Many different religious opinions

[PureX]

None of the above definitions say anything about having doubt in one's beliefs. Quite the contrary in fact.



When we make predictions based on prior experience aren't we attempting to minimize these presumptions? Surely experiencing the same thing over and over in the same or similar circumstances, plus others reporting the same experience counts for something? I agree that we will never get a totally accurate picture of reality, but you seem to be saying that everything is inaccurate presumption. Or are you?

Also, if you are correct, where do we go from there? Should I not bother to finish this response because I can't be sure you exist?

I'm not going to argue silly semantics with you. But ask yourself what you think the fundamental difference between faith, as a verb, and belief as a verb, is. And if you do that honestly, I think you'll have to recognize that the difference is that faith not only acknowledges doubt, it exists because of doubt. Whereas belief is a denial/rejection of doubt. But if you can't or more likely won't see that, then so be it. I'm not going to argue about it. It's not my job to fight with anyone's willful ignorance.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not going to argue silly semantics with you. But ask yourself what you think the fundamental difference between faith, as a verb, and belief as a verb, is. And if you do that honestly, I think you'll have to recognize that the difference is that faith not only acknowledges doubt, it exists because of doubt. Whereas belief is a denial/rejection of doubt. But if you can't or more likely won't see that, then so be it. I'm not going to argue about it. It's not my job to fight with anyone's willful ignorance.

And there was I thinking that belief usually came from enough evidence and faith from that which is chosen to be such.

 

[PureX]

And there was I thinking that belief usually came from enough evidence and faith from that which is chosen to be such.

All "belief" is, is the presumption of one's own correctness. A presumption that usurps doubt ... dismisses it as negligeable. "Evidence has nothing to do with it, really. Such a presumption may be based on evidence, or it may not be. It may be based on subjective evidence, anecdotal evidence, objective evidence, empirical evidence, or no evidence at all. And you may or may not agree to what someone else perceives and claims their evidence to be.

Faith, on the other hand, is an option we can choose when whatever evidence we think we have, or that we lack, simply does not provide us with what we consider to be reasonable surety. Faith is the acknowledgement of our doubt, and the decision to choose and act ion our goals, anyway. To see what results.

So we have "belief": the presumption that our "evidence" provides us with surety, And we have "faith", the acknowledgement of our lack of surety, and the willingness to move forward toward our goals in the face of it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sometimes -- not very often. That's called "lucid dreaming."

So when you're dreaming, but not lucidly, is your dream self aware that what he's doing physically in the dream is just an appearance in the mind?

 

[syo]

Can they all be true?

Of course. Only cults are nuts.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So when you're dreaming, but not lucidly, is your dream self aware that what he's doing physically in the dream is just an appearance in the mind?

My dream self exists only in MY mind, it has no mind of its own with which to be self-aware. If it did, then it too could dream, and so on and so on. Instead of turtles, it'd be dream-selves all the way to the bottom.

 

[Mock Turtle]

All "belief" is, is the presumption of one's own correctness. A presumption that usurps doubt ... dismisses it as negligeable. "Evidence has nothing to do with it, really. Such a presumption may be based on evidence, or it may not be. It may be based on subjective evidence, anecdotal evidence, objective evidence, empirical evidence, or no evidence at all. And you may or may not agree to what someone else perceives and claims their evidence to be.

Faith, on the other hand, is an option we can choose when whatever evidence we think we have, or that we lack, simply does not provide us with what we consider to be reasonable surety. Faith is the acknowledgement of our doubt, and the decision to choose and act ion our goals, anyway. To see what results.

So we have "belief": the presumption that our "evidence" provides us with surety, And we have "faith", the acknowledgement of our lack of surety, and the willingness to move forward toward our goals in the face of it.

I don't know about presumption, given that my beliefs will change given enough evidence. Those with a faith - perhaps not so much? Given the numbers on RF, and elsewhere of course, who dogmatically eschew science when it seemingly contradicts any of their beliefs - or those handed down to them as 'the truth'.

My beliefs are not presumptions - they are more like best guesses or probabilities and usually backed up by a lot of evidence or the best answers available at present. Hence faith is not part of my vocabulary, but trust will be - as to anything being reliable. Could someone with one particular faith swap that for another and expect the same result? If so, then please choose the one that tends to create the least harms.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The line I am drawing is conceptual. And is important.

Religion and politics are different human endeavors. While this innate human desire to control everything and everyone around us to our own advantage crosses all conceptual boundaries and infects all our human civil and cultural endeavors. This obsessive desire to control is NOT PROPER RELIGION. And is NOT PROPER POLITICS, either. It's our self-centered fear infecting our efforts in these other areas of civil discourse. So if you want to address that selfish fear, then fine. But stop blaming it on the various human endeavors that it infects, like religion or politics (and commerce, etc.). Because they are not the cause. They are the victims. We humans NEED religion and politics within our social systems. So we NEED to somehow rid them of this fear-driven obsession with control.

That's where our efforts ought to be. Not in blaming and trying to destroy religion and politics.

Let's start with the last point first. I'm neither trying to destroy politics nor religion.

Where humans band together in some sort of consolidated and consistent fashion, we are faced with both a band of individuals, each with their own thoughts, desires and actions, and a group, with stated goals, policies, dogma and/or plans.

We can assess, criticize, assist or otherwise note the individuals, and their behaviours.
But so too can we assess, criticize, assist or otherwise note the behaviours of the group.

It is entirely valid (for example) to criticize the Australian government for certain actions, or laud them for others. So too, the Catholic Church. So too the GOP. So too the Australian Cricket Team, for that matter.

In no way does that suggest a need to destroy governments, religion, opposition parties or sports teams. But your argument about 'proper religion's and 'proper politics' is a goal without a path. Nor one with a history.

Politics is about control, whatever it 'should' be. At it's best, it's been a way to share and cede control, but it is literally the means by which the decision making process of a shire, state, country or organisational body is determined.

And religion (beyond mere spirituality and belief) is about dogma, convention and standards. I can certainly envisage (and maybe even point to) religions that don't try to control anyone (be they members or non-members). But through a mixture of scriptural assertions, cultural standards and outright power, that is most often not the case.

So...do I have a problem with religion? Nup. You can choose whether to believe that or not, but I have no issue with religion. Do I have an issue with politics? No. I'm not sure what it would mean to, since I can't think of a human society without it.

Do I have an issue with certain coherent groups beneath those umbrella terms? Sure. In some cases certain decisions and positions, sometimes more holistically. But so do you. So...colour me confused.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My dream self exists only in MY mind, it has no mind of its own with which to be self-aware. If it did, then it too could dream, and so on and so on. Instead of turtles, it'd be dream-selves all the way to the bottom.

Does your dream-self know this in the dream? That it has no mind?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does your dream-self know this in the dream? That it has no mind?

Does the character in a story "know" anything at all? Or is that something the author knows first, and the reader knows later?

The questions you are asking are becoming meaningless.

Maybe you should consider the words from Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe, when the Lord Chamberlain describes how sometimes a dream can make your night terrible:

When you're lying awake with a dismal headache, and repose is taboo'd by anxiety,
I conceive you may use any language you choose to indulge in, without impropriety;
For your brain is on fire – the bedclothes conspire of usual slumber to plunder you:
First your counterpane goes, and uncovers your toes, and your sheet slips demurely from under you;

Then the blanketing tickles – you feel like mixed pickles – so terribly sharp is the pricking,
And you're hot, and you're cross, and you tumble and toss till there's nothing ‘twixt you and the ticking.
Then the bedclothes all creep to the ground in a heap, and you pick 'em all up in a tangle;
Next your pillow resigns and politely declines to remain at its usual angle!

Well, you get some repose in the form of a doze, with hot eye-balls and head ever aching.
But your slumbering teems with such horrible dreams that you'd very much better be waking;
For you dream you are crossing the Channel, and tossing about in a steamer from Harwich –
Which is something between a large bathing machine and a very small second-class carriage –

And you're giving a treat (penny ice and cold meat) to a party of friends and relations –
They're a ravenous horde – and they all came on board at Sloane Square and South Kensington Stations.
And bound on that journey you find your attorney (who started that morning from Devon);
He's a bit undersized, and you don't feel surprised when he tells you he's only eleven.

Well, you're driving like mad with this singular lad (by the by, the ship's now a four-wheeler),
And you're playing round games, and he calls you bad names when you tell him that "ties pay the dealer";
But this you can't stand, so you throw up your hand, and you find you're as cold as an icicle,
In your shirt and your socks (the black silk with gold clocks), crossing Salisbury Plain on a bicycle:

And he and the crew are on bicycles too – which they've somehow or other invested in –
And he's telling the tars all the particulars of a company he's interested in –
It's a scheme of devices, to get at low prices all goods from cough mixtures to cables
(Which tickled the sailors), by treating retailers as though they were all vegetables –

You get a good spadesman to plant a small tradesman (first take off his boots with a boot-tree),
And his legs will take root, and his fingers will shoot, and they'll blossom and bud like a fruit-tree –
From the greengrocer tree you get grapes and green pea, cauliflower, pineapple, and cranberries,
While the pastrycook plant cherry brandy will grant, apple puffs, and three corners, and Banburys –

The shares are a penny, and ever so many are taken by Rothschild and Baring,
And just as a few are allotted to you, you awake with a shudder despairing –

You're a regular wreck, with a crick in your neck, and no wonder you snore, for your head's on the floor,
and you've needles and pins from your soles to your shins, and your flesh is a-creep, for your left leg's asleep,
and you've cramp in your toes, and a fly on your nose, and some fluff in your lung, and a feverish tongue,
and a thirst that's intense, and a general sense that you haven't been sleeping in clover;

But the darkness has passed, and it's daylight at last, and the night has been long – ditto, ditto my song – and thank goodness they're both of them over!

Lord Chancellor falls exhausted on a seat.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does the character in a story "know" anything at all? Or is that something the author knows first, and the reader knows later?

This assume one dreams in the third person. I dream in the first person. Do you? Of course you, the dreamer, are unaffected by the events in your dream, but is the character in your dream that you are portraying?

The questions you are asking are becoming meaningless.

It's your desire to not answer the questions that render them meaningless, not the questions themselves. If you would simply answer the questions, perhaps we could open a productive dialogue. If you continue to ignore the questions and instead ask your own, you are rendering the entire discourse meaningless.

 

[PureX]

Let's start with the last point first. I'm neither trying to destroy politics nor religion.

Where humans band together in some sort of consolidated and consistent fashion, we are faced with both a band of individuals, each with their own thoughts, desires and actions, and a group, with stated goals, policies, dogma and/or plans.

We can assess, criticize, assist or otherwise note the individuals, and their behaviours.
But so too can we assess, criticize, assist or otherwise note the behaviours of the group.

It is entirely valid (for example) to criticize the Australian government for certain actions, or laud them for others. So too, the Catholic Church. So too the GOP. So too the Australian Cricket Team, for that matter.

In no way does that suggest a need to destroy governments, religion, opposition parties or sports teams. But your argument about 'proper religion's and 'proper politics' is a goal without a path. Nor one with a history.

Politics is about control, whatever it 'should' be. At it's best, it's been a way to share and cede control, but it is literally the means by which the decision making process of a shire, state, country or organisational body is determined.

And religion (beyond mere spirituality and belief) is about dogma, convention and standards. I can certainly envisage (and maybe even point to) religions that don't try to control anyone (be they members or non-members). But through a mixture of scriptural assertions, cultural standards and outright power, that is most often not the case.

So...do I have a problem with religion? Nup. You can choose whether to believe that or not, but I have no issue with religion. Do I have an issue with politics? No. I'm not sure what it would mean to, since I can't think of a human society without it.

Do I have an issue with certain coherent groups beneath those umbrella terms? Sure. In some cases certain decisions and positions, sometimes more holistically. But so do you. So...colour me confused.

Nevertheless, people are people, and ideology is ideology. Religion, politics, and economics are ideologies. And people are still people. When the people employ an ideology, they do so for many different reasons and with many different goals that are often not a part of the ideology, itself. And this is not the fault of the ideology. These ideologies and the goals they intend to fulfill are good, useful, and necessary to humanity. Unfortunately, humanity is made up of individuals that have other, not so good and useful goals, and those individuals will employ these ideologies to pursue those goals, perverting the ideology in the process. And this happens all the time with religion, politics, and economics.

Yet I see people blaming these ideologies for the fact that people pervert them for their own purposes. Often to the point of wanting to eliminate the ideologies all together in some blind, foolish attempt at eliminating their abuse. And this is what I was objecting to.

The solution is to first recognize the difference between the ideology and the abuse of that ideology. And they try to employ the ideology while minimizing the abuse. Religion, politics, and economics are not "bad" ideologies. They are essential to collective human interaction and function. But individuals will abuse and pervert these ideologies to their own ends if they are not deterred from doing it. So the solution is in figuring out how to deter that abuse, not how to eliminate the use if the ideologies, themselves. The problem with religion is not religion. The problem with government is not government. And the problem with commerce is not commerce. The problem is how we use these ideologies to further our own selfish agendas at the expense of our collective well-being.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This assume one dreams in the third person. I dream in the first person. Do you? Of course you, the dreamer, are unaffected by the events in your dream, but is the character in your dream that you are portraying?



It's your desire to not answer the questions that render them meaningless, not the questions themselves. If you would simply answer the questions, perhaps we could open a productive dialogue. If you continue to ignore the questions and instead ask your own, you are rendering the entire discourse meaningless.

Excuse me? I did answer the questions. Perhaps you just didn't get the answers you were looking for?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But isn't your faith still apart from those which come under the umbrella belief system that Christ inspired?

Hello.
I don’t know if I understand you correctly, but we do call ourselves Christians, because we try to follow him as best we can. But we don’t worship him as most of Christendom does.
He worshipped his Father, as he encouraged others to do — John 4:23.

Well, the Jews already were - Deuteronomy 6:4; Jesus just tried to help them to realize that the way they were worshipping Yahweh had changed (God hadn’t changed); it was no longer through animal sacrifices, but through Jesus’ sacrifice (John 14:1).

But love should be the identifying quality that the world should see in Christians. But sadly, many times it’s been the opposite…combined with a touch of arrogance and self-righteousness.

We all have our struggles with imperfections. No one will ever find a perfect group. The Israelites certainly weren’t… but they were His people, whom He disciplined many times.

i think there’s a big difference between one occasionally giving in to improper inclinations, and one practicing them.

Does that help? ‘Clear as mud’?

i don’t think we could maintain our brotherhood, in the face of pressures exerted on us by the authorities, and also keep on increasing, if it weren’t for Jehovah’s - and Jesus’ - approval & blessing.
Just my opinion.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yep, because they are quick to expel any heretics. It seems there are only three ways: 1. Allow diversity - which results in splitting. 2. Insist on dogma - which is dictatorial. 3. Teach what you know and admit when you don't know (the scientific approach) - which is very expensive and demands dedication.

Hey, Heyo! (Did I just stutter? Lol.)

Just to clarify: we are never quick to expel anyone!

In line with Scriptural counsel, we “try to readjust” our brothers & sisters, with mildness and kindness.

And rarely is it for heresy!
Of the ones who do get disfellowshipped, the vast majority is for sexual immorality.

And no brother or sister, who is truly repentant over their actions and shows remorse, gets removed. Only those who are unrepentant. And we hope that they will come back. Many do “return.”
Isaiah 55:7

So long.

 

[Starlight]

no religion is the only truth, but truth is found in them all

 

[Muffled]

That's not for you to decide.

I believe it is for God to decide and He is in me.

 

[Muffled]

I fully believe, from my own experiences and those of others, that there is global unity and brotherhood among the 8.7 million members who worship Jehovah (through Christ) as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I believe brainwashing can accomplish that quite well. Fortunately I am able to think independently

 

[Muffled]

Reality is easy, it can be physically weighed, measured, observed to exist.

I can't say I've heard the same for any supernatural religion. Unless you know different.

I believe all measurements take place in the mind so the idea that a person's thoughts can simply be dismissed would eliminate all reality.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe all measurements take place in the mind so the idea that a person's thoughts can simply be dismissed would eliminate all reality.

Measurement takes place with instruments. Someone else may measure using the the same instrument and observe the same result.



What the mind does is record the results