A Belief

[Tmac]

In the terms you put it, probably not. The OP's conception of "beliefs" does not convince me, nor do I think the exception proposed is properly explained either.

I suspect you are extrapolating from a specific, particularly problematic set.

Thank you for your input, how could I have written it better? But then you don't do that do you, you'd rather just shoot things down like the commandant in Shindler's List.

Does your second sentence say you think I have a motive for my post, not really clear what you mean but if I am right, do you really believe that was a brilliant observation.

 

[Tmac]

For a person to assess the good and bad of a belief, it has to exist as a set of propositions and claims in the first place.. with which one can compare with one's current belief. So the question is simple... does every person find this new belief more satisfactory to them personally than their previous beliefs or not?

It would take work which either you are unwilling or unable to understand for yourself, and I don't want to lead you, I want you to learn to lead yourself.

 

[sayak83]

It would take work which either you are unwilling or unable to understand for yourself, and I don't want to lead you, I want you to learn to lead yourself.

Cool. Not interested then.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

People are just too diverse and complex to all be simultaneously satisfied - no matter what the belief.

Even better to evolve beyond the need for any "belief"

I'm surprise by your answer, basically a no with trimmings.

Surprises can make life fun!

Seriously, though - my understanding of nirvana is that it is a state of consciousness beyond all concepts and thus beyond the need for "beliefs".

Impossible to imagine without experiencing it? Probably so.

Buddhists believe that you won't be truly satisfied & content until yo enter nirvana.

Meditation has given me tantalising glimpses of what that may be like ...

Enjoy your day!

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for your input, how could I have written it better? But then you don't do that do you, you'd rather just shoot things down like the commandant in Shindler's List.

Does your second sentence say you think I have a motive for my post, not really clear what you mean but if I am right, do you really believe that was a brilliant observation.

Are you trying to be ironic?

I found the OP self-contradicting, that is all. You both claim that beliefs are inherently divisive (and that is far from true) and that you want to know what we would do if given the choice to switch to a non-divisive belief.

That is not really very easy to parse. Besides, how would that choice work? It has a hint of high fantasy.

 

[Tmac]

People are just too diverse and complex to all be simultaneously satisfied - no matter what the belief.

Even better to evolve beyond the need for any "belief"



Surprises can make life fun!

Seriously, though - my understanding of nirvana is that it is a state of consciousness beyond all concepts and thus beyond the need for "beliefs".

Impossible to imagine without experiencing it? Probably so.

Enjoy your day!

Nirvana. Do you not experience when you write the words, do you not experience understanding? I don't think there is a beyond, but an awareness that now that frees one from the gravitational pull of concepts
Did you know that the natural state is the mind is at rest?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Would you be willing to give up your current beliefs for "a belief" that would satisfy everyone?

"Belief", and by this I am assuming you mean religious or spiritual belief, is not nearly the only divider. Political views, cultural differences, distribution of wealth, arbitrary distribution of genetic traits that are perceived beneficial, birth into areas of greater or fewer resources, gender/sex, social aptitude, and physiological fitness (to name a few of the more obvious ones) are all used as dividers by human beings. Religion just happens to be the most unnecessary, or least intrinsic... i.e. the most useless, of the dividing criteria we impose.

Nothing is ever going to satisfy everyone, because everyone is too busy being white/black/Asian/etc. or Italian/French/American/Korean/etc. or fit/fat/average/etc. or pretty/ugly/mediocre/etc. or rich/poor/middle-class/etc.

We're all too "self" (whatever that may encompass) to realistically entertain ideas of universal acceptance. And I include myself in this... I don't pretend to be "above it all." There have been too many times I have had the thought cross my mind: "Yeah, we could all get along, if everyone would just accept 'X'", only to then come face to face with someone very soon after and have to admit that I could probably never get along with that person unless all pretense were stripped away from us both.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Nirvana. Do you not experience when you write the words, do you not experience understanding? I don't think there is a beyond, but an awareness that now that frees one from the gravitational pull of concepts
Did you know that the natural state is the mind is at rest?

Rational thought has its limits - very tough for most people to turn off that little voice-in-your-head

Cheers

 

[Tmac]

Are you trying to be ironic?

I found the OP self-contradicting, that is all. You both claim that beliefs are inherently divisive (and that is far from true) and that you want to know what we would do if given the choice to switch to a non-divisive belief.

That is not really very easy to parse. Besides, how would that choice work? It has a hint of high fantasy.

Far from true, have you looked out your window lately.

Look, I only asked if there were any willing to do this, not that there was a solution in place, it would be the goal of those that considered this possible to come up with the "satisfying for all involved" solution.

Habits resist change.

 

[Tmac]

"Belief", and by this I am assuming you mean religious or spiritual belief, is not nearly the only divider. Political views, cultural differences, distribution of wealth, arbitrary distribution of genetic traits that are perceived beneficial, birth into areas of greater or fewer resources, gender/sex, social aptitude, and physiological fitness (to name a few of the more obvious ones) are all used as dividers by human beings. Religion just happens to be the most unnecessary, or least intrinsic... i.e. the most useless, of the dividing criteria we impose.

Nothing is ever going to satisfy everyone, because everyone is too busy being white/black/Asian/etc. or Italian/French/American/Korean/etc. or fit/fat/average/etc. or pretty/ugly/mediocre/etc. or rich/poor/middle-class/etc.

We're all too "self" (whatever that may encompass) to realistically entertain ideas of universal acceptance. And I include myself in this... I don't pretend to be "above it all." There have been too many times I have had the thought cross my mind: "Yeah, we could all get along, if everyone would just accept 'X'", only to then come face to face with someone very soon after and have to admit that I could probably never get along with that person unless all pretense were stripped away from us both.

Everything new has a beginning, everything old has an ending. If I couldn't see any personal gain from this idea, I would have rejected it myself.

 

[Tmac]

Rational thought has its limits - very tough for most people to turn off that little voice-in-your-head

Cheers

The idea is not to turn the voice off but to listen and commune until it is satisfied.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Would you be willing to give up your current beliefs for "a belief" that would satisfy everyone?

Yes.
If everyone is satisfied, (including me), then everyone would have the same belief, and therefore, no one would be aware of a different belief.

 

[Tmac]

Yes.
If everyone is satisfied, (including me), then everyone would have the same belief, and therefore, no one would be aware of a different belief.

Thank you, yeses are few and far between.

 

[Tmac]

Yes.
If everyone is satisfied, (including me), then everyone would have the same belief, and therefore, no one would be aware of a different belief.

And more importantly it would be a belief composed by us.

 

[Lester Tryon]

I guess it would depend on this one belief is. I mean, I wonder if a christian would give up his belief it the "one belief" offered the same result as his belief just by a different method of deliverance.

[Christianity helps a lot of people out of suffering, takes care of people who are neglected, help people so they won't be homeless, and so forth. I honestly feel it's more than just that because if not, everyone would be christian.

Aside from the words used, I imagine a large part of that statement, is that it does not take into account the "Crusades".

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

And more importantly it would be a belief composed by us.

Exactly.
ALL of us. )

 

[Lester Tryon]

If we have God given inalienable rights to life how do explain death?

I'm personally not religious, but the answer a lot of religious people, especially Christians would give, is that there is no death, only transition into an after-life that is eternal.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Aside from the words used, I imagine a large part of that statement, is that it does not take into account the "Crusades".

Actually, I believe that no actual Christians participated in the crusades. But that's another conversation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Aside from the words used, I imagine a large part of that statement, is that it does not take into account the "Crusades".

Christians paid my rent, gave me clothes, furniture, and food. Further up north a christian yelled at me. In another area a christian fussed at me. Where I live, a christian wants me to come back to christ. While when I first moved here, two christians and I had a sane discussion about differing beliefs with no evangelization. I see christians picket once a year against anti-abortion. I see christian's lives changed by their belief.

I can't judge christianity (body of christ/people) based off their history. If I generalized, then I'd probably throw the book at all Catholics. That's not me.

 

[Lester Tryon]

You don't care if you learn some B.S.?

I don't think that is what was implied by learning from one another. Nobody knows everything. Nor is anyone right all the time. What is true, is that by having uncomfortable conversations, what can be learned, not B.S., is an understanding of someone else's point of view.