Basis of Belief

[rational experiences]

I suppose extraterrestrial artificial intelligence could have seeded life on Earth. I'd consider that to be a distinctive possibility if we were living in base reality. If we are simulated beings as I suspect we are in a simulation, then I am guessing we are the simulated ancestral beings of a distant future generation of post-humans in a technological advanced civilization with powerful computers and controllers programming the virtual reality of the simulation we are living in.

Just words

You are only a human. Can only be a human.

Water was first in scientific stated theisms just science discussed as created formed in space first. Water stating a body of its own mass.

As water is mass first itself.

Not in any science theory does a human own bodily mass as a scientific quote first cosmic forms..

Science theories about mass only.

So when you bring relative conscious human reality back to the human thinker we live after animals in hierarchy as a greater bio body DNA presence and consciousness. As a mass inferred status.

Which the human scientist theories first.

A human owns form only of bio life as a greater mass nearly water itself by percentile biology.

Biology can only be discussed in its natural habitat.

How human theists misusing natural human consciousness began to lie about self human presence.

As when a thinker just a human wants to compare me to aliens he says alien form inside of metals or seen in burning gases in heavens the intention is to burn us to death.

As any state coming to the ground uses biological water to cool it.

As you theory for a metal machine only for a practice to be rich and powerful as said human. Theism as the practice of science.

Medical actually not science was a human healer in reality of teaching.
The reality why we said the quotes human scientists are Satanists first as theists about powers not human.

As natural human science biological medical advice for advice is about a human is just human in total owning no fake theories.

 

[Muffled]

What is the primary basis of your beliefs?*

Do you feel one primary basis or foundation is more correct than another? Why or why not?


*I understand many of you may use a combination of these to form a belief, but I used "primary" in the question above to learn what your go-to or default foundation is, which is why only one poll choice is permitted in this poll.

____________________________________________

I believe it is scriptural. I f I had not believed scripture I would not have gone on to have the experience and evidence.

 

[Muffled]

I have no religious beliefs, that does not mean i have no beliefs. Those beliefs are earned from both evidenced, experiment and learning Probably evidence is primary

I believe evidence was last on my list. It appears to be the least reliable. The atheist sees no evidence for God which leads to a false belief that there isn't one.

 

[Muffled]

I find belief unnecessary. Basically, belief is just pretending to know things that we don't really know, so I try not to do that.

I believe I know and once something is revealed it can't go back into hiding.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe evidence was last on my list. It appears to be the least reliable. The atheist sees no evidence for God which leads to a false belief that there isn't one.

Nope, very wrong, lack of evidence leads to the belief there is no evidence for gods, which is true as things stand

The vast majority of atheists would consider any evidence provided for a gods existence and if valid then would most probably give up atheism

They are still waiting

Funnily enough i found this just yesterday and considered it good enough to use. Seems that it needs a second outing

 

[PureX]

I believe I know and once something is revealed it can't go back into hiding.

But the problem is that as limited humans beings, there is so much that we don't and can't really know, even though we have convinced ourselves (believe) that we do know. And that dishonesty can become a real problem, I think. Especially when we start trying to defend our beliefs against reality.

I'll give you an example.

Let's say God "reveals" itself to me right now, in whatever blaze of amazing ad magical glory one would expect of such a revelation, and declares to me that (he/it) is God, and that this visitation is the proof.

How could possibly determine the validity of what I was witnessing?, Or of that what it proclaims to be so, is so? I mean, just because it's 'amazing and magical' isn't proof. There are a number of other possible explanations for that. And once that aspect is set aside, there's really nothing left but the claim itself to stand as it's own proof. And that's certainly not enough. The whole visitation could be the work of a very clever magician, or of some unknown alien visitor that has advanced imaging technology choosing to appear to me in a way that he thinks I would be able to grasp. Or it could be some sort of elaborate self-delusion going on in my own brain. And how could I possibly tell? Any of these would appear exactly as it has.

The point is that regardless of how convinced I am of the validity of the experience, as a human being, I really just don't have the ability to know that I'm right. And to deny that reality is to be dishonest. There's a big difference between faith and belief. And that difference is the acceptance of reasonable skepticism.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The vast majority of atheists would consider any evidence provided for a gods existence and if valid then would most probably give up atheism

I do not see that has been the case.

I ask one question of you. Have you picked up and considered the evidence given by Baha'u'llah, as he has offered his person and life and his son as ample proof?

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

I do not see that has been the case.

I ask one question of you. Have you picked up and considered the evidence given by Baha'u'llah, as he has offered his person and life and his son as ample proof?

Regards Tony

As yet there has been no valid evidence for a gods existence, so how can you honestly make such a claim?

Nope, he has told a story and people believed him without question, without evidence

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As yet there has been no valid evidence for a gods existence, so how can you honestly make such a claim?

Nope, he has told a story and people believed him without question, without evidence

So have you looked for and at what was provided as evidence by Baha'u'llah?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

So have you looked for and at what was provided as evidence by Baha'u'llah?

Regards

I have not seen any evidence that would stand up in cpurt of any claim of god

 

[`mud]

Like : "I swear to God to tell the truth....." and on and on...

What if one would say "NO" I will only tell the whole truth according to the facts known by me.

Yah !...that will get it done !!
.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have not seen any evidence that would stand up in cpurt of any claim of god

Yet you have not looked, so how can you see?

Consider Baha'u'llah made a claim in the middle of fanatics, hard line Islamic clerics and yet all he offered could not be used against him in their legal systems, as it all stood up to the required standards of truth and law.

But you can not know this until you read the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Like : "I swear to God to tell the truth....." and on and on...

What if one would say "NO" I will only tell the whole truth according to the facts known by me.

Yah !...that will get it done !!
.

That has become a hollow statement. It used to mean something.

Luckily now it is making a comeback, where someones oath means it will be the Truth.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Yet you have not looked, so how can you see?

Consider Baha'u'llah made a claim in the middle of fanatics, hard line Islamic clerics and yet all he offered could not be used against him in their legal systems, as it all stood up to the required standards of truth and law.

But you can not know this until you read the evidence.

Regards Tony

I see from the information readily available on the internet and the proselytising that can be rampant from some people.

Yes. Perhaps true, perhaps only a story but whatever way, if his offering was valiuless it of course would not stand up in court.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see from the information readily available on the internet and the proselytising that can be rampant from some people.

Yes. Perhaps true, perhaps only a story but whatever way, if his offering was valiuless it of course would not stand up in court.

Such are our choices and this world.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Such are our choices and this world.

Regards Tony

Correct...

 

[sealchan]

The four modes of finding truth reminds of 'Abdu'l-Baha's four modes of truth, though they are not the same. Senses, reason, tradition (scriptures), and inspiration. Combine the four and you can approximate the truth better. To find the truth of my faith I used reason and inspiration mainly as I had no firm basis from Bible scriptures.

Interesting. I think that having a "poly-modal" sense of truth rather than a "mono-modal" one is essential although, perhaps, not new in the sphere of the wisdom traditions of the world. It may be a new idea in the sense of Western philosophical thinking.

In a scientific sense, I see truth as what gives the knower survival advantage in both the short and long term. Those beings with the best truth systems should be able to out-survive and thrive even when they lack superior physical capabilities. The truth is in the pudding and the pudding is being there to brag about it.

In this poly-modal way of looking at truth evil is typically "cast" as it were a shadow of one's own biased strength. The idea of the good God vs the evil Demon seems to be a later development in the history of religion whereas earlier there was a deeper sense of poly-modality of spiritual forces.

But even a mono-theistic God becomes the imaginal all things to all people that none of us could ever be. Our "inherent sinfulness" is an artifact of our limitations and not so much just that we suck as some Biblical interpreters would have us believe. Besides who exactly made us to begin with?

I suspect that we could try to map Jung's functions to Abdu'l-Baha's modes as follows:

Senses = sensation
Reason = thinking (and/or feeling)
inspiration = intuition
Tradition = feeling

Tradition might possibly relate to the developed moral code and practices aimed at keeping an individual in tune with his/her culture and able to satisfy their own needs while not sacrificing the needs of others. This time tested system would stand in for a developed feeling function which can take "valuations" and order them in a rational way such that each "evaluator" is modelled and optimal moral outcomes are achieved within an otherwise somewhat arbitrary set of rules and standards. The feeling function, according to Jung, is a rational function that evaluates the importance of something. Importance has an objective and subjective dimension in that individuals will find value in different things depending on their own experience even as they have the same instinctually driven needs that underlie their valuations.

For a strong Thinking type, Feeling tends to become conventionalized as the use of the Feeling function to dynamically determine the truth of a moral issue is much slower and less personally satisfactory than is the Thinking function and its ordering of terms and their meanings. Interestingly, in the history of the church, it seems that Feeling was taken over by Thinking as science and its method came to be seen as distinct from the pursuit of the knowledge of God sometime during the Middle Ages leading up the the Enlightenment. Prior to that transition, a good Christian was seen as a work of individual moral development apart from creed with a resulting quality of character measured by their actions and responses to others. After that transition, one's faith was marked by the articles of belief that one was an adherent of (aka creed).

 

[Sheldon]

I believe evidence was last on my list. It appears to be the least reliable. The atheist sees no evidence for God which leads to a false belief that there isn't one.

Straw man fallacy, if there is objective evidence for any deity then demonstrate some.

 

[rational experiences]

The eternal was a teaching.

It said it was not science.

Pretty basic advice.

Men in science claim I want ..
.want being the human condition.

Science said as just men I want the eternal to be space.

They then argue what they believe space is

Yet they are just men first a human with no argument. No matter who they think they are egotistically or what they believe in personally.

As they are the hypocrites who claim they know what the creator as a substance is.

Yet asks spiritual humans to tell them what it is.

So that they then can react destroy it.

Does not own any logic if you claim you are the substance yourself.

Why destroyer mentality was the bible topic with lots of reasons to explain why science was taught it was our destroyer. As the intent was legally proven.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Buddha warned against it in 'Kesamutti Sutta':

Thank you Aupmanyav for mentioning this Sutta several times in your posts. It rejects what you hear, read, tradition, thought, logic, teachers etc. as insufficient.

But it also mentions the additional criteria to go by. It's when you know for yourself if something (when committed to) leads to benefit/harm and suffering.