Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no objective "best". "Best" is a subjective value determination. I am not seeking nor proposing any "best". I am only seeking clarity and accuracy in identifying the criteria. Belief is based on criteria, and I am not seeing the value of that criteria set as I am identifying it. That is the subject of this thread.
Everything does.
I have never encountered anyone who was really confused about this. I think you are trying to confuse yourself in order to make some point.
Everything does.
Logic is a criteria that many of us use much of the time. But it renders different results depending on the information set it's being applied to and the goal one is hoping to achieve. I am simply trying to identify and clarify that information set in the case of belief. And so far it is not showing itself, to me, to be especially logical (I.e., beneficial).
Why do you need to 'believe' it, and then proclaim your belief in it to me, when by your own admitted experience, you already know it to be so? Why this deliberate lack of clarity? If you know something to be so then why not just say that you know it? What is this strange insistence on believing in it doing for you? Are you unsure of what you know? And so also need to believe in your knowing?
Truth matters to me.
Really? I don't think that's true. A child looks to find answers... then he believes.
He accepts the answers he's given, and the facts that he experiences, but does he "believe (in)" them? I ask questions and get answers all the time. And I accept those answers for as long as and to the degree that they function as answers. But that doesn't mean I believe they are the answer. That I am no longer skeptical or in doubt of their validity. And why would I? What advantage to me is there in my making that assessment?
Yes, faith is beneficial. Even essential. I just don't see any need for belief. Nor any advantage in it. It actually seems disadvantageous to me in that it eschews skepticism and doubt.
Well, I would say if you can't stand for something you're going to fall for anything.
Belief and Faith are the same thing.
But we can "stand for" whatever we think is good and right without having to believe that we can't possibly be bad, or wrong. In fact, it seems to me that it's essential that we all understand that even when we think and hope (or believe) that we are doing what's good and right, we may in fact be doing quite the opposite. Many horrible things have been done by people that had the very best of intentions, and that believed heart and soul that they were doing the right thing. So it seems to me that skepticism is NOT something that we ought to be trying to eliminate in ourselves, especially about ourselves.
There may be, but we humans don't have the scope to determine that. We are very finite.
This isn't about what we accept. It's about what we believe. We can accept that all kinds of things are likely or probable without our having to believe that they will be so, without a doubt. Belief is about setting aside that doubt, and skepticism, and deciding to just go forward presuming that we are right.
First I don’t need to proclaim anything, to you or anyone else. If it comes up and conversation, of if someone asks me, I might, or I might not. Scepticism allows me to consider other possibilities and avoid rigid thinking. (I might even find a way to make a better cup of coffee).
Truth and falsity requires the ability to make some sort of distinction between the two.