Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith doesn't become a delusion because you disagree with it.

Set of delusions. But you are right, my indifference is not required for faith to be a kind of delusion.

But I'm glad you agreed with my post. After all, why else did you follow up with a non-sequitur?

Edited by Bender
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 881
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely  consistent with there being no God? And do yo

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through. "I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and intera

! Moderator Note It's quite clear from the OP that the faith discussed in this thread is from believers in religion.   ! Moderator Note

35 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The question is really what is enough or needed to for an individual to accept such into their individual world view. 

They just need to believe in it. Some people belief (in some particular worldview of gods) and some people don't. This is not based on reason or rational choice. It seems to be an inherent part of human nature. Some people are "believers" and others aren't.

38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith can become a matter of choosing between different ideas about reality, and believing the one that is chosen. So rather than being thought of as simply an belief, it can be thought of as one of the possible ideas about reality that an individual chooses to believe. This sets faith in a higher power apart from beliefs about things, as  it is the difference between belief in things and belief in ideas.

I don't think choice comes into it. I can't choose to believe in a god (whether Thor or Allah) and you can't choose not to believe in your "higher power".

Even if you could choose your beliefs, it still doesn't make believing in an abstract "higher power" any different from believing in "things" (e.g. that the world is run by Lizard Overlords or that the Great Pyramid is an alien communication device).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am not so quick to stop looking for answers.

Most people stop looking when they find the answer (or when they find the question irrelevant ).

You certainly seemed to have stopped looking as well. The only thing you are looking for is questions for which your answer of choice is the correct one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

All you are doing is being dismissive. Why can't you respond with any reasonable counter argument to my posts?

I'm being dismissive because much of what you are saying makes little sense, and is simply an effort by you to reword some aspect, in the hope that no one sees your not so deft sidestep of the issue at hand. Let me respond again...Your faith, by definition is a belief in a supernatural/paranormal concept, that is unscientific. As science has continued to explain the universe around us scientifically, it has gradually pushed any reason for any such unscientific belief/faith/delusion into near oblivion. In actual fact you are still applying your faith/belief/delusion  in a "god of the gaps"  scenario, albeit in different words [ eg: a higher power] simply because science does not know everything. Let me remind you that many people still put their faith/belief/delusion in the literal meaning of the bible, yet the Catholic church now recognise the theory of evolution and the BB.

Quote

If my posts were really so illogical, it shouldn't be so hard to have an effective counterargument. 

The counter arguments put against your intransigent position now covers around 12 pages..

Quote

 

.....So what?

What are you trying to tell me that matters?

 

Nothing I or anyone else would say does matter. That has been your position since you started posting your questionable qualities on this form. But I'm a stubborn old bastard so let me spell it out for you....The link explains that what you count as reasoning, is contaminated by your incalcitrant position, due to your beliefs and confirmation bias, probably due to a childhood of brainwashing, the desire for comfort and solace or a combination of both. Again, I can understand that position and the reasons for it, what I fail to understand is why you chose to come to a science forum and your crusade of questionable qualities? Is this simply to gain some reassurance in your faith/belief system, and its sandy foundations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m convinced it’s a bot. This actually works on many levels

Actually, i thought the same last week on a different thread.

I’m just ‘praying’ (:-)) that Strange is NOT a BOT!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, nevim said:

Actually, i thought the same last week on a different thread.

I’m just ‘praying’ (:-)) that Strange is NOT a BOT!!!

I heard that @Phi for All is a state-of-the-art AI kept secret and tested on this site. 

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nevim said:

I’m just ‘praying’ (:-)) that Strange is NOT a BOT!!!

A bot would never have so easily leaked confidential information like he did above when revealing the code word classified secret about the pyramids being communication devices. Only a human could pose such a loose security risk and give away such a tightly guarded bit of info. 

2 hours ago, nevim said:

Actually, i thought the same last week on a different thread.

The sad part is that he’s maybe not. Perhaps he’s a real person in real life who believes really strongly and is genuine in his expressions of faith.

It’s sad that individuals like this become indistinguishable from poorly programmed robots. Think about that for a moment and reflect on what it means. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith can become a matter of choosing between different ideas about reality, and believing the one that is chosen. So rather than being thought of as simply an belief, it can be thought of as one of the possible ideas about reality that an individual chooses to believe. This sets faith in a higher power apart from beliefs about things, as  it is the difference between belief in things and belief in ideas.

Therefore, your perspective of faith is in the choice of one among many ideas impacting one's perceived worldview.  Of what value is such faith when the idea believed comprises nothing more than one among a collection of notions without foundation in anything remotely or substantially real, proven, or provable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, iNow said:

A bot would never have so easily leaked confidential information like he did above when revealing the code word classified secret about the pyramids being communication devices. Only a human could pose such a loose security risk and give away such a tightly guarded bit of info. 

The sad part is that he’s maybe not. Perhaps he’s a real person in real life who believes really strongly and is genuine in his expressions of faith.

It’s sad that individuals like this become indistinguishable from poorly programmed robots. Think about that for a moment and reflect on what it means. 

Thank you iNow. I feel much better now :) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

My perspective on this thread is different. Again.

 The O.P  was to explain  faith. Not justify its manifestation. Not justify a God.

I  see  Endercreepers  answers as honest and courageous in the face of opposition and dismissal.

Dismissal that does nothing to further an understanding of Faith.

On comparing faith to mental illness resulting in delusions...... Such a mental illness is not classed as 'woo', unworthy of science because its manifestation is not supported by science.

Both faith and mental illness are conditions with supportive evidence for their existence. Its unscientific to dismiss faith because you don't think its manifestation shouldn't exist just as it would be unscientific (and bigotry) to dismiss mental illness from the realm of science because its manifestations are unsupported.

There has been a statement on this thread that  ' I think all people are the same'.   I would argue that perhaps I'm more familiar and comfortable with the shifts of perspective needed to recognise and respond effectively. Understanding and recognition of Human diversity demands a shift of perspective to understand its conditions. Not dismissal of the perspective you are given because you can't accept it. You aren't asked to accept it, only recognise it as a human condition in the space of humanity.

Denial of its validity in that space is not a response to it, it does nothing to change the condition or improve it. It provokes an entirely different, opositional reaction.

 

 

 

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith to me is a  positional, rather than conditional, perspective of reality that denies any other.

I think Endercreeper was  saying much the same.

I don't see the problem being with a positional perspective,  Until it refuses to recognise  the conditions of another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, naitche said:

I  see  Endercreepers  answers as honest and courageous in the face of opposition and dismissal.

Please tell me how it's courageous to ignore reason? The opposition he got was to his constant redefining of known terms, and for watering down the concept of faith so it could apply to any belief. I oppose such imprecision.

This is a science discussion forum, and some people come here with an anti-mainstream science perspective. Of course they'll be opposed. Dismissal?! He was never dismissed. The reasoning for the opposition was given time and time again. You make it sound as if people simply said, "You're wrong" and left it at that. That's what being dismissed looks like.

There's nothing courageous about this style of argument, always claiming there is sound evidence but never actually providing it, and insisting on definitions that leave plenty of wiggle room so any idea can be said to have support. I equate it with playground logic, where a kid can just reply "Nuh-uh" to any reasoning you give them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, naitche said:

Faith to me is a  positional, rather than conditional, perspective of reality that denies any other.

I think Endercreeper was  saying much the same.

I don't see the problem being with a positional perspective,  Until it refuses to recognise  the conditions of another.

4

I have to agree, you're both talking bollox...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, naitche said:

My perspective on this thread is different. Again.

 The O.P  was to explain  faith. Not justify its manifestation. Not justify a God.

I'm sure we all know the definition of faith. A belief in something without any evidence. I find that hard to justify as is any justification of any God.

Quote

I  see  Endercreepers  answers as honest and courageous in the face of opposition and dismissal.

I see nothing more then a position of incalcitrance, and obtuseness, and at the same time find it weird at best that you could say his argument was simply dismissed after 13 or so pages.

 

Quote

 

On comparing faith to mental illness resulting in delusions...... Such a mental illness is not classed as 'woo', unworthy of science because its manifestation is not supported by science.

Both faith and mental illness are conditions with supportive evidence for their existence

 

Any faith in any particular brand of higher power is not supported by evidence. All beleifs in such unsupported concepts are inevitable a result of braiwashing and or a fear of the unknown and a desire for comfort and solace against the inevitable outcome as is evidenced by science. .

Quote

Its unscientific to dismiss faith because you don't think its manifestation shouldn't exist just as it would be unscientific (and bigotry) to dismiss mental illness from the realm of science because its manifestations are unsupported.

No one is dismissing faith: Obviously many people have it and the reasons they have it have just been given. What is dismissed is the unsupported claim that any higher power exists and the claim that evidence exists for this higher power, which after 13 pages I'm still waiting for.

Quote

There has been a statement on this thread that  ' I think all people are the same'. 

People are mostly a product of their environment and socioeconomic conditions. Take a new born baby from some primitive tribe in the deepest Amazon, or New Guinea, and swap it with a new born baby from some first world industrialised country and review their  "qualities" after 30 years or so.

What I question is the bigotry that some seem to portray, and their utter failure in being able to see the inferences in the previous paragraph.  Yes, basically all people are the same.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, naitche said:

My perspective on this thread is different. Again.

 The O.P  was to explain  faith. Not justify its manifestation. Not justify a God.

I  see  Endercreepers  answers as honest and courageous in the face of opposition and dismissal.

Dismissal that does nothing to further an understanding of Faith.

On comparing faith to mental illness resulting in delusions...... Such a mental illness is not classed as 'woo', unworthy of science because its manifestation is not supported by science.

Both faith and mental illness are conditions with supportive evidence for their existence. Its unscientific to dismiss faith because you don't think its manifestation shouldn't exist just as it would be unscientific (and bigotry) to dismiss mental illness from the realm of science because its manifestations are unsupported.

There has been a statement on this thread that  ' I think all people are the same'.   I would argue that perhaps I'm more familiar and comfortable with the shifts of perspective needed to recognise and respond effectively. Understanding and recognition of Human diversity demands a shift of perspective to understand its conditions. Not dismissal of the perspective you are given because you can't accept it. You aren't asked to accept it, only recognise it as a human condition in the space of humanity.

Denial of its validity in that space is not a response to it, it does nothing to change the condition or improve it. It provokes an entirely different, opositional reaction.

 

 

 

Thank you Naitche.

It seems like many posters are not actually interested in discussing faith and only want to find a way to dismiss it or to not acknowledge it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It seems like many posters are not actually interested in discussing faith and only want to find a way to dismiss it or to not acknowledge it.

It seems like you in particular have serious comprehension issues, and you need to stop preaching here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Endercreeper01, to add a more official note to Phi's comment above, the preaching stops. If you are not willing to participate in honest discussion, then you are not welcome to participate. That goes as much here as in any thread, on any topic. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said:
!

Moderator Note

Endercreeper01, to add a more official note to Phi's comment above, the preaching stops. If you are not willing to participate in honest discussion, then you are not welcome to participate. That goes as much here as in any thread, on any topic. 

 

OK. 

If we are trying to make this an honest discussion, why are you not addressing the behavior of the other posters? 

I have been trying to address this and nobody is acknowledging me.

The very thing I have been trying to do is have an honest 

I would like an answer please.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If we are trying to make this an honest discussion, why are the moderators not addressing the behavior of the other posters? 

It can never be an honest discussion with your style. Your arguments go something like this:

 

You: Black doesn't always have to be black. It can be brown as well, if you know how to look at it.

Me: That makes no sense. We call the color black and define it as that specific color. If we call it brown too, it doesn't really help us, and is likely to confuse. Black isn't brown.

You: But it can be. 

Me: Not in a meaningful way. It's different, and the differences are important in making distinctions between the two.

You: But there is evidence that black can be brown. 

Me: Please show me.

You: If you accept the fact into your worldview, black can be brown. Evidence!

 

You're too busy claiming to be reasonable to listen to reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

why are you not addressing the behavior of the other posters? 

For posts you feel break the rules or hijack the thread, use the report feature and leverage your exquisite reasoning abilities to expound upon why you feel staff involvement is warranted. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It can never be an honest discussion with your style. Your arguments go something like this:

 

You: Black doesn't always have to be black. It can be brown as well, if you know how to look at it.

Me: That makes no sense. We call the color black and define it as that specific color. If we call it brown too, it doesn't really help us, and is likely to confuse. Black isn't brown.

You: But it can be. 

Me: Not in a meaningful way. It's different, and the differences are important in making distinctions between the two.

You: But there is evidence that black can be brown. 

Me: Please show me.

You: If you accept the fact into your worldview, black can be brown. Evidence!

 

You're too busy claiming to be reasonable to listen to reason.

I understand that I may be confusing sometimes with my posts.

However, I was making a statement, in order to establish an idea.

The ideas I was trying to establish were meant to be accepted in order to allow me to make another statement that dependsd on this idea.

In this way I was trying to create a logical progression of ideas that would explain my argument effectively.

What happened was that I ended up getting stuck arguing on specific parts of my argument instead of the broader argument.

 

I was not being dishonest, I was simply not explaining my ideas very well. I only needed to be clearer.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.