Faith and hope: a necessity or a delusion?

Susan Price30 said:Of course, because it’s just human nature to need belief and hope... someone who doesn't dream is dead inside, and someone who lacks both hope and faith is just as much of a
lost cause.
What you're describing sounds more like expectations (which is just part of our psychological makeup), rather than true hope and faith, which are much more spiritual components...

But what about self-confidence?
Isn't it true that belief and hope actually become more vital when one's self-confidence is lacking?
Is a person brimming with confidence, who feels they have no need for belief or hope, truly dead?
Naturally, genuine confidence is forged through action, not through mere fantasy.

________________________________
Identify the issue, resolve the issue, move on.

Lisa Morales4 said:That is exactly why you need hope. Your life force has been drained, leaving you empty, and hope is the very thing that keeps you going until you find your strength again.

For instance, imagine your relationship with the love of your life suddenly falls apart, or your friends are letting you down; the ache in your heart can be so heavy that you feel like you might just fade away, completely inconsolable.
It doesn't matter if a friend looks at coffee grounds, a crystal ball, or Tarot cards—whatever works—because all you really want is silence and the answer to one question: "is there any hope?" That single spark is what might actually keep you tethered to this world. Then they tell you, "Anthony Perez9, you were born under a lucky star! It’s just stepped out for a moment to stretch its legs; it’s just around the corner! It will stroll back into your kingdom in about... a decade!"

And just like that, you get your hope, and you survive. "God time" performs miracles. 👍
In the meantime, you happen to meet the Queen of Sheba. 🙏
The question is: what would have happened if hope hadn't kept you alive??
The answer: the Queen of Sheba would have withered away from grief. 😍

"The path to happiness" is a dead end that leads straight into a canyon.

So, bypass that page in your manifesto, or better yet: rip that page out entirely! It's hopeless. 😛

Truth is here and now. 🙂

True, but only if your eyes are fixed on a (bright) divine future. 🙂

Yeah, but that’s easy to say when you’re actually looking toward a bright future. 🙂[/I]

Nah. If you're always staring at the horizon, you’re going to miss everything happening right in front of you. 😉

Paul Jones7 said:Well then, what do you call the actual belief that there is no God?

I mean, I guess you could just say that concept doesn't even exist... 😉

What you're describing sounds more like agnosticism—it sort of sits in this weird middle ground where it doesn't quite fit into the category of faith or the lack thereof.

Then what do you call the conviction that there is no God?
Just say it doesn't exist. 😉[/I]
It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.

Paul Jones7 said:Sure. I guess you could break it down into three distinct paths:

1. I believe in God—meaning, my position is that He exists.
2. I don't believe in God—essentially, my stance is that He doesn't exist.
3. I'm just sitting on the fence regarding whether God exists—I don't really hold a definitive position either way.

So, 1 would be theism, 2 is atheism, and 3 is agnosticism.

Not really, because the whole concept of God is totally undefined. Every cult interprets it differently; there are endless possible theologies out there.

Even Dawkins is religious in a way, since he has his own "Einstein's God," which is light-years away from the God of the Bible or the Quran.

1. I believe my God will help me by granting eternal bliss if I follow some rules in holy books (plus those "divine interventions" on a personal level).

2. I don't buy those stories, but I don't mind an abstract cosmic force.

1. theist - a worshiper
2. atheist - a non-worshiper
3. antitheist - someone who aggressively denies God exists.

🙂 I'm the second one.

dustyraven26 said:But what about self-confidence?
Isn't it true that belief and hope actually become more vital when one's self-confidence is lacking?
Is a person brimming with confidence, who feels they have no need for belief or hope, truly dead?
Naturally, genuine confidence is forged through action, not through mere fantasy.

________________________________
Identify the issue, resolve the issue, move on.

Hell no. 🙂
The real dead ones are the people letting ancient texts or catechisms dictate their hopes for some afterlife. They’re technically "alive," but they aren't really present because their heads are stuck in some fantasy land instead of reality.
Nothing matters more than right here, right now. It’s just a question of how much of ourselves we actually bring to the table while we're still here. 😉

Anthony Perez9 said:Yeah, but that’s easy to say when you’re actually looking toward a bright future. 🙂[/I]

Nah. If you're always staring at the horizon, you’re going to miss everything happening right in front of you. 😉

Basically, everything you experience in the present moment is what you'll eventually reap down the road.

(Anthony Perez9, it’s really great to have you here; you’re keeping us all balanced 😁 The Religion board would be absolute chaos without you 😁 😁 Enjoy yourself 👍)

Anthony Perez9 said:Then what do you call the conviction that there is no God?
Just say it doesn't exist. 😉[/I]

It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."

Anthony Perez9 Asks:
Of course it isn't. 🙂
A man is truly dead when he allows ancient scriptures or a catechism to dictate his hopes for salvation in the afterlife. He may be physically present, but he isn't truly living this life; his mind is perpetually lost in expectations that exist entirely outside of reality.
There is nothing more significant than what we face right here and now. The only real question is how much of our lives we actually spend in this moment, rather than being somewhere else entirely. 😉

By the way, Anthony Perez9, if I haven't mentioned this yet—there isn't any star wars going on in this meadow. We all just live in peace, looking out for one another like we're in some actual hippie commune.😉😁

dustyraven26 said:But what about self-confidence?
Isn't it true that belief and hope actually become more vital when one's self-confidence is lacking?
Is a person brimming with confidence, who feels they have no need for belief or hope, truly dead?
Naturally, genuine confidence is forged through action, not through mere fantasy.

________________________________
Identify the issue, resolve the issue, move on.

Self-confidence—is it just believing in oneself, or does it necessarily preclude believing in something greater? 😁
A self-centered ego trip? That’s really not the same thing as having actual self-confidence.

External factors play the largest role in shaping one's self-confidence. If an individual feels truly competent—meaning they possess sufficient knowledge or have enough experience in similar situations—one could say they are confident within that specific field or area of life.
You could essentially be a highly confident gardener and a world-class expert on flowers and evergreens.🍿 Don't be the last one to step up when it comes to flirting and small talk with a girl you actually like.

Self-esteem matters more than mere self-confidence. In terms of true well-being, isn't a sense of self-worth far more vital? Values.It is much harder to cultivate genuine self-confidence than it is to simply project an illusion of it.

And likewise, where does this idea come from—whether it’s yours, Anthony Perez9’s, or anyone else’s—that belief in God is merely a byproduct of lacking faith in science? I am still here.Is it a matter of free will, or are we just puppets dancing for some Big Bad Wolf—a version of God that seems to be just waiting for an excuse to punish us?

I would argue the exact opposite. Someone who possesses genuine self-trust will find it much easier to extend that same trust toward God or toward their fellow man. It is important to remember that God works through our connection with others—which, fundamentally, relies on that mutual foundation of love and trust between humanity and the Divine.

On a related note, isn't it true that certain studies suggest people who struggle with authority figures—or perhaps those with complicated relationships with their earthly fathers—tend to have difficulty perceiving God the Father accurately? They often develop a distorted view of Him, which inevitably fails to align with the truth revealed in the Bible regarding His actual nature and His will for us.

Susan Price30 said:

Anthony Perez9 Asks:
Of course it isn't. 🙂
A man is truly dead when he allows ancient scriptures or a catechism to dictate his hopes for salvation in the afterlife. He may be physically present, but he isn't truly living this life; his mind is perpetually lost in expectations that exist entirely outside of reality.
There is nothing more significant than what we face right here and now. The only real question is how much of our lives we actually spend in this moment, rather than being somewhere else entirely. 😉

By the way, Anthony Perez9, if I haven't mentioned this yet—there isn't any star wars going on in this meadow. We all just live in peace, looking out for one another like we're in some actual hippie commune.😉😁

Self-confidence—is it just believing in oneself, or does it necessarily preclude believing in something greater? 😁
A self-centered ego trip? That’s really not the same thing as having actual self-confidence.

External factors play the largest role in shaping one's self-confidence. If an individual feels truly competent—meaning they possess sufficient knowledge or have enough experience in similar situations—one could say they are confident within that specific field or area of life.
You could essentially be a highly confident gardener and a world-class expert on flowers and evergreens.🍿 Don't be the last one to step up when it comes to flirting and small talk with a girl you actually like.

Self-esteem matters more than mere self-confidence. In terms of true well-being, isn't a sense of self-worth far more vital? Values.It is much harder to cultivate genuine self-confidence than it is to simply project an illusion of it.

And likewise, where does this idea come from—whether it’s yours, Anthony Perez9’s, or anyone else’s—that belief in God is merely a byproduct of lacking faith in science? I am still here.Is it a matter of free will, or are we just puppets dancing for some Big Bad Wolf—a version of God that seems to be just waiting for an excuse to punish us?

I would argue the exact opposite. Someone who possesses genuine self-trust will find it much easier to extend that same trust toward God or toward their fellow man. It is important to remember that God works through our connection with others—which, fundamentally, relies on that mutual foundation of love and trust between humanity and the Divine.

On a related note, isn't it true that certain studies suggest people who struggle with authority figures—or perhaps those with complicated relationships with their earthly fathers—tend to have difficulty perceiving God the Father accurately? They often develop a distorted view of Him, which inevitably fails to align with the truth revealed in the Bible regarding His actual nature and His will for us.

I think self-esteem and self-confidence are essentially the same thing. If we believe in ourselves, we trust ourselves.
For me, my confidence isn't driven by outside forces, but strictly by my own effectiveness. I don't see it as being limited to just one area—because that's more about "knowledge"—it's really about my mindset and how I function in general. When I can look at a situation and react effectively, no matter what it is, my confidence grows.

Because then, the desperate need to control everything—which is impossible anyway—disappears. I stop praying for someone or something else to solve my problems for me. It just leaves me, reality, and the abilities I've been given.

Paul Jones7 said:It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.

It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."
Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."
Agnosticism is about what you know, not what you believe.
An agnostic theist believes God exists, but isn't certain.
A gnostic theist is certain God exists.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim to know if He exists.
A gnostic atheist is certain God does not exist.
So, typical agnostics actually fall under the umbrella of agnostic atheists, though some prefer the label "agnostic" just to distance themselves from the louder crowd of agnostic atheists.
An antitheist is someone who openly opposes belief in God and organized religion.

wiredpuma9 said:Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."

Agnosticism is about what you know, not what you believe.
An agnostic theist believes God exists, but isn't certain.
A gnostic theist is certain God exists.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim to know if He exists.
A gnostic atheist is certain God does not exist.
So, typical agnostics actually fall under the umbrella of agnostic atheists, though some prefer the label "agnostic" just to distance themselves from the louder crowd of agnostic atheists.
An antitheist is someone who openly opposes belief in God and organized religion.
do you mean they're pushing back against other people, specifically?

Agnosticism is really about knowledge—or rather, the lack thereof—just like you put it. I guess those terms like "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are pretty much made up concepts. Nobody actually *knows*, you know? There’s really only the illusion of knowing.

But there's a piece missing from this whole categorization thing. You have the pure agnostic, who doesn't even have a set stance on whether God exists or not. They aren't leaning toward belief or disbelief; their only actual position is just... "I don't know."

Now, if someone calls themselves an agnostic atheist, I'd argue they're primarily an atheist. It feels like a bit of a misclassification to me—kind of meaningless, really. It's the same with being an agnostic theist, because since nobody knows anything for sure, the agnosticism is already implied. It doesn't really add anything beyond the absence of certainty regarding faith.

At least, that’s the only way it makes sense to me. 🤷

Susan Price30 said:Atheism essentially means a lack of belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent God—derived from the Latin deus, coming from *divus*, and the Indo-European deiw, meaning light or to shine. So, atheism is effectively the belief in the nonexistence of God. As far as I know, there's no hard evidence, just faith...

How can non-belief be considered faith? Let's try using some Aristotle.

Paul Jones7 said:do you mean they're pushing back against other people, specifically?

Agnosticism is really about knowledge—or rather, the lack thereof—just like you put it. I guess those terms like "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are pretty much made up concepts. Nobody actually *knows*, you know? There’s really only the illusion of knowing.

But there's a piece missing from this whole categorization thing. You have the pure agnostic, who doesn't even have a set stance on whether God exists or not. They aren't leaning toward belief or disbelief; their only actual position is just... "I don't know."

Now, if someone calls themselves an agnostic atheist, I'd argue they're primarily an atheist. It feels like a bit of a misclassification to me—kind of meaningless, really. It's the same with being an agnostic theist, because since nobody knows anything for sure, the agnosticism is already implied. It doesn't really add anything beyond the absence of certainty regarding faith.

At least, that’s the only way it makes sense to me. 🤷

Exactly.

Paul Jones7 said:do you mean they're pushing back against other people, specifically?

Agnosticism is really about knowledge—or rather, the lack thereof—just like you put it. I guess those terms like "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are pretty much made up concepts. Nobody actually *knows*, you know? There’s really only the illusion of knowing.

But there's a piece missing from this whole categorization thing. You have the pure agnostic, who doesn't even have a set stance on whether God exists or not. They aren't leaning toward belief or disbelief; their only actual position is just... "I don't know."

Now, if someone calls themselves an agnostic atheist, I'd argue they're primarily an atheist. It feels like a bit of a misclassification to me—kind of meaningless, really. It's the same with being an agnostic theist, because since nobody knows anything for sure, the agnosticism is already implied. It doesn't really add anything beyond the absence of certainty regarding faith.

At least, that’s the only way it makes sense to me. 🤷

It isn't a misclassification. Atheism is defined either as the absence of belief in God or the specific claim that God doesn't exist. Since "pure" agnosticism fits that first definition, "agnostic atheist" is perfectly accurate.

wiredpuma9 said:Exactly.

It isn't a misclassification. Atheism is defined either as the absence of belief in God or the specific claim that God doesn't exist. Since "pure" agnosticism fits that first definition, "agnostic atheist" is perfectly accurate.

I don't think I can agree there—mostly because what you're describing sounds exactly like the definition of agnosticism, which is pretty easy to trace back to its roots:

gnosis (Ancient Greek) = knowledge, insight, understanding, or experience
a-gnosis = no knowledge, no insight

So, basically, agnosticism is just a lack of knowledge or certain insight regarding something. Even the word itself doesn't explicitly mention faith or God, though that's usually implied in this context. I guess it might be more accurate to call someone a religious agnostic or a theological agnostic. It seems clear that the term alone doesn't dictate what someone believes or doesn't believe, so an agnostic—without adding "theist" or "atheist"—would just be someone who holds the position that they simply don't know, having an undefined faith, or perhaps none at all.

On the other hand, a-theist = non-theist, or someone who isn't a believer in God. It’s the logical negation of being a theist. Once you aren't a theist, you're an atheist. That could mean you just have no stance or belief regarding God, or it could mean you actually believe God doesn't exist.

Since those two areas overlap quite a bit, things get a little blurry, I suppose.

jademarlin26 said:How can non-belief be considered faith? Let's try using some Aristotle.

It’s simply the absence of faith, just like I mentioned 🙂 earlier—feel free to explain the rest yourself.

...anyway, greetings to you all. Remember when this place was just three people on a chatroom posting once every leap year? Sooo cool 😁 and sooo... dead.

wiredpuma9 said:Exactly.

It isn't a misclassification. Atheism is defined either as the absence of belief in God or the specific claim that God doesn't exist. Since "pure" agnosticism fits that first definition, "agnostic atheist" is perfectly accurate.

I guess I misread that earlier, my bad, wiredpuma9—that’s actually a pretty solid definition.

Susan Price30 As stated by:
Self-confidence is essentially an internal conviction, and a healthy sense of self-belief shouldn't inherently preclude someone from placing their trust in external forces or higher powers. 😁
A certain type of self-focus often manifests as nothing more than an ego trip, which bears very little resemblance to actual self-confidence.

External factors exert the most significant influence on an individual's self-confidence; if a person possesses genuine competence—derived from sufficient knowledge or practical experience in similar circumstances—they can rightfully claim confidence within that specific domain or field of expertise.
One might choose to adopt the persona of an exceptionally self-assured gardener, someone possessing a world-class expertise in floral varieties and evergreen trees.🍿 You certainly can't afford to be the last one left standing when it comes to the art of charm and the subtle dance of small talk with a woman you actually find interesting.

Self-esteem carries more weight than mere self-confidence; in terms of true psychological well-being, a sense of inherent self-worth is far more critical to the human experience. Values.Mastering that level of proficiency is a far more grueling endeavor than simply cultivating self-confidence, or even the mere illusion of it.

Similarly, I find myself wondering where you, or anyone else for that matter, derived the notion that a belief in God is merely a byproduct of some perceived deficiency or a lack of faith in something else. It appears the message provided was insufficient to perform a rewrite. Please provide the full text you wish for me to transform.Is it a matter of fate, or are we merely puppets dancing on the strings of some Big Bad Wolf—a version of God that people imagine is just waiting for the right moment to punish us?

I would argue quite the opposite; an individual who possesses genuine self-trust will find it significantly easier to extend that same trust toward God or their fellow man. It is worth remembering that God operates through our connection with one another—a connection that, at its most fundamental level, relies entirely on the reciprocal exchange of trust and love between the Divine and humanity.

The text leaves me torn as to whether this is actually...
A comprehensive examination of the subject. Either.
The conviction that religious dogma or a misplaced sense of hope holds more intrinsic value than the actual lives lost to those very convictions is a delusion that will inevitably lead to catastrophe.One might argue that the tragedy on the islands could have been averted entirely had there not been such a pervasive, misguided belief that everything was under control.
I am seeking some assistance in resolving a particular dilemma I find myself facing.

On a related note, there is considerable evidence—or at least enough research to suggest the connection—that individuals struggling with authority figures or harboring fractured relationships with their earthly fathers often find themselves unable to perceive God the Father accurately. They tend to develop a distorted view of the Divine that fails to align with what was actually revealed in the Bible regarding His true nature and His intentions for us.

A misdiagnosis is almost always rooted in a flawed perception, though I never once attempted to deny God.
I am taking this opportunity to point out yet another negative consequence of religion.
When considering the matter from a broader, more human perspective, it becomes clear that... Religion has only served to carve fresh fractures into the foundation of human connection.Furthermore, these deep-seated divisions have served as the catalyst for numerous conflicts, resulting in staggering loss of life.
I have no desire to continue listing the negative impacts of religion; rather, I would prefer if someone could point me toward at least one significant positive effect they might produce. 🤷

Post: 7.

Anonymous said:Since the dawn of time, humans have clung to faith out of a sheer fear of the unknown—that overwhelming sense of facing something we simply couldn't grasp. You only have to look back at ancient civilizations and their polytheistic gods to see this in action. Without a scientific understanding of what causes rain, thunder, or lightning, people attributed these phenomena to divine acts. It was their way of making the incomprehensible feel slightly more familiar; by labeling the chaos, they felt they were building a foundation of knowledge. When we’re terrified of something we can't explain, even if we give it a name, there’s this desperate hope that we might somehow exert control over it. That’s where rituals, prayers, and organized beliefs take root. Hoping a prayer gets heard is really just hoping for the illusion of control.

From the perspective of a modern person living in an era of rapid technological advancement, our understanding of the world has expanded immensely. Because we actually understand the mechanics behind how things work, the urge to slap a divine label on everything has diminished significantly. We’ve studied natural phenomena to reach the conclusions we hold today. Yet, at our core, we haven't changed a bit.

Whenever we encounter something we don't yet understand, instead of stepping back to observe and build actual knowledge, we tend to project meaning onto someone or something. We have this frantic need to know everything *right now* because uncertainty triggers an internal sense of chaos. This leads directly to the birth of superstitions, beliefs, and hopes. And unfortunately, it also fuels the desire to "bend" reality to fit our own convenient narratives.

Because most people don't actually seek out the objective truth, opting instead to jump to hasty, subjective conclusions, I personally view beliefs and hopes as nothing more than illusions.

Post: 29.

Anonymous said:I think self-esteem and self-confidence are essentially the same thing. If we believe in ourselves, we trust ourselves.
For me, my confidence isn't driven by outside forces, but strictly by my own effectiveness. I don't see it as being limited to just one area—because that's more about "knowledge"—it's really about my mindset and how I function in general. When I can look at a situation and react effectively, no matter what it is, my confidence grows.

Because then, the desperate need to control everything—which is impossible anyway—disappears. I stop praying for someone or something else to solve my problems for me. It just leaves me, reality, and the abilities I've been given.

👍 👍 🙏 🙏

WHY CLING TO DOGMA AND PRECONCEPTIONS IN THE HOPE THAT THEY ARE TRUE, WHEN

dustyraven26 said:Atheism is just another form of faith—specifically, the faith that God does not exist. 😲

I believe that both faith and hope should be discarded as methods of engagement in favor of a dedicated pursuit of the truth. Humans are perfectly capable of doing just that.

But can he really pull the trigger on anything without some shred of faith—some hope—that he’ll actually stumble upon the truth? At the end of the day, hope and faith are the only things that actually drive us to act.

Terry Kim3 said:But can he really pull the trigger on anything without some shred of faith—some hope—that he’ll actually stumble upon the truth? At the end of the day, hope and faith are the only things that actually drive us to act.

He certainly possesses intuition—those sudden flashes of clarity regarding reality that bypass formal knowledge—he simply needs to clear the path for it. It isn't an easy feat, given how deeply ingrained our habits are, but it remains entirely achievable.

Hope and faith are the primary engines behind all human action.

And where exactly has that driven us?
Science suggests that humanity is steadily eroding its own sense of morality, ethics, and fundamental character.
The ultimate endgame of globalization is nothing less than the privatization of the entire planet, creating a world where the population size and lifestyle of the average person are dictated solely by the requirements of the elite.
Driven by consumerism, people have quite willingly embraced a philosophy where having things is far more important than being someone.

If we don't change course, we will inevitably arrive at the destination we are currently sprinting toward.
Where, precisely, is the human race heading?