Jump to content
DrmDoc

What is faith?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You’re wrong. “True faith” is about personally connecting with “the higher power” even when your trust is absent... at least, that is, according to all those countless many caught in a god fog with whom I’ve interacted through the decades. 

You don't understand what trust really is in a religious sense if you don't always have trust in a higher power. It means giving your heart to a higher power, entrusting with that you not only exist, you exist with a purpose and a reason. It is all about giving trust in your existence and reality itself to a higher power and giving yourself to it.

43 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Have you read anything in the thread except its title?

I might have, but I think the OP said something like this:

On 4/29/2018 at 7:39 AM, DrmDoc said:

To the believers here who, oddly, chose to post to predominately science discussion forums, what is faith and why do you have it?  

 

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:
1 hour ago, iNow said:

You’re wrong. “True faith” is about personally connecting with “the higher power” even when your trust is absent... at least, that is, according to all those countless many caught in a god fog with whom I’ve interacted through the decades. 

You don't understand what trust really is in a religious sense if you don't always have trust in a higher power

Faith, trust and hope are closely related concepts. It doesn't help that faith and trust are often used interchangeably. I for instance have trust that my wife is faithful, and I have faith that she trusts me in the same way. The distinction I would make based on this concept is this: I don't have to trust my wife, and she doesn't have to trust me to ensure we are faithful. We could snoop around and control each other. We don't do that because trust is integral to our relationship, but in principle it is a falsifiable assumption. Faith or trust in a higher power which you have described in three other threads that I am aware of is not falsifiable.

This falsifiability is what most of us here seem to hinge the difference between trust and faith on, and I can accept it as a sensible distinction

Share this post


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

You don't understand what trust really is in a religious sense if you don't always have trust in a higher power. It means giving your heart to a higher power, entrusting with that you not only exist, you exist with a purpose and a reason. It is all about giving trust in your existence and reality itself to a higher power and giving yourself to it.

You don't understand that it's important to distinguish meaningfully between the very different ways we believe. Your definitions blend it all into a blithering mass of sameness and ignorance. If you'd read the thread before replying, you'd be less ignorant.

What you call "giving yourself to it" sounds like "whatever you say, I'm good with". There's no trust in a stance like that, it's merely blind acceptance. Trust is built on evidence, history, predictability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You don't understand that it's important to distinguish meaningfully between the very different ways we believe. Your definitions blend it all into a blithering mass of sameness and ignorance. If you'd read the thread before replying, you'd be less ignorant.

What you call "giving yourself to it" sounds like "whatever you say, I'm good with". There's no trust in a stance like that, it's merely blind acceptance. Trust is built on evidence, history, predictability. 

My definitions are supposed to be describing faith in a certain way. Faith in a higher power can be described as a trusting in a certain sense.

12 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Faith, trust and hope are closely related concepts. It doesn't help that faith and trust are often used interchangeably. I for instance have trust that my wife is faithful, and I have faith that she trusts me in the same way. The distinction I would make based on this concept is this: I don't have to trust my wife, and she doesn't have to trust me to ensure we are faithful. We could snoop around and control each other. We don't do that because trust is integral to our relationship, but in principle it is a falsifiable assumption. Faith or trust in a higher power which you have described in three other threads that I am aware of is not falsifiable.

This falsifiability is what most of us here seem to hinge the difference between trust and faith on, and I can accept it as a sensible distinction

Faith can still be described with the idea of trust, in a way that describes the way that faith involves a personal connection to a higher power.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


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

Faith can still be described with the idea of trust, in a way that describes the way that faith involves a personal connection to a higher power.

You may "trust" a higher power, but the existence of that higher power is a matter of pure faith (not trust).

Share this post


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

You may "trust" a higher power, but the existence of that higher power is a matter of pure faith (not trust).

On a personal level, faith can be described as a trusting in it's existence, as opposed to simply believing in a higher power without any personal relationship or connection.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


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

On a personal level, faith can be described as a trusting in it's existence, as opposed to simply believing in a higher power without any personal relationship or connection.

I'm getting the feeling that you're just being spiteful on purpose

Share this post


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

On a personal level, faith can be described as a trusting in it's existence, as opposed to simply believing in a higher power without any personal relationship or connection.

If you aren't going to try to learn from discussion, why do you bother? The difference has been explained to you repeatedly, and you simply keep using your own misconception. There is ZERO scientific evidence for your higher power. Your belief in it is faith. Every bit of your belief in it is based on simple acceptance, AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY TRUST IS DEFINED! By doing so, you have removed all the importance of the distinction.

When you're in a discussion, you need to think beyond your "personal level". Otherwise you're just blogging/soapboxing/preaching.

Share this post


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

On a personal level, faith can be described as a trusting in it's existence, as opposed to simply believing in a higher power without any personal relationship or connection.

You don't seem to understand what the word "trust" means. If you are just "trusting" in your own personal belief, then it is faith, not trust.

You may believe you have a personal relationship or connection with this "higher power", but that is all it is: a belief. There is no independent evidence that this "higher power" exists; therefore there is nothing to trust(*).The only reason to believe it is purely on the basis of faith.

(*) We know, from scientific studies, that personal beliefs and experience are not to be trusted as a source of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strange said:

You don't seem to understand what the word "trust" means. If you are just "trusting" in your own personal belief, then it is faith, not trust.

You may believe you have a personal relationship or connection with this "higher power", but that is all it is: a belief. There is no independent evidence that this "higher power" exists; therefore there is nothing to trust(*).The only reason to believe it is purely on the basis of faith.

(*) We know, from scientific studies, that personal beliefs and experience are not to be trusted as a source of information.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you aren't going to try to learn from discussion, why do you bother? The difference has been explained to you repeatedly, and you simply keep using your own misconception. There is ZERO scientific evidence for your higher power. Your belief in it is faith. Every bit of your belief in it is based on simple acceptance, AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY TRUST IS DEFINED! By doing so, you have removed all the importance of the distinction.

When you're in a discussion, you need to think beyond your "personal level". Otherwise you're just blogging/soapboxing/preaching.

My acceptance of a higher power does not have to based in faith. It can be based on reasoning, and also involve an observation of naturally occurring synchronicity in reality.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


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

My acceptance of a higher power does not have to based in faith. There can be evidence that cannot be used scientifically to prove something, while being accepted as evidence outside of a scientifically based reasoning.

Now you've redefined what "evidence" means, further rejecting opportunities to cure ignorance. I can't figure out whether you REALLY need to be here to learn, or you should go someplace else with your woo. I'm just going to ignore you from now on. 

 

Share this post


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

My acceptance of a higher power does not have to based in faith. It can be based on reasoning, and also involve an observation of naturally occurring synchronicity in reality.

Here is a video describing some naturally occuring "synchronicity". It doesn't require faith. It doesn't even require trust. It's just math.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXIMUkSXX0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Now you've redefined what "evidence" means, further rejecting opportunities to cure ignorance. I can't figure out whether you REALLY need to be here to learn, or you should go someplace else with your woo. I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

What I said was there is a difference between evidence in scientific contexts and evidence in other contexts. What may not be considered evidence in science could be considered evidence elsewhere. 

29 minutes ago, Bender said:

Here is a video describing some naturally occuring "synchronicity". It doesn't require faith. It doesn't even require trust. It's just math.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXIMUkSXX0

I am referring to synchronicity in reality itself, with a significant alignment, pattern, or number appearing throughout in reality, where it would have a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Now you've redefined what "evidence" means, further rejecting opportunities to cure ignorance. I can't figure out whether you REALLY need to be here to learn, or you should go someplace else with your woo. I'm just going to ignore you from now on. 

 

My observation is that many promoting such woo, seem to wear it like a badge of honour, and ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


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

My observation is that many promoting such woo, seem to wear it like a badge of honour, and ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.

What woo are you referring to? The idea of a higher power is not woo, nor is the phenomena of synchronicity.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


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

What woo are you referring to? The idea of a higher power is not woo, nor is the phenomena of synchronicity.

You can say that as many times as you like and it won't ever change the fact that  any mythical higher power or deity of any description, and any mythical claim re numbers synchrocity is unscientific bullshit...I equate both to woo.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)

 The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.

Share this post


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

What I said was there is a difference between evidence in scientific contexts and evidence in other contexts. What may not be considered evidence in science could be considered evidence elsewhere. 

This is a science forum, there is a specific definition of evidence in science. I'm not sure what other definitions of evidence you are using but unless they agree with scientific evidence they do not apply to science or reality for that matter... 

22 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am referring to synchronicity in reality itself, with a significant alignment, pattern, or number appearing throughout in reality, where it would have a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power.

Small probabilities happen all the time, no hight power is necessary.  

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What woo are you referring to? The idea of a higher power is not woo, nor is the phenomena of synchronicity.

Yes the idea of a higher power is woo unless you define it and provide evidence...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

This is a science forum, there is a specific definition of evidence in science. I'm not sure what other definitions of evidence you are using but unless they agree with scientific evidence they do not apply to science or reality for that matter... 

I have a hypothesis:

While this is a science forum, [meaning claims should be accompanied with evidence] many individuals laden with religious baggage, see the need to mount a white charger, and conduct a crusade against the evils of science that has shown their faith to be crap, and pushed any need for any deity of any persausion, back into oblivion. 

Share this post


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

My acceptance of a higher power does not have to based in faith. It can be based on reasoning, and also involve an observation of naturally occurring synchronicity in reality.

Nope. For reasons explained repeatedly. (I almost admire your dogged refusal to acknowledge this.)

Firstly, you have done no reasoning. Saying that you believe a god(*) exists because you believe in it/him/her, is NOT reasoning. It is circular logic and therefore simply a statement of what you believe.

Secondly, you haven't provided a definition of synchronicity or any evidence that it exists. The only use of the term that I am aware of is as a synonym for coincidence. So no "higher power" required there. 

(*) Or whatever you want to call the thing you believe in: Higher Power, Superman, Hyper-Intelligent White Mice, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. It's all the same to me.

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am referring to synchronicity in reality itself, with a significant alignment, pattern, or number appearing throughout in reality, where it would have a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power.

How do you know it has a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power? You don't, do you. It is just something else you believe.

Do you begin to see the circular nature of your arguments? Everything you claim as "evidence" is just something else you believe, not something that exists objectively. 

46 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What woo are you referring to? The idea of a higher power is not woo, nor is the phenomena of synchronicity.

They are both the epitome of woo. Baseless beliefs presented as if they were facts.

But given the fact you are only here to preach your beliefs and not listen to anyone else (and the fact that your "higher power" appears to be a pretty vile white supremacist) I think I will just put you on ignore. 

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, beecee said:

You can say that as many times as you like and it won't ever change the fact that  any mythical higher power or deity of any description, and any mythical claim re numbers synchrocity is unscientific bullshit...I equate both to woo.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)

 The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.

You can only call what I am saying woo if I am pretending that what I am saying is science, which I am not. The term pseudoscience only applies when something that isn't science is being presented as science, when I am not doing that. I have stated that I am discussing a topic outside of the limit of science, but is still reasonable to discuss.

 

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This is a science forum, there is a specific definition of evidence in science. I'm not sure what other definitions of evidence you are using but unless they agree with scientific evidence they do not apply to science or reality for that matter... 

Small probabilities happen all the time, no hight power is necessary.  

Yes the idea of a higher power is woo unless you define it and provide evidence...  

Evidence can be used in a different context to show the validity of an idea without being rooted in scientific thought and still have a basis in reality, which is the point I am trying to make.

It's not about small probabilities, it is about synchronicity that would have had a very small chance to occur without a higher power. I will be making a thread on this soon to explain more where this phenomena appears.

A higher power can be described by it's effects on reality, but it is hard to describe exactly what the higher power itself is, without any other knowledge other than that the higher power has power over reality.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope. For reasons explained repeatedly. (I almost admire your dogged refusal to acknowledge this.)

Firstly, you have done no reasoning. Saying that you believe a god(*) exists because you believe in it/him/her, is NOT reasoning. It is circular logic and therefore simply a statement of what you believe.

Secondly, you haven't provided a definition of synchronicity or any evidence that it exists. The only use of the term that I am aware of is as a synonym for coincidence. So no "higher power" required there. 

(*) Or whatever you want to call the thing you believe in: Higher Power, Superman, Hyper-Intelligent White Mice, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. It's all the same to me.

How do you know it has a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power? You don't, do you. It is just something else you believe.

Do you begin to see the circular nature of your arguments? Everything you claim as "evidence" is just something else you believe, not something that exists objectively. 

They are both the epitome of woo. Baseless beliefs presented as if they were facts.

But given the fact you are only here to preach your beliefs and not listen to anyone else (and the fact that your "higher power" appears to be a pretty vile white supremacist) I think I will just put you on ignore. 

I haven't explained myself yet, I have only explained that I have an explanation that I will and can explain.

I will be making threads explaining synchronicity more, and discussing my reasoning behind a god. For now, I will only say that there is basis for my ideas, which I will be discussing in detail in those threads. 

And I wasn't referring to anecdotes as evidence for synchronicity, if you thought I was.

Share this post


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

You can only call what I am saying woo if I am pretending that what I am saying is science, which I am not. The term pseudoscience only applies when something that isn't science is being presented as science, when I am not doing that. I have stated that I am discussing a topic outside of the limit of science, but is still reasonable to discuss.

No, what you are asserting is woo until you provide evidence to the contrary it will remain supernatural woo...

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Evidence can be used in a different context to show the validity of an idea without being rooted in scientific thought and still have a basis in reality, which is the point I am trying to make.

Give us an example, an example would be much better than the baseless assertions you have so far used. 

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not about small probabilities, it is about synchronicity that would have had a very small chance to occur without a higher power. I will be making a thread on this soon to explain more where this phenomena appears.

I look forward to this thread. 

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

A higher power can be described by it's effects on reality, but it is hard to describe exactly what the higher power itself is, without any other knowledge other than that the higher power has power over reality.

That is why it's called woo... 

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I haven't explained myself yet, I have only explained that I have an explanation that I will and can explain.

please do so, so far you appear to be pulling woo out of your anus..  

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I will be making threads explaining synchronicity more, and discussing my reasoning behind a god. For now, I will only say that there is basis for my ideas, which I will be discussing in detail in those threads. 

You keep saying this, time to show it... 

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

And I wasn't referring to anecdotes as evidence for synchronicity, if you thought I was.

I for one look forward to your threads about the reality of a god. 

Share this post


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

You can only call what I am saying woo if I am pretending that what I am saying is science, which I am not. The term pseudoscience only applies when something that isn't science is being presented as science, when I am not doing that. I have stated that I am discussing a topic outside of the limit of science, but is still reasonable to discuss.

 

Evidence can be used in a different context to show the validity of an idea without being rooted in scientific thought and still have a basis in reality, which is the point I am trying to make.

It's not about small probabilities, it is about synchronicity that would have had a very small chance to occur without a higher power. I will be making a thread on this soon to explain more where this phenomena appears.

A higher power can be described by it's effects on reality, but it is hard to describe exactly what the higher power itself is, without any other knowledge other than that the higher power has power over reality.

I haven't explained myself yet, I have only explained that I have an explanation that I will and can explain.

I will be making threads explaining synchronicity more, and discussing my reasoning behind a god. For now, I will only say that there is basis for my ideas, which I will be discussing in detail in those threads. 

And I wasn't referring to anecdotes as evidence for synchronicity, if you thought I was.

I have a hypothesis as to why we are indulging this kind of BS instead of just banning people like them.

We want to win. Just killing them would feel like losing, because we would have lost the argument due to a lack of tenacity, which this individual seems to have plenty of. This is not a compliment, by the way, in this case it infers that you lack of eloquence and logic to effectively change our minds so you just wear us down. Yeah, talking at you, @Endercreeper01. Honestly, I don't believe that anyone still cares if you get it, anymore. I for instance just want you to shut up already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No, what you are asserting is woo until you provide evidence to the contrary it will remain supernatural woo...

Give us an example, an example would be much better than the baseless assertions you have so far used. 

I look forward to this thread. 

That is why it's called woo... 

please do so, so far you appear to be pulling woo out of your anus..  

You keep saying this, time to show it... 

I for one look forward to your threads about the reality of a god. 

Yes, I will definitely be making threads about this soon. They will go into much more detail and explanation.

15 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I have a hypothesis as to why we are indulging this kind of BS instead of just banning people like them.

We want to win. Just killing them would feel like losing, because we would have lost the argument due to a lack of tenacity, which this individual seems to have plenty of. This is not a compliment, by the way, in this case it infers that you lack of eloquence and logic to effectively change our minds so you just wear us down. Yeah, talking at you, @Endercreeper01. Honestly, I don't believe that anyone still cares if you get it, anymore. I for instance just want you to shut up already.

It's not that I lack logic. I haven't really fully explained my reasoning in detail yet. I am making threads about the topics soon, so it will show how and why there is a basis for what I am saying.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


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

Yes, I will definitely be making threads about this soon. They will go into much more detail and explanation.

I haven't fully explained my reasoning yet. I am making threads about the topics soon, so it will show how and why there is a basis for what I am saying.

 

I'm not holding my breath

Share this post


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

I will be making threads explaining synchronicity more, and discussing my reasoning behind a god. For now, I will only say that there is basis for my ideas, which I will be discussing in detail in those threads. 

And I wasn't referring to anecdotes as evidence for synchronicity, if you thought I was.

I doubt that. You will certainly I believe keep on making threads as long as you are able [your crusade ] but inevitably you will still have no real evidence to show either any reality with your spaghetti monster, nor your numerology woo. 

 

Quote

The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

 

4 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

I have a hypothesis as to why we are indulging this kind of BS instead of just banning people like them.

Debating/arguing unscientific nonsense such is being discussed in this thread, can be rather challenging when the person pushing the woo position refuses to listen to contrary evidence, and just keeps repeating the same old nonsense post after post after post. It will though inevitably reach a stage where action of some sort will need to be taken. I would welcome that in this particular boring repetitive subject matter and the person pushing this woo.

Obviously the subject of any form of ID is unscientific nonsense and that has been shown many many times over different threads.

This new woo on numerology and how anyone can accept it is truly mind boggling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology is any belief in the divine or mysticalrelationship between a number and one or more coinciding events.[2] It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.[3]

extract:

 

Lack of evidence]

Skeptics argue that numbers have no occult significance and cannot by themselves influence a person's life. Skeptics therefore regard numerology as a superstition and a pseudoscience that uses numbers to give the subject a veneer of scientific authority.[2]

Two studies have been done investigating numerological claims, both producing negative results, one in the UK in 1993,[10] and one in 2012 in Israel. The experiment in Israel involved a professional numerologist and 200 participants. The experiment was repeated twice and still produced negative results.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Share this post


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.