Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Actually, my idea of faith does not involve a belief in anything higher than the self.

In my idea of faith, it does not require a higher power to be distinguished from the action or influence of the self.

Wait, what? Oh, I see...self is the higher power?  Therefore, self realization is believing in self as the higher power at the center of one's reality?

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

22 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Actually, my idea of faith does not involve a belief in anything higher than the self.

 

3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes, by putting faith in the self.

Your version of faith is particularly nasty. A mixture of ignorance to rational thought and grandiose ideas about own self. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, koti said:

 

Your version of faith is particularly nasty. A mixture of ignorance to rational thought and grandiose ideas about own self. 

There's a difference between one's own self and the self.

One can place faith in the self rather then one's own self.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes.

It is one way to have faith.

No wonder you wanted to convert us all... how does it work? a sort of power to weight of believers ratio?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

No wonder you wanted to convert us all... how does it work? a sort of power to weight of believers ratio?

Apperently I wasn’t far off saying that one of his comments is worthy of a cult leader few posts back. 

7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There's a difference between one's own self and the self.

One can place faith in the self rather then one's own self.

So your self is not your own? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No wonder you wanted to convert us all... how does it work? a sort of power to weight of believers ratio?

I'm not entirely sure, if that's what your asking.

4 minutes ago, koti said:

Apperently I wasn’t far off saying that one of his comments is worthy of a cult leader few posts back. 

I don't consider myself anything other than a thinker.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I don't consider myself anything other than a thinker.

 A great one I suppose? I suggest you start listening and comprehending what is being layed out in front of you and only then use that knowledge to think and develop rational conclusions. So far you’re failing at that so your thinking is getting you nowhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I'm not entirely sure

I realise that.

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

if that's what your asking.

There are two question marks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, koti said:

So your self is not your own? 

"Your" self is always yours.

As long as "you" are observing from the perspective of "your" self, then "you" are the self. When you observe from yourself, then yourself is not separate from the self.

So in this sense, one can place faith in the self rather than exclusively towards one's self.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

"Your" self is always yours.

As long as "you" are observing from the perspective of "your" self, then "you" are the self. When you observe from yourself, then yourself is not separate from the self.

That's a lot of words, the dictionary just uses, me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, koti said:

 

Your version of faith is particularly nasty. A mixture of ignorance to rational thought and grandiose ideas about own self. 

It isn't nasty. It is merely typical. Just an egocentric view more interested in satisfying self than learning anything.

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

There's a difference between one's own self and the self.

One can place faith in the self rather then one's own self.

 

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

"Your" self is always yours.

As long as "you" are observing from the perspective of "your" self, then "you" are the self. When you observe from yourself, then yourself is not separate from the self.

You do realise that you’re not making any sense again right? Why not stop the childish semantical game play, have you no shame? Don’t you realise there are trained scientists, philosophers and other academics here who read your incoherent BS? 

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

"Your" self is always yours.

As long as "you" are observing from the perspective of "your" self, then "you" are the self. When you observe from yourself, then yourself is not separate from the self.

Sadly oneself isn't a source which one can trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

That's a lot of words, the dictionary just uses, me.

I was trying to respond to a question.

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

It isn't nasty. It is merely typical. Just an egocentric view more interested in satisfying self than learning anything.

When the self is central to it's existence, there is some sense in placing faith in the self. It's more fundamental than egocentricity.

Just now, Ten oz said:

Sadly oneself isn't a source which one can trust.

Oneself can trust oneself that it exists. Once that is accepted, it can lead oneself down a path of faith.

7 minutes ago, koti said:

You do realise that you’re not making any sense again right? Why not stop the childish semantical game play, have you no shame? Don’t you realise there are trained scientists, philosophers and other academics here who read your incoherent BS? 

You do realize that I was only trying to answer your question... 

Sometimes, certain ideas are inherently difficult to explain or understand, or to communicate through words.

 

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

You do realize that I was only trying to answer your question... 

Sometimes, certain ideas are inherently difficult to explain or understand, or to communicate through words.

 

Bot mode again. This is becoming boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, koti said:

Bot mode again. This is becoming boring.

I'm only trying to make communication easier between us...

 

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sorry, I thought you were babbling. 

It's alright....

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Certain existential questions concerning the inner world of the self cannot be answered with research about the outside world.

So you've chosen to focus inward to the exclusion of knowledge of the natural world. I think that's a mistake. It seems like trying to fix the notes of a song without playing/singing it through first. Or like trying to guess all the infinite possibilities of what might be inside a package without first trying to look at it from the outside, and at least measure the box (with all your senses) so you have a better idea of what it could hold. Or like deciding that you don't need to walk carefully across the lake of thin ice if you focus on leaping only to the bits that look safe.

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

It's alright....

Thank you, how about we just let this thread slip away? It's really not well, it would be a kindness...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

Thank you, how about we just let this thread slip away? It's really not well, it would be a kindness...

Yes, we can... It has been a long 18 pages of discussion.

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So you've chosen to focus inward to the exclusion of knowledge of the natural world. I think that's a mistake. It seems like trying to fix the notes of a song without playing/singing if through first. Or like trying to guess all the infinite possibilities of what might be inside a package without first trying to look at it from the outside, and at least measure the box (with all your senses) so you have a better idea of what it could hold. Or like deciding that you don't need to walk carefully across the lake of thin ice if you focus on leaping only to the bits that look safe.

You're right, it shouldn't exclude knowledge of the natural world.

The purpose of looking inward is not to prevent one from looking outward. 

Although, the focus should still be inwards rather than answers. 
When trying to find answers about the inner reality, it only makes sense to look inwards towards it, for answers about it.

The external reality has different answers to different questions, although it can certainly help in answering the internal questions by looking outward.

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

Yes, we can... It has been a long 18 pages of discussion.

3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You're right, it shouldn't exclude knowledge of the natural world.

The purpose of looking inward is not to prevent one from looking outward. 

Although, the focus should still be inwards rather than answers. 
When trying to find answers about the inner reality, it only makes sense to look inwards towards it, for answers about it.

The external reality has different answers to different questions, although it can certainly help in answering the internal questions by looking outward.

Give it up, it's dead if you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies, and stop trying to rattle the cage, it's fooling no-one. 

 

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

You're right, it shouldn't exclude knowledge of the natural world.

This isn't the first time you've shifted your stance in the face of reasoned arguments. I appreciate your use of critical thought in discussion with science-minded folks. I want you to know I realize how hard you're trying to express your ideas, but I also appreciate that you aren't as intractable as you were in the beginning of this discussion. 

33 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The purpose of looking inward is not to prevent one from looking outward. 

But by starting inward, you don't have knowledge from outward that you may need. Are you trying to figure out where the pieces fit without stepping back to look at the whole first? Again, I think that's a mistake. It doesn't matter what you have faith in, explaining anything by starting on the inside of it is going to seriously mess with your conclusions. 

 

38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Although, the focus should still be inwards rather than answers. 
When trying to find answers about the inner reality, it only makes sense to look inwards towards it, for answers about it.

Answers tend to be subjective in nature. Answers, when we think we've found them, tend to end our curiosity about the subject, and we then tend to keep confirming our biases about those "answers". They become dogma because we've stopped looking for anything better.

Science looks for the best supported explanations, always. Ideas aren't "right" or "correct", they're either falsified or unfalsified, and the unfalsified ideas are constantly being attacked to see if they hold up under harsh scrutiny. These ideas MUST match what we observe in nature, as free from our human cognitive biases as possible.

I think you make a mistake focusing inward before you understand what's going on outward. I think you make a mistake looking for "answers"; the search for knowledge is ongoing and works best when you're methodical in taking it on board. 

Faith as a form of belief, to me, is leaping to conclusions. It's belief that doesn't bother to measure how far the leap is, or feel for how much wind is blowing, or even check to see if the landing is safe. That's why I don't trust it, but I understand why it's easier for some folks.

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.