If a point is well made it would not be missed by so many. Also, when one enters a debate their mission is to teach. But when a challenge is made from the stand that the challenger CAN NOT BE PROVEN WRONG, the challenger better be quite a talker, because IF there is any depth to that challenger it will need need to surface. When it doesn't, when there is nothing to the debate but one side, there is no depth there is only an unwillingness to understand the other side.

You have made it clear that this is your stand.

I see now, the depth is as Voil said - not so deep.

oh so true.

my depth is shallow.

it is where i left off the world's glee.



well, one must come up into the shallows and feed, eh, redy?


I am not there to please and cddle you, nor am I here to insist that voila se anything other than he wishes to see.

i will speak to any of you from the shallowness of your minds and expose yoiur shortcomings discreetly.

arrogant and boastful?

of course, dear redy.

that is how I get these wonderful little snippets in response.

I get arrogant and boastful replies decrying the depths plumbed of my heart and soul from the shallow rhetoric and self serving replies that need do no more than declare edict after edict of your own vast superiority.

My advice to you and others is that you get your facts straight, speak the truth, remove your prejudices, set aside your egos, relinguish your pride, and be less judgemental in your assessments of others through the novel concept of addressing your condescending patronage of all things eluding you as though you have attained their respective mastery and speak to people as though they are actually intelleigent and thoughtful and at the very least sincere.

But as misguided as you and others are, and as pretentious as you and others are, that is not likely.

You have been stabbing at the dark your whole lives and profess your own greatness in your smug affirmations declaring your aptitude but display your ineptitude in pontificating your own agendas with deceit, cunning, camoflage and disengenuity.

But hey, groping in the darkness for a boogey man is what the unskillful and uninitiated do with their swords.

So remember to stay in the deep, redy, if you want deep.

coming into the threads and purposing your own authoritarian control tactics will get you just what you sought, bbut the emotions in your heart that reward your intentions cause sufficinet grief for you to insist on deflecting and transferring your deficit onto others in a vain attempt to disrobe yourself of the filth brought onto you by your own remarks being met with their due in rebuke.


Honestly, redy, what is the value of pointing to Voila's remaRKS ABOUT THE DEPTHS OF ANOTHER PERSON'S HEArt when the display is a self serving gesture to add credibility to your own foolishness and steal anothers presence and depict them alongside your judgements?


well, in these shallows, which is apparently the depth of your diligence and carefulness so void of sincerity by the exhibited need projected by your cunning alterior motives (" I will tell you why I ask this question, after you answer it") you need not expect that you shall get more than you give, but then what you are giving, Oh deluded one, I am not buying.

you never change, nor do I think you will.

Ypou draw us into the shallows with your shrieking, and yes redy, when we bite, it is on.


so why the responses declaring your self absorbed superiority when you are duped in your own fishing expeditions?

Daft.

That is all that it can be, that you are daft.


so, go back to school, and be you ever learning, never knowing, and never doing, but if that is your wish for yourself then sio be it. I am not one to deprive any of their delight.

But when it comes to delighting yoursaelves in things you do not have any business delighting yoursaelf in at others expense as a necessity, then you will find me, perhaps, ready willing and able to slap you upside your face with your foolishness and stupidity, free of charge too.

that lesson will not soon be frgotten, as is this present one which you have entered yourself into haplessly unaware of the invitation with your name on it.

have a good day, ridiculous.

Wow if you could only take your own advice.

Faith is not a warring tactic - I think it should not be

I should imagine anyone can take a few words and make them sound something they are not.

Everyone needs to be more patient with others at times.

just a couple of thoughts as I read these posts.

If we define "faith" to simply mean "Belief without proof". Then all of existence is a matter of mere faith because what constitutes proof?

From a purely philosophical notion philosophers have suggested, "I think therefore I am".

In other words, my experience is my reality. If I have no experience I don't exist. I must experience something to know that I exist, even if that something is nothing more than a thought.

So from that basic assumption we can extrapolate to the idea that everything we experience is nothing more than a thought. (i.e. Row row row your boat. Life is but a dream.)

When we move forward to try to 'prove' the reality of the dream is were we run into problems.

However, even if life is but a dream, it most certainly appears to be a consistent dream. Not just random chaos. Every human tends to agree on the major obvious concepts, like there is a bright light in the sky ever day and there are four seasons every year, and if you drop a heavy object it will fall to the ground, and if it land on your foot it can hurt, and if your foot is damaged it may heal itself, etc. etc. etc.

These, obvious shared consistent experiences become more and more complex and better studied until they become an entire library of information that we now call "science".

Science has studied and observed things that often seem obscure to the average dreamer. Who would have thought that time and space are a single fabric that can be changed one into the other? This is hard for most people to believe because it is completely out of their experience (their personal notion of "I think therefore I am.")

Most people don't think about time and space as being a single malleable fabric of spacetime. But is faith required to believe it? I think not. And the reason that I feel this way is because I have studied this in some depth and I have understood the theory to some degree, and I have also understood how and why the experiments that have been performed show that this is indeed the true nature of life's dream. Just as real as when you drop a heave object on your foot.

The same is true about the discovering that mass and energy are the same interchangeable 'stuff'. There is no such thing as 'matter'. Matter is nothing more than standing waves of energy taking form.

Again, it's not a matter of 'faith' IMHO. Just like dropping a heaving object on our toe and actually experiencing the results, we can also drop an atomic bomb on our neighbors and watch them experience the results. It's not nice to do that, but we do it anyway.

How much 'faith' is required to believe in the things that we can actually experience?

If experience is 'proof' then we have proven both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

These are no longer just ideas that we mere have 'faith' in. They have now become actual experience. They are 'proven' by experience.

Many of the things that led up to these discoveries are the same things that led up to the discover that life evolved on this planet over millions if not billions of years. The knowledge that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is based on the same principles and experimental observations that showed us that time and space are a single fabric, and that matter is just energy in vibrating in specific patterns.

The knowledge of how nuclear reactions and explosions work have shown us how the stars work. Science has an extremely precise understanding of how stars work. The knowledge they have of our sun would shock most people if they had a clue. Astrophysics have such a precise and exact knowledge of how the sun works that they predicted how precisely how many neutrinos are produced by Sol ever second. The number is astronomical. It's huge. Beyond anything that any human can even begin to comprehend.

However, it is possible to measure that number. And scientist set up experiments to do precisely that.

So experimental physicist measured the number of neutrinos being radiated from the sun and they came up with a number of that is only 1/3 the number predicted by the Astrophysics who study the sun. So the experimental physics told the Astrophysics that their theories must be in error.

The Astrophysics when back to work on their theories. This took place over several years. The Astrophysics combed over their theories looking for any possible explanation that could be in error. After having done this, the Astrophysics returned to the experimental physicists and said, "In order for our theory to be wrong, we'd have to assume that some of the major underlying fundamental premises of physics are wrong."

This was major, because they were saying that for their theory to be wrong, something would need to be wrong with physics as we know it. Something major and very fundamental.

Astrophysics simply weren't prepared to believe that. After all, atomic bombs really do explode. Nuclear generators really do work. We have to have something right.

Well, the experimenters when back to their labs trying to measure the neutrinos coming from the sun. And in the meantime particle physicists had discovered something new about neutrinos that they weren't previously aware of. Neutrinos can change their characteristic randomly. They call this a change of "flavor". Neutrinos come in three different 'flavors'. There are Electron Neutrinos, Muon Neutrinos, and Tau Neutrinos. Physicist already knew that. What the didn't know is that any given neutrino can randomly change flavor.

The Astrophysics had predicted that all of the neutrinos coming from the Sun are Electron Neutrinos, because this is what is produced by the nuclear activity within the Sun. So the experimenters were only measuring Electron Neutrinos. So now with this new information they looked for three flavors of neutrinos and they found precisely the number of neutrinos that the Astrophysics had predicted would come from the Sun.

How's that for confidence? This is how confident Astrophysics are in their theories. They don't merely have 'faith' in them. They believe in them because they stand upon sound and proven principles.

You don't need to have 'faith' that if you drop a heavy object on your foot it will hurt. It's going to hurt whether you have 'faith' or not.

Comparing what we know about this universe with obscure unproven, and even unreasonable, stories that were told by ancient men isn't even a fair comparison at all.

Believing in ancient religious writings is 'faith' in something that is completely unreasonable and without any merit whatsoever. Believing in the methodic experimental observations and proven technologies of science is an entirely different matter.

There's just no comparison at all. Trying to claim that these two things are on equal-footing as nothing more than pure speculation is utterly absurd.

Science is well-proven by observation and experience. Ancient religious doctrines are pure hearsay about totally unreasonable events that clearly fly in the face of what observation and experience tells us the world is truly like.

Claiming that they are on equal footing as mere ideologies based on pure faith is the greatest falsehood ever spoken.

Science has been confirmed via experience. Ancient religious myths are entirely believed on pure faith alone. They have absolutely no merit at all.

And even to claim that 'miracles' prove them true is utter nonsense. Even if 'miracles' do occur they do not point to any specific religious doctrine or belief system. In fact, when we look at 'miracles', or extremely abnormal events that humans report, we don't see those reports pointing to any particular religious faith. People of all faiths make similar claims about their religious beliefs. Therefore if they are to be given any credibility at all we must conclude that it is human belief that causes these things. It doesn't matter what you believe in, all that is needed is belief. That seems to be the only thing that reports of miracles have in common. People believe in something.

Very nice post James. Very interesting. Very sane and clear and direct. It is so refreshing to find sanity in this crazy world.

JB

I didn't realize one could look at it from that angle.

That being said, the manner in which you approached it above Abra, is 180 degrees from the premise I have been attempting to convey eversince posting here:

FAITH AND FACTS don't mix!

Faith is an abstraction! As such, it lives in a completely distinct mental construct than fact and science. An abstract mental construct, as opposed to a discreete mental construct.

Very different entities. One is physically verified, the other isn't, and will never be. But we know all that!

Once a belief (without proof: faith), is proven, it no longer is a belief, it is a fact. It no longer 'exists' in the domain of faith (abstraction). But we know all that!

What further distinguishes the two mental constructs, is the personal exclusive essence of faith, as opposed to the public essence of science (NOTHING PERSONAL about science, other than the human motive to pursue the discipline, and EVERYTHING PERSONAL about faith). Now, we all know that, maybe, but I suggest that this might be where the lines get crossed, and the confusion sets in.

When faith crosses in the public domain, and it can, I can discuss my mental construct of faith with you Abra, or anyone else interested in such, but it remains an abstraction, and very much personal.

The problem arises when some, in order to understand someone else's abstract mental contruct of faith, question it from a material and physical perspective.

Moreover, some will also represent their 'faith' as something other than an abstraction, something closer to being real, and they insist that they have proof for it.

Total perversion of faith!!!

Are those 'some' lying?!?!? Not necessarily.

Any mental construct, whether abstract or rational, requires evidence, and to a large extent, 'experiences'.

It the case of the rational, factual, and scientific approach, it will require more than just evidence, it will require specific evidence, adding-up into 'proof of concept', within a rigourously public scientific approach.

In the case of faith, the beliefs supporting it will be made up of personal evidence and experiences, but will never add up to proof of concept!!!

Proof of concept of one's faith, brought into the public domain, is no longer faith, and most certainly doesn't become science!!! It is, however, nothing other than a trivial mercantile, or marketing ploy.

Using the bible to build a mental construct, which then constitutes the 'assent of mind' of beliefs, which support or conceptualizes one's faith, is great.
You will only get spirit from those people! Never any attempt at proselytizing from those people.

We can all think of several such individuals on these very threads.

However, those whom confuse faith, beliefs, evidence, and 'PROOF OF CONCEPT', while declaring bible inerrancy as their 'proof', are no longer coming from spirit, nor faith, and they confuse the hell out of science.

In the end Abra, the debate remains whole:

'... which of the two, Reason or Faith, has better chances of claiming what is true???...'

Some are clearly rooting for faith, while others are rooting for reason.

Some others yet, are rooting for the integrated whole!!!

Faith, without 'proof of concept', and reason / science with 'it', shall set us all free!!!

... I nevertheless found your post of great interest! :)

I still have the most gods, you know.


On a serious note though, I have to agree that faith should be viewed as an abstract, perhaps intangible entity. It doesn't need science to back it up, and neither does the existence of science automatically negate faith (or vice versa).

Also, why do we seem so bent on disproving each other's beliefs? Why isn't it enough to accept that someone believes in something you dont, or believes in it differently?

If it's because you (I'm talking generally, not to a specific one of you) believes you need to act as some kind of saviour, then perhaps it's time you accepted that some people just dont want 'saving'.

If it's because their beliefs offend or upset you, then seriously, get a life. Just get on with what you do or dont believe, and leave everyone else alone. It really shouldn't trouble you.

If you want to educate other people about your point of view, then go for it. Just remember that passing information shouldn't have to be done as some kind of personal, patronising attack on someone's lifestyle.

Let people disagree with you, for goodness sakes. If you're so certain that you're on the right path, why should you care if anyone disagrees?

if faith is the essence of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, then each has likewise acquired "evidence" for itself, and all points of reference of data, all being connected in the brain of each, give way to the belief, and what has pre-determined what each believe, but even these things are as "believed" when they are heard in mortal life for the second time, as if they were already known and imprinted upon the heart, and this phenomenon no human control, but indeed this be the greatest faith of all, as if no one be in control, and all are as invisibly led, as even if it be called as god, or as satan, then what does it matter, as both were said to come from god, lol.......

sound logic of wisdom is evidence, and the words of wisdom are as virgin words, showing indeed the greatest faith turned to wisdom.............

certainally faith then is from the total sum of all words heard, and the more words heard, and the greater the reach of the heart to accept all words into the heart, allow the expidential increasing of faith in direct proportion, so no doubt the acceptance of words as heard from "perceived" enemies account for the greatest faith, as these are the ones no prideful heart can hear, and the reason for the wise saying in days past, and the reward for such pain of enemies words, is wisdom, that receiving turn all pain to bliss, and a greater love that overflow, and spill over into creating eternity, and even heaven on earth, as indeed what be heaven more than common brotherhood of all mankind........peace

The whole idea of being 'saved' is a farce. That idea comes from Christianity.

But it's a bogus idea even within their own religion.

Jesus, the God who is supposed to do the saving said,...

John 12:47 "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."

This clearly states that he will not judge those who do not believe.

He's not going to hold it against anyone for not believing.

This flies in the face of the idea that somehow belief is important to being 'saved'.

The whole religion got seriously off-track. Their proclamations that a person needed to be 'saved' is bogus and does not even agree with the very words of their God.

Where did they come up with this bogus idea in the first place?

It's a seriously confused religion.

voileazur,



I don't think faith is an abstraction. For me, it is more like trust in something, than proof of anything.

Proof, after all, is still a matter of belief. Do you believe the proof? Do you understand the proof? People tell you that scientists have proven this or that, but do you believe this and understand this proof? Sometimes not.

You have to trust the people telling you that proof has been found and agreed upon by these authorities. Do you trust these authorities? If you do, then maybe you believe them. If you don't, then maybe not. So proof is a matter of belief and trust in an authority if you have not seen and understood or experienced the proof for yourself.

That being said, what causes people to trust in something they don't understand or know or have proof for? They trust the authority.

So the best personal proof is personal experience. You may have had a personal experience of a miracle that you cannot prove to anyone, but that instills within you a faith in whatever you felt was the cause of that miracle, what ever it is. That is your proof.

So proof is always a personal experience, and faith is your trust in that personal experience. Faith can also be trust in that authority who tells you there is proof even if you don't understand the nature of the so-called proof.



We don't all "know" that, we all "agree" with that.

That a fact is "proven" and "verified" depends on an agreement. When it has been verified more than once and witnessed by many, it is agreed upon and designated a "fact." "Proof" depends upon belief, and a "fact" is agreed upon by witnesses or observers.



Yes, faith is very personal. I agree.




The only proof they have is their own personal experience. That is only proof to them, but it is not proof to anyone else.




Exactly, because there is no agreement. The experience has to be a mutually shared and repeatable one, rather than a personal and fleeting one, and it must be agreed upon and then designated as fact.

Even after having be designated as a fact, it will fail as "proof" if it is not understood or believed and the authority is not trusted.

JB

Abra, very nice post, Voil I understand your view as well.

OpenWound wrote:

IMO faith, just as is the case for love, are abstractions.

Sort of a big empty room, waiting for a party: a faith party, or a love party (weak analogy, but the image just shot out).

You fill the empty abstract void with emotional constructs (event/impulse/want/experience), followed very closely with mental constructs (justification) to fill the abstraction in the case of love and faith. The construct take the form of beliefs with faith, and remains a total mysterious construct when it comes to love!!!

Nonehteless, that is what we will confuse as our ‘proof’.

Unverifiable emotional and mental constructs, which might be personal evidence, and which we might use to justify ‘something random’ for ourselves.

By no means, ‘proof’ of anything.

Emotional as well as mental constructs’ raw material, is a mixture of experience parading as 'evidence'. '... I like chocolate because...', is just an emotional experience, and yet a rational justification will automatically supports it, as if it were some logical event.

THE ‘BECAUSE’ WE ATTACH TO OUR EXPERIENCES, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL ‘REASON’, WHICH CAUSES TO LOVE (OR NOT) CHOCOLATE IN THE END.

Our ‘becauses…’, are in no way based on science, and no 'proof' is ever part of the equation.

Now when you suggest that you would 'trust' something in the scientific, material, and physical dimensions, you no longer mean TRUST in the sense of faith (no proof).

Trust in this case refers to a vote of confidence for a portion of verifiable data, which you choose to forego, not verify in making your decision, or mind up. But that decision is still based on verifiable and 'provable' matters.

When you buy a car, you trust that all parts have been put together right. This is not faith, but rather a statistically safe call, that those in charge, have done their 'verifiable' job right.

When you say you trust evolution is right, an example I just picked out of my hat, you mean to say that YOU don't know everything there is to know, out of everything that is known about evolution, but between ‘IN’ or ‘OUT’, you vote evolution ‘IN’.

Either way, ‘IN’ in your case, or ‘OUT’ in let’s say, wouldee’s case, ... makes no difference to the fact that the ‘consensus’ has long graduated ‘evolution’ outside of ‘flathearthers’ reach!!!

NO faith involved,
NO beliefs required, and
NO trust in the sense of faith.

Just trust in the accounting/statistical sense: I can trust this information without knowing everything that is known and proven about it.

I certainly don't have faith in my car, or boat, or even my family physician.

Those all belong to the physical, material and knowable/known world, whether I personally know what they know or not.

I trust from a statistical sense that my cars are safe, and in good running order.

I trust my physician based on a pragmatic relationship, where we exchange information, and I understand and am responsible for the information he passes on to me.

To clarify where faith belongs with respect to proof or knowing/knowledge, the three domains of knowing vs self come to mind:

1) There is what I (we) know, … that I (we) know!!!
KNOWN (provable)

2) There is what I (we) know!!!, … that I (we) don’t know,
KNOWN (by me or others, but known and provable)

3) There is what I (we) don’t know, … that I (we) don’t even know that I (we) don’t know!!!
UNKNOWN. (this is the unknown for all. In spite of what we call knew discoveries or knowledge, this remains the unaccessible, and could be said infinite unknown).

It is only in the third category of ‘self vs knowing’, that faith or Trust, enters into the equation. That would be where ‘god’, infinite and indefinable, would come into the picture.


I 'trust' this will clarify the question!

(can you guess which form of trust I have used?!?!? :) ;) )

I don't even think in terms of faith, nor trust.

I think in terms of "reason".

What is most resonable?

A scientific community tells me that they can manipulate the universe and create technologies that people from ancient times would view as miracles. They even offer them to me at a cost I can afford to pay and I bring them home and play with them or making my life better with them. Or cure my body with them.

They tell me they know a lot about how my body works. They repair my broken leg, they removed my inflamed appendix, they help me breath again when I'm gasping for breath.

I consider that all of those thing have been proven to me beyond a 'resonable' doubt.

Then someone comes along and asks me to believe in an ancient book that says that I'm rebellious toward my creator (which I already know is bull crap). And they go on to tell me that blood sacrifices will make it better, and that some guy already die in my place to pay for my rebellious attitude (which I alreayd know is a lie).

Is this reasonable?

They are already demanding that things be true that I know are not true. They are demanding that I have a rebellious nature toward my creator. That's total bull. They're trying to convince me of something that they can't possibly know. I'm the only one who can know whether or not I have a rebellious attitude toward my creator. And I know I don't.

So is it reasonable for me to believe someone else who is clearly flat-out lying to me?

I don't think so.

From my point of view it has nothing to do with faith, or belief, or anything. If someone tells me something about myself and they are flat-out wrong, do they think I'm not going to know it?

It's utterly absurd.

People are nuts. That's all there is to it.

I don't need to believe that, they prove it to me every day.

dammit abra.

do you even know how hard it is to resist this???????







j/k.

Correct there wouldee...people have faith in things all day long...they just are not conscious of it.

For example...you know by faith a chair will hold you up. You know by faith that a stop sign means danger to those who don't stop. You know if you stick your hand in the fire it will burn you. Of course all these things have to be learned....right? Same for faith in God. The arrogance of those who think quoting the Bible is just quoting another book is absurd.

It does beg the question why people who are seeking don't believe God's word? It's the way of learning too. That's why God instructs people to KNOW Him by His word or they will fall under any old spirit...and yes, there is a spirit world.

People have faith all the time. Another reason why I say anyone who calls themselves an atheist lies...to themselves mostly.

when the fundies, either christian or non-christian, start attacking each other without valid points over the argument, but with an ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, then faith becomes a war tool.

Q.S.
Why would you call that "arrogance?" To me, arrogance is thinking that just because you believe a book to be "God's word" for no reason other than it says it is, that you would expect other people to believe it too. Yours is only faith and that it is God's word. Why is is arrogant for someone else to doubt your faith when you have no proof?



Q.S.
You can "beg the question" and you will get the answer. There is no proof and no reason to believe that the Bible is God's word. There is your answer. No begging necessary.

You say God "instructs" people to "know him by his word." Really? How does he do that unless you are reading "his word" which you claim is the Bible? What if the Bible is not God's word? What if it was written by men? What if the whole story of Jesus was written by Calpurnius Piso family, who was a Roman aristocrat (as it says in the book "The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin?")

What if the New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional?

What if the story if Jesus is a plagiarized myth similar to the myth of Mithra told 500 years before the "birth of Jesus?"

What would you do then? Where would your faith in God be then?

JB

Focus kids!!!

You're all over the place!

Faith in god! meets 'Faith in a chair???'

Do you QS have faith (belief without proof) in a CHAIR???

If so, I feel fo you.

I took great care to offer the essential definition of Faith which is being discussed in this thread. Faith; belief without proof. I didn't make up this definition. It is webster's as it relates to the meaning of faith we are discussing here.

If you wish to discuss another definition of faith, or re-invent its meaning, I suggest you start a new thread. It will avoid all the confusion.

Faith in 'chair'!!! Faith in 'bible'!!! Faith in science!!! or faith ion your mother, doesn't equate with the definition of faith discussed in this thread.

Please, try again!

All you said was nothing more than speculation on your part. I'm here to share what I know from my experiences. You qualify from a point of not knowing...I qualify from a point of knowing. It's not arrogant to say so but the truth from EXPERIENCE. You benefit from my knowing is my premise & not as some would say from a point of arrogance.

My point? You don't want to believe me that's your choice but let's not pretend that you know more of what you have no experience in. There are too many who do know what they believe. Leaving out God's divinity is a main ingredient of faith. OK? Thank you!