Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2022 13:13:55 GMT
Not necessarily, especially if you read those ideas as they might have been meant to be read, and what Feuerbach meant was that the limits of our understanding precludes that knowledge. Any knowledge we claim of God is baseless unless we can prove or demonstrate His existence. "Consciousness of God is human self-consciousness; knowledge of God is human self-knowledge . By the God you know the human, and conversely, by the human, you know the God. The two are one." - Ludwig Feuerbach, in The Essence of Christianity (1841). "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc" Boy, are you an imbecile! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2022 13:16:12 GMT
Welcome to the world of Christian newspeak!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 4, 2022 20:56:25 GMT
Non sequitur. I do not have "faith in the afterlife." You are presuming again. Are you confusing "belief about" with "belief in" again? Agreed, but I can be patient with you. Again with the confusion of "belief in" and "belief about." Um...no, that's not how language works. See the other thread. Once again, you are insisting on the Enlightenment divide between "faith" and "reason." The word (and meaning of) "faith" existed prior to the Enlightenment. On the contrary, your explanation is increasingly obtuse. Non sequitur again. Your presumptions are revealing themselves again. I am totally ok that you cannot see Faith this way.
If what you have works for you, that's great.
I am truly only trying to help you, because having helped others in the target audience I've already described to you, I know that for those with a different mindset, this revelation is life-changing.
Peace.
Freon
Unclear. What mindset? You're dodging, talking in circles, lacking clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 4, 2022 21:02:23 GMT
"Consciousness of God is human self-consciousness; knowledge of God is human self-knowledge . By the God you know the human, and conversely, by the human, you know the God. The two are one." - Ludwig Feuerbach, in The Essence of Christianity (1841). Do you agree that Feuerbach was discussing our limits as human beings here, and elsewhere? One of his core doctrines involved the necessary humanity of the divine, that necessity based on the limits of human beings to comprehend anything beyond our understanding, which a truly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being would be, i.e., beyond our human comprehension. I believe that Feuerbach was an atheist who denied that God had any kind of existence separate from or outside of humans. No? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 4, 2022 22:47:32 GMT
I am totally ok that you cannot see Faith this way.
If what you have works for you, that's great.
I am truly only trying to help you, because having helped others in the target audience I've already described to you, I know that for those with a different mindset, this revelation is life-changing.
Peace.
Freon
Unclear. What mindset? You're dodging, talking in circles, lacking clarity. I'm not dodging. Faithism was designed for scientists, to give them an empirical reason and strategy to have Faith.
I designed it that way.
Unless you've gone through all the education in understanding the physical world that a scientist does, you cannot have the frame of reference we do in how we view the world and our place in it. What may seem wondrous to you, is likely mundane to us. What might seem like evidence for a higher power to you, is explained perfectly through natural processes to us. And once the physical world no longer impresses you, it cannot be used as justification for having belief in a higher power, which is why most scientists are at most, agnostics, and more typically, atheists. How to get through this barrier? Faithism provides a unique, logical approach, that has a practical, simple, obvious strategy.
In the end, since Faith is just a choice, there has to be a reason to make that choice. It is fair that a scientist is going to require a different reason than someone with less knowledge about how the physical world works.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 5, 2022 16:55:42 GMT
Unclear. What mindset? You're dodging, talking in circles, lacking clarity. I'm not dodging. Faithism was designed for scientists, to give them an empirical reason and strategy to have Faith.
I designed it that way.
Unless you've gone through all the education in understanding the physical world that a scientist does, you cannot have the frame of reference we do in how we view the world and our place in it. What may seem wondrous to you, is likely mundane to us. What might seem like evidence for a higher power to you, is explained perfectly through natural processes to us. And once the physical world no longer impresses you, it cannot be used as justification for having belief in a higher power, which is why most scientists are at most, agnostics, and more typically, atheists. How to get through this barrier? Faithism provides a unique, logical approach, that has a practical, simple, obvious strategy.
In the end, since Faith is just a choice, there has to be a reason to make that choice. It is fair that a scientist is going to require a different reason than someone with less knowledge about how the physical world works.
Freon
How would you read those words if someone other than you wrote them? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 5, 2022 23:17:55 GMT
I'm not dodging. Faithism was designed for scientists, to give them an empirical reason and strategy to have Faith.
I designed it that way.
Unless you've gone through all the education in understanding the physical world that a scientist does, you cannot have the frame of reference we do in how we view the world and our place in it. What may seem wondrous to you, is likely mundane to us. What might seem like evidence for a higher power to you, is explained perfectly through natural processes to us. And once the physical world no longer impresses you, it cannot be used as justification for having belief in a higher power, which is why most scientists are at most, agnostics, and more typically, atheists. How to get through this barrier? Faithism provides a unique, logical approach, that has a practical, simple, obvious strategy.
In the end, since Faith is just a choice, there has to be a reason to make that choice. It is fair that a scientist is going to require a different reason than someone with less knowledge about how the physical world works.
Freon
How would you read those words if someone other than you wrote them? Depends on if I was the target audience or not. As a non-scientist, it likely appears conceited, but as a scientist, I would be intrigued and highly skeptical.
Is it so hard to accept that education makes a difference in world outlook? And that very high education, does the same?
Freon
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Mar 6, 2022 7:39:58 GMT
Do you agree that Feuerbach was discussing our limits as human beings here, and elsewhere? One of his core doctrines involved the necessary humanity of the divine, that necessity based on the limits of human beings to comprehend anything beyond our understanding, which a truly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being would be, i.e., beyond our human comprehension. I believe that Feuerbach was an atheist who denied that God had any kind of existence separate from or outside of humans. No? Yes. I guess I'm confused as to the implication of your first reference to Feuerbach. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 7, 2022 18:05:46 GMT
I believe that Feuerbach was an atheist who denied that God had any kind of existence separate from or outside of humans. No? Yes. I guess I'm confused as to the implication of your first reference to Feuerbach. My point was that Feuerbach makes the claim that the idea of God is something like the product of wishful thinking. C.S. Lewis said, no, not at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 7, 2022 18:33:51 GMT
Unclear. What mindset? You're dodging, talking in circles, lacking clarity. I'm not dodging. Faithism was designed for scientists, to give them an empirical reason and strategy to have Faith.
I designed it that way.
Unless you've gone through all the education in understanding the physical world that a scientist does, you cannot have the frame of reference we do in how we view the world and our place in it. What may seem wondrous to you, is likely mundane to us. What might seem like evidence for a higher power to you, is explained perfectly through natural processes to us. And once the physical world no longer impresses you, it cannot be used as justification for having belief in a higher power, which is why most scientists are at most, agnostics, and more typically, atheists. How to get through this barrier? Faithism provides a unique, logical approach, that has a practical, simple, obvious strategy.
In the end, since Faith is just a choice, there has to be a reason to make that choice. It is fair that a scientist is going to require a different reason than someone with less knowledge about how the physical world works.
Freon
This is so strange. Some of the smartest people that have lived have claimed that the more they know, the more they don't know, and the more they know, the more they experience wonder. But you have transcended that. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 7, 2022 18:59:17 GMT
I'm not dodging. Faithism was designed for scientists, to give them an empirical reason and strategy to have Faith.
I designed it that way.
Unless you've gone through all the education in understanding the physical world that a scientist does, you cannot have the frame of reference we do in how we view the world and our place in it. What may seem wondrous to you, is likely mundane to us. What might seem like evidence for a higher power to you, is explained perfectly through natural processes to us. And once the physical world no longer impresses you, it cannot be used as justification for having belief in a higher power, which is why most scientists are at most, agnostics, and more typically, atheists. How to get through this barrier? Faithism provides a unique, logical approach, that has a practical, simple, obvious strategy.
In the end, since Faith is just a choice, there has to be a reason to make that choice. It is fair that a scientist is going to require a different reason than someone with less knowledge about how the physical world works.
Freon
This is so strange. Some of the smartest people that have lived have claimed that the more they know, the more they don't know, and the more they know, the more they experience wonder. But you have transcended that. Sarcasm. I love it. The fact that those with extreme knowledge realize, to a much greater degree, what they DON'T know, is not related to this topic. Because intrinsic to your pointing it out is that all things are knowable, which ironically, you appear to not believe. Whereas the Faithist fully acknowledges that only the physical world is knowable, and applying the techniques of obtaining knowledge about the physical world to metaphysical phenomena is pointless, and frankly, foolish. In the sense that Faithism is new, a path to both be expertly trained in the physical world, yet have no conflict with the metaphysical, is indeed an enlightenment that very few in the past, if any, have claimed to have. I am fully aware of the conceit tied to making this statement, yet that in itself does not negate its accuracy. Faithism is a path that I have yet to see anyone else discovering, but if someone else has, I am totally fine acknowledging them. For me, it's all about a practical strategy that can be implemented and used, vs getting credit for it. The reality is that someone who justifies their Faith by using the physical world as evidence, intrinsically is EXPLAINING the real world through the thing they believe in. Please, explain to me how that CANNOT result in a conflict between the scientific explanations for things, and those suggested by religions. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 9, 2022 15:34:19 GMT
I'm going to merge both of our conversations into this one...easier... To appeal to your definition, it was never faith, because to qualify as faith, it has to be in something that cannot be proven (although what "it" is has yet to be clarified). If it was based on evidence, than I agree. 'It' is clear. Belief without proof, regardless in what (I am assuming I do not have to be specific that we are discussing existential beliefs, correct? I assume you realize we are having a conversation about belief in G-d, or some other larger issue, and not Cheese People from the Moon). Freon Okay, I'm quibbling, because you said for it to be "faith" it had to be in something that could not be proven. So maybe that was a bit of a trap question. I think we might be close, in that I think it is unreasonable to expect that God's existence must be provable (e.g., within the confines of the universe he purportedly created). Do you? Was that sarcastic? 😂 The Kruger-Dunning experiments demonstrate that when someone's knowledge moves into the realm of expertise, they tend to underestimate their own knowledge or capability. Because of this, I'm not sure what to make of your own claims. Heisenberg and Gödel have effectively demonstrated that not all things are knowable. You seem to imply that you know more than you know, e.g., what I think or claim to know. It's really not a good look on you. I keep having to waste time contradicting your erroneous guesses about what I think or claim to know. It would be better if you stopped doing that. Maybe just ask instead of conjecturing. So, epistemology, then. Is "knowledge" limited to the empirical? I would suggest that it is not—that we can move towards "confident belief" through a combination of experience, authority, and intuition. Can God "self-reveal" to the point that we can be confident in our belief? Ah, but there is nothing wrong with rationally justifying the unprovable. To not do so, I would argue, is foolish. What is the value in having faith in something that might be unworthy of our faith? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2022 18:01:37 GMT
I'm going to merge both of our conversations into this one...easier... Do you? Was that sarcastic? 😂 Was this? |
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by sokpupet on Apr 3, 2022 1:53:46 GMT
Authoritarian Kleptocrats use Theocrats to control the masses. We know this from what we are watching here in the US.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2022 16:11:32 GMT
Authoritarian Kleptocrats use Theocrats to control the masses. We know this from what we are watching here in the US. We have crates of these crats. Let's blow them up and leave craters in their stead. |
|
