It's Easier to Criticize Than Justify

savagewind said:

You are right. It is OK to disagree but to call it stupid is counterproductive. The JWs call the World "under the influence of Satan" which is negativity and it won't work, imo but it isn't right to give it back the way they give it. I can see people ignore them which doesn't work either.

I have been trying to give them a positive spin on some scriptures but they don't like that.

Click to expand...

I imagine it's pretty hard if they see you as an outsider. A number of the religions I got involved in were very antagonistic towards ex-members. Most had some rule to no longer associate with ex-members.

Nakosis said:

It is easier for me to criticize what someone else believes than justify a belief. So I've gotten to the point of criticizing all beliefs, even my own.

Why Criticism Doesn't Work

At no time in this downward spiral does an obvious fact occur to critical people: Criticism is an utter failure at getting positive behavior change. Any short-term gain you might get from it builds resentment down the line.

Criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most:

1. It calls for submission, and we hate to submit.
2. It devalues, and we hate to feel devalued.

While people hate to submit, though, we actually like to cooperate. Critical people seem oblivious to this key point about human nature: The valued self cooperates; the devalued self resists. If you want behavior change from a partner, child, relative, or friend, first show value for the person. If you want resistance, criticize.

Why We Criticize Anyway

Critical people are certainly smart enough to figure out that criticism doesn’t work. So why do they keep doing it, even in the face of mounting frustration? It's because criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201404/whats-wrong-criticism

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

Click to expand...

I am critical of psychology in general.

Nakosis said:

It is easier for me to criticize what someone else believes than justify a belief. So I've gotten to the point of criticizing all beliefs, even my own.

Why Criticism Doesn't Work

At no time in this downward spiral does an obvious fact occur to critical people: Criticism is an utter failure at getting positive behavior change. Any short-term gain you might get from it builds resentment down the line.

Criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most:

1. It calls for submission, and we hate to submit.
2. It devalues, and we hate to feel devalued.

While people hate to submit, though, we actually like to cooperate. Critical people seem oblivious to this key point about human nature: The valued self cooperates; the devalued self resists. If you want behavior change from a partner, child, relative, or friend, first show value for the person. If you want resistance, criticize.

Why We Criticize Anyway

Critical people are certainly smart enough to figure out that criticism doesn’t work. So why do they keep doing it, even in the face of mounting frustration? It's because criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201404/whats-wrong-criticism

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

Click to expand...

I speak as someone who's learnt far more by being wrong than by being right.

If you can't hear criticism, if your reflex is to justify yourself instead of to consider whether there's something there that you can learn from (as I dare say we've all done at some stage) then in my view, you haven't understood the virtues of debate, the opportunities to enlarge your understanding.

Like all generalizations there'll be exceptions, but my personal conviction is that it's good to keep thinking, to keep learning.

Nakosis said:

I imagine it's pretty hard if they see you as an outsider. A number of the religions I got involved in were very antagonistic towards ex-members. Most had some rule to no longer associate with ex-members.

Click to expand...

When people are afraid of criticism it shows that they do not have the conviction to defend what they believe.
You begin to feel that their beliefs or non-belief are not that sturdy, that if you break it - they will cry like babies
And wish their mamas are there to comfort them.



As for myself - I am open for discussion on matters pertaining to the faith written in the Bible
I would concede openly and accept defeat - if needed be.
But so far, I haven't had this opportunity.
How many atheist have unitarily withdrawn, tip toed their way out on me?
How many of them instead of using their IQ, pushed the Report button to show their defeat?
How many of them would incite your anger for them to report a Rule 1 violation?
I have yet to find a proud and invincible atheist who is a worthy conversant.

The rule about shying away from ex-members in a religion is justified.
I believe, even the apostles wouldn't want to associate with Judas
after Judas betrayed Jesus for the price of 30 pieces of silver [US$ 600]



Anyways that is doctrinal and found in the Bible and it is a Christian thing.
1 Corinthians 5:11
2 Thessalonians 3:14

Educated criticism that has as it's goal to help others is much different from criticism that's just to put something down and make people lose something they value enough to hold as belief. For one thing, if the criticism already has errors (like it usually does) the other party will not hear the rest.

Consider knowing something about astronomy and someone starts being critical of your way of using a telescope and trying to help you make better use of it in your hobby. They know better than you how the telescope works, but unfortunately they also mention that they believe the stars are just holes in the sky from which light pours out. It most likely turns out that you will learn nothing new about telescopes and you probably become less friendly with the person trying to help you with it.

MJFlores said:

As for myself - I am open for discussion on matters pertaining to the faith written in the Bible
I would concede openly and accept defeat - if needed be.
But so far, I haven't had this opportunity.
How many atheist have unitarily withdrawn, tip toed their way out on me?

Click to expand...

I'm not technically an atheist . My view is that all concepts of God are of an imaginary god, not one that has objective existence. There is, for example, no definition of God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God (or, a god) or not.

There is no concept of real 'godness', the real quality, the objective quality a real god has that a false claimant does not.

How say you?

blü 2 said:

I'm not technically an atheist . My view is that all concepts of God are of an imaginary god, not one that has objective existence. There is, for example, no definition of God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God (or, a god) or not.

There is no concept of real 'godness', the real quality, the objective quality a real god has that a false claimant does not.

How say you?

Click to expand...

Maybe you are agnostic, if you are not technically an atheist.
I used to be irreligious too prior to 2010.

My God is written in the Bible.
He made the universe and everything in it in 6 days.
He made the universe with one purpose alone not accidental.
He does not have a split personality disorder [cruel then kind the next]
He does not change, not human - never was and never is.
He is spirit so he has invisible qualities.
Even oxygen, gravity or the wind are invisible yet we believe it is there
We believe the unseen because we feel the unseen

It is not only that feeling that makes us believe the unseen God
It is the knowledge that he has imparted for us
The truth, his truth - nobody else's truth - the Bible
The bible written in different times and in different writers but with one message
not conflicting each other - though versions might fail - it imparts only one truth.

A few days ago, I was exchanging notes with an agnostic and then an atheist
on the topic that the Bible is a work of fiction - a fable - nothing more than that of a MCU movie or print

They want to see an evidence that God exists and that the Bible is real?
I gave one evidence but they left the thread when I told them to tell me why
a nation which is a bonafide UN member - exists if the Bible is fiction?
This real nation is mentioned for over 2,000 times in their declared "mythological book" we call the Bible


After that....the agnostic and then an atheist
no longer want to add to the agony of their defeat

God is good!

MJFlores said:

My God is written in the Bible.

Click to expand...

The bible works for an imaginary god. I can't find in it any concept of a real god, one (as I said) which would allow us to tell whether any real candidate is God or not.

MJFlores said:

We believe the unseen because we feel the unseen

Click to expand...

So you're completely uncritical? You require no examinable evidence? You entertain not the slightest skepticism? It doesn't worry you that there are thousands of different gods in the world, each made to mirror the values of their humans?

MJFlores said:

They want to see an evidence that God exists

Click to expand...

I certainly do. I can't understand why there are no photos of God, for example. If God is real then nothing stops [him] being photographed, having [his] own TV show, rescuing kids from the avalanche, fire, oncoming truck ─ but [he]'s never there. [He] neither says nor does.

Which is totally consistent with [his] being imaginary.

MJFlores said:

tell me why a nation which is a bonafide UN member - exists if the Bible is fiction?

Click to expand...

That's a complete misunderstanding of the bible. The bible is a mix of folktale, folk history, real history, rules (how to be a priest, how to own and bonk slaves, &c &c), poems and songs, folk wisdom, political polemic, stories, and so on. Your question is like saying there MUST be a real James Bond because London is mentioned in the books.

So a useful definition that will let us tell whether any real candidate is God or not will be helpful.

And meanwhile a photo or a video would be interesting.

Nakosis said:

It is easier for me to criticize what someone else believes than justify a belief. So I've gotten to the point of criticizing all beliefs, even my own.

Why Criticism Doesn't Work

At no time in this downward spiral does an obvious fact occur to critical people: Criticism is an utter failure at getting positive behavior change. Any short-term gain you might get from it builds resentment down the line.

Criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most:

1. It calls for submission, and we hate to submit.
2. It devalues, and we hate to feel devalued.

While people hate to submit, though, we actually like to cooperate. Critical people seem oblivious to this key point about human nature: The valued self cooperates; the devalued self resists. If you want behavior change from a partner, child, relative, or friend, first show value for the person. If you want resistance, criticize.

Why We Criticize Anyway

Critical people are certainly smart enough to figure out that criticism doesn’t work. So why do they keep doing it, even in the face of mounting frustration? It's because criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.
What's Wrong With Criticism

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

Click to expand...

Often it is more important to look at our own practice, then to make critique of others belief. Are we good enough in our own belief?

blü 2 said:

The bible works for an imaginary god. I can't find in it any concept of a real god, one (as I said) which would allow us to tell whether any real candidate is God or not.
So you're completely uncritical? You require no examinable evidence? You entertain not the slightest skepticism? It doesn't worry you that there are thousands of different gods in the world, each made to mirror the values of their humans?
I certainly do. I can't understand why there are no photos of God, for example. If God is real then nothing stops [him] being photographed, having [his] own TV show, rescuing kids from the avalanche, fire, oncoming truck ─ but [he]'s never there. [He] neither says nor does.

Which is totally consistent with [his] being imaginary.
That's a complete misunderstanding of the bible. The bible is a mix of folktale, folk history, real history, rules (how to be a priest, how to own and bonk slaves, &c &c), poems and songs, folk wisdom, political polemic, stories, and so on. Your question is like saying there MUST be a real James Bond because London is mentioned in the books.

So a useful definition that will let us tell whether any real candidate is God or not will be helpful.

And meanwhile a photo or a video would be interesting.

Click to expand...

Bwahahaha!

James Bond?


London doesn't need for a James Bond book to exist.

But the State of Israel need the Old Testament bible to exist.

Should you object - please contact the nearest Israeli Embassy and they would be happy to send a Mossad agent to accommodate your complaint.

Imagine that the State of Israel's basis for existence is from a mix of folktale, folk history, real history, rules (how to be a priest, how to own and bonk slaves, &c &c), poems and songs, folk wisdom, political polemic, stories, and so on???!!!!!

Show me Narnia? How about Hogwarts? Mordor?
They are all books but these places are not real.
Unlike Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Sea of Galilee, Israel

Tomb of King David


Acts 2:29
“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

blü 2 said:

. Your question is like saying there MUST be a real James Bond because London is mentioned in the books.

Click to expand...

The name "Israel" first appears in the Hebrew Bible as the name given by God to the patriarch Jacob (Genesis 32:28). Deriving from the name "Israel", other designations that came to be associated with the Jewish people have included the "Children of Israel" or "Israelite".
Land of Israel - Wikipedia
While....

The name of London is derived from a word first attested, in Latinised form, as Londinium. By the first century CE, this was a commercial centre in Roman Britain. The etymology of the name is uncertain.
Etymology of London - Wikipedia


London doesn't need for a James Bond book to exist.
But the State of Israel need the Old Testament bible to exist.

MJFlores said:

But the State of Israel need the Old Testament bible to exist.

Click to expand...

That's certainly a big part of the political campaign behind the founding of modern Israel.

MJFlores said:

Show me Narnia? How about Hogwarts? Mordor?
They are all books but these places are not real.
Unlike Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Sea of Galilee, Israel

Click to expand...

And unlike London, New York, the Bahamas in the James Bond novels. Having a real place in a story doesn't make the story true, but that's exactly what you're claiming. Having an historic fact or personage in a story doesn't make the story true either.

But you failed to tell me: what objective test can we use that will tell us whether any real suspect is God or not?

Or do you agree that God only exists in the imagination of individuals?

blü 2 said:

But you failed to tell me: what objective test can we use that will tell us whether any real suspect is God or not?

Or do you agree that God only exists in the imagination of individuals?

Click to expand...

Your first question is a little bit mixed up.
You want to test God in a lab?
We are just pots and potsherds compared to the potter.


Isaiah 45:9-11 New International Version (NIV)
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
those who are nothing but potsherds
among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
‘The potter has no hands’?
Woe to the one who says to a father,
‘What have you begotten?’
or to a mother,
‘What have you brought to birth?’

“This is what the Lord says—
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?

Isaiah 29:16 New International Version (NIV)
You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
“You know nothing”?

So we are nothing compared to the potter.
We are nothing but pots and potsherds.
A pot or a potsherd could not examine the potter like he is also clay.
And that is in the Bible.

I think I have an example of the difference between criticism or justify.

My daughter's baby daddy can't support a family but she says he is saving for a place for the three of them to move into.

I can say, "that's never going to happen!" (which I believe is the truth) or I can say, "how much has he saved for it in three months of working full time and if it is nothing, just do the math!".

He can't. <negativity

Do the math <possitivity

Or should it be, yes, my darling, it will happen (when I am sure it won't)?

Nakosis said:

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

Click to expand...

I didn't take a gander at the full article, but an important bit of context - Psychology Today writes for Western (particularly American) audiences with Western (and particularly American) assumptions. It is already known that the Western way of thinking is not only rather unusual, but not even the normal (see The WEIRD Evolution of Human Psychology). The suggestion that "human beings" hate calls for submission or devaluing themselves is an extremely Western, American assumption. It's not a characteristic of "human beings" as a whole, not even those who live in America (I know it doesn't characterize me).

So in short, to answer the question of how much is this really true? Not much. I'm sure it will sound true to many readers who are from the United States (and to some extent other English-speaking Western cultures) cultures, but not all of them. I actually find it pretty frustrating when people use the argument "if you were comfortable in your beliefs, you wouldn't fear criticism of them" or "you are only criticizing that to shore up your own ego." That's not a correct assumption.

MJFlores said:

Your first question is a little bit mixed up.
You want to test God in a lab?
We are just pots and potsherds compared to the potter.
View attachment 27829

Isaiah 45:9-11 New International Version (NIV)
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
those who are nothing but potsherds
among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
‘The potter has no hands’?
Woe to the one who says to a father,
‘What have you begotten?’
or to a mother,
‘What have you brought to birth?’

“This is what the Lord says—
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?
View attachment 27830
Isaiah 29:16 New International Version (NIV)
You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
“You know nothing”?

So we are nothing compared to the potter.
We are nothing but pots and potsherds.
A pot or a potsherd could not examine the potter like he is also clay.
And that is in the Bible.

Click to expand...

That only works if God is imaginary.

If God is real you can show [him] to us.

But first we need to know what a real god is. Which is why we need that objective test that will tell us which real candidate is God and which is not.

Without that, no one has a clue what God (ie a non-imaginary God) is, hence what we're supposed to be looking for.

Nakosis said:

It is easier for me to criticize what someone else believes than justify a belief. So I've gotten to the point of criticizing all beliefs, even my own.

Why Criticism Doesn't Work

At no time in this downward spiral does an obvious fact occur to critical people: Criticism is an utter failure at getting positive behavior change. Any short-term gain you might get from it builds resentment down the line.

Criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most:

1. It calls for submission, and we hate to submit.
2. It devalues, and we hate to feel devalued.

While people hate to submit, though, we actually like to cooperate. Critical people seem oblivious to this key point about human nature: The valued self cooperates; the devalued self resists. If you want behavior change from a partner, child, relative, or friend, first show value for the person. If you want resistance, criticize.

Why We Criticize Anyway

Critical people are certainly smart enough to figure out that criticism doesn’t work. So why do they keep doing it, even in the face of mounting frustration? It's because criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201404/whats-wrong-criticism

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

Click to expand...

well posted.....very nice....
now let me critique it

there are amongst us the stubborn and self centered
many who believe they have it right and discussion is moot

so.....drop the logic on their heads
and they boo hoo

but if you refrain....they will continue in stride
deceiving themsleves
and many more

Nakosis said:

It is easier for me to criticize what someone else believes than justify a belief. So I've gotten to the point of criticizing all beliefs, even my own.

Why Criticism Doesn't Work

At no time in this downward spiral does an obvious fact occur to critical people: Criticism is an utter failure at getting positive behavior change. Any short-term gain you might get from it builds resentment down the line.

Criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most:

1. It calls for submission, and we hate to submit.
2. It devalues, and we hate to feel devalued.

While people hate to submit, though, we actually like to cooperate. Critical people seem oblivious to this key point about human nature: The valued self cooperates; the devalued self resists. If you want behavior change from a partner, child, relative, or friend, first show value for the person. If you want resistance, criticize.

Why We Criticize Anyway

Critical people are certainly smart enough to figure out that criticism doesn’t work. So why do they keep doing it, even in the face of mounting frustration? It's because criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201404/whats-wrong-criticism

How much of this is true or really how does it apply to people who post criticisms of other people's beliefs?

Is there an exception to this? Is there more to criticism (of religious belief) than the need to feed one's own ego?

Click to expand...

I'd like to respond, but that would necessitate criticism.

blü 2 said:

That only works if God is imaginary.

If God is real you can show [him] to us.

But first we need to know what a real god is. Which is why we need that objective test that will tell us which real candidate is God and which is not.

Without that, no one has a clue what God (ie a non-imaginary God) is, hence what we're supposed to be looking for.

Click to expand...

I learned who is God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
When he said - God is spirit. John 4:24
If Jesus said God is spirit what did he mean by that?
A spirit does not have flesh and bones. Luke 24:39
So what would that mean? You can't see God. John 1:18

As I have told you we are just pots and pot-shards
You think God is made of clay?

Isaiah 29:16
You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!

So that ain't right blu 2!
Your dog has no right to test you
But you can test your dog as you please
And that is a one way street - we are the dog


When did nothing create something?

MJFlores said:

I learned who is God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

No doubt, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

MJFlores said:

When he said - God is spirit. John 4:24
If Jesus said God is spirit what did he mean by that?

Click to expand...

First of all, there are at least five different Jesuses in the NT, so any one of them may be in the minority, though Paul's agrees with John's on that point.

MJFlores said:

A spirit does not have flesh and bones. Luke 24:39
So what would that mean? You can't see God. John 1:18

Click to expand...

And why not? Because 'spirit', 'supernatural', 'immaterial' all translate as 'imaginary'. That's to say, no objective test will distinguish them from 'imaginary'.

Whereas I'm talking about a real God, a God with objective existence, a God that doesn't require me to imagine it.

Such a God, being real, has real qualities such that if we find [him], anyone, not just believers, can determine that it's God and not some false claimant.

And I keep asking you for the definition of a real god that will allow us to do that, and you keep talking about something else.

So what's the answer?

(If you don't know, just say so.)