If faith was blind belief, why would it be of such importance?

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

The way gut flora interact with the human brain is awesome. You might find it interesting to look into the language of bacteria. Thank me later (if you find that stuff interesting).

Thanks in advance... LoL.
An ATS member also mentioned to me before, that the role of mitochondria may also potentially be huge.

And thanks for being nice. Is this a newer-gentler you?

Nope, same me as always. If someone comes at me as a fool without an appreciation for my position they will be met as a fool. If someone comes at me with a difference of opinion and appreciates others such as myself think differently and they are interested in a discussion of the differences they will be met with true interest.

Fine with me if we can accept others' ideas.
Harder to accept claims, don't you find?

I only care when a claim is made and put forth as fact. Put forth the claim as a claim and there is no problem.

Don't understand how there are claims, that are not claims. Sorry.
Think you explained it earlier, but not sure. This thread moves much faster than am used-to.
If you did explain it earlier: please just say so, and will go back to check. But will then probably lose this wave.
Aww: can't kid anyone: am already way behind the wave... LoL.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

“The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.”

Article 37 of The Albanian Constitution of 1976

I had to look that up.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

a reply to: Nothin

People will present a claim, and then act as if that claim is proven fact, when in reality it is merely a claim and nothing more.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

I can because no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter. If you think I must search around Jupiter to see if there is a teapot there in order to prove my claim, you are simply restating your belief in the possibility, without evidence.

That's not how it works!
The one making the claim may be asked to back it up, not the one asking for proof.
Again: you don't know that "no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter."
That's another unprouvable claim.

You don't know, and can't prove that somebody putting one there, is the only possible way that one could be there.

a reply to: Nothin

Statistically speaking, a teapot orbiting Jupiter would be more likely than life evolving on Earth based on current knowledge.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

People will present a claim, and then act as if that claim is proven fact, when in reality it is merely a claim and nothing more.

Okay: that is the usually accepted definition of claim
What is the other, more fluid one you were getting-at?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

It can be proven through extrapolation. Based on reasonable expectations.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books. But no, he does not exist as anything else. But if you can find me any historical figure, literary character, or legend that exists today, I’m totally open to being proven wrong.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

I can because no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter. If you think I must search around Jupiter to see if there is a teapot there in order to prove my claim, you are simply restating your belief in the possibility, without evidence.

That's not how it works!
The one making the claim may be asked to back it up, not the one asking for proof.
Again: you don't know that "no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter."
That's another unprouvable claim.

You don't know, and can't prove that somebody putting one there, is the only possible way that one could be there.

No, I do know that no one has put a teapot near Jupiter. Our endeavours into space are well recorded.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

Statistically speaking, a teapot orbiting Jupiter would be more likely than life evolving on Earth based on current knowledge.

Aw man: wouldn't want to see those statistic equations with a 10-foot magnifying glass! LoL!

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books. But no, he does not exist as anything else. But if you can find me any historical figure, literary character, or legend that exists today, I’m totally open to being proven wrong.

So I am confused. Lincoln is real and not just a literary character, but is also a literary character. You said earlier that both are impossible.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

It can be proven through extrapolation. Based on reasonable expectations.

Would that mean that a, say: 95% probability is a fact?
Where do we draw the line?

Can't see how we could get everyone to agree on a concept such as that:
"As of today: 72% probability = 100% probability".

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Mach2

While i realize "faith" and religion are not the same thing, they are inseparable.

To you, perhaps. To many others as well. And horrid things have been done in the name of religion, yes.
But faith in God is a stand-alone concept. No 'religion' required. You could grow up on an island away from civilization and still commune with the Higher Power, without anyone saying a word about It. Religion is man's bastardization of faith, as a means of controlling the masses. Jesus didn't come to start Christianity. At all.

You are still relying on faith that you are not just talking to yourself. And as soon as someone else shows up, they will disagree on some point of your claim.

If I am just talking to myself... who is this wise Self who advises me? How do YOU know that what you call your Conscience is not the Holy Spirit. Does the name really matter that much, if the result is the same? Why reject the concept of a Higher Consciousness in the universe so vehemently? Is it fear? I'm asking seriously, not combatively.

Hola Nuevo Aqui!
Long time no see! Hope you are well.

How do you know that the holy spirit that you are communing with, is not just another aspect of your complex mind?
Or perhaps it is the hive-mind consciousness of the hundreds of trillions of gut bacteria, whom are directly connected to your brain via the vagas-nerve?

Don't nobody know, me thinks.

Don't nobody know nothin.

Hey Sweet Nuthins (LoL)
These are great questions. I don't know exactly the nature of God, only a knowing sense of a Loving, Benevolent voice (not literally audible, but like the zap of a message appearing in my Inbox/Mind.) It is similar to the inner dialogue we all have, but.. different. Like flashes of insight/understanding when my mind is quiet and zoned into drawing or doing yoga or something. I've pondered what we refer to as the Collective Unconscious being an aspect of God, or that concept of each of us being a tendril of the Spirit of God experiencing existence in a "Hue Man" meatsuit, as neurons to one brain.

I only know that when I am 'plugged in' I know that I am. In those moments I am a better person, and happy or at least peaceful.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books. But no, he does not exist as anything else. But if you can find me any historical figure, literary character, or legend that exists today, I’m totally open to being proven wrong.

So I am confused. Lincoln is real and not just a literary character, but is also a literary character. You said earlier that both are impossible.

Yes, Lincoln the being does not exist. He died a long time ago. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books.

I knew I read you right ...

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
Its the law of non-contradiction. It’s quite clear that God is a character of literature, a linguistic construct conceived in the minds of men. If god is one thing, he isn’t something else.

So if Lincoln is a character of literature (which you agree he is), then he can not be something else. Therefore Lincoln is a literary character, and not a real one ... but he is also a real character and thus not a literary one ... confusing.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books. But no, he does not exist as anything else. But if you can find me any historical figure, literary character, or legend that exists today, I’m totally open to being proven wrong.

So I am confused. Lincoln is real and not just a literary character, but is also a literary character. You said earlier that both are impossible.

Yes, Lincoln the being does not exist. He died a long time ago. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

If he is a literary character how did he ever exist since both can not be true according to you?