Faith is Dangerous

[Shadow Wolf]

Without faith life and nature would fall apart. Without faith love, sex, and friendship are dead.

That just isn't true. Without I have some very deep and meaningful relationships, amd a very dear friend (we've been through a lot together).

 

[joelr]

On the contrary, I would suggest that faith is a necessity no one can afford to be without; for the alternative to faith, given all the problems that currently beset the world, is surely despair.

That doesn't have to mean faith in God, btw. But one must have faith in something, or else how does one stay sane?

That isn't the same faith as religious faith. That is belief in things like the ability of humans to do good in difficult times. Or the belief that people will come together enough to help those being brutalized. Those are beliefs based on real experience and evidence. Or belief that we can make it through hard times and will experience better times. Because it's happened many times and there is evidence.

 

[Augustus]

You very well describe am issue with
religious beliefs.
Religion is all about emotions and " faith"-
A highest virtue is to believe anyway even
if all the data in the universe goes against you.

Most worldviews are the same.

There is ample evidence that we go against evidence that shows us to be wrong on matters we are emotionally attached to. Loyalty to the in-group is pretty much a universal human 'virtue' no matter how we identify.

Pretending this is simply a problem for the "religious" is a cope.

With science though, a highest value is the
opposite- question everything, TRY to
be objective, not shun it like its from the devil !

And you dont get 40,000 science - sects
each with the Truth they feel is correct.

One needs facts and a coherent theory,
when someone' s work is fraudulent,
slipshod or otherwise off the rails,
theres others kind of like outriggers
to keep things on a steady keel.

Nothing is perfect but religion is set up
to make sute it goes wrong and cant be corrected.

Worldviews and ideologies are not based on science, but on subjective cultural preferences, intuitions, emotions and experiences.

People have used science to justify all kinds of ideological beliefs, and belief systems from racial supremacism, to Marxists Communism, to 'social Darwinism', to humanistic liberal democracy.

You can get 40,000 ideological and beliefs systems that people believe are justified by science and reason because we pick and choose what to believe based on what we want to be true.

The Rationalist who believes they really do see the world as it is is no different from the believer who thinks they have discovered The One True Faith.

 

[Audie]

Most worldviews are the same.

There is ample evidence that we go against evidence that shows us to be wrong on matters we are emotionally attached to. Loyalty to the in-group is pretty much a universal human 'virtue' no matter how we identify.

Pretending this is simply a problem for the "religious" is a cope.



Worldviews and ideologies are not based on science, but on subjective cultural preferences, intuitions, emotions and experiences.

People have used science to justify all kinds of ideological beliefs, and belief systems from racial supremacism, to Marxists Communism, to 'social Darwinism', to humanistic liberal democracy.

You can get 40,000 ideological and beliefs systems that people believe are justified by science and reason because we pick and choose what to believe based on what we want to be true.

The Rationalist who believes they really do see the world as it is is no different from the believer who thinks they have discovered The One True Faith.

All obvious.
I was comparing religion and science.

 

[Augustus]

I was comparing religion and science.

Which is also largely an exercise in selective perception to confirm ones ideological preferences rather than a meaningful activity, imo.

Not simply because it reinforces the misconception that religion is both a meaningful category that can be differentiated from non-religious beliefs, but also that, whatever religion is, it is somehow a kind of primitive science.

Science and 'religion' don't serve even remotely comparable functions in society, and comparisons tend to be a negative stereotype of a tiny aspect of one with a hagiography of the noble goal other, no matter which "side" does the comparing.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

We experience a reality modeled for increasing our fitness as a species rather than accuracy. Faith, trust, and illusion are necessary sometimes.

 

[Audie]

Which is also largely an exercise in selective perception to confirm ones ideological preferences rather than a meaningful activity, imo.

Not simply because it reinforces the misconception that religion is both a meaningful category that can be differentiated from non-religious beliefs, but also that, whatever religion is, it is somehow a kind of primitive science.

Science and 'religion' don't serve even remotely comparable functions in society, and comparisons tend to be a negative stereotype of a tiny aspect of one with a hagiography of the noble goal other, no matter which "side" does the comparing.

So emotion based v data based,
valuing objectivity v faith is no comparison at all?

 

[Audie]

We experience a reality modeled for increasing our fitness as a species rather than accuracy. Faith, trust, and illusion are necessary sometimes.

Define faith for this context plz.
We all have faith that the sun will rise.

Pie in the sky, not so much.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Define faith for this context plz.
We all have faith that the sun will rise.

Pie in the sky, not so much.

Faith in other people. Faith in situations we become accustomed to. That sort of faith.

 

[syo]

​

Faith that God or the universe has some benevolent plan for you.

Thousands are killed daily, go hungry are homeless. There are no guarantees in the universe. No reason to believe the the universe is going to take your best interest into consideration. No reason to believe your future is bright.

My son believes the universe/God has a special plan for him. That he just needs to wait for the universe/God to reveal it.

Who has been watching out for him are his mom and dad. Parents who sacrifice so he has a place to live and food to eat. Not everyone has parents who are able or wiling.

Is it not folly to assume that someone or something exists that will watch out for your best interests? Or that tomorrow you will have a place to sleep. Food to eat. A family to rely on?

I think about the thousands on families in Ukraine who have lost their homes, parents who have lost their children, children who have lost their parents. Who are now homeless.

Faith is a luxury no one can afford.

Faith or hope?

 

[rational experiences]

In life I believed if I strived for intelligence I would be noticed and considered by my parents as worthy of their notice.

So I trusted that faith in my intelligence would be notated as worthy.

My hope please see my worthiness.

Hence I knew I did not believe I was worthy and my hope was lived by a lot of other humans.

To strive to be seen to be heard to be considered.

Hence I knew I wasn't. Not in my small family unit and not in the greater community.

A shared human experience.

So I said if a God was my origin my family then as a little child... then as a growing adult I had lived poorly as compared to most. And I did little wrong.

Which caused me to think about rich men and a drunk preacher. About what asking for a poor families money meant. When I had little recognition in life as being substantiated.

What was a God.

I learnt men said it was science.

So I knew human science was only thought first as a humans concept. Hence no humans thought invented my life.

I learnt human sex had. Which proved in family life faith and hope was becoming a rarity.

As I was not honoured in life by my family.

Hence if God was a human science concept it did not own either faith nor hope.

Pretty obvious it didn't. As science was practiced for humans to be rich in the trade by use and applied human sciences.

So I demanded in my mind where consciousness is expressed if someone other than humans and science machines status existed then I demand the evidence.

A voice told me I had to live the spiritual life to have it proven.

I did. I chose to believe.

My story. My choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Faith or hope?

What do you see as the difference?

 

[syo]

What do you see as the difference?

I have difficulty in distinguishing them.

 

[Nakosis]

I have difficulty in distinguishing them.

Me too, but faith is usually is consideration of present situations. Stuff happening now.
Hope is usually an expression of something that is going to happen in the future.

I'm not big of hope either but maybe as long as we are not too attached to a specific result.

Faith you act on what you believe to be currently true. I suspect this has more potential for causing problems.

 

[Nakosis]

A voice told me I had to live the spiritual life to have it proven.

I did. I chose to believe.

My story. My choice.

I did too for a while but my mind was never satisfied with any of the answers.
So I kept looking everywhere and found too many people all believing they had the answer.

Maybe I thought I did too but how could we all be right when we couldn't all agree on the answer?
So I let go of the certainty that I was right, as others seem to have the same certainty.
Someone has to be wrong so self-certainty maybe is not so reliable.

 

[rational experiences]

I did too for a while but my mind was never satisfied with any of the answers.
So I kept looking everywhere and found too many people all believing they had the answer.

Maybe I thought I did too but how could we all be right when we couldn't all agree on the answer?
So I let go of the certainty that I was right, as others seem to have the same certainty.
Someone has to be wrong so self-certainty maybe is not so reliable.

In a family of human spiritual life behaviour relationships it is proven.

Then you ask what concepts don't give the same answers.

O a planet body self reactive. No human controls it. It destroys our life anytime. So we ask why are we living on it for.

The heavens reactive naturally. Hurts us. Same question.

And we are all humans first. To say as my owned self I claim human only science.

Which actually is about chosen human behaviour only.

Claiming I was told by science a God how I was given presence myself. In real language a humans confession it means I think I know it all.

Where the idea a God using my mind human my words human. Told me how and why.

As I can't self exist consciously before myself to advise myself. As the human. Who believes science.

So a deity told me said men scientists. As we're all humans we know how our human self thinks and behaves.

Yet that deity just happened to own he him his man statements.

And in created presence a man is as man the penis owner.

So as a woman I read his words.

He did not say a woman could thesis like me. He took all claim I am the thinker word inference teacher of human science. A man. The human and God the deity a man named by him.

Which is just a human's thesis. How I believe I got created.

Ignored equal life partnership as proven as two humans to put his man mind to just science maths.

Named it a woman. Being a human.

Yet maths and science his reasoning's aren't any human woman.

To thesis how he believed a human woman owned presence by his man's science maths.

Real human natural at his side. He theoried for the thesis science himself as a man.. Science thesis is not a woman he theoried as science only first.

Ignored as usual.

In other words a non existence term directly imposed onto the woman by man the theist.

Ego...proven he would not consider his own presence not existing. The man of God theist the scientists.

Then we all do a historical human behaviour advice.

Men using very bad behaviours historic and woman abused.

Yes it's real about Mr I know it all.

Human science used egotism.

As a human. My parents human always precede me. Have sex both lives produce a baby life. First position any human self does not own any God science theisms.

So I can ignore scientists a baby man theories about I know how the first two human's exist.

The first parents of any human today.

Yet I can say brother you were the scientist as one human as the man. You totally ignored first man a human was sciences theist.

So you cannot as baby man today say you represent first two parents advice mutually.

So what do you think your man's maths human claim is? About first two human adults.

To be enabled to state your god thesis are fake. Said only by a man human theist as and for AI machine practice.

As a machine came from slight earth dust chemical change. Lesser energy taken to build the machine direct from position the ground.

Then a higher mass energy reaction to get the machines reaction.

So machines thesis was never actually any God term either. It was human designer terms only.

Human presence had never ever owned a thesis why we existed where how why on planet earth by any other humans story.

So to be human family spiritual was to believe in a mutually owned human life.

To know planet earth is a reactive body itself. No human controls it.

If you want to believe once a reacting earth body and heavens began life we humans aren't there. Not in the reaction and not after the reaction either.

And any new human controlled reaction is changed only in the new baby life presence of human's choosing it as new. Not old. Or back in time or before I was doing such and such science.

As for a long time no human was practicing any science.

If a baby human grows then ages becomes the adult and adults die. Maybe in your own mind you think you travelled back in time. Yet as the adult you don't suddenly become two other humans.

So scientist human you are in fact just human egotists.

My faith and hope was to bring the human realisation to your self destructive just human personality disorder.

 

[Nakosis]

In a family of human spiritual life behaviour relationships it is proven.

Then you ask what concepts don't give the same answers.

O a planet body self reactive. No human controls it. It destroys our life anytime. So we ask why are we living on it for.

The heavens reactive naturally. Hurts us. Same question.

And we are all humans first. To say as my owned self I claim human only science.

Which actually is about chosen human behaviour only.

Claiming I was told by science a God how I was given presence myself. In real language a humans confession it means I think I know it all.

Where the idea a God using my mind human my words human. Told me how and why.

As I can't self exist consciously before myself to advise myself. As the human. Who believes science.

So a deity told me said men scientists. As we're all humans we know how our human self thinks and behaves.

Yet that deity just happened to own he him his man statements.

And in created presence a man is as man the penis owner.

So as a woman I read his words.

He did not say a woman could thesis like me. He took all claim I am the thinker word inference teacher of human science. A man. The human and God the deity a man named by him.

Which is just a human's thesis. How I believe I got created.

Ignored equal life partnership as proven as two humans to put his man mind to just science maths.

Named it a woman. Being a human.

Yet maths and science his reasoning's aren't any human woman.

To thesis how he believed a human woman owned presence by his man's science maths.

Real human natural at his side. He theoried for the thesis science himself as a man.. Science thesis is not a woman he theoried as science only first.

Ignored as usual.

In other words a non existence term directly imposed onto the woman by man the theist.

Ego...proven he would not consider his own presence not existing. The man of God theist the scientists.

Then we all do a historical human behaviour advice.

Men using very bad behaviours historic and woman abused.

Yes it's real about Mr I know it all.

Human science used egotism.

As a human. My parents human always precede me. Have sex both lives produce a baby life. First position any human self does not own any God science theisms.

So I can ignore scientists a baby man theories about I know how the first two human's exist.

The first parents of any human today.

Yet I can say brother you were the scientist as one human as the man. You totally ignored first man a human was sciences theist.

So you cannot as baby man today say you represent first two parents advice mutually.

So what do you think your man's maths human claim is? About first two human adults.

To be enabled to state your god thesis are fake. Said only by a man human theist as and for AI machine practice.

As a machine came from slight earth dust chemical change. Lesser energy taken to build the machine direct from position the ground.

Then a higher mass energy reaction to get the machines reaction.

So machines thesis was never actually any God term either. It was human designer terms only.

Human presence had never ever owned a thesis why we existed where how why on planet earth by any other humans story.

So to be human family spiritual was to believe in a mutually owned human life.

To know planet earth is a reactive body itself. No human controls it.

If you want to believe once a reacting earth body and heavens began life we humans aren't there. Not in the reaction and not after the reaction either.

And any new human controlled reaction is changed only in the new baby life presence of human's choosing it as new. Not old. Or back in time or before I was doing such and such science.

As for a long time no human was practicing any science.

If a baby human grows then ages becomes the adult and adults die. Maybe in your own mind you think you travelled back in time. Yet as the adult you don't suddenly become two other humans.

So scientist human you are in fact just human egotists.

My faith and hope was to bring the human realisation to your self destructive just human personality disorder.

I've no idea but I'm glad you had a chance to express yourself.

 

[rational experiences]

I've no idea but I'm glad you had a chance to express yourself.

No human capital ntrols controls the planet or its heavens by machines best.

My best computer expert is my own human life.

Yet they thesis the earth is their machine. Yet the human mans science thesis their machine reaction is the same as earths. Earth owned it first the reaction.

Reason...
The suns gas burning light came to the ground first. Ended as held light above voided. Light is in the vacuum voiding is not human science.

You began ground burning by human force as if you were the sun. In machine status. Pretty basic you were told never convert God earth again as your life isn't the earth mass.

The earth is where all reactions originate.

Men take the ground mass keep the machines as a safety procedure....they control...and it's not controlled in nature. Yet nature where the reaction occurred first isn't safe.

Their advice first is taken from natural history without owning natural history. A thesis.

The science machine theme is human controlled cooling shouldn't let it blow up. As men knew mass fused began at the ground position. Hence their machine begins at the same position.

Cooling of the reaction hence is theoried as they knew the reaction would virtually blow up the machine mass taken direct from the planets mass.

In my faith surely someone in your science organisation with hope is a self thinker and not science preached possessed.

Reasoned a human baby man adult scientist hurt both our human parents bodies.

Yet you scientist man baby totally eradicated your man DNA life yourself.

So said Stephen Hawking realising.

In your god man's science thesis earth healed my females ovary womb damaged before you could be conceived. Man baby. Mother's human story.

Why is it that you became a self idoliser in human life?

Because you are the scientists. Man began science man ended life because of science.

 

[Augustus]

So emotion based v data based,
valuing objectivity v faith is no comparison at all?

We all use both at various times.

Sometimes we have the choice which one to use, other times we don't. Sometimes it matters which one we use, other times it doesn't.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How do you stay sane. Good question.
IMO, accepting the reality that there are no guarantees.

I accept that I might die tomorrow or find myself homeless or something worse.
So what? If I can deal with it great. If not, too bad.

Life must have a purpose/meaning. You must have a reason why you get up in the morning (Japanese call it ikigai). This is especially true in difficult conditions.

Frankl developed his logotherapy after his experience in Nazi concentration camp.

Man's Search for Meaning - Wikipedia