I was thinking about non religious people, people who don’t buy in to an afterlife, or God, or whatnot, because they can’t wrap their reasoning around this or that.
I had written something about indestructibility in my previous threads. I think I would group indestructibility in with indivisibility and the inherent. I was wondering if non religious people would have a problem with such words? Would they think because such words couldn’t be placed under a microscope should they be removed from the dictionary or mankind’s vocabulary? After all, there’s no way to prove such words.
I thought for most people, indestructibility and indivisibility and the inherent might be a bit foreign: words they don’t use every day. I thought another word I would group into this category would be courage . . . in terms that there is no way to put courage under a microscope . . . to prove it with one hundred percent certainty.
(When I think about courage, the first thing that pops into my mind is a soldier doing something above and beyond on the battlefield. If he’s a success, he’d be congratulated or receive a metal. But then I thought, I could see a soldier on the battlefield rising above and beyond and not succeeding, getting shot. Then there’d be some people who’d say, he wasn’t courageous, he just had bad judgment.)
(Fine line between what courage is or isn’t.)
Can you put courage under a microscope? And because you can’t, does it mean it doesn’t exist.
I think courage is like religion and spiritualism. A swelling feeling. Rising strength and increasing conviction in the face of adversity. The fabric of society. A certain type of endurance. A great spirit that possesses. (The eagle’s first plunge.)
I appreciate everybody who responded in my other threads.