Faith vs Logic

[Quiet]

[MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION]

Whether you think i am confused, imagining, hallucinating, brain damaged, delusional, on drugs or have a disorder is your perogative. My wanting to understand my mind and my lucidity was something i did for myself. I wanted to prove my lucidity to myself. It was my choice to verify that truth for myself through a process of rational examination. I believe that I am lucid. If you do not than thats not my problem and not something i want to prove to you.

I disagree with what you consider objective. I think you are biased.

I certainly do not think that 'atheists' are less biased or more logical than Christians or those from other religious groups. All humans are capable of using reason, logic, enquiry and critical thought. I have also never identified as an athiest. I despise most labels and find them to be unhelpful in general. We All use faith and we all use logic.

People that are the least biased are those that try to come to terms with who they and acknowledge what their biases are. I dont even know whether it is possible for a human to be unbiased. Culture is pervasive and necessary for survival for a social species. All culture is inherently biased.

I am not saying that faith is a strength- What i said was this- Faith is a concept. It is a measure of our stength of conviction toward ideas, thoughts, beliefs, institutions etc.

Faith is neutral. It is. It can be used in adaptive or maladaptive ways. It is an extremely powerful tool. It can be extremely enlightening and it can be extremely dangerous and harmful. Best we all know what it is that we put our faith in so we can use faith rather than be controlled by blind faith we dont understand.

Faith is not what dumbs down our culture. It is fear that does that. Fear is what allows us to choose ignorance.

ALthough i can no longer see auras, i can feel them. And in the past year i have met other people that can see them. I dont think that all these people are delusional. Just because you cant see somthing doesnt mean it doesnt exist. The world is bigger than your perception and what you happen to think is possible based on the dogma that you have adopted.

 

[Quiet]

Oy vey... You go on to defend faith then start talking about the placebo effect? No irony bells going off in your head?

The placebo effect is powerful and real. It can show the power of faith, expectation, belief etc. How is that ironic?

 

[Billy]

....."we are right and you are wrong"....

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you really acting like you cannot see the difference between
religion and an evidence based system for learning? Really?

Nope. To clarify, I'm saying that some people are treating science and rationality as religion. That's different than calling the entire science and rationality a religion.
It's a bit like, Jesus =/= Christianity, even when Jesus is supposedly the basis of Christianity. I hope I explained myself more clearly this time...

OK well I am not one of them, so we can move on from that point.

Dig under the nature of worship, Billy. What defines a worship? A worshiper?
I honestly think presence or lack of objective, quantifiable evidence does not play in whether someone -chose- to worship or not. Perhaps we are differing here.

No.... worship is not defined by the worshipper, its defined by the worshipee. Or at least his/her mouthpieces. You make it sound like there arent set practices already in place. In order for the worshper to define worship they would have to do it the way they wanted. This is not the case. Muslims dont individually think "why, I bet it would be a swell Idea to face Mecca while I pray 54959997 times a day. They do it because thats what they are trained to do. And if they dont do it, or try to turn from it its called apostasy. They kill you for that in many Islamic countries.

However, I'm getting it a bit back on track; faith does. Logic does. They both give something worthy of worship.

Wrong, you keep trying to make the point that Faith and Logic are the same thing, they are not. There is NO WORSHIP in Science or Atheism Get it? I don't know how to make this ANY CLEARER for you.

It does not, but you're generalizing the whole complex world of science. (Because as far as I know, even religious people believes 2 + 2 = 4 is true. If there are people you met who believed that 2 + 2 = 6 because God Says So, then I apologize and my deepest sympathies).

Your apology is accepted, there are people like that. There are also people who literally believe that the world is 6000 years old because the bible says so, DESPITE UNANIMOUS WORLDWIDE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING that the earth is closer to 5 billion years old. This surprises you?

And the rest, I wholly agree. It's a system of learning. What makes it (completely) incompatible with faith the way you seemed to insinuate, then? .___.; I don't understand...the strength of your statement. The black-and-whiteness.
But I'm afraid my point is also missed. I'm sorry, I'm bad at debating >___<;

Bringing up black and whiteness when talking about science and logic and acting like its a bad thing pisses me off. 1 sentence above and you are talking about 2 + 2 = 4, well maybe thats a fricking black and white statement. Maybe I would FEEL better if 2+2 = 4.6

Faith and Science are incompatible because 1 looks for answers. And the other supplies fake answers. If you cannot see how thats incompatible I dont know what to tell you.

What I'm saying in effects works like people of old age who turned Jesus' words and virtues into a religion on their own.
Bear with my explanation for a second :

Helios' chariots are real life objects (chariots) used as an explanation about something else; it could very well be Helios' Doves or Helios' Nipples for all its worth.
Prayers are previously songs, chants; something used as a recreation, something used as a meditation and something that's used to, again, explain.
Magics are....not part of religion, at least mainstream ones (Wiccan and such, well, yes, but.); Miracles are. In that aspect, a miracle is used to again, explain something unexplainable at that time; something that was good and beneficial for a person and/or community at large.

Magic is the same thing as a miracle. Its called a synonym. Helios as we know is just the Earth spinning on its Axis around the Sun, there is no Helios. The Religious aspect of explaining the sun via Helios is both Wrong and Stupid. Wrong, because ... well its just wrong. And stupid because there were other greeks at the time who did not buy into the Ptolemaic idea of an Earth centered universe. Aristarchus of Samos for example. He also proved the Earth was round.

It is not that scientific mechanism -is- religion, but remember that religions are ultimately social constructs.
People are turning them into a certain form of heightened consciousness.
Chariots are useful. Kindness is useful. Prayers or rather songs and chants are useful and entertaining. Old religions turned them into something 'holy'.
Now it's both Logic and Rationality which are being upheld the way religiously virtuous people were glorified, once. The way Christians were flourishing over Greek and Roman followers.

This is all conjecture.

From my perspective, what is being worshipped is this particular chain of belief: that science will lead people to a better age by killing religion / spirituality and rendering it obsolete. By helding to science as indelible proof.

Then I would say you dont understand the nature of the word worship. ANd now you are telling me I worship a possible future without religion? No I don't worship it that doesnt even make sense by way of syntax, but I hope to hasten it.

Only that.

.....Straw men
Ungh, Mengele?
Again, I think we're seeing different things with the word worship. See above question.

What? Yeah, you are not understanding the word worship or are deliberately being obtuse about its usage. You worship God(s) you DO Science.

And this is my personal opinion.....I was talking about enlightenment; in my own understanding, is that it requires both faith (or at least, conscience) and logic (or at least, awareness). I found science ultimately helped religion (or at least, the spiritual belief in God) a lot. By shedding falsehoods and things that were unable to understand back then, by creating shifts in paradigms, we moved away from dogma. And start walking towards the truth.

Really thats what you see? What I see are the death throws of religion. Even the pope and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury believe in Evolution now... The God of the Gaps theory is so old and tired... I cant wait to put it to grass.

(A bit digression here: I found dogmas to be essentially sociohistorical in element; a rule was made because what happened during that time. A power was given in reaction to events. You mentioned below that religion doesn't evolve. I would say that dogma doesn't evolve.)

I disagree I think its the other way around. Dogmas change with time, but the root of the religion. The need for a father figure and all that, the need to believe, that stays the same.

And before one can go anywhere, one must know, believe, feel that the truth exist; that there are answers for everything. That nothing is ultimately unexplainable.
That is faith.

Yeah.... its wrong... hello. Truth exists regardless of us. Unless you meant subjective truth.

...Is your reaction proving my words? >___>;

You tell me, you made the claim, be sure to highlight it for the rest of us.

Again, I personally believe dogma doesn't evolve. Religious belief on the other hand....The fact that in the present we have so many denominations and their own peculiar beliefs -are- proofs of evolution to a certain degree, I think.

Except that you have it backwards. The tenets change, thats the Dogma, the religion is essentially the same.

But the fundamentals doesn't change. Yes, I agree, and I do agree that the backbone of science -is- the openness to change.
But notice the scientific standard.
That openness to change only when they are speaking the same language is the Catholic equivalent of decrees and stuff. You know, 'updates' within the church...but rarely 'beyond' that.
They are both ultimately inclusive. A case of 'speak our language or forever be banished'.

Maybe for Religion. Not so much for science. Again remember Science is dealing with Reality as it is, as we can see and sample it. Not as we wish it to be "Faith". Faith is the closed minded system that says, if you work on Saturday you will be stoned to death, Faith is the system that says Gays go to hell, no exceptions unless they repent and refrain from homosexuality. It is Faith and religion that creates and enforces FALSE morality based on literally nothing. Science doesnt do any of that, Science isnt something you adhere to like a scripture, its something you DO and sample the world with. Its incompatible with religion and faith only because it deals strictly with what is real.

So you disagree that both science and religion ultimately seeks answers?

Yes completely. Science seeks answers and Data, religion does not, religion closes down the discussion and says "we have our answer and its TALKING SNAKES!"

Faith at other people, faith at yourself...
faith can be used in other things other than religion, and people can have faith for other things aside from a divine being.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith?show=0&t=1360142015

Again; Christianity has been historically pretty advanced in developments of certain science.

Really? Like what?

Islam philosophers and scholars have developed a great understanding of medicine, logic, and biology that were ultimately also used in medieval Europe at that time;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

The term "Dark Age" itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[SUP][5]

just please read up on this.[/SUP]

And presently, the existence of the supposed 10% of the religious scientist tells that religion can still be compatible with science.
That does not mean religions has never refuted certain theories that goes against their understanding (and really, where does their understanding of the world came from?); but on the other hand, refuting things that doesn't fit with the previous, established theory had also happened within the scientific world...

Not it doesnt tell us that science and religion are compatible. That 10% are largely the laughing stock of modern scientific history. They tend to be the guys who try to prove the existence of Noahs ark or that the Garden of Eden was real. Its a joke.

I would not say anything about your statement that most scientist are atheists / unbelievers, mainly due to a) I feel it's quite a generalization, b) matters of beliefs are ultimately personal choices, and c) I admit I have no idea beyond generalization and stereotypes.

SO youre saying you doubt that most scientists are Atheists? Thats a generalization really? You might want to look into that.

I'm not going to respond to the "They are SECRET ATHEISTS that were forced to hide themselves!" part unless you can give further citations because there's no way to know the truth of that statement.

Just take it on Faith, that should be easy on this forum. You dont need citations when you just feel its right.

Because I can use the same logical pattern of 'they are there, they were only hiding and you just don't know it' to claim that aura, energy etc is just God's work that science has not been revealed at this time....that logic train is a tad problematic, I think? :| :| :|

Yeah I know... magic vs history is always a good match... I mean comparing a fact like "the church killed off people all through history, including heretics" is just BS like Auras.

And....as far as I know, the Dark Ages were called dark because of the lack of historical writings. Not necessarily due to 'light of science'; there are also a noticable lack of art, culture, and other writings. Now you can argue that the church secretly oppressed all that and such, but I suspect this is a complex matter. The Church's power grows together with the expansion of Roman Empire -AND- its destruction, and the resulting powerplay that results. I shall refrain from making further judgment beyond my understanding. I sincerely doubt the church controls the people; if anything the people are working to appease the Church; some for the genuine need for 'divine right', and other for the political protection. From my perspective they are less the stealthy oppressor and more of the lazy fatass only thinking about their own self-importance.

Yes there was a noted lack of art and culture because Europe was being swallowed by Christendom.

Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.

here it is again

For the other side of your arguments.....I'm sure historical situation played a part, and I'm sure there are people who are questioning their beliefs and are secretly refuses to believe in God, and that might be good. But the point is, science and rationality and logic still able to shine through. And they are able to shine in a way that gets accepted by the Church.

Can I ask you something? Have you ever been to the USA? Where do you live? Because you are severely ignorant on some cultural shit that we got going on over there. They're waging a battle to ban Evolution from many classrooms, this is not "Accepted".
https://www.google.com/search?q=ban...ome.0.57j0j62l3.4751&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

WHOA. Billy. I hope you're aware of how black-and-white this particular view is.

Your view of it being black and white is black and white.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

I adore this quote and its utterly true. However it does not justify the statement you made earlier that Logic is just like Faith. I can become the worst atheist Shade of David Duke or the Westboro Church and you will STILL be wrong on that point.

This matter goes twofold, and importance only plays in one of them:

one is a personal concern. I still respected you as a person. And in this aspect, the how is important.
This one has zero relation to the topic in question. I noticed that while seeing you being all argumentative is something usual, there's always this....burning flame, whenever religion is within the equation. It appears to be your hot button, and you..almost always...had an extra oomph whenever you're arguing about this topic. More dismissive, more sense of superiority. And slowly it seemed to burn you more for some reason. I'm all for you being atheistic or anti-religion, and I'm not exactly the religious type either.

This is not true, I think that you could see this with a check of my posts on this forum. Its all we have talked about lately because it seems like that's all anyone wants to talk about. I dont make these threads up. But I feel I am pretty consistently dismissive and superior regardless of the discussion. Thats just me. I browbeat people when they do stupid shit *shoulder shrug* I suppose I could stop, but then I have to live with being inauthentic.

I don't even disagree with some of your points, just the intensity / the scope of it.

...ok

but...let's just say I'm concerned about your mental state, your scars and its effect to you.
How we believe affects how we live. At the very least, we can agree with that, can't we?

Yes and no... Again... strictly speaking I am an Agnostic, that what you would say I believe. However I live as an Atheist because the world needs less god and more atheism. As for my mental state, don't you worry about that. I'm nuts, I will be the 1st to admit it. You have to be nuts to live by your own methods and to go around all the feel good bullshit society keeps trying to slow you down with. I made a choice long ago, that I would rather be hated than live a lie. I would rather be Sad than live a lie. I would rather have the truth, the real truth... not subjective truth, but the shit I can quantify so as I can make better decisions in my life. And my life has been better as a result. Much more compatible emotionally to accept the world as it is, than to persist in idealism that just rob me of my heart as the idealism are proven wrong time and time again.

two is that how something is said affects what is said.
These has two effects : First is... Biases, clarity, and all that. It does not change the elements inside your argument, but it changed the strength of the argument.
Essentially, the more attached someone is, the less clarity they have? I just applied my particular view on that to you.

I disagree on this one. What is said is what is said. If someone tunes out because they dont like what they are hearing then they are free to continue to delude themselves, but it is not my job to worry about that. I research, I learn, I study and I share the data I find. That is who I am and what I do. I wont change that for anybody.

ETA:
If you are writing this to state your opinion / feelings / beliefs / thoughts; you did it well, the point was received and I can see the contents.
But you are doing nothing to convince others reading your post. Nor are you giving the people responding against you proper respect, and notice how I said à find your words hard to believe and/or listen. I don't say your words are invalid, or you're giving lies and nonsense. I just found it hard to be told to believe something I was supposed to believe in such a patronizing, dismissing way.

I understand your point I just honestly don't care dude... I don't know why you cant get that. I am not going to don kid gloves for a serious discussion with a fucking adult... I wont do it. I do that for my Nieces because they are 3... If I have to do that for someone who is 20+ then they are clearly out of their league fucking with me. People say backhanded shit to me ALLLLLLL the time. I roll with the punches and take it like I should. I don't get all butthurt because you're not respecting the bubble of protection I surround my meager little feelings with. My point is this, you cant talk people out of a belief in God... you cant do it. You can only make a stand, spit the data out and hope that you enlighten at least 1 mind. And even if you dont get that 1 mind... Googles Cache is eternal practically... this shit will be on there until the internet dies. My battles on this, arent just here and now, they will rage on through time long after I am dead. People will be reading the archives of this forum. I believe that history will judge what I am doing fondly and see me more as a social pioneer than anything. Most people must be led some pulled, some pushed. I will leave all the inspirational speeches and feel good crap to someone who likes it, I am the hammer in the tool box. Let someone else be the scalpel.

black and white thinking, coupled with straw men.

This is a black and white statement.

 

[Billy]

That was kind of my point, that their positive upbringing has allowed them to be well-adjusted socially, and it has always been framed to them as "God looks out for our family because we're faithful to Him" and stuff like that. So even if their parents' faith isn't really the reason for their positive family life, that's what it's always been attributed to, and most people have no incentive to question a system that has favored them. They see the happiness of their family as a testament that the religious teachings are true.

It reminds me of the Scene in Gangs of New York before the final battle. When all the poor are praying to god for vengeance and blood and all the up town rich are doing their prayers saying how merciful and loving god is LOL!! I think Bill the Butcher would have made a good Atheist.

 

[Billy]

process of rational examination.

Go on.

I disagree with what you consider objective. I think you are biased.

Can you define it yourself then so we can get on the same page.

I certainly do not think that 'atheists' are less biased or more logical than Christians or those from other religious groups. All humans are capable of using reason, logic, enquiry and critical thought. I have also never identified as an athiest. I despise most labels and find them to be unhelpful in general. We All use faith and we all use logic.

Define Faith as youre using it. You know that Atheists and Agnostics often score much higher on intelligence tests right? I am not saying they are smarter, because there can be other factors but that is interesting.

People that are the least biased are those that try to come to terms with who they and acknowledge what their biases are. I dont even know whether it is possible for a human to be unbiased. Culture is pervasive and necessary for survival for a social species. All culture is inherently biased.

Then what is the point of calling anyone biased? Its like me trying to negatively say that you have teeth.

Faith is neutral. It is. It can be used in adaptive or maladaptive ways. It is an extremely powerful tool. It can be extremely enlightening and it can be extremely dangerous and harmful. Best we all know what it is that we put our faith in so we can use faith rather than be controlled by blind faith we dont understand.

I would agree that it like all existence is neutral. A tool to be used. However and bear with me, Coal power plants are neutral, in good hands they can provide heat and electricity. In the wrong hands they can cause blackouts and rob people of energy. Either case its still a nasty factory that burns carbon fuels and destroys the environment. Do you understand my meaning?

Faith is not what dumbs down our culture. It is fear that does that. Fear is what allows us to choose ignorance.

Yes and Faith is willful ignorance.

ALthough i can no longer see auras, i can feel them. And in the past year i have met other people that can see them. I dont think that all these people are delusional. Just because you cant see somthing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The world is bigger than your perception and what you happen to think is possible based on the dogma that you have adopted.

You have the dogma, I don't. I'm an atheist.And yes, I believe the people you met are also either delusional or experiencing some form of hysteria or shared delusion. I do not say that to be insulting, believe me, I am sincere... I honestly just believe that.

 

[Billy]

The placebo effect is powerful and real. It can show the power of faith, expectation, belief etc. How is that ironic?

Well its not powerful... it does exist, but its usually not that strong. Its not like you can go up to a cripple and give them water and say its magic water and they can walk now and they get out of the chair... its more like...

Its more like telling a person who has Cancer that this new treatment will work way better than the old... the positivity of the news leads to a stimulated response of of your brain released pleasurable endorphin and chemicals that prolong your health. Whereas there are also negative placebos, stress for example could be seen as something like that. But it will make you feel worse and maybe even reduce your immune system because your brain is releasing adrenaline and cortisol which forces your body to burn through energy and increase your heart rate which have negative effects.

The reason I found it Ironic, is because religion is a placebo to cure our fear and vulnerability.

 

[Trifoilum]

I'll just clarify mostly, because...time and effort.
Let me just clarify my two standpoint in this entire debate:

1)I still think faith (not necessarily in religion) is an useful thing
2)science have similarities with religions in the case of desiring answers. Not to say one is better than the other or that one is less effective than others.

And for anything that strays from this, I apologize deeply.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you really acting like you cannot see the difference between
religion and an evidence based system for learning? Really?

Oh, I wasn't really talking about them.
They are different. I'm pretty much stupid but I can say that with certainty.
But different =/= one is better than the other. Faith sans logic is empty, logic sans faith is directionless.

No.... worship is not defined by the worshipper, its defined by the worshipee. Or at least his/her mouthpieces. You make it sound like there arent set practices already in place. In order for the worshper to define worship they would have to do it the way they wanted. This is not the case. Muslims dont individually think "why, I bet it would be a swell Idea to face Mecca while I pray 54959997 times a day. They do it because thats what they are trained to do. And if they dont do it, or try to turn from it its called apostasy. They kill you for that in many Islamic countries.

An established fact may exist, but to follow and to worship is different.
First of all, a query; so we -are- talking about the devout and they who actually belief in the teachings, no? We aren't talking about people who believe because that's what they were supposed to do, or people who are hiding their atheism / agnosticism for fear of persecution...?
Because while you're talking about Islamic country..well, I just happened to live in one, and there are many people that are Islam In Name Only, and for that case you are absolutely correct. But I don't know about the real, devout worshipper.

And in -that- case, you're claiming that what makes them worship is essentially, conformity? That they 'don't know better'?

Wrong, you keep trying to make the point that Faith and Logic are the same thing, they are not. There is NO WORSHIP in Science or Atheism Get it? I don't know how to make this ANY CLEARER for you.

You're not doing a good job. *shrugs*
Isn't the fact that forcing your truths with a fist is ineffective one of the lessons we gained from religions and history?

Your apology is accepted, there are people like that. There are also people who literally believe that the world is 6000 years old because the bible says so, DESPITE UNANIMOUS WORLDWIDE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING that the earth is closer to 5 billion years old. This surprises you?

Aaaah, now you're comparing 2+2 = 6 with Creationism.
No, I'm not surprised in that case. *shrugs* but I would wager that those two are pretty different in terms of complexity, no?

Bringing up black and whiteness when talking about science and logic and acting like its a bad thing pisses me off. 1 sentence above and you are talking about 2 + 2 = 4, well maybe thats a fricking black and white statement. Maybe I would FEEL better if 2+2 = 4.6

Faith and Science are incompatible because 1 looks for answers. And the other supplies fake answers. If you cannot see how thats incompatible I dont know what to tell you.

Hold on,
your statements and science are two different things. I'm talking about your statements, not science.
I agreed that science in general has only two answer: right / wrong
But your statement, I judge it not in validity, but in strength.

Magic is the same thing as a miracle. Its called a synonym. Helios as we know is just the Earth spinning on its Axis around the Sun, there is no Helios. The Religious aspect of explaining the sun via Helios is both Wrong and Stupid. Wrong, because ... well its just wrong. And stupid because there were other greeks at the time who did not buy into the Ptolemaic idea of an Earth centered universe. Aristarchus of Samos for example. He also proved the Earth was round.

...you're missing my point. But I have no way to explain it further, so...I'll let this pass.

This is all conjecture.

Mind telling me how?

Then I would say you dont understand the nature of the word worship. ANd now you are telling me I worship a possible future without religion? No I don't worship it that doesnt even make sense by way of syntax, but I hope to hasten it.

From the above, I can see we see worship in a different way, and that's fine.

You worship God(s) you DO Science.

I agreed.

Even the pope and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury believe in Evolution now...

And who says I don't?

I disagree I think its the other way around. Dogmas change with time, but the root of the religion. The need for a father figure and all that, the need to believe, that stays the same.

I considered that dogma the root of the religion..again, we see things differently, apparently!
I agreed with your last part. It stays the same....And this is where we differ, I think that last part will stays regardless of the (in)existence of religion. That last part is within the realm of sociology and psychology. Science and religion is just-- its peripheral tools.

Yeah.... its wrong... hello. Truth exists regardless of us. Unless you meant subjective truth.

From an omniscient point of view, yes.
But who are we if not seekers for truth? XD; Is science not the ways for humanity to seek the truth?
But feel free to disagree on me in this one.

You tell me, you made the claim, be sure to highlight it for the rest of us.

it will be no one other than the diehard scientific who will defend their understanding of the world strongly.
Hell, we already see it as far as things like astrology, divination, things like souls and energies are concerned..

Astrology, divination and souls dont exist in reality. They are just words with no backing.

Except that you have it backwards. The tenets change, thats the Dogma, the religion is essentially the same.

Perhaps. I shall look at it sometime.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith?show=0&t=1360142015

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

Like I said, it's not -limited- to religion. I'm not claiming your usage of the words are wrong.

Really? Like what?

biology, medicine, some levels of anatomy, some levels of astronomy, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe physics too, although I don't really know how developed were physics during the medieval ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

The term "Dark Age" itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[SUP][5][/SUP]

And which part said it happened due to religion specifically covering science? I think I'd mentioned that yes, there were massive wars everywhere and civil records were being destroyed and obliterated; one of which was Library of Alexandria you mentioned. I also mentioned that it coincided with the rise of the Catholic Church as tribes and kingdoms were converting to Christianity. I'm just not daring to make the correlation because one -is- the tool for other. If I were to call religion out, then I ought to call politics out as well, and that's another demon entirely.

SO youre saying you doubt that most scientists are Atheists? Thats a generalization really? You might want to look into that.

Most, no, I don't doubt it.
90% is not most. *shrugs*

Yes there was a noted lack of art and culture because Europe was being swallowed by Christendom.

....not because everyone is either dying or dying?

Can I ask you something? Have you ever been to the USA? Where do you live? Because you are severely ignorant on some cultural shit that we got going on over there. They're waging a battle to ban Evolution from many classrooms, this is not "Accepted".
https://www.google.com/search?q=ban...ome.0.57j0j62l3.4751&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Haven't, but I heard about that.
What they are doing is wrong, and their reasoning doesn't make sense, and that's a social domination all right.
But abolishing religion due to that....nngh, as much as it makes sense, it also feels like an eye for an eye (although that's within the realm of ethics.)

...And getting to the side of ethics for a bit, Billy, don't judge the entire group by the behavior of the most insane.

Your view of it being black and white is black and white.

Oh god, I don't realize we're godmodding.

I adore this quote and its utterly true. However it does not justify the statement you made earlier that Logic is just like Faith. I can become the worst atheist Shade of David Duke or the Westboro Church and you will STILL be wrong on that point.

Well, I'm talking about your behavior, so.. :3

This is not true, I think that you could see this with a check of my posts on this forum. Its all we have talked about lately because it seems like that's all anyone wants to talk about. I dont make these threads up. But I feel I am pretty consistently dismissive and superior regardless of the discussion. Thats just me. I browbeat people when they do stupid shit *shoulder shrug* I suppose I could stop, but then I have to live with being inauthentic.

I didn't see you posting on other topics, Billy.

Yes and no... Again... strictly speaking I am an Agnostic, that what you would say I believe. However I live as an Atheist because the world needs less god and more atheism. As for my mental state, don't you worry about that. I'm nuts, I will be the 1st to admit it. You have to be nuts to live by your own methods and to go around all the feel good bullshit society keeps trying to slow you down with. I made a choice long ago, that I would rather be hated than live a lie. I would rather be Sad than live a lie. I would rather have the truth, the real truth... not subjective truth, but the shit I can quantify so as I can make better decisions in my life. And my life has been better as a result. Much more compatible emotionally to accept the world as it is, than to persist in idealism that just rob me of my heart as the idealism are proven wrong time and time again.

May you live well, then.

Thanks for sharing, Billy. However bad this talk is going, I certainly learned something.

 

[barbad0s]

So you weren't getting personal when you said I was never wrong? Really?

It wasn't a stab at you, it was a stab at your rhetoric.

 

[jimtaylor]

Holly balls. I have a talent for starting controversial topics

 

[Quiet]

Hey [MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION] Im enjoying our conversation and i'll reply to your posts soon. Im really busy for the next few days.

Hope you're well and enjoying your day

 

[myself]

I've seen and experienced things your logic fails to explain.

Logic is useful, science is great, faith is always relevant.

Faith is as natural as Hope and Love.

 

[housel]

Not religious but I'm a man of faith, it's pretty logical

 

[aristarkos]

Even for a person of faith, doesn't it always start with reason ... reasoning in some way that God exists ... ? And for the Christian, also reasoning in some way that the Bible is true ... ?

It seems to me that a lot of people don't put enough time and effort into that original reasoning. It seems like a lot of people kind of go with the flow of their culture, family, or friends.

“Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth. Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief. Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is the testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing." - Robert T Weston

“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes

When it comes to arguments about the existence of God, I can relate to the Apatheists. When it comes to the Bible, I have seen no reason to believe that it isn't just a human creation.

I'm an Agnostic-Deist and Unitarian Universalist that believes in Love Ethics. I have a careful measure of reason-based faith (trust). From my perspective, if I were to embrace a higher quantity of faith, I would have a significantly lower quality of faith.

Blind faith is overrated; doubt is underrated.

 

[Apone]

I don't really mind it when people have faith. It's when they confuse it with knowledge that it bothers me. You don't just automatically know things because you believe that something is true... and no, science is not a belief system.

The only time that faith and logic don't contradict each other is when someone is prepared to change what they believe as soon as all available evidence proves them wrong.

I also think that all beliefs should be falsifiable, but in the end that's up to you... to me it doesn't make sense to believe in something just because you can't prove that it doesn't exist, but as long as you're not being a douche about it, it's fine.

 

[Quiet]

Hey Billy, sorry for the extremely late reply! Its been a wonderfully busy time

Can you define it yourself then so we can get on the same page.

Objectivity is the whole picture- everything that exists. I believe that we are a part of that whole picture, so any observations, theories and beliefs we hold are subjective. I do not believe that we are separate form the world. I dont think it is possible for us to know objective truth, although we can and should strive to learn as objectively as possible. I suppose if we were able to guage the reality of every human, plant, animal and all other consciousness on this planet that we would could start coming to terms with the objective truth of this world. I think that our perception is very limited because of our natural bias. Some people see 'objective' as based on observable phenomeon. I dont agree with that definition because what we can observe is also limited. At one point people thought the world was flat. That was an observable fact back then. But it was based on limited perception and knowledge.

The world is a vast place. The universe is a vast place. All life on this planet is incredible complex. I have spent years studying the human mind and body and the main thing i have learned is that- the more you know the less you know. Human perception is limited by our senses and our current knowledge base.

We have a habit of discounting information that doesnt naturally fit in with our schemas and belief systems. We look for overall patterns, shapes, and trends. We write of any 'irregular' information as inconsistent, and therefore not meaningful and relavant. But every single irregularity and inconsistency is a part of the overall picture. We gain nothing by pretending these inconsistencies dont exist except furthering our own delusion and our desire and attachment to predictability and security.

I think it seems clear that are natural laws and phenomenon that we are subject to- gravity etc. We have incomplete understanding of these laws and phenomenon and we have theories about these that we develop and evolve. These laws are a part of existance on Earth. They provide a framework - they are like the mechanics, or perhaps the mathmatics of this world. Our glimpse of the mechanics of this world has been incredibly useful and insightful in our understanding of our planet and our experience. But just because we can get a glimpse of the mechanics doesnt mean that we understand this whole world, or that we should stop trying because we 'already have the facts'.

We know that human beings exist, that we are self aware, think, feel, make choices, effect each other and our environment etc. We are born, eat, shit, reproduce and die. We are inextricably connected to Earth. We are a part of Earth. We interact with Earth. We are a part of an ecosystem. Through the act of observing the environment we are interacting with and effecting the environment. We are filtering any information gleaned from our observations and experience through the lense of what we already know, what we expect and what we believe is possible. In that sense, the idea of external reality- an objective reality on Earth- seems impossible to fathom.

Define Faith as youre using it. You know that Atheists and Agnostics often score much higher on intelligence tests right? I am not saying they are smarter, because there can be other factors but that is interesting.

I have already defined faith as i am using it several times. Faith is strong conviction and belief. Faith is having complete confidence and trust. One could have strong faith in themself, in their friend, in their ability, in in the likelihood of something occuring or existing etc.
All people have faith. And all people use logic. It is what people direct their faith towards and their ability to use logic that matters.
Agnostics and athiests probably score higher on iq tests because the societies in which these people live tend to be in more developed nations, have high literacy, have better access to information etc.

Then what is the point of calling anyone biased? Its like me trying to negatively say that you have teeth.

Im not trying to make a negative comment towards you. Im simply stating that you are biased, as is everyone, as am i. Being biased isnt negative, it is simply a reality that we all experience. Better to acknowledge our bias and be aware of it than assume that we can percieve things objectively.

I would agree that it like all existence is neutral. A tool to be used. However and bear with me, Coal power plants are neutral, in good hands they can provide heat and electricity. In the wrong hands they can cause blackouts and rob people of energy. Either case its still a nasty factory that burns carbon fuels and destroys the environment. Do you understand my meaning?

Yes, I agree and i made the same comment in a previous post. I feel that you are not really reading my posts- it seems that you just skimming over them and reacting.

Yes and Faith is willful ignorance.

Faith can be willful ignorance. But ultimately faith is neutral and it is the way faith is used by individuals and cultures that define whether that faith is healthy or unhealthy.

You have the dogma, I don't. I'm an atheist.And yes, I believe the people you met are also either delusional or experiencing some form of hysteria or shared delusion. I do not say that to be insulting, believe me, I am sincere... I honestly just believe that.

I dont identify with any specific religion or ideology, but i do have dogma and i am aware of this. I believe that we create our reality and I believe that Love is our natural state. I have not always believed these things but i do believe these things now and i am aware that my beliefs fundamentally effect my perception and experience of the world.
If you choose to identify as an atheist it means that you have chosen a position and the beliefs associated with your position will also fundamentally effect your perception and experience of the world. Being an athiest is not neutral, it is a belief system, and it comes with its own dogma. And there is nothing wrong with that but is it better to be aware of exactly what dogmas we are influenced by rather than pretending that we are somehow unaffected and can see things objectively

 

[Quiet]

Well its not powerful... it does exist, but its usually not that strong. Its not like you can go up to a cripple and give them water and say its magic water and they can walk now and they get out of the chair... its more like...

Its more like telling a person who has Cancer that this new treatment will work way better than the old... the positivity of the news leads to a stimulated response of of your brain released pleasurable endorphin and chemicals that prolong your health. Whereas there are also negative placebos, stress for example could be seen as something like that. But it will make you feel worse and maybe even reduce your immune system because your brain is releasing adrenaline and cortisol which forces your body to burn through energy and increase your heart rate which have negative effects.

The reason I found it Ironic, is because religion is a placebo to cure our fear and vulnerability.

The placebo effect is powerful. The fact that it exists means that it is important and should be considered when looking at the overall picture. There is literature available to support this assertion- Please look at the links i posted or do your own research if you want to learn more. The placebo effect is even noticeable when people are aware that they are taking a placebo. This is both exciting and very important in our understanding of life, health and our interaction with each other and our environment. And yes placebos can be negative or positive. Studies have found that telling patients about possible side effects of medication can increase their experience of those side effects. It also means that an influencing factor for a person to get better is having a good and trusting relationship with their practioner or in the ability of the medication to work.

I do not believe that religion is a cure for fear and vulnerability. Quite the opposite. I think many religions cause fear and vulnerability. They can insulate people from the world, makes them feel separate from each other and Earth. They can creates fear and vulnerability and errode trust and independance. Many religions can separate people from the process and joy of life. Some religions can make people feel unworthy, bad and inconsequential. Some religions can be repressive and block people from the simple and perfect pleasures of life.


I dont think that life is something to be afraid of or something that is bad or filled with suffering. People are taught that. I dont think life is mundane. People are taught that.
Life is an exciting adventure. Being alive is amazing. My life is full of magic and this earth is full of magic. We live on a beautiful planet, in one of the most amazing times in history.
So many wonderful things we can experience here on Earth- joy, peace, Love, connection, honesty, free expression, communication, learning, eating, sex, showers, baths, swimming, dancing, singing, making music, playing, dreaming, trees, flowers, animals, sleeping, cooking, gardening, having children, feeling the sun and the rain on our back, and laying in the grass.

 

[the]

Logic is a neat thing but it is way overrated. What's logical to one isn't logical to another. It's not as concrete or black and white as people make it out to be.

 

[SealHammer]

Being an athiest is not neutral, it is a belief system, and it comes with its own dogma. And there is nothing wrong with that but is it better to be aware of exactly what dogmas we are influenced by rather than pretending that we are somehow unaffected and can see things objectively

Atheism is no more a belief system than science is.

It's just a word. A word that means "One who does not follow a god." There's no dogma to that. Antitheism, on the other hand, could be considered dogmatic, at least insofar as it is in active and direct opposition to theism.

Also, faith is absolutely willful ignorance; belief in something for which there is no evidence involves being willfully ignorant. To think otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Quiet]

Atheism is no more a belief system than science is.

It's just a word. A word that means "One who does not follow a god." There's no dogma to that. Antitheism, on the other hand, could be considered dogmatic, at least insofar as it is in active and direct opposition to theism.

Also, faith is absolutely willful ignorance; belief in something for which there is no evidence involves being willfully ignorant. To think otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

I know what you're saying, but i think its more complicated than that. If one was to define atheism in the way that you have- than absolutely yes- there is no belief system and no dogma. Many people dont define atheism in that way though- they define it as the belief or theory that god/gods do not exist.

With that definition, atheism is not just a word, it is a position. There are different kinds of atheism. Some atheists believe that there is no god/gods. Some atheists believe that there is probably no god/gods based on what they have experienced and found through evidence or found through a lack of evidence. Some athiests have no attachments and beliefs whatsoever about the existance or non existance of god/gods- These particular athiests have no dogma because they truly are open minded and not attached to any specific belief. Atheism can be a belief, and for many atheists, it is. God can not be proven nor disproven. There is no scientific proof either way.

Some atheists i have met are as attached to their belief as much as some christians and muslims i have met. For them, it is not about 'belief', because they believe that they are 100% correct, accurate and right. So what they 'believe' or think is not a belief for them- its just the truth and its everyone else that appears to have a belief system.

Some people often use science in a dogmatic way. They use theories, research, evidence, and intepretations to create strong conclusions and 'facts' that they then see as irrevocable and 100% accurate. While science can help us create strong conculsions and facts, the purpose of science is to openly explore, theorise and build. Theories are beautiful, because they can be evolved, and they have room for growth and exploration- they are open ended. Science is NOT a closed book. But some people do treat science this way- as an absolute, as dogma. This is blatant disregard, disrespect and ignorance of the scientific method. Its putting our own human frailities and human ignorance onto science, using it as a tool to ignore uncertainties and unknowns. Quality science starts with the approach of tolerance for uncertainty.

Its hard to learn anthing when one starts with the approach that they already know. Its hard to have perspective when one is attached to a position.

Its also hard to be truly open minded, because this state can leave one feeling lost and swimming in a world of uncertainty. Which is why tolerance for uncertainty is so conducive to learning. Some people think that being open minded means that one can accept any new idea that comes along. In my opinion, that is not open minded at all- just ignorance and lazy, uncritical thought. True open mindedness is being completely open to information and not becoming attached to any of it. Letting your mind hold each though as objectively as possible, and being prepared to let each go. This is really hard to do- we as humans have so many filters we have built and that we need in order to survive and comprehend our everyday experience. We build short cuts to save time and then forget that we have short cuts and dont understand how our beliefs and programming is defining and effecting our experience/interaction with ourselves, each other and the environment.

I have no doubt- so i have absolute faith- that i have experienced Source. I 'know' source exists. I cannot prove this experience to anyone else. I dont believe or disbelieve in god/gods. I think it is likely that the gods of the major world religion are not true/dont exist. There are no books, ideologies, or doctrines that i have found that hold the answers and are completely correct. Miilion of people existing right now and through history have experienced god/gods. None of these experiences can be proven or disproven. Some of these experiences have been healthy and others have been unhealthy. Some people are religious simply because that's what they were taught to do. Others are purpsefully brainwashed, others are ignorant, others are attached to a belief and others choose their faith for a completely different reason. Some come to that faith as an exploration of the world and their inner self. There are as many reasons someone may believe in god/gods as there are someone may believe in no god/gods.

Any belief that you hold will effect you. My beliefs effect me. The hardest part is being aware and understanding how our beliefs effect us. There is still much i dont understand in regardings to my own programming.

In regards to faith as willful ignorance, that can certainly be true. I was replying to a previous poster who was asserting faith is what dumbs our society down. Although faith can dumb down our scoiety, sometimes it affords us something entirely different. Sometimes we need to take that 'leap of faith' to make progress. Some of the most important and influential scientific discoveries have started off as a hunch, then a leap of faith despite the odds, and then a concerted effort to create a comphrehensive theory. Sometimes we need to have faith in ourselves and our ability to create that drive and maintain the momentum of success. Sometimes we need to have faith in the people in our loved ones. The way faith is used is what makes it either healthy or unhealthy. Faith can be used in an ignorant manner or it can be used consciously, with full understanding of what faith is, and the knowledge of how to use this attribute to improve our lives.

 

[Kgal]

.....

In regards to faith as willful ignorance, that can certainly be true. I was replying to a previous poster who was asserting faith is what dumbs our society down. Although faith can dumb down our scoiety, sometimes it affords us something entirely different. Sometimes we need to take that 'leap of faith' to make progress. Some of the most important and influential scientific discoveries have started off as a hunch, then a leap of faith despite the odds, and then a concerted effort to create a comphrehensive theory. Sometimes we need to have faith in ourselves and our ability to create that drive and maintain the momentum of success. Sometimes we need to have faith in the people in our loved ones. The way faith is used is what makes it either healthy or unhealthy. Faith can be used in an ignorant manner or it can be used consciously, with full understanding of what faith is, and the knowledge of how to use this attribute to improve our lives.

You have a beautiful heart and mind charlene.

I have a hard time even saying the word "faith" - and yet I've experienced 'source' as well.

So I prefer to explain faith as having a curious attitude.

I mean if the person you know is well educated - has always used excellent critical thinking skills - comes to you and says they had a "Non Ordinary Reality" experience - why aren't you at least curious? There are many people I know who balk when it comes to me telling them about my experiences - because they are rigidly adhered to their Faith - whether it be a christian religion - or atheism.

I know where they're coming from as I used to be an atheist.
But one day I followed my random curiosity and it led me to me where I am today.

Astounded.