Revision [208]

Last edited on 2008-03-31 00:16:08 by FritsRincker
Additions:
and loving. Any atheist can confirm this. We are humans and will make mistakes. Morals have been
secured in our laws, and judgment can be based on those and the life experience of the judge. He
is the atheist parenting figure, but he only helps out when asked.
Deletions:
and loving. Any parenting atheist can confirm this. Morals have been secured in our laws, and
judgment can be based on those and the life experience of the judge. He is the atheist parenting
figure, but he only helps out when asked.

Revision [207]

Edited on 2008-03-31 00:13:22 by FritsRincker
Additions:
a curse to mankind. It has allowed jihadist and crucaders an inquisistion to occur.
Deletions:
a curse to mankind. It has allowed jihadist and crucaders an inquisistion to occur.

Revision [206]

Edited on 2008-03-31 00:11:26 by FritsRincker
Additions:
the facilities one can find there are to please humans, not any god.
Deletions:
the facilities one can find there are to please humans, not a god.

Revision [205]

Edited on 2008-03-31 00:06:19 by FritsRincker
Additions:
mistakes. This ensures thier dependence on their 'parenting figures' even if they be beliefs. It is a
trick. It is immature behaviour by the parent. Because they whished all people to adapt to their
behaviour, and they did not trust the moral judgement of free people, they found a group to 'teach'
and condition as an example to change the world according to their views.
Atheist are content with their own moral judgement. They usually have no urge to teach, because
how do you teach someone to think for themselves?
Deletions:
mistakes. This ensures thier dependence on their 'parenting figures'. It is a trick. It is immature
behaviour by the parent.

Revision [204]

Edited on 2008-03-30 23:59:54 by FritsRincker
Additions:
A person is an atheist if he or she for some reason or other can not accept as
true the statements of people that consider themselves theists.
As new knowledge comes to us we are obligated to check its validity against what we know.
This checking is a precondition to our survival.
For some of us theism is introduced in a stage in our lives in which we are not fully able or
required to ensure our own survival. In this period we depend on parent figures whose guidance
we follow.
For others it is introduced in a time of crisis. When survival skills are tested and prove insufficient,
and we want to submit to parenting again. It is a basic function of our brain to imagine what it
needs, as a goal to accomplish. In a state of crisis we need guidance and will easily imagine a
guide. This may or may not be the god we where told about, but the concept is there to be
activated.
Still others, after a period of following our parents get to a point where we start to understand
what knowledge we should trust in our daily lives. At a certain point we will start to see the flaws
in religious beliefs, just like we will see flaws in the opinions of others. Its because we have
gathered our own knowledge which we have proved to be true as we have been trying to tune
our mind to survival. As a result of this we may reject religious beliefs altogether and become
atheists.
Theism still lures at the edges of our understanding. Some of us understand that there still is no
reason to assume a supreme being if we lack understanding.
A basic function of our mind is to detect conicidence. This function allows us to learn relations
between events (like a bell ringing and lessons being over etc.). Because of the principle role of
coincidence in allowing us to recognize causation some of us have a hard time to reject causation
if some coincidence occurs. Some people will adopt religious beliefs to cover natural coincidence.
Theists and religious people add a layer of concepts to their daily experience which may alleviate
them from stress or give them strength in certain situations. However they can only agree that
their behaviour is 99% identical to that of atheists. During any real calamity they may pray, but
in order to survive they will have to submit to the laws the atheist will acknowledge.
Theist or religious people can hope, summon and pray, but they have no practical advantage.
They do have a practical advantage when it comes to raising armies of conditioned believers
that are in fact immature and in unnatural need of parenting.
It is the immaturity (ie the need for parenting) of the mind of the theist that scares the
atheist, because it means the theist is the instrument of another mature (parenting) mind.
The Vatican and Mecca is proof of the fact that that parenting mind is all too human, because
the facilities one can find there are to please humans, not a god.
An atheist can conclude theist have allowed moral conscience to become a thing to aquire by
submitting to a religious framework. Disowning people of their moral judgement has made religions
a curse to mankind. It has allowed jihadist and crucaders an inquisistion to occur.
In the end there are simple practical and demonstrable reasons why it pays to be just, good
and loving. Any parenting atheist can confirm this. Morals have been secured in our laws, and
judgment can be based on those and the life experience of the judge. He is the atheist parenting
figure, but he only helps out when asked.
There are theist who believe we are inherently evil. There are those who believe we are on a long
path towards enlightnement. There are those who believe we are being eternally punished for our
mistakes. This ensures thier dependence on their 'parenting figures'. It is a trick. It is immature
behaviour by the parent.




Revision [143]

Edited on 2007-09-06 21:58:17 by FritsRincker
Deletions:
Atheism (or not believing in a god)
Strangely atheism is often pitted against religions, so f.i. Atheim versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a person that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.
If a belief is a thing that can be remembered and that allows us to perform certain behavior, then for me that could be an accurate definition. I believe I am sitting on an chair right now. I remember I sat down, and I also believe that when I check whether I sit on a chair right now I will find that I do. That belief makes me behave in a certain way, for instance it allows me to check whether I am sitting on a chair. If I did not believe I was sitting on a chair it would take a lot more for me to check whether I did. That would be like expecting someone lying at the beach to check whether he wasn't actually in a toilet. So the checking behaviour is allowed because of my belief.
People usually develop a certain way of thinking that causes them to adopt beliefs that allows them to behave in a way that is sufficient for them to be happy and secure. For some those beliefs will be memories of something they themseves have experienced, often at multiple times. For others those beliefs will be memories of what people have told them, or what they have read. In most cases it will be a mix. It is the balance of that mix that devides people between those that could aknowledge a deity and those that see no need to do so.
The funny thing is that beliefs influence each other. They are like people in a crowded bus, or a color scheme, or the notes in a symphony. Why is that? First because if belief allows behaviour, some behaviours can not be allowed at the same time. Second, our brain needs to organize and reduce the different believes or it will not 'find' them when we think. Beliefs can not be disparate and are not supposed to conflict. Hence the 'truth'. A true belief is a belief the owner of it considers unchallenged by his own other beliefs. Like when he wanted to act out the belief he would not be hindered by acting out his other beliefs. My definition of 'truth' is clearly a personal thing.
It is because beliefs have this influence on each other that people develop a way of thinking that gives them a belief system which then determines their behaviour. The development of this belief system is a delicate proces that starts shortly after birth and ends in death. The development can go many ways, there are infinite ways to be happy and secure.
Some people develop a belief that is someone looks very serious at them and says something in a grave voice, that what is said should be adopted as a belief, as a thruth, basicly fying up the charts to number one. They have adopted the belief that by doing that they keep themselves safe and happy. It is mainly these people that develop religious believes. The main reason is that apparently they have made themselves dependend on others (those wich talk to them in a certain way), and they do not have beliefs that allows them to challenge their beliefs. They would have to belief that f.i. it is reasonable to check whether what someone has told them is true or not e.g. whether they can develop the same belief without the intervention of that person if they would ever want to be able to do so. If a person beliefs he can not 'question', he blocks the challenge to that belief.
So
1. Beliefs blocking their own challenge
2. Beliefs adopted from a source of happyness and security
3. Beliefs supported by repeated experience
Other people develop a belief that their behaviour is always for a reason. They belief that there is a pysical world, a belief that is very basic. Most of us have that belief, most of our beliefs are memories of something we have experienced in 'reality'. We usually also develop a belief that although our mind can make up images that appear real these may be fantansies and we should not allow them to become beliefs. These people may find that because our mind can create experiences out of nothing, we should be carefull what to believe to stay happy and safe. Being carefull means developing a system of beliefs about how to adopt a belief f.i. reasoning and checking.
All people thus develop beliefs that they hold true, but that otheres have challenged and do not hold as true. Some people may have developed a belief system that is in complete accordance with the physical reality, and others may have developed one that tells them not to try to experience reality in to much detail.
I believe it is simply the life experiences of people and the way they have developed their belief system which determines whether they have come to be religious or not. Being religious means at some point they developed or adopted a belief in a god, and this belief started to allow them to behave in a certain way that made them happy and secure.
Some people may have lived the same time or longer and never have needed to adopt religious beliefs in order to feel happy and secure.
It may seem there is no judgement in this text as to what belief system is 'better' or 'worse' or which one is true or not. That would actually be impossible. There is however one test that does put a value on belief systems, namely whether they are consistend and survive challenges. The root of this is the fact that what we can experience again and again and again is something that we can belief and that survives challenges.
Some belief systems do not survive challenges from beliefs that do survive many challenges. The belief that lead floats can not be maintained at the same time as the belief that lead sinks like a rock. Many people can see lead sink like a rock at any day of the week, so the person that holds the belief that lead floats is either crazy or hasn't had access to lead.
It is this mechanism that forces religious beliefs to the realm of insanity for some, because the people that expect beliefs to be memories of 'reality' (and not of some voice or text stating talking about 'it') can not find something in reality to believe in religion, and at the same time they do experience and adopt believes that challenge and defeat the religious beliefs. Those people that have adopted the belief in f.i. a god have many reasons to do so, many other beliefs that they feel supports the belief in a god. And because of their beliefs they can not adopt whatever counters it.
The key is our belief system (whatever it is) provides us whith our behaviour, and because of that it provides the freedom we experience. Because we need to stay safe and happy we are reluctant to give up the freedom that our beliefs allow us, and we hesitate to adopt beliefs that would force us to abandon other beliefs and this reduce the established freedom. Simpy said we would replace a certaintiy with an uncertainty, introducing fear for the unkown.
Atheist have developed a belief system that alllows them to feel happy and secure in the world that is mostly real. They can not accept religious beliefs because these can not pass their test of beliefs and they feel adopting them would reduce their freedom and introduce fear.
A religious person has beliefs that he does not challenge in the same way the atheist does. This person is basically open to beliefs that do not originate in any reapeatable and real experience. This person may be happy and secure holding these beliefs and also fears the uncertainty and loathes the reduction of freedom when he/she would have to abandon them.
Now the bottom line in the discussion is about freedom and certainty. The debate beween people with different belief systems becomes tougher as the freedoms and certainty they grant becomes greater and more universal. The debate would stop if noone would have a belief that forces them to confront the beliefs of others. It is however intrinsic to the 'rational' belief system to challenge any beliefs it comes across by checking for experiences in reality that would support them. It is also part of some religious belief systems that a world where all people would share the same religous belief is a better one (in many different versions). This is why there is a debate. Most people that are happy and secure do not participate in the debate.
Happyness and security are things that can be achieved by good government, and as such this suggests a belief system I could adhere.
My beliefs can be put in two categories: 1. Those about fair conduct and the way to organiza life. 2. Those based on experince of reality. Based on my experience in 'reality' a have come to belief that lawbooks are a dynamic and evolving belief system that allows the maximum feedom happyness and security to the maximum amount of people. I also belief it contains rules as to how to improve it. So I would let the lawbooks be the beliefsystem for moral affairs, and the experience of 'reality' supply the beliefs in all other cases.
I also belief that when a child is born and he/she can experience the way things interact in the world, and experience how we have come to adopt beliefs that have survived the most severe challenges, and how these challenges are set up, he/she is likely not to become religious or ever see the need for believing in a god.
I don't think so!


Revision [102]

Edited on 2007-08-08 00:13:13 by YadaYada (unregistered user)
Additions:
I don't think so!

Revision [80]

Edited on 2007-07-22 02:09:05 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Strangely atheism is often pitted against religions, so f.i. Atheim versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a person that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.
Deletions:
Strangely atheism is pitted against religions, so f.i. Atheims versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a person that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.

Revision [79]

Edited on 2007-07-22 02:03:30 by FritsRincker
Additions:
I also belief that when a child is born and he/she can experience the way things interact in the world, and experience how we have come to adopt beliefs that have survived the most severe challenges, and how these challenges are set up, he/she is likely not to become religious or ever see the need for believing in a god.

Revision [78]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:59:52 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Other people develop a belief that their behaviour is always for a reason. They belief that there is a pysical world, a belief that is very basic. Most of us have that belief, most of our beliefs are memories of something we have experienced in 'reality'. We usually also develop a belief that although our mind can make up images that appear real these may be fantansies and we should not allow them to become beliefs. These people may find that because our mind can create experiences out of nothing, we should be carefull what to believe to stay happy and safe. Being carefull means developing a system of beliefs about how to adopt a belief f.i. reasoning and checking.
All people thus develop beliefs that they hold true, but that otheres have challenged and do not hold as true. Some people may have developed a belief system that is in complete accordance with the physical reality, and others may have developed one that tells them not to try to experience reality in to much detail.
I believe it is simply the life experiences of people and the way they have developed their belief system which determines whether they have come to be religious or not. Being religious means at some point they developed or adopted a belief in a god, and this belief started to allow them to behave in a certain way that made them happy and secure.
It may seem there is no judgement in this text as to what belief system is 'better' or 'worse' or which one is true or not. That would actually be impossible. There is however one test that does put a value on belief systems, namely whether they are consistend and survive challenges. The root of this is the fact that what we can experience again and again and again is something that we can belief and that survives challenges.
Some belief systems do not survive challenges from beliefs that do survive many challenges. The belief that lead floats can not be maintained at the same time as the belief that lead sinks like a rock. Many people can see lead sink like a rock at any day of the week, so the person that holds the belief that lead floats is either crazy or hasn't had access to lead.
It is this mechanism that forces religious beliefs to the realm of insanity for some, because the people that expect beliefs to be memories of 'reality' (and not of some voice or text stating talking about 'it') can not find something in reality to believe in religion, and at the same time they do experience and adopt believes that challenge and defeat the religious beliefs. Those people that have adopted the belief in f.i. a god have many reasons to do so, many other beliefs that they feel supports the belief in a god. And because of their beliefs they can not adopt whatever counters it.
The key is our belief system (whatever it is) provides us whith our behaviour, and because of that it provides the freedom we experience. Because we need to stay safe and happy we are reluctant to give up the freedom that our beliefs allow us, and we hesitate to adopt beliefs that would force us to abandon other beliefs and this reduce the established freedom. Simpy said we would replace a certaintiy with an uncertainty, introducing fear for the unkown.
Now the bottom line in the discussion is about freedom and certainty. The debate beween people with different belief systems becomes tougher as the freedoms and certainty they grant becomes greater and more universal. The debate would stop if noone would have a belief that forces them to confront the beliefs of others. It is however intrinsic to the 'rational' belief system to challenge any beliefs it comes across by checking for experiences in reality that would support them. It is also part of some religious belief systems that a world where all people would share the same religous belief is a better one (in many different versions). This is why there is a debate. Most people that are happy and secure do not participate in the debate.
Happyness and security are things that can be achieved by good government, and as such this suggests a belief system I could adhere.
My beliefs can be put in two categories: 1. Those about fair conduct and the way to organiza life. 2. Those based on experince of reality. Based on my experience in 'reality' a have come to belief that lawbooks are a dynamic and evolving belief system that allows the maximum feedom happyness and security to the maximum amount of people. I also belief it contains rules as to how to improve it. So I would let the lawbooks be the beliefsystem for moral affairs, and the experience of 'reality' supply the beliefs in all other cases.
Deletions:
Other people develop a belief that their behaviour is always for a reason. They belief that there is a pysical world, a belief that is very basic. Most of us have that belief, most of our beliefs are memories of something we have experienced in 'reality'. We usually also develop a beleif that although our mind can make up images that appear real these may be fantansies and we should not allow them to become beliefs. These people may find that because our mind can creat experiences out of nothing, we should be carful what to belief to stay safe. Being carefull means developing a system of beleifs about how to adopt a beleif f.i. reasoning and checking.
All people thus develop beleifs that they hold true, but that otheres have challenged and do not hold as true. Some people may have developed a belief system that is in complete accordance with the physical reality, and others may have developed one that tells them not to try to experience reality in to much detail.
I believe it is simply the life experiences of people and the way they have developed their belief system which determines whether they have come to be religious or not. Being religious means at some point the developed a belief in a god, and this belief started to allow them to behave in a certain way that made them happy and secure.
It may seem there is no judgement in this text as to what belief system is 'better' or 'worse' or which one is true or not. That would actuallly be impossible. There is however one test that does put a value on belief systems, namely whether they are consistend and survive challenge. The root of this is the fact that what we can experience again and again and again is something that we can belief and that survives challenges.
Some belief systems do not survive challenges form beliefs that do survive many challenges. The belief that lead floats can not be maintained at the same time as the belief that lead sinks like a rock. Many people can see lead sink like a rock at any day of the week, so the person that holds the belief that lead floats is either crazy or hasn't had access to lead.
It is this mechanism that forces religious beliefs to the realm of insanity for some, because the people that expect beliefs to be memories of reality (and not of some voice ortext stating some reality) can not find a reality to beleive in religion, and at the same time they do experience and adopt believes that challenge and defeat the religious beliefs. Those people that have adopted the belief in f.i. a god have many reasons to do so, many other beliefs that they feel supports the belief in a god. And because of their beliefs they can not adopt whatever counters it.
The key is our belief system (whatever it is) provides us whith our behaviour, and because of that with the freedom we experience. Because we need to stay safe and happy we are reluctant to give up the freedom that our beliefs allow us, and we hesitate to adopt beliefs that would force us to abandon other beliefs and this reduce the established freedom. Simpy said we would replace a certaintiy with an uncertainty, introducing fear for the unkown.
Now the bottom line in the discussion is about freedom and certainty. The debate beween people with different beliefsystems becomes harder as the freedoms and certainty they grant becomes greater. The debate would stop if noone would have a belief that dictates that forces them to confront the beliefs of others. It is however intrinsic to the 'rational' belief system to challenge any beliefs it comes across by checking for experiences in reality that would support them. It is also belief in some religious belief systems that a world where all people would share the same religous belief is a better one (in many different versions). This is why there is a debate. Most people that are happy and secure do not participate in the debate.
My beliefs can be put in two categories: 1. Those about fair conduct and the way to organiza life. 2. Those based on experince of reality. Based on my experience in 'reality' a have come to belief that lawbooks are a dynamic and evolving beleif system that allows the maximum feedom happyness and security to the maximum amount of people. I also belief it contains rules as to how to improve it. I would let the lawbooks be the beliefsystem for moral affairs, and 'reality' the belief system for all others.

Revision [77]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:48:12 by FritsRincker
Additions:
So
1. Beliefs blocking their own challenge
2. Beliefs adopted from a source of happyness and security
3. Beliefs supported by repeated experience

Revision [76]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:45:14 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Some people develop a belief that is someone looks very serious at them and says something in a grave voice, that what is said should be adopted as a belief, as a thruth, basicly fying up the charts to number one. They have adopted the belief that by doing that they keep themselves safe and happy. It is mainly these people that develop religious believes. The main reason is that apparently they have made themselves dependend on others (those wich talk to them in a certain way), and they do not have beliefs that allows them to challenge their beliefs. They would have to belief that f.i. it is reasonable to check whether what someone has told them is true or not e.g. whether they can develop the same belief without the intervention of that person if they would ever want to be able to do so. If a person beliefs he can not 'question', he blocks the challenge to that belief.
Deletions:
Some people develop a belief that is someone looks very serious at them and says something in a grave voice, that what is said should be adopted as a belief, as a thruth, basicly fying up the charts to number one. They have adopted the belief that by doing that they keep themselves safe and happy. It is mainly these people that develop religious believes. The main reason is that apparently they have made themselves dependend on others (those wich talk to them in a certain way), and they do not have behaviour that allows them to challenge their beliefs. To have this behaviour the would have to belief that f.i. it is reasonable to check whether what someone has told them is true or not e.g. whether they can develop the same belief without the intervention of that person. Is a person beliefs he can not 'question', he blocks the challenge to that belief.

Revision [75]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:42:26 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Some people develop a belief that is someone looks very serious at them and says something in a grave voice, that what is said should be adopted as a belief, as a thruth, basicly fying up the charts to number one. They have adopted the belief that by doing that they keep themselves safe and happy. It is mainly these people that develop religious believes. The main reason is that apparently they have made themselves dependend on others (those wich talk to them in a certain way), and they do not have behaviour that allows them to challenge their beliefs. To have this behaviour the would have to belief that f.i. it is reasonable to check whether what someone has told them is true or not e.g. whether they can develop the same belief without the intervention of that person. Is a person beliefs he can not 'question', he blocks the challenge to that belief.
Deletions:
Some people develop a belief that is someone looks very serious at them and says something in a grave void, that what is said should be adopted as a belief, as a thruth, basicly fying up the charts to number one. They have adopted the belief that by doing that they keep themselves safe and happy. It is mainly these people that develop religious believes. The main reason is that apparently they have made themselves dependend on others (those wich talk to them in a certain way), and they do not have behaviour that allows them to challenge their beliefs. To have this behaviour the would have to belief that f.i. it is reasonable to check whether what someone has told them is true or not e.g. whether they can develop the same belief without the intervention of that person. Is a person beliefs he can not 'question', he blocks the challenge to that belief.

Revision [74]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:40:51 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Strangely atheism is pitted against religions, so f.i. Atheims versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a person that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.
If a belief is a thing that can be remembered and that allows us to perform certain behavior, then for me that could be an accurate definition. I believe I am sitting on an chair right now. I remember I sat down, and I also believe that when I check whether I sit on a chair right now I will find that I do. That belief makes me behave in a certain way, for instance it allows me to check whether I am sitting on a chair. If I did not believe I was sitting on a chair it would take a lot more for me to check whether I did. That would be like expecting someone lying at the beach to check whether he wasn't actually in a toilet. So the checking behaviour is allowed because of my belief.
People usually develop a certain way of thinking that causes them to adopt beliefs that allows them to behave in a way that is sufficient for them to be happy and secure. For some those beliefs will be memories of something they themseves have experienced, often at multiple times. For others those beliefs will be memories of what people have told them, or what they have read. In most cases it will be a mix. It is the balance of that mix that devides people between those that could aknowledge a deity and those that see no need to do so.
The funny thing is that beliefs influence each other. They are like people in a crowded bus, or a color scheme, or the notes in a symphony. Why is that? First because if belief allows behaviour, some behaviours can not be allowed at the same time. Second, our brain needs to organize and reduce the different believes or it will not 'find' them when we think. Beliefs can not be disparate and are not supposed to conflict. Hence the 'truth'. A true belief is a belief the owner of it considers unchallenged by his own other beliefs. Like when he wanted to act out the belief he would not be hindered by acting out his other beliefs. My definition of 'truth' is clearly a personal thing.
It is because beliefs have this influence on each other that people develop a way of thinking that gives them a belief system which then determines their behaviour. The development of this belief system is a delicate proces that starts shortly after birth and ends in death. The development can go many ways, there are infinite ways to be happy and secure.
Deletions:
Strangely atheism is pitted against religions, so f.i. Atheims versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a peson that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.
If a belief is a thing that can be remembered and that allows us to perform certain behavior (allow us to perform it), then for me that could be an accurate definition. I believe I am sitting on an chair right now. I remember I sat down, and I also believe that when I check whether I sit on a chair right now I will find that I do. That belief makes me behave in a certain way, for instance it allows me to check whether I am sitting on a chair. If I did not believe I was sitting on a chair it would take a lot more for me to check whether I did. That would be like expecting someone lying at the beach to check whether he wasn't actually in a toilet. So the checking behaviour is allowed because of my belief.
People usually develop a certain way of thinking that causes them to adopt beliefs that allows them to behave in a way that is sufficient for them to be happy. For some those beliefs will be memories of something they themseves have experienced, often multiple times. For others those beliefs will be memories of what people have told them, or what they have read. In most cases it will be a mix. It is the balance of that mix that devides people between those that would aknowledge a deity and those that see no need to do so.
The funny thing is that beliefs influence each other. They are like people in a crowded bus, or a color scheme, or the notes in a symphony. Why is that? First because if belief allows behaviour, some behaviours can not be allowed at the same time. Second, our brain needs to organize and reduce the different believes or we will not 'find' them in our own mind. Beliefs can not be disparate and are not supposed to conflict. Hence the 'truth'. A true belief is a belief the owner of it considers unchallenged by his own other beliefs. Like if he wanted to 'do' the belief it would not be hindered by doing his other beliefs. My 'truth' is clearly a personal thing.
It is because beliefs have this influence on each other that people develop a way of thinking that gives them a belief system which them determines their behaviour. The development of this belief system is a delicat proces that starts shortly after birth and ends in death. The development can go many ways.

Revision [73]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:34:40 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Strangely atheism is pitted against religions, so f.i. Atheims versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a peson that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.
Deletions:
Strangely atheism is pitted against religions, so Atheims versus Christianity. This is misconcieved, because Atheism is a name for a peson that for some reason has no belief in a god. The way this person thinks is highly likely to be completely unrelated to the way of thinking of people that do believe. This person does not see where the behavior of those that do believe in a god comes from. He is not antagonizing anyone, he is simply himself.

Revision [72]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:24:10 by FritsRincker
Additions:
My beliefs can be put in two categories: 1. Those about fair conduct and the way to organiza life. 2. Those based on experince of reality. Based on my experience in 'reality' a have come to belief that lawbooks are a dynamic and evolving beleif system that allows the maximum feedom happyness and security to the maximum amount of people. I also belief it contains rules as to how to improve it. I would let the lawbooks be the beliefsystem for moral affairs, and 'reality' the belief system for all others.
Deletions:

Revision [71]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:18:35 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Now the bottom line in the discussion is about freedom and certainty. The debate beween people with different beliefsystems becomes harder as the freedoms and certainty they grant becomes greater. The debate would stop if noone would have a belief that dictates that forces them to confront the beliefs of others. It is however intrinsic to the 'rational' belief system to challenge any beliefs it comes across by checking for experiences in reality that would support them. It is also belief in some religious belief systems that a world where all people would share the same religous belief is a better one (in many different versions). This is why there is a debate. Most people that are happy and secure do not participate in the debate.
Deletions:
Now the bottom line in the discussion is about freedom and certainty. The debate beween people with different beliefsystems becomes harder as the freedoms and certainty they grant becomes greater. The debate would stop if noone would have a belief that dictates that forces them to confront the beliefs of others. It is however intrinsic to the 'rational' belief system to challenge any beliefs it comes across by checking for experiences in reality that would support them. It is also belief in some religious belief systems that a world whate all people would share the religous belief is a better one (happy and secure is conditional on shared beliefs).

Revision [70]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:15:31 by FritsRincker
Additions:
Now the bottom line in the discussion is about freedom and certainty. The debate beween people with different beliefsystems becomes harder as the freedoms and certainty they grant becomes greater. The debate would stop if noone would have a belief that dictates that forces them to confront the beliefs of others. It is however intrinsic to the 'rational' belief system to challenge any beliefs it comes across by checking for experiences in reality that would support them. It is also belief in some religious belief systems that a world whate all people would share the religous belief is a better one (happy and secure is conditional on shared beliefs).

Revision [69]

Edited on 2007-07-22 01:08:04 by FritsRincker
Additions:
It is this mechanism that forces religious beliefs to the realm of insanity for some, because the people that expect beliefs to be memories of reality (and not of some voice ortext stating some reality) can not find a reality to beleive in religion, and at the same time they do experience and adopt believes that challenge and defeat the religious beliefs. Those people that have adopted the belief in f.i. a god have many reasons to do so, many other beliefs that they feel supports the belief in a god. And because of their beliefs they can not adopt whatever counters it.
The key is our belief system (whatever it is) provides us whith our behaviour, and because of that with the freedom we experience. Because we need to stay safe and happy we are reluctant to give up the freedom that our beliefs allow us, and we hesitate to adopt beliefs that would force us to abandon other beliefs and this reduce the established freedom. Simpy said we would replace a certaintiy with an uncertainty, introducing fear for the unkown.
Atheist have developed a belief system that alllows them to feel happy and secure in the world that is mostly real. They can not accept religious beliefs because these can not pass their test of beliefs and they feel adopting them would reduce their freedom and introduce fear.
A religious person has beliefs that he does not challenge in the same way the atheist does. This person is basically open to beliefs that do not originate in any reapeatable and real experience. This person may be happy and secure holding these beliefs and also fears the uncertainty and loathes the reduction of freedom when he/she would have to abandon them.
Deletions:
It is this mechanism that forces religious beliefs to the realm of insanity for some, because the people that expect beliefs to be memories of reality (and not of some voice ortext stating some reality) can not find a reality to beleive in religion, and at the same time they do experience and adopt believes that challenge and defeat the religious beliefs. Those people that have adopted the beleif in f.i. a god have many reasons to do so, many other beliefs that they feel supports the belief in a god. And because of their beliefs they can not adopt whatever counters it.

Revision [68]

The oldest known version of this page was created on 2007-07-22 00:57:54 by FritsRincker
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :: Valid CSS :: Powered by WikkaWiki
Page was generated in 1.1528 seconds