|
|
| Page 1 of 8 |
dsergei
Posts: 4055
Location: Moscow, Russia
|
 Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 06:32 Post subject: Faith and science. |
|
 |
I was reading this article article about WAR (that's a baseball metric) and found this passage. I had similar thoughts before but the article prompted me to post it here.
| Quote: |
And faith is irrational and anti-intellectual, right? Faith is for rain dances and sun gods, for spirituality but not science. Actually, no. Faith is how we organize a complicated modern world. Faith is what you have when your doctor walks in with a syringe filled with something that could be anything and tells you that it'll keep you from getting the measles. Unless you're a doctor or a medical scientist, you don't really understand vaccines, and you certainly can't brew one up at home. You have outsourced the intellectual side of your health to people who, your faith reassures you, are smarter than you. Maybe in one way of looking at it you're not as smart as your great-great-great-grandparents were, because they had to take responsibility for cooking their own medicine. But you'll live longer. The complicated nature of WAR, your inability to touch the guts of it, isn't an argument against it. That's just what human advancement looks like in the 21st century. And if you can accept that you can walk into a tube built out of 100 tons of aluminum, fly seven miles off the ground and land safely thousands of miles away, you can accept WAR. |
Do you think it is true?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 06:50 Post subject: |
|
|
I think its a empty arguement (about the WAR anyway)
its stating "I dont need to explain why its true, you trust other things without knowing, so just trust me". it doesn't validate or give any reason WHY its true or even why you should trust it as being true. its saying "This other stuff you dont know about is true, so obviously since you dont know about this, it must be true also".
I guess the shortest way to put it is when he says "your inability to touch the guts of it, isn't an argument against it." it can also be said that "'your ability to touch the guts of it, isn't an argument for it either." It may make it more valid to him, but unless he explains WHY to change someones mind..its taking the "trust me Im smarter than you I'm sure, so just go with I know what I'm talking about...no explanation needed"
Id say Eisenstein's qoute goes here towards him..since he seems to have a hard time explaining to others:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
For the basic concept of it, I dont think it applies to everyone. I know the basics of what makes an airplane work, why vaccines work, how my home electrical system works...etc etc. I dont think "I have no clue, it could be magic gnomes doing it for all I know".
Faith means "complete trust and confidence in someone or something".. I'm never 100% sure that if I goto the doctor they can help, but its a higher chance than if I tried to do it alone. so better % chance I will get better.
I know vaccines work not on the faith the guy randomly tossed some stuff in a needle and hoped for the best. Its trust in the trial and error over the years of finding all the combination that didnt work, and understanding why, and being able to repeat and reproduce those results to verify it. So its not 'faith' that vaccines work, its proof of practice that shows they do. And its not "faith' that my doctor knows what hes doing. Its the 'lowest statistical risk to take' that he does...using the concept of "I have a much much higher chance that a man that learned the medical field in question knows what I need, more than my cousin...so I will take the less risky venture of letting him inject me".
Faith healing with be putting faith into medicine..Just praying for the best without any proof that praying works. The concept of "well lets have faith that our hopes materialize"
I dont put faith in anything I dont know or willing to learn the basics of. Im one of those people i have to know how everything works...it drives me CRAZY to own something and have not a clue what makes it do what it does.
If I dont know how it works, I have no 'faith' that it will always do that. Because I have no basis to gauge what or how reliable it is. then its not even faith its 'risk taking due to lack of knowledge'.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dsergei
Posts: 4055
Location: Moscow, Russia
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 07:49 Post subject: |
|
|
@DXWarlock I think his arguement in the context of WAR is a bit different. It goes like this.
"I don't fully understand how it works" is never used as an arguement against using vaccines. Why should it be used against WAR?
The process of making vaccines has certain stages that you (without special knowledge/access to equipment) cannot recreate. Same with WAR - parts of it are calculated using proprietary databases that you normally cannot get access to.
But I was more interested in a broader question. We do actually apply faith to many concepts even if they are fully rational.
Let's examine vaccine creation again. There is a very lengthy process of creation and an even lenghtier medical trial stage. There are stringent safety protocols, years can pass before it can finally be used on patients.
Even if you know how vaccines work (conceptually) - you can only have faith that this particular syringe contains one. Despite your inquisitive nature - you don't test every shot yourself. You have faith in other people, you have faith in protocols being upheld.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:34 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree, if they don't understand it well enough as basic, they shouldn't argue either way.
But I also agree if they don't understand it, they shouldn't be putting trust into it either way. (well trust beyond what evidence they see...like a GPS I trust it will be right, and working based on the evidence of it getting me where I need to go in the past, I dont know the specifics of how it works beyond shift and calculation of travel time of the beams..so I dont have 'faith' that it will work tomorrow, I don't control the satalites)
But again, faith is absolute trust in it.
I know doctors screw up, do things wrong, they are humans. Its not so much faith in that it is right..its more a calculated risk that it isn't.
Maybe the word 'faith' is the wrong word to use. Faith and hope isnt the same thing. I HOPE(as in desire) hes giving me the right thing. I dont have faith in the fact if he is or isn't.
I'm a nihilistic pessimist. I don't really have faith that society upholds its morals. I more an shocked that they manage to do it while also trying to skirt them. I don't have faith in my wife not sleeping with every guy she sees. I more base it on the fact I've never seen her give a reason to assume otherwise, and the selfish desire for what I see as the lack of proof being actuality.
I cant say I really do a 'faith' thing. as that means you have a wish for what you see to be true and a biased toward being told its not true. A gamble of sorts with the idea that you need it to be the way you see it playing out.
I expect the worse or don't expect anything at all other than what I can prove, that way the most that happens is I'm presently surprised when it's good 
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:38; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| dsergei wrote: | Let's examine vaccine creation again. There is a very lengthy process of creation and an even lenghtier medical trial stage. There are stringent safety protocols, years can pass before it can finally be used on patients.
Even if you know how vaccines work (conceptually) - you can only have faith that this particular syringe contains one. Despite your inquisitive nature - you don't test every shot yourself. You have faith in other people, you have faith in protocols being upheld. |
But that's not blind faith. It's 'faith' based on evidence. We know that there is some security behind it, that's why we use it. Sure, you don't know if it's just sugary water in that syringe, but based on the evidence, that you don't have polio, or some other illness around you, you can conclude that inside that syringe is something that will help you not get the same illness other died years prior...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14178
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: |
But that's not blind faith. It's 'faith' based on evidence. We know that there is some security behind it, that's why we use it. Sure, you don't know if it's just sugary water in that syringe, but based on the evidence, that you don't have polio, or some other illness around you, you can conclude that inside that syringe is something that will help you not get the same illness other died years prior... |
I disagree with the market line.
no one can "be 100% sure" for all thing in life,even he if he think he has enough "facts" to back it up...
,that's a fact,there are many examples of it.
Faith as posstives side,very much like hope,actually,there is no such thing,like "lack of
Faith",you beleive something will happen for better or worse without full prooves for it,it can make you confident and improves the chances of it,or the oposite.
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
Last edited by JackQ on Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:42; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't that be faith vs reassurance or just ignorant assumptions?
Can ignorant assumptions be called faith, whould that be 'guessing' and thats not really faith if you try to make an educated guess?
Im reassured by his training hes going to get the shot right, as in he has a lot higher odds of guessing whats wrong with me on symptoms. But doesn't mean I have any faith in him at being better at it than he was trained to be.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 08:45 Post subject: |
|
|
To me faith requires you know nothing about the subject or proof of anything about it, but go with what you wish to happen or want to be true, then its not an educated guess its a "fuck if I know, but I wish it to happen".
Like someone flying in a plane for the first time. IF they have absolutely no idea on how aerodynamic lift works, they would be having 'faith' it takes off the ground. As it would be as if magic did it was just as viable (in the sense of they cant explain it in the simplest detail, and could not depute its invisible fairies anymore than they could support its cause and effect of air).
Or a kid in Africa that knows nothing of medicine or needles, but having faith that the big metal point sharp stick with stuff in it the man in a white coat is giving him makes him better. That would require faith, as he has nothing else to go on to decide if he wants it.
Thats how I see faith, and I cant do faith in that context. I cant make a decision until I know something about it, make an educated guess..and go with it. Say something has a 75% chance of white, and 25% chance of black. I will pick white. It doesn't mean I have faith in white. I'm just picking the best odds. Now if I didn't know the odds, Id have to randomly pick one and have faith I made the right choice.
So for a vaccine, Im going with the odds of "without it Im sure it wont get better, odds are it will get better with the right medical training, symptoms studying, and diagnosis. So my chances of getting better are higher taking the risk of getting the injection" Which isn't 100% that its the right one, or even will help. but its higher odds than not at all.
Maybe we are arguing the semantics of the definition of faith, and not the implied meaning each of us is giving. So i think in the context of "balanced educated guesses helping to decided what you choose" What you was saying would apply. As you are having faith of a sort depending on the way you define faith, that even with the odds in your favor, that the lower odds aren't the ones that come up.
Why I don't gamble or have a lucky number. I know the odds are even for any of the numbers on a roulette wheel. I cant trick myself into having faith my lucky number comes up when I need it to.. I know better.
Just it can be called 'faith' or 'risk assessment' or 'calculated risk'...It just depends on which word you use to define that concept I guess.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 10:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Faith is the opposite of knowledge, whether we have "some" knowledge or a LOT of knowledge about something. Faith is the total lack of knowledge. It's closer to hope (but still different) than anything else. It's also a powerful motivator once faith have gotten into your personality. There are many different areas where faith can be discussed but the easiest is the common one, religious faith. Faith can make someone sacrifice him/herself by wearing a bomb belt and blow it up in a crowd. That's the power of faith.
Faith also have it's positive sides of course like giving hope, a feeling of safety, a mental support structure etc., but it's not infallible, in fact it can be equally damaging and destructive (jehovas witness refusing blood transfusions, scientologys schemes, extremist factions, letting oneself being guided by faith instead of facts, balanced view of reality and living in a false dream world).
Imagine if god some day showed up proving himself to everyone that up until that point had faith without knowing... They would suddenly know and faith is negated. That could possibly be negative to a lot of people where the faith in itself has a strong value, something they've held on to against any possibilities that what they have faith in may not exist. Suddenly faith is unnecessary and they have their overlord hanging over them. Strange psychological things will happen to those people.
For atheists and agnostics it will mostly be a: WTF.. oh well, lets see where this goes. 
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
Last edited by Frant on Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 10:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14341
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 10:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Faith is the opposite of knowledge, [...] |
I agree, though I think they also are, to some extent, complementary. There are things for which absolute knowledge is not possible. Both faith and knowledge serve a similar purpose, which is giving security over an uncontrollable situation (and subsequently making it possible to live on without desperating). Knowledge is control (or conceptual domination even) it is gained through science. But there always remains a part of life inacessible to science, out of our control, in which we must rely on faith. For example when it comes to trust in other people, there is only so much knowledge we can have of another person, only so much experiences to rely on.
For example: When we agree to marriage or partnership, we need to have a certain amount of faith (its the word we use) in a common future. People who have been decieved have difficulties building up enough faith to trust other people, eventhough these people may be unknown to them and totally trustworthy.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 11:02 Post subject: |
|
|
People these days seem to be very keen on broadening the definition of 'faith', which stinks of the usual religious apologetics and "if you can't beat them, twist the language".
Usually, 'faith' is uttered in a religious context, and in that regard, it is utterly and completely the opposite of the scientific method.
In religions, 'faith' supposedly means unquestioning acceptance. If there is no evidence, have faith. There are clear evidence against the belief? Have MORE faith.
It basically means: accepting things despite lack of evidence, or in the face of contrary observations. Yeah...the world is 6000 years old and the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's flood in 15 minutes, right?
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Faith is the glorification of gullibility by its very nature.
Science on the other hand relies on observations of several people. It is not about blindly and unquestioningly accepting an authority's word. It is based on people dissecting and trying to demolish ideas of others. If those ideas stand the test of this "peer review", then it is accepted until a better, more descriptive idea comes along.
There is no evidence? Then it's just an idea that might worth looking into more (the very badly named String "theory"). Is there evidence against it? Then get rid of it (creationism). Can you refine the idea to fit the new observations? Whoo, we now understand the world better (relativity vs. Newton)!
http://i.imgur.com/TEdLlfk.png
Recently, people have been trying to imply that we take the observations of our senses on faith. This postmodernist bullshit is nothing more than a conversation stopper and if someone went into the deep end of "you can't be 100% sure brah", they eliminated themselves from any reasonable discussions.
So yeah, it's just arguing semantics, since for me, 'faith' is the complete opposite of what the scientific method stands for, and the promoters of gullibility are simply trying to muddy the waters to gain more converts for Jebus.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 18:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Those opposed to faith are simply hung up on church dogma on the subject .. associate faith with scripture & belief in imaginary friends .. those who are unbiased about faith understand its importance in day by day interaction with reality .. we cannot control everything, know everything thus there is a call for a mode of addressing uncertainty .. a way to keep balance between comfort zones.
Einstein put it well when he said: | Quote: | | "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift & the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant & has forgotten the gift." |
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 20:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 01:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | Those opposed to faith are simply hung up on church dogma on the subject .. associate faith with scripture & belief in imaginary friends .. those who are unbiased about faith understand its importance in day by day interaction with reality .. we cannot control everything, know everything thus there is a call for a mode of addressing uncertainty .. a way to keep balance between comfort zones.
Einstein put it well when he said: | Quote: | | "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift & the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant & has forgotten the gift." |
|
Einstein also said:
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Although I don't really see intuition as a form of faith. I see intuition as a sort of subconscious holistic matrix/complex that can find genuine information from the unlikeliest piece of observation.
But I haven't really thought very deeply into that subject. I can only speak of blind faith and religious/quasi-religious faith since that's the faith I know and am familiar with. I need to think more about it and see if my definition of faith is too narrow or just semantically different from others.
I still claim that faith is the opposite of knowledge (whether little knowledge or a lot of knowledge). Faith is null knowledge, ie. it requires absolute non-knowledge of the subject of the faith.
Hope is related as I said before, but it's not the same. With hope you can look back and forth and see that there's a chance things will change (for whatever you're hoping for) based on either strong needs or previous experience.
Faith is belief in the unknowable, hope is the longing for something in particular or in general, usually something positive.
When someone says "I have faith in people", it really means "i hope my expectations are close to reality regarding people". So it's a kind of misuse of the word faith.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
Last edited by Frant on Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 01:58; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 01:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like some people here mix up the words faith and hope.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14341
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 10:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: |
When someone says "I have faith in people", it really means "i hope my expectations are close to reality regarding people". So it's a kind of misuse of the word faith. |
No, If this someone said that, than he would be lying to himself. But as always, these words have lost their meaning. Especially in some languages, like German, where the same word "Glaube" can mean something close to "opinion", "I believe" or "faith". Which are both different.
If you say you have faith in someone, you completely trust he will achieve something. That is why faith is so close and yet so far from knowledge. Real faith is the complete trust, feeling very alike knowledge that something out of your reach or in the future will really occur. Hope is unachieved whereas faith in something, means it is "achieved".
That is why faith is most commonly used in reference to either transcendental objects or persons, but not in regards to physical, material objects. It is also why Kant could say, that the old traditional Metaphysics could not become a science and be used only in the realm of faith.
The second possible use of faith is the one where you can have faith in a person. It is the only possible use of the concept faith for most of us, as the transzendental objects do not matter naymore. The feeling is very different from that of hope. Imagine this:
"Son, I hope you win the match!" and
"Son, I have complete faith in you."
Which is stronger? Whether or not you really have complete faith in your son, for him, the second expression is much more comforting than the first one. Hope means there is a possibility of failure, whereas faith, like knowledge, means you do not doubt.
So yes, faith and knowledge are fundamentally opposed, as faith is and must be completely irrational, and knowledge is rational. Also, faith is used in regards to either transcendental objects or people, and knowledge, science on the other hand is used for the physical world.
So, in principle, they should not oppose each other in their use. Its not philosophies fault, religious people are naive and carry around a "faith in god" that they oppose to scientific knowledge.
(I take my definitions out of the Metzler Philosophie Lexikon btw. if that means anything to someone)
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 15:20 Post subject: |
|
|
"I have faith in you my son" sounds mode like peptalk. The dad probably have a fairly good idea of his sons abilities and have previous knowledge of games and performance.
But I do understand what you say.
Hope is less irrational since it isn't absolute, it's about possibilities.
Faith in it's strictest sense is totally irrational and is entire internal and doesn't rely on possibilities.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | ChinUp wrote: | Those opposed to faith are simply hung up on church dogma on the subject .. associate faith with scripture & belief in imaginary friends .. those who are unbiased about faith understand its importance in day by day interaction with reality .. we cannot control everything, know everything thus there is a call for a mode of addressing uncertainty .. a way to keep balance between comfort zones.
Einstein put it well when he said: | Quote: | | "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift & the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant & has forgotten the gift." |
|
Einstein also said:
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Although I don't really see intuition as a form of faith. I see intuition as a sort of subconscious holistic matrix/complex that can find genuine information from the unlikeliest piece of observation.
But I haven't really thought very deeply into that subject. I can only speak of blind faith and religious/quasi-religious faith since that's the faith I know and am familiar with. I need to think more about it and see if my definition of faith is too narrow or just semantically different from others.
I still claim that faith is the opposite of knowledge (whether little knowledge or a lot of knowledge). Faith is null knowledge, ie. it requires absolute non-knowledge of the subject of the faith.
Hope is related as I said before, but it's not the same. With hope you can look back and forth and see that there's a chance things will change (for whatever you're hoping for) based on either strong needs or previous experience.
Faith is belief in the unknowable, hope is the longing for something in particular or in general, usually something positive.
When someone says "I have faith in people", it really means "i hope my expectations are close to reality regarding people". So it's a kind of misuse of the word faith. |
You appear to harbour decidedly unnecessary & counter productive notions about relgion .. relgion is simply cultivating the intuitive .. churches cultivate it via master servant mentalities .. ie once you have been told to do what you are told for long enough to think its natural to do so & thus its intuitive to do so. Creation myth, father figure church leaders, mother figure icons ect .. all rooted in cultivating peoples willingness to blindly go along with whatever the authorities dictate.
Atheistic relgion .. cultivation of ones ability to trust their own authority .. develops a persons intuition in a wholly different way .. a person becomes less & less in need of approval & instruction.. they can find their own way of addressing uncertainty presented by situations they find themselves in.
Hope is like a wish .. you create an end scenario that you wish will come to pass .. faith on the other hand is rooted in trust .. you have faith in yourself or don't based on how much you trust yourself to be able to deal with adversity. Faith in others is much the same .. you have faith in others or don't based on how much trust you have developed in regards to others. Trust is not supernatural or airy fairy its cumulative knowledge of the nature of something .. i can trust a pair of scissors to go blunt if i use them to cut paper too often ..
The church is in the business of destroying what i feel is true relgion .. ones ability to trust (have faith) themselves, others, the world in general .. to allow the church to destroy your trust to a degree that you associate any kind of faith as an escape from reason is a mistake .. if you truly wished to defeat the churches influence over people & yourself you would work hard to develop & promote real faith rather than the loyalty based perversion of faith the church cultivates.
“Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.” - Richard Buckminster
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 15:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure what you mean by that.
Atheism have no other values in it than lack of belief in a god/deity. Anything else ascribed to it is simply barking up the wrong tree. It cannot be a religion. In fact, atheists can have faith in various ways, like mysticism, spiritualism and so on. The ONLY thing atheism means is lack of any belief in a god/deity. A-teism.
Atheists aren't automatically rational people, there's no common denominator other than a total LACK of belief/faith in a god.
The old adage is that atheism is as much a religion as it's a hobby to not collect stamps. That's as far you can go with atheism itself.
That atheists are gathering in groups or organisations for various purposes is something completely different. It doesn't reflect on atheism in itself in any way. They have special interests that go beyond the atheism definition.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 15:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Frant .. check your steps .. you are dictating what people have to call God ..dictating what people have to believe to be religious & it just happens to be theisms creed on the subject. Please do not insult my intelligence & paint yourself like a fool in the name of avoiding the reality that somebody can be atheist (no deity) & believe in God (for example God = love) ..
Tell me you aren't so buried in theist dogma you refuse to believe atheists can pray or believe in soul .. after all it would take a real dolt to think prayer has to = praying too a deity .. & soul has to = supernatural spectre.
We have established that one does not have to believe in a deity to have faith .. from this we can infer that somebody does not have to believe in a deity to be religious ..after all relgion is not the sole province of asshats waving scripture about invisible friends everyone is beholding to for everything from their lives to the ground beneath their feet.
“The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool” - Voltaire
“All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God” - Voltaire
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | Frant .. check your steps .. you are dictating what people have to call God ..dictating what people have to believe to be religious & it just happens to be theisms creed on the subject. Please do not insult my intelligence & paint yourself like a fool in the name of avoiding the reality that somebody can be atheist (no deity) & believe in God (for example God = love) ..
Tell me you aren't so buried in theist dogma you refuse to believe atheists can pray or believe in soul .. after all it would take a real dolt to think prayer has to = praying too a deity .. & has to = supernatural spectre.
We have established that one does not have to believe in a deity to have faith .. from this we can infer that somebody does not have to believe in a deity to be religious ..after all relgion is not the sole province of asshats waving scripture about invisible friends everyone is beholding to for everything from their lives to the ground beneath their feet.
“The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool” - Voltaire
“All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God” - Voltaire |
You are criticising things I never wrote... 
I guess many priests and other religious people don't actually believe in god but believe in the teachings. In fact, I've actually talked with a priest who claimed the bible wasn't literal, it was an allegory to guide us, ie. follow a certain path. The issue with that is that it has been manipulated through the centuries by people who had particular agendas.
In Buddhism you can be an atheist AND a Buddhist.
| Quote: | | avoiding the reality that somebody can be atheist (no deity) & believe in God (for example God = love) .. |
When I mention god, I mean all supernatural version/s that are unprovable. If you redefine the word "god" it's just semantics and a pointless discussion since there are an infinite number of side-steps from any kind of argument posed. Any arbitrary definition of the word" god" each requires it's own framework to have a discussion about.
As for the existence of the "soul" it's another case of semantics and definition. Since I don't know what definition or meaning you place to it I can't pose an argument or a thought about it.
In this case we're talking about the word Atheism, that is, non-theist, from greek.
| Quote: | | Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods, whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality. |
So I agree with you that there are religions where atheism is perfectly normal. The key is that they all have non-theistic forms.
And as I said in my post, spiritualism, mysticism etc. are all things that atheists can and do adhere to. Enlightenment doesn't require belief in a god/deity. It's mostly about archetypes and structures with meanings that go beyond mere words, that contain ideas that cannot be compacted into literature. But that's more about philosophy and psychology.
The word atheism comes from theist origins and was originally used pejoratively about people who lacked faith in the gods of whatever culture they lived in.
Those are MY personal views, no need to insult me because I have expressed them and they don't fit with your views.
| Quote: | | Tell me you aren't so buried in theist dogma you refuse to believe atheists can pray or believe in soul .. after all it would take a real dolt to think prayer has to = praying too a deity .. & has to = supernatural spectre. |
You're writing slightly cryptically but are you talking about praying as a form of meditation? Or something wider? I don't believe in the abrahamic definition of soul, but then the abrahamic religions are all based on earlier or contemporary religions and ideas, a process that has gone on for many many millennia.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Frant.. you are straw manning relgion in order to avoid the reality that one can be religious & rational. I don't want to associate relgion with asshats, their scripture & imaginary friends .. i suggest you take a long hard look @ why you do.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Frant.. you are straw manning relgion in order to avoid the reality that one can be religious & rational. I don't want to associate relgion with asshats, their scripture & imaginary friends .. i suggest you take a long hard look @ why you do. |
Still a bit vague rhetorical critique. We lack definitions, or we lack a common semantic ground and misunderstand each other. You are yourself making a conscious choice to define religion by excluding certain religious groups from your definition. The only reason to do that is to make your definition and view more valid. Which I'm okay with. Siphoning out negative elements and building your own personal view is fine.
But then you should understand that I have absolutely no idea what your personal views on religion, god and faith are (since you never defined them, you just blasted on the common dogmatic religions of today). I simply do not know how you see things since you've only criticised my views instead of posing your alternative definitions so I know what you're talking about.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | relgion is simply cultivating the intuitive .. churches cultivate it via master servant mentalities .. ie once you have been told to do what you are told for long enough to think its natural to do so & thus its intuitive to do so. Creation myth, father figure church leaders, mother figure icons ect .. all rooted in cultivating peoples willingness to blindly go along with whatever the authorities dictate.
Atheistic relgion .. cultivation of ones ability to trust their own authority .. develops a persons intuition in a wholly different way .. a person becomes less & less in need of approval & instruction.. they can find their own way of addressing uncertainty presented by situations they find themselves in.
“Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.” - Richard Buckminster |
You feel obliged to follow church definitions of religious terms .. i feel obliged to develop my own & encourage others do the same. Your request that i offer definitions is theistic thinking on the matter .. surely you can see this .. the thread is based on peoples own ability to discern the nature of faith ie the rejection of the notion that people have to think faith is what they are told to think faith is by those who warp faith into a means of manipulating people.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
Last edited by ChinUp on Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | ChinUp wrote: | relgion is simply cultivating the intuitive .. churches cultivate it via master servant mentalities .. ie once you have been told to do what you are told for long enough to think its natural to do so & thus its intuitive to do so. Creation myth, father figure church leaders, mother figure icons ect .. all rooted in cultivating peoples willingness to blindly go along with whatever the authorities dictate.
Atheistic relgion .. cultivation of ones ability to trust their own authority .. develops a persons intuition in a wholly different way .. a person becomes less & less in need of approval & instruction.. they can find their own way of addressing uncertainty presented by situations they find themselves in.
“Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.” - Richard Buckminster |
You feel obliged to follow church definitions of religious terms .. i feel obliged to develop my own & encourage others do the same. Your request that i offer definitions is theistic thinking on the matter .. surely you can see this .. |
No, I see you trying to slip away without providing anything of value. You are leaving it up to me to do guesswork based on little to no information from you, and you turn even that into an argument. And you spice it up with some random quotes to make it seem more valid or to make yourself seem more cultivated.. I don't know.. Unless you can provide some information about your views without playing games all this has been has been an exercise in trying to play a rhetorical game where you're pinning non-existing arguments on me.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
Last edited by Frant on Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | No, I see you trying to slip away without providing anything of value. You are leaving it up to me to do guesswork based on little to no information from you, and you turn even that into an argument. Nothing more here to do. |
You clearly want relgion to be like science .. where there are clear guidelines .. certainty in method ect .. no wonder the church has been so successful ..
"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." ~Bertrand Russell
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 16:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | No, I see you trying to slip away without providing anything of value. You are leaving it up to me to do guesswork based on little to no information from you, and you turn even that into an argument. Nothing more here to do. |
You clearly want relgion to be like science .. where there are clear guidelines .. certainty in method ect .. no wonder the church has been so successful ..
"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." ~Bertrand Russell |
Here we go again...
"“One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms.”
― H.L. Mencken"
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 17:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | Here we go again...
"“One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms.”
― H.L. Mencken" |
Would i be correct in asserting that you have more faith in the churches ability to dictate the nature of God, faith, prayer ect than your own ability to discern the nature of these things ?
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 17:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Frant wrote: | Here we go again...
"“One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms.”
― H.L. Mencken" |
Would i be correct in asserting that you have more faith in the churches ability to dictate the nature of God, faith, prayer ect than your own ability to discern the nature of these things ? |
And what would impel you to discern the nature of those things, if there isn't anything in nature that would imply the existence or objective meaning of those very same abstract concepts?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 8 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
