What do you believe?

You imagine things? Imagination is part of our real aspect.

It is a justifiably true statement.

The evidence is, we exist regardless of long odds. I would say we are adequate to the situation.

There is no evidence to support idea that our intellect is more than we need for survival. Our intellect is well suited to the fact that we are limited of fur, tooth, and claw, and yet are able to take advantage of any clime or any food source. Further our social organization is exceedingly complex and you ned to be able to keep up with your brethren.

What about true or false? What about it is the same or it is different?
We have far more latitude in how organize our lives or how we care for the world than just having prejudicial perspective. What about keeping an open mind?

To assert that is to perpetuate a vision of evil. I call no biological creature evil. I don't condone evil, I abolish it.

No, you just pollute your own life. You live by your judgments and as you judge so the world appears to you.

It does happen again and again regardless of our efforts to mitigate such things. Look around the world and you see quite a few megalomaniacs in power and their actions vary only by degree but not in content.

No prison or fortress has kept us safe and the perception of evil is no more than an excuse for violent unreasoned response.

Well you could ask for clarification. I don't now how deft you are at grasping ideas you are unfamiliar with although I have found you quite articulate in expressing your own opinions.

Perhaps I can make it more concrete.

First point:

The effect of this type of thinking is simply to make the world, (reality), appear as you have described. I don't know what you find nebulous about this. It is a statement about the nature of perception and belief.
We believe to see and we see to believe.

If we all look at the same phenomena out of that phenomena will come many different stories of the event and all will testify to the verity of what they have seen. All descriptions are apparently true to those doing the describing.
All are valid aspects of self reflection and self proclamation. All are products, not of the external environment, but of our own neural soup. Everything you see, is an idea about what is there and there are no idle thoughts.

The world is not valuable for what it has to offer, you bring everything important to you, with you into the world. Your being and the reality of your life are inseparable although we can imagine ourselves to be without and we are certainly taught that we must be productive or be without.

Point two:

Appearances conform to your descriptions and you go to great efforts to maintain those appearances, insisting to those around you that this is the way it is.
Why are you so confident in your evaluations of worthiness given your ideas about our capacity to know what is real?
You are more overtly confident in your definitions of evil than you are in your definitions of god and consequently you prescribe vigilance against a godless world.

There is another way to focus your perceptual machinery.
Be vigilant only for god and his kingdom.

I'll stop here for now to see if there is any movement.

 

Not from me. I give up.

 

Now there is a decidedly weak position.

I am surprised that you would give up on comprehension given your studious outlook.

I look forward to hearing from you in some other guise then.

 

There's enough of a prima facie case for an intelligent agent that some eminent scientists take it seriously. e.g., Paul Davies, Freeman Dyson, John Polkinghorne, Alan Sandage, Arthur Peacock. These scientists are persuaded by the seeming "fine tuning" of the universe. Davies, in particular, weighs the considerations favoring design against the major alternatives, such as the multiverse and Hawking's "no boundary" model, and concludes that the design theory is more in keeping with Occam's razor. Bruce Mazur came to a similar conclusion in an article published in Skeptic Magazine, of all places. The major alternative, in explaining fine tuning, consciousness and the other arguments supporting design is the multiverse theory. But Mazur observes "there is no evidenece whatsoever that this infinite number of hypothetical universes exist, and according to the cosmologists who postulate these hypothetical universes there is no means by which to obtain any such evidence." He concludes: "I suggest that if it is acceptable to postulate the existence of hypothetical universes, then it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God." For additional scientific support for God, see Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God. I don't believe that this evidence is sufficient to give the god hypothesis the edge, but if it is in the category of the Celestial Teapot, so are the best alternatives put forward by scientists.

So what then are we to do? Turn from tea to whiskey? Agnosticism is one solution, and is possibly the most intellectually honest. I've sometimes characterized myself as a Christian agnostic, but I think it's a cop out, besides sounding oxymoronic. Agnostics, I think, are similar to the folks who don't vote because they can't prove that one candidate is better than another. I prefer a different approach. I can't prove, to the satisfaction of others, that Michelle Bachmann and Sara Palin are dingbats, but I'm confident in my judgment that they are. I'm also sufficiently confident in my judgements about the two presidential candidates that I'll definitely be voting in November. I'm also voting for God in the contest with the multiverse, since I think there are too many other coincidences to account for and, as I said, the theory fits with my personal experience. Skeptic Martin Gardner defends this position at length in The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. He advances a pragmatic argument based on the pragmatism of William James, Charles Pierce, and Miguel Unamuno. On matters of extreme importance to human existence, where the evidence is inconclusive, it is necessary to make a choose, and that can involve a leap of faith.
But I think the choice must not be contrary to reason and the evidence, and must be supported by the substantial evidence rule. "Substantial evidence" , in the law, means that there is enough evidence for a reasonable person to accept a position, even though there may be enough evidence to support a different view. This is the level of evidence used to support most administrative regulations, which can't be proven but are sufficient to support a reasonable policy choice. I think the multiverse theory is possible, just as it's possible that I'm a brain in a jar kept alive by a mad scientist and experiencing a virtual reality, just like in The Matrix. How would I know? As I said, you place your bets. I think I should also mention that I don't think there's substantial evidence for the Abrahamic God, and plenty of evidence to be skeptical of biblical literalism. The God I believe in is the felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being". My main interest is in the teachings and example of Jesus rather than in cosmology or dogmas. But please don't equate this with the Celestial Teapot--unless you want to dismiss those respected scientists I mentioned as crackpots.

 

I apologize for putting it in such an assholish way, but I think our world views are too far apart to make further dialogue productive. We're talking past each other. I don't have the feeling I understand what you're trying to say, and vice versa. I remember that interminable dialogue you once had with Older Water Brother, and don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Maybe someday I'll have the energy, but not now.

 

No problem. No need to respond if you are not up to it.
I understand you however.

I hope you don't mind if I point out a few things about what you have just said.

If you do not understand what I am saying then I am at a loss to explain how you have determined that our world views are too far apart for productive dialogue. It seems that if you do not understand then you have no reference point to determine what my world view might be.

I discuss things with people on an individual basis, one size does not fit all and waterbrother's and my past need not be yours and mine. You are not Waterbrother. Hopefully if we are interested in truth and genuine communication, there is light at the end of any convoluted tunnel. Those that endure to the end, find it.

 

I beleive in the Spirit of Loving-kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth and Freedom

The Seven Core human values that come alive in both the Bible and Buddhism..

Both Buddha and Christ manifested these seven core human values in their words and in their actions. Therebye proving that something greater than ourselves really existed..

This - Supreme Spirit - either exists.. or doesn't exist.. in human hearts and minds.

The bottom line being - God.. is inside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGF...jYvXdGq2cnOTMwiXw&index=65&feature=plpp_video


For example... Buddha said:
-
The Spirit of Loving kindness
“As the light of the moon is sixteen times stronger than the light of all the stars, so loving kindness is sixteen times more efficacious in liberating the heart than all other religious accomplishments taken together.”

The Spirit of Righteousness and Justice
"The throne of truth is righteousness; and love and justice and good-will are its ornaments. Swerve not from the path of justice and righteousness and thou wilt outshine the royal glory of queens on the throne."

The Spirit of Wisdom
"To acquire this state of mind, wisdom is the one thing needful.
To neglect wisdom will lead to failure in life. The teachings of all religions should centre here, for without wisdom there is no reason.

The Spirit of Peace
"Religious wisdom lifts a man above the pleasures and pains of the world and gives him peace everlasting."

The Spirit of Truth
"I now desire to found the kingdom of truth upon earth,
to give light to those who are enshrouded in darkness
and to open the gate of deathlessness."

The Spirit of Freedom
"People are in bondage, because they have not yet removed the idea of the ego. As the great ocean has only one taste, the taste of salt, so my doctrine has only one flavour, the flavour of emancipation."

-
That's what I believe in...

The Spirit of Loving-kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth and Freedom

 

I believe we evolved and the answer to our existence and why we are here is to be found only in science. Religions are the fodder for those too afraid to see the truth, a place to hide for the weak, and place to control for the power hungry and greedy.

 

Do you have scientific proof for that, or are you just guessing?
Or possibly whistling past the graveyard?[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

I have trust which is not faith by a long reach. I trust in the steady unfolding of our past, and through that will learn our future possibilities. I don’t think we could ask for much more. With the “Trust” VS Faith, I don’t follow blindly, and in that trust I expect change with the advance in our knowledge base.

 

Interesting. I think faith and trust are practically the same thing. And I don't believe in blind faith. My bets are educated and subject to change with the odds.

 

I believe religion is dangerous. It feeds the ignorance of humanity, and excused their worst behaviors, while it limits the search for knowledge, and demeans those who point out their false teachings. Humanity needs to close the books on all religions and work through a secular system.

 

Trust is having faith in something.

 

I disagree. Faith, or blind faith as used in religion, is to believe without proof. Trust as I use it related to my knowledge is the reliance on the character, ability, or truth of science. That is a big difference.

 

Fire is dangerous. Chainsaws are dangerous. Science is dangerous (Think of the A-bomb & H-bomb, not to mention unmanned drones and napalm). Does danger alone warrant a ban? Secular systems (e.g., government and corporate bureaucracies) can be pretty impersonal. One reason for the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was the distrust many Egyptians had of the impersonal and corrupt bureaucracy. Several months ago, a video by the atheist Four Horsemen got into the question of how to provide for the "numinous" in society after the demise of religion. Providing for the numinous is what religions do, so before throwing the baby out with the bathwater, maybe we might be sure we know what we're giving up, and that we are unable to salvage religion's contributions when we try to eliminate its "danger". By the way, how dangerous are those Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ, Methodists, etc.? What makes you think they are dangerous at all? Don't you think science and the nuclear weapons it produced are more dangerous? Are Swedes, Danes and Norwegians dangerous because their ancestors were Viking beserkers? I submit that unless you commit the flagrant methodological errors of the Muslim source you like to quote on body counts by attributing all deaths directly or indirectly caused by Western Civilization to Christianity, "atheism" has a higher death toll. of course that would be a specialized manifestation of atheism called Communism, but hey--if you're into painting with broad brushes, two can play that game. What wars have Christians caused since the seventeenth century? Why you think religion limits the search for knowledge, or "demeans" those who point out problems in their teachings? Bigots, atheist or otherwise, are dangerous because of their propensity to overgeneralize, shoot from the lip, and paint with way too broad a brush. And how many atheist hospitals and schools do we have?

Faith doesn't have to be blind. I and many other Christians follow Luther in defining faith as a "joyful bet". As a gambling man, I want to limit the risks to the greatest extent possible, by basing my bets on all the available evidence, including experience and intuition. Is science the only thing you trust? I agree science is the gold standard for reliable evidence, but trusting only in science is limited as a guide to life. For example, in your previous post, you made the assertion that religion "feeds the ignorance of humanity, and excused their worst behaviors, while it limits the search for knowledge, and demeans those who point out their false teachings". There is no scientific evidence to back up your claims, nor, I daresay, will there ever be. That kind of research isn't funded; it doesn't lend itself to empirical research of refutable hypotheses. And the level of evidence obtainable falls far short of that needed to support a scientific claim. So if you're going to limit yourself to science, you shouldn't be spouting off about the evils of religion, because it's not science--it's just your opinion. Personally, I think opinions are a good thing, particularly when they're based on some facts and reasonable judgments--which is a far cry from scientific proof. When I say "I believe in God", all I'm saying is that I think there's enough evidence for me to be willing to take a chance on the belief. The belief is "without proof", in the sense its not based on scientific proof. In other words, it's just my opinion--supported by substantial evidence. Why do you have a problem with that, and why is it "dangerous"?

 

However.. blind faith is by no means unique to organized religion.. it’s widespread.. In fact.. it’s the norm..

For sure.. we all engage in it.. to some extent..

In politics people keep voting the same idiots into power.. maybe because they are terrified of self-determination. Like animals.. they want to be dominated… It’s a form of slavery..

The blind leading the blind.

Then there’s marriage.. Men and women get together and swear to be true to each other.. for the rest of their lives……. and then invite a bunch of single parents to their wedding..J

That’s blind faith in action..

Many Atheists seem to believe what Christians tell them about the Bible.. Both camps believe that the tales of the supernatural should be understood literally.. and not in any symbolic.. metaphorical sense.. like poetry.

Hence.. the splitting into warring factions.. which could be resolved.. by reading up on religious symbolism..

As for proving things…

How many things can we think of.. that can't be proved.. but that are obviously true..?

I cannot prove that most of the events in my life ever happened.. Yet the events that make up my life are the only things I can be really sure about..

They actually happened.. the rest is concepts.. ideas.. people's accounts.. abstraction.

Science is a - process - of gaining knowledge.. it's not something final..

And.. it’s a scientific fact.. that we can’t prove every thing..

We know that..

---

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Origin of the Universe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxoZ8REpH-g&list=FL9AZUBjYvXdGq2cnOTMwiXw&index=79&feature=plpp_video


-

 

Yes, as I understand it Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that any system of knowledge or reasoning rests on a larger set of assumptions that we can't prove. So if we accept those assumptions, is this a manifestation of faith?

 

I don't think accepting the unseen is a manifestation of faith. Accepting the unseen is allowing for probability. I think a manifestation of faith is when what you say and what you do, are the same.

 

FAITH:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.



2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.



3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.



4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.



5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


Hebrews 11:1 :.
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

Martin Luther: "A joyful bet".

So it would seem that accepting the unseen is the essence of faith, according to standard sources. Private languages not so much.

 

Hmm, that's not the idea of what faith is that I got from the Bible.
Early on when first dealing with Abraham, God told Abraham to do x-y-z and a-b-c would happen, rinse-repeat.

Faith as first presented in the Bible is acting on the word, promise of God or anybody or anything, based on prior action and experience.

Essentially God told Abraham "look, didn't I do the things I said I would? So proceed with confidence that if I said it, it will occur."

So to me faith is something that is based on the evidence of prior actions/events in such a way that a strong confidence is developed regarding future or "unseen" events that also have root in those prior experiences.

Simple illustration;
You drive your car, you apply the brakes to stop.
applying the brakes is an act of faith made with confidence that the brakes will stop the car based on prior experience.
If your brakes only worked 50% of the time, you would not develop much "faith" in them.

Faith to me is action, a verb.
Faith is something that builds and not from some intangible hooey, but from experience derived from prior "acts of faith".

The intangible part comes in, for Christians, in how strongly they accept the Bible as true. Then the whole faith aspect is still built on the promises made and the fulfillment of them as recorded in the Bible. Faith is still based on prior experience, even if by proxy.