shopping for religion?

Originally posted by Spamandham
I don't think he has learned from it. He is still beating the war drums over Iran. He appears to have reached the pinnacle of faith - insanity.

Does faith always lead to insanity?

Originally posted by Spamandham
What you call faith, I call induction. Did you read the post I made a couple of posts back where I discussed these things and attempted to make definitions that we could work with? You didn't oppose those definitions, yet you are also not using them. You are still equating faith with belief of any kind, and use the word "knowledge" simply to mean "absolute certainty". I refuse to use these definitions, as they are nonstandard and appear to be designed for the express purpose of equating faith with reason via equivocation.

Induction is the process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances (dictionary.com). We do need induction to reach a conclusion, however in choosing one conclusion (based on facts) over another we are placing our 'faith' in that conclusion. We must also have 'faith' that the 'facts' we base our conclusions on are 'facts' and not delusion. Where uncertainty exists, nothing can conclusively be considered fact without faith. Nothing is certain, thus every conclusion is reached through induction, the one that is accepted is ultimately accepted in faith though, since there is no way of knowing.

Originally posted by Spamandham...vague enough to be meaningless, though I can't imagine what evidence has led you to believe this exists.

Very vague, I do not wish to be specific, but if you have any questions regarding the nature of the God I believe in - feel free to ask.

Evidence = personal proof/experience. All experience is evidence of some cause. My experience has led me from depression, fear and rejection of God to happiness, contentment and a non-contradictory belief based on the changes that have come about since God came into my life. God performed miracles with me, he changed my life for the better.

Originally posted by SpamandhamI agree, but "valid" is the best we can do without perfect knowledge. "True" applies only to pure logic.

Logic must be based on something. If it is your position (this is what I understand from your post) that truth is perception through logic, then I agree - but if so, it may not be truth, it very well could be delusion. Perception is subjective, incomplete, flawed.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Perhaps that it what it has come to mean, but in Greek to be agnostic is to hold no opinion either way. That is the definition I am using.

Originally posted by Spamandham
No it doesn't. "gnosis" relates to knowledge, not belief.

Yeah, you're right - I must be tired... What I meant was to say that agnosticism is the 'belief' that it is impossible to 'know' whether God exists. It is therefore still a belief and not knowledge. At the same time, if this is the definition we're using then everyone should be agnostic, since it is impossible to know either way.

I have chosen to believe in God, thus I am a believer.

Bleh - I'm going bed.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Does faith always lead to insanity?

No, but if you condition your mind to believe fantasies are real, that can spill over into other aspects of your life.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Where uncertainty exists, nothing can conclusively be considered fact without faith.

I disagree. You are redefining the word "fact" to involve absolute certainty, just as you redefined "knowledge" to involve absolute certainty. We rarely/never have complete information or absolute certainty, yet we are compelled into action regardless. You call that faith, I call it a best guess based on the information at hand. It's an estimate of likelihoods, nothing more.

Back to your dentist example, if you realize that the dentist you choose might make a mess of your teeth, then you have simply made a wager - an educated best guess, which is not the same as faith. Faith would be selecting the dentist with no information and truly believing nothing will go wrong because you hope it won't.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Nothing is certain, thus every conclusion is reached through induction, the one that is accepted is ultimately accepted in faith though, since there is no way of knowing.

If you realize you might be wrong, and are willing to change your position if new information later demonstrates you were likely wrong, and you have selected your position by making a best guess from the evidence you have to work with, then it isn't faith.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Perception is subjective, incomplete, flawed.

...and yet, thats' all we have. Isn't the experience you speak of regarding god also subjective, incomplete and flawed?

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Yeah, you're right - I must be tired... What I meant was to say that agnosticism is the 'belief' that it is impossible to 'know' whether God exists. It is therefore still a belief and not knowledge. At the same time, if this is the definition we're using then everyone should be agnostic, since it is impossible to know either way.

I agree that is the proper definition of agnosticism. While someone may believe it is not possible to know whether gods exist, they may simultaneoulsy believe that gods do or don't exist.

Originally posted by spamandham
No, but if you condition your mind to believe fantasies are real, that can spill over into other aspects of your life.

There is no conditioning of my mind, I accept things only when I have gathered enough evidence - I am always skeptical, but never unreasonably so, unreasonable skepticism is denial.

Originally posted by spamandham
I disagree. You are redefining the word "fact" to involve absolute certainty, just as you redefined "knowledge" to involve absolute certainty. We rarely/never have complete information or absolute certainty, yet we are compelled into action regardless. You call that faith, I call it a best guess based on the information at hand. It's an estimate of likelihoods, nothing more.

Perhaps the problem is that since Greek is my mother tongue my understanding of English words is based on my understanding of Greek words. In Greece, you would never claim to know something you are uncertain of. You would say 'pisteuo oti..' meaning 'I believe that...' I suppose knowledge to me, must contain a fragment of truth in it. If it does not it is not knowledge, but delusion. The Greek word for belief is the same as the word for faith as well, a belief could be false. Knowledge to me is definitely true or pertaining to a definition. To say the boiling point of water is 100 degrees centigrade is true, but only because it is by definition.

Belief does not imply knowledge, but if you have knowledge you do not require belief.

Someone who has knowledge cannot possibly be wrong. Or is not open to the possibility that they may be wrong. Someone with belief is open to the possibility they may be wrong.

Originally posted by spamandham
Back to your dentist example, if you realize that the dentist you choose might make a mess of your teeth, then you have simply made a wager - an educated best guess, which is not the same as faith. Faith would be selecting the dentist with no information and truly believing nothing will go wrong because you hope it won't.

No, that is blind faith. Faith can be based on evidence, you have faith in evidence. You can even have faith in knowledge. Faith is not always based on nothing.

Originally posted by spamandham
If you realize you might be wrong, and are willing to change your position if new information later demonstrates you were likely wrong, and you have selected your position by making a best guess from the evidence you have to work with, then it isn't faith.

Faith doesn't cancel out belief anymore than belief cancels out faith. You can believe and have faith at the same time.

Originally posted by spamandham
...and yet, thats' all we have. Isn't the experience you speak of regarding god also subjective, incomplete and flawed?

Of course, which is why I believe through faith rather than knowing. This is what I have been saying all this time.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by shihulud
I think your maybe a wee bit too subjective, it doesn't matter where you are in the universe 2+2 will always = 4.

How do you know this?

It is currently accepted that our Euclidean geometry is only true in this region of space. Were you to travel to a region of space with no large body of mass near it, you might find that currently accepted geometric laws are no longer in effect.

Be that as it may 2+2=4 is not geometrical. Logical arithmetic however dictates this to be true.

Look at it this way if you build a time machine and travel back 4000 years you will be relatively -4000 years old but really your still the same age as you were, your body will be working on your time not relative time.

This is all just subjective speculation. Were it possible to physically travel back in time, how do you know that no bodily physical variables would change?

Ok travel forwards in time (very possible) and there is no change in bodily variables so why should there be for backward travel?

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron

How is time the same everywhere?

Time is not a constant, the speed of light in a vaccuum is.

A year is as long as it takes for the world to orbit the sun. If you go to any other planet - a year will be longer or shorter depending on the length of time it takes for the planet to orbit the sun/star. How then is a year the same throughout the universe?

Yes I know this, time is percieved but is quantified also in clocks etc. My statement was to show that only spacetime changes not your own quantifiable percieved time. As for years and planetary orbits all are calculated using Earth time i.e Mercury's day is just under 59 Earth days and its year is 87.9 Earth days. So really any time travel would be in relation to Earth time


G

Well Simon, I don't think we can come to agreement on the definitions of the words "faith", "belief", "knowledge", or "fact". We are thus doomed to fail to comprehend eachother in that regard.

Thanks for trying.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
When shopping for a religion I tend to shake them up a bit and give them a squeeze to test for freshness. I also like to look for a bargain, what is on sale.

*tries best Ed McMahn imprssion*


HI-O