How does one come to believe something?

[Near]

Yeah, that's not how it works. You need to be able to communicate your results.

Why would communicating results be required for something like that to be true?
I think it's enough if one personally experiences something of that nature for themselves.

But they weren't.

I can write a book today about the September 11 attacks. I can claim I was in New York and barely survived. That doesn't make them primary sources though, does it?

If you actually went through that, I'm sure it would count as a primary source.

Where's the actual evidence though?

I consider scripture itself to be evidence.

But by this logic, the police would have found you deserving of execution even if you had done nothing.

how so?

Why are these the only options?

Remember, Paul didn't tell you he saw Levi. You read a book in which there is a text written by someone who claims Paul saw Levi. There are many ways that this could be explained other than truth or hallucination. Maybe the line was added in later. Maybe it's a translation error. Maybe it's just a story.

Maybe everything is a lie and nothing is real, or maybe it's true. I believe it's true.

So you've decided that you already believe in God, so you believe Paul because it fits in with your pre-existing belief.

And then you count Paul as evidence for the belief in God, but the only reason you hold that Paul is correct is because it fits in with your pre existing belief.

That's like me saying a Harry Potter fanfic proves Harry Potter is real. I already believe Harry Potter is real, so I'm inclined to believe the fanfic is real as well. And since I believe the fanfic is real, it supports my belief in Harry Potter.

I believe Paul's writings since it's in the bible, and to the early church his letters were worthy of being canonized. You can believe in Harry Potter, I don't think he's real, but I don't really have evidence against Harry Potter being real either. He could be some person from an alternate dimension that JK Rowling is from, and she's just saying it's all a story.

Why wouldn't you believe it? I suspect that you know it's because anyone who makes such a claim is obviously a nut. And yet you don't hold those same standards when it comes to ancient texts.

I think the ancient texts are trustworthy. I don't believe everyone who comes across the street claiming to be divine. The question is, why do I believe in the ancient texts?

Because doing that doesn't affect your life in the here-and-now.

If someone on the street today told you he was Jesus, then believing him would require you to make drastic changes to your life. Most people don't want to do that. But believing a book that tells stories about long ago, well, you were raised with that, so you've lived your life that way already. It doesn't require any change on your part.

So, I'm just being pragmatic? I think my life is affected everyday by what I already believe, it requires me to be calm, avoid greed, lust, hatred, and overall maintain self-discipline. I think it's more about trust in people, or books written by people.
I think I've changed my beliefs quite drastically over the years. I used to think a guy could get drunk, and do heroin and still go to heaven, now I believe that if a person isn't morally upright and faithful, that person will go to hell. So it seems to be more than pragmatism that directs our beliefs.

Based on what evidence?

Good question. Perhaps it's a divine act of God that pulls me towards belief in Jesus, or as you might say, I'm just a dishonest gullible person.

Of course, you have a lot more than just those books to go on, don't you?

Not really. I know that it seems like we have an old government, but it could be the case that everything I've been told in school is a lie, and that I'm just part of some grand experiment like in "the Truman Show" or maybe not.

Because, like the books about America's past, you have the actual relics they talk about, like Noah's ark... Oh wait, that was never found. But you have the Ark of the Covenant... Oh, wait, you don't have that either. But you have the other relics mentioned in the... Nope, don't have those either. But there are the chariots that Pharaoh and his army rode after the Israelites when they were flooded by the Red Sea... Nope. What about even the Egyptian records of their labor force just getting up and leaving? Nope. In fact, apart from the texts, you have nothing to support those claims - making the Bible VERY different from the books about America's past.

Maybe God hid all those things so that we'd have very little evidence of him, because he doesn't want people to find out he's real that easily. Or maybe he doesn't exist, or maybe he does anyways, and there's a reason for all the lack in those things mentioned. If God really wanted people to know he's real, he could just pop out of the clouds and say hello couldn't he?
So, why hasn't he done it?
He isn't real, or he doesn't care, or he want's people to simply have faith in him without concrete evidence, or some other reason. I don't know with certainty, never claimed to.

Of course, it is easily demonstrated that sticking things into power points is dangerous...

Yes, but how would I know that I would die. Just because people tell you it's true, doesn't make it true. Just like the bible, people told me it was true, and the early church also would have said the same, but claims that something is true doesn't make the claim true. So, why do I believe in a claim made by ancient people? I guess I'm just dishonest, and crazy, or would you be willing to put a kinder interpretation on that?

Nevertheless, the similarities are there.

Yes, but do similarities mean that Christians just copy and pasted stories and made up everything?
I guess so, it's all a lie? or maybe it's not.

Of course you do. You believe that, and so your belief is preventing you from looking at it in an objective way.

Why should I think that the bible is a mere collection of stories not meant to be taken as true? Is it because science tells us that God doesn't exist and miracles don't happen? Is it because only atheists are truly objective when it comes to interpreting the bible?

Not going to argue that. But the fact that people back then had superstitious rituals they felt they needed to perform does not mean that they were actually required.
And anyway, why did God need all those sacrifices? What is it with all the killing of animals?

Are you asking why God needed something? Doing that would require that we prove he exists first.
What's wrong with killing animals? We kill fetus' in the womb, why should animals be treated better than fetus'?
I guess lots of people feel the need to do things, but that doesn't mean they were actually required. I wonder if they thought those things were required? Maybe they did, maybe they never existed, or maybe not.

I could point at any of Aesop's fables, point out that they had a good moral behind them, then ask you how those stories are meant to be fictional narratives.

I guess you could believe in Aesop's fables. Are they fictional, and how do we know that they are with certainty, because if there's even a possibility that alternative universes exist, they may merely be visions into another universe.

And what they could use to control people using this religion.

Yes, they could have been a bunch of manipulative people. Can you prove that they were all mischievous liars bent on control, and that we shouldn't believe in anything the bible says because of that?

So, again, you let your beliefs bias you. You believe that the Bible is accurate, so you won't be compelled by arguments against that position. You believe that Harry Potter is not real, and again, you won't be compelled by any arguments against that position.

I believe the Bible is accurate, is it wrong for me not to be compelled by arguments against it? It doesn't seem morally wrong, nor even intellectually inadequate. Who's standards am I being judged by? The scientific atheist community?
Maybe Harry Potter really does exist. I don't deny his existence. I think he might be real, but I'm just not confident to say he is or isn't because of my alternate universe theory, which I'm not confident in saying is real, but I'm not going to rule it out quite yet since I can't prove it's not real.

But you agree that it is entirely possible that stories created for entertainment/control of people can then be held to be completely true by other people, yes?

Yes, and I guess you'd like for me to think of the bible as a corrupt tool used for controlling people. That, I don't feel compelled to do.

This is not an argument for their accuracy.

Did you think I meant for it to be? You've done that quite a lot. I've made lots of statements that are not arguments, but you're responding to them, seemingly, as if I thought I was making an argument. Many times I've simply shared by beliefs, but it seems apparent that beliefs to some people are worthless if they can't be proven. So you're free to call my beliefs worthless if you want. I don't really care.

Human memory is incredibly fallable. If I asked you to write a detailed account of your life 15 years ago, how accurate would you be? Sure, you could probably do pretty well, because you get to look at photo albums, school reports, old accounts on Myspace, Livejournal and whatever else we had back then. But imagine you had none of that.

Could I say that human memory was better 2000 years ago because of a different culture which trained people in memorization? Could I say that my own abilities in memory are far less than people of 2000 years ago? I don't have many pictures, I threw away many of my old school documents, I never used myspace, I've rarely used facebook, and I don't think I could tell you a ton about myself during 15 years. That doesn't mean the people back then couldn't tell you about Jesus' ministry. Perhaps their memories were bad, and they all suffered dementia. I don't know for sure. I just have trust in the material in the bible, call me crazy.

I don't follow. It's not like 15 years later, someone would have written a book, and every one at the time would have read it and said, hey, that's not true.

And even if they did, how would we know?

There were supposed to be many eye-witnesses, and they would have known about Jesus. I think stories were spread about Jesus and he became famous. You could say people made stuff up about him, and they just wanted to believe he rose from the dead, so they made it up to honor him. I don't believe that, since I believe in a literal Resurrection, but just because I believe something doesn't make it true. I could have some form of mental illness and not even know it.

Because there are many other ways to look at this scenario, which you seem to have ignored because they go against your pre-existing beliefs.

Oh, yes, and Harry Potter could have cast a spell on me to make me think the bible is true. That's one way to look at it as well. The possibilities to interpret ways in which things could have happened is endless/

Well, yes, that would work, but the trouble is that anyone who is in a position to know this is NOT in a position where they can spread the word about it.

On the other hand...

http://listverse.com/2014/12/30/10-claims-of-physical-evidence-for-reincarnation/
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
http://www.collective-evolution.com...about-his-previous-life-as-a-woman-named-pam/

Maybe those things you linked, are all lies...

Not saying that I believe in reincarnation, but it seems that your position would require you to be able to explain why this sort of thing is impossible.

My position is that demons roam the earth along with Satan, and they lie to people... or is that just what my brainwashing religion wants me to think (as anti-theists would say)?

But you've also claimed that you will believe in something just because it agrees with something you already believe... I don't think that's a good way.

I think I said I'd tend to agree, but I don't think I'd instantly believe anything, but that's just me. I'm biased.

Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss this with you if you create a thread for it.

No thanks, I think I made my point. At least, my point seems satisfactory to me.

Really? You think that in the case of the existence of God, it wouldn't be amazing for everyone?

No, it's just pretty normal to me.

That's a rather odd definition of charity...

http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

 

[devolved]

I consider scripture itself to be evidence.

I don't think that anyone would object to it being a type of claimed evidence. After all, we may claim all sorts of evidence when asked to back-up our beliefs.

The question as to whether this type evidence is adequate or reliable in context of the claim itself. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_memoirs

Not all claims are the same when it comes to the evidence we require for these to be believable. A claim that there is some guy who plays basketball in NYC that can make 1 out of 10 half-court shots consistently is a different claim than there is a guy who can make 10 out of 10, or even 5 out of 10.

The first one we can accept based on what we generally observe from reality. The second one would require more evidence for us to believe that, since it's not something that we generally observe.

Thus, when you say "here's scripture as evidence", the typical answer would be "that's not enough", just like a mere story about a guy who can make 10 out of 10 shots wouldn't be enough for the writers of the Guinness Book of records to take someone's word for it.

So, I'm just being pragmatic? I think my life is affected everyday by what I already believe, it requires me to be calm, avoid greed, lust, hatred, and overall maintain self-discipline. I think it's more about trust in people, or books written by people.
I think I've changed my beliefs quite drastically over the years. I used to think a guy could get drunk, and do heroin and still go to heaven, now I believe that if a person isn't morally upright and faithful, that person will go to hell. So it seems to be more than pragmatism that directs our beliefs.

Why would any of the above matter? Sure, your subjective perception changed over time about what you think is morally acceptable, but why would that validate the reality of your perceived claims? From my example, would the "guy who makes 10 out of 10 halfcourt shots" type of claim change anyone's expectations from a regular NBA game as being sub-par as a standard? Of course not. If such was the case, the guy would play in the NBA and be incredible. But, if all we have is excuses and rationalizations as to why such is not the case, then why would such claim matter in terms of what we actually observe as standard in reality?

Good question. Perhaps it's a divine act of God that pulls me towards belief in Jesus, or as you might say, I'm just a dishonest gullible person.

Or, perhaps just like many of us, you are simply mistaken and follow fallacious reasoning. Many reasonable and intelligent people believed false things in the course of history.

Maybe God hid all those things so that we'd have very little evidence of him, because he doesn't want people to find out he's real that easily. Or maybe he doesn't exist, or maybe he does anyways, and there's a reason for all the lack in those things mentioned. If God really wanted people to know he's real, he could just pop out of the clouds and say hello couldn't he?
So, why hasn't he done it?
He isn't real, or he doesn't care, or he want's people to simply have faith in him without concrete evidence, or some other reason. I don't know with certainty, never claimed to.

All of these are good questions to ponder. But the question would be as to why would one believe in something that seemingly absent from reality apart from other processes that are indistinguishable from something else.

If I pull a regular penny out of my pocket and say "Hey, it's a magic penny. If you flip it and make a wish, then your wish will come true, but only if it's something that's good for you eventually." In such a way one essentially frames the claim in which the penny can never be wrong. If the wish comes true, then it's good for you. If it doesn't, then it must have been bad.

That's how psychics trick people. They attribute all of the "right answers" to the spirits, and all of the wrong answers to people's inability to recognize something that spirits communicate.

Hence, how could one ever tell a difference, and why would God structure his revelation of himself in such inconclusive manner? That's the biggest question to ask.

Could I say that human memory was better 2000 years ago because of a different culture which trained people in memorization? Could I say that my own abilities in memory are far less than people of 2000 years ago? I don't have many pictures, I threw away many of my old school documents, I never used myspace, I've rarely used facebook, and I don't think I could tell you a ton about myself during 15 years. That doesn't mean the people back then couldn't tell you about Jesus' ministry. Perhaps their memories were bad, and they all suffered dementia. I don't know for sure. I just have trust in the material in the bible, call me crazy.

That's not the point.

The more we dig around in the past, the more legendary stories we find about all sorts of heroes that could do all sorts of great and magical things.

Fact-checking wasn't as important in the past narrative as it is today, hence people would re-tell stories in order to communicate some moral ideas and ideals. For example, there's a legend of the king Arthur and the sword in the stone, and the nights of the round table, etc. Is there some reality behind it? Sure. But to believe that everything was exactly as it was communicated in these oral legends, including all of the supernatural elements, would be naive.

Hence, the Judeo-Christian narrative is very similar to the Arthurian legend, or any other legendary story with moralistic overtones. The point of either is to communicate certain behavioral framework. In Arthurian legend you get there is more to leadership than brute strength... that the loyalty is paramount in governmental scope, and that there are consequences to poor choices that deviate from that loyalty.

In Judeo-Christian narrative you have the concept of necessity to believe certain framework without having all of the evidence that such moral framework is the correct one. Hence you have this personification of the moral framework expressed in God and then subsequently Jesus in Christianity.

But, all you have to see is that it's not really communicating the reality that matches the literal reality of the story. It merely attempts to communicate some moral reality through personification and examples of the narrative of "right and wrong" ways to act.


People still do these things to this day. Why? Do many of them have motives that they see as good? I think so. But, even in the cases of extra-ordinary natural claims we tend to fact-check and separate facts from fiction. Why would we make an exception to the "memoirs" of "eyewitnesses" from 2000 years ago? By any standards of what we generally see as a "fake memoir"... most of what we'd find in the Biblical narrative would fit that description exceptionally well, since we have plenty of examples to learn from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_memoirs

There were supposed to be many eye-witnesses, and they would have known about Jesus. I think stories were spread about Jesus and he became famous. You could say people made stuff up about him, and they just wanted to believe he rose from the dead, so they made it up to honor him. I don't believe that, since I believe in a literal Resurrection, but just because I believe something doesn't make it true. I could have some form of mental illness and not even know it.

Again, you miss the point of ancient wisdom literature. Bible isn't the only ancient wisdom and legendary literature that we find. History is full of it, although Christians in the dark ages burned quite a bit of the "heretical material". We don't have much surviving for that reason.

Essentially, why Bible feels "special" is precisely because the competition was eliminated over time. Most of the surviving examples we have is because these were done in stone. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

 

[Freodin]

Actually....what we are told is that God has held even His own chosen people (His light placed upon a hill to lead all peoples of the world) in a type of blindness, until the times of all people are fulfilled. Meanwhile, we are also told to take the God news of His rescue to all people.

In other words, as He slowly reveals Himself in the world through revelations to His people, His people are carrying the message to all the people of the world. The would be frustration then, is so that not even last person would miss out.

Yes, you are told... that is the problem. That is why all this miscommunication happens.

Just look what you say - what you repeat as you were told - you, his chosen people, are a light TO LEAD ALL PEOPLE. But you don't lead. You cannot lead. As I have repeatedly said: you have nothing that anyone can follow.

All this stuff of "holding people in blindness"... these are excuses. I might say that any deity worth its title would not resort to such confuse means to "rescue all people"... but it is not even all humans who descend to that level.

It is only the humans who fail, and need to justify their failure.

An analogy: (hey, analogies are cheep and fun!)
The ship is sinking. You are told to rescue all the passengers. What do you do?

Well, what you are doing is tell people: "Swim!"

Have you ever seen people teaching and being taught swimming?
Hint: what is not done is throwing them into the water and shout: "Swim! I know how to swim, and I tell you it is the way to do it!"
What is not done is saying about those who drowned: "They didn't listen to me! I told them to swim! Why didn't they listen to me?"
What is not done is telling those grasping for air: "I'm sorry I do not know how to teach you how to swim - the master-teacher has decided to keep this knowledge from me."

 

[devolved]

Yes, you are told... that is the problem. That is why all this miscommunication happens.

Just look what you say - what you repeat as you were told - you, his chosen people, are a light TO LEAD ALL PEOPLE. But you don't lead. You cannot lead. As I have repeatedly said: you have nothing that anyone can follow.

I think that's where you should have ended, because the analogy allows too much reality as a substance to otherwise vague and rather meaningless rhetoric.

What he is claiming by the "progressive revelation" is sort of like claiming that one never really misses a shot in a Basketball game, but refusing to play in any basketball games until the right time comes and everyone had a chance to believe the story... and then and only then it will be revealed in a grand NBA championship style that all of the claims are true, when no one alive ever seen anyone in particular to be able to achieve such a feat.

And what's worse is that such becomes expectation for everyone. Everyone must make all of the shots in every game, otherwise there's jail time for failing to do so . But all must have is belief that one man who never missed a shot would sufficiently fulfill the requirement of making all of the shots just as long as people believe that it's both possible and is the case.

So, it gives them confidence to keep shooting, and missing, just like everyone else... only they have freedom from jail, because they believe in the guy who makes every single shot in every single game, although they've never seen such a thing.

Essentially, if you draw any similar analogy, it quickly devolves into absurdity.

 

[Arsenios]

I've pondered the meaning/existence of "self" and frankly...
it's not as difficult to wrap your mind around as you paint it.

You CANNOT wrap your mind around your self...
And you can easily see why:
It is the self who HAS the mind...

The mind does not have a self...
But YOU have your MIND...

In the same manner, people think they ARE their thoughts...
Nothing could be more foolish...

And in similar fashion, people THINK that thoughts are concepts...
There is conceptual thinking...
Thoughts are a PRODUCT of thinking...

Thinking itself is the activity of the mind...
The nous directs this thinking...
Toward creation unto dissipation...
Or toward God unto concentration...

Most of us live in our thoughts about creation...
That is what is wrong about the world...
Because creation terminates in death...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Everything is perceived "noetically inwardly". There is no other way to perceive things other than than through intellectual process of the brain. So, I'm not sure why you attempt to make such distinction. In terms of our experience, it's a tautology.

There is noetic inward direction, and there is noetic outward direction... The deception in which we move as fallen mankind in part is the belief that using inward awareness of outer creation is normal and exhaustive. It is not...

Inward to what?

To YOU... "The Mystery of the Faith is God WITHIN you..."

In/out is a physical concept that denotes some separation of physical entities.

And this observation is noting a superficial feature of creation that reflects one far more profound...

For example, inside the house, or outside the house. The context of "inside your own self" is merely conceptual idea that has to be imagined as to what exactly it is that you mean by it. There are no physical walls to "self" when it comes to our conscious perception. Conscious perception is a construct of the brain activity... hence it's our imagination of reality.

It simply gives you a means of differentiating noetic directions...

Yes you do. If you communicate ideas via concepts, then you are asking to do just that.

Not in the context of the encounter with God... You simply CANNOT IMAGINE your way to God...

But you CAN direct your mental activity inwardly and ask God to have mercy on you...

Yes, and you seem to follow certain Christian Mysticism traditions that like many other mystery religions in the past (think Kabbalah, or Buddhism) say a lot of meaningless or non-specific concepts in so many different words. It's a form of "abstract art" that people tend to fill with their own understanding and perception,

Yes, these are all filled with imaginative enterprises, or worse... And are derived imitations of the Way of the God of the Christians... The fact that some predate Christianity is spiritually irrelevant...

and that's what you seem to be appealing to when you are not saying anything specifically by your meaning of "turning inward" to "experience noetically". What exactly do you mean by that?

Entering inwardly into your self in prayer, and calling on the Name of God...

BTW. I speak Russian too, among some, so if you think you could explain better in different language, feel free

Thank-you - I do not speak Russian... English is pretty much what I've got...

Christianity is all about living a Spiritual life in Truth and in Spirit...

Trying to define it physically is a departure from it...

As an atheist, I had no idea that there even WAS a "spiritual"...

But the philosophic issues (among others) of self, thought and ideas caused me to NOT pursue a teaching career in philosophy... The answers simply were not there...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Yes, you are told... that is the problem. That is why all this miscommunication happens.

Just look what you say - what you repeat as you were told - you, his chosen people, are a light TO LEAD ALL PEOPLE. But you don't lead. You cannot lead. As I have repeatedly said: you have nothing that anyone can follow.

All this stuff of "holding people in blindness"... these are excuses. I might say that any deity worth its title would not resort to such confuse means to "rescue all people"... but it is not even all humans who descend to that level.

It is only the humans who fail, and need to justify their failure.

An analogy: (hey, analogies are cheep and fun!)
The ship is sinking. You are told to rescue all the passengers. What do you do?

Well, what you are doing is tell people: "Swim!"

Have you ever seen people teaching and being taught swimming?
Hint: what is not done is throwing them into the water and shout: "Swim! I know how to swim, and I tell you it is the way to do it!"
What is not done is saying about those who drowned: "They didn't listen to me! I told them to swim! Why didn't they listen to me?"
What is not done is telling those grasping for air: "I'm sorry I do not know how to teach you how to swim - the master-teacher has decided to keep this knowledge from me."

You do not sound joyful...

Arsenios

 

[Freodin]

You do not sound joyful...

Arsenios

 

[bhsmte]

Alrighty then - Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

What jail?

 

[ScottA]

Lol thanks for your opinion...come back when you have some facts to share.

You LOL in the dark.

 

[bhsmte]

You LOL in the dark.

You base this opinion on what exactly?

 

[ScottA]

Scott,

It is hard to follow, because your God seems to hide in the obscurity of your narrative that you seem to make purposefully confusing. That seems to be my general observation about a lot of things that you post.

Care to speak human language all of us can understand without re-defining concepts without telling us what exactly it is that you are talking about?

If, as I say, your reality is inverted - no, it will not help for me to come around to your concept of what is and is not true. The point is, that it is you who are down the rabbit hole. So, if I try to talk you back, it will not help at all if I join you and take the same pill.

Care, to talk about life outside the rabbit hole? Are you up to the challenge of life clear of the fog of this underworld existence?

 

[ScottA]

What jail?

Perhaps you have heard that we are captives, perhaps not. Luke 4:18

 

[ScottA]

You base this opinion on what exactly?

Looking from the outside in.

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps you have heard that we are captives, perhaps not. Luke 4:18

I give more credibility to written words when they align with reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Looking from the outside in.

Could you be more vague?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Could you be more vague?

Kumquat

 

[Arsenios]

Fantasy cartoons are a start...

Fantasy football is not NFL football...

You sounded bitter and angry with Christians...

And who could blame you?

A.

 

[Freodin]

Fantasy cartoons are a start...

Fantasy football is not NFL football...

You sounded bitter and angry with Christians...

And who could blame you?

A.

What is NFL football?

Still...no, I am not bitter or angry with Christians.
But I don't see that I would have to justify myself before you, or humour you, or convince you of my mental state.

If you have something to say to adress my post, do so. If not... go and have some happy time watching My Little Pony.

 

[ScottA]

Yes, you are told... that is the problem. That is why all this miscommunication happens.

Just look what you say - what you repeat as you were told - you, his chosen people, are a light TO LEAD ALL PEOPLE. But you don't lead. You cannot lead. As I have repeatedly said: you have nothing that anyone can follow.

I have to stop you there - I was not "told" (by other people), but was shown by God...and now I am telling you.

All this stuff of "holding people in blindness"... these are excuses. I might say that any deity worth its title would not resort to such confuse means to "rescue all people"... but it is not even all humans who descend to that level.

It is only the humans who fail, and need to justify their failure.

An analogy: (hey, analogies are cheep and fun!)
The ship is sinking. You are told to rescue all the passengers. What do you do?

Well, what you are doing is tell people: "Swim!"

Have you ever seen people teaching and being taught swimming?
Hint: what is not done is throwing them into the water and shout: "Swim! I know how to swim, and I tell you it is the way to do it!"
What is not done is saying about those who drowned: "They didn't listen to me! I told them to swim! Why didn't they listen to me?"
What is not done is telling those grasping for air: "I'm sorry I do not know how to teach you how to swim - the master-teacher has decided to keep this knowledge from me."

You simply don't understand. We would have to put what I said together with your analogy correctly, in order for it to be represented properly:

In that analogy, we would be talking about an extended cruise with a sickness working its way through 100% of the passengers before they could reach land...and a medical drop is made to the ship with instructions for a cure. The passengers then, have a choice of choosing to believe what the materials say and trust the ship's doctors and staff - or die. Meanwhile, you are free to move about the ship - enjoy the cruise!