

As a believer, I can assure you that many people prayed during that hurricane. They never saw the hurricane as an act of God...chiefly because most of the believers I know believe that God desires what is best for humans and is not vindicative. A hurricane is simply an act of the weather on the planet on which we all live. I believe that God is not out to punish atheists for not believing and understands you much better than you could even conceive of Him, Her, or It.

My point regarding the hurricane is that many people prayed---and whether or not their prayers fell upon a void or not is irrelevant. It gave them comfort in something they believe to be greater than themselves...something apart from the hurricane that also was greater than they and which smashed their world into rubble.

Tangle writes: Billions of people lead content and happy lives without the prop of an imaginary god looking after them.

And nobody has to pray when their life suddenly becomes less content. We choose to pray.

tangle writes: Relieving yourself from the obvious burden of your conflicting religious beliefs would do you a power of good.

Perhaps it did you a world of good, but not I.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: Tangle writes: Relieving yourself from the obvious burden of your conflicting religious beliefs would do you a power of good. Perhaps it did you a world of good, but not I.

You haven't relieved yourself of the burden yet.

Phat writes: And nobody has to pray when their life suddenly becomes less content. We choose to pray.

No. "We" don't.

Phat writes: You claim that believers are becoming a dwindling minority and will soon be such, but I estimate that your prognosis is quite a long way off.

I don't claim it, it's a documented fact but it also depends what you consider a 'long way.' The enlightenment was about 400 years ago. At that time almost all of Europe was a believer in the same fundamental way as Faith is. Now those that believe are a minority and their belief has softened to a mostly harmless liberal mush. I'd say that was great progress.

Rationality can still be hopefully discussed between us, however. Lets take this most recent hurricane, Maria. It devastated Puerto Rico [...] As a believer, I can assure you that many people prayed during that hurricane.

As an atheist I'd say you were almost certainly correct. But so what?

They never saw the hurricane as an act of God...chiefly because most of the believers I know believe that God desires what is best for humans and is not vindicative.

Many believers DO believe that hurricanes and the like are deliberate acts of god, we routinely hear of the zealots claiming it's retribution for stuff like homosexuality and liberalism. But sure, most prefer to believe that god isn't vindictive. (Though it's not obvious from the Old Testament why anyone would think that - other than wishful thinking.)

A hurricane is simply an act of the weather on the planet on which we all live.

Did god not make the forces that make the weather, knowing what random devastation it would cause and didn't he have a better model when he created the Garden of Eden?

I believe that God is not out to punish atheists for not believing and understands you much better than you could even conceive of Him, Her, or It.

Fine, but what you personally believe has no bearing on anything at all does it?

My point regarding the hurricane is that many people prayed---and whether or not their prayers fell upon a void or not is irrelevant.

It's highly relevant. What could be more relevant than whether a supplicant is wasting his time begging for help?

It gave them comfort in something they believe to be greater than themselves...something apart from the hurricane that also was greater than they and which smashed their world into rubble.

Oh, right, it gave them comfort......god as panacea, that's the best you've got?

Tangle writes: Oh, right, it gave them comfort......god as panacea, that's the best you've got?

I think this sort of downplays the importance of mental health for any and all humans.

To those who require it, "god as panacea" is extremely important. They very well could spiral into devastating depression without it.

Could they not have been "trained" (for lack of a better word) differently over the course of their life?
I think they certainly could. But coulda/woulda/shoulda doesn't really matter when faced with a hurricane in the here and now.

At the moment of that terrible disaster, "god as panacea" worked, worked well, and may very well have been the only thing that possibly could work for some of them.

I find that to be a "very good" and "very important" thing.
And I don't think it's right for anyone to try and take such a thing away from anyone, or even insult it.

Style writes: I think this sort of downplays the importance of mental health for any and all humans.

No it doesn't. But because it makes some people feel better is not proof of the existence of god and admitting that it's a panacea demonstrates that.

To those who require it, "god as panacea" is extremely important. They very well could spiral into devastating depression without it.

Sure, but as the false notion of god dissipates, people can no longer rely on the false premise and have to learn to cope with reality. It's leaving home and growing up.

I think they certainly could. But coulda/woulda/shoulda doesn't really matter when faced with a hurricane in the here and now.

People can and will do what they do, that's not the point is it? Here we're looking for what's real, indirect benefits from the imagination is not what we're at.

I find that to be a "very good" and "very important" thing. And I don't think it's right for anyone to try and take such a thing away from anyone, or even insult it.

I'm not in any position to take it away from anyone, what's happening across modern societies is a realisation that the thing they believed in was a fantasy. It's an inevitable consequence of the advancement of actual knowledge. It's simply growing up and learning how to live an independent life.

And who is insulting anyone?

There may be some religious faith that is motivated by seeking comfort, but in my experience with Christians and my own personal experience it's about simply believing it's true. Also, "falling in love with God." I don't think I've ever met anyone who believes because of some felt need to believe but maybe I've missed those stories.

I'm not in any position to take it away from anyone, what's happening across modern societies is a realisation that the thing they believed in was a fantasy. It's an inevitable consequence of the advancement of actual knowledge. It's simply growing up and learning how to live an independent life.

Something like that happened to me when I was fifteen and atheist friends persuaded me out of my not-very-strong Christian upbringing. So I considered it grown up to live without such things and considered myself an atheist for the next thirty years. Then when I came to REALLY believe it was because I knew it was true, not because I felt any need for it.

Tangle writes: But because it makes some people feel better is not proof of the existence of god and admitting that it's a panacea demonstrates that.

I completely agree.

Sure, but as the false notion of god dissipates, people can no longer rely on the false premise and have to learn to cope with reality. It's leaving home and growing up.

Some people learn to cope with reality by laying their fears upon their imagination.
Like telling someone "it's going to be okay..." when you can't read the future.

You know you don't know.
They know you don't know (maybe).

But it can still help them feel better.

People can and will do what they do, that's not the point is it?

I believe "the point" is whatever anyone claims for themselves (as long as they're not hurting others.)

Here we're looking for what's real, indirect benefits from the imagination is not what we're at.

We are?
Why?

Why is "what's real" so important?
Why can't someone else decide to live their life chasing dreams and imagined things?

Maybe "the point" of someone else's life if to specifically gain indirect benefits from their imagination?

That's not my point.
I think that's a bit of a dumb point.

But I wouldn't stop anyone else from following it if that's what they wanted.

I want to do what I want... and I don't want someone to decide I shouldn't be able to do what I want... just because they don't want the same thing.

In that vein, I don't think I (or you) should be able to decide whether or not someone choosing to follow imaginary things is "right" or not. I don't think that's for you to decide, and I think it cheapens "humanity" or even "intelligence" if you think you should be deciding such a thing.

I'm not in any position to take it away from anyone, what's happening across modern societies is a realisation that the thing they believed in was a fantasy. It's an inevitable consequence of the advancement of actual knowledge. It's simply growing up and learning how to live an independent life.

If that's what happens, then that's what happens.
I just think it should continue along naturally, and that no one has the right to "force it" on anyone else.

For certain specific goals I think it can (and should) be forced.

Like, say "doing science" or "trying to learn about reality."
If those are the goals... then yes, everyone following those goals should be using the best methods known so far to further such things. Anything less just seems... counterproductive.

But, in "general life"... such a goal is not as assumption we can just place on everyone.

Some people couldn't care less if space is cool or not, or whether or not evolution took place, or what makes a crystal structure.
And I think it's important not to force such people into such goals either.

I think the "goal of life" should be decided upon by the individual.
I decided upon mine, and I would be greatly hurt if someone forced me to only follow another.

And the question of "how the religious are dropping in popularity" is a question of general life goals... not under the scope of some sort of specific, agreed upon goal.

And who is insulting anyone?

I don't know. Perhaps no one. I still don't think such ideas should be insulted by anyone. Even if no one is insulting them.

Stile writes: Some people learn to cope with reality by laying their fears upon their imagination. Like telling someone "it's going to be okay..." when you can't read the future. You know you don't know. They know you don't know (maybe). But it can still help them feel better.

Sure, but you know, so what?

Why is "what's real" so important?

I don't know how to start to answer that - it seems pretty important to know what is real and what is imaginary doesn't it?

Why can't someone else decide to live their life chasing dreams and imagined things?

I don't know, I didn't say that they couldn't.

Maybe "the point" of someone else's life if to specifically gain indirect benefits from their imagination?

Maybe, and maybe there is no 'point' to it.

But I wouldn't stop anyone else from following it if that's what they wanted.

Me neither

I want to do what I want... and I don't want someone to decide I shouldn't be able to do what I want... just because they don't want the same thing.

Me too

In that vein, I don't think I (or you) should be able to decide whether or not someone choosing to follow imaginary things is "right" or not. I don't think that's for you to decide, and I think it cheapens "humanity" or even "intelligence" if you think you should be deciding such a thing.

You seems to have imagined a position I hold that I do not. Where are you getting all this from? People can do what the hell they want within the law, no matter how daft I think it is, and I have no interest in trying to stop them. But I will point out in places like this that I think it's daft.

What I'm saying is that people are dropping their primitive beliefs all across the modern world. They're doing it quite naturally and without anyone forcing them. It's just part of how our societies are advancing, by accumulating real knowledge of the world and abandoning false and superstitious explanations.

Tangle writes: What I'm saying is that people are dropping their primitive beliefs all across the modern world.

What makes a belief primitive? Are you saying that all unevidenced belief is primitive or are you saying that the books in religion need updating? Do you think that belief in general is daft?

Phat writes: What makes a belief primitive?

A belief in something old and wrong.

Are you saying that all unevidenced belief is primitive or are you saying that the books in religion need updating? Do you think that belief in general is daft?

Primitive refers to something at a very early stage of development. The ancient beliefs like Christianity are the beginnings of mankind's attempts to understand the world around them and think about meaning. To do it they made up children's stories around the campfires. We've moved on, we don't need the silly stories any more.

For many years, religion kept the poor impoverished masses from revolting against the established wealthy and powerful. The more secular the world at large becomes, the better a possibility for mass revolution will occur.

You seem too sure that its all made up...though I will admit that much is.

thoughtCo writes: While atheists can't typically deny that a person believes in some god, they can deny that believers have sufficient justification for their belief. Atheists may go further and deny that it is true that any gods exist, but even if it is true that something warranting the label "god" is out there, none of the reasons offered by theists justifies accepting their claims as true.

Would you agree with the above quote and suggest that I have no valid reasons to justify my beliefs as true?

Phat writes: The more secular the world at large becomes, the better a possibility for mass revolution will occur.

Really? I'd say the reverse, the more secular a society becomes the more democratic and evolved its institutions become. The reduction of poverty and improvements in education, health law and order all play to fairer societies.

Would you agree with the above quote and suggest that I have no valid reasons to justify my beliefs as true?

Well that's a complicated way of saying something simple. It's true that some people have a belief in god. It's true that atheists don't. It's true that atheists argue that believers have insufficient evidence to support their belief. But that's why it's called a belief.