Faith or Pride—Why Not Both?

How Christianity has condemned pride to seal our faith—using pride.

—Faith is actually an enhanced form of pride, then strengthened by forced humility we subjugate ourselves with untold endurance.

The strongest of faith cannot endure in us once we know truth. Faith however, cannot exist with the slightest amount of proof. It is imperative there is no proof. Here’s how it works.

The mere micrograms of norepinephrine released into the brain when confronted about belief gives mankind a stubborn physiological response—one that overreacts on belief, not fact, over trust, not inquiry. If you’ve ever dealt with indigenous tribalism, you understand this historical point—to challenge their belief is an affront to them as a person.

The truth is, faith cannot be dismantled because there is no evidence. It seems odd, but finding a truth, an artifact, a corroboration of the life of Jesus, Moses, or Abraham would actually begin to break the spell of faith, not the other way around.

It was necessary to present a complete and total whitewash in characters, place-names, events—all of it, in order to manipulate mankind into the total type of faith that is a byproduct of faulty human physiology. Presenting any religious fact would diminish the strength of complete and total obeisance—held by pride but repackaged into a virtue—faith.

Another grand contradiction of the Bible is to beware us of pride, then manipulate our psyche into displaying the most arrogant, defensive pride of all—faith. Think about that.

A great archeological find by near-eastern researchers would be the beginning of the end for faith. They won’t find it, and the founders knew it. It’s a gem of a trick on the crazy neurology and hormones of the human mind—Ontology solved. This is what the founders intended.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

42 thoughts on “Faith or Pride—Why Not Both?”

  1. Hello Jim. If facts don’t work because of faith, reason doesn’t work because of personal experiences, and common sense doesn’t work because of the mandate to live by a moral code of 2000 years ago, how do you deal with those who try to force their religion on everyone else? I read again this morning of a wedding venue that refused to deal with LGBTQ+ but also claimed they were not discriminating against anyone. In fact they were the victim because the horrible LGBTQ+ did not respect their “deeply held” belief in the deity they stashed in their heart and disrespected their feelings to not have to deal with the icky LGBTQ+. How do you reach these people and show them forcing their views on population at large who do not want them is wrong? Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Let’s face it, Scottie, the anti-LGBTQ movement that resorts to tactics like that has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with religion being used to prop up the personal prejudices of those who claim “religious” protection for their prejudice. The exact same arguments were used back in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, etc to try to prop up racial prejudice against African Americans and other non-whites. The politicians who support those religious exemptions don’t give a fig about religion. They are cynical bastards who would support any group they think will vote for them.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    2. Well this is another contradiction within the contradiction. And shame to them because this is exactly the type of pride the sermons teach against. They call this one “principle” but it’s codespeak.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    1. Wanting you’re own knowledge vs what you’ve been told? Tell me what you’ve actually learned, not what you’ve been told. Curiosity to find out for yourself is worth death to the entire world. Why is that? The writers were unable to control the curious man.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. “With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness”. James 3:9
          Only those in power are allowed to question the writers who are full of pomposity. In his image? The capacity for cruelty.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  3. Faith is an insidious and corrupting thing, really. It is based on the irrational, on the unreal. We even admire those who maintain their faith even in the face of irrefutable evidence that their faith is mistaken. I really don’t understand this attitude towards “faith”. Frankly, to me, it seems more like some kind of contagious mental illness than something to be admired.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Sure. And any religious belief no matter how silly is respected as principled. While simply not believing is tantamount to treason and worthy of eternal torment—physical punishment. All they are is mere thoughts. Thought policing is popular among certain circles.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    2. The psychiatrists’ bible, the DSM, 5th Version, declared fantical religion a mental illness. When I was practising Addiction Counselling, it was plain to see replacing an alcohol or dtug addiction with religion was exchanging one addiction with another. But we were supposed to allow it because we were getting rid of a physical, and therefore life-threatening, addiction for a mental one. I couldn’t convince my superiors a mental addiction was dangerous. All they were interested in was getting the client off the substance, they didn’t really care about ending their need to be addicted.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  4. Well done. Especially this:

    “Another grand contradiction of the Bible is to beware us of pride, then manipulate our psyche into displaying the most arrogant, defensive pride of all—faith. Think about that.”

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      1. You can lead creationists to the facts but you can’t make them think…

        The innate desire to ask the whys and the hows gets cleverly turned off during the indoctrination.

        I’m not sure faith can be turned off from the outside. I think it has to come from within. The abundance of atheist books, and blogs which we are a part of, help I think. And the data I have seen where the nones are slowly but surely rising, gives me some small measure of hope.

        I think the person to ask is yourself. You are a convert. How did it happen for you? When you can answer that, I think you have a starting point to your questions answer 🙂

        Personally I was never a dyed in the wool and washed in the river true believer. I tried to be one a couple of times. I just could never let my whys and hows be turned off, I was able to walk away fairly unscathed. I was luckier than most.

        But the entire time it was a journey, not an instance. I went from an attempted believer to a not so interested attempted believer, to an optimistic agnostic to a pessimistic agnostic, to an all out atheist. It took decades for the transition.

        In my case the light bulb went off because of the evidence for evolution. Specifically the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution here:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        It was the case for Cytochrome c that was the nail in the coffin for creationism for me. It was right then and there I realized creationism was done for me, and evolution IS true.

        Fair warning, that article is a long in depth read and my puny brain took like 3 complete readings for it all to sink in. If you have the time I highly recommend it.

        Of course we are all different animals, and there are many ways towards deconversion, but that’s my story…

        I firmly believe our blogs and our comments, forever recorded on the net, are a resource for the fence sitting possible deconvert. Like I said it’s a journey, and given enough time and enough interest for that fence sitter, what we do is a valuable resource.

        Arguing with the trolls, is a complete waste of time, no one decoverts in the moment, time is on our side… Forge on doing what wer’e doing 🙂

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        1. It was a moment for me that caused me to withdrawal, set aside the commentary and the men of words and sit back and observe under the guise “ok, what if I’m wrong”? It was only then that the blinders came off and the contradictions swelled into this all encompassing obviosity that it is when you no longer believe.
          Somehow a jolt started my path. Terrific comment Shell. I’ll read the article. Btw, it wasn’t evolution at all for me. All I knew about it was drawn from a poisoned well. It was merely comparing the teachings with the outcomes. It’s fraud.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Yes, there is the moment that makes the wheels turn, but it usually takes some time for the conversion. How long did it take you once you had that moment, to finally walk away?

            Just curious… as I said we are all different animals and there are many ways to reach the same conclusions 🙂

            I may wrongly assume it takes time, based upon my personal experience. Can’t rule it out 😉

            Like

            Reply

            1. It took me three weeks. Fortunately the wife and kids had gone to Panama City for three weeks and I was alone. I was here on WP and Violet (ain’t no shrinking) said something that gave me pause. Three weeks later I was born again. But, with no one there breathing down my neck telling me what it all meant, meant I could use my own brain. That was big for me to reclaim clarity.

              Like

            2. That was a damn quick conversion. It took me years to finally get to where I knew I was done with religion, and I was no where in as deep as you. I find it remarkable you managed in 3 weeks 🙂

              Like

            3. I think the circumstances made it possible. Add in the fact I was tired of making excuses—Seriously tired of covering for the crap. After I considered the fact that no matter what I said you all still didn’t believe. Why? Could I be off the mark and not the unbeliever? There was a lot going on in my head to give unbelief the benefit of the doubt for once and just clear the table and walk through the apologetic bullshit and compare it to what we see. I didn’t want to lose faith, but really for the first time ever I was honest with myself. It takes a lot of belief in yourself to make the leap.
              In every way I’d lived my life in competence and self sufficient. Lived as a mountain man and years in the jungle, switched careers on a whim and always called my own shots—except religion. That really gave me pause to be a part of a herd and recognize that paradox. Totally against my grain.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. It’s happened to us all, SD. Once you hit that “post” button, all is for naught. *sigh*

            What gets me about WP — they keep changing the layout, etc. for writing a post. Why don’t they leave a good thing alone??!?!

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

  5. Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV) Or, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV) Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Being certain of an idea (a mere guess by way of commandment) and throwing off the natural man—it’s all word play. The natural man is the believer and faith is a phenomenon that exudes pride in one’s ability to hold onto nothing but an idea. That’s using our hormones against us every confrontation. Excellent add-on ST. Thank you kindly.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. You are spot on–faith cannot be “dismantled” because it is an end in itself. It really doesn’t have a basis otherwise. This is by design. “Mystery” sells well. Plus religions are requiring less belief and more professing, that is as a member of a church, you are to profess A, B, C, etc. whether you believe them or not (although they want you to believe them). This is more about spreading the memes than reinforcing them in the individuals. They are requiring belief less and behavior more.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  7. For me, looking out, not inward, it seems that the power of faith is in the pride and tribalism, the ‘sister Bertha better-than-you’ mentality. Indeed, faith survives not on evidence, but by feeding on human weaknesses like the need to be better-than … This is well hidden in soup kitchens, clothes closets, and I’ll pray for you –brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. That is the ultimate test—how long can you hang on, profess that belief against all reason. It’s a challenge against our tribal tendencies to solidify the tendency. Here again we see the intended result of faith is opposite what we are told.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  8. I cannot verify the truth of this, but apparently early writings in languages other than English have no record of christ being born in a stable. If I remember right he was “born” in an inn frequented by prostitutes, petty thieves, and other such individuals. I read this somewhere a long time ago, then forgot it till your request for something “factual.” Do you think proof of that would be enough to unravel the legend of christ?
    How about the virgin birth? Mary had other children before Jesus, and after. But that wouldn’t be good for the story of god’s son, now would it.
    I’m actually betting, no surprise, the history I just revealed was a piece of fiction, and later writers fictionaluzed that story even more. The present story is just too convenient, don’t you think?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. The idea is to present something you have to believe on faith. The discrepancies only cause more and better conjecture, allowing the individual to “believe” what most makes sense to them. Once belief is in place, the more discrepancy the better, and the less evidence the better. Paul was quite keen on the tribal nature of man and he played us masterfully—whether intended or not, he discovered the golden goose.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Lol. It is, and yet it isn’t. I really did read this somewhere, but when and where is a total mystery to me. Seeing as I read more fiction than non-fiction in my life, it is quite possible I read this in a book of fiction. But I am not sure.
        Anyone who knows about ancient Hebrew or Latin manuscripts, I would love to hear from you.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. Frank this may be the culmination of my work in 300 words. The ontological vagaries are indeed the intent of the founders. Christianity will endure because there is no evidence. If you’ve ever been in a position to challenge a belief, you know how deeply effective this is. Maybe if we can evolve through this quirk in our neurons and hormones, but so few seem to see past the trick.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. You and my sister are THE BEST at summing up all the thoughts I have in my head and making perfect sense out of them! I absolutely agree that faith is an enhanced form of pride. How else can you justify using FAITH to answer questions you don’t understand or agree with… It’s your conscience, yourself, your pride. Very well said Jim! Also sorry for the influx of likes and comments! If you haven’t noticed I get to check my blog every three days so I binge read all your posts!!😆

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Lol. No worries. This post (although short I think illustrates a culmination of the path I have taken to this thought process. Each week I have inched closer to the core of the entire scheme. This is the intended ontology of the founders.
      At first I would condemn the different beliefs of multiple religions, but that is just symptomatic. The core of the issue is belief in itself. Faith is indeed a play on our tribal evolution that activates our endocrine system in ways that it was not engineered. Now we are faced with believing or being outcast. Believing for what? For the sake belief itself because if misdirected hormonal response.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Absolutely. Religion needs us to believe for the sake of belief itself or it will simply dissipate. Indeed we are outcast due to our beliefs (or lack there of😉) and for now we are stuck, allowing TIME to show what religion is…which is nothing. Couldn’t agree more with you Jim!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  11. Roman Catholic apologists have an all-purpose word that they use if it looks like “facts” are getting uncomfortably close: “tradition, TRADITION” (to borrow from Fiddler on the Roof). It works like the Big Lie, attaching an imprimatur by proof of repetition. I’ve even heard them admit that, statistically, the water at Lourdes is no more effective at eliciting a miracle than the water at Flint, Michigan or in the Gaza Strip. Faith is strengthened and that is what really matters. Tradition has strong CYA potency. They say the same thing about the historical absence of Peter anywhere near Rome — too much is at stake. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Very true, Bill. A lot of the teachings of the catholic church aren’t dogma, merely something that someone made up once upon a time because it sounded like a good idea at the time. Some of the most vehemently defended practices and claims of the church, like celibacy for the priesthood, aren’t actually church dogma

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment