Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums

brave_new_world

Mar 30 2007, 08:45 AM

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]1605851[/snapback]

Yeah yeah, i know Jung ha ha

I KNOW

LMAO ...its so ridiculous, why cant my brain handle it? linked-image

Its a feeling of intuitive knowledge? is that what you believe then?....yeah i know, words words words which i guess what encompasses the "no room for interpretation" but then if knowledge gets this "get out of jail free card", what of everything else? there is a contradiction when using the formal methods of evaluation to make sense out of it?

Of course it is a contradiction! If it made sense then it wouldnt actually make sense

nn23

Mar 30 2007, 08:49 AM

so i guess we just gotta keep the faith.

?

brave_new_world

Mar 30 2007, 08:51 AM

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 04:49 PM) [snapback]1605874[/snapback]

so i guess we just gotta keep the faith.

?

Ya!

nn23

Mar 30 2007, 09:25 AM

I'm torn.

There are aspects of faith and knowledge that i just ride with because it works in this reality (like a tool to help every process of living) but when i give them consideration i feel that, that is possibly their only purpose.

HA HAAA, so, are faith and knowledge just tools that help in the everyday process of living?

LMAO sounds like such a stupid question if you just saw it without the context, maybe with it too, ha! i'm gona post anyway

brave_new_world

Mar 30 2007, 09:55 AM

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]1605885[/snapback]

I'm torn.

There are aspects of faith and knowledge that i just ride with because it works in this reality (like a tool to help every process of living) but when i give them consideration i feel that, that is possibly their only purpose.

HA HAAA, so, are faith and knowledge just tools that help in the everyday process of living?

LMAO sounds like such a stupid question if you just saw it without the context, maybe with it too, ha! i'm gona post anyway

True faith is a knowing in my view. But that level of faith develops over time when we strive for faith but still have doubt. Eventually we find our true faith (something I have not yet found) and from there on ,one is indifferent to new information or criticism because one's inutition overides all. It is a state in which doubt is removed.

Hence fanatics are actually compensating for a lack of faith and havnt actually found there faith. If they did then there would be no need for them to be fanatical would there?

The Puzzler

Mar 30 2007, 11:05 AM

I may have said it before but it seems so uncomplicated.... non-believers (like myself) have faith, which is...a belief without proof, simple really. Why the confusion?

brave_new_world

Mar 30 2007, 04:46 PM

QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 30 2007, 07:05 PM) [snapback]1605940[/snapback]

I may have said it before but it seems so uncomplicated.... non-believers (like myself) have faith, which is...a belief without proof, simple really. Why the confusion?

Because unlike yourself many atheists feel uncomfortable with the word faith and think it only means believing in God. You however have learnt the discrimination skills to see that that is not the case.

I love you we are all suckers!

KBA

Mar 30 2007, 04:52 PM

QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 30 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1606324[/snapback]

Because unlike yourself many atheists feel uncomfortable with the word faith and think it only means believing in God. You however have learnt the discrimination skills to see that that is not the case.

I love you we are all suckers!

Who said atheists can't differentiate the two meanings?! I think I've posted at least 5 times (along with plenty other atheists) in this thread that "atheists having faith" is no revelation because atheists have a different kind of faith. Brave is this thread simply meant to annoy atheists? You've made a point that has no significance of any kind, and keep replying with how you view atheists even after they've said something that is contrary to what you think. It's almost like you're just trying to go; "haha, atheists!! you have faith too!! bwahaha!" Again, atheists do not have religious faith, theists do, end of story..

brave_new_world

Mar 30 2007, 04:56 PM

QUOTE(KBA @ Mar 31 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]1606337[/snapback]

Who said atheists can't differentiate the two meanings?! I think I've posted at least 5 times (along with plenty other atheists) in this thread that "atheists having faith" is no revelation because atheists have a different kind of faith. Brave is this thread simply meant to annoy atheists? You've made a point that has no significance of any kind, and keep replying with how you view atheists even after they've said something that is contrary to what you think. It's almost like you're just trying to go; "haha, atheists!! you have faith too!! bwahaha!" Again, atheists do not have religious faith, theists do, end of story..

Read the whole Aldous Huxley chapter I have posted here then see whether it is to annoy athiests. What Aldous Huxley puts quite elegantly is that mysticism can be realized for one-self and verified for oneself. Ugly organized religious DOGMA can not.

Big difference between the perennial philosophy and religious dogma like Martin Luther's.

Beckys_Mom

Mar 30 2007, 10:12 PM

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]1605635[/snapback]

HA HAAAA

BECKYS_MOM TAKES CHEAP SHOT

yeah your kind of right, the complete day to day exacting (toe nail clippings and all) truth would have taken too many words. Means justifying ends and all that. What i could have said was...

"NICE ONE Brave, i was planning to do that but i've only been using the internet since christmas and still dont feel completely confident in my searches, my local library was closed and i was too tired at the time, so thought i would get me some kip instead and do it in the morn only to spot that you already had and didnt mind at all because i knew you could probably do it a-lot more easily and precisely than me seeing as you seem very well read. Infact it was a pleasure to read as with many of your posts"

hmmmm, bit to much information dont you think?

I felt no need to justify what circumstances led to me not getting there before Brave seeing as he had achieved the goal anyway and its just a bit of interlectual play time

So, i summed it up with "NICE ONE Brave, thats exactly what i was going to do!"

I probably just felt it sounded nice, complemented him a bit (but not too much, you know what men are like linked-image

) and also highlighted that i had thought of it too for my own personal esteem needs.

I mean, come on Beckys_Mom, just imagine that you are someone who agrees with the point that we are trying to make for a few seconds if possible. When someone (that would be you if you werent role playing us) makes a statement about a words definition and applicability that i had already said in a post earlier was just one possiblity
The next and obvious step in response to your/that person's opposing reply would have been to prove my statement by finding some links to go with it. The statement above in question is just something obvious to me from my experience and studies of sociology et al and i did not want to make a fool of myself or look big headed by putting in book references because everyone else appears to use internet links.
And whats wrong with that exactly?

I have evidence from personal experience that fortifys my belief and therefore gives me faith that twisting knickers can be a very creative and pleasurable exercise. linked-image

NICE ONE

Beckys_Mom linked-image

nn23

LMAO girl you are funny lol...I was just pulling your leg LOL...not getting at you

but I see you have a good sense of humour...I like that

So this next part is just messing around..not meant to be taken seriously....like the knickers in the twist thing lol

Ok...Here I am live on UM tv and coming up..are my specail guests - nn23 & brave...

So nn23, haven't you heard of the Cliché: Don't get your knickers in a twist?

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 06:34 AM) [snapback]1605748[/snapback]

HE HE HE hYE hYE hYE YE E E EA EAAHHH! linked-image

Ha ha this old Cliché makes you all giddy then...can you explain why you feel giddy when you hear it??

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]1605829[/snapback]

Sometimes i feel like i ye know, i experience it as a senSAtion,

Aha I see ...so you wernt aware that the ole Cliché - Dont get your knickers in a twist (panties/knickers same thing).... - means --> Don't get upset or agitated..

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]1605851[/snapback]

URH

BLAHHHH he he.

Kinna like when someone says - Dont have a cow lol?? get it now??

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]1605851[/snapback]

Yeah yeah, i know Jung ha ha

I KNOW

LMAO ..., why cant my brain handle it? linked-image

LMAO...it's all good...but i guess from now on if someone say's - the word knickers and twisting ..you will know it has more than one meaning...yes??

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]1605851[/snapback]

Thats what bothers me.

Aww LOL sorry ...but hey, if you like you can still have a right ole giggle at anyone that says knickers and twisting in the same sentence...eh?? its good to laugh right ....YA..BRAVE??

QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 29 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]1604537[/snapback]

Ya.

.

And back to what you once said, about atheism being a religion...it's just something you and nn23 have basically sucked in?? LOL

QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 29 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]1604537[/snapback]

Ya. I agree here wholeheartedly.

You like to agree with brave a lot ...nn23??...go on you like him it's ok you can admit it!!!!!!!

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 30 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]1605635[/snapback]

I probably just felt it sounded nice, complemented him a bit (but not too much, you know what men are like linked-image

)

LOL yeaa I know what you mean..but over to you brave..what are your final thoughts ??

QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 30 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]1606324[/snapback]

we are all suckers!

OKAY and..that about wraps it up for us all

thanks guys...you both have been a great knicker twisting sports...

LMAO again that was just a bit of fun LOL to lighten the mood

The Puzzler

Mar 31 2007, 12:42 AM

QUOTE(KBA @ Mar 31 2007, 02:52 AM) [snapback]1606337[/snapback]

Who said atheists can't differentiate the two meanings?! I think I've posted at least 5 times (along with plenty other atheists) in this thread that "atheists having faith" is no revelation because atheists have a different kind of faith. Brave is this thread simply meant to annoy atheists? You've made a point that has no significance of any kind, and keep replying with how you view atheists even after they've said something that is contrary to what you think. It's almost like you're just trying to go; "haha, atheists!! you have faith too!! bwahaha!" Again, atheists do not have religious faith, theists do, end of story..

I think you are being a bit harsh....the topic is What Faith Is....not What Religious Faith is.....I'm not annoyed by Brave's comments and we couldn't be more different in the religion department. Faith is a belief without proof..if you are an Atheist you have faith. Faith that God does not exist. Believers have Faith that God exists. Same word, different sentence. Religious faith, human faith, faith in yourself...whatever, it's all faith.

nn23

Mar 31 2007, 01:25 AM

that was HYSTERICAL Beckys_Mom, uncomfortable, but hysterical all the same

QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 31 2007, 01:42 AM) [snapback]1606825[/snapback]

I think you are being a bit harsh....the topic is What Faith Is....not What Religious Faith is.....I'm not annoyed by Brave's comments and we couldn't be more different in the religion department. Faith is a belief without proof..if you are an Atheist you have faith. Faith that God does not exist. Believers have Faith that God exists. Same word, different sentence. Religious faith, human faith, faith in yourself...whatever, it's all faith.

HA HAAAA, TOTALLY!!!!

Its interesting how something so simple could be so controvertial....

Sorry, wereallsuckers...my brain does this, just need to explore if you dont mind helping

...

QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 31 2007, 01:42 AM) [snapback]1606825[/snapback]

Faith is a belief without proof..

What is belief with proof? for does proof not require belief?

I'm curious about this concept.

brave_new_world

Mar 31 2007, 01:39 AM

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 31 2007, 09:25 AM) [snapback]1606872[/snapback]

What is belief with proof? for does proof not require belief?

I'm curious about this concept.

Ya. Like one needs to believe whether it is proof or not. It is interesting. I believe intuition leads us to certain ideas of things and then we look for experiential or physical proof to back it up. It is up to the discretion of the subject I guess whether they know something and know that something is proof for something or whether it isnt and still believe.

Cadetak

Mar 31 2007, 06:02 AM

QUOTE(uhmanduh @ Mar 30 2007, 02:05 AM) [snapback]1605763[/snapback]

Yes I agree with you sir! Ok, I really love to speculate: I was pondering the concept of atheism, and I was wondering if there have ever been any isolated cultures that were known to have been atheist. I tried to do a search on this and I couldnt' find any evidence to support it. Anyhow, let's suppose that there was such a culture, one that had no belief, and absolutely no knowledge of any God. Let's just say they had a clean slate....Nothing. Would they still have faith then?

edited for spelling

To be an atheist you have to be aware of the concept of God...if you didn't know the concept of God you wouldn't have anything to not believe in. They wouldn't be atheists. They would be indifferent to the concept of religion.

So this isolated culture wouldn't have faith in God either way because it doesn't know what the concept of God is...they can neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

That doesn't mean they are without faith though...they may just place their faith in something else.

Saying things like "I believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist" mean you have faith...but if you say "I don't care" or "I don't know" there is no faith.

The Puzzler

Mar 31 2007, 08:59 AM

QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 31 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]1606872[/snapback]

that was HYSTERICAL Beckys_Mom, uncomfortable, but hysterical all the same

HA HAAAA, TOTALLY!!!!

Its interesting how something so simple could be so controvertial....

Sorry, wereallsuckers...my brain does this, just need to explore if you dont mind helping

...

What is belief with proof? for does proof not require belief?

I'm curious about this concept.

My brain is always on overdrive on this site, it stimulates my brain into thinking about stuff I normally wouldn't. I think that's why most of us are here. I don't mind at all giving my explanation.
Well I see it as, a belief is something without proof so it is a theory really, it's my belief that the 9/11 was a conspiracy, no proof that it is fact but I think it is, so it's a belief, so is believing in God, no real proof as such, but to believe it takes faith (the belief without proof), religious faith if you will. To believe God is not there takes faith, I believe he's not real but I have no real proof. If something is true with fact it's not a belief it's a fact, ie: I know that the earth is round, it is proven, so it's not a belief, it's a fact. I see where you are coming from tho, I personally think to accept something as true is not proof of it, only a fact is proven. Proof is defined as evidence that something is true. Once it is proven it is no longer a belief, it is a fact, you can then believe or not believe it but if you choose not to believe it you would be wrong. A fact is a fact, once proven it is not a belief. So I do not think proof requires belief. Brave points out that one needs to believe if it's proof or not but I see that as technically wrong, proof is evidence, you know it. But on another hand I did have a debate with another poster on here and claimed that believers feel they have their proof in many instances, but it is really just a belief of proof not actual proof, as Brave points out it is up them them as individuals to take it as an actual proof but I see it as if it were actual proof there would really be no debate as to whether God existed He would, end of story. That it is not actual proven proof is the key. There is no belief with proof cause once you have proof it is no longer a belief, it is fact. Therefore Athiests and believers alike have faith. I hope that is not all too confusing, if you read it carefully it does make sense.

brave_new_world

Mar 31 2007, 09:16 AM

QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 31 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]1607220[/snapback]

My brain is always on overdrive on this site, it stimulates my brain into thinking about stuff I normally wouldn't. I think that's why most of us are here. I don't mind at all giving my explanation.
Well I see it as, a belief is something without proof so it is a theory really, it's my belief that the 9/11 was a conspiracy, no proof that it is fact but I think it is, so it's a belief

Do the researchand you'll find there is plenty of proof that 9/11 was an inside job

The Puzzler

Mar 31 2007, 03:00 PM

QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 31 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]1607225[/snapback]

Do the researchand you'll find there is plenty of proof that 9/11 was an inside job

I have faith the 9/11 was an inside job.. I see your point....because it's "true" how can I have faith in it, if faith is a belief without proof. I guess I see it as it's not actually a proven fact yet, still just a strong belief I have based on what I've read and seen, what constitutes proven to you ....and then it all comes down to how we interpret proven beliefs or fact from fiction. Is everything just what we interpret it as, is anyone really sure of anything??

nn23

Mar 31 2007, 07:12 PM

m hm, i know EXACTLY how you feel

I think i might take my issues with this to the "what is proof" topic. I have problems with our methods of prooving things to be fact. They only work in the context to which they apply. For some reason we assume that if our methods of proving do not apply to something it is therefore disproven or discredited, but all it really shows is that rather than disproven, the methods are not applicable within the context.

Therfore, you need to believe in the methods used to prove facts aswell. Facts require faith.

aaaah

bornagainuhmanduh

Mar 31 2007, 08:01 PM

Cadetak47 quote: (I don't know how to do multiple quotes with names)

QUOTE

To be an atheist you have to be aware of the concept of God...if you didn't know the concept of God you wouldn't have anything to not believe in. They wouldn't be atheists. They would be indifferent to the concept of religion.

So this isolated culture wouldn't have faith in God either way because it doesn't know what the concept of God is...they can neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

That doesn't mean they are without faith though...they may just place their faith in something else.

Saying things like "I believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist" mean you have faith...but if you say "I don't care" or "I don't know" there is no faith.

Ok, so then you're saying that the knowledge of someone elses belief in the existence of something dictates whether someone else has faith that it doesn't exist. I can understand your view, because of the implications of choice. So are recognition and faith the same thing? But then, if someone has knowledge of God, but they say they don't care, are you saying they have no faith? So then having faith is caring or at least an acknowledgement that someone else has faith?

QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 31 2007, 08:00 AM) [snapback]1607454[/snapback]

I have faith the 9/11 was an inside job.. I see your point....because it's "true" how can I have faith in it, if faith is a belief without proof. I guess I see it as it's not actually a proven fact yet, still just a strong belief I have based on what I've read and seen, what constitutes proven to you ....and then it all comes down to how we interpret proven beliefs or fact from fiction. Is everything just what we interpret it as, is anyone really sure of anything??

I agree we are all suckers

I have a strong belief, although I think there is proof of it. Because it isn't known as fact, this is my faith in what I believe to be proof.

I think that it is true that possibly our "facts" are purely based on our perceptions and interpretations. Which really confuses me to think about, but I believe that everything exists as it is, our perceptions determine how we view everything, and sometimes our perceptions trick us, whether applied from within or outside of us. Sometimes this is apparent on a grand scale...now I'm just blabbing!! LOL

Beckys_Mom

Mar 31 2007, 10:04 PM

QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 31 2007, 10:16 AM) [snapback]1607225[/snapback]

Do the researchand you'll find there is plenty of proof that 9/11 was an inside job

I agree it was, but why don't they just admit it??

Hmm can most likely see this turning into a conspiracy thread lol

Cadetak

Apr 1 2007, 08:41 AM

QUOTE(uhmanduh @ Mar 31 2007, 04:01 PM) [snapback]1607744[/snapback]

Cadetak47 quote: (I don't know how to do multiple quotes with names)
Ok, so then you're saying that the knowledge of someone elses belief in the existence of something dictates whether someone else has faith that it doesn't exist. I can understand your view, because of the implications of choice. So are recognition and faith the same thing? But then, if someone has knowledge of God, but they say they don't care, are you saying they have no faith? So then having faith is caring or at least an acknowledgement that someone else has faith?

Recognition and faith are not the same thing. I believe that Faith is one part Trust and one part Hope.

Ironic that you ask me this actually. I know all the Bible stories and know the Christian religion well enough but I don't care if God exists or not. I recognize the concept of God.

If I where to tell you I owned a dog would you care if I was telling the truth or not? You wouldn't be a believer or a skeptic because it doesn't matter if to you if I have a dog or not. You wouldn't have faith in my claim either way because you plain just don't care...you don't have trust or hope in my claim, no faith in my claim. Even if it turned out I did have a dog you still wouldn't care (if you did care after finding out the truth then you had some sort of faith in the beginning). You recognize the concept of me having a dog but you don't have faith as neither a skeptic or a believer.

I also believe the phrase "I don't know" may mean you don't have faith either...an unbiased "I don't know" not an "I don't know but I hope its true".

For example, I don't know the facts of the claimed '9/11 Conspiracy' although I still care about the outcome. Since I don't know I can not make an informed yes or no answer...and thereby cannot have faith in either being a skeptic or a believer.

Faith is a simple word...a blend of Trust and Hope. If you trust somebody to do something and hope that they do it(and don't already know the outcome) then you have Faith.

The Puzzler

Apr 2 2007, 12:18 PM

QUOTE(uhmanduh @ Apr 1 2007, 06:01 AM) [snapback]1607744[/snapback]

I agree we are all suckers

I have a strong belief, although I think there is proof of it. Because it isn't known as fact, this is my faith in what I believe to be proof.

I think that it is true that possibly our "facts" are purely based on our perceptions and interpretations. Which really confuses me to think about, but I believe that everything exists as it is, our perceptions determine how we view everything, and sometimes our perceptions trick us, whether applied from within or outside of us. Sometimes this is apparent on a grand scale...now I'm just blabbing!! LOL

Hi uhmanduh, I thought this was a site for blabbing...or am I in the wrong place?? It's a good way to release all that pent up blabbing on stuff that you only think about when you start blabbing..lol

I agree, it is our perceptions that determine how we view everything including what we see as actual proof, which differenciates belief and fact. It's an interesting thought.