...it is you who choose not to believe God
Belief is NOT a "choice" any more than love is a "choice".
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or not do some particular thing.
You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
I can't stop believing in air.
I can't stop believing in water.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Yes, the obvious things like air, water or wind are not what we believe or don't have to believe, it is our experienced reality, so we don't need a system to tell us about an air or water fact.
We adopt a belief as a child because it is also adopted by our caregivers and the cultural system that surrounds them. A part of it comes into the unconscious, another comes to the surface and that's what we are dealing with when we talk about it. The underlying may well contradict this.
In what other people have made us believe, we often recognize several facets, something coherent and something incongruous. When people like Richard Dawkins, for example, are in a passionate conflict with religion and carry out this inner conflict with the outside world and confuse that the coherent with the inconsistent in themselves leads to war, we recognize this in the doggedness and also partly open contempt or hatred. Alternating between an expressed superiority. However, the person does not know that he does not fight against external opponents, but merely follows an internal conflict, which he is only able to solve there.
Since man is inherent in "knowing" that he cannot survive alone, his perception looks for like-minded people and perceives them as "good", while those who are not like-minded present themselves to him as "bad". But since such a projection happens on the basis of a dualistic world view, this problem escapes him in his thinking. However, all observed pairs of opposites such as fire and water, gain and loss, objective and subjective, are merely a deception of the mind and lead to a sense of separation, because opposites cannot be separated in this way, since all opposites condition each other.
Buddhist teaching speaks of deception through the complexes of inferiority, superiority and equality. The latter is little known as a form of complex. But it is present in everyday life because people constantly compare themselves with each other. For example, someone is faster in running or better in arithmetic, one is ill and compares himself to a healthy person, the healthy person is happy not to be ill and so on. Such comparisons are based on pride and create suffering.
In fact, however, you can question your accustomed beliefs and investigate them. The moment you question one of your beliefs, examine it and check its coherence, you may be able to let go of that belief, which in my opinion results in a choice. But having made a choice does not bring you anything if you do not adjust it to other than the used habits and ways of thinking and acting in the world. It's a lot of inner work to do.
It is the ultimate act of hubris to state your opinion to another person.
Well stated. I consider this demonization of the "other" very short-sighted and inherently hypocritical. It is an aspect of "The Fundamental Attribution Error".
The idea of "opposites" is a modern oversimplification. There are no true opposites.
I agree.
Good point. You can't "choose" to believe or disbelieve, but you can "choose" to carefully examine your own beliefs, which may lead to a change in your beliefs. Conversely, you can "choose" to NOT examine your beliefs.
I appreciate your observations. I have met few people who understand this simple truth. The beauty in this fact is people often don't realize what they reveal when in such a state.
People often say "seeing is believing"
However, the truth is "believing is seeing".
Can you "choose" to believe in space-aliens?
Don't you think that people who DO believe in space-aliens have been CONVINCED by either their own personal experience or by the testimony of what they consider credible witnesses?
And people who DON'T believe in space-aliens are simply NOT CONVINCED?
The answer is maybe-yes / maybe-no
Currently humanity is deciding whether to believe in space-aliens.
i believe we are choosing to believe in space-aliens, and if so, soon we will have normal visits from space-aliens.
If we choose to not believe in space-aliens then we won't see them. We won't interact with them. Our space, and their space won't coincide.
That's fair.
I'm just saying, BELIEVING space-aliens are "possible" (is-not-the-same-as) BELIEVING in space-aliens.
For example, if someone told you they received a message from space-aliens (gods), it would behoove you to remain highly SKEPTICAL of such a claim.
right up to the point that you start receiving the same messages.
... then skeptical just doesn't cut it anymore.
And at that point, I'll be convinced.
But I won't expect anyone else to believe me UNLESS they "start receiving the same messages" themselves.
I don't think aliens are a good example.
Or do you know or even believe that there wont ever be some?
i believe a better example is the fey.
(or what Tolkien incorrectly described as elves.)
They live and populate the earth like humans do.
Will we ever believe in them?
Or, there are large creatures that live in our skies.
We would say, right now, incorrectly, that they are made of air.
They play with airplanes every now and then.
People who have seen them say they look like a big swirling cloud of air with a face.
They are all over the place, and humans don't even classify them as life.
Will we ever believe in them?
love it :D
draaagooons
It's the perfect example.
I don't believe in any particular space-aliens (gods).
I do believe that some, non-specific space-aliens (gods) MIGHT be discovered at some point in the future.
If you ask me "is this or that specific space-alien (gods) logically possible?" - YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
I don't believe in the roman catholic church and their 'god'. Even less in their 'god on earth' aka pope.
If their god really legitimizes them to provoke hell on earth, I don't care about that sick old man.
Look at jura. roman law is the basis and slaved everyone on this fucking earth.
Each country is merely a fief of the Pope. We ain't living things at the moment, cuz there has been several papal bulls named "cestui que vie", who claimed that everyone who doesn't claim to be alive is in fact dead (cuz of the Naval wars and maritime and commercial law)
So yea. The pope is not god on earth but the opposite. He is satan.
But I don't expect you to understand or even believe this. As christian, you can't believe this.
Even as freemason, it's not easy to understand.
Romans slaved my german ancestors. The roman empire never fell.
I'm with you on everything except the "satan" part. Please explain further.
If the pope is ruler over everything. And everything is a fief by the pope.
Then the pope is in fact materialistic satan.
It's all legitimized by roman law.
Vatican is completely immune in front of the law. Cuz they are the law.
What can't you follow there?
https://soundcloud.com/miki-taiki/neotericsymphony
Jesus was one of the first anarchists.
He told us fuck the authority. You don't need them. Everything you need is inside you. Fuck authority and their slave hierarchy.
Luther reminded us again. "Fuck this scam!"
But people just didnt get it. And made jesus and also luther to the new authorities, applying the same old roman law.
It's all cults around authorities. Why do you think the word cult is in culture?
https://soundcloud.com/scks-661398380/is-this-love-scks-remix
Are you a Gnostic Deist?
what?
pls specify. my first language is not english.
A Gnostic is someone who believes only in their own, personal experience.
They will not follow any person (cult of personality) or book or dogma.
A Gnostic considers themselves the "ultimate authority" (especially on spiritual and religious matters) and expects others to do the same.
no, I don't think I am that.
I think there are and were people, who are great in a specific field.
for example: einstein, tesla, nietzsche, schauberger, hayek, many to go..
but I believe everything should be voluntarily (without force or pressure), based on consens
I'm a voluntary anarchist and maybe expect others to also be
but I base all of this onto logic and not just believing.
we want a better world. work on yourself. resonate instead of dissonance.
on consens we can build real democracy and really rule as people. and also reach anarchy (no rulers - but rules on consens)
Ok, you seem to be using an ad-hoc, personal definition of "satan".
I guess you just mean you don't approve of the pope.
Haha
Maybe the pope is not the real pope, just a puppet in front to protect..
But the few people, who own everything and have this enormous power over everything are the manifestation of 'satan'.
God and also satan are just words. Just metaphores. Like every word.
You'll love this,
I have to disagree.
One (usually most folks) can "choose" to ignore Truth, so that they don't have to adhere to Logos. They are then free to 'believe' a comfortable lie, by choice.
Cognitive Dissonance usually being the culprit...with obfuscation being a close 2nd....but that's just my opinion as to the magnitude/culprit.
So I guess, I would have to force myself to realize, whether or not Cognitive Dissonance, can be considered, Will...
Thanks for the thoughts sir!
Can you "choose" to believe in space-aliens?
Don't you think that people who DO believe in space-aliens have been CONVINCED by either their own personal experience or by the testimony of what they consider credible witnesses?
And people who DON'T believe in space-aliens are simply NOT CONVINCED?
What I am saying is that cognitive dissonance will allow the 'believer' to believe in lies. Since they Choose to ignore the Truth, then they chose to Believe, instead of Know.
"Vaccines are dangerous, here is the evidence"
"No, I don't believe it, I BELIEVE my Doctor."
Did they choose to Believe, by choosing to Disbelieve?
Good point. People can seem to "choose" to believe a "trusted-source" BUT ONLY if they are first convinced that their "trusted-source" (genius, prophet, priest) is more reliable than their own judgement.
This is the root of the problem.
You should never trust (or distrust) any person or book 100%.
ACK. I AGREE! Oh no what will I do. Must find....something.....to argue...
Good stuff thank you :)
INTJ versus ESTJ,
Belief is a position, like a state of water. So, a Christian is to belief as ice might be to water. Either way, water might be frozen or not. But regardless, water is still water even if it a gas, a liquid, a solid state, or maybe even plasma.
Do you "choose" to believe or do you find that you need to be CONVINCED?
Being CONVINCED is only about (USOE) Uniform-Standards-Of-Evidence (what qualifies as "true" and how do you know).