Posts by Jacob Cooper5

hollowpuma762 said:You’re literally calling out "black-and-white" reasoning in how people interpret things while doing the exact same thing yourself.

Look, it all depends on how you apply that binary logic and what the situation is—if I’m staring down two choices, I’m obviously going with the one that actually makes sense to me.
The whole black-and-white thing? That's just the default setting we use to filter whether we accept information or toss it out.

A lot of priests are notorious for just shutting down new info—it’s pure laziness, honestly—so they end up narrowing their own worldview by sticking to this rigid, binary mindset where they only acknowledge what they want to see.
If I'm looking for it, it's "white"... if I'm not looking, it's "black." Simple as that...

Thomas Nelson25 said:Maybe it's about freeing yourself from the mundane stuff, or at least having the free will to think about it...
Basically, finding balance.

Standard psychology doesn't really touch that... maybe transpersonal psych does, slightly.

Just prove that these "supernatural" quirks aren't actually nothing more than your own life failures and a desperate attempt to run away from them.

Priests have basically hijacked the concept of the ego, stripping away everything useful and turning it into this purely negative symbol. Seriously, if you bring up the word "ego" to any Priest, they immediately translate it as something inherently sinful or broken.
It’s just like when someone refuses to see anything but the flaws in another person—that classic, reductive Black and White world mentality.

In actual psychology, there's a much more nuanced and logical way to understand the ego, which is a far cry from the mindless chanting you hear in spiritual circles.
The ego is simply self-awareness. It's that internal third-person perspective on your own existence... your identity.
If you want to be able to judge what's right or wrong in your life, you first need a sense of who you actually are. That’s the ego—it's your perception of your own traits..
As an individual navigating the world, you build your beliefs about yourself and your capabilities through constant interaction with your environment. Your ego is essentially forged by the intersection of your circumstances and how you react to them.

So, when some Priest starts preaching about "liberating yourself from the ego," they either have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, or it's just a clever tactic to empty out your head... making room so they can fill it up with whatever their own minds decide you should believe.

Melissa Kern said:Quincy:

Faith will only die out when we achieve absolute, undeniable knowledge—which is basically never.

I don't think faith is going anywhere, but I don't think it's because we'll eventually know everything. It’s more about human stubbornness. Just look at 2018—you still have people convinced the Earth is flat, even though the Greeks figured out the truth over 2,500 years ago. You can't argue with someone who refuses to see the obvious.

Quincy:

We just have to fill the gaps somehow... God?

Exactly. The idea that there’s nothing but eternal emptiness waiting for us after we die is pretty heavy, and most people aren't equipped to handle it. I’ve seen plenty of instances where a family loses someone to suicide, and suddenly everyone else becomes a hardcore believer overnight. For some people, trying to wrap their heads around the actual purpose of life causes a total short circuit in the brain.

You've got a point there. But if we follow your logic—that science eventually cracks the code on everything—religion would probably just shrink into these tiny little fringe groups instead of being the mainstream force it is now.

Melissa Kern said:Quincy:

Faith will only die out when we achieve absolute, undeniable knowledge—which is basically never.

I don't think faith is going anywhere, but I don't think it's because we'll eventually know everything. It’s more about human stubbornness. Just look at 2018—you still have people convinced the Earth is flat, even though the Greeks figured out the truth over 2,500 years ago. You can't argue with someone who refuses to see the obvious.

Quincy:

We just have to fill the gaps somehow... God?

Exactly. The idea that there’s nothing but eternal emptiness waiting for us after we die is pretty heavy, and most people aren't equipped to handle it. I’ve seen plenty of instances where a family loses someone to suicide, and suddenly everyone else becomes a hardcore believer overnight. For some people, trying to wrap their heads around the actual purpose of life causes a total short circuit in the brain.

True, but what if that "short circuit" actually ends up doing some good for the person, despite how messed up the circumstances are?
I mean, are there really enough cases where grieving parents take the loss of a child and, fueled by faith in a good God, go out and change laws or start massive charitable foundations to help other kids?

mistybison said:In that case, we really have nothing to worry about. 🙂

If the human race continues to evolve toward being "free from irrationality," questions like these will simply become obsolete. 🙂

For crying out loud—instead of actually stepping up to face that argument, you’re just folding this easily? Seriously?...

mistybison said:In that case, we really have nothing to worry about. 🙂

If the human race continues to evolve toward being "free from irrationality," questions like these will simply become obsolete. 🙂

Of course it won't. It’s basic physics—the faster you push it, the more resistance you're fighting against... simple as that.
The evolution of our intelligence works exactly like biological evolution—it’s all about adapting to the environment around us. Honestly, I think faith will only cease to exist once we achieve absolute, perfect knowledge... which, let's face it, is never going to happen. We just have this innate, desperate need to fill in the gaps in what we don't understand... God?

mistybison said:I am honestly unsure what the official psychiatric stance is. My impression comes solely from watching news segments and reading articles featuring interviews with psychiatrists.

Belief in God—something that transcends us—isn't an inherent trait for everyone. Some people simply cannot believe, while for others, it feels entirely natural and spontaneous. I think this is the core reason for the friction between atheists and theists; they struggle to understand one another because, in many ways, they inhabit different worlds. 🙂

Are you suggesting that shooting blanks actually serves a purpose?

It is futile to attempt to comprehend things that exceed our current cognitive capacity. However, I believe we should remain open to the idea that everything does not begin and end with us or our own minds. Furthermore, humanity might evolve over the coming millennia, potentially becoming capable of grasping insights that currently elude us...

I’m curious—which specific psychiatrists gave you that impression? Just by the way you talk, I’m getting the feeling you might be from somewhere in the Midwest or maybe deep in the rural South. From what I’ve observed while following certain parts of America, there are still pockets of the country that haven't quite shaken off that desperate, reactionary mentality from the 90s. You know the type—where non-profits are viewed as nothing but spies or mercenaries, and the West is blamed for absolutely everything an American insider reports...
If you're stuck in that kind of mindset, then I can totally see why you'd have that view of "psychiatry."
But if you've managed to step outside that tight-knit, narrow-minded circle, then I really don't get your take on psychiatry, because the actual data tells a completely different story.

mistybison said:I am honestly unsure what the official psychiatric stance is. My impression comes solely from watching news segments and reading articles featuring interviews with psychiatrists.

Belief in God—something that transcends us—isn't an inherent trait for everyone. Some people simply cannot believe, while for others, it feels entirely natural and spontaneous. I think this is the core reason for the friction between atheists and theists; they struggle to understand one another because, in many ways, they inhabit different worlds. 🙂

Are you suggesting that shooting blanks actually serves a purpose?

It is futile to attempt to comprehend things that exceed our current cognitive capacity. However, I believe we should remain open to the idea that everything does not begin and end with us or our own minds. Furthermore, humanity might evolve over the coming millennia, potentially becoming capable of grasping insights that currently elude us...

Honestly, given the irrational nature of our species, there’s actually a higher statistical probability that people would believe in old man George than not. But human evolution eventually swapped out the worship of George for farming and cattle ranching, which helped us survive so effectively that now, if you actually care about your own interests, you've got much smarter things to do with your time...

mistybison said:I am honestly unsure what the official psychiatric stance is. My impression comes solely from watching news segments and reading articles featuring interviews with psychiatrists.

Belief in God—something that transcends us—isn't an inherent trait for everyone. Some people simply cannot believe, while for others, it feels entirely natural and spontaneous. I think this is the core reason for the friction between atheists and theists; they struggle to understand one another because, in many ways, they inhabit different worlds. 🙂

Are you suggesting that shooting blanks actually serves a purpose?

It is futile to attempt to comprehend things that exceed our current cognitive capacity. However, I believe we should remain open to the idea that everything does not begin and end with us or our own minds. Furthermore, humanity might evolve over the coming millennia, potentially becoming capable of grasping insights that currently elude us...

Yeah, well, it seems we have very different definitions of "openness." Personally, I'm open to knowledge. Even though I know the truth can sting sometimes, facts are facts and I don't really have a choice in the matter.
Your perspective is different. You're essentially supporting claims and stances that nobody can actually prove, all based on a lack of information, and you call that being open?
That isn't openness.

mistybison said:It seems many psychiatrists would agree that believing in God, an afterlife, or reincarnation is actually beneficial rather than harmful. People generally feel much better when they believe their existence carries purpose.🙂

Human perception is quite limited. We are only capable of understanding what we can sense through our physical senses and process with our logic. That doesn't mean those things represent the entirety of reality.🙂

I wouldn't go so far as to call that a definitive psychiatric consensus—you can't just lump everything into one bucket like that. Sure, there might be cases where that kind of faith doesn't mess with anyone's life, but more often than not... well, it tends to lean toward being harmful.

mistybison said:It seems many psychiatrists would agree that believing in God, an afterlife, or reincarnation is actually beneficial rather than harmful. People generally feel much better when they believe their existence carries purpose.🙂

Human perception is quite limited. We are only capable of understanding what we can sense through our physical senses and process with our logic. That doesn't mean those things represent the entirety of reality.🙂

So, what you're saying is that shooting into the void actually serves a purpose?

mistybison said:Even if an afterlife exists, it wouldn't be "me," because my identity is tied to my body—my thoughts, feelings, and memories. When the body dies, the version of "me" I know today dies with it. What remains, if anything, isn't "me," but rather a soul or a spark of life. That is my perspective.

Believing that one's individual self continues after death can certainly be helpful, though it isn't a necessity. For instance, some people are deeply terrified of going to Hell.

Quincy:

When I die, everything will be erased. It will be as if I never existed at all.

It doesn't have to be that way. You don't need to think in a straight line. Perhaps every single moment exists eternally somewhere outside of space and time. 🙂 Everything you have ever experienced, seen, felt, or thought remains part of you forever. 🙂 One can certainly view existence through that lens.

Quincy:

Even if that's true, isn't it better to believe in a continuation of life after death?

Why not, if it brings you more happiness? 🙂

True, but plenty of people who believe in an afterlife actually think their "earthly" identity survives in some kind of way. That’s pretty much the whole point of their faith in the hereafter, isn't it?

mistybison said:Even if an afterlife exists, it wouldn't be "me," because my identity is tied to my body—my thoughts, feelings, and memories. When the body dies, the version of "me" I know today dies with it. What remains, if anything, isn't "me," but rather a soul or a spark of life. That is my perspective.

Believing that one's individual self continues after death can certainly be helpful, though it isn't a necessity. For instance, some people are deeply terrified of going to Hell.

Quincy:

When I die, everything will be erased. It will be as if I never existed at all.

It doesn't have to be that way. You don't need to think in a straight line. Perhaps every single moment exists eternally somewhere outside of space and time. 🙂 Everything you have ever experienced, seen, felt, or thought remains part of you forever. 🙂 One can certainly view existence through that lens.

Quincy:

Even if that's true, isn't it better to believe in a continuation of life after death?

Why not, if it brings you more happiness? 🙂

Yeah, Hell is a pretty destructive perspective to hold.
What really interests me is why we judge those Believers who don't actually buy into the idea of Hell.
The real question is: is Faith itself harmful to a person? Is having a rock-solid conviction in something unproven inherently damaging?
Some Atheists in public debates argue that it is, but I'm not entirely sold on their logic.
To me, it feels hypocritical—maybe even absurd—to act like some ultimate arbiter of reason, judging irrationality just because it isn't "rational."
After all, we're the only biological species on this planet that is essentially hardwired for irrationality simply because of our level of intelligence.

mistybison said:Even if an afterlife exists, it wouldn't be "me," because my identity is tied to my body—my thoughts, feelings, and memories. When the body dies, the version of "me" I know today dies with it. What remains, if anything, isn't "me," but rather a soul or a spark of life. That is my perspective.

Believing that one's individual self continues after death can certainly be helpful, though it isn't a necessity. For instance, some people are deeply terrified of going to Hell.

Quincy:

When I die, everything will be erased. It will be as if I never existed at all.

It doesn't have to be that way. You don't need to think in a straight line. Perhaps every single moment exists eternally somewhere outside of space and time. 🙂 Everything you have ever experienced, seen, felt, or thought remains part of you forever. 🙂 One can certainly view existence through that lens.

Quincy:

Even if that's true, isn't it better to believe in a continuation of life after death?

Why not, if it brings you more happiness? 🙂

That's exactly what I'm getting at. There are people whose Faith in an afterlife doesn't necessarily lead to harmful consequences for society. It doesn't demand any specific behavior from the Believer. It doesn't ask for anything.

mistybison said:Even if an afterlife exists, it wouldn't be "me," because my identity is tied to my body—my thoughts, feelings, and memories. When the body dies, the version of "me" I know today dies with it. What remains, if anything, isn't "me," but rather a soul or a spark of life. That is my perspective.

Believing that one's individual self continues after death can certainly be helpful, though it isn't a necessity. For instance, some people are deeply terrified of going to Hell.

Quincy:

When I die, everything will be erased. It will be as if I never existed at all.

It doesn't have to be that way. You don't need to think in a straight line. Perhaps every single moment exists eternally somewhere outside of space and time. 🙂 Everything you have ever experienced, seen, felt, or thought remains part of you forever. 🙂 One can certainly view existence through that lens.

Quincy:

Even if that's true, isn't it better to believe in a continuation of life after death?

Why not, if it brings you more happiness? 🙂

Exactly. I really believe there’s this harmless kind of escapism that just... enriches us. It comes in so many different flavors. It doesn't have to be some grand idea about an afterlife, either. Think about a movie that completely pulls you into its universe—that’s just another way fiction bleeds into our real emotional lives and changes how we feel.

Amanda Flores88 said:I get where you're coming from—partially, anyway. Though, when you're trying to explain life, it's a bit hard for me to swallow the idea that these concepts—even if they're just mental constructs—are somehow separate from nature itself. We *are* nature. Our thoughts can be seen as nature interacting with nature. It's kind of wild how nature seems to have so many issues with itself, right? 😁

...But I think there are patterns you can recognize regarding human behavior. I feel like we have way more in common than we do differences—so, basically, the better you know yourself, the better you understand everyone else.

And that’s true. Madison Avenue knows that better than anyone.

Maybe we can look at it like training a dog to shake hands.
What we see is someone interacting with a pet. What the dog "sees" is just a specific set of circumstances demanding a specific reaction. The dog has mechanically identified certain triggers that lead to the expected paw lift. To us, it looks like social interaction because we assign symbolic value to it, but really, it's just pure mechanics. A dog doesn't lift its paw because of "friendship," right!?
It's the exact same deal with our concepts versus nature. We're just lifting our paws based on triggers.
Is that a sign of friendship or true understanding? Who's to say?
Who can actually tell if there's some higher purpose behind what we do (like the owner's intent), or if it's all just mindless mechanics and triggers?

Amanda Flores88 said:I get where you're coming from—partially, anyway. Though, when you're trying to explain life, it's a bit hard for me to swallow the idea that these concepts—even if they're just mental constructs—are somehow separate from nature itself. We *are* nature. Our thoughts can be seen as nature interacting with nature. It's kind of wild how nature seems to have so many issues with itself, right? 😁

...But I think there are patterns you can recognize regarding human behavior. I feel like we have way more in common than we do differences—so, basically, the better you know yourself, the better you understand everyone else.

And that’s true. Madison Avenue knows that better than anyone.

Solid example.

Amanda Flores88 said:If you look at justice as following the rules, you could argue that nature is actually very fair because of how strict it is. Or if you see justice as balance, there's nothing unnatural about that either. The drive toward fairness isn't any less "feeling" than the pull of our other biological settings. Honestly, we should probably just lean into that feeling.

But regardless of anyone's personal version of truth, when we're talking about the nature element, nothing human can exist or belong solely to us without belonging to nature and its order—that includes justice. Anything incompatible with the nature element is impossible. Our problem is having these contradictory impulses pulling us in different directions.

I don't see a problem with being irrational. I think irrationality actually enriches our lives. That's the whole advantage of intelligence—it gives us room to be creative and actually enjoy things.
But we need to recognize what belongs where. Know when you're playing the game and just go with it, and know when you're not and stay critical.

I think I should separate logic from irrationality from emotion—they don't necessarily have to be linked. Simply put, a person can be brilliant or an idiot regardless of how sensitive they are. But in conversation, people always act like emotions are the opposite of reason, which just isn't right.

Of course emotions enrich life; sensitivity is a quality all its own. It has its own scale, and we're pretty good at spotting who is actually intelligent on that emotional spectrum and who isn't.

I don't see the issue here...

My point is that through investigation, I can figure out what's worth doing, what's questionable, and what's best to avoid. Anyone can do that if they care enough.

Sure, you're the expert on how long it took you to find the right way.

It’s also pretty common—though just as tough—to finally solve something right when you're about to give up on it. 😁

I don't see "justice" as being relevant outside of the human mind. It's a concept created by people to help us adapt to Nature. "Justice" is just a mental construct we cooked up so we don't accidentally wipe ourselves out while trying to survive in the wild. It has zero connection to Nature itself, and frankly, that's where the whole "Believer" problem starts. We humans have adopted these concepts because they work for us, and then we try to force them onto the rest of the planet—on Nature—simply because it's the only framework we know how to use. When those personal little delusions clash with reality, you get the kind of mess that people try to fix with Religion.

Darwin once remarked that he couldn't believe Nature could be quite so cruel. To me, that sentence perfectly captures the human inability to face a reality that exists entirely outside our own little bubble...

Amanda Flores88 said:If you look at justice as following the rules, you could argue that nature is actually very fair because of how strict it is. Or if you see justice as balance, there's nothing unnatural about that either. The drive toward fairness isn't any less "feeling" than the pull of our other biological settings. Honestly, we should probably just lean into that feeling.

But regardless of anyone's personal version of truth, when we're talking about the nature element, nothing human can exist or belong solely to us without belonging to nature and its order—that includes justice. Anything incompatible with the nature element is impossible. Our problem is having these contradictory impulses pulling us in different directions.

I don't see a problem with being irrational. I think irrationality actually enriches our lives. That's the whole advantage of intelligence—it gives us room to be creative and actually enjoy things.
But we need to recognize what belongs where. Know when you're playing the game and just go with it, and know when you're not and stay critical.

I think I should separate logic from irrationality from emotion—they don't necessarily have to be linked. Simply put, a person can be brilliant or an idiot regardless of how sensitive they are. But in conversation, people always act like emotions are the opposite of reason, which just isn't right.

Of course emotions enrich life; sensitivity is a quality all its own. It has its own scale, and we're pretty good at spotting who is actually intelligent on that emotional spectrum and who isn't.

I don't see the issue here...

My point is that through investigation, I can figure out what's worth doing, what's questionable, and what's best to avoid. Anyone can do that if they care enough.

Sure, you're the expert on how long it took you to find the right way.

It’s also pretty common—though just as tough—to finally solve something right when you're about to give up on it. 😁

Personally? I think our species is fundamentally incompatible with Nature, and honestly, we don't stand a chance at surviving long-term.

Amanda Flores88 said:If you look at justice as following the rules, you could argue that nature is actually very fair because of how strict it is. Or if you see justice as balance, there's nothing unnatural about that either. The drive toward fairness isn't any less "feeling" than the pull of our other biological settings. Honestly, we should probably just lean into that feeling.

But regardless of anyone's personal version of truth, when we're talking about the nature element, nothing human can exist or belong solely to us without belonging to nature and its order—that includes justice. Anything incompatible with the nature element is impossible. Our problem is having these contradictory impulses pulling us in different directions.

I don't see a problem with being irrational. I think irrationality actually enriches our lives. That's the whole advantage of intelligence—it gives us room to be creative and actually enjoy things.
But we need to recognize what belongs where. Know when you're playing the game and just go with it, and know when you're not and stay critical.

I think I should separate logic from irrationality from emotion—they don't necessarily have to be linked. Simply put, a person can be brilliant or an idiot regardless of how sensitive they are. But in conversation, people always act like emotions are the opposite of reason, which just isn't right.

Of course emotions enrich life; sensitivity is a quality all its own. It has its own scale, and we're pretty good at spotting who is actually intelligent on that emotional spectrum and who isn't.

I don't see the issue here...

My point is that through investigation, I can figure out what's worth doing, what's questionable, and what's best to avoid. Anyone can do that if they care enough.

Sure, you're the expert on how long it took you to find the right way.

It’s also pretty common—though just as tough—to finally solve something right when you're about to give up on it. 😁

Yeah, that's exactly why a genius can still be a complete moron. It's why you see these cases where scientists undergo some kind of brain trauma or chemical shift and suddenly turn into hardcore Believers...

Amanda Flores88 said:If you look at justice as following the rules, you could argue that nature is actually very fair because of how strict it is. Or if you see justice as balance, there's nothing unnatural about that either. The drive toward fairness isn't any less "feeling" than the pull of our other biological settings. Honestly, we should probably just lean into that feeling.

But regardless of anyone's personal version of truth, when we're talking about the nature element, nothing human can exist or belong solely to us without belonging to nature and its order—that includes justice. Anything incompatible with the nature element is impossible. Our problem is having these contradictory impulses pulling us in different directions.

I don't see a problem with being irrational. I think irrationality actually enriches our lives. That's the whole advantage of intelligence—it gives us room to be creative and actually enjoy things.
But we need to recognize what belongs where. Know when you're playing the game and just go with it, and know when you're not and stay critical.

I think I should separate logic from irrationality from emotion—they don't necessarily have to be linked. Simply put, a person can be brilliant or an idiot regardless of how sensitive they are. But in conversation, people always act like emotions are the opposite of reason, which just isn't right.

Of course emotions enrich life; sensitivity is a quality all its own. It has its own scale, and we're pretty good at spotting who is actually intelligent on that emotional spectrum and who isn't.

I don't see the issue here...

My point is that through investigation, I can figure out what's worth doing, what's questionable, and what's best to avoid. Anyone can do that if they care enough.

Sure, you're the expert on how long it took you to find the right way.

It’s also pretty common—though just as tough—to finally solve something right when you're about to give up on it. 😁

I just wish it were more clearly defined, you know? Like, undeniably obvious.

Amanda Flores88 said:If you look at justice as following the rules, you could argue that nature is actually very fair because of how strict it is. Or if you see justice as balance, there's nothing unnatural about that either. The drive toward fairness isn't any less "feeling" than the pull of our other biological settings. Honestly, we should probably just lean into that feeling.

But regardless of anyone's personal version of truth, when we're talking about the nature element, nothing human can exist or belong solely to us without belonging to nature and its order—that includes justice. Anything incompatible with the nature element is impossible. Our problem is having these contradictory impulses pulling us in different directions.

I don't see a problem with being irrational. I think irrationality actually enriches our lives. That's the whole advantage of intelligence—it gives us room to be creative and actually enjoy things.
But we need to recognize what belongs where. Know when you're playing the game and just go with it, and know when you're not and stay critical.

I think I should separate logic from irrationality from emotion—they don't necessarily have to be linked. Simply put, a person can be brilliant or an idiot regardless of how sensitive they are. But in conversation, people always act like emotions are the opposite of reason, which just isn't right.

Of course emotions enrich life; sensitivity is a quality all its own. It has its own scale, and we're pretty good at spotting who is actually intelligent on that emotional spectrum and who isn't.

I don't see the issue here...

My point is that through investigation, I can figure out what's worth doing, what's questionable, and what's best to avoid. Anyone can do that if they care enough.

Sure, you're the expert on how long it took you to find the right way.

It’s also pretty common—though just as tough—to finally solve something right when you're about to give up on it. 😁

Look, I don't think there’s ever a single moment where everything is suddenly "solved" and you just possess these universal truths that work forever. But I do think you can recognize certain patterns—basic human behavioral matrices, if you will. Personally, I feel like we all have way more in common than we do differences... and based on that, the better you understand yourself, the better you can read everyone else.

Amanda Flores88 said:And that’s exactly the kind of world we live in. Because of that, God undergoes this transformation from a vengeful monster into this breathtaking grace, hoping to create a world that might be hard to wrap our heads around, but is definitely more pleasant.

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles they were taught. To them, nothing exists outside the boundaries of their social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe... it's all viewed through the prism of social relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around humans.
From that perspective, it's tough to accept the reality that we're really just tiny cogs in a massive machine that doesn't play favorites. Not just tough—unthinkable.
If you get that perspective, you can see how unrealistic it is to expect that worldview to ever change. So, it makes sense that people look for answers and control in anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel helpless. Humans try to solve human problems with human logic.

Yeah, and I'd add that part of the reason is because patterns *do* exist—we notice order. It's not like nature and society are just chaotic flies buzzing around aimlessly. Nature is actually quite intricate and orderly in many ways. We look for our place within that order, so it feels like our own lives should have some sort of logic or rhythm too. If the Sun has an obligation to rise in the east and set in the west every single day without fail, how is it possible that my life is just a disorganized mess?

My point was that this is precisely why faith is so powerful.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Information only becomes "untrue" in practice when you're faced with a piece of information that contradicts what you believe to be true.
We can talk about cases where something is scientifically proven to be false. But those who haven't accessed that info, or for whom that info isn't "true" enough, don't feel like they're focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruth" intentionally because calling something a "lie" implies an intent to deceive, which isn't always the case.

I was also trying to emphasize that this is an imaginative construct born out of a need for balance rather than a desire to mislead—but that kind of thing can only exist in spaces where we know nothing.

Sure, even believers might find God's will unpredictable sometimes, but that still doesn't mean He isn't there or that there isn't something like Him. Maybe the rules are just beyond our reach, but that's not because He's flawed; it's because humans are flawed—we're imperfect, undeveloped, messy... and honestly, that's easier to swallow than the total uncertainty of existence.

We’re never gonna scrub the irrational side out of being human—two big reasons why:
1. Logic starts acting irrational the second it’s used to confirm what we already believe. I mean, how many of us actually care about learning something new?
2. Being rational doesn't mean you'll actually change your mind. If staying irrational serves you better, you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It just depends on the situation.

So, yeah, sounds like a glitch in the system, right? Honestly, I don't get it—why waste resources maintaining a mechanism that seems like a total fail? It’s gotta serve some purpose, though. Just venting here, but the constant push to prioritize "logic" over "emotion"—or intellect over feelings—really gets under my skin. I swear, I haven't met a single person who actually thinks they’re being irrational. It’s always everyone else, right? Everyone else is the one being dumb and unreasonable.
Have you noticed the world would be way better if everything worked exactly your way? Because I have—pretty sure it’d be perfect if it were custom-made for me.

Back to your quote, though—learning isn't that straightforward either. There's often no consensus in fields that aren't tied to imagination or religion, and that’s the kicker. There isn't just one way or one answer, and we usually don't realize where we messed up until we see the fallout in real life. Maybe we should've done things differently...

Yeah, that’s just the reality of it. The more secure our existence becomes, the fewer enemies God feels the need to wipe out...

Amanda Flores88 said:And that’s exactly the kind of world we live in. Because of that, God undergoes this transformation from a vengeful monster into this breathtaking grace, hoping to create a world that might be hard to wrap our heads around, but is definitely more pleasant.

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles they were taught. To them, nothing exists outside the boundaries of their social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe... it's all viewed through the prism of social relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around humans.
From that perspective, it's tough to accept the reality that we're really just tiny cogs in a massive machine that doesn't play favorites. Not just tough—unthinkable.
If you get that perspective, you can see how unrealistic it is to expect that worldview to ever change. So, it makes sense that people look for answers and control in anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel helpless. Humans try to solve human problems with human logic.

Yeah, and I'd add that part of the reason is because patterns *do* exist—we notice order. It's not like nature and society are just chaotic flies buzzing around aimlessly. Nature is actually quite intricate and orderly in many ways. We look for our place within that order, so it feels like our own lives should have some sort of logic or rhythm too. If the Sun has an obligation to rise in the east and set in the west every single day without fail, how is it possible that my life is just a disorganized mess?

My point was that this is precisely why faith is so powerful.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Information only becomes "untrue" in practice when you're faced with a piece of information that contradicts what you believe to be true.
We can talk about cases where something is scientifically proven to be false. But those who haven't accessed that info, or for whom that info isn't "true" enough, don't feel like they're focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruth" intentionally because calling something a "lie" implies an intent to deceive, which isn't always the case.

I was also trying to emphasize that this is an imaginative construct born out of a need for balance rather than a desire to mislead—but that kind of thing can only exist in spaces where we know nothing.

Sure, even believers might find God's will unpredictable sometimes, but that still doesn't mean He isn't there or that there isn't something like Him. Maybe the rules are just beyond our reach, but that's not because He's flawed; it's because humans are flawed—we're imperfect, undeveloped, messy... and honestly, that's easier to swallow than the total uncertainty of existence.

We’re never gonna scrub the irrational side out of being human—two big reasons why:
1. Logic starts acting irrational the second it’s used to confirm what we already believe. I mean, how many of us actually care about learning something new?
2. Being rational doesn't mean you'll actually change your mind. If staying irrational serves you better, you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It just depends on the situation.

So, yeah, sounds like a glitch in the system, right? Honestly, I don't get it—why waste resources maintaining a mechanism that seems like a total fail? It’s gotta serve some purpose, though. Just venting here, but the constant push to prioritize "logic" over "emotion"—or intellect over feelings—really gets under my skin. I swear, I haven't met a single person who actually thinks they’re being irrational. It’s always everyone else, right? Everyone else is the one being dumb and unreasonable.
Have you noticed the world would be way better if everything worked exactly your way? Because I have—pretty sure it’d be perfect if it were custom-made for me.

Back to your quote, though—learning isn't that straightforward either. There's often no consensus in fields that aren't tied to imagination or religion, and that’s the kicker. There isn't just one way or one answer, and we usually don't realize where we messed up until we see the fallout in real life. Maybe we should've done things differently...

Look, the laws of nature exist. The problem is they don't have a "sense" of justice. They don't give a damn about empathy, love, pleasure, suffering, or death. There is only successful adaptation and failed adaptation. Under the laws of nature, disability is simply what it is—an inability to adapt to the environment. Spending a species' resources on individuals who can't adapt is also, from the perspective of the nature element, something that further threatens the survival of that entire species...

That’s the core issue for so many people—they just can't stomach the fact that the world is fundamentally cold and doesn't care one bit about human feelings or destinies. You could be dying in absolute agony or basking in pure love; to the universe, there is zero difference.
Intelligence itself clearly involves forms of empathy, love, and hatred that just aren't compatible with the raw mechanics of nature. Most people will die clinging to those ideals rather than accepting the actual reality of things.

Amanda Flores88 said:And that’s exactly the kind of world we live in. Because of that, God undergoes this transformation from a vengeful monster into this breathtaking grace, hoping to create a world that might be hard to wrap our heads around, but is definitely more pleasant.

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles they were taught. To them, nothing exists outside the boundaries of their social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe... it's all viewed through the prism of social relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around humans.
From that perspective, it's tough to accept the reality that we're really just tiny cogs in a massive machine that doesn't play favorites. Not just tough—unthinkable.
If you get that perspective, you can see how unrealistic it is to expect that worldview to ever change. So, it makes sense that people look for answers and control in anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel helpless. Humans try to solve human problems with human logic.

Yeah, and I'd add that part of the reason is because patterns *do* exist—we notice order. It's not like nature and society are just chaotic flies buzzing around aimlessly. Nature is actually quite intricate and orderly in many ways. We look for our place within that order, so it feels like our own lives should have some sort of logic or rhythm too. If the Sun has an obligation to rise in the east and set in the west every single day without fail, how is it possible that my life is just a disorganized mess?

My point was that this is precisely why faith is so powerful.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Information only becomes "untrue" in practice when you're faced with a piece of information that contradicts what you believe to be true.
We can talk about cases where something is scientifically proven to be false. But those who haven't accessed that info, or for whom that info isn't "true" enough, don't feel like they're focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruth" intentionally because calling something a "lie" implies an intent to deceive, which isn't always the case.

I was also trying to emphasize that this is an imaginative construct born out of a need for balance rather than a desire to mislead—but that kind of thing can only exist in spaces where we know nothing.

Sure, even believers might find God's will unpredictable sometimes, but that still doesn't mean He isn't there or that there isn't something like Him. Maybe the rules are just beyond our reach, but that's not because He's flawed; it's because humans are flawed—we're imperfect, undeveloped, messy... and honestly, that's easier to swallow than the total uncertainty of existence.

We’re never gonna scrub the irrational side out of being human—two big reasons why:
1. Logic starts acting irrational the second it’s used to confirm what we already believe. I mean, how many of us actually care about learning something new?
2. Being rational doesn't mean you'll actually change your mind. If staying irrational serves you better, you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It just depends on the situation.

So, yeah, sounds like a glitch in the system, right? Honestly, I don't get it—why waste resources maintaining a mechanism that seems like a total fail? It’s gotta serve some purpose, though. Just venting here, but the constant push to prioritize "logic" over "emotion"—or intellect over feelings—really gets under my skin. I swear, I haven't met a single person who actually thinks they’re being irrational. It’s always everyone else, right? Everyone else is the one being dumb and unreasonable.
Have you noticed the world would be way better if everything worked exactly your way? Because I have—pretty sure it’d be perfect if it were custom-made for me.

Back to your quote, though—learning isn't that straightforward either. There's often no consensus in fields that aren't tied to imagination or religion, and that’s the kicker. There isn't just one way or one answer, and we usually don't realize where we messed up until we see the fallout in real life. Maybe we should've done things differently...

I could agree with you, but I don't think this is a matter of lacking knowledge. It’s never been easier to acquire knowledge. You can practically get a PhD using nothing but the internet these days. But the person who actually earns that degree is the one who sees it as a priority in their life...
Motivation is what drives the pursuit of priorities. People who don't see any emotional need to break out of the ideological bubbles they live in don't feel a lack of knowledge, because their daily lives are functioning just fine enough for them.

Amanda Flores88 said:And that’s exactly the kind of world we live in. Because of that, God undergoes this transformation from a vengeful monster into this breathtaking grace, hoping to create a world that might be hard to wrap our heads around, but is definitely more pleasant.

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles they were taught. To them, nothing exists outside the boundaries of their social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe... it's all viewed through the prism of social relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around humans.
From that perspective, it's tough to accept the reality that we're really just tiny cogs in a massive machine that doesn't play favorites. Not just tough—unthinkable.
If you get that perspective, you can see how unrealistic it is to expect that worldview to ever change. So, it makes sense that people look for answers and control in anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel helpless. Humans try to solve human problems with human logic.

Yeah, and I'd add that part of the reason is because patterns *do* exist—we notice order. It's not like nature and society are just chaotic flies buzzing around aimlessly. Nature is actually quite intricate and orderly in many ways. We look for our place within that order, so it feels like our own lives should have some sort of logic or rhythm too. If the Sun has an obligation to rise in the east and set in the west every single day without fail, how is it possible that my life is just a disorganized mess?

My point was that this is precisely why faith is so powerful.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Information only becomes "untrue" in practice when you're faced with a piece of information that contradicts what you believe to be true.
We can talk about cases where something is scientifically proven to be false. But those who haven't accessed that info, or for whom that info isn't "true" enough, don't feel like they're focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruth" intentionally because calling something a "lie" implies an intent to deceive, which isn't always the case.

I was also trying to emphasize that this is an imaginative construct born out of a need for balance rather than a desire to mislead—but that kind of thing can only exist in spaces where we know nothing.

Sure, even believers might find God's will unpredictable sometimes, but that still doesn't mean He isn't there or that there isn't something like Him. Maybe the rules are just beyond our reach, but that's not because He's flawed; it's because humans are flawed—we're imperfect, undeveloped, messy... and honestly, that's easier to swallow than the total uncertainty of existence.

We’re never gonna scrub the irrational side out of being human—two big reasons why:
1. Logic starts acting irrational the second it’s used to confirm what we already believe. I mean, how many of us actually care about learning something new?
2. Being rational doesn't mean you'll actually change your mind. If staying irrational serves you better, you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It just depends on the situation.

So, yeah, sounds like a glitch in the system, right? Honestly, I don't get it—why waste resources maintaining a mechanism that seems like a total fail? It’s gotta serve some purpose, though. Just venting here, but the constant push to prioritize "logic" over "emotion"—or intellect over feelings—really gets under my skin. I swear, I haven't met a single person who actually thinks they’re being irrational. It’s always everyone else, right? Everyone else is the one being dumb and unreasonable.
Have you noticed the world would be way better if everything worked exactly your way? Because I have—pretty sure it’d be perfect if it were custom-made for me.

Back to your quote, though—learning isn't that straightforward either. There's often no consensus in fields that aren't tied to imagination or religion, and that’s the kicker. There isn't just one way or one answer, and we usually don't realize where we messed up until we see the fallout in real life. Maybe we should've done things differently...

You hit the nail on the head there.

Amanda Flores88 said:And that’s exactly the kind of world we live in. Because of that, God undergoes this transformation from a vengeful monster into this breathtaking grace, hoping to create a world that might be hard to wrap our heads around, but is definitely more pleasant.

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles they were taught. To them, nothing exists outside the boundaries of their social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe... it's all viewed through the prism of social relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around humans.
From that perspective, it's tough to accept the reality that we're really just tiny cogs in a massive machine that doesn't play favorites. Not just tough—unthinkable.
If you get that perspective, you can see how unrealistic it is to expect that worldview to ever change. So, it makes sense that people look for answers and control in anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel helpless. Humans try to solve human problems with human logic.

Yeah, and I'd add that part of the reason is because patterns *do* exist—we notice order. It's not like nature and society are just chaotic flies buzzing around aimlessly. Nature is actually quite intricate and orderly in many ways. We look for our place within that order, so it feels like our own lives should have some sort of logic or rhythm too. If the Sun has an obligation to rise in the east and set in the west every single day without fail, how is it possible that my life is just a disorganized mess?

My point was that this is precisely why faith is so powerful.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Information only becomes "untrue" in practice when you're faced with a piece of information that contradicts what you believe to be true.
We can talk about cases where something is scientifically proven to be false. But those who haven't accessed that info, or for whom that info isn't "true" enough, don't feel like they're focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruth" intentionally because calling something a "lie" implies an intent to deceive, which isn't always the case.

I was also trying to emphasize that this is an imaginative construct born out of a need for balance rather than a desire to mislead—but that kind of thing can only exist in spaces where we know nothing.

Sure, even believers might find God's will unpredictable sometimes, but that still doesn't mean He isn't there or that there isn't something like Him. Maybe the rules are just beyond our reach, but that's not because He's flawed; it's because humans are flawed—we're imperfect, undeveloped, messy... and honestly, that's easier to swallow than the total uncertainty of existence.

We’re never gonna scrub the irrational side out of being human—two big reasons why:
1. Logic starts acting irrational the second it’s used to confirm what we already believe. I mean, how many of us actually care about learning something new?
2. Being rational doesn't mean you'll actually change your mind. If staying irrational serves you better, you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It just depends on the situation.

So, yeah, sounds like a glitch in the system, right? Honestly, I don't get it—why waste resources maintaining a mechanism that seems like a total fail? It’s gotta serve some purpose, though. Just venting here, but the constant push to prioritize "logic" over "emotion"—or intellect over feelings—really gets under my skin. I swear, I haven't met a single person who actually thinks they’re being irrational. It’s always everyone else, right? Everyone else is the one being dumb and unreasonable.
Have you noticed the world would be way better if everything worked exactly your way? Because I have—pretty sure it’d be perfect if it were custom-made for me.

Back to your quote, though—learning isn't that straightforward either. There's often no consensus in fields that aren't tied to imagination or religion, and that’s the kicker. There isn't just one way or one answer, and we usually don't realize where we messed up until we see the fallout in real life. Maybe we should've done things differently...

I wouldn't call myself a fanatic for the irrational. In fact, I think the irrationality is what actually enriches our lives. That's the whole point of intelligence—it gives us the space to be creative and actually enjoy life.
But we have to recognize which things belong where. You have to recognize when it's a game and just let go, and recognize when it's not a game and maintain a critical eye.

Amanda Flores88 said:And that’s exactly the kind of world we live in. Because of that, God undergoes this transformation from a vengeful monster into this breathtaking grace, hoping to create a world that might be hard to wrap our heads around, but is definitely more pleasant.

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles they were taught. To them, nothing exists outside the boundaries of their social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the Solar System, the galaxy, the universe... it's all viewed through the prism of social relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around humans.
From that perspective, it's tough to accept the reality that we're really just tiny cogs in a massive machine that doesn't play favorites. Not just tough—unthinkable.
If you get that perspective, you can see how unrealistic it is to expect that worldview to ever change. So, it makes sense that people look for answers and control in anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel helpless. Humans try to solve human problems with human logic.

Yeah, and I'd add that part of the reason is because patterns *do* exist—we notice order. It's not like nature and society are just chaotic flies buzzing around aimlessly. Nature is actually quite intricate and orderly in many ways. We look for our place within that order, so it feels like our own lives should have some sort of logic or rhythm too. If the Sun has an obligation to rise in the east and set in the west every single day without fail, how is it possible that my life is just a disorganized mess?

My point was that this is precisely why faith is so powerful.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Information only becomes "untrue" in practice when you're faced with a piece of information that contradicts what you believe to be true.
We can talk about cases where something is scientifically proven to be false. But those who haven't accessed that info, or for whom that info isn't "true" enough, don't feel like they're focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruth" intentionally because calling something a "lie" implies an intent to deceive, which isn't always the case.

I was also trying to emphasize that this is an imaginative construct born out of a need for balance rather than a desire to mislead—but that kind of thing can only exist in spaces where we know nothing.

Sure, even believers might find God's will unpredictable sometimes, but that still doesn't mean He isn't there or that there isn't something like Him. Maybe the rules are just beyond our reach, but that's not because He's flawed; it's because humans are flawed—we're imperfect, undeveloped, messy... and honestly, that's easier to swallow than the total uncertainty of existence.

We’re never gonna scrub the irrational side out of being human—two big reasons why:
1. Logic starts acting irrational the second it’s used to confirm what we already believe. I mean, how many of us actually care about learning something new?
2. Being rational doesn't mean you'll actually change your mind. If staying irrational serves you better, you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It just depends on the situation.

So, yeah, sounds like a glitch in the system, right? Honestly, I don't get it—why waste resources maintaining a mechanism that seems like a total fail? It’s gotta serve some purpose, though. Just venting here, but the constant push to prioritize "logic" over "emotion"—or intellect over feelings—really gets under my skin. I swear, I haven't met a single person who actually thinks they’re being irrational. It’s always everyone else, right? Everyone else is the one being dumb and unreasonable.
Have you noticed the world would be way better if everything worked exactly your way? Because I have—pretty sure it’d be perfect if it were custom-made for me.

Back to your quote, though—learning isn't that straightforward either. There's often no consensus in fields that aren't tied to imagination or religion, and that’s the kicker. There isn't just one way or one answer, and we usually don't realize where we messed up until we see the fallout in real life. Maybe we should've done things differently...

Look, there are cases where there truly is no scientific consensus, and then there are cases where a fake lack of consensus is manufactured because the media is being bombarded with "research" funded by some massive corporation whose results happen to contradict the official word.

I don't see a problem with that. I can say I have quite a bit of experience researching the topic you're talking about. I've looked into ways to manage anxiety through supplements while simultaneously diving into everything related to sports and weight training.
It opens up this massive conflict between corporate marketing and actual personal experience.
If you start looking at personal experiences, you can find people who have actually put in the work to learn about their own conditions. Sometimes those people know a hell of a lot more than the experts. They've tried everything under the sun and learned so much through their own journey.

My point is that by doing my own research, I can get a sense of what's worth it, what's questionable, and what's best to steer clear of entirely. Anyone can do it, if they actually care enough.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it can't do that (yet)—which basically means faith is born from helplessness. It’s what people use to try and control their own lives.

Information has to be tailored to whoever you're talking to.
Unlike secularism, religion has this huge edge because it plays on our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like love and justice, but we aren't actually reacting to the raw reality of what those things entail.
That's why it's easier to swallow simple answers than have someone ruin the vibe.
Science and secularism haven't found a formula that hits home for everyone, all the time. Honestly? I'd say they're just too lazy to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive vision or program. It relies too much on common sense, and we already know that model is a bust.
It can be a massive shock. If you grew up believing you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again after you die, realizing it might just be a hallucination is a brutal hit. Especially if you're a kid raised in the Bible Belt where your whole social life revolves around believing in God.

True, and it makes it look like science is just as helpless as religion is.

We tend to focus on lies as a byproduct of ignorance, but reality itself is weird—as in, what we call "truth." Truth is so massive that you can manipulate facts pretty effectively. You can just grab little scraps of reality and stitch them together into whatever narrative works best for the moment. It’s so convenient you don't even need to lie.

Then again, it’s hard not to see how solving one problem just opens up a whole new box of them.

In certain cases, that’s exactly how it goes. People find themselves unable to believe anymore and go through hell trying to detach from everything they knew—those beliefs that are buried deep in their psyche. It isn't easy.

No kidding, I agree.
I don't know if it helps much to realize that people before us went through the exact same thing, and people after us probably will too.

And honestly, so what if the world changes? It’s fallen apart a million times before. Breaking away from old structures is hellish, but so is white-knuckling it through outdated models that don't work anymore. Time will figure it out eventually.

And look, Science is just as much a response to that same helplessness—that desperate need to exert some kind of control over our lives. We want to conquer existence, so we hunt for solutions everywhere.
In a psychological sense, I think Faith is essentially a mechanism for self-regulation because it provides meaningful, comforting answers when you feel totally powerless. Take, say, someone whose loved one was murdered by a killer who was never caught. That agony, that raw hunger for justice... it forces you to find an exit, and people find it in a supernatural being who ensures that evil doesn't go unpunished. Because... what kind of world is it where the innocent suffer while the monsters walk free?

Most people view the world through an ideological lens shaped by the principles of modern civilization. To them, nothing exists outside the bubble of their own social interactions. Nature, flora, fauna, the solar system, the galaxy, space... it all gets filtered through the context of human relationships and culture. It's pure egocentrism. Everything revolves around Earth—or rather, around Man.
From that standpoint, it's incredibly hard to accept the fact that we are truly just tiny cogs in a massive machine that plays favorites with no one. Not just hard—it’s almost unthinkable.
Once you grasp that perspective, you realize how unrealistic it is to expect anyone to shift such a fundamental worldview. So, it makes perfect sense that people seek answers and a sense of agency by anthropomorphizing everything that makes them feel small. Humans try to solve human problems with human-shaped solutions.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it can't do that (yet)—which basically means faith is born from helplessness. It’s what people use to try and control their own lives.

Information has to be tailored to whoever you're talking to.
Unlike secularism, religion has this huge edge because it plays on our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like love and justice, but we aren't actually reacting to the raw reality of what those things entail.
That's why it's easier to swallow simple answers than have someone ruin the vibe.
Science and secularism haven't found a formula that hits home for everyone, all the time. Honestly? I'd say they're just too lazy to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive vision or program. It relies too much on common sense, and we already know that model is a bust.
It can be a massive shock. If you grew up believing you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again after you die, realizing it might just be a hallucination is a brutal hit. Especially if you're a kid raised in the Bible Belt where your whole social life revolves around believing in God.

True, and it makes it look like science is just as helpless as religion is.

We tend to focus on lies as a byproduct of ignorance, but reality itself is weird—as in, what we call "truth." Truth is so massive that you can manipulate facts pretty effectively. You can just grab little scraps of reality and stitch them together into whatever narrative works best for the moment. It’s so convenient you don't even need to lie.

Then again, it’s hard not to see how solving one problem just opens up a whole new box of them.

In certain cases, that’s exactly how it goes. People find themselves unable to believe anymore and go through hell trying to detach from everything they knew—those beliefs that are buried deep in their psyche. It isn't easy.

No kidding, I agree.
I don't know if it helps much to realize that people before us went through the exact same thing, and people after us probably will too.

And honestly, so what if the world changes? It’s fallen apart a million times before. Breaking away from old structures is hellish, but so is white-knuckling it through outdated models that don't work anymore. Time will figure it out eventually.

My point was actually that this is exactly why faith remains so powerful.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it can't do that (yet)—which basically means faith is born from helplessness. It’s what people use to try and control their own lives.

Information has to be tailored to whoever you're talking to.
Unlike secularism, religion has this huge edge because it plays on our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like love and justice, but we aren't actually reacting to the raw reality of what those things entail.
That's why it's easier to swallow simple answers than have someone ruin the vibe.
Science and secularism haven't found a formula that hits home for everyone, all the time. Honestly? I'd say they're just too lazy to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive vision or program. It relies too much on common sense, and we already know that model is a bust.
It can be a massive shock. If you grew up believing you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again after you die, realizing it might just be a hallucination is a brutal hit. Especially if you're a kid raised in the Bible Belt where your whole social life revolves around believing in God.

True, and it makes it look like science is just as helpless as religion is.

We tend to focus on lies as a byproduct of ignorance, but reality itself is weird—as in, what we call "truth." Truth is so massive that you can manipulate facts pretty effectively. You can just grab little scraps of reality and stitch them together into whatever narrative works best for the moment. It’s so convenient you don't even need to lie.

Then again, it’s hard not to see how solving one problem just opens up a whole new box of them.

In certain cases, that’s exactly how it goes. People find themselves unable to believe anymore and go through hell trying to detach from everything they knew—those beliefs that are buried deep in their psyche. It isn't easy.

No kidding, I agree.
I don't know if it helps much to realize that people before us went through the exact same thing, and people after us probably will too.

And honestly, so what if the world changes? It’s fallen apart a million times before. Breaking away from old structures is hellish, but so is white-knuckling it through outdated models that don't work anymore. Time will figure it out eventually.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. In practice, information only becomes "untrue" once you're confronted with a piece of evidence that contradicts what you thought was true.
Sure, we can point to cases where something we know to be scientifically proven is treated as false. But those who haven't accessed that data—or those for whom that data isn't "true" enough—don't feel like they're actively focusing on a lie.

I'm using the term "untruthfulness" intentionally here, because calling something a "lie" implies a level of intent that isn't always there.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it can't do that (yet)—which basically means faith is born from helplessness. It’s what people use to try and control their own lives.

Information has to be tailored to whoever you're talking to.
Unlike secularism, religion has this huge edge because it plays on our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like love and justice, but we aren't actually reacting to the raw reality of what those things entail.
That's why it's easier to swallow simple answers than have someone ruin the vibe.
Science and secularism haven't found a formula that hits home for everyone, all the time. Honestly? I'd say they're just too lazy to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive vision or program. It relies too much on common sense, and we already know that model is a bust.
It can be a massive shock. If you grew up believing you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again after you die, realizing it might just be a hallucination is a brutal hit. Especially if you're a kid raised in the Bible Belt where your whole social life revolves around believing in God.

True, and it makes it look like science is just as helpless as religion is.

We tend to focus on lies as a byproduct of ignorance, but reality itself is weird—as in, what we call "truth." Truth is so massive that you can manipulate facts pretty effectively. You can just grab little scraps of reality and stitch them together into whatever narrative works best for the moment. It’s so convenient you don't even need to lie.

Then again, it’s hard not to see how solving one problem just opens up a whole new box of them.

In certain cases, that’s exactly how it goes. People find themselves unable to believe anymore and go through hell trying to detach from everything they knew—those beliefs that are buried deep in their psyche. It isn't easy.

No kidding, I agree.
I don't know if it helps much to realize that people before us went through the exact same thing, and people after us probably will too.

And honestly, so what if the world changes? It’s fallen apart a million times before. Breaking away from old structures is hellish, but so is white-knuckling it through outdated models that don't work anymore. Time will figure it out eventually.

Yeah, obviously. 🙄 This method? It’s honestly turned out to be the most effective way to manipulate people and feed them lies—if you can even call it that. If you actually want to get inside someone's head and make them swallow your idea whole, you don't just lie blindly... you strategically weaponize the truth. You take the facts, twist them just enough to fit your own agenda, and present it as gospel. It's devious, really... but it works.

I mean, let's be honest here—it’s all just noise... people talking in circles without ever actually getting to the point. It’s like we’re all just waiting for something meaningful to happen, but instead, we just get more of the same recycled nonsense. I’ve seen this pattern a thousand times before, and frankly, it's exhausting. You think you're making progress, then you realize you've just been walking in place... and honestly? I'm starting to lose interest in even trying to decipher what anyone is actually aiming for...

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it can't do that (yet)—which basically means faith is born from helplessness. It’s what people use to try and control their own lives.

Information has to be tailored to whoever you're talking to.
Unlike secularism, religion has this huge edge because it plays on our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like love and justice, but we aren't actually reacting to the raw reality of what those things entail.
That's why it's easier to swallow simple answers than have someone ruin the vibe.
Science and secularism haven't found a formula that hits home for everyone, all the time. Honestly? I'd say they're just too lazy to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive vision or program. It relies too much on common sense, and we already know that model is a bust.
It can be a massive shock. If you grew up believing you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again after you die, realizing it might just be a hallucination is a brutal hit. Especially if you're a kid raised in the Bible Belt where your whole social life revolves around believing in God.

True, and it makes it look like science is just as helpless as religion is.

We tend to focus on lies as a byproduct of ignorance, but reality itself is weird—as in, what we call "truth." Truth is so massive that you can manipulate facts pretty effectively. You can just grab little scraps of reality and stitch them together into whatever narrative works best for the moment. It’s so convenient you don't even need to lie.

Then again, it’s hard not to see how solving one problem just opens up a whole new box of them.

In certain cases, that’s exactly how it goes. People find themselves unable to believe anymore and go through hell trying to detach from everything they knew—those beliefs that are buried deep in their psyche. It isn't easy.

No kidding, I agree.
I don't know if it helps much to realize that people before us went through the exact same thing, and people after us probably will too.

And honestly, so what if the world changes? It’s fallen apart a million times before. Breaking away from old structures is hellish, but so is white-knuckling it through outdated models that don't work anymore. Time will figure it out eventually.

Truth.

I mean, honestly... I’ve been sitting here staring at this for a while, trying to make sense of it all, and I just can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like everyone is just shouting into the void without actually listening to a single word being said—it's exhausting, really. You see these arguments popping up everywhere, people getting worked up over nothing, acting like every little disagreement is some sort of monumental battle for the soul of the country... which, let's be real, it usually isn't. It's just noise. Just endless, repetitive noise that leaves you feeling completely drained by the end of the day. And the worst part? Nobody ever actually changes their mind. We just go in circles, spinning our wheels, thinking we're making progress when we're really just standing in the same spot we were ten years ago... it's almost funny if it weren't so incredibly depressing...

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it can't do that (yet)—which basically means faith is born from helplessness. It’s what people use to try and control their own lives.

Information has to be tailored to whoever you're talking to.
Unlike secularism, religion has this huge edge because it plays on our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like love and justice, but we aren't actually reacting to the raw reality of what those things entail.
That's why it's easier to swallow simple answers than have someone ruin the vibe.
Science and secularism haven't found a formula that hits home for everyone, all the time. Honestly? I'd say they're just too lazy to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive vision or program. It relies too much on common sense, and we already know that model is a bust.
It can be a massive shock. If you grew up believing you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again after you die, realizing it might just be a hallucination is a brutal hit. Especially if you're a kid raised in the Bible Belt where your whole social life revolves around believing in God.

True, and it makes it look like science is just as helpless as religion is.

We tend to focus on lies as a byproduct of ignorance, but reality itself is weird—as in, what we call "truth." Truth is so massive that you can manipulate facts pretty effectively. You can just grab little scraps of reality and stitch them together into whatever narrative works best for the moment. It’s so convenient you don't even need to lie.

Then again, it’s hard not to see how solving one problem just opens up a whole new box of them.

In certain cases, that’s exactly how it goes. People find themselves unable to believe anymore and go through hell trying to detach from everything they knew—those beliefs that are buried deep in their psyche. It isn't easy.

No kidding, I agree.
I don't know if it helps much to realize that people before us went through the exact same thing, and people after us probably will too.

And honestly, so what if the world changes? It’s fallen apart a million times before. Breaking away from old structures is hellish, but so is white-knuckling it through outdated models that don't work anymore. Time will figure it out eventually.

We’re never going to be able to scrub that irrational streak out of the human psyche—and honestly, I don't think we should try—for two big reasons...
Logic starts falling apart the second it actually confirms what we already know—it’s almost like our brains just shut down once they feel validated. It makes you wonder... how much are we actually interested in learning, versus just looking for someone to tell us we were right all along?
Look, being rational doesn't automatically mean you're going to flip your stance or change your mind just because some logic comes your way. Honestly? If embracing a different perspective happens to serve your interests better—if it actually yields a higher payoff in the moment—you’ll grab onto it in a heartbeat. It all just depends on the circumstances... everything is relative, really...

Amanda Flores88 said:Alright, let's agree they're systems for expressing those drives. But the massive gaps in how people see things—the different rituals, customs, and setups—suggest that either those drives aren't identical, or people just experience them totally differently for various reasons. Some places fear them, some celebrate them, and everyone else assigns them different meanings or tries to control them however they see fit.

Quincy:

It doesn't have to be, but I don't think it's fair to generalize and shove everyone's relationship with death into narrow little boxes for the sake of "big picture" thinking. Actually, I’d argue there’s a better chance that people who feel their lives have purpose are more likely to believe in an afterlife than, say, a career criminal who leaves nothing behind but trouble and has zero skin in the game. I'm not trying to generalize either. But I think how "broad" someone's worldview is is pretty relative when you're looking at their relationship with death. Take a woman who's become a mother and built this huge capacity for love with her kids and grandkids—someone whose whole world revolves around family and she's genuinely happy. She isn't in a "worse" position regarding death just because she isn't an "open-minded" person, since "open-mindedness" isn't even defined by how you face death. You can be open to the idea of your brain shutting down, but if you lack the most important thing—love and support—that humble woman actually has way more to lose from death than you do.

Are you saying the type of information we get won't really change our character? Is that what you meant?
I agree that accepting non-existence won't turn a bad person into a good one, or vice versa. Knowing there's no reward waiting after death won't change the behavior of an honest person much more than the certainty of hell stops a thief from stealing.

And following up on the idea that non-existence sounds depressing—I just meant it might feel that way at first, until the paradigm shifts and you settle into it.

They say exceptions prove the rule, right? Well, the fact that most people are still clinging to some version of faith in a "higher power" and an afterlife tells me that the cold logic of the modern world hasn't actually provided anything that meets their needs...

Amanda Flores88 said:Alright, let's agree they're systems for expressing those drives. But the massive gaps in how people see things—the different rituals, customs, and setups—suggest that either those drives aren't identical, or people just experience them totally differently for various reasons. Some places fear them, some celebrate them, and everyone else assigns them different meanings or tries to control them however they see fit.

Quincy:

It doesn't have to be, but I don't think it's fair to generalize and shove everyone's relationship with death into narrow little boxes for the sake of "big picture" thinking. Actually, I’d argue there’s a better chance that people who feel their lives have purpose are more likely to believe in an afterlife than, say, a career criminal who leaves nothing behind but trouble and has zero skin in the game. I'm not trying to generalize either. But I think how "broad" someone's worldview is is pretty relative when you're looking at their relationship with death. Take a woman who's become a mother and built this huge capacity for love with her kids and grandkids—someone whose whole world revolves around family and she's genuinely happy. She isn't in a "worse" position regarding death just because she isn't an "open-minded" person, since "open-mindedness" isn't even defined by how you face death. You can be open to the idea of your brain shutting down, but if you lack the most important thing—love and support—that humble woman actually has way more to lose from death than you do.

Are you saying the type of information we get won't really change our character? Is that what you meant?
I agree that accepting non-existence won't turn a bad person into a good one, or vice versa. Knowing there's no reward waiting after death won't change the behavior of an honest person much more than the certainty of hell stops a thief from stealing.

And following up on the idea that non-existence sounds depressing—I just meant it might feel that way at first, until the paradigm shifts and you settle into it.

The thing is, the info you give someone has to be tailored to the audience...
Religion has this massive edge over secularism because it plays directly into our instinctual triggers. We react to concepts like "love" or "justice," but we don't really engage with the messy reality of what love and justice actually entail.
That's why it's always easier to swallow a simple answer than to have someone come along and ruin the party with complexity.
Secularism and Science haven't stumbled upon a formula that carries enough weight to be universally applicable at any given moment. If you ask me, Secularism and Science are just lazy—they aren't prepared to actually engage with the human psyche.
There's no cohesive idea, no grand program. It just expects people to use common sense, and honestly, that model has been a proven failure...

Amanda Flores88 said:Alright, let's agree they're systems for expressing those drives. But the massive gaps in how people see things—the different rituals, customs, and setups—suggest that either those drives aren't identical, or people just experience them totally differently for various reasons. Some places fear them, some celebrate them, and everyone else assigns them different meanings or tries to control them however they see fit.

Quincy:

It doesn't have to be, but I don't think it's fair to generalize and shove everyone's relationship with death into narrow little boxes for the sake of "big picture" thinking. Actually, I’d argue there’s a better chance that people who feel their lives have purpose are more likely to believe in an afterlife than, say, a career criminal who leaves nothing behind but trouble and has zero skin in the game. I'm not trying to generalize either. But I think how "broad" someone's worldview is is pretty relative when you're looking at their relationship with death. Take a woman who's become a mother and built this huge capacity for love with her kids and grandkids—someone whose whole world revolves around family and she's genuinely happy. She isn't in a "worse" position regarding death just because she isn't an "open-minded" person, since "open-mindedness" isn't even defined by how you face death. You can be open to the idea of your brain shutting down, but if you lack the most important thing—love and support—that humble woman actually has way more to lose from death than you do.

Are you saying the type of information we get won't really change our character? Is that what you meant?
I agree that accepting non-existence won't turn a bad person into a good one, or vice versa. Knowing there's no reward waiting after death won't change the behavior of an honest person much more than the certainty of hell stops a thief from stealing.

And following up on the idea that non-existence sounds depressing—I just meant it might feel that way at first, until the paradigm shifts and you settle into it.

But it can be a massive shock. If you truly believe that dying means you'll get to hang out with your parents and kids again, finding out it's all just an illusion can hit you pretty hard. Especially if you grew up in the Bible Belt, where your entire social life revolves around faith in God from day one...

Amanda Flores88 said:Alright, let's agree they're systems for expressing those drives. But the massive gaps in how people see things—the different rituals, customs, and setups—suggest that either those drives aren't identical, or people just experience them totally differently for various reasons. Some places fear them, some celebrate them, and everyone else assigns them different meanings or tries to control them however they see fit.

Quincy:

It doesn't have to be, but I don't think it's fair to generalize and shove everyone's relationship with death into narrow little boxes for the sake of "big picture" thinking. Actually, I’d argue there’s a better chance that people who feel their lives have purpose are more likely to believe in an afterlife than, say, a career criminal who leaves nothing behind but trouble and has zero skin in the game. I'm not trying to generalize either. But I think how "broad" someone's worldview is is pretty relative when you're looking at their relationship with death. Take a woman who's become a mother and built this huge capacity for love with her kids and grandkids—someone whose whole world revolves around family and she's genuinely happy. She isn't in a "worse" position regarding death just because she isn't an "open-minded" person, since "open-mindedness" isn't even defined by how you face death. You can be open to the idea of your brain shutting down, but if you lack the most important thing—love and support—that humble woman actually has way more to lose from death than you do.

Are you saying the type of information we get won't really change our character? Is that what you meant?
I agree that accepting non-existence won't turn a bad person into a good one, or vice versa. Knowing there's no reward waiting after death won't change the behavior of an honest person much more than the certainty of hell stops a thief from stealing.

And following up on the idea that non-existence sounds depressing—I just meant it might feel that way at first, until the paradigm shifts and you settle into it.

In certain cases, though, it really is that bleak. You see people stuck in these impossible situations where they simply can't believe anything anymore—they're basically walking through hell, trying to tear themselves away from the very center of their lives and those stubborn beliefs that have dug their claws so deep into their psyche. It’s never easy...

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it depends. Sometimes it definitely helps.

But then you have to ask: what does "helpful" actually mean? Are we talking about survival utility, or helpful in a religious/cultural sense? Since different people interpret the same events differently, some benefits might actually contradict each other.

That clash between theory and raw experience basically boils down to this: even if a belief isn't strictly "true," a lie can be a tool just like anything else. You can use it for good or bad—it all depends on the intent.

And honestly, nothingness after death doesn't have to be a dark hole. The fact that there's no judgment, no rewards, and no nothingness besides just... being gone... actually offers a fresh start. It gives you the freedom to live differently. A narrow mind will just write a narrow story, but if you look wider, you can find a reason to be here while you still are.

It’s all connected. Survival basically boils down to this psychological relationship with death—viewing it as a threat to our comfort or our very existence. That whole dynamic plays out through endless behavioral patterns driven by instinct—or maybe just intuition?
Culture and religion are really just the systems we build to express those raw impulses.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it depends. Sometimes it definitely helps.

But then you have to ask: what does "helpful" actually mean? Are we talking about survival utility, or helpful in a religious/cultural sense? Since different people interpret the same events differently, some benefits might actually contradict each other.

That clash between theory and raw experience basically boils down to this: even if a belief isn't strictly "true," a lie can be a tool just like anything else. You can use it for good or bad—it all depends on the intent.

And honestly, nothingness after death doesn't have to be a dark hole. The fact that there's no judgment, no rewards, and no nothingness besides just... being gone... actually offers a fresh start. It gives you the freedom to live differently. A narrow mind will just write a narrow story, but if you look wider, you can find a reason to be here while you still are.

I'm with you there. In that sense, believing in an afterlife—provided it isn't wrapped up in some toxic ideology where the rest of the package is harmful—could actually be more beneficial than the fallout of fearing death. Especially when people are facing circumstances where their actual survival feels genuinely threatened.

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, it depends. Sometimes it definitely helps.

But then you have to ask: what does "helpful" actually mean? Are we talking about survival utility, or helpful in a religious/cultural sense? Since different people interpret the same events differently, some benefits might actually contradict each other.

That clash between theory and raw experience basically boils down to this: even if a belief isn't strictly "true," a lie can be a tool just like anything else. You can use it for good or bad—it all depends on the intent.

And honestly, nothingness after death doesn't have to be a dark hole. The fact that there's no judgment, no rewards, and no nothingness besides just... being gone... actually offers a fresh start. It gives you the freedom to live differently. A narrow mind will just write a narrow story, but if you look wider, you can find a reason to be here while you still are.

It doesn't *have* to be that way, but I don't think it's fair to generalize and shove everyone's relationship with death into boxes labeled "narrow-minded." Honestly, I’d argue there's a much higher chance that people who feel they have real purpose in life will lean toward an afterlife belief than, say, someone like a career criminal who leaves nothing behind but trouble and has absolutely nothing to lose.
I'm not looking to generalize either, but I think how "broad" one's perspective is becomes a pretty relative term when you're talking about how someone faces death.
Take a woman who became a mother and found this incredible, deep love for her kids and grandkids—someone whose entire world revolves around her family and she’s genuinely happy—she isn't in a worse position regarding death just because she isn't an "open-minded" type... because "open-mindedness" isn't defined by any specific stance on death.
Sure, you can be open to the idea of your brain shutting down, but if you lack the most vital love and support in your life, that humble, family-oriented woman is going to lose so much more from death than you ever would...

Olivia Evans8 said:There you go again with the hell talk. Honestly, I couldn't care less about hell.

The real issue for me is how crazy the reward is compared to the punishment.

You wrote:
Quincy:

Sure, but a believer can totally believe that, by their own standards, they've earned a reward instead of a punishment. In that case, faith really helps them out.

And I already mentioned that it’s totally ridiculous to expect an never-ending reward.

Me again, obsessed with hell? 🤦 Fine, then tell me... what exactly do you call eternal punishment?

Olivia Evans8 said:There you go again with the hell talk. Honestly, I couldn't care less about hell.

The real issue for me is how crazy the reward is compared to the punishment.

You wrote:
Quincy:

Sure, but a believer can totally believe that, by their own standards, they've earned a reward instead of a punishment. In that case, faith really helps them out.

And I already mentioned that it’s totally ridiculous to expect an never-ending reward.

Ridiculous? Why exactly is that?

Olivia Evans8 said:You’re totally fixated on the idea of "getting away with it," but my point was actually about how the reward or punishment is just way too extreme compared to what happened.

Look, I’m all for punishments or rewards that actually make sense, but this is just completely out of whack...

Look, I already told you—just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're sitting there thinking their life choices earned them a one-way ticket to hell.
The point I'm trying to make isn't about some divine rulebook; it's about human psychology and what people actually get out of believing these things.
You seem convinced that every believer who messed up along the way is just waiting for their cosmic retribution. But honestly? That's just not how it works in the real world. Most people are banking on Heaven—because let's face it, if they didn't, the whole belief system would fall apart. At its core, religion is just a way to promise a carrot for the good folks and a stick for the bad ones...

Olivia Evans8 said:Seriously? That was such a cheap shot, especially since I clearly laid out exactly what the issue is...

"Sure, you saved that kid from starving, but if you're still reaping the benefits ten billion years down the line... I mean, come on!"

Is that really an argument?

Olivia Evans8 said:It’s pathetic. Honestly, it’s just sad if anyone actually thinks this is okay...

What’s pathetic—is the fact that you’re getting away with it without any consequences at all.

Olivia Evans8 said:And honestly, that’s exactly what pushed me away from religion in the first place. I mean, what’s even the point of getting some eternal prize for a single lifetime of work?

Like, sure, you saved a kid from starving today, but still collecting perks ten billion years down the line... I don't know, come on!

What’s wrong with that? 😁

Olivia Evans8 said:OMG, NO! Let's flip the script for a sec: imagine everything you do lasts for another 100 years. No, wait, a billion years... NO! Wrong! Like, 10^10^10 years... nope! Still wrong! Like, forever.

That dumb mistake you made when you were 20? Well, tough luck, you gotta live with that for eternity.
That awesome thing you did at 31? Yeah, you're still dealing with the fallout from that 25,000,000,000 years later. Talk about being a handful... as if nothing else happened in the meantime.
Proud of your kids and grandkids? What about the fact that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkid won't even know where your people came from?

Thinking that life *isn't* finite would be way more depressing. That's easily the worst take ever.

Sure, but someone who believes in an afterlife can just convince themselves they earned a reward instead of a punishment based on their own little set of rules. In that case, I guess faith does its job.