Is a lie more useful than the truth? (Religion)

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.

feralranger said:Then, by that absurdly narrow logic, a Nazi regime would be considered one of the most "just" systems ever devised; after all, they followed their own twisted regulations to the letter, even while committing atrocities that were profoundly evil and fundamentally unjust.

one might argue that nature is incredibly just due to its uncompromising strictness.

I fail to see how nature could possibly be described as 'just,' nor can I find any logical link between natural laws and the concept of justice; nature is essentially a brutal domain governed by the law of the jungle, where the predator at the top of the food chain maintains its status simply through the capacity for savage slaughter.

You’re diving deep into social philosophy here—even though I already hit back at @implosivu regarding that whole "sense of justice" thing and basic natural laws. This isn't some open-ended debate where we can just experiment with walking on our hands because our current way of walking feels "unfair." It's not like that.

Besides, you could just point to any other legal system and say, "Hey, these are good laws." Justice is tied to the rules themselves, regardless of what those rules are or what level you're looking at. If you think a law is bad, it’s usually just because those social rules are clashing with your own internal moral compass.

Quincy:

I don't see how nature is "just" or how it relates to the concept of justice at all. Nature is mostly just survival of the fittest, where the beast capable of brutal slaughter sits at the top of the food chain.

Look, I'm not saying I like it either, but there's nothing "unjust" about it.

It’s funny how people always reduce nature to piranhas, hierarchies, blood, sweat, tears, and general misery—even though nature is also full of life that doesn't bother anyone, exploit anyone, or suck anyone's blood.
In that same natural world, there are species and communities that live peacefully, cooperate, stay chill, get along with their neighbors, and aren't anyone's prey. I don't know why we're obsessed with the predatory side of life instead of the ways things connect differently. It's like we act like that gentler side of the world doesn't even exist.

Amanda Flores88 said:You’re diving deep into social philosophy here—even though I already hit back at @implosivu regarding that whole "sense of justice" thing and basic natural laws. This isn't some open-ended debate where we can just experiment with walking on our hands because our current way of walking feels "unfair." It's not like that.

Besides, you could just point to any other legal system and say, "Hey, these are good laws." Justice is tied to the rules themselves, regardless of what those rules are or what level you're looking at. If you think a law is bad, it’s usually just because those social rules are clashing with your own internal moral compass.

Quincy:

I don't see how nature is "just" or how it relates to the concept of justice at all. Nature is mostly just survival of the fittest, where the beast capable of brutal slaughter sits at the top of the food chain.

Look, I'm not saying I like it either, but there's nothing "unjust" about it.

It’s funny how people always reduce nature to piranhas, hierarchies, blood, sweat, tears, and general misery—even though nature is also full of life that doesn't bother anyone, exploit anyone, or suck anyone's blood.
In that same natural world, there are species and communities that live peacefully, cooperate, stay chill, get along with their neighbors, and aren't anyone's prey. I don't know why we're obsessed with the predatory side of life instead of the ways things connect differently. It's like we act like that gentler side of the world doesn't even exist.

Are you suggesting, then, that objective justice is a myth, and that something like the Nazi regime was merely a disagreement with my own personal, subjective values?

Amanda Flores88 said:You’re diving deep into social philosophy here—even though I already hit back at @implosivu regarding that whole "sense of justice" thing and basic natural laws. This isn't some open-ended debate where we can just experiment with walking on our hands because our current way of walking feels "unfair." It's not like that.

Besides, you could just point to any other legal system and say, "Hey, these are good laws." Justice is tied to the rules themselves, regardless of what those rules are or what level you're looking at. If you think a law is bad, it’s usually just because those social rules are clashing with your own internal moral compass.

Quincy:

I don't see how nature is "just" or how it relates to the concept of justice at all. Nature is mostly just survival of the fittest, where the beast capable of brutal slaughter sits at the top of the food chain.

Look, I'm not saying I like it either, but there's nothing "unjust" about it.

It’s funny how people always reduce nature to piranhas, hierarchies, blood, sweat, tears, and general misery—even though nature is also full of life that doesn't bother anyone, exploit anyone, or suck anyone's blood.
In that same natural world, there are species and communities that live peacefully, cooperate, stay chill, get along with their neighbors, and aren't anyone's prey. I don't know why we're obsessed with the predatory side of life instead of the ways things connect differently. It's like we act like that gentler side of the world doesn't even exist.

Such as?

Jacob Cooper5 said: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...

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

Jacob Cooper5 said: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?

Solid example.

A lot of things point that way. Sometimes that thought feels like a relief—other times, it's just uncomfortable.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Does believing in an afterlife actually help someone, even if nobody’s ever come forward to claim they saw anything on the other side?

Look, I'm an atheist. But I can't bring myself to agree with those certain types of atheists who insist that Faith is nothing but a useless distraction. I've found myself staring down the barrel of the idea of total, absolute non-existence...
The thought that when I die, everything just gets wiped clean. Like I never even existed in the first place.
I catch myself picturing that moment right before death—all my experiences, my entire life, just sitting there on the edge of this massive, cold void that’s going to erase every single trace of me without a shred of mercy. Pretty depressing, isn't it?

Even if that’s the reality, wouldn't it be better to believe there's something waiting for us after we go?
At the very least, it makes me feel better. Being able to find satisfaction in the present moment actually has a positive impact on how I live right now.
In that sense, I don't see why those stubborn, narrow-minded atheists feel the need to lecture theists about the "pointlessness" of religion.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's just that eternal tug-of-war between abstract concepts and our own direct experience...

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? 🙂

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.

Jacob Cooper5 said: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.🙂

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: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.🙂

...and it stands to reason that such a view holds water... when one examines it through various lenses, or rather, considers it from several different perspectives.

Jacob Cooper5 said: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.

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

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...

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 don't know, man. I think people actually have way more cognitive capacity than they give themselves credit for—or even act like they do.

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.

Jacob Cooper5 said: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.

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...

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.

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. 🙂

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 don't buy that. Sure, people can box themselves in—we do it all the time—but we can also push past our own limits in just about everything, not just what we can perceive.

"Since man is a spiritual being, he can consider himself worthy of the most sublime things; and when it comes to the sheer scale and power of his spirit, he can barely even wrap his head around it. Fueled by that kind of faith, he won't run into anything so harsh or rigid that it won't eventually be revealed to him." (Hegel)

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?

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.

feralranger said:...and it stands to reason that such a view holds water... when one examines it through various lenses, or rather, considers it from several different perspectives.

It makes sense to me, even if it doesn't to everyone. 🙂

hollowpuma762 said:I don't know, man. I think people actually have way more cognitive capacity than they give themselves credit for—or even act like they do.

ruggedraven36 said:I don't buy that. Sure, people can box themselves in—we do it all the time—but we can also push past our own limits in just about everything, not just what we can perceive.

"Since man is a spiritual being, he can consider himself worthy of the most sublime things; and when it comes to the sheer scale and power of his spirit, he can barely even wrap his head around it. Fueled by that kind of faith, he won't run into anything so harsh or rigid that it won't eventually be revealed to him." (Hegel)

That is entirely possible. 🙂

Jacob Cooper5 said:For crying out loud—instead of actually stepping up to face that argument, you’re just folding this easily? Seriously?...

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?

I don't see why it would be "irrational" to believe that existence is much more complex than what the human mind is currently capable of grasping. 🤷 Isn't it our capacity for imagination, creativity, and believing in the unproven that drives us to learn more? Or perhaps it's subjective—some are driven by a search for "ultimate truth," while others are driven by the "infinite nature of discovery."🤔

(I have the feeling I might be on the wrong subforum. 🤣 )

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?