IndieAgora

Question:- What's the difference between a man (theist) who judges another for having no belief in a God, and a man (atheist) who judges another for having a belief in God? Who is right and who is wrong? If they are playing the same game is it one that can be won? Who can tell me the outcome?


There is no difference, the outcome is tribalism.

True! Humans wacking humans!

"God is dead," (Nietzsche) and with the technological advancements and just the freedom to information has me question religion. The show/book American Gods explains this concept pretty well as people worship "new gods" over the "old ones." Religion (Christianity) was only an interpretation of the world at that point in time and over-time it desperately tries to be relevant even today. I noticed that Christianity has people look "outward" for salvation for a unreachable entity. I often see this when people say "pray for me" or "need prayers" as if something/someone is actually helping. What that does is have people look "outward" for support rather than look inward and face their problems. Accept, understand, and then act on the solution one comes up with. Is it hard to accept yourself, yet alone understand yourself? Of course it is; anything worth doing is hard and Christianity just makes it "easy" as it creates a victim mentality. I don't condone Christianity bashing, but rather seek to understand why people continue to follow such an outdated belief system.

I think it is important and useful to keep updating and improving.

It is my view that the polarising tribalism of the Theist/Atheist debate can be dissolved if they both realised that there is only the 'Living Present' and it this is what they were both quarrelling about in error all along

I am in absolute agreement, and described such recently in the visvavajra thread I made, and will make here.

@FoyauextlH Make it so, would be interested in having a look at that

Give us the link @"kFoyauextlH"

https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-VisvaVajra-4D-Interpretation-Key

I think this might be the one I was talking about.

People often think we have to choise, I don't think we have to choose, I think we should take al we can from what we can in the best ways that we can.

Religions are languages, so why not be a polyglot? Is there some reason one mustn't use French words and speak in Chinese?

So I'm quite confidently most things, and no one really has the right to tell me otherwise. When I am speaking in French, then I am speaking in French. I am not saying anything different or contradictory between these languages.

Not only that, but should one reject Medical Science because it was developed in the Western World? Should these things be kept away from humanity because of where they were developed? Should no people from pantless lands be allowed to wear pants, and no people from pant lands be allowed to take them off?

These are the implications behind some of what people say and think.

It is an unfortunate thing that in order to be recognized, one must wear a mask. That if one says Chinese things without a stereotyped face they are considered false and inauthentic. Its truly terrible, and probably unlikely to change because of the nature of people and culture to be restrictive, alienating, greedy, nationally threatened and jealously posessive, and bigoted.

Luckily I was blessed with looks that are both highly attractive and such that I can ease my way into many different ethnicities hearts without appearing too distinctly foreign to any of them. Luckily people forget themselves in charming others and don't have a constant mirror displaying their visual differences. I never even use the names of people so that they are not reminded that they are someone else or separate in even the most subtle ways.

Place has nothing to do with efficacy. Thanks for the link.