How exactly does "theism" exist?

[Syne]

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

It is you who has refused to further explore what I suggested. You just wrote it off with a presumption that all such advise on building self-confidence is as useless as that which you do not appear to have made any honest effort at.

There is no ad hominem when you repeatedly demonstrate such a lack of effort on your part. Aside from posting here with excuses why any answers offered are no good, what effort have you put into determining what you believe for yourself?

 

[wynn]

It is you who has refused to further explore what I suggested. You just wrote it off with a presumption that all such advise on building self-confidence is as useless as that which you do not appear to have made any honest effort at.

There is no ad hominem when you repeatedly demonstrate such a lack of effort on your part. Aside from posting here with excuses why any answers offered are no good, what effort have you put into determining what you believe for yourself?

IOW, you want me to believe that you know and I don't know.
You want me to trust you that you know when there is an end to philosophy and personal outlook must take over. You want me to consider you a valid judge over myself and everything. You want me to take on faith that your knowledge of me and of philosophy is better than my own.

Where did I hear that already ... that's right, from fundamentalist religionists.

 

[gmilam]

IOW, you want me to believe that you know and I don't know.
You want me to trust you that you know when there is an end to philosophy and personal outlook must take over. You want me to consider you a valid judge over myself and everything. You want me to take on faith that your knowledge of me and of philosophy is better than my own.

Where did I hear that already ... that's right, from fundamentalist religionists.

Many of us here have told you that you have to work it out for yourself. You don't appear to like that answer.

 

[Syne]

IOW, you want me to believe that you know and I don't know.
You want me to trust you that you know when there is an end to philosophy and personal outlook must take over. You want me to consider you a valid judge over myself and everything. You want me to take on faith that your knowledge of me and of philosophy is better than my own.

Where did I hear that already ... that's right, from fundamentalist religionists.

Seriously? I have made no such claim at all. For each person it is different when the external sources cease to provide sufficient insight. You just seem to have hit a dead end that would suggest you are struggling to come to terms with finding external sources insufficient.

If the external no longer answers your questions to your satisfaction, then maybe you should look inward.


Or at least quit being so touchy about people offering you simple and valid advice when you have asked for it. But I am sure you cannot see how that is only a defense mechanism to support your continued lack of effort.

You only really have two choices. Try or give up.

 

[kx000]

To answer the thread. Because I exist to believe in God.

Do you pose its odd I feel that way?

 

[SciWriter]

To answer the thread. Because I exist to believe in God.

You can feel anyway you want, even if what you feel cannot be shown.

But do you do preach it as truth (without proof), such as "God is…"? I am not sayin here that you do go beyond "believe".

But, if so, you might want to say "seems" or "feels" instead of outright stating something as true which hasn't been shown to be.

 

[dumb dude]

I just had unadulterated fun reading all these posts. You guys need a break.

 

[Epictetus]

You've nailed id DD. This thread is absurd from the word 'go'. I can barely understand the initial question.

 

[wynn]

Thank heavens for psychological defence mechanisms!

 

[aaqucnaona]

Thank heavens for psychological defence mechanisms!

OH thank you wynn for a first hand demonstration!

 

[wynn]

Likewise.

 

[Syne]

But I am sure you cannot see how that is only a defense mechanism to support your continued lack of effort.

Thank heavens for psychological defence mechanisms!

Likewise.

So Wynn borrowed my comment to turn on others, while of course avoiding any introspection of her own, and now has devolved to "nuh-uh, you are".

That is called denial, which is what provokes the need for such a mechanism.

 

[wynn]

So Wynn borrowed my comment to turn on others, while of course avoiding any introspection of her own, and now has devolved to "nuh-uh, you are".

That is called denial, which is what provokes the need for such a mechanism.

Riiight.

And "denial" is defined as 'refusal to submit to the self-appointed authority of another person.'

 

[Syne]

Riiight.

And "denial" is defined as 'refusal to submit to the self-appointed authority of another person.'

No, denial is the inability to even contemplate answers to your questions that many people have found to be valid by experience.

 

[wynn]

No, denial is the inability to even contemplate answers to your questions that many people have found to be valid by experience.

Still an argumentum ad populum (and ad baculum).

 

[Syne]

No, denial is the inability to even contemplate answers to your questions that many people have found to be valid by experience.

Still an argumentum ad populum (and ad baculum).

That is not an argument, it is a definition. Denial is the inability to contemplate a thing.

Where is the coercion? And how does that or a popular opinion effect your denial? Cognitive dissonance?

You seem to only be using an argument from fallacy to bolster your denial.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Likewise.

Ah, your greater age and larger experience have, for the lack of a better word, pwned me. Yet, I did make a valid point [so did you, however since this is about you, my point is of greater significance, especially in the context of the recent posts on this thread].

 

[wynn]

That is not an argument, it is a definition. Denial is the inability to contemplate a thing.

Where is the coercion? And how does that or a popular opinion effect your denial? Cognitive dissonance?

You seem to only be using an argument from fallacy to bolster your denial.

Without asking me what I do, what I have thought about or not, you assume and take for granted that I have not contemplated other people's ideas of self-confidence. And then, you severely criticize me for it and ascribe to me many negative personal traits.
On top of that, you nevertheless expect me to openly discuss myself with you, here in open forums. And when I refuse, you see this as further proof of my laziness and denial.



Oscar Wilde once noted that altruistic people lose all sense of humanity. Unfortunately, this is all too often true.

 

[wynn]

Ah, your greater age and larger experience have, for the lack of a better word, pwned me. Yet, I did make a valid point [so did you, however since this is about you, my point is of greater significance, especially in the context of the recent posts on this thread].

No, several of you made it about me.

I've never asked for help, I only presented a problem. But some people think that presenting a problem means that others get to own that person, that that person is thus at the mercy of others and to fully subject themselves to them.

Talk about killing the messenger.

 

[spidergoat]

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.

Yeah, well, don't forget these were carefully crafted stories intended to teach and make the teacher look good.