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.

 

What is 'faith'?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The Bible describes FAITH as ...The Substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen !




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


I'm in agreement with Maher, faith is mental laziness. Not that there's anything wrong with having faith in -say- the guy who does your taxes; of course, the evidence is always there to back his word he did it right, or not.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
again another thread turned into a bashing thread of so called 'mentally lazy' people....

The title of the thread is 'what is faith', and it has been answered in great detail...
There is answers in peoples feeling of the meaning, the original meaning, contextual meanings and modern meanings and examples of meanings in peoples lives....

How insults aimed towards people that understand faith is related to the the topic is beyond me.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
Although, If your a religious person a stern point is to spread jesus to everyone, why would you be so happy to see me going to hell, since your religion teaches that no?


I think a better question is: why is it always so important for people of no faith to try and convince those who have faith that they are delusional. Its like they're obsessed with it, where ever the topic may come up.

Also, re: the above, I think you must have missed the context. No Christian is happy that anyone should perish. That is completely incorrect. What we have is freewill. If you choose to use that freewill to disregard God that is your choice as given, but a true Christian would never be happy about it and in fact I would say, may even shed tears.

Finally, for the question as posed. Faith is is like a belief in something even though you can't see it or touch it. For example, I have faith in my spouse. Sometimes we have faith in the inanimate. For example, on my way to work I have faith that the bridge isn't going to collapse.

And that most certainly is not delusional. When it comes to faith in God, that is a very personal thing and is mocked by those who don't understand the personal nature of the relationship. There is not one who can prove there is no God, so I would suggest that talking about the possiblity in absolute negatives is what is delusional.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


The root of Logos, is Logic. Jesus was a supreme logician.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
reply to post by serbsta
 


I'm in agreement with Maher, faith is mental laziness. Not that there's anything wrong with having faith in -say- the guy who does your taxes; of course, the evidence is always there to back his word he did it right, or not.


Then all are mentally lazy are they not? Those who don't believe in God believe in evolution (not exclusive to athiests). In order for evolution to occur you have to have abiogenesis. YET most 1st and foremost don't know what that word means, or the context to evolution and why its relevant They simply take it on 'faith'. 2nd, most don't know the difference between micro evolution and macro. Again taking in on faith. etc etc etc.

It is a fallacy to put all your 'faith' in science. It's not been infallible. After all, didn't Gallileo actually believe the spin of the earth is what caused the tides? So, if you think there is no faith in science you are kidding yourself.

The entire idea that faith is somehow illogical or mentally lazy is indeed guilty of both.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustG Those who don't believe in God believe in evolution (not exclusive to athiests).


You entire post doesn't make a strict point about evolution being the only option if one doesn't believe in god, yet it is implied to a degree.

For some reason many think the only paths to agree upon is either creationism or evolution-ism. There are actually people the take neither side. These people, like me, see the world as an infinite reality, no end, no start. In a infinite reality, there is room for events like creationism and evolution, yet neither one defines the whole, start, or end of everything.

My point isn't to nitpick your view of made above, yet rather just wanted to make sure it is known there are others that do think entirely different.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by JustG Those who don't believe in God believe in evolution (not exclusive to athiests).


You entire post doesn't make a strict point about evolution being the only option if one doesn't believe in god, yet it is implied to a degree.

For some reason many think the only paths to agree upon is either creationism or evolution-ism. There are actually people the take neither side. These people, like me, see the world as an infinite reality, no end, no start. In a infinite reality, there is room for events like creationism and evolution, yet neither one defines the whole, start, or end of everything.

My point isn't to nitpick your view of made above, yet rather just wanted to make sure it is known there are others that do think entirely different.


Understood. I assume you're speaking of energy or something like that? In any case, this would put you on the side of faith. My point was more a generalized expression to those who are saying faith in God is 'mentally lazy' etc. and of course the logic being they would be evolutionists.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustG
Understood. I assume you're speaking of energy or something like that? In any case, this would put you on the side of faith. My point was more a generalized expression to those who are saying faith in God is 'mentally lazy' etc. and of course the logic being they would be evolutionists.


As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is no start and no end to life.

One God Is All.

That requires no faith to understand. No one can teach things that we always know.

In the ordinary world, I side with beliefs and science. I also know there are realities beyond the ordinary. That knowledge still doesn't require faith.

You suggest, however, something of energy or like, but it is what you think it may be is your faith -- not mine.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   


God cannot be explained, He cannot be argued about, He cannot be theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood.
To understand the infinite, eternal Reality (Godhead) is not the GOAL of individualized beings in the Illusion of Creation, because the Reality can never be understood; it is to be realized by conscious experience.
~ Meher Baba


But for some to suggest that "Faith" is mental laziness, are I would suggest themselves mentally lazy by making such a statement, and for their lack of imagination to attempt to touch or experience in some way, however great or small, the ineffible mystery of being, and thus, the mystery of the supreme being and creator.

Not only are they lazy, but they are terribly arrogant to make such pronouncements about those who have the courage to have faith in the unseen reality which exceeds the capacity of human reason to fully grasp.

And not only are they lazy AND arrogant, but they are also ignorant, of the fact that there are unseen realities which do not subject themselves to the scrutiny of simple reason.

And to top it off, they are, at the very least exceedingly presumptuous, not only about the presence of a creator and infinite Godhead, but of the capcity for faith to produce an experiencial knowing in the believer.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is called contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
dzonatas, excuse me for assuming something scientific in your response.

When you say: "there is no start and no end to life" I assumed energy because though it may change form the total energy always stays the same. FYI: scientifically this applies, even if you don't know it.

Ultimately what you are saying is opinion and no more valid than my own or the athiest. And my point initially is that all require faith and to imply or say differently is illogical.

I made some good specific arguments initially relating to this thread. If you'd care to argue one of those points for example, why its not illogical, that would be great. Otherwise I don't care to argue semantics over a individual's specific belief system.

Omegapoint: I just made many of the same claims about the evolutionists.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustG
dzonatas, excuse me for assuming something scientific in your response.

When you say: "there is no start and no end to life" I assumed energy because though it may change form the total energy always stays the same. FYI: scientifically this applies, even if you don't know it.


You assumed energy as a way to perceive life with no start and no end, and then you added that it may change form even if the total energy always stays the same. Energy, however, is the perception.

Life exists. If we only talk about Life and nothing else, then we narrow Life to a single dimension. It is there you don't see shape or energy. It is Life and only Life. There is nothing else to perceive. When you associate energy, then you associate Energy and Life, and these are two words that create the perception of more than one dimension. I didn't claim that energy has no start and no end, as I only claimed Life as no start and no end.



Ultimately what you are saying is opinion and no more valid than my own or the athiest. And my point initially is that all require faith and to imply or say differently is illogical.


Perhaps, it is illogical to you until you understand otherwise from what I mentioned above about Life. I don't judge you to say your perception is merely an opinion or illogical or elsewise. I'm open to your perception, yet that does not mean I have to make your perception the same as my perception. Further, I don't have to accept your knowledge as the only logical conclusive knowledge, which would be illogical to expect anybody to do such.



I made some good specific arguments initially relating to this thread. If you'd care to argue one of those points for example, why its not illogical, that would be great. Otherwise I don't care to argue semantics over a individual's specific belief system.

Omegapoint: I just made many of the same claims about the evolutionists.



I don't expect people to believe what I believe, and it fact it is impossible for everybody to believe exactly and everything that I do believe.

"Where it is impossible for people to believe what I believe... that is where faith is required in others."

Do you not find that logical? (repeat the bolded part to yourself as if you tell others)

[edit on 16-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Faith is knowing in your heart that something is true. Faith is a source of strength. You know when people or the environment seems to be against you and you still make it past an obstacle because you didn't give up. You had faith that you could do it.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
dzonatas: I understand what you are saying. I didn't mean to imply that you don't believe what you're saying. That's not the case with any of us. But, unless you can prove it, you rely on faith. That's not an insult of any kind. And in fact my initial argument was that even the evolutionists must rely on faith.

Frankly I expected some of them to argue this. I suppose they couldn't. At least I haven't seen any more 'mentally lazy' comments.

Anything we can't prove is faith based. For example, (and lets not go quantum here) I am sitting at a computer right now. That is a fact. There is no faith required for me to believe I'm sitting at a computer.

On the other hand our belief systems require faith. In spite of the fact that you may know what you believe to be 100% true, its not tangible. Its not provable and therefore requires a degree of faith. Look at the example I gave for evolution. Even though they would argue this point, it requires faith because its not technically provable. Its simply the best explanation they've got. Add that abiogenesis is impossible and you see what I'm getting at.

For the most part the masses don't understand it at all. They have to have faith since they only know that certain people said it is so. Nothing more.

See what I'm getting at?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustG
On the other hand our belief systems require faith. In spite of the fact that you may know what you believe to be 100% true, its not tangible. Its not provable and therefore requires a degree of faith.


I do understand what you have attempted to say, yet when I read this part there is still something not quite clear.

What someone knows is true and what they can prove is true is two different perspectives. Just because they can't prove to someone else what they know is true doesn't mean none of their truths is tangible, and further it doesn't mean all of their beliefs requires faith. What is being made more clear, here, is the existentialism of faith and belief.

What I think is not clear is when the term 'belief systems' is being used. In a pure qualification of belief, a belief system can not be based on faith, as that would self-contradict itself. What we do commonly have on a lower level are systems based on on axioms and others noumenons. On a higher level we have systems based on perception and phenomenon. The lower level systems are generally unable to describe the whole since one system may not be tangible to another system. I think this is where your tangibility concern is valid. On the higher level, those lower level systems are brought together in union by... faith.

Being alive is very tangible and requires no faith to believe that. That is just one example where a 'belief system' cannot be existentially disqualified as 'not provable and therefore requires a degree of faith'.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
But you can't prove that there is anything other than a body, a beating heart and at death, an end. Wouldn't that be correct?

There-in is the point.

And it seems you have repeated my own point. Whether you say you need no faith to know you're alive, or I say I need no faith to know I'm sitting at a computer is the same thing.

I don't think you understand my argument. You have said nothing that leads me to believe that your understanding is any more factual than mine or the athiests.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by JustG]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustG
But you can't prove that there is anything other than a body, a beating heart and at death, an end. Wouldn't that be correct?

There-in is the point.


I haven't told you what you can and cannot prove, yet you have told us what can and cannot be proven.

The body is not the same as Life, so just because there is an end to the body does not mean there is an end to Life. It's just the same as you sit by the keyboard, just because you get up and leave the keyboard doesn't mean that there is an end to your Life. Hopefully one can see that the keyboard is not the same as Life.

So to use the body as an example to imply that Life cannot be proven is... unequivocally incorrect. Even science defines the an anomaly for the conscience, as science limits itself to ordinary dimensions.

I'd imagine you would be interested in the Turing Test. Note that with the 'imitation game'... well... one is surely to ask how far down the rabbit hole does one want to go? To me, the keyboard, noted above, is just an extension of the body, also noted above. You follow?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

The body is not the same as Life, so just because there is an end to the body does not mean there is an end to Life. It's just the same as you sit by the keyboard, just because you get up and leave the keyboard doesn't mean that there is an end to your Life. Hopefully one can see that the keyboard is not the same as Life.


Completely speculative, irrelevant and unrelated. Life as we know it relies on the body, it does not however rely on a keyboard. So there is little common sense to that comparison.


So to use the body as an example to imply that Life cannot be proven is... unequivocally incorrect. Even science defines the an anomaly for the conscience, as science limits itself to ordinary dimensions.


I have no interest in going out into left field. I am arguing the requirement of faith in certain beliefs, whereas you appear to be trying to argue that the body is not requisite for life in spite of showing no evidence.

Let me give you an example of what I've been saying. Some people who have experienced death and been brought back or near death, claim to have seen a bright white light like a tunnel they are passing along. They believe this proves life after death w/o a doubt. Unfortunately they too require faith to believe such a thing. Why? Because when astronauts are training w/ g-force, they sometimes black out. They too claim to experience the same thing, but if memory serves, its simply manufactured by a lack of oxygen to the brain.

Not fact. Faith. See?

At this point, I must say that if you cannot show evidence that supports your claims, you are in fact taking it on faith.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
You have attempted to narrow down and ask for proof in a certain manner, which if you don't get the proof in such manner you then claim one cannot prove it. I hope you see the problem with that type of logic.


Originally posted by JustG
Life as we know it relies on the body, it does not however rely on a keyboard.


That is speculative, as you haven't even proven the existence of Life, so you would not even be able simply state what does or does not rely on the body or a keyboard. Of course, you can try.



I am arguing the requirement of faith in certain beliefs, whereas you appear to be trying to argue that the body is not requisite for life in spite of showing no evidence.


No. I said Life exists. I said that requires no faith to believe. You however, have tried to say faith is existentially required. You haven't shown any proof whatever that faith is existentially required, yet you have tried a strawman tatic with the 'body' argument in order to say Life cannot be proven.



Let me give you an example of what I've been saying....
[...]
Not fact. Faith. See?

At this point, I must say that if you cannot show evidence that supports your claims, you are in fact taking it on faith.


I see another strawman tactic.

My point wasn't to nitpick you in and your beliefs and faiths, but my point was to merely point out that people think differently. I felt the need to point that out because you simply posted up an A or B type of conclusion, and I came along and expressed more possibilities (C, D, F, etc). Now you don't seem to like more possibilities, so you resorted to the strawmen tactics to "prove it".

It is clear that you do not accept that belief can stand on its own without any faith whatsoever. And here, my point, is to the topic about 'what is faith' that there is this possibility that faith is, as I stated before: "Where it is impossible for people to believe what I believe... that is where faith is required in others." That is pure faith and not any degree of virtual faith.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I believe we have exhausted this and I do not care for an 'argument' where my points are ignored, twisted or reinterpreted. I was very clear in my first post to you that my comment was intended for athiests / evolutionists to specifically show those who commented that 'having faith' was 'mentally lazy' were guilty of their own charge. This you seem to have a hard time comprehending.

I also very clearly advised you I had no interest in an argument about an individuals personal beliefs, yet you are clearly intent on doing nothing but.

My argument is very clear: Belief in God, or life after death, or any other unprovable existence requires faith. However, the belief in specific areas of science also requires faith and that it is mentally lazy to assume science infallible especially w/o an understanding of why it is so.

If you have a direct comment in regard to this argument, I will respond. If you simply insist on the same rhetoric, I'll now pass as there is nothing else that can be said I've not already posted.

edit: To clarify what faith is for you, please see the definition below from Websters. What I have been trying to get across to you is underlined. See synonym: belief.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

synonyms see belief



[edit on 17-8-2009 by JustG]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join