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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Belief in anything paranormal canmot be falsified and is therefore 'without valid reasons' and fits with the religious meaning of 'faith'


You have no valid reason for believing this statement to be true. It is something you simply like the idea of...so you state it as fact.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000




Sure I'll explain further....leaning to ones own understanding means: thinking that you have arrived at the truth through processes of reasoning and logic and not simply perceiving truth as what it is...for instance..truth is absolute and therefor is not subject to your reasoning or logic because that would mean that it's not absolute and can be bound to a type of thinking.


You seem to think that logic has rules that can be bent or broken. There are not a different rules of thought when it comes to what is rational. For example, Something is itself is always a true statement and is unbreakable. That is not my logic it is simply a truth about the world. Second, Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way. These are undeniable truths that must be agreed upon before rational discourse can take place. I would agree that truth is what actually is. Something actually is itself. Something cannot actually be A and actually be not A at the same time and in the same way.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000




The one valid reason for acceptance is because the person perceives or recognizes the truth in it (discernment) and therefor their belief derived from seeing the truth and not just a vain belief.



Of course a person must perceive the truth before they accept it. I don't think that is debatable, but think of Plato's caves. How do you tell a man who has been in a cave his entire life about the sun? One can know a truth about the world that is impossible to get across to someone who lacks the perceptions of that truth.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is correct, it's called coming to the knowledge of the truth, as far as logic goes, it's not so much as rules but absolutes of logic that cannot be bound.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369
You have no valid reason for believing this statement to be true. It is something you simply like the idea of...so you state it as fact.


Are you saying belief in the paranormal/supernatural can be falsified? Can you demonstrate this? are you ready for your Nobel prize?...

If you believe in something based on faith, then you do not care about the truth, you just care about what feels good to you....



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Are you saying belief in the paranormal/supernatural can be falsified? Can you demonstrate this? are you ready for your Nobel prize?...


Depends on the claim. No one would give me a nobel prize for this however because this is not the belief held by professional logicians. The reason people say this is because any argument given to disprove these things is an inductive argument and inductive reasoning is fallacious to begin with, but we must use it in the most mundane of task all the way up to the most sophisticated of sciences.

If Santa Clause existed, then elves and flying reindeer would be at the north pole.
If Santa Clause existed, then kids would get presents, switches, or coal regardless of their parents participation.
Elves and flying reindeer are not at the north pole.
Kids don't get presents, switches, or coal without parent participation therefore Santa Clause as according to lore probably doesn't exist.

This is an inductive argument and so as such does not give a degree of certainty but that doesn't mean that I don't have a good reason for not believing in Santa Clause. I use the same type of reasoning when it comes to my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow or my belief that fire is always hot. If we deny inductive reasoning we are left with nothing but our own immediate perceptions.

Edit:




If you believe in something based on faith, then you do not care about the truth, you just care about what feels good to you....


That is simply untrue. That video I posted gave a perfect example, and wasn't dishonest at all unless your talking about how Dawkins completely ignored the huge logical inconsistency Lennox showed in his beliefs.
edit on 4-1-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

But I think you always have to be careful because you may be the man in the cave even when you don't recognize it.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369
That is simply untrue. That video I posted gave a perfect example, and wasn't dishonest at all unless your talking about how Dawkins completely ignored the huge logical inconsistency Lennox showed in his beliefs.


If you're going to purposely deny that there is a big difference between the everyday usage of the word faith and religious faith, as the commenter in the video you posted did, then you're also being dishonest...


Religious faith is 'given without valid reasons', your every-day faith is synonymous with trust and confidence which are both earned and given for valid reasons.



edit on 4-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




If you're going to purposely deny that there is a big difference between the everyday usage of the word faith and religious faith, as the commenter in the video you posted did, then you're also being dishonest...


I don't use it differently that doesn't mean there aren't people who might choose to use it differently. Words don't have intrinsic meaning, but pretending that just because its used in the context of a persons belief system doesn't force it to take on a different meaning.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I like that post....here's the question that you must ask yourself....how would the man know?....not how could...how would he know?.....there's a valid answer to that and it's validated by truth itself.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369
If you believe in something based on faith, then you do not care about the truth, you just care about what feels good to you....
I see what you were saying in this but, let me give a simple example: Anger: a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility....do you believe that the meaning of this word is true?.....aside of your belief, is it true? how would I know that the meaning of anger is true? If you say "well a person can feel anger"......they feel SOMETHING...how would they know that in the English language that it's anger? The point is this...you know you feel something...but you trust the referenced meaning of the word, the evidence is when you use it to convey your feelings to another person....there are things that you are supposed to have belief based faith with.....did you catch how I just worded that....belief based faith?...why did I phrase it that way? belief is the base that faith develops from. A man cannot trust something that he does not accept to be true. So what the man has to do is, discover rather what he accepts to be true (belief) can be objectively referenced to be true. Now facts is when your post hits valid points....Example: Existence of a leprechaun or Santa Clause...



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

When you say something is valid what do you mean? From my understanding of philosophy that would mean it is a logically correct argument but there is a difference between something being logically valid and something being logically sound.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Valid meaning...having a sound basis in logic or fact.....notice "sound basis IN logic or fact....in other words, consistent with the laws of logic....logically sound is subjective because it's based upon how a person processes logically what is said to them...Sound: based on reason, sense, or judgment.....whose reason, sense, or judgement? the individual...some people see a non belief in God as a logically sound position...you can't argue their point because it's based off of their own reason,sense, or judgement...this is why I continue to say....Logic is not what gets you to truth...wisdom does.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: namelesss

Good point, here's the thing with that...let's discern the difference between living faith and dead faith....

I'm listening, but my experience is that there is no such thing as 'dead Faith'!
'Faith' is an unconditional Virtue of unconditional Love.
Independent of all that is conditional, independent of all that is phenomenological!
Untouchable!
Transcendent of 'death', 'life' and all fleeting phenomena!

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!


living faith grows because measure can be given to it via a criteria...dead faith has no sound and written criteria and therefor has no way of being given measure.

One cannot 'measure' the transcendental/unconditional!
It is ineffable!
It cannot be 'quantified' any more that the unconditional Love, of which it is a Virtue!


A dead faith is vain and it exist in a man simply because he has been convinced and have yet to truly perceive the truth.

You are speaking of the (imaginary) vanity of 'belief'.
We catch 'beliefs' like we catch any infection.
Beliefs are caught and spread, live and die (particular strains, anyway).
All 'belief/thought' (imagination) will have died in a couple of centuries.
The evidence of thought's demise is all over the place!
Yes, 'beliefs', being conditional, CAN be 'quantified', measured, grow, and die (without proper feeding)!



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I'm listening, but my experience is that there is no such thing as 'dead Faith'!......Notice something in your statement..."my experience is"
...and then you continued to post....This statement says "I'm telling you based upon my feelings"....Now, had you said "here's why a faith can't be dead" and then posted by definition why such a thing is imagined, then you're being objective...see the difference...A dead faith is a faith that is "not alive" meaning that, it has no meaning because it derives from a base of no meaning....a man can't have faith in something that he doesn't believe, and he also can't have faith in what he doesn't know about...the base in which faith derives from MUST have objective meaning or the faith will have no justified meaning, making it void of life. The evidence will be, measure can't be given to it, the evidence of that will be, there is no objective criteria to give measure to it.....that's why faith is a concept of measure, because it can demonstrate having life in it.
edit on 9-1-2016 by auto3000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
You are speaking of the (imaginary) vanity of 'belief'....This statement along with all the statements that followed it overlooks one fundamental question...."How would a man know that what he believes, is actually true".....I'll say this objectively...he can't use logical processes unless the subject matter is centered around factual matters and not truth matters....but, if he's dealing with truth and not fact...logical processes and reasoning will be of non effect..and that's not an opinionated statement or supposition, that is truth that can be objectively referenced.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
You are speaking of the (imaginary) vanity of 'belief'....This statement along with all the statements that followed it overlooks one fundamental question...."How would a man know that what he believes, is actually true".....

It is the nature of a 'belief' that it is the one and only 'truth' of the matter, and that will be defended by the entirety of the ego, everything that you imagine yourself to be!
Beliefs are an infection of 'self', and are... become one with self, like an infection, like a vampire...

Anyway, all 'beliefs' are assumed to be 'Truth!' by the one so infected.
You NEVER need to prove it to the 'believer', but he is constantly 'defending' and 'validating/feeding' and 'spreading' his particular strain of this highly toxic and symptomatic infection.
He always has to 'prove it' (an impossible task) to 'others'!
He 'Knows' (tm) (or so he believes with all his heart!)!


I'll say this objectively...

Th'ain't no such thing, so... moving on...


he can't use logical processes unless the subject matter is centered around factual matters and not truth matters....

Heh, the 'Truth' (tm) of 'belief', and 'facts', are one and the same thing!

Oh! Have I got a tidbit for you! *__- ;

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...


but, if he's dealing with truth and not fact...logical processes and reasoning will be of non effect..and that's not an opinionated statement or supposition, that is truth that can be objectively referenced.

I grow weary of this soup you concoct of words, the meaning of which, you are ignorant.
Knowledge = experience, and all you have is imagination to fill in the darkness.
And no sane person EVER 'believes' anything that he 'thinks/imagines'! *__-







edit on 11-1-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: namelesss

I'm listening, but my experience is that there is no such thing as 'dead Faith'!......Notice something in your statement..."my experience is"

Experience = knowledge!
Proceed! *__-


...and then you continued to post....This statement says "I'm telling you based upon my feelings"

And this grinds to a halt right here! (almost! *__-)
I have a hard time imagining these words coming from these restless fingers!
And I smell the stench of an attempted strawman on the breeze...
That would be intellectual dishonesty coming to the defense of a 'belief infection', where rational discussion ends.
(Please don't kill m... Oh what's the use...
Unless you can link me to this 'quote' of 'mine', to which you refer, this discussion is at an end, and, besides, I don't see anything that logically refutes my post..
And there is no such thing as 'objectivity'!
That seems to be a huge 'belief infection' you got there!
They taught that crap back when I was in school, in sciences, math... it was quite the 'ideal', the "objective observer"!!!.
Thank Dog for quantum mechanics who out the last nail in that coffin!
Not only is the observer, and the observed, One, every observer perceives a different and unique Perspective of Reality!



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Correction...experience is just practical contact with and observation of facts. Knowledge comes out of experience but, that knowledge can be discerned for validity...and I can't say much about your post any further because you have already bankrupted yourself intellectually on the subject matter when you said "there is no such thing as objectivity" because that would mean that everything that you posted is not actually the case...but I do see where you were going in the conversation...your'e a thinker...I respect that.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: namelesss

Correction...experience is just practical contact with and observation of facts.

No, 'experience' is any and all 'perceptions', whether 'mental' or 'physical/sensory' (as if there were any difference)!
THAT is Knowledge!
'Facts' are no more than a 'PC' name for 'beliefs', from the 'pseudo-science' religion!
When a theory is refuted, like 'Materialism', the 'believers' just change the name; 'physicalism'.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...

There is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality!
This is all anyone, ever, perceives.
Every unique moment of existence is Self Knowledge!


Knowledge comes out of experience but, that knowledge can be discerned for validity...

The only way that you can make any Knowledge 'false' is to construct a small cage of rules, a specific context!
2+2=4 is only 'true' in a certain context, from a certain Perspective.
All such dualistic judgments operate the same way!
Truth is ALL inclusive, One!
Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One!


and I can't say much about your post any further because you have already bankrupted yourself intellectually on the subject matter when you said "there is no such thing as objectivity" because that would mean that everything that you posted is not actually the case...but I do see where you were going in the conversation

"Bankrupted"?
Really" *__-
"but I do see"
So, your insult is based on ignorance?
I can understand that.
Your ignorance can be measured by your ignorant belief in 'objectivity'!
A long obsolete and refuted notion, only kept alive in the warm breeding tanks of the 'minds' of the 'belief infected'!




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join