No religion.

[Balerion]

From what I understand, the positive correlation between self-esteem and accomplishment exists up to a point on the self-esteem scale; from that point on, high(er) self-esteem seems to become counterproductive.

Can you cite a study to support that? I wouldn't normally ask, but I've never seen that claim made before.

Of course, performance and accomplishment can be difficult to measure in a meaningful and objective way.

They really aren't. There are innumerable ways to measure performance. The difficulty is in measuring self-esteem.

Many studies on self-esteem and accomplishment are done on students by measuring their accomplishment in terms of academic success that seems to be easy enough to measure.
How relevant those results are is another matter.

More recent studies have shown that the positive correlation between high self-esteem and academic performance went in the opposite direction; that is, good academic performance lead to high self-esteem. And in any case, consensus seems to be that whatever the correlation is, it's insignificant.

But I think we can all agree that a certain measure of self-assurance, self-confidence, self-esteem of however we wish to call it, is necessary to have interactions with other people that the person themselves experiences as meaningful and successful.

That's far too general a statement. I don't know what you mean by "a certain measure," or "meaningful and successful."

Then this is how it seemed to you.


No. This is your conclusion.

Then please tell me how I have it wrong. How is this:

It's no mystery that there is a positive correlation between self-esteem and achievement (in various areas, from academic, sports, to work).

...is anything less than a conclusion based on an assumption?

I consider declarations of certainty to be:

1. Rhetorical maneuvers,
or
2. Manifestation of extremely high-self-esteem,
or
3. Expression of factual certainty.

In actual communication, it is often hard to tell which is which and how to reply to a person who has made a declaration of certainty. (Do they actually know and should be trusted, or are they just boasting?)


Often, factual certainty would require nothing less than omniscience.

Arguably, people often make declarations of certainty as a rhetorical maneuver that allows them to get the upper hand in the communication or relationship, and many other times as a matter of presenting and maintaining a particular self-image in the presence of others.

Limiting declarations of certainty only to factual certainty would leave people very little to say, and with little means to get the upper hand in communication/relationships.

I said nothing of factual certainty. I was talking about studying evidence and reaching a conclusion based upon that evidence. You claimed that even this required more self-esteem than you can muster, yet you've since made a handful of claims based on far less than my claims were. Even this quoted passage above contradicts your initial claim, as it is a conclusion based on personal experience. So again I ask: Why can't you do the same with a study of religion?

 

[kx000]

I'm sorry, I know English is not your native language, but this is gibberish. I can't make heads or tails of it.

Simple and plain, atheism is inherently wrong.

 

[geeser]

So either provide proof of what you say or quit saying things that you cannot support.

KJV John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

NIV John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

[wynn]

Can you cite a study to support that? I wouldn't normally ask, but I've never seen that claim made before.



They really aren't. There are innumerable ways to measure performance. The difficulty is in measuring self-esteem.



More recent studies have shown that the positive correlation between high self-esteem and academic performance went in the opposite direction; that is, good academic performance lead to high self-esteem. And in any case, consensus seems to be that whatever the correlation is, it's insignificant.



That's far too general a statement. I don't know what you mean by "a certain measure," or "meaningful and successful."



Then please tell me how I have it wrong. How is this:



...is anything less than a conclusion based on an assumption?



I said nothing of factual certainty. I was talking about studying evidence and reaching a conclusion based upon that evidence. You claimed that even this required more self-esteem than you can muster, yet you've since made a handful of claims based on far less than my claims were. Even this quoted passage above contradicts your initial claim, as it is a conclusion based on personal experience. So again I ask: Why can't you do the same with a study of religion?

No, the question is, How to explain this to a strong atheist?
I don't know.

 

[Balerion]

No, the question is, How to explain this to a strong atheist?
I don't know.

Cue Wynn's hasty (and cowardly) exit.

Typical.

 

[wynn]

Cue Wynn's hasty (and cowardly) exit.

Typical.

Cue Balerion's hasty (and cowardly) evasion of the topic.

Typical.



And before you go on one of your usual victim playing trips -

My point stands: A strong atheist or a strong theist have certainties that a seeker (such as the OP) typically doesn't have. So there is a real problem in how and whether the seeker can communicate with someone who operates out of certainty about God, in a way that would be meaningful for the seeker.
If the OP or I would know how to do this, this thread wouldn't be necessary.

 

[jayleew]

I have a better question. Do I really care that atheists are not worthy of having miracles revealed to them?

In other words, atheists are not worth miracles because they don't believe? Why does it take belief to have miracles revealed? Is it because of the belief that miracles are perceived as revealed? By this definition that makes a "Saint" a sinner and a sinner a "Saint" (if the sinner believes and not the Saint). That is unjust.

 

[jayleew]

I'm not that well versed in the scriptures but I didn't know or read anything like that that you say they tell you.

Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condem others for not believing?

I asked you to provide an answer, I'm not re reading the bible just to see where it says what you say it says is located. Again I ask for you to support your claims and post where it says that. thank you.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

This is one of a many.

 

[jayleew]

Simple and plain, atheism is inherently wrong.

Why?

 

[Balerion]

Cue Balerion's hasty (and cowardly) evasion of the topic.

Typical.

I didn't evade anything. I asked you a question and you bailed because you didn't have a good answer. Saying "I might be wrong about that" is apparently not in your vocabulary.

And before you go on one of your usual victim playing trips -

Are you typing this in front of a mirror? I mean, talk about delusional.

My point stands: A strong atheist or a strong theist have certainties that a seeker (such as the OP) typically doesn't have. So there is a real problem in how and whether the seeker can communicate with someone who operates out of certainty about God, in a way that would be meaningful for the seeker.
If the OP or I would know how to do this, this thread wouldn't be necessary.

This is just more of your evasive BS. It's complete nonsense. There doesn't have to be agreement for the exchange of ideas to be meaningful. And you know this; the reason you refused to answer is because you couldn't without sounding wrong. I exposed the flaw in your position, and you don't know how to deal with it. Hence, shifting blame to me through some ridiculous non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with certainties (and I'm no strong atheist, so you're lying through your teeth about that, as well) it has to do with your faulty logic, which I exposed and asked you to account for. You balked. For once in your life, own up to it.

 

[kx000]

Why?

Well, your right and there is no God, bummer. Or really, you are wrong, faith yes.

 

[wynn]

I didn't evade anything. I asked you a question and you bailed because you didn't have a good answer. Saying "I might be wrong about that" is apparently not in your vocabulary.




Are you typing this in front of a mirror? I mean, talk about delusional.



This is just more of your evasive BS. It's complete nonsense. There doesn't have to be agreement for the exchange of ideas to be meaningful. And you know this; the reason you refused to answer is because you couldn't without sounding wrong. I exposed the flaw in your position, and you don't know how to deal with it. Hence, shifting blame to me through some ridiculous non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with certainties (and I'm no strong atheist, so you're lying through your teeth about that, as well) it has to do with your faulty logic, which I exposed and asked you to account for. You balked. For once in your life, own up to it.

Clearly, you don't need me for this conversation. You readily enough play both parts.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Clearly, you don't need me for this conversation. You readily enough play both parts.

:shrug:

You say I'm wrong, but you won't clarify, so I'm left with assumptions based on your actions.

As always, feel free to point out my error. Until then, don't whine when opinions of your position are based on the words you've actually offered.

And just so we're clear, here's a refresher:

Of course, performance and accomplishment can be difficult to measure in a meaningful and objective way.

...is a false statement. The trouble with measuring self-esteem as it relates to success is always in the measurement of self-esteem itself, as it is necessarily self-reported. Success can be measured by grades, by salary, or by any other kind of objective criteria you wish.

But I think we can all agree that a certain measure of self-assurance, self-confidence, self-esteem of however we wish to call it, is necessary to have interactions with other people that the person themselves experiences as meaningful and successful.

...is a uselessly vague statement. Not only that, but it assumes that self-esteem is required for anyone to come away from an interaction feeling that it was either meaningful (a subjective and opaque qualifier) or successful (another subjective and opaque qualifier). It's a statement that isn't even a statement, in that its claims are entirely unclear. What is meant by success? Meaningful?

I'm sure that one needs to be sure of oneself in order to be "sure of the evidence."
I don't think one can grasp the truth without also having enough ego and confidence.

...is circular, because it is a factual statement. In other words, this very statement makes claims of the truth despite that claim being "One can't know the truth without ego and confidence." This would not be a problem if you had not earlier said that you lack such ego and confidence.

It's no mystery that there is a positive correlation between self-esteem and achievement (in various areas, from academic, sports, to work).

...is a conclusion, even though you claim you cannot even make such conclusions without having some form of ego and self-esteem.

 

[Jan Ardena]

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

This is one of a many.

Why do you regard ''rejection'' as ''wrath''?


Would you regard ''Whoever revises for his exam will be qualified, but whoever rejects revision will not be qualified'', as some kind of wrath?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Why do you regard ''rejection'' as ''wrath''?


Would you regard ''Whoever revises for his exam will be qualified, but whoever rejects revision will not be qualified'', as some kind of wrath?

jan.

Your reading comprehension has failed you again. The rejection in the verse is done by the person; the wrath is done by God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your reading comprehension has failed you again. The rejection in the verse is done by the person; the wrath is done by God.

So you and jaylew say, but where does it say that?

Here is a verse from the same chapter....

''He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.''

...which kind of validates my point.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

So you and jaylew say, but where does it say that?

Um, it says it in the verse. To repeat:

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.​

What can't you understand about that? The wrath is God's reaction to unbelief, not the unbelief itself. Is English your second language? I can't fathom how you've gotten this so wrong.

Here is a verse from the same chapter....

''He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.''

It's the same verse, genius. The version you quote is from the King James Bible, whereas the first is from the NIV.

...which kind of validates my point.

jan.

How? I'm pretty sure even you don't know what you're talking about at this point.

 

[kx000]

To sit there and not faith, or sit there and faith other than God is folly. We all have a faith in our processor hitting time and time again. Can you sense a faith to say you believe other than God? You certainly do faith, can you identify one?

I can tell you no one believes in conflicting ideas, the universal nature of belief.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Um, it says it in the verse. To repeat:

1.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.​

2. What can't you understand about that? The wrath is God's reaction to unbelief, not the unbelief itself. Is English your second language? I can't fathom how you've gotten this so wrong.


3. It's the same verse, genius. The version you quote is from the King James Bible, whereas the first is from the NIV.


4. How? I'm pretty sure even you don't know what you're talking about at this point.

1. Jaylews question was a response to ''Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condemn others for not believing?''.
Explain how this is a ''condemnation for not believing?
This verse clearly shows that the person has already condemned their own self by not believing.

2. Nothing indicates that.
If he rejects the son, (or consciously makes the effort to NOT believe), then he is choosing his activity which must transgress righteousness and the result is God's wrath.

3. Erm... no it isn't Einstein, it's verse John 3:18.

4. I nailed it firstly by quoting John 3:18, and then in this post by schooling you on the notion that there are other ways to look at the Bible instead of the lying cheating way you choose to.

jan.

 

[wynn]

1. Jaylews question was a response to ''Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condemn others for not believing?''.
Explain how this is a ''condemnation for not believing?
This verse clearly shows that the person has already condemned their own self by not believing.

And the only proper way to respond to a bully is to comply with his demands, riiight.

If Timmy had given Johnny his lunch money, as Johnny demanded, then Johnny would not have to beat up Timmy. But because Timmy refused, poor Johnny had no choice but to beat up nasty nasty Timmy.

2. Nothing indicates that.
If he rejects the son, (or consciously makes the effort to NOT believe), then he is choosing his activity which must transgress righteousness and the result is God's wrath.

3. Erm... no it isn't Einstein, it's verse John 3:18.

4. I nailed it firstly by quoting John 3:18, and then in this post by schooling you on the notion that there are other ways to look at the Bible instead of the lying cheating way you choose to.

You like the Bible, don't you? Its mood appeals to you, doesn't it?