It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Belief without faith...

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I've noticed something interesting about the understanding of belief when involving a person's faith. The reason why faith is belief without proof is because of what that belief derives from. Faith is "confidence and trust", not in existence but what's intended. That faith is through spiritual apprehension as opposed to proof, meaning you trust what the meanings of words are instead of it being proven to you. Any belief that we have that doesn't require faith is called a vain belief, but that doesn't have to be seen as a bad thing. With there being a difference between a reason and a valid reason, what valid reason do many people in societies around the world believe by proof but frown at belief deriving from faith?




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000
The essence of faith is trust.
Conspiracy theory is almost defined by the absence of trust, so that's where the unbridgable gap is going to come from.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000
I think it is because they have not experienced faith. That is a very personal thing that some may never obtain. If you haven't proof of something nor faith, one would likely frown on it.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I have been doing a lot of research on things and find that what is being told to us, including proof designed to show something is real, is not always the truth. Even with evidence much of what we believe is real is nothing but a belief.

Evidence is usually acquired for a reason and the reason is to verify something that is believed to be real. Now the parameters of the evidence match the desired outcome of the research half the time so the design of the research can be bias. This has been happening for a very long time, so long that the original deceptions are buried in research steered in the wrong direction. Presently when we actually have the capability of testing things, we find a lot of things we thought were real are only fairytales, misconceptions that go back for generations sometimes.

I do not actually see much difference in religion and science because of this. There is a lot of tradition in religion that actually is time tested but also some bull crap. I find science plagued with misguided research. They need some good conspiracy theorists to help to straighten out things in science, making sure the path we are on is even correct or necessary.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Very well reasoned. Your research is paying off. Most of what we know may be made of illusion and based on original deception, delusion, hype and manipulation. Only too well is this demonstrated in history traditionally; the victor gets to write the account for posterity and the loser vanishes into oblivion. There is total invisibility of certain classes of people and the female gender traditionally; no women wrote books for thousands of years, men would not let them. All that potential and all that happened has been lost to oblivion because it was not recorded. Only the rich and the powerful generally recorded their version to suit them and bolster their assumed authority over the history and the recording of the past.

There is some hope because the internet at least records a diversity of versions. Whether that will result in a continued individualist's chaos of versions or equip us to recognise a better quality objectivity remains to be seen.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Good point, I like that.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Good response.....



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Good point...



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The more you find outside of yourself the more you lose your inner self.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Revolution9

Good point...


Are you doing what I think you are doing?

If so, good point.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Very well put . For me it was realizing I had to unlearn all that I thought I knew and start a fresh with a lot of scepticism . I became a instant scientific agnostic as well a history . It sounded scary for me at the time but it sure opened up my mind to other threads of thought . When you start over new again ,there is no need to factor in the things you unlearned to have them block what the alternative answer might be .



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
You should have good reasons for believing things and faith is believing things for no good reason.

If you believe in things based on faith then you don't care about the truth, you just care about what feels right. It's basically self-delusion..
edit on 2-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luciferslight

Interesting point...and what is the nature of that "inner self"?



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't agree. From an atheism thread of mine a few months ago.

Belief does not have to be based on blind faith. It can also be based on logic, rationality, probability, evidences etc An example would be a jury who find somebody guilty of murder. They may ‘believe’ the person is guilty but they cannot prove it beyond any doubt. They can accept philosophical argument e.g. finding a motive. They can accept evidence eg finding the offenders fingerprints on a weapon. They can infer probability. In other words the jury have no clear indisputable evidence but can employ philosophy, logic and evidence to base their belief on. This is not the same as simply having faith, rather faith based on intellectual and convincing grounds. If the accused stated he was framed, the same methods can be used to arrive at the belief that he is either telling the truth or not telling the truth.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

I see where you were going with your response but, here is the issue with that philosophy...There is no valid reason to believe that because nothing about it's objective meaning tells us that. Faith is a measure just like belief and it requires a criteria that gives measure to it. So it's not that your'e in error more so than what your response applies to and that's when dealing with "factual" knowledge and not knowledge of truth. If truth knowledge is determined by you through belief brought on through what was proven, then you would be attempting to make truth subject to your reasoning despite that truth is absolute and therefor is not subject to man in any fashion. Facts are where your response is valid....good point.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Belief without faith is Unbelief.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't agree. From an atheism thread of mine a few months ago.

Belief does not have to be based on blind faith. It can also be based on logic, rationality, probability, evidences etc An example would be a jury who find somebody guilty of murder. They may ‘believe’ the person is guilty but they cannot prove it beyond any doubt. They can accept philosophical argument e.g. finding a motive. They can accept evidence eg finding the offenders fingerprints on a weapon. They can infer probability. In other words the jury have no clear indisputable evidence but can employ philosophy, logic and evidence to base their belief on. This is not the same as simply having faith, rather faith based on intellectual and convincing grounds. If the accused stated he was framed, the same methods can be used to arrive at the belief that he is either telling the truth or not telling the truth.



That's just it though, I'm talking about blind faith, the type that is based solely on feelings and emotion. The type professed by the majority of theists...

However if those that hold a belief that's not based on blind faith were to apply the same critical thinking that's used in cases of law and science (in other words the best possible tools for discerning the truth that we posses) to those beliefs, it would quickly become apparent that those beliefs are inherently irrational.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join