What is Faith?

[Trailblazer]

What do you think for example of Vassula Ryden and Donald Walsch?

I don't know who they are.

 

[F1fan]

Yet nobody can point out my logical errors and explain how I committed fallacies.

So sidekicks become nobodies.

 

[F1fan]

She's crossed a line with me recently referring to me twice as a sidekick.

You? If anyone deserves to be a sidekick it's me.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i can hijack threads pretty quickly.

How do you see Baha'is hijacking threads? What I see is certain atheists hijacking my threads.

 

[Trailblazer]

So sidekicks become nobodies.

I did not commit any fallacies and I explained why I did not commit them.
but you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Baha'i can hijack threads pretty quickly. I don't see their theology very well designed. The writings are poorly written and have such little content that it is tedious to mull through. Baha'u'llah really needed a creative writing class so he could learn to be concise. But even the supernatural claims are so vague and improbable that a mountain of faith is needed to buy into it.

I've noticed a truce between fairly fervent Christians and the Muslim, and they limit their interactions to the narrow set of ideas they agree on. Oddly the Abrahamics believe in a God they can connect with, so a huge disagreement with Baha'i. That is a major issue and I'm surprised more Abrahamics don't argue for their view of God. It could be a realization that all theists are agnostic at the core, and personal belief is hands off at the risk of exposing the self's view.

Well, if we assume that for a more general category all theists are objectivist for what the world really is, that could apply to other objectivists.
In short I get you don't like that I do critical thinking as per strong skepticism and I get it is not useful for you. But that has nothing to do with evidence, reason and valid as such.

 

[Trailblazer]

She's crossed a line with me recently referring to me twice as a sidekick.

There is nothing disrespectful about being a sidekick.

sidekick: a person's assistant or close associate, especially one who has less authority than that person.

what is a sidekick - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Trailblazer]

She needs to be right despite accusing others of that, which she calls ego in them.

Show me the evidence. You don't have any.
I believe x is not a need to be right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yet nobody can point out my logical errors and explain how I committed fallacies.

Not to you, no. But that's the basic problem here.

I do not view anything as a personal attack unless it is a personal attack.

Brilliant retort.

There is nothing disrespectful about being a sidekick.

Not your call. And you're still unrepentant. What would Baha'u'llah do? The same or better?

Show me the evidence.

Again? Why bother?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would they argue with Atheists about God being real when they know they can't prove it? Oh, but I forgot... They do have proof. Their prophet is the proof. And how do they prove he's telling the truth about his claims? Oh yeah, his character, his mission, his writings. Which to me still sounds like... because he said so.

I have said repeatedly that there is no proof of God and there is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God. There is only evidence.
Atheists don't like what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence so what more is there to say?

 

[Trailblazer]

Not to you, no. But that's the basic problem here.

The basic problem is that what you call a logical error is not a logical error.

I never committed ad populum because I never said that God exists is true because many or most people believe God exists. That is ad populum. Wondering why most people believe in God if there is no evidence for God is not ad populum. You took what I said and tried to turn it into a fallacy, but after I explained what I meant you did not accept what I said. You just insisted I committed the fallacy when I didn't.

Anyone but you would say "Oh that's what you meant. Now I understand" but you can't, because you always have to be right even when you are wrong.

God exists is either true or false. Whether it is true or false has nothing to do with whether there is any evidence for God, since God could exist and provide no evidence at all. Logic 101.

 

[osgart]

That is because they are not physical. They are derived from the soul, which is the person.

That's my point.

I said a lot of things that are observed. What is your specific question?

SOME concepts do. "Care" is a feeling and action, so has a real quality that the word corresponds to. There are many concepts that dont correlate to anything in what we can determine real, gods being an example. There are specific gods that are defined, like Zeus, but at best this is a fictional character in Greek lore. Apart from Gaia there are no gods I am aware of that exist independently of minds.

Care manifests in feelings and actions, but those are effects not causes. You can't reduce the explanation of care to physical descriptives; there are abstract substantive descriptives regarding care. Certainly I get feelings when I care, and those feelings are merely responses. Where care originates is not as simple as feelings and actions.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is the word "complete" doing here? Since when does faith have to be "complete" to be faithful? And in fact, logically, "compete" faith isn't faith at all, it's certainty. And certitude doesn't require trust because it lacks any doubt. See what I mean about how illogical and nonsensical the common usage of these terms are? It's why I never use the dictionary to establish a position. Their definitions are notoriously illogical and misleading. As are many of the ways those terms are commonly used in discussion and debate.

There are degrees of trust. If you have faith you expect something to be according to faith. Hope is a lesser degree of trust than faith. If you hope something to be than you don't expect something with so much certainty. It may be or it may not be.

For example: I have lost faith in life after death but I still have hope.

 

[PearlSeeker]

This was Anthony de Mello talking to audience about faith:

Are you listening, as most people do, in order to confirm what you already think? Observe your reactions as I talk. Frequently you’ll be startled or shocked or scandalized or irritated or annoyed or frustrated. Or you’ll be saying, “Great!” But are you listening for what will confirm what you already think? Or are you listening in order to discover something new? That is important. It is difficult for sleeping people. Jesus proclaimed the good news yet he was rejected. Not because it was good, but because it was new. We hate the new. We hate it! And the sooner we face up to that fact, the better. We don’t want new things, particularly when they’re disturbing, particularly when they involve change. Most particularly if it involves saying, “I was wrong.”

I remember meeting an eighty-seven-year-old Jesuit in Spain; he’d been my professor and rector in India thirty or forty years ago. And he attended a workshop like this. “I should have heard you speak sixty years ago,” he said. “You know something. I’ve been wrong all my life.” God, to listen to that! It’s like looking at one of the wonders of the world. That, ladies and gentlemen, is faith! An openness to the truth, no matter what the consequences, no matter where it leads you and when you don’t even know where It’s going to lead you. That’s faith. Not belief, but faith. Your beliefs give you a lot of security, but faith is insecurity. You don’t know. You’re ready to follow and you’re open, you’re wide open! You’re ready to listen. And, mind you, being open does not mean being gullible, it doesn’t mean swallowing whatever the speaker is saying. Oh no. You've got to challenge everything I’m saying. But challenge it from an attitude of openness, not from an attitude of stubbornness. And challenge it all. Recall those lovely words of Buddha when he said, “Monks and scholars must not accept my words out of respect, but must analyze them the way a goldsmith analyzes gold—by cutting, scraping, rubbing, melting.”

(Anthony de Mello, Awareness)

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the word "complete" doing here? Since when does faith have to be "complete" to be faithful? And in fact, logically, "compete" faith isn't faith at all, it's certainty. And certitude doesn't require trust because it lacks any doubt. See what I mean about how illogical and nonsensical the common usage of these terms are? It's why I never use the dictionary to establish a position. Their definitions are notoriously illogical and misleading. As are many of the ways those terms are commonly used in discussion and debate.

Dictionary definitions are not perfect. They use words to define words and they can only approximate a meaning. Also, words mean different things to different people.

Which is what I said all along: that "belief" is simply the believer presuming that what he thinks is true, IS true, without doubt.

presume: suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.

presume meaning - Google Search

www.google.com

All believers are not the same, we are as varied as the flowers in a garden. If someone were to claim that all believers are the same that would be the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

Belief means different things to different people and not all believers are as certain of their beliefs as other believers.
If someone presumes that God exists, they may or may not have doubts.

I do not presume that God exists since I do not suppose that God exists on the basis of probability. I do not suppose that God exists, I have no doubt that God exists, and it has nothing to do with probability. It is an inner certitude related to the evidence I see for God, and how I interpret that evidence. I believe that it is by the Grace of God that I have that certitude, part of which was acquired by all the tests and difficulties I have endured in my life.

But trust, faith, and confidence are not belief. They are all different terms that refer to different intellectual positions. You are lumping them all together to justify your position of belief: the presumption that what you think is true, IS true, without doubt.

You are correct. Trust, faith, and confidence are not belief, they are all different terms that refer to different intellectual positions.
I do not have to 'justify' my belief to anyone except myself.
Likewise, atheists do not have to justify their non-belief to anyone except themselves.

But you presume "X" to be so even though you don't know it to be so. And then to tell others that they should believe it's so, too. How is that not being dishonest?

As I said above, I do not presume that God exists even though I don't know it to be so. I do know.

Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.https://www.google.com/search

Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: know

I never tell others that they should believe what I believe. I always tell people that they need to come to a belief on their own, if they want to believe, but nobody has to believe in God.

... Right. So what you have is the pretense of knowledge, as opposed to actual knowledge, and yet you "believe" it to be accurate, anyway.

I said: "I do not pretend to know. I admit I don't know, I only believe. If I knew it would not be a belief, it would be knowledge."
I am revising what I said before. I do know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

You need to re-read these last couple of sentences a few times until you begin to see just how irrational and nonsensical what you're saying actually is. Then you will begin to understand why some of the atheists around here spend so much time arguing with you.

It only seems irrational and nonsensical to you and the atheists because you and they cannot understand how I know.
Atheists expect me to know that God exists they way they would want to know but that is arrogant hubris.

If they need to know that God exists with some kind of proof that does not exist that's fine, but that is not how I know. I know because of the evidence that is as plain to me as the noonday sun in Arizona. All the great religions are evidence to me.

I.E., 'trust in' instead of "believe in".

But the "true believers" can't admit that they don't know, because they have forfeited the burden of their skepticism and doubt. That's why they are now "true believers".

I said: "I do not think believers should do that. Rather, they should admit that they believe but they don't know. "
Again, I am revising what I said. A believer can say they know if they know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

I will not admit I don't know because I do know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

The question I think you should be asking yourself is why what I believe bothers you, and I think that atheists should also ask themselves this question. It certainly doesn't bother me what other people believe or disbelieve, what they think they know or don't know. Everyone has a right to their beliefs or non-beliefs. This is all about having boundaries between ourselves and other people and allowing others to be who they are.

They can say anything they want, and think anything they want. But when what they say is this confused and illogical, they shouldn't be expecting anyone else to buy into it.

There is nothing illogical if a believer says they believe that can know something about God through their scriptures. It is completely logical, since the only way to know anything about God is through scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Care manifests in feelings and actions, but those are effects not causes. You can't reduce the explanation of care to physical descriptives; there are abstract substantive descriptives regarding care. Certainly I get feelings when I care, and those feelings are merely responses. Where care originates is not as simple as feelings and actions.

I think that caring originates in the brain and mind, which is where thoughts and feelings are stored, and I believe that the mind and the soul are connected.

The mind is the power of the soul. The soul is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. The soul is the tree, and the mind is the fruit. Mind is the essential quality of the soul, as the sun’s rays are the essential quality of the sun.

 

[osgart]

Dictionary definitions are not perfect. They use words to define words and they can only approximate a meaning. Also, words mean different things to different people.

presume: suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.

presume meaning - Google Search

www.google.com

All believers are not the same, we are as varied as the flowers in a garden. If someone were to claim that all believers are the same that would be the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

Belief means different things to different people and not all believers are as certain of their beliefs as other believers.
If someone presumes that God exists, they may or may not have doubts.

I do not presume that God exists since I do not suppose that God exists on the basis of probability. I do not suppose that God exists, I have no doubt that God exists, and it has nothing to do with probability. It is an inner certitude related to the evidence I see for God, and how I interpret that evidence. I believe that it is by the Grace of God that I have that certitude, part of which was acquired by all the tests and difficulties I have endured in my life.

You are correct. Trust, faith, and confidence are not belief, they are all different terms that refer to different intellectual positions.
I do not have to 'justify' my belief to anyone except myself.
Likewise, atheists do not have to justify their non-belief to anyone except themselves.

As I said above, I do not presume that God exists even though I don't know it to be so. I do know.

Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.https://www.google.com/search

Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: know

I never tell others that they should believe what I believe. I always tell people that they need to come to a belief on their own, if they want to believe, but nobody has to believe in God.

I said: "I do not pretend to know. I admit I don't know, I only believe. If I knew it would not be a belief, it would be knowledge."
I am revising what I said before. I do know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

It only seems irrational and nonsensical to you and the atheists because you and they cannot understand how I know.
Atheists expect me to know that God exists they way they would want to know but that is arrogant hubris.

If they need to know that God exists with some kind of proof that does not exist that's fine, but that is not how I know. I know because of the evidence that is as plain to me as the noonday sun in Arizona. All the great religions are evidence to me.

I said: "I do not think believers should do that. Rather, they should admit that they believe but they don't know. "
Again, I am revising what I said. A believer can say they know if they know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

I will not admit I don't know because I do know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

The question I think you should be asking yourself is why what I believe bothers you, and I think that atheists should also ask themselves this question. It certainly doesn't bother me what other people believe or disbelieve, what they think they know or don't know. Everyone has a right to their beliefs or non-beliefs. This is all about having boundaries between ourselves and other people and allowing others to be who they are.

There is nothing illogical if a believer says they believe that can know something about God through their scriptures. It is completely logical, since the only way to know anything about God is through scriptures.

So your claim to know God is based on revelation through scriptures and not objective evidence nor philosophical proof. You claim that scripture reveals events unfolding and events that already unfolded. You claim that these events are accurately explained and sufficiently explained.

Is there any other scriptural basis by which God is known of?

So what you are saying is verify it to yourself if one feels compelled to do so.

Is there any other way to verify this?

 

[Trailblazer]

There are degrees of trust. If you have faith you expect something to be according to faith. Hope is a lesser degree of trust than faith. If you hope something to be than you don't expect something with so much certainty. It may be or it may not be.

For example: I have lost faith in life after death but I still have hope.

I like how you explained that. There are degrees of trust but there are also degrees of faith. Not everyone has strong faith, some people have faith but it s weak. If you only hope for something you are not certain it will take place.

I have strong faith in life after death, not hope. It is the kind of faith that Jesus said can move mountains.
I think it is good that you have hope for an afterlife even if you have lost faith.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Equally valid and practical? Such as what? How are alternatives of a utilitarian approach serving others since an alternative would NOT be utility?

Compromise is part of life but you gloss over the degree to wwhich there is a broad range of people who compromise. The creationist compromises vastly more than the rationalist.

This is more an issue for meaning than for material existence. Any of us csan look around and observe how well humanity has done to understand how nature works and how we can build things to make more fun and safer, but also more polluted and dangerous. Those can be described factually. But meaning in life? That's where the questions are. And even though there is millennia of thinkers coming up with answers and beliefs, many humans are unsatisfied and still looking. In my experience many are looking for final answers and not realizing it is the journey where the meaning is. Wisdom comes slowly, and realizations hit when they do.

Well, they revealed that religious answers are flawed and incorrect. Reality as false belief is what we need to avoid, and science offers the best method of determining this. Faith? Religion? All it does is perpetuate obsolete ideas that have no basis in fact. To assume meaning resides in these ideas traps a believe in an illusory world that prevents an experience beyond what they believe is true.

This is why we adjust what is believed true to what we can be demonstrated true.

Equally valid and practical? Such as what? How are alternatives of a utilitarian approach serving others since an alternative would NOT be utility?

Compromise is part of life but you gloss over the degree to wwhich there is a broad range of people who compromise. The creationist compromises vastly more than the rationalist.

This is more an issue for meaning than for material existence. Any of us csan look around and observe how well humanity has done to understand how nature works and how we can build things to make more fun and safer, but also more polluted and dangerous. Those can be described factually. But meaning in life? That's where the questions are. And even though there is millennia of thinkers coming up with answers and beliefs, many humans are unsatisfied and still looking. In my experience many are looking for final answers and not realizing it is the journey where the meaning is. Wisdom comes slowly, and realizations hit when they do.

Well, they revealed that religious answers are flawed and incorrect. Reality as false belief is what we need to avoid, and science offers the best method of determining this. Faith? Religion? All it does is perpetuate obsolete ideas that have no basis in fact. To assume meaning resides in these ideas traps a believe in an illusory world that prevents an experience beyond what they believe is true.

This is why we adjust what is believed true to what we can be demonstrated true.

When you realise that nothing, absolutely nothing in this world, is quite what it appears to be;
When you begin to recognise that there is no fixed point anywhere in this ephemeral universe, to which you may anchor your certainties;
When it dawns on you that all you see around you is but a flickering kaleidoscope of mirage and metaphor;
Then you may, without fear, relinquish the anguished grip with which you cling to the world;
Lighten your touch, learn to let go and let it all be;
And you may begin to understand how a change in perceptions can “render lighter, the bittersweet flowing of our lives”.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus proclaimed the good news yet he was rejected. Not because it was good, but because it was new.

The same thing happened to Baha'u'llah. History repeats itself.

We hate the new. We hate it! And the sooner we face up to that fact, the better. We don’t want new things, particularly when they’re disturbing, particularly when they involve change.

I admit I don't like the new and that is why I am scared to death of death, not because the next life in the spiritual world will not be good, but because it will be so different from this life, and most of all because it is unknown. From my perspective, one really has to have strong faith not to be afraid of death, if you believe there is an afterlife.

Christians have faith that they will go to heaven and Baha'is have faith that thye will go to the Abha Kingdom, but do they bother to think bout what they will be "doing" for all of eternity? I think about these things because I am a thinker more than a believer. That said, I do have faith in the promises of Baha'u'llah, but I still have anxiety about the unknown.