@META Discuss
But here’s the thing, this can also lead to a thinking error. It can lead to it, or it might not, depending on how it’s conveyed.
Because we already know that there is imperfection, it’s then conveyed like that. In my opinion, first, show that there is imperfection in their way of thinking.
@META Discuss
But atheists do have ways to overcome their existential crisis, namely by manipulating chemical substances in the brain.
Current neuroscience research proves that what causes someone to have an existential crisis is more due to an imbalance of neurotransmitters in their brain (which affects their happiness hormones), not necessarily because they lack meaning in life.
People who lack meaning in life can still be happy as long as the chemical balance in their brain is not disturbed.
@META Discuss
Atheists and theists are both critical, the difference is theists criticize while worshipping 🤣
We can also empathize with atheists, by using their way of thinking. They are looking for evidence and they exhaust all their mental and physical energy to find evidence to falsify the existence of God.
But yes, the falsification must be there, it must be shown.
Theists should also do the same, they can look for evidence of existence.
@META Discuss
There is nothing wrong with the way theists and atheists think (because what theists and atheists "hope" for in the future has not been proven true yet).
If theists think atheists are more prone to existential crises due to their lack of ultimate purpose in life, then atheists can also think that theists are filled with anxiety because they are hoping for the fate of their heaven and hell that they do not know the end of.
Seremonia:
Consider, you can explain back...
Well, if it's balanced, what if it’s not? Which standard is used?
We just keep turning it back on them.
@META Discuss
It's the same, if the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain is disturbed, both theists and atheists are equally likely to be depressed.
Seremonia:
Does it take 100,000 years to accept a belief? Or is it enough with evidence for half a human life span or even shorter to eat food at a food stall?
It means that the value of goodness from neuro stability can fail because there is a possibility of instability.
@META Discuss
Yes, it can be.
One thing I’ve noticed is the "God of the gaps" argument that the more modern we get, the fewer gaps there are, and this shows the existence of God.
The weakness of theists is exploiting these gaps in events and filling them with the role of God.
In reality, these gaps will still exist in the future.
Seremonia:
They should be aware of the science of the gap when quantum physics also cannot answer the mystery.
@META Discuss
Just the existential question is different.
Atheists usually go more towards, "What’s the point of living, it has no meaning, might as well die, dying won’t feel any suffering at all, and it’s better not to feel any suffering at all than to live and feel both happiness and suffering."
And theists usually go more towards, "My fate is not certain yet, and besides, fate is already written before we were created, what if I’m destined to be a resident of hell?" (and this becomes the cause of their anxiety disorder).
Seremonia:
🔰 The point is, it’s not as simple as finding loopholes in a debate which both theists and atheists can do, but the tendency of atheists to impose a standard of perfection that they themselves do not adhere to, is absurd.
〰〰〰
THE CORE OF UNDERSTANDING
Don't get trapped by atheism which tends to strike repeatedly in a simplistic manner. If we want to, we can also criticize them using their own concepts.
Atheism, which claims to be smartly critical, can actually be taught to children to find loopholes, just like children find excuses against parental restrictions. The only difference is that this criticism is directed at religious matters.
⭕️ THEIR FINAL TRICK is to lead them to one main point (whether they are genuinely confused in their despair or just casually joining in for an easy way out), which is...
♦️ THEIR TRICK IS... THEY FORCE THEISTS TO THINK PERFECTLY, HAVE PERFECT BELIEFS, AND PROVIDE PERFECT ANSWERS, WHEN IN FACT❓
Our lives and theirs are not entirely based on 100% certain truths (there is probability involved).
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED CERTAINTY, but once there is certainty, don't let atheists lead you around as if your beliefs are not perfect or complete.
Yes, EXPLAIN BACK by showing how far they (atheists) are from perfection, and then REMIND them continuously about their imperfections.
CERTAINTY
After you understand this, or? You feel enlightened by other arguments, or? Through spiritual approaches or any other means.
Still, do not get caught up in the concept of total perfection.
Every argument has its weaknesses. And this argument cannot affirm the lacking aspects of the polemic on divinity. So does this mean the argument fails? No, but our demand for a perfect argument is what makes us feel failed.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT CAN 100% PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Even empirical evidence does not fully explain everything. This means that while its foundation may be universal absolutes, the total structure of truth is also built on elements of belief (not 100% detailed by universal absolutes).
FACTS & PROBABILITY
You cannot even expect everything to be answered 100% without any mystery. But at least when the probability of facts has exceeded half or more of the average human lifespan, it can be relied upon. The issue of things changing after 1000 years is beyond the context unless your lifespan is eternal.
So, with the limitation of time, we indeed have to make decisions based on facts whose truth does not need to last for millions of years, but rather measured realistically over half or more of a human lifespan.
Again, you cannot even expect everything to be answered 100% without any mystery.
Top comments (0)