Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What FAITH is
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality vs Skepticism
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
The Puzzler
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]1570816[/snapback]
That's what I mean! Thanks PA for summing it up so nicely.

You KNOW that there is a God. Whereas most people won't say that they "KNOW" that consciousness is in the brain. They will say they believe it.

This whole thread is nothing but playing with words.

So why are you still here pushing your opinion on everyone, 3 of your posts ago you weren't interested anymore....
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 7 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]1570890[/snapback]
So why are you still here pushing your opinion on everyone, 3 of your posts ago you weren't interested anymore....

happy.gif
truethat
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Mar 7 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]1570898[/snapback]
happy.gif




How friggin lame is it to piggy back onto someone else's snide comment because you are too chickenpoo to say anything of your own. w00t.gif

LOL hmm.gif
IamsSon
QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 6 2007, 06:48 PM) [snapback]1570890[/snapback]
So why are you still here pushing your opinion on everyone, 3 of your posts ago you weren't interested anymore....

So, you're completely out of anything original to add to the discussion, so you start picking on people? How lame.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]1570816[/snapback]
That's what I mean! Thanks PA for summing it up so nicely.

Whereas most people won't say that they "KNOW" that consciousness is in the brain. They will say they believe it.


I know atheists and scientific minded peope alike who say they "KNOW" that consciousness was created by the brain. And if they say they believe it ,it means they dont know but have faith that it is true. They are still using faith. And I have meet others who say that "Oh consciousness definetely is in the brain" and because they have no proof to back this knowledge up are relying on "religious faith" in the sense that it is something which they believe they know yet cannot verify it.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Mar 7 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]1570781[/snapback]
Interesting opening article. For me though, Faith for me is not what Huxley says it is. My Faith in God is akin to the first definition given. Faith is synonymous with Trust - I put my faith/trust in God. The religious faith of which is spoken in the original post is more like belief. I believe God to exist. I believe the Bible to be true. But believing and trusting are very different. I do not have faith that God exists, I know he exists (yes, people may dispute that and say it's only my belief, which it is, but as far as I'm concerned, I know there is a God). My faith is not in the existence of God. My faith is in God. Subtle difference, but a significant difference none-the-less.


Huxley doesnt say that faith in God is "something that cannot be verified for oneself" but the doctrines which have alot of anti-spiritual or complex notions about God or history which cannot be verified. He actually agrees that when the belief in God is accepted in it's pure simplicity without much of the unnecessary overlaid doctrines, there is no need for faith in something that cannot be verified.

Because according to Huxley and all the perennial philosophers God can be experienced directly via mystical union. And since all people are capabale of doing this if they were prepared to put in the effot it actually can be "verified".

As one perennial philosopher called Swami Omkarananda put it:

God who is absolute, can be seen in his absoluteness only by God in us. God can be known only by God in us. God is to be known by experience of God, and God can be experienced only by God in us.

QUOTE
In relation to the question asked in the original post, I think (believe) everyone has faith (trust) in something - yes, even atheists. They put trust into certain things (relationships, theories, themselves, as examples). What that thing is can be different for everybody, but faith (trust) always lies somewhere. I think it would take a very insecure individual to have no faith (trust) in anything.

that's as how I see it, at least.

Regards, PA



I laugh my head off when atheists try and say that atheism isnt a religion or belief system. Even funnier is when they say they have no faith in anything because faith is only ever needed when you believe in God.
Tangerine Sheri
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 6 2007, 07:43 PM) [snapback]1571092[/snapback]
Huxley doesnt say that faith in God is "something that cannot be verified for oneself" but the doctrines which have alot of anti-spiritual or complex notions about God or history which cannot be verified. He actually agrees that when the belief in God is accepted in it's pure simplicity without much of the unnecessary overlaid doctrines, there is no need for faith in something that cannot be verified.
I laugh my head off when atheists try and say that atheism isnt a religion or belief system. Even funnier is when they say they have no faith in anything because faith is only ever needed when you believe in God.

brave there are many persepctives thats the point here to look at at things many ways to gain a richer undertanding , again i extend and invite you to be open to exploring the concept that there are many ways to look at things..there isn't a right and wrong way Brave ...its all made upi my friend you are taking this stuff to seriously....
Phyltre

Simply--faith, belief, and trust work on the same principles, and are the same thing in many situations. We as citizens of this time period have to blindly accept entire libraries of information, whether we know it or not. Take for instance the car; it's the result of millions of man-hours of research and development. It is also the end result of a huge supply chain going all the way from raw ores and compounds up to the finished product, spanning entire continents. We trust that the principles used in its manufacture were sound. We have faith in the engineers' judgment that the kind of rubber in the tires won't catch fire, we trust the workforce to assemble things as they should fit, and we believe that the car won't kill us outright. And there are, of course, far more extreme examples than this.

Although I have to agree that faith, to me, means far more than just belief or trust.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Mar 7 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]1570970[/snapback]
So, you're completely out of anything original to add to the discussion, so you start picking on people? How lame.

Whatever....quite frankly I wanted to contribute but felt truethat would just make me out to be stupid and uninformed as they have to everyone else thats contributed something here. It seems you have just done what I was apparently lame doing...go read your Bible
Tangerine Sheri
QUOTE(artymoon @ Mar 6 2007, 05:48 AM) [snapback]1570029[/snapback]
I agree with a lot of what atheists say in this board, when it comes to common sense and pragmatic thought. I myself could be considered atheist in a sense, because I don't believe there is a god that has been truly represented yet in any religion... I don't believe there is a god that consciously interacts and controls. Obviously I can't prove this, am going on faith in my perceptive abilities. Part of this conclusion is come to by the notion that I don't think a god that is all powerful would do the things represented in many religious teachings. I have faith that I'm right, but I also understand that I could be wrong ultimately. How do I truly know there is no god that would act this way? I don't. I'm simply trusting my perceptive abilities and comparing how differently I would act if I were god... and drawing a simple conclusion(part of the self-trust puzzle) that there must not be a god because of this.

Everyone uses faith to a degree, there is nothing wrong with that... its completely natural and necessary.

sounds as if you are in the same place I am arty , looking at this very deeply ...interesting post....as i enjoy reading your thoughts arty wub.gif

artymoon
QUOTE(Supra Sheri @ Mar 7 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]1571229[/snapback]
sounds as if you are in the same place I am arty , looking at this very deeply ...interesting post....as i enjoy reading your thoughts arty wub.gif

Thanks Sheri, I also enjoy your thoughts. wub.gif
Tangerine Sheri
QUOTE(artymoon @ Mar 6 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]1571248[/snapback]
Thanks Sheri, I also enjoy your thoughts. wub.gif

we do dissect things don't we ??? you remind me of a kalidescope so many ways to see things, i am always delighted you never cease to engage me. get me thinking......
Hawkmason
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 6 2007, 08:14 AM) [snapback]1569998[/snapback]
There aren't any sites that I would take seriously. You are talking without thinking. Helen Keller wasn't "aware" that she was an unconscious clod of earth until she aquired language.


Clerks II came to mind

Im blind deaf and dumb just like Ann Frank! lol sorry had to break the cycle
brave_new_world
QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 7 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]1571168[/snapback]
Whatever....quite frankly I wanted to contribute but felt truethat would just make me out to be stupid and uninformed as they have to everyone else thats contributed something here. It seems you have just done what I was apparently lame doing...go read your Bible


No no no please I would love to hear what you think. If you read over the past debates me and truethat have on this particular post you see how well I make her look silly. Please my good friend contribute.

grin2.gif
brave_new_world
QUOTE(Phyltre @ Mar 7 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]1571103[/snapback]
Simply--faith, belief, and trust work on the same principles, and are the same thing in many situations. We as citizens of this time period have to blindly accept entire libraries of information, whether we know it or not.
Take for instance the car; it's the result of millions of man-hours of research and development. It is also the end result of a huge supply chain going all the way from raw ores and compounds up to the finished product, spanning entire continents. We trust that the principles used in its manufacture were sound. We have faith in the engineers' judgment that the kind of rubber in the tires won't catch fire, we trust the workforce to assemble things as they should fit, and we believe that the car won't kill us outright. And there are, of course, far more extreme examples than this.

Although I have to agree that faith, to me, means far more than just belief or trust.


Yes but it is a synonym for trust. It does have other meanings. But even atheists have to admit that they have faith or belief even if it is only in the synonym for trust sense.
brave_new_world
Part One:

Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there.
If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am.
What in fact I am, if only a Manichee I think I am would allow me to know it, is the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of Not-Two.
In religion all words are dirty words. Anybody who gets eloquent about Buddha,or God, or Christ, ought to have his mouth washed out with carbolic soap.
Because his apsiration to perpetuate only the "yes" in every pair of opposites can never, in the nature of things, be realized, the insulated Manichee I think I am condemns himself to endlessly repeated frustration, endlessly repeated conflicts with other aspiring and frustrated Manichees.
Conflicts and frustrations--there them in all history and almost all biography. "I show you sorrow," said the Buddha realistically. But he also showed the ending of sorrow--self-knowledge, total acceptance, the blessed experience of Not-two.

Part Two:

Knowing who in fact we are results in Good being, and Good being results in the most appropriate kind of good doing. But doing good does not itself result in Good Being. We can be virtuous without knowing who in fact we are. The beings who are merely good are not Good Beings; they are just pillars of society.

Most pillars are their own Samsons. They hold up, but sooner or later they pull down. There has never been a society in which most good doing was the product of Good Being and therefore constantly appropriate. This does not mean that there will never be such a society or that we in Pala are fools for trying to call it into existence.

Part Three:

The yogin and the Stoic---Two righteous egos who achieve their considerable results by pretending, systematically, to be somebody else. But it is not by pretending to be somebody else, even somebody supremely good and wise, that we can pass insullated Manichee-hood to Good Being.

Good Being is knowing who in fact we are; and in order to know who in fact we are, we must know, moment by moment, who we think we are and what this bad habit of thought compels us to feel and do. A moment of clear and complete knowledge of what we think we are, but in fact are not, puts a stop, for the momment, to the Manichean charade. If we renew, until they become continuity, these moments of the knowledge of what we are not, we may find ourselves, all of a sudden, knowing who in fact we are.

Concentration, abstract thinking, spiritual excerises--systematic exclusions in the realm of thought. Asceticism and hedonism--systematic exclusions in the realms of sensation, feeling and action. But Good Being is in the knowledge of who in fact one is in relation to all experiences. So be aware--aware in every context, at all times and whatever, creditable or discreditable, pleasant or unpleasant, you may be doing or suffering. This is the only genuine yoga, the only spiritual excercise worth practicing.

The more a man knows about individual objects, the more he knows about God. Translating Spinoza's language into ours, we can say: The more man knows about himself in relation to every kind of experience, the greater his chance of suddenly, one fine morning, realizing who in fact he is--or rather Who(
captial W) in Fact(capital F) "he"(betweeb quotation marks) Is(capital I).

St. John was right. In a blessedly speechless universe, the Word was not only with God; it was God. As something to be believed in. God is a projected symbol, a reified name. God= "God."

Faith is something very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words--people take them too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of history---sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse)sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own churche's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith ,on the contrary can never be taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us this day our daily faith, but deliver us, dear God, from belief.
[/b]

---- Aldous Huxley thumbsup.gif
Cadetak
I also believe that the words Faith and Trust basically mean the same thing...you can even say the words Belief and Hope also mean the same thing.

Just because it's Religious Faith doesn't make it any different.

Look at these examples:

"I have faith in the Bible" and "I trust the Bible's word"

The way we use these words differ slightly it seems that each word has a bigger emphasis then others...like Hope<Believe<Trust<Faith.

This is another case where definition and common usage become a problem...how a word is defined may have nothing to do with how it is used(like the word god or religion).
brave_new_world
QUOTE(Cadetak47 @ Mar 7 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]1571354[/snapback]
I also believe that the words Faith and Trust basically mean the same thing...you can even say the words Belief and Hope also mean the same thing.

Just because it's Religious Faith doesn't make it any different.

Look at these examples:

"I have faith in the Bible" and "I trust the Bible's word"

The way we use these words differ slightly it seems that each word has a bigger emphasis then others...like Hope<Believe<Trust<Faith.

This is another case where definition and common usage become a problem...how a word is defined may have nothing to do with how it is used(like the word god or religion).


Like atheists have faith in their ideal......
truethat
QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 7 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]1571168[/snapback]
Whatever....quite frankly I wanted to contribute but felt truethat would just make me out to be stupid and uninformed as they have to everyone else thats contributed something here. It seems you have just done what I was apparently lame doing...go read your Bible



Don't speak for others A. and B. the topic is consciousness and I'm sorry but having studied this a great deal over the last year I can see that the OP is just pulling stuff off of google and not understanding the topic.

As an ideology consciousness is an open ended topic. There is no definitive accepted answer to the idea of consciousness, let alone "where it exists" or "what causes it." Its a philosophical debate that no scholar worth his salt would summarize the way brave is attempting. People who insist that they KNOW etc about consciousness are regarded as fools in the world of philosophy.

So if you want to make the comparison, religious people who have faith would be regarded as "fools" as well. But I didn't want to go down that path.

This is why I suggested that he use a different example.

And I'm sorry if I just happened to be well versed in this particular topic. There are a whole lotta other things that I don't know DIDDLY about. It doesn't stop me from chiming in. But in this case the whole argument is flawed based on this comparison.

In addition I will usually just ignore someone if they get batty. It happens on here from time to time. I don't tend to jump on someone's debate unless they direct it to me personally.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]1571513[/snapback]
Don't speak for others A. and B. the topic is consciousness and I'm sorry but having studied this a great deal over the last year I can see that the OP is just pulling stuff off of google and not understanding the topic.

As an ideology consciousness is an open ended topic. There is no definitive accepted answer to the idea of consciousness, let alone "where it exists" or "what causes it." Its a philosophical debate that no scholar worth his salt would summarize the way brave is attempting. People who insist that they KNOW etc about consciousness are regarded as fools in the world of philosophy.

So if you want to make the comparison, religious people who have faith would be regarded as "fools" as well. But I didn't want to go down that path.

This is why I suggested that he use a different example.

And I'm sorry if I just happened to be well versed in this particular topic. There are a whole lotta other things that I don't know DIDDLY about. It doesn't stop me from chiming in. But in this case the whole argument is flawed based on this comparison.

In addition I will usually just ignore someone if they get batty. It happens on here from time to time. I don't tend to jump on someone's debate unless they direct it to me personally.


Except for mystics. Many people hold them in high regard as knowing what consciousness truly is. Take ramana maharshi for an example he knows what he is talking about. Aldous Huxley can be considered a philosopher and I got my ideas of consciousness from his books; he doesnt scoff at the findings of the perennial mystics. Many philosophies are religious like sufism which explores and clarifies extensively on the topic of consciousness.
truethat

Brave, anyone who states that they "KNOW" what consciousness is a fool. Plain and simple. You can theorize all you want, but to say you "KNOW" is usually something done by "mystics" or other such spiritual people based on FAITH and in a philosophical discussion they would be looked upon as a self deluded fool.

Consciousness is a mystery to man.


Saying you know the answer to the mystery without definitive proof is foolish.

Believing for the "sake of argument" that consciousness is in the brain is not the same thing as having faith in it.

Its a philosophical debate. Try to understand the difference.

That's why I suggested you use a different argument.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 09:37 PM) [snapback]1571528[/snapback]
Brave, anyone who states that they "KNOW" what consciousness is a fool. Plain and simple. You can theorize all you want, but to say you "KNOW" is usually something done by "mystics" or other such spiritual people based on FAITH and in a philosophical discussion they would be looked upon as a self deluded fool.

Consciousness is a mystery to man.
Saying you know the answer to the mystery without definitive proof is foolish.

Believing for the "sake of argument" that consciousness is in the brain is not the same thing as having faith in it.

Its a philosophical debate. Try to understand the difference.

That's why I suggested you use a different argument.


I KNOW what it is. It is awareness. Consciousness and awareness are one and the same thing........ the mystery isnt what is consciousness as much as how was it created?!
We know it is awareness but we dont know what it is in itself, we only know what it is when relating it to our body or environment. Hence making this even a bigger mystery than the question of its origin.
For arguments sake how is believing it is created from the brain when this cant be verified not the same as having faith??
truethat
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 7 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]1571533[/snapback]
I KNOW what it is. It is awareness. Consciousness and awareness are one and the same thing........ the mystery isnt what is consciousness as much as how was it created?!
We know it is awareness but we dont know what it is in itself, we only know what it is when relating it to our body or environment.
For arguments sake how is believing it is created from the brain when this cant be verified not the same as having faith??



Ok so YOU are the one who has faith about consciousness. Not atheists in general.


Saying that you "know" what something is without proof is foolish.


ETA I am directing that you assumptions about consciousness. Calling consciousness and awareness the same thing....well that's not too deep considering they are simply two different words used typically to describe the same concept.


For arguments sake how is believing it is created from the brain when this can not be verified is the WRONG argument.

IOW if you choose to define consciousness as "awareness" what does that mean to you exactly? Because do you suggest that dogs have consciousness the same way as humans? What is the difference?

Again I would recommend that you reconsider your argument because it comes as no surprise to me that a "spiritual" or "religious" person would make the claim to "KNOW" what consciousness means and that it is "created" in the brain.

I as an atheist would question that assumption.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]1571537[/snapback]
Ok so YOU are the one who has faith about consciousness. Not atheists in general.
Saying that you "know" what something is without proof is foolish.


Ok well I am aware now and aware that i am typing this and conscious that im about the post it and aware that it will get posted. Consciousness is awareness and awareness is consciousness. What awareness is by and in itself I do not know and have to go by faith. But I do know that at one level it is the perception that enables you to KNOW your surroundings and give you a sense of self.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 10:24 PM) [snapback]1571513[/snapback]
Don't speak for others A. and B. the topic is consciousness and I'm sorry but having studied this a great deal over the last year I can see that the OP is just pulling stuff off of google and not understanding the topic.

As an ideology consciousness is an open ended topic. There is no definitive accepted answer to the idea of consciousness, let alone "where it exists" or "what causes it." Its a philosophical debate that no scholar worth his salt would summarize the way brave is attempting. People who insist that they KNOW etc about consciousness are regarded as fools in the world of philosophy.

So if you want to make the comparison, religious people who have faith would be regarded as "fools" as well. But I didn't want to go down that path.

This is why I suggested that he use a different example.

And I'm sorry if I just happened to be well versed in this particular topic. There are a whole lotta other things that I don't know DIDDLY about. It doesn't stop me from chiming in. But in this case the whole argument is flawed based on this comparison.

In addition I will usually just ignore someone if they get batty. It happens on here from time to time. I don't tend to jump on someone's debate unless they direct it to me personally.

Thank you for that but I understood the topic of this post as Faith, no offence intended.
The Puzzler
After thinking long and hard on this one and without meaning offence to anyone here is my thoughts on What Faith Is. Firstly excuse my ignorance on Buddism and Huxley, my opinion is based on what I know. I don't believe faith needs to be connected with religion, I practise no religion nor do I believe in God. I have faith which I see as a belief, belief being equated as a principle that I see as true at the time. I have faith or a belief that my friends will be faithful to me. My consciousness decides my beliefs - I make a conscious (aware) decision to have faith in certain things.

An example being; I have faith in my friends - I believe they will do right by me, when they rip me off or be untrue I lose faith in them, they have been unfaithful, my belief that they would be loyal to me has to be reassessed, I consciously or intentionally make a new decision, therefore my beliefs can be changed by learning. In a nutshell to me having faith is a conscious (aware) decision that I have made the right choice, by events changing circumstances, my faith or belief is tested. The last paragraph by Huxley you have included Brave seems to contradict me but I do think belief and faith are one and the same. I referenced the dictionary on this and found that faith is defined as a strong belief especially without proof and belief is defined as an opinion we believe to be true ie; religious faith, which I reason is how I see it.

This is why people need to have faith in God to be true to their beliefs.

In touching on Cadetak47 word definition and how it can change a meaning I do think this is true. The dictionary provided me an insight into this as well.....take the word trust....used as a noun we can place trust in someone but if we trust our judgement it is a verb. Therefore how we define or use a word means different things, even though its the same word.

This is all just my opinion, I don't claim to know much on it but it sure got me thinking about it all.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(weareallsuckers @ Mar 7 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]1571550[/snapback]
After thinking long and hard on this one and without meaning offence to anyone here is my thoughts on What Faith Is. Firstly excuse my ignorance on Buddism and Huxley, my opinion is based on what I know. I don't believe faith needs to be connected with religion, I practise no religion nor do I believe in God. I have faith which I see as a belief, belief being equated as a principle that I see as true at the time. I have faith or a belief that my friends will be faithful to me. My consciousness decides my beliefs - I make a conscious (aware) decision to have faith in certain things.


One shade of the meaning of faith is trust. You dont need to believe or have faith in God. You make a good valid point here.

QUOTE
An example being; I have faith in my friends - I believe they will do right by me, when they rip me off or be untrue I lose faith in them, they have been unfaithful, my belief that they would be loyal to me has to be reassessed, I consciously or intentionally make a new decision, therefore my beliefs can be changed by learning. In a nutshell to me having faith is a conscious (aware) decision that I have made the right choice, by events changing circumstances, my faith or belief is tested. The last paragraph by Huxley you have included Brave seems to contradict me but I do think belief and faith are one and the same. I referenced the dictionary on this and found that faith is defined as a strong belief especially without proof and belief is defined as an opinion we believe to be true ie; religious faith, which I reason is how I see it.


Gotta read the whole article as a whole. But you are right faith and belief are the same in that sense. But this is only according to one meaning of faith. But what you state above here is all very logical. Faith is trust and can be trust in things that can be verified and in things that cant. Like atheism, to many it cant be proven to be verified but also cant be proven to be unverifiable.


QUOTE
This is why people need to have faith in God to be true to their beliefs.
In touching on Cadetak47 word definition and how it can change a meaning I do think this is true. The dictionary provided me an insight into this as well.....take the word trust....used as a noun we can place trust in someone but if we trust our judgement it is a verb. Therefore how we define or use a word means different things, even though its the same word.

This is all just my opinion, I don't claim to know much on it but it sure got me thinking about it all.


I have faith that no opinion is true no matter how theoretically correct it is for the sole reason that it is an opinion. I hope you get what I mean here. But you have stated what you think very eloquently and articulately and I thank you for contributing to my post. grin2.gif
The Puzzler
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 7 2007, 11:10 PM) [snapback]1571561[/snapback]
One shade of the meaning of faith is trust. You dont need to believe or have faith in God. You make a good valid point here.
Gotta read the whole article as a whole. But you are right faith and belief are the same in that sense. But this is only according to one meaning of faith. But what you state above here is all very logical. Faith is trust and can be trust in things that can be verified and in things that cant. Like atheism, to many it cant be proven to be verified but also cant be proven to be unverifiable.
I have faith that no opinion is true no matter how theoretically correct it is for the sole reason that it is an opinion. I hope you get what I mean here. But you have stated what you think very eloquently and articulately and I thank you for contributing to my post. grin2.gif

Absolutely, an opinion is just an opinion, that's why I state it in many of my posts, I am too modest to think my opinion is fact. I thank you brave for making me generate my brain cells in this topic and actually think about what I think about........ thumbsup.gif
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]1571537[/snapback]
Again I would recommend that you reconsider your argument because it comes as no surprise to me that a "spiritual" or "religious" person would make the claim to "KNOW" what consciousness means and that it is "created" in the brain.


No most religious people actually dont believe that the brain creates consciousness and think consciousness is the soul. thumbsup.gif
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 7 2007, 01:05 AM) [snapback]1570905[/snapback]
How friggin lame is it to piggy back onto someone else's snide comment because you are too chickenpoo to say anything of your own. w00t.gif

LOL hmm.gif

Awww look are you lonely ?? well since you love to chat with me...take it to PM sweetie...anytime...but keep your b*tchiness off the boards now wont you?? hmm.gif
Tangerine Sheri
true i think Bm is saying

"Un Uh Oh No You din't."
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Supra Sheri @ Mar 9 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]1575483[/snapback]
true i think Bm is saying

"Un Uh Oh No You din't."

LOL...yea...but i'd rather face things like this in PM...then I can really let loose!!...as for the boards, its not a playground..true has to learn this yes.gif
truethat
Oh wow I'm so intimidated by a snarky response that apparently took you three days to think up. LMAO!


Its like a dutch wonderland! tongue.gif
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 9 2007, 11:08 PM) [snapback]1575509[/snapback]
Oh wow I'm so intimidated by a snarky response that apparently took you three days to think up. LMAO!
Its like a dutch wonderland! tongue.gif

Listen sweetie, you obviously don't quite understand, i'll be happy MORE than happy to answer you in a PM ANYTIME...but im NOT going to sink to your level on the boards....tsk tsk true....how many times do I have to rell you?? hmm.gif I have an 18 month old child that only has to be told the once...go figure blink.gif

I'll break it down for you...These boards are NOT for your kind of b*tching..sorry but they arent...if you want to talk to me, PM me, dont do it on here...SIMPLE as A B & C

ok?? thumbsup.gif
truethat
Becky let me break it down for you, this is only message board. CHILL. wacko.gif
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 9 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]1575524[/snapback]
Becky let me break it down for you, this is only message board. CHILL. wacko.gif

grin2.gif I'm well and truely (pardon the pun) CHILLED
truethat
Good now stop taking threads OT for the purpose of your personal gripes. If you are offended REPORT IT. The mods will handle it. original.gif
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 9 2007, 11:31 PM) [snapback]1575536[/snapback]
Good now stop taking threads OT for the purpose of your personal gripes. If you are offended REPORT IT. The mods will handle it. original.gif

Girlfriend you jumped on me for posting my lil smilies LOL and no sweetie you cant offend me....I prefer to talk to people in pm...its best that way.... thumbsup.gif

Now can you try and get back on topic? thumbsup.gif


Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(__Kratos__ @ Mar 6 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]1569876[/snapback]
Two meanings of faith though... Religious and trust.

It's like trying to say that dear as in a loved one is dear to you is the same thing as addressing them in a letter. It makes no sense at all and the only common factor between the two is the spelling of the word despite different meanings attached to them.

edit: bloody typo demons

To me there is only one type of faith...and that is TRUST full stop

Let me explain what I mean

When a religious person says they hold great faith in the Lord up above, that mean they fully TRUST in God... throw every last peice of TRUST into God...the whole nine yards


AND...

Trust...when we place trust in eachother, we are having faith in a person, like ie -- I trust Kratos has a great intrest in world news, and I have trust/faith, that Kratos will post topics, on world news ect...I believe he takes a keen intrest....thefore I have faith aka place trust in kratos

Another example of faith and trust being the same IMO.....

When i fully trust in my best friend Sheri...when she tells me she will do her best to - ie...take a stand for child abuse............then I fully have 100% faith in her knowing she will do just this...and I trust she will make a good job of it


That my friends is how I BM, see's trust/Faith as one in the same...no difference


Now Kratos..I fully see what you mean and not for a sec getting at you either, I just wanted to share what I see as trust and faith being the same whether it be used in a religious sense or not ..to me still the same, no matter where it's used lol

KBA
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 6 2007, 11:06 AM) [snapback]1569885[/snapback]
The point is everyone whether religious or not has faith in their fellow man or in the atomic theory. Not everyone has what can be coined "religious faith" that is faith in things which cannot be verified. Not all religion has faith in things it cannot verify. Take the perennial philosophy for an example, it doesnt ask you to have faith in anything you cannot verify for yourself if you dont put in the effort. And the perennial philosophy is a religion.


And everyone has pants. What's your point? Atheists have trust or certainty, atheists do not have faith in the religious or belief-inducing form of the word.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(KBA @ Mar 25 2007, 06:35 AM) [snapback]1598447[/snapback]
And everyone has pants. What's your point? Atheists have trust or certainty, atheists do not have faith in the religious or belief-inducing form of the word.


But they have faith nevetheless. What is your point?
nn23
mmm, its interesting that we attatch so much value to the justification of our knowledge* and beliefs via arguments using tokens of consistent logic/evidence and/or "scientific" findings.

Its all a bit maaaad laugh.gif ...or is it? linked-image


*of this subject or every.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(nn23 @ Mar 26 2007, 02:37 AM) [snapback]1599347[/snapback]
mmm, its interesting that we attatch so much value to the justification of our knowledge* and beliefs via arguments using tokens of consistent logic/evidence and/or "scientific" findings.

Its all a bit maaaad laugh.gif ...or is it? linked-image
*of this subject or every.


I agree. Intuition is King.
KBA
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Mar 25 2007, 01:06 AM) [snapback]1598644[/snapback]
But they have faith nevetheless. What is your point?


My point is that the word has multiple meanings, and atheists have a different kind of faith than theists, faith is only a word which is shared between these two groups of people, the meanings of the word are, however, not shared.

Here is a Venn diagram to illustrate my point.

linked-image

Again, what's the reason to point it out? Atheists DO NOT HAVE theistic faith. It's still two different things, whether the spelling is the same or not.
Condescending
hm brave some time ago I saw you "give up" on this word game and here is yet a thread where you seem to play it. is it the only thing you have to offer these forums? =/
truethat
Atheists do not have any sort of 'faith" in any sort of God theory.

Now you might want to say 'absence of a God theory" is a God theory in and of itself. That you say "I decided that God doesn't exist"

This would only be a form of faith if there were evidence show that God MIGHT exist and we pooh poohed that evidence and said "No, in spite of that I don't believe that God exists"


God theories are STORIES that have come to be taken as religiously inspired. They all started out as stories of mystical magical things that some people began to take seriously.

When it began being taken seriously it became "real or true" but it never was proven real or true.

The status of God at this time is that God remains unproven.

And atheists believe this, not because of faith but because it is a fact.

brave thinks that if you repeat something long enough people will believe it is true. Unfortunately when you are talking to atheists this kind of tactic won't work.

Atheism is not faith.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(KBA @ Mar 27 2007, 12:49 AM) [snapback]1600579[/snapback]
My point is that the word has multiple meanings, and atheists have a different kind of faith than theists, faith is only a word which is shared between these two groups of people, the meanings of the word are, however, not shared.

Here is a Venn diagram to illustrate my point.

linked-image

Again, what's the reason to point it out? Atheists DO NOT HAVE theistic faith. It's still two different things, whether the spelling is the same or not.


They have faith just not faith in God. So they still have faith. It still takes faith not to believe in God since God's non-existence cant be proven. I know an atheist who has trust in the unseen................dark matter....................

And I also know atheists who many faith in consciousness..............that is quite unseeable..............
brave_new_world
QUOTE(Condescending @ Mar 27 2007, 01:13 AM) [snapback]1600604[/snapback]
hm brave some time ago I saw you "give up" on this word game and here is yet a thread where you seem to play it. is it the only thing you have to offer these forums? =/


Basicly
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 27 2007, 01:20 AM) [snapback]1600613[/snapback]
Atheists do not have any sort of 'faith" in any sort of God theory.

Now you might want to say 'absence of a God theory" is a God theory in and of itself. That you say "I decided that God doesn't exist"

This would only be a form of faith if there were evidence show that God MIGHT exist and we pooh poohed that evidence and said "No, in spite of that I don't believe that God exists"
God theories are STORIES that have come to be taken as religiously inspired. They all started out as stories of mystical magical things that some people began to take seriously.

When it began being taken seriously it became "real or true" but it never was proven real or true.

The status of God at this time is that God remains unproven.

And atheists believe this, not because of faith but because it is a fact.

brave thinks that if you repeat something long enough people will believe it is true. Unfortunately when you are talking to atheists this kind of tactic won't work.

Atheism is not faith.


All theories are stories until proven true happy.gif

The big bang theory has not been proven true beyond a doubt just like the theory of evolution yet many atheists and scientists have faith in them.
brave_new_world
QUOTE(truethat @ Mar 27 2007, 01:20 AM) [snapback]1600613[/snapback]
The status of God at this time is that God remains unproven.


Unless you define God as consciousness then God is quite proven.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.