Thread One: Indestructibility vs. Destructibility.
Thread Two: I think religious people think themselves indestructible, whereas non religious people think themselves destructible. (Not all, but a fair amount.)
My first thread was closed because I didn’t give enough information on the topic.
My second thread drew similar comments and was closed, also.
If any more of my threads get pulled, I’m gonna be without a suit.
I was brief in both because I just wanted to see what people had to say with little bias from me.
I guess I was trying to paint non religious people into a corner a little bit . . .
I think indestructibility is easy to defend. It’s like a never-give-up-attitude. A never-give-up-attitude is like the whipmaster behind reasoning (that little voice) that says keep going no matter what (into the face of the unknown or hostile conditions): lash after lash after lash! I think this aspect of all peoples’ reasoning is one of the most powerful aspects of a person’s reasoning: never give up!
When I think of the snake aspect of reasoning that all people have, including myself (red Mamba style) who talk about science and the supernatural and show me with my eyes if you want to make me a believer and who like to break everything down to its lowest common denominator . . . I like that aspect of reasoning, too.
But when I think of those two aspects of peoples’ reasoning (and there are many other aspects), I can’t help but think that the whipmaster aspect is much more powerful than the snake aspect, even a poisonous snake, a Mamba, a red Mamba. (I can almost picture the whipmaster snapping his whip, from a distance, and snapping the snake’s head off with very little effort.) To me, a never-die-attitude is paramount. It’s this type of attitude that’s going to drive the horses of uncertainty into the darkest continually-expanding reaches of the unknown and discover new horizons. Certainly not certifiable science.
(It’s funny, a paradox of sorts, that at some point, for certain sciences to push the envelope, some scientist has to take a leap of faith or go with their gut feeling or their guess. Yes? Kind of like that’s the religion of some sciences: You gotta take a leap of faith, like religion, even if the evidence isn’t there to support your belief.)
I’m a religious person. But I appreciate everybody’s points of views, even if they extremely differ from mine. But sometimes, I get the strong impression that a fair amount of non religious people always break it (the whole religion vs. non religion argument) down to reasoning somehow. It’s a question of reasoning to them. Because they can’t put their thumb down on the supernatural, therefore, it can’t be, and therefore, anybody who thinks otherwise has a limited reasoning. But they never talk about the different aspects of reasoning. I was just trying to show that there are many aspects to reasoning. And just because a person thinks they have one aspect of reasoning cornered off, doesn’t mean they have a better reasoning.
I appreciate everybody who commented in the other two threads.
Thanks. . . .
Thanks for your time. . . .
Have a great day. . . .