Does faith or belief need evidence to exist?

I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

"But Rugadd, doesn't that mean I could be a mass murderer?"

Yes, it does. We have mass murderers We know they exist. You could be one.

Maybe Faith is the one thing preventing you from diving into that.

That aside, claiming anything happens that shouldn't is foolishness, or arrogance at worst.

Uzima Moto wrote: How do you act correctly in the world without knowing the nature of it? That seems counterintuitive..

Take Buddhism as an example.

You start with the observation that there is suffering. You continue with the assertion that suffering is caused by attachment to impermanent things. Thus, to be free of suffering, you have to become unattached to impermanent things. The Eightfold path is the “how to”.

Buddhism does not need to go into details of who created the world, when or why, what happens after death, if there are or aren’t gods, etc. to be able to make the observation it did.

Similarly, if a Jedi were to make the observation: life is interconnected in a complex but ineludible way (dubbed the Force) and follow up with the assertion that what happens to life in one place/time/locus has a direct or indirect effect on the whole, then it can conclude “let’s value each manifestation of the Force as sacred”. The values that spring forth then would support that: knowledge, to understand this connection better; peace, to ensure thriving of many by cooperation; harmony, to seek a balance between organisms and environments; the acknowledgment of cyclical life processes as part of how the system “works”... etc.

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

Manu wrote:

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

Manu wrote:

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

So in that case I'm wondering if you consider incorrect action just a matter of a personal guilt feeling?

VixensVengeance wrote:

Manu wrote:

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

So in that case I'm wondering if you consider incorrect action just a matter of a personal guilt feeling?

No. I consider incorrect action a matter of measuring actual results vs. intended results.

I think your going to have to be more specific. What it sounds like you are saying is something like if I go to paint a painting and I intend it to look like a masterpiece but it comes out actually looking like a finger paint that is incorrect action.

IMHO, faith = hope + belief

When we want something to be true or to happen... we "hope". When we give ourselves reasons to think that it is true or that it will happen... we "believe". When we combine these things it becomes faith and it often blinds us to reality because it creates a bias around what we want to be true. Faith doesn't mean it is or isn't true. It is worthless in making something true or false. It merely describes our emotional connection to that idea and how much we are willing to work or fight for it. Based on our effort, the thing we have faith in has a chance of becoming real, becoming true, not by it coming into existence of its own accord, but by our hands, even combined hands of all the "faithful" building or making that thing a reality. Human beings seem to work best when guided by faith. However, this working together is kind of like building the tower of Babel. There is simply no necessity of right or wrong when it comes to the ability of humans to work effectively together. Faith is more so assumed to be a good quality even though the faith of Christians, Muslims, and Jews can all threaten each other's existence.

...or so they "hope".

Manu wrote:

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

but the morality of society isn't static. As the need for wars wanes we begin seeing war as an evil. Therefore killing people in war is also an evil, but considered a necessary evil when war cannot be avoided. If a war is unjust then killing is also unjust and "incorrect". However, the soldier doesn't have much choice.

ZealotX wrote: IMHO, faith = hope + belief

When we want something to be true or to happen... we "hope". When we give ourselves reasons to think that it is true or that it will happen... we "believe". When we combine these things it becomes faith and it often blinds us to reality because it creates a bias around what we want to be true. Faith doesn't mean it is or isn't true. It is worthless in making something true or false. It merely describes our emotional connection to that idea and how much we are willing to work or fight for it. Based on our effort, the thing we have faith in has a chance of becoming real, becoming true, not by it coming into existence of its own accord, but by our hands, even combined hands of all the "faithful" building or making that thing a reality. Human beings seem to work best when guided by faith. However, this working together is kind of like building the tower of Babel. There is simply no necessity of right or wrong when it comes to the ability of humans to work effectively together. Faith is more so assumed to be a good quality even though the faith of Christians, Muslims, and Jews can all threaten each other's existence.

...or so they "hope".

Blind belief isn't faith. Especially not in the Christian Scripture.. When one has faith in God, it's because one "knows" God. Usually through an experience of him. I have faith in The Force (God) because I have experienced it. Not because it's required for me to believe what I'm told without explanation..

That sort of "Faith" arose with the Religious State which doesn't allow outside criticism of its Dogma.. but no tyrannical system does, including Atheistic ones..

Correctness and incorrectness is not (generally) the same as morally right, wrong, permissible, or obligatory...

Uzima Moto wrote: Blind belief isn't faith.

Yes, it is.

Especially not in the Christian Scripture..

Actually, yes, it is, even in Christian scripture.

When one has faith in God, it's because one "knows" God. Usually through an experience of him.

Is "knowing" some kind of ethereal knowledge here or does it have anything to do with knowledge as the rest of us understand it? In case of the latter: No. It never is.

[I have faith] Not because it's required for me to believe what I'm told without explanation..

That sort of "Faith" arose with the Religious State which doesn't allow outside criticism of its Dogma.. but no tyrannical system does, including Atheistic ones..

All faith (in the religious sense, don't even come at me with "oh it can also mean trust" equivocation garbage that is never in dispute nor defended elsewise) is unfounded by pretty much every definition even its friends and proponents would put forth. Not all faith is required, granted, but none is arrived at through reason or subject to change because of any.

As far as proving it to the rest of world, no. But an individuals experience matters quite a bit to them and what they know to be true. Having a divine vision or experience can't be proven by definition, but it is all the evidence that individual needs.

I don't find myself infallible enough to judge something a reliable revelation if I am the only one I can confirm to have received it. And who does? I mean seriously, I keep hearing this personal revelation talk a lot, but what kind of mindest does it take to accept such a thing exactly?

Imagine two are walking in the forest. Let's call them Kim and Jordan. Suddenly Jordan asks Kim:
"Did you hear that?"
And Kim replies:
"I heard nothing."
Then after a brief exchange of looks, Jordan concludes:
"I must have been the chosen recipient of a communication from the grand spirit of the universe."

I mean, this sounds ridiculous, but it gets worse. Next time, instead of Kim, Jordan is walking with a group of twenty, and suddenly interrogates them all:
"Did any of you see that?"
"See what?" they reply. "We didn't see anything. None of us did."
"Clearly!" Jordan triumphantly declares "I was granted a unique personal vision from God."

Seriously, who thinks like that? If I was in Jordan's shoes, I'd have said "Huh, must have been the wind then" or "Perhaps I am just tired from the walk and was imagining things", and yet in some circles mine is almost considered the more arrogant reaction than Jordan's. The idea that my senses are prone to error, the idea that I might know slightly less than absolutely everything is somehow more controversial than that the supernatural realm has elected me personally as its vessel to communicate with our mortal world.

That is the sort of reasoning I hear when people say that they have had an experience, a personal revelation that makes the religious woo they have been surrounding themselves eversince (and possibly even before then) indubitably believable to them. I would believe, so they say, if I had been in their shoes at the time. In Jordan's shoes... Reacting like Jordan did... And I am to respect that as reasonable...

Uzima Moto wrote:
Blind belief isn't faith. Especially not in the Christian Scripture...

Actually that is the very definition of faith, especially in the christian scripture. How do you know that you know anything? Can you be wrong about anything you "think" you know? if not, how do you "know"?

I take your point Gisteron. We are not dealing with reason, though. Divinity by its definition is beyond our very mortal understanding. Perhaps to the rest of the world, they ARE crazy. Perhaps some may say they must be treated as dangerous lunatics. I am not saying it proves anything but a few interesting notes: it happens an awful lot for something that doesn't happen and me not understanding or experiencing it myself does not mean it is not true.

VixensVengeance wrote: I think your going to have to be more specific. What it sounds like you are saying is something like if I go to paint a painting and I intend it to look like a masterpiece but it comes out actually looking like a finger paint that is incorrect action.

Well if I set out to make a masterpiece and something less than that comes out, then something was not done right. This doesn't mean that the specific action taken was wrong (it might of been right, just insuficient on its own).

I'm not sure if that answer your question, as I honestly didn't understand how you needed it to be more specific.

rugadd wrote: Divinity by its definition is beyond our very mortal understanding.

Then why the expletive does theology exist?
No, that's not how most believers see it, that's not even how most believers see it who would say that they do before carrying on philosophizing about it in the very next breath.

Perhaps to the rest of the world, they ARE crazy. Perhaps some may say they must be treated as dangerous lunatics. I am not saying it proves anything but a few interesting notes: it happens an awful lot for something that doesn't happen and me not understanding or experiencing it myself does not mean it is not true.

Sure. I'm not saying that my lack of personal revelation is a sign of anything. I'm saying that I don't understand how anybody could think so shamelessly highly of themselves as to believe that they could even recognize a revelation as such when it hit them.

I understand what your saying. I like the wonder associated with it all, personally. Lots of people studying what other people wrote about something noone can understand...who are the lunatics, really? Is it pointless? Finding meaning, coming to personal truths: these are attainable and why I feel many pursue it.