Life without faith

[niviene]

infamous, I don't at all think faith is a bad thing. However, I think faith in almost anything is better than faith in nothing. I think faith makes living better; if you believe in something, you are probably going to feel better about being alive. Unless you believe that living itself is sin, and that every day you live you are torturing your soul... :D I agree with your post, though. I don't think faith is a bad thing (and I know you meant to refer to Christian faith).

[infamous]

:D I agree with your post, though. I don't think faith is a bad thing (and I know you meant to refer to Christian faith).

Actually niviene, I was speaking about any use of faith. My point being, that many of the atheistic persuasion are quite comfortable having a faith that the Big Bang could have pulled itself up by it's proverbial boot straps, but when a Christain contends that God could have the same capacity they shout "hold on there, how could God create himself"? A little inconsistent if I may be allowed the observation. BTW thanks for your vote on faith.

 

Check out this link and if you don't have time to read the complete article, at least read the last three paragraphs.

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/4_11_98/fob3.htm

[sokea-ajaar]

Is there a conclusion to this thread? I recognize this thread as a failed one in means of science. You have struggled through finding out the problem,

 

ok. Now you've made hypothesises and...

 

but are we missing some of the metalevel in this older thread? Why are we doing this at this moment. What's the point? What should I apply to that? Who are you?

 

 

In the case that at least I myself posses the mental application, I'd Like put some continuum in this thread, which should guide it a bit towards psychology or even sociology, not much theology,

 

I try to have a good psychological start where I mention some facts about the questioner* first, so that the proper method of procedure could be found also on the metalevel, by which I mean the self-critizising construction of this thread or its possibility.

 

I've found this thread originally by googling for 'philosophy' and "What is mental application" I then chose these sites, dropped some letters from the search and accidentally got curious about this specific, but randomly selected thread...

 

*Facts about me: I'm 18 years old, having a maths test tomorrow (unprepared for it), getting Finnish secondary level education in Northeastern Europe. I own an EU-passport. My English skills are classified as average, keeping in mind that this isn't my first language(which means that I'm occasionally tied to two dictionaries next to my desk while reading your posts). I might be accused of having disorderly empiristic ideas... but I'll try to keep up to a good fallibilistic view in my few posts. I'm interested in humble science and hard science, even though my lazy way of life has struck its punishments on my opinions about these both.

 

Never mind the eccentricism, It's going to be about that later on if I find a way to point out the other point of mine.

 

I thought in my presumed delusions that major had made up and run a test in this thread about how we tend to react to specific sorts of stimula.

 

There is a theory or an idea that isn't being regarded as correct, or well-grounded. We shoot it away so that people notice and go through its contents. Let's say a classic one... The earth is hollow.

 

If you get subjective responses to this simple accusation, and those you will, you may proceed and make the hyphotesis where you state that people's pulse increases and they feel offended as I unintentionally oppose or offend their view on how things go.

 

And if we get this proven somehow, we might get closer to a some kind of a theory that tries to lead into what I've figured out about majors one major points, which was that in the present, x is causing that people's morals are denied from them. (if this is a goal, my opinion is that you're one reason to that dilemma, you're too many, I'm too many. There's too many of us living on this sad planet...)

[sokea-ajaar]

btw, according to my knowlegde, when Darwin left England, his intention weren't to do research on the origin of species, but his research in Africa did end up in creation of the Theory of Evolution. Secondly, because of some mysticism and ingenuine interest in zappy currents of some people on the 18th century, we're enjoying today the electric luxury and information society in the industrial countries.

[lindagarrette]

infamous, I don't at all think faith is a bad thing. However, I think faith in almost anything is better than faith in nothing. I think faith makes living better; if you believe in something, you are probably going to feel better about being alive. Unless you believe that living itself is sin, and that every day you live you are torturing your soul... :QuestionM I agree with your post, though. I don't think faith is a bad thing (and I know you meant to refer to Christian faith).

I think you are confusing the definition of faith with confidence in yourself and your ability to survive. Faith usually implies intervention of a supernatural power to make things happen the way you want. That's a dangerous hope because it can give you a false feeling of security when you should be taking action on your own to remedy a situation. Some people I know believe their prayers are answered one way or the other. If the answer in in their favor it is because God has blessed them. If not, it's because God has chosen a better way for them which cannot be revealed. How does this make living better?

[questor]

i think it's time to stop blaming religion for wars. wars are man's choice. i don't know any religions that advocate war except some passages in the Koran. there is no evidence that God has commanded men to fight. wars are for different reasons and a so-called religious war is just an evidence of the intolerance of one group for the views of others.

[pgrmdave]

How does this make living better?

 

It gives people a sense of calm, and security. Even when I was an atheist, I always believed that, as I say, "It will all be right in the end". That everything will be better with time, and that good things do happen, but I just need to trust that they will. This is faith. Trusting that a situation that I cannot control will work out somehow, is faith. That doesn't mean that I don't work towards something, but that I don't worry about things that I cannot control, and I know that if I am working towards something, I can trust it will help me somehow. Is there something wrong with having hope? With trusting that things do get better over time?

[Freethinker]

i think it's time to stop blaming religion for wars. wars are man's choice. i don't know any religions that advocate war except some passages in the Koran. there is no evidence that God has commanded men to fight. wars are for different reasons and a so-called religious war is just an evidence of the intolerance of one group for the views of others.

 

Hmmm, who is the god you refer to? Obviously not the Christian one! Funny that you seem to know enough about the Koran to blame it for having such passages, but are so ignorant of the Bible to not be aware of them in it!

 

The OT is filled with claims of it's god commanding his followers to destroy city after city. Either not leaving anything alive, or in some, killing all males and non-virgin women. Hate to see all that booty go to waste eh?

 

and it's mythical man/god/man of the NT says in no uncertain terms!

 

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

 

And Christians have obviously been very busy at living up to the biblical edict. Even in slaughtering their own, just for believing differently.

 

In fact is is almost impossible to find ANY wars in which the sides can not be identified by their religious identifications.

[Southtown]

The OT is filled with claims of it's god commanding his followers to destroy city after city. Either not leaving anything alive, or in some, killing all males and non-virgin women. Hate to see all that booty go to waste eh?

Good call. That is one of the biggest mysteries of the bible. One idea is that the other civilizations were corrupt and threatened the purity of Israel, or at least Messiah's lineage. Another is that they were violent and threatened the existence of Israel, and in effect the Messiah as well. I'm inclined to think either reason is sufficient for the saving of the multi-billions to follow. Also, no harm no foul if Yahweh is able to bring everyone back for a second chance after the Messiah is revealed. (Revelation 20:5-8)

 

and it's mythical man/god/man of the NT says in no uncertain terms!

 

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

That is from a parable, dude. It was not a direct command, as you have just presented it. I would definitely call that uncertain terms.

 

And this man/god/man is the only historical figure that I know of who faught the war against war by dying peacefully, whether his imperfect human fledglings followed his example or not.

 

P.S. It doesn't sound like you got God pounded into your head.

[Boerseun]

In fact is is almost impossible to find ANY wars in which the sides can not be identified by their religious identifications.

Nice post, Freethinker.

 

However, most modern wars have been fought on ideological grounds. Both WWI & II had nothing to do with religion. The Jews were annihilated in WWII as bystanders - the war wasn't principally about them. Germany and Britain were both "Christian" countries. Fine way for a bunch of Christians to act, eh? The wars from the 1700's to the early 1900's between France, England, Holland, etc. were predominantly economical - with the growth of colonial empires, everybody wanted to get in on the action. Regardless of all the colonizing powers being Christian.

 

It seems in some instances (most, in my opinion), human greed weighs much, much heavier than religious conviction.

 

It seems as if the current religioun-led militant bent to the world (post 9/11) might be the biggest since the Crusades.

[paultrr]

I think you are confusing the definition of faith with confidence in yourself and your ability to survive. Faith usually implies intervention of a supernatural power to make things happen the way you want. That's a dangerous hope because it can give you a false feeling of security when you should be taking action on your own to remedy a situation. Some people I know believe their prayers are answered one way or the other. If the answer in in their favor it is because God has blessed them. If not, it's because God has chosen a better way for them which cannot be revealed. How does this make living better?

 

Very good point Linda. It's somewhat the old, don't worrry, you'll get pie eventually in the sky sort of thinking. However, not every religious person out there looks at it that way. There are those who take the God helps them who help themselves approach. There are also those who think that what we humans term good and bad all transpire for an ultimate purpose which in different religions can vary from evolution/growth of the soul to the forfilling of their own God's purpose. Most of the one's I always see taking that last stance you mentioned are what is termed religious fundamentalists. For them there is no what they want. It all boils down to God having his will alone.

[sokea-ajaar]

I think you are confusing the definition of faith with confidence in yourself and your ability to survive. Faith usually implies intervention of a supernatural power to make things happen the way you want. That's a dangerous hope because it can give you a false feeling of security when you should be taking action on your own to remedy a situation. Some people I know believe their prayers are answered one way or the other. If the answer in in their favor it is because God has blessed them. If not, it's because God has chosen a better way for them which cannot be revealed. How does this make living better?

 

Religion is always so complex that as an ordinary person you'll need a religious leader like a priest, a mystic or the Pope to explain the original ideas, and then obtain these explanations as norms or a codex, by which the believer tries to reach a better way of living.

 

About Christian codex

 

Orthodox cathelics think that these "codes" are all in the golden rule, and the way to become godlike starts from understanding and following this rule, which is best linked to soul during the services in church. Roman cathelics take the instructions from the fathers of church and follow them blindly, mostly having their faith in the right interpretion of the Bible and the Christian customs.

 

Interpreting the Bible and religion

 

Now, there's one method of doing science on language, which is called hermeneutics. This was first regarded as research on the Bible, but later it became something else, which is now vastly used as a tool of the philosophy of science. Hermeneutics relies on a method called the hermeneutic sphere, or 'something'. It places a hyphotetic interpretion as the target of detailed observation, for example the section of NT

 

and it's mythical man/god/man of the NT says in no uncertain terms!

 

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

 

 

According to Hans-Georg Gadamer, it's not possible to reach an abstract rationality, so, on the first round the hermeneut would to trust his interpretative knowledge, for it's impossible to understand without having a tied point on one's understanding.

 

This point is the interpretative knowledge we possess, and it's formed out of

 

<Our traditions and subjective prejudices> (for instance: Western-Christian ethics (remember all this intention to speak about only the Christian god during the process of this thread?) and modern aspects on one's "sexual appearance"(in comparison to the Islamic ones), or the potent of my age in your opinion, or the meaning of some historical names I try to shoot on you...)

 

Then you would pick up details and try to deepen your current understanding by deducing facts. You'll get a new, 'deeper' interpretation, and process this one further, as long as you've got time and mental application etc.

 

So... what I'm suggesting is that the tradition and prejudices of the mankind are channeled into our religion, that is so complex that its "true" meaning can only be attracted to reality (not the one we live in, but the one we live, according to Immanuel Kant's theory) by a subjective interpretion based on previous codex/logos, made by a religious leader, founder (Saint Maria... *waiting for a storm to arise*), or a priesthood.

 

Last connection: The Faith

 

The confidence in that there is a supernatural, entity out there, or in here everywhere and out there, could be defined as religious faith? In Hare Krishna, according to some old info in the media, people are told to have become mind-washed during the services by psychologically impressive means, and then used by their religious leaders. This is a dangerous side of religious faith, which in my aspect has a lot to do with the mental security and low mental defences of the victim.

 

btw, as the original question was intentioned by major and posed a question about his religious conviction on the theory of creationism... <He asked for transendetial minds to give him relief.>

 

Unfinished self-confidence and weakly grounded life's philosophy or religious conviction cause that the mind is getting new targets to its intentions, which cannot exist without these targets. The fenomenologist Edmund Hussler stated that the transendential ego is one side of the self, the meaning of which is the construction of the self.*

 

If you try to imagine a person without intentions, you'll easily get a psycho on your mind, a psycho who sits in his room not doing anything, no. A brain dead. Those psychos are given new targets and then launched, maybe towards the 'All Love America', or 'American Israel'. I see two leads here. There are people with strong intentions and ones with weak intentions. Those with strong intentions use to get in the cross-fire of the other strong. These intentions may be religious, but honestly, I hardly believe that there wouldn't be some... 'sinful' and humane influence taking part in the process too.

 

The strong may also help the weak in their wavering intentions, if its in their hidden intentions. In the case someone's loosing his intentions, he's got a mental function that forces him to assimilate new goals for his actions. Strong intioned persons, like Augustus, Jesus or Kungfutse may want to deliberately spread his own or his synthetic intentions through religion or a religious code, like the Curan or the Bible.

 

I've got fundamental proof of the existence of my own intention, but not of the intention of a supernatural entity. I might also believe, that you're also existing and having your own intentions.

 

So I say, that when you read OT and see a paragraph telling about God leading his followers into war, I interpret this specific God, as some kind of a virus-like intention given birth by a priest, who had, let's say, found a paragraph in the Bible commanding to strike down the foe, and thus break against the contents of decalog, which oblige not to kill, or interpret it like some Christians: not to make an intention to kill. But I have no ground to argue if there is God, or a virus-type intention of this god, spread on earth by some infidels, who are rejected by the words of Jesus. Were these spreaders part of a religion that is, or was in the right frame or not. However, keeping up to a good fallibilism.

 

read as much as you believe is healthy, my intention forces me to type. break

 

---

edit: correcting language issues

*My source for this was a recent finnish book of philosophy of information, which is included in the education program of the State, but should be found in other languages and sources too.

[sokea-ajaar]

So... as I now look through this post there are two persons who are in a mental mess. Me and major dinky dau. What are you going to do about it :naughty:?