In that scenario, those first practitioners would probably be unrecognizable to practitioners many generations later. In that scenario, those first practitioners started out with something small, a particular idea that was neither controversial nor especially detailed, one that may even have gotten lost or marginalized over time. In that scenario, the idea of "God" may not have been present at first at all, just some aspect of it, such as "mystery" or "great power", and it was through later developments that a more compact idea of "God" was developed. In this scenario, there is no first-mover problem. You'll need to explain this one. People who have been born and raised into a religion will likely have a much different grasp of it than people who haven't. I'm sure that one needs to be sure of oneself in order to be "sure of the evidence." I don't think one can grasp the truth without also having enough ego and confidence. The op has a similar outlook -
The thing is that people who come to religion as adult outsiders may have desires, wishes about things they want, and those things may look like what the religion is talking about - while in fact there is a miscommunication. IOW, the person's A and the religion's A in the formula "If you want A, do B, C and D" may be quite different. And neither the person nor the religious people who advise the person may be aware of this difference. But it is a difference that can make or break a person's involvement with a religion. Probably just as frequently, people (adult outsiders) may be approaching a religion with desires they aren't even aware of, or in a state of confusion. While a religion may try to cultivate particular desires or clear up confusions, for those people, these efforts of the religion may feel like an attack on their personality/personal freedom, so they will resent it - while getting a good dose of contempt from the religious. I think that much of the criticism that religious people give outsiders and newcomers is based on a mistaken understanding of what the person wants, and on intimidating and criticizing the person into silence or into stating things they don't really mean.
I have a better question. Do I really care that atheists are not worthy of having miracles revealed to them?
Perhaps his attempt wasn't "botched" - perhaps he acted properly on the instructions he received, and it is that following those instructions simply couldn't deliver him the results he sought. You can't make cheesecake by following a recipe for coconut balls. That is assuming that the theoretical construct is adequate to begin with. You wouldn't say that about humanism, Scientology or Mormonism or Advaita Vedanta, would you?
Entirely beside the point. I didn't realize you were speaking exclusively of the monotheistic concept of God. Since this conversation is about abstract concepts, I assumed you meant "God" as a generic term that encompassed any and all gods. Given this revelation (no pun intended) I would suggest that we probably agree. Early religions seemed to be polytheistic, and monotheism is a late arrival to the world, suggesting that a singular god may not be man's first instinct, and is derived exclusively from polytheism. I misread that passage, and have since edited my post. Here is the update: I'm not really sure what you or the OP mean by "confidence," "ego," or "trust and knowledge of oneself" in that case.
I'm not that well versed in the scriptures but I didn't know or read anything like that that you say they tell you. Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condem others for not believing? I asked you to provide an answer, I'm not re reading the bible just to see where it says what you say it says is located. Again I ask for you to support your claims and post where it says that. thank you.
It's no mystery that there is a positive correlation between self-esteem and achievement (in various areas, from academic, sports, to work).
I never could relate to the idea of choosing beliefs. A person would have to be God to have the true religion. With imperfect humans, there are about 7 billion religions, or not, in the world. And who knows about the smarter animals?
Actually, there are many studies that show the contrary. Many people with high self-esteem claim achievements (better relationships, career success, etc.) but they're usually exaggerating. There doesn't seem to be any connection between self-esteem and performance in any field, from what I understand. I wasn't sure if you were speaking of self-esteem in this practical sense, or in some grander, "I'm having an existential crisis" way. You've clarified, but here's why I'm still confused: you seemed to infer that you lack the self-esteem to make judgments based on evidence, yet you have no problem in making a strong claim ("it's no mystery...") about something which you gleaned through mere assumption. This is a contradiction. Clearly you have enough self-assurance to say, essentially, "This is how I perceive something, so this is how it must be," so I don't understand why you can't (or why you think you can't) take an objective view of religion and draw a conclusion based on what you find.
And by definition, that is hatred. It's bigotry. Good to know you're carrying the torch for your backwards, dangerous faith.
By law of KX not faith is to lose no matter what. A. Faith is forethought, wishes, and aspiration you can not touch this. YOU DO BELIEVE. As far as 'God' goes, what about the ancestor to which all things pertain whom was born? B. By saying you don't believe as a scientist, do you know where the Faith is located in the mind? The term faith, husband of wish. I tell my faiths. Example: Perfection, and Pass. Do you actually not faith things? C. Imagine (she states other) that you were right, no God. Ha. As you see atheist must be born losers. Im tired of pessimist, and non-believers. They need to be taken care of. As you see positivity states good reason for a God. Evolution states that there ABSOLUTELY must be a 'God' of electricity, and thought. Peace. To Come: $1,000,000 telepath prize is mine. And astral travel.
I'm sorry, I know English is not your native language, but this is gibberish. I can't make heads or tails of it.
From what I understand, the positive correlation between self-esteem and accomplishment exists up to a point on the self-esteem scale; from that point on, high(er) self-esteem seems to become counterproductive. Of course, performance and accomplishment can be difficult to measure in a meaningful and objective way. Many studies on self-esteem and accomplishment are done on students by measuring their accomplishment in terms of academic success that seems to be easy enough to measure. How relevant those results are is another matter. But I think we can all agree that a certain measure of self-assurance, self-confidence, self-esteem of however we wish to call it, is necessary to have interactions with other people that the person themselves experiences as meaningful and successful. Then this is how it seemed to you. No. This is your conclusion. I consider declarations of certainty to be: 1. Rhetorical maneuvers, or 2. Manifestation of extremely high-self-esteem, or 3. Expression of factual certainty. In actual communication, it is often hard to tell which is which and how to reply to a person who has made a declaration of certainty. (Do they actually know and should be trusted, or are they just boasting?) Often, factual certainty would require nothing less than omniscience. Arguably, people often make declarations of certainty as a rhetorical maneuver that allows them to get the upper hand in the communication or relationship, and many other times as a matter of presenting and maintaining a particular self-image in the presence of others. Limiting declarations of certainty only to factual certainty would leave people very little to say, and with little means to get the upper hand in communication/relationships.
Perhaps it never was about choosing beliefs to begin with. There is a peculiarity of American PC speak - the words "choice" and "to choose" are often used. When translating those sentences into a language of continental Europe, such as German, it often sounds bizarre. "You chose to get angry" may sound perfectly normal in American PC speak, but "Du hast dich entschieden, wütend zu werden" sounds outlandish. I think that this focus on choice may be an American or PC specialty that has spread onto fields where it doesn't belong or is dysfunctional.
