O ye of little faith?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It is indeed a misquote. Thanks for pointing that out.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything.

A materialist believes in things.

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything”.

God is not a thing that can be believed - God is not a thing. There is no one (no thing) that can choose - only when 'things' have been transcended will God be revealed.

Faith is required in every decision, but not every decision requires the same amount of faith.

The difference lies in how little is required to earn a person's faith, how big a decision gambler someone is.

For example, I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow is much more likely based upon observed evidence than if I were to quit my job and put every cent I have into buying lotto tickets, thus placing all my faith in my winning the lotto.

Now would you say both beliefs are equally reasonable faiths to have? No of course not, you'd think I was an idiot if I did the second thing, but my saying I believe the first thing shouldn't get more than a second thought.

People's problem with "faith" is when people base decisions that severely affect the lives of themselves and other based on faith in premises that are more reminiscent of the second thing than the first thing.

Should say, someone who has true faith that the world will end tomorrow due to some ancient obscure prophecy be put in charge of planning for say, I dunno the future of our nation?

When people perceive something as unlikely, and requires extreme leaps to believe and have faith in, with little to no true supporting evidence, it gives them pause, and it should, especially if said people are making decisions and setting policies based on very sketchy possibilities with little proof or supporting evidence.

It's not faith that's bad, it's undeserved faith in unlikely possibilities, which is then used to make decisions for others who rightfully find such beliefs to be at best sketchy, and at worst extremely dangerous.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: eisegesis

My argument is that those who claim to have faith don't, while those who claim to have no faith do. A commitment of faith towards a doctrine is far less substantial, less risky, and less honourable, than a commitment of faith towards a person or a thing.

This is a rather hollow blanket statement -- without understanding which evidentary systems are in play here, any conclusions or statements about faith are too broad to have any real basis. Some children, for instance, have faith that there's a Santa Claus while others (operating on a different set of cultural norms and personal understanding of the world) do not. And while you are speaking of a Christian-majority American culture, what you say does not necessarily hold true elsewhere. In North Korea, belief in science is far riskier than a belief in Kim Jong-Un or his father Kim Jong-Il.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

A materialist believes in things.

Exactly. Even the smallest thing is infinitely greater in every attribute to any nothing.

God is not a thing that can be believed - God is not a thing. There is no one (no thing) that can choose - only when 'things' have been transcended will God be revealed.

It takes a thing to classify all things as nothings. The argument self-detonates the moment it is uttered.

a reply to: Byrd

This is a rather hollow blanket statement -- without understanding which evidentary systems are in play here, any conclusions or statements about faith are too broad to have any real basis. Some children, for instance, have faith that there's a Santa Claus while others (operating on a different set of cultural norms and personal understanding of the world) do not. And while you are speaking of a Christian-majority American culture, what you say does not necessarily hold true elsewhere. In North Korea, belief in science is far riskier than a belief in Kim Jong-Un or his father Kim Jong-Il.

Faith is determined by what one has faith in. The act of having faith is fundamentally the same no matter the direction it takes, no matter what the faith is. The sort of faith you speak of is faith in error, lies and the invalid. A child believes in Santa clause because he was told to. North Koreans believe Kim Jong-Il was godlike because they were told to, maybe threatened, maybe because everyone else is doing it.

But I’m not going to deny , like others, that I do not have faith and convictions of my own because it is fashionable to do so or because someone before me has denounced faith in general. I have faith that we can know reality, that it can be measured, that the senses are adequate, that we can predict, that language can approximate reality, that models can be accurate, that we can observe reality and not our perception of it, that our tried and true methods work, and so on.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Is it better to believe in some thing rather than nothing?
Are you a believer or non believer?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes, it's better to believe in something rather than nothing. I am a believer.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We cannot observe factually reality in a true knowing state. We can at best observe what we suppose to be most likely true or accurate based upon he data presented.

Faith is existence of the thinking mind. The thing I have a problem with faith is, the inability for those with faith to recognize what faith is inherently by it's very nature not fact, but that which we feel most likely to be true and are willing to place our bets on.

The problem with faith is that so many with it, instead of treating it as the probable truth they feel it is, they instead treat it as fact.

There are no true facts, not really, the only way a true fact could be known would require a person to be omniscient and know all things, for there is no thing that can be broken down into all it's complete parts and be known.

There are no facts, only faith. But there is a true reality, that which undeniably exists. None can know true reality for none can be omniscient, but what we can do is observe and make decisions by placing faith in that which has been most consistently been shown to seem true.

This is why agnosticism is the only reasonable thought. There is true wisdom in understanding that we know nothing but likelihoods and possibilities.

Nothing is more dangerous than a person who "knows" something.

a reply to: Puppylove

We're humans. Therefor our knowledge—all knowledge—is human. We can know. To separate human knowledge from some "true" knowledge or omniscient knowledge is superstitious and unnecessary. Agnosticism is only a shrug.

There are facts. Copper conducts electricity, for instance.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Agnosticism is not a shrug. Agnosticism is the difference between a scientist who stubbornly holds to old ideas because they believed in them verses another scientist, who open to new realities discovers that the reason we thought what we observed happening is wrong and opens up whole new discoveries.

We may observe that copper conducts electricity, but unless we know all of what electricity is, and all of what copper is, all we have is an observation. We have a piece of the puzzle, but that's it. Without knowing those other two things, we have something we observe, but without knowing the whole of both things involved in the observation we don't know anything.

The second we assume true knowledge, is the second we close ourselves off from discovering that which might take what we observe in unexpected directions.

a reply to: Puppylove

Agnosticism is not a shrug. Agnosticism is the difference between a scientist who stubbornly holds to old ideas because they believed in them verses another scientist, who open to new realities discovers that the reason we thought what we observed happening is wrong and opens up whole new discoveries.

That’s false. It’s an assertion that we cannot know the nature of God and creation. The notion that we cannot know the nature of God is a statement about the nature of God, namely, that it cannot be known. It’s a dogma and it’s irrational.

We may observe that copper conducts electricity, but unless we know all of what electricity is, and all of what copper is, all we have is an observation. We have a piece of the puzzle, but that's it. Without knowing those other two things, we have something we observe, but without knowing the whole of both things involved in the observation we don't know anything.

How do we know if when we “know all of what electricity is” if we don’t already know all of what electricity is? That’s not how human knowledge works.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have faith...but I am 100% not religious. I have faith that there are still people who are logical and trustworthy. I have faith that there are good parents, good cops, good teachers. I have faith in a lot of things and I call it faith because there are many times that based upon the news and the majority...my faith is questioned.

I no longer believe in mankind as what I once believed it was. But I have faith...even if misguided...that there may still be some who hold those values, morals and requirements of mankind as I do.

The idea of actual faith might as well as go with the idea of willpower and determination, rather then following cultural perceptions or basis's which would go along the lines of blind faith. Almost like Zeal, where as a zealot has to much determination but no flexibility, and is rarely open to new ways of adjusting, thus having their faith or will being broken for being to hardy. And the usual repercussions that go with Zeal or blind faith, or for that God is testing if you will, is why the common idea of faith being a by product of religion is being deterred, or ending second guessing.

Due to not experiencing a full guarantee.

Taking a leap of faith, or where there is a will, there is a way, is just the same as taking a chance, or trying. Where as having the hope, rather then being faithful, that God or Lady luck will be in your corner.

a reply to: Specimen

It has actual physical benefits, positive if used right, negative if left unchecked.

You'll note that the so-called faithful hold their faith above others like it was a sign of superiority. It can be disarmed by proving they don't hold anything of the such. Faith is for everyone. Some faith is just more valid, more useful, and better equipped than others. Why not demistify it?

originally posted by: vjr1113
just right off the bat, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there's a difference between faith and belief.

you can believe in anything to some degree but expect to be asked for evidence if you want to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

before modern science, the religious anchored their arguments in faith. a personal revelation or "feeling". they can't really get away from that anymore, now they argue human ignorance to create a "reasonable" doubt.

yes....science has it.....the mind is not your brain.....your mind is magic.....and meditating on God's magic reality and future....makes the brain hit a magic gear....for calm and healing....cool huh!

supernatural faith....just what you want....real life supernatural help from beyond....how cool

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, that depends on how much thought and foresight is put into these esoteric or school of thoughts, where as you say some forms of faith is more justified and is able to apply more applications in the real world. One could look at Buddhist and Yoga (while not really adhering to any religion) being more physically beneficial due to it exercising the body cardiovascular system, as well attempts to making the mind more stronger, and still for clarity. Such practices should be allowed to be mystified so the practitioner could figure it out for themselves

While others forms of faith, might heavily depend on such mystery and ignorance, that its the only trick they have other then physical force, where they are left with asking simple or vague questions as to why, never pondering whats outside the box. Look at Christian extremists per example, where they await the arrival of their God believing they will be saved and lead to a new golden age. Yet they fear it at the same time due to being possibly duped, or being led astray from it, where the Enemy takes his form and provoking their Gods ire , aka the idea of the Anti-Christ.

As to why God would allow such a deception, is beyond, but maybe that Gods beef. Duality at it finest, and yet it ugliest.

Taking a gentle god message and teaching of peace and using it for selfish gains one way of saying "Using the Lords name in vain", is one way end up in Hell.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

as usual a high standard of writing. Thank you.

You reminded me that I haven't lost my faith. In fact I am reminded of John Lennons words "I just believe in Yoko and me"
My faith in my self has never been stronger freed of the man made illusions and constructs of religion.