How certain are you about your belief?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems to me, your view is somewhat like option 1, no?

Yeah, but not true of the world. True to me. So you are properly right?

 

[George-ananda]

By now, I consider my beliefs beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[idea]

Regardless what your religious belief, or faith is, including atheism even, my question for you is, how certain are you that your belief is certainly true?

Please choose an option closest.

This Poll is anonymous

I almost went with #1, but:

"My belief is based on my best guesses,.."

My belief is not based on guesses, it is based on experience, research, talking with others, traveling - I do not like the word "guess".

For me, I would say - I know what I currently believe in and what I think is valid, but also understand others have experienced different things and studied different areas. I seek to constantly listen, research, and reconsider my views with additional experience and learning from others."

 

[idea]

None of the options really is a match for me. I am reasonably confident that not all religious beliefs are correct - given that the poll is about such - since it is rather obvious that they all cannot be so. In essence, they all appear to have come from human minds alone. No particular religious belief appeals in any way (intellectually) as being more right than any other, apart from perhaps in any doctrine, so the only doubt I tend to have is in the existence of any creative force - which some might term as being God. But, like many others, my so-called beliefs are open to being modified by appropriate evidence.

For what is reproducible and agreed upon within many context - a spiritual side to life, guiding non-material conscience/force, I think there might be something "out there". Perhaps the reason there is no agreed upon doctrines/group is we are supposed to be creative - a creative force as you say, rather than a conformist force. Natural diversity, which has evolved in a more pure unbiased form - not taught, not molded - but trees and animals who direct themselves and naturally react - so diverse. Every tree, every leaf on every tree unique, creative, individual - I get the feeling that the life force is such, no groups, no dogma, but something that produces unique infinitely creative structures and possibilities.

While we are social creatures, and learn so much from one another, benefit from friendship, and uphold principles of love - it must be a non-controlling, honest (not puffed up, trying to look better / think better) - really honest - 2-way communication, 2-way listening - through non-controlling, open, student mindset, honest - our beliefs can be expanded, built upon.

 

[idea]

By now, I consider my beliefs beyond reasonable doubt.

When personal evidence is overwhelming, belief can turn in to wisdom. I am 100% certain I am following the most positive outcome/way as a born again Christian.

For such confident mindsets, Do you believe you can still learn more? Perhaps you are confident in a "firm foundation", but see possibility of building more? Do you feel value in listening - honestly listening to learn more - to the viewpoints of those who have had different experiences, a different foundation and so currently different beliefs than you?

 

[George-ananda]

Do you believe you can still learn more? Perhaps you are confident in a "firm foundation", but see possibility of building more?

I learn everyday. But it's more details than foundation.

 

[idea]

I learn everyday. But it's more details than foundation.

The reason a foundation is built, is the home that is created on top, yes? I suppose now that I am older - I do understand foundation design, soil reports, geology of it, flood planes - building codes in one location over another - my foundation design in tropics, another foundation design for the arctic - but now most of my time is above the foundation - paint, furniture, double-paned windows, and my favorite part the gardens around my home - I love to work out in the yard, away from the foundation


A flea on a cat on a train on the earth traveling around the sun in the spiral arm in milky way - one of the billions of galaxies in the universe...

A speck of mold on a boot on a sailor on a boat in the ocean on the same earth as the flea...

Perhaps the cat jumps off the train, and the flea jumps off the cat..
Perhaps the sailor makes it ashore, and the mold rubs off in the sand..

the train, the boat, both wonderful foundation, but only through leaving does one find the earth - common ground, a little larger slice of the universe.

our foundation - the place of our first glimpses - no need to say it was wrong, only to see it as incomplete.
incomplete, still room to explore, that is where the adventure begins, with an end to suspicion perhaps of those who might have grown up on something like a boat instead of a train.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I'm pretty certain of my beliefs, and as I believe people work to create synverses, or Gods, they will be able to create the realities they want for themselves in the not-to-distant far future from now. "God is what nature is becoming" and with that, nature will become more Godlike as time rolls forward.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I picked 'I don't really care about having any Belief or disbelief.'

I'm assuming the belief in question is the belief about the existence of God(s) and the afterlife.
So I chose the I don't really care option because if I am certain of anything it's that a God or gods existing or not existing does not impact how I will choose to live my life, because I wouldn't do what they said just because they said so in any case, same as any human.

 

[vulcanlogician]

But why would that matter?

Because data are the premises from which you can draw conclusions from things. If you have no axioms, data, or observations about something, you can't draw conclusions about it. And that includes absurd things like magical invisible leprechauns. We can rationally deduce that invisible leprechauns don't exist, but we can't ever have certainty or claim gnosis.

In fact, I'd say we get better correlation for "no gods exist" than "smoking causes cancer": there are plenty of smokers who never get cancer and plenty of people who get lung cancer who never smoked, so there's strong evidence that there's more to the cancer question. OTOH, there's no observation we have - AFAICT - that can't be reconciled with a godless universe.

The conclusion is: smoking causes cancer. Smokers NOT getting cancer has nothing to do with it. There is an observable causal link between smoking and getting cancer. Were the conclusion smoking always causes cancer, then all you'd need is a single case of a smoker not getting cancer to refute it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yeah, but not true of the world. True to me. So you are properly right?

Of course. I mean, the question is how you feel or consider your own belief or view for yourself, rather than how the world may think about your belief..

 

[George-ananda]

The reason a foundation is built, is the home that is created on top, yes? I suppose now that I am older - I do understand foundation design, soil reports, geology of it, flood planes - building codes in one location over another - my foundation design in tropics, another foundation design for the arctic - but now most of my time is above the foundation - paint, furniture, double-paned windows, and my favorite part the gardens around my home - I love to work out in the yard, away from the foundation


A flea on a cat on a train on the earth traveling around the sun in the spiral arm in milky way - one of the billions of galaxies in the universe...

A speck of mold on a boot on a sailor on a boat in the ocean on the same earth as the flea...

Perhaps the cat jumps off the train, and the flea jumps off the cat..
Perhaps the sailor makes it ashore, and the mold rubs off in the sand..

the train, the boat, both wonderful foundation, but only through leaving does one find the earth - common ground, a little larger slice of the universe.

our foundation - the place of our first glimpses - no need to say it was wrong, only to see it as incomplete.
incomplete, still room to explore, that is where the adventure begins, with an end to suspicion perhaps of those who might have grown up on something like a boat instead of a train.

Right, but when I say 'foundation', I am referring to Source Consciousness/Brahman to which even the earth and the entire physical universe is derivative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because data are the premises from which you can draw conclusions from things. If you have no axioms, data, or observations about something, you can't draw conclusions about it. And that includes absurd things like magical invisible leprechauns. We can rationally deduce that invisible leprechauns don't exist, but we can't ever have certainty or claim gnosis.

As I've mentioned a few times now, a god is an object of worship, which implies a relationship with humanity.

A proper analogy wouldn't just be a magical invisible leprechaun; it would be a magical invisible leprechaun roommate. We might never be able to prove with perfect certainty whether there's an invisible leprechaun living in your basement, but if you don't know about it, it isn't your roommate. A squatter, maybe.

Same with gods: even if something is out in the universe somewhere and it's sufficiently magical and powerful that if we knew about it, we'd decide to worship it as a god, it's irrelevant. If no human knows about it right now, then no human is worshipping the thing right now, then it isn't a god.

The conclusion is: smoking causes cancer. Smokers NOT getting cancer has nothing to do with it.

Smokers getting cancer is a key part of the foundation for concluding that smoking causes cancer.

There is an observable causal link between smoking and getting cancer. Were the conclusion smoking always causes cancer, then all you'd need is a single case of a smoker not getting cancer to refute it.

I think you're missing my point. That's okay.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I think you're missing my point. That's okay.

Would you mind clarifying then?

 

[Mock Turtle]

For what is reproducible and agreed upon within many context - a spiritual side to life, guiding non-material conscience/force, I think there might be something "out there". Perhaps the reason there is no agreed upon doctrines/group is we are supposed to be creative - a creative force as you say, rather than a conformist force. Natural diversity, which has evolved in a more pure unbiased form - not taught, not molded - but trees and animals who direct themselves and naturally react - so diverse. Every tree, every leaf on every tree unique, creative, individual - I get the feeling that the life force is such, no groups, no dogma, but something that produces unique infinitely creative structures and possibilities.

While we are social creatures, and learn so much from one another, benefit from friendship, and uphold principles of love - it must be a non-controlling, honest (not puffed up, trying to look better / think better) - really honest - 2-way communication, 2-way listening - through non-controlling, open, student mindset, honest - our beliefs can be expanded, built upon.

I suppose it all depends upon what one has experienced in life as to what one might believe, apart from any research one might have done, but I don't think I have had anything in my life to make me more inclined to anything other than what we see is what we get. Life seems to me to be about flourishing and continuance, so I'm not sure there is anything behind this. My science knowledge is not up to understanding the very basics of existence (the physics of such) and as to what is still left to be discovered, hence my agnosticism, but I have the usual scepticism over much else - particularly when such often relies on personal experiences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you mind clarifying then?

Just think about the thought process needed to get to the conclusion that smoking causes cancer. Think about all the inductive (and therefore imperfect) reasoning, all the points of uncertainty, all the points where an alternative explanation could be made up to fit the facts.

There's quite a bit of doubt and uncertainty there. The difference between "smoking causes cancer" and "no gods exist" isn't that "no gods exist" is subject to significantly greater uncertainty; the difference is that theists have conditioned our society to demand a much higher level of support for "no gods exist" than for claims that they aren't religiously invested in.

 

[idea]

I suppose it all depends upon what one has experienced in life as to what one might believe, apart from any research one might have done, but I don't think I have had anything in my life to make me more inclined to anything other than what we see is what we get. Life seems to me to be about flourishing and continuance, so I'm not sure there anything behind this. My science knowledge is not up to understanding the very basics of existence (the physics of such) and as to what is still left to be discovered, hence my agnosticism, but I have the usual scepticism over much else - particularly when such often relies on personal experiences.

We all sleep, dream, imagine, create. Our thoughts become actions, ambitions, created experiences, new beliefs. Agnostics leave room for exploration, discovery, wonder, mystery. Embracing the unknown, combined with imagination of what can be, what we can get, what we can become.

Skepticism that another's personal experience could become our own seems justified, we are each so unique, and yet we all laugh, we all live under the same sun, there are connections, common ground.

 

[idea]

Right, but when I say 'foundation', I am referring to Source Consciousness/Brahman to which even the earth and the entire physical universe is derivative.

We are all part of the universe, the same laws that govern galaxies also organize the atoms within our body. We're a tiny peace in a Mandelbrot

Both the real and imaginary parts create the image coordinates on the complex plane, complex numbers, complex structure, simple rules.

I'm not sure a drop understands the ocean, or the ocean understands the drop - there are boundaries - the recursive detail depends on the region of the set boundary being examined.

 

[George-ananda]

We are all part of the universe, the same laws that govern galaxies also organize the atoms within our body. We're a tiny peace in a Mandelbrot

I think I was trying to say we are not the body. We are a point of Source Consciousness temporarily individualized to experience finiteness.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Think about all the inductive (and therefore imperfect) reasoning, all the points of uncertainty, all the points where an alternative explanation could be made up to fit the facts.

As my logic professor once put it, "100% certainty is too high a bar." but certainty is the bar by which you should measure all knowledge. If that's true, then inductive reasoning is fine. Inductive reasoning improves our knowledge just fine.