How exactly does "theism" exist?

wynn said:
I don't recall the source, but the story seems common enough, I've known people who are like that.




Did, for example, the Christians ever apologize for preaching eternal damnation?




That's your opinion.




Says a self-declared atheist ...
Click to expand...

Useless, deflective one-liners - this debate has been milked dry I believe.
 
Adstar said:
You make statements and put ? marks at the end of them. What exactly is that all about?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Click to expand...

Religion has give us those things, im just not comfortable stating it. Answer my question now. I want your faith, sir.
 
wynn said:
Oh dear. If someone like Cosmictraveler would say that, I would understand.
But this coming from you ... resorting to thought-terminating cliches ...
Click to expand...

There is nothing cliche about learning confidence in oneself. Just because you may have no idea how to go about developing this in yourself is by no means the end of the line.

The suggestion to read a self-help book was not sarcasm. And your response is a testament to how willing you are to work toward an actual solution to your dilemma.
 
Syne said:
There is nothing cliche about learning confidence in oneself. Just because you may have no idea how to go about developing this in yourself is by no means the end of the line.

The suggestion to read a self-help book was not sarcasm. And your response is a testament to how willing you are to work toward an actual solution to your dilemma.
Click to expand...

Right. Has it perhaps occured to you that it is precisely after having perused many resources on self-help and how to build self-confidence etc. that I have become disillusioned with them, finding them shallow and lacking?
 
gmilam said:
IOW - I got nothin'.
Click to expand...

What's your point?
Psychological reactance or defense mechanisms seem not to make much sense, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, they are common.


Why should they apologize for telling you what they believe is "truth"?
Click to expand...

In ordinary secular affairs, if someone spreads something that is a lie, slander, harsh speech, hate speech, such a person can be sued and prosecuted for that.

Strangely, anything can be said in the name of God, and there is no legal recourse for that.



JDawg said:
Well, we've apparently reached the point where you are no longer useful in a discussion, and reduce yourself to vague one-liners. That's too bad, because you were doing well there for a moment. It's a shame that when you are challenged, you revert to your trolling ways.
Click to expand...

Always the patronizer, eh?

You know, if you wouldn't be so intent on playing some kind of big brother, we might actually get somewhere.
Once someone begins to patronize me, then, yes, I tend to resort to short answers, because a patronizing person doesn't want a conversation, but unquestioning submission, so there isn't much to talk about with them.

Are you able to help someone without patronizing them?
 
wynn said:
The average ice-cream vendor has a greater sense of responsibility for what he offers people than do all the theists that I know or have heard of.


I would hope that those who claim to be my wellwishers, who claim to know what is best for me, who claim to know the Absolute Truth, who claim to know the path to true happiness - I would hope that those people would actually care about me, and wouldn't simply resort to a caveat emptor and place the whole responsibility on me.

Is that too much to ask for?

Is it really so completely irrational to expect that those who claim to work in our best interest, would actually care about us, as opposed to expecting us to be like puppets, and then when things don't work out for us, blaming our failure exclusively on us?




How can you even reply something like that.

If a person is unwilling to undergo the psychological/philosophical equivalent of a lobotomy for the sake of entering the building of religion, you think it is perfectly allright to find fault with that person exclusively, and not perhaps with those demanding the lobotomy?

You really think that if a religion demands that a person who enters said religion should be willing to give up their material possessions, their concerns over their material and mental wellbeing, their friends and relatives, their sense of self-worth, their will - that there is nothing wrong with demanding that?? That that is an acceptable price to pay?




You read into this a certainty I don't have. If I present "a strong, unshakeable notion" it is because I want a strong, unshakeable reply.




See your recent reply to another poster:


etc.
Click to expand...


A theist is a person who believes in God, period.
There is nothing in that description that says we have to nurse maid you.

Please stop wastiing time with this loaded definition of theism, it does nothing to advance any discussions. Work with the definition, and if you feel we as individuals owe you something then pm those involved.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF!


jan.
 
wynn said:
Right. Has it perhaps occured to you that it is precisely after having perused many resources on self-help and how to build self-confidence etc. that I have become disillusioned with them, finding them shallow and lacking?
Click to expand...

Finding them shallow sounds like you just manufactured an excuse to avoid trying to work through your issues. Self-confidence is a personal issue that you should at least take enough responsibility for to refrain from laying on everyone else's doorstep. Self-help books, religion, or anything else.

It is solely your responsibility, no one else's.


I would hazard that you have become more disillusioned with what effort you are willing to put into the endeavor than anything external. The things people blame tend to be only symptoms, not the problems.
 
wynn said:
In ordinary secular affairs, if someone spreads something that is a lie, slander, harsh speech, hate speech, such a person can be sued and prosecuted for that.

Strangely, anything can be said in the name of God, and there is no legal recourse for that.
Click to expand...
Maybe God should sue them for defamation of character.
 
wynn said:
Always the patronizer, eh?

You know, if you wouldn't be so intent on playing some kind of big brother, we might actually get somewhere.
Once someone begins to patronize me, then, yes, I tend to resort to short answers, because a patronizing person doesn't want a conversation, but unquestioning submission, so there isn't much to talk about with them.

Are you able to help someone without patronizing them?
Click to expand...

You do this in every conversation regardless of who it's with, so let's not pretend my crime was anything other than challenging your preconceptions. This is what you do when you can't get someone to agree with you after a couple of rounds.

As soon as your bogus story got sniffed out and you realized I wasn't biting on this idiocy that a theist somehow required another person for their faith to be valid, your behavior devolved into the same crap that got you banned. It's a tantrum you throw whenever you don't get your way. You think we haven't seen it enough to know the score? :shrug:
 
One thing I have always appreciated about Buddhism is that in none of the stories I am familiar with, neither the Buddha nor the other arahants and advanced practitioners resorted to blaming the other person.

There were people who challenged the Buddha and his followers, grossly sometimes. Yet the Buddha and his followers never resorted to blaming the person, to criticizing them or ridiculing them. Instead, they always had the perfect reply, with no ill will, no patronizing, no blaming. And not rarely, the story ends with the other person being "gratified, delighted with the Blessed One's reply."


In contrast, ordinary (?) people clearly want control over others, want to be considered superior and knowledgeable - and yet they refuse to take responsibility for those they wish to control and subject to themselves.

Rather than saying "I don't know, I can't help you", such people resort to blaming the person, resort to simplistic formulas, placing the whole responsibility on the other person.

This has always fascinated me.
 
wynn

There can only be as much meaning, purpose, happiness or worth in your life as you, yourself create. No one has any real clue about what could be called The Truth(TM), religions are fairy tales for children, scientists see no evidence for meaning or purpose anywhere in the Universe EXCEPT what we, ourselves create. Stop looking for meaning or purpose and create some meaning and purpose in your own life, take wisdom when you find it, reject non-sense. You are on your own.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
There can only be as much meaning, purpose, happiness or worth in your life as you, yourself create. No one has any real clue about what could be called The Truth(TM), religions are fairy tales for children, scientists see no evidence for meaning or purpose anywhere in the Universe EXCEPT what we, ourselves create.
Click to expand...

Speaking of children: I think that over the course of history, as societies have grown up, we've discovered that all the meaning and purpose we need is fulfilled in the sense of well being we derive directly from the world. It may come from tending to those who need us, or sharing life's simple pleasures with them. Even for the most pious believers they would necessarily engage the world this way and create their own purposes. They may call them divine purposes, but most likely that's just a rationalization of their true motives. This may be the main reason why there tends to be a tension in religions with materialism. If they were simply to acknowledge what you just said, I think we would see more religions which are privately practiced and non-interventionist. :) (Wouldn't that be nice.)
 
wynn said:
One thing I have always appreciated about Buddhism is that in none of the stories I am familiar with, neither the Buddha nor the other arahants and advanced practitioners resorted to blaming the other person.

There were people who challenged the Buddha and his followers, grossly sometimes. Yet the Buddha and his followers never resorted to blaming the person, to criticizing them or ridiculing them. Instead, they always had the perfect reply, with no ill will, no patronizing, no blaming. And not rarely, the story ends with the other person being "gratified, delighted with the Blessed One's reply."


In contrast, ordinary (?) people clearly want control over others, want to be considered superior and knowledgeable - and yet they refuse to take responsibility for those they wish to control and subject to themselves.

Rather than saying "I don't know, I can't help you", such people resort to blaming the person, resort to simplistic formulas, placing the whole responsibility on the other person.

This has always fascinated me.
Click to expand...

Which is what you're doing right this very moment. You portray yourself unflatteringly, then blame others for saying so, rather than admitting the truth and trying to fix the problem.

You play at Buddhism because you think it makes you look smart, but all it does is accentuate your inability to take responsibility for your actions.
 
Syne said:
So pulling the ripcord without any indication of heeding my encouragement to learn how to believe in yourself?
Click to expand...

Surely you are aware that learning to "believe in oneself" (whatever that means) entails not discussing oneself with people who behave bossily and patronizingly toward oneself?
 
wynn said:
One thing I have always appreciated about Buddhism is that in none of the stories I am familiar with, neither the Buddha nor the other arahants and advanced practitioners resorted to blaming the other person.

There were people who challenged the Buddha and his followers, grossly sometimes. Yet the Buddha and his followers never resorted to blaming the person, to criticizing them or ridiculing them. Instead, they always had the perfect reply, with no ill will, no patronizing, no blaming. And not rarely, the story ends with the other person being "gratified, delighted with the Blessed One's reply."


In contrast, ordinary (?) people clearly want control over others, want to be considered superior and knowledgeable - and yet they refuse to take responsibility for those they wish to control and subject to themselves.

Rather than saying "I don't know, I can't help you", such people resort to blaming the person, resort to simplistic formulas, placing the whole responsibility on the other person.

This has always fascinated me.
Click to expand...

As do my 'Stepford ways' according to your PM to me of this evening, Wynn?

Very well.

'I don't know, I can't help you.'

Please do not PM me with communications of such nature, Wynn. Keep everything in the open forum. Replies may be sparse as this is the busy season.
 
wynn said:
Surely you are aware that learning to "believe in oneself" (whatever that means) entails not discussing oneself with people who behave bossily and patronizingly toward oneself?
Click to expand...

Surely you are aware that if a person seeks advise and patently shuns all graciously given that people will assume that claimed seeking to have been disingenuous.

Like many people who do not take a fuller responsibility for their lot, your inadvertent actions directly bring about the circumstances that you favor blaming for your dilemma.
 
Syne said:
Surely you are aware that if a person seeks advise and patently shuns all graciously given that people will assume that claimed seeking to have been disingenuous.

Like many people who do not take a fuller responsibility for their lot, your inadvertent actions directly bring about the circumstances that you favor blaming for your dilemma.
Click to expand...

I think that in discussions, people often opt too soon for an ad personam, instead of further exploring the topic at hand.

:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top