Topic: FOUNDATION'S | |
---|---|
Edited by
tribo
on
Mon 10/06/08 06:30 PM
|
|
Do you "believe" all the statements you just made?
If yes - then is this not what your "foundation" of truth for you is? The premise underlying all these statements and subsequent questioning is that people HAVE to believe in something.{/i] Evidentally you personally ""believe"" in your above statement or you wouldn't have made it correct? That's like the guy on another forum telling me that I could not live without belief. I told him in a lighthearted manner that "belief doesn't need a champion" and he blew up at me, then started trying to have me kicked off the forum. Though he claims to be an atheist, his beliefs are in fact very important to him, and therefore he assumes that everyone must be like him, and wastes vast amounts of energy trying to prove it. You're over-intellectualizing. If you didn't need belief to be born and live into adulthood, you are in error by supposing that you need it now, or that anyone else does. (If you actually READ what I wrote, then you wouldn't have to ask me these things.) Yes, lots of people, nearly everyone, has belief of some sort. Almost everyone alive has a can opener, too. Can openers are handy, but obviously we can get along without them in a pinch. I'll repeat the main premise behind my words, which does not involve my belief, or a foundation of any kind, but only an observation of fact in so-called "reality"-- A person who supposes that belief is necessary for things to exist is what we typically call "mentally ill". If I was to die right now, these words that I'm typing would continue to exist until someone came and turned off the computer. This has nothing to do with "belief" and everything to do with "reality". A person who is sick in the head in a certain way thinks that if he were to die right now, you, me, the computer, his home, and basically the entire universe will all disappear. (Don't suppose I'm accusing you of this! I'm illustrating a point about belief only.) Reality is not a belief, and does not depend on belief--or rather, if it does, it is not dependent on my own personal belief. If belief DOES sustain reality, then I would have to opine (not BELIEVE, lol) that some higher or more advanced kind of belief is what sustains it. But then on the other hand I would not have to care, which pretty much sums up my foundations in this regard. There may be something higher than me, or there may not; either way, I don't care and am not really interested. That is not a foundation of anything except uncaringness as far as belief is concerned. Do the above statements involve "belief"...? No; they don't. I can think of these words and type them out, not because I BELIEVE that I can, but because at some point I learned the knack of it. If belief was involved, it was at the outset, when I believed that I would like to learn how to string words together and then type them, but even if I didn't believe that I could, if someone beat me every day until I learned how to write and type, I would still learn. (Thank goodness that wasn't the case, ya know?) There fore unless you give me more to work with I will take it that this is your foundation of truth by which you live by.
There is no foundation of truth by which I live. I live because I live, and I don't want to die. I avoid death not because of belief, but because it's natural for a living organism to do so. Belief arises after the human mind attributes meaning to natural occurrences, and then attempts to validate the supposed meaning of those occurrences by repetition and verification from other humans. Whether I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow or not, or whether I live to see it rise or not, it will surely rise. If you say that the sun rises because I believe it will, I think you are assigning rather more responsibility to me and importance to my whims than I want or deserve. xoxoxo THNX Scarlett, wasn't loking to debate you on this, forgive me if i gave that impression. Only trying to understand where your coming from. I do disagree but would defend your right to believe as you will to the death - PS: I assure you i read "evrything" that you or the other's wrote my lady!! |
|
|
|
No problem. It's good that you don't take it personally, a lot of the time people think I'm attacking them when I'm just pointing out little inconsistencies. I sound sort of sarcastic a lot of the time; it's a defense mechanism.
I hope you find the answers you're looking for. xoxoxo |
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 10/06/08 07:25 PM
|
|
I see many on here that make statements of who and or what they believe in, such as confucius being their god etc..
It makes no diff. to me what one believes in but i wonder if anyone considers the >>>foundation<<< of their beliefs - takes into consideration "WHY" they believe what they believe about who or what they think is worthy to be a "god"/Goddess/etc., in their views? After all - you need some type of reason and some type of faith to believe in anything you espouse to be worthy of being held up as some entity that you consider worth worship or reverence. Soooo - what is your foundation for believing the way that you do? - Or, if you don't have one, explain this also to me if you would so i can understand [using reason and logic] how you can justify your beliefs that for instance Micky Mouse is god. I think the foundation for my beliefs ultimately boils down to “my own perceptions”. My parent’s were “church goin’ christians” when I was very young, but evolved into a sort of “spiritualist” viewpoint by the time I finished grammar school. Then after I was on my own, I dabbled in several different belief systems. I had a few catalyzing incidents along the way, but eventually I just sort of “grew into” the realization that the only sensible foundation for any beliefs I might have or develop was my own perceptions. That’s not to say that I ignored everyone else’s opinions. Just that, if those opinions didn’t agree with what I perceived, then there was no reason to believe in them. And it’s not to say either that I don’t believe in anything that I can’t perceive. If it aligns with what I perceive and with the rest of the “belief system” I have evolved for myself, then that may be enough reason to believe in it. If it doesn’t, then there is no reason for me to believe in it at all. I think I got things off on the wrong foot by using the wrong term. I could better have started my explanation by using the word “awareness” instead of “perception”. The difference may be slight, but very important. I would describe it like this: “one can be aware of perceptions, but one cannot perceive awareness”. So if I may, I’d like to use “awareness” from here on instead of “perception”, just because it is a more accurate term. Am I or others to take "perception" to mean your physical senses - sight, taste,touch, etc.? Not entirely. I consider that I can be aware of other things that are not strictly bound to “the five sense”. For example, I can be aware of my own memories and thoughts and decisions. I can also be aware of my location relative to my body. (Usually about an inch behind the bridge of my nose. ) So yes, it includes input from the classical “five senses”, but is not limited to that exclusively.
If so then are you saying that this belief is what you concur through reason and logic [based on these perceptions] to be what you concider your "foundation"? I would say that my awareness is at the foundation of my beliefs. So I think "Yes" is the best answer to your question.
If so, do you reason where these perceptions you have faith in come from? This is where I realized I’d gotten of on the wrong foot and why I had to replace “perception” with “awareness”. Perceptions are pretty much limited to the “material world”, which is not the case with awareness.
But awareness is the defining quality of “me”. Without awareness, there is no “me”. So I don’t see it as having anything to do with “faith”. It’s not even an axiom or a postulate or a hypothesis. It’s a definition. “I am awareness” is as true a statement of equality as just about anything that I can think of. (“I am a viewpoint” is almost as good, but it lacks the concept of active participation.) (I just realized that this is at the heart of my difference of opinion with JB. If you’re reading this Jeannie, make a note.) Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\ Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide Date: 13th century 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>; As you can see Sky, faith can be had without the belief of something spiritual - although it is normally used in that way. for you then it means - #3 first part - 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction - is this correct as to your statements? In as much as there are assumptions that I have made and conclusions I have reached, based on my personal observations, it’s fair to say I have faith that my assumptions and conclusions are correct. Just understand that assumptions in that category would include “the sun will not explode tomorrow” and “my mother loves me” just as much as “reincarnation is a fact”. And even taking definition 2.b.1 – “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” – you also must understand that for me, there is more “faith” involved in saying “the earth revolves around the sun” than there is in saying “my awareness is not dependent upon a physical body”. However, saying “I have faith that I am aware” is like saying “I have faith that blue is at the high end of the visible light spectrum.” It has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or proof. It is a definition that is used to compare and evaluate things. |
|
|
|
thnx Sky, you've made it succinctly clear where your coming from -
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 10/06/08 11:39 PM
|
|
Tribo I wasn't certain if you were using this thread to attempt to somehow ascertain what the core beliefs are of any of the people who choose to respond. I cant sit here and seriously tell you that I base my life, heart and sole on the possibility of reincarnation. Unlike Sky, I dont rely on awareness. I just cant do that. I tend to be a person who requires stimulation through my 5 senses. I wish I could be slightly more psychic or aware but Im not very good at that and it doesnt serve me. At least not in any constructive sense.
So I can only base this on what I have actually witnessed and it is far from being a "belief" in my life.I hold very little to no faith in anything. No. This is much closer to being a highly plausible suspicion achieved through deductive reasoning. Will I go out and write a book about it tomorrow? Certainly not. I also have no vested interest in debating the topic nor would it bother me if it could be conclusively explained or discounted. I would not fight that. |
|
|
|
I see many on here that make statements of who and or what they believe in,such as confucius being their god etc.. It makes no diff. to me what one believes in but i wonder if anyone conciders the >>>foundation<<< of their beliefs - takes into concideration "WHY" they beleive what they believe about who or what they think is worthy to be a "god"/Goddess/etc., in thier views? After all - you need some type of reason and some type of faith to believe in anything you aspouse to be worthy of being held up as some entity that you concider worth worship or reverence. Soooo - what is your foundation for believing the way that you do? - Or, if you don't have one, explain this also to me if you would so i can understand [using reason and logic] how you can justify your beliefs that for instance Micky Mouse is god. |
|
|
|
Tribo I wasn't certain if you were using this thread to attempt to somehow ascertain what the core beliefs are of any of the people who choose to respond. I cant sit here and seriously tell you that I base my life, heart and sole on the possibility of reincarnation. Unlike Sky, I dont rely on awareness. I just cant do that. I tend to be a person who requires stimulation through my 5 senses. I wish I could be slightly more psychic or aware but Im not very good at that and it doesnt serve me. At least not in any constructive sense. So I can only base this on what I have actually witnessed and it is far from being a "belief" in my life.I hold very little to no faith in anything. No. This is much closer to being a highly plausible suspicion achieved through deductive reasoning. Will I go out and write a book about it tomorrow? Certainly not. I also have no vested interest in debating the topic nor would it bother me if it could be conclusively explained or discounted. I would not fight that. Nah, i was really just trying to acertain as i said what the foundations was for anyone's beliefs - had more to do with the confucious being a god thing than anything else - to me if your going to believe in a god/goddess/entity of somekind, their would have to be some foundational truths for believing this god is an entity worth worshipping as a god, to me confucious never claimed to be god nor any of his followers while he was alive - therefore - no basis for anyone to claim him as a god like jesus who said he was god, thus my post. It doesn't bother me who anyone wants to worship as a diety - but i find it idiotic to be delusional over it thats all. |
|
|
|
Tribo I wasn't certain if you were using this thread to attempt to somehow ascertain what the core beliefs are of any of the people who choose to respond. I cant sit here and seriously tell you that I base my life, heart and sole on the possibility of reincarnation. Unlike Sky, I dont rely on awareness. I just cant do that. I tend to be a person who requires stimulation through my 5 senses. I wish I could be slightly more psychic or aware but Im not very good at that and it doesnt serve me. At least not in any constructive sense. So I can only base this on what I have actually witnessed and it is far from being a "belief" in my life.I hold very little to no faith in anything. No. This is much closer to being a highly plausible suspicion achieved through deductive reasoning. Will I go out and write a book about it tomorrow? Certainly not. I also have no vested interest in debating the topic nor would it bother me if it could be conclusively explained or discounted. I would not fight that. Nah, i was really just trying to acertain as i said what the foundations was for anyone's beliefs - had more to do with the confucious being a god thing than anything else - to me if your going to believe in a god/goddess/entity of somekind, their would have to be some foundational truths for believing this god is an entity worth worshipping as a god, to me confucious never claimed to be god nor any of his followers while he was alive - therefore - no basis for anyone to claim him as a god like jesus who said he was god, thus my post. It doesn't bother me who anyone wants to worship as a diety - but i find it idiotic to be delusional over it thats all. I agree emphatically. That boy was only 18 (I didn't realize till I looked at his profile) so I decided to let it go. |
|
|