Belief without faith...

originally posted by: auto3000
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.

The criteria for faith is your own personal wants and emotions, nothing more. And while it's correct that we cannot prove anything to be absolutely 100% true, we can do as much as is possible in order to get as close to the truth as possible. Faith is just going in the opposite direction and giving yourself a truth that you want or one that feels good.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Ok....that is a good point, the criteria that you are talking about is what comes from observing people like that...the criteria must be "objectively" binding, if not then it's all vain...example...The Christian religion as well as others have a criteria and that criteria is the law of their god or God. This gives measure to their faith and is not based upon their feelings...see the difference? In situations like this it becomes about "is their god a objective reality" rather than is their faith in vain because once you discover that the deity is false, the faith part is rendered vain automatically.

originally posted by: Revolution9
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.

Boy, you have caught right on to what has happened throughout history. It's who's version of reality that defines the reality.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
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 .

It is important to try to figure out the real reason that reality is the way it is. Sometimes what we think is bad actually has a good reason to be but the reason is way different than is portrayed. Deception runs this reality, even the truth has deception tied to it so we can't see the truth in it if we awaken. Occams Razor cut the truth and often the reason things are as they appear to be. To get accepted long ago the truth was tied to something not true so it could be accepted without society throwing a fit. The reason for and blending of truth and lie was lost as people die, it was necessary to moderate consensus of the time. Look how many people are saying an egg was once bad for you and now it is good for you. The ones controlling things do not want to admit they were BSed by a lie. It takes a generation or two to be able to cover up a lie or expose one so people do not lose their belief in things.

So science is also based on belief and occams razor still cuts the truth of misconceptions that occurred from science. A whole generation passes before the truth is accepted and meanwhile a new lie comes out. It is a never ending cycle of deception, sometimes I wonder if it will ever end.

originally posted by: auto3000
The reason why faith is belief

'Belief' is quite the opposite of 'Faith'!

'Beliefs' are 'conditional' concepts.
'Beliefs' are pathologically symptomatic infection of the imagination, the ego! Vanity.
'Beliefs' must be constantly 'defended' and 'validated/fed' and 'propagated' (spread)!
'Beliefs' are not rationally, logically 'chosen', we infect with, and catch, 'beliefs'!

The symptoms are consistent throughout all strains!

'Faith', on the other hand, is an 'unconditional' Virtue of unconditional Love!
Unconditional meaning transcendental, meaning that the 'unconditional' CANNOT be conceptualized, understood, by 'conditional' thoughts/concepts!
Faith cannot even live in the same soil as 'beliefs'.

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!

'Faith' NEVER requires 'defense' or 'validation/feeding' or 'spreading'!
'Faith' is Knowledge!
Knowledge = experience!
It is a state of Being, not imagination.

I believe that there is a lot of truth in these two quotes:

You have to believe in gods to see them. ~ Hopi Indian saying

a reply to: auto3000

I don't think that because faith is confidence and trust that means it is given without valid reasons. In fact I'd say most of the time we have good reasons for putting faith in people or things.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Good point, valid meaning: ones position validated by the truth which means that they have to understand the very nature of truth, otherwise they are leaning to their own understanding and not perceiving what truth is and how it is referenced (how they would know) vs what it seems like using processes of logic.

a reply to: Murgatroid

That is a strong post...we just have to discern when we are perceiving something that's not a objective reality...(imagined)..a persons belief can be referenced....objective realities can be objectively referenced as such so that the man who doubts is without excuse...good post.

a reply to: namelesss

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

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: auto3000

I don't think that because faith is confidence and trust that means it is given without valid reasons. In fact I'd say most of the time we have good reasons for putting faith in people or things.

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.

I just have to say this.....all of you are giving intelligent and mature responses..I respect that beyond measure...great comments going on here.....

a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't think you are the arbitrator of what kind of reasons someone has when it comes to their faith. Nothing about the statement I made should be confrontational yet here you are trying to force me to accept your usage of the word faith. Its silly and ridiculous.

a reply to: auto3000

I am not sure I get what you mean. Leaning on your own undertanding or using the processes of logic? can you rephrase the wording is just confusing here.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't think you are the arbitrator of what kind of reasons someone has when it comes to their faith.

I'm just clarifying the difference between religious faith and the common everyday use of the word, similar to the scientific and layman's use of the word 'theory', showing how the video posted was fallacious and dishonest.

Nothing about the statement I made should be confrontational yet here you are trying to force me to accept your usage of the word faith. Its silly and ridiculous.

There was nothing confrontation about my response either, I merely pointed out the differences in the usage of said word.

a reply to: Prezbo369

The usage is up to the speaker. They are the one conveying the messages, and your wrong about the usage of that word in the Bible. Go look up the Greek the word is pistis.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369
The usage is up to the speaker. They are the one conveying the messages,

Of course it is, however the different usages of the word cannot be denied. Belief in anything paranormal canmot be falsified and is therefore 'without valid reasons' and fits with the religious meaning of 'faith'.

and your wrong about the usage of that word in the Bible. Go look up the Greek the word is pistis.

I didn't mention anyrhing about the bible...I did however mention the video you posted. Can you see how dishonest it was?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

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. Once you say things like "well truth is this or that" or faith is this or that and your response is derived from observing people and the way that you see things then you are trying to arrive at truth by way of observation which makes truth subject to observation when only facts are.

There's one valid reason why a person accepts something to be true and there are two valid reasons why they don't. These reasons are validated by truth itself...1st valid reason for not accepting is "understanding", it is valid for a person to reject what they don't understand. I didn't say it's always a good thing, just valid. 2nd valid reason is just the opposite, they do understand and demonstrates it by showing the other person that they see "absence" of truth in their position (discernment)..not to be confused with someone who doesn't see the truth, we're talking about seeing that it is not there. All other reasons are just that....reasons...not validated but, reasons never the less....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.

a reply to: auto3000

Understanding the truth is key in faith.