Originally posted by howardgeeBlind acceptance without evidence describes blind faith only, your lack
"but if seen faith would
no longer matter, as we have what we were looking for."
This is true, because faith simply is "Blind acceptance without evidence".
This is nothing to be proud of. You are a dolt for thinking faith has any value beyond that of being a sheep.
of understanding does not seem to grasp that what you think is true,
because of what you 'believe' the evidence is saying is still a matter
of belief and faith. Evidence as in a trial could have several meanings
or causes, some could be debated among both sides of the trial, and
others not thought of yet true, which both sides fail to understand or
grasp.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayPiffle and waffle.
Blind acceptance without evidence describes blind faith only, your lack
of understanding does not seem to grasp that what you think is true,
because of what you 'believe' the evidence is saying is still a matter
of belief and faith. Evidence as in a trial could have several meanings
or causes, some could be debated among both sides of the trial, and
others not thought of yet true, which both sides fail to understand or
grasp.
Kelly
My original point stands.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat 'it' is, however, remains a world without hope.
What he said.
Camus is essentially being honest about the plight of man (and while using the words and concepts of resolution), yet fails to offer a truly viable solution, other than diverting ones gaze from the abyss. He may be the original author of 'it is what it is.' What 'it' is, however, remains a world without hope.
Just to be clear: it is a world without hope for another world, or an “afterlife,” or any kind of extra-natural rescue from injustice, disease, accident, etc. Simply stating that, however, is not proof against it’s accuracy in describing “what it is”—a fact of which I think you are aware, and the challenge that I think you are undertaking.
BTW, I meant to add to my previous post a commendation for your willingness to acknowledge the alternatives squarely, and take up the challenge from there (if we don’t keep interrupting you). That might make this the single most interesting religious discussion on here...
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI can no more prove that there is no extra-natural category (God*), than I can prove the existence of a natural category that transcends human cognition (though that seems reasonable to me), or than I believe that the theist can prove the existence of God. Recognizing that, my rejection must be kept to a certain degree provisional and open to whatever evidence may be presented and argued.
That is the point isn't it, you think the 'cosmos' does not disclose
meaning, so that turns this into simply a matter of being able to prove
what you believe? So this than turns into a discussion of blue among
the blind, you really need to see to believe it, but if seen faith would
no longer matter, as we have what we were looking for.
Kelly
I don’t know what “seen faith” means (it’s not a phrase I’ve heard before). If you’re talking about mystical experience, see my post on page 2 of the following thread, where I give my understanding of such experiences (including my own): http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=50371&page=2
* Since this is a discussion based in theism, I will henceforth forgo my parenthetical qualifiers about other metaphysical speculations about an extra-natural realm.
EDIT: I misread your sentence on "seen faith." 😳 I think we agree; if it were certain, there would be no talk of faith. One can seek evidence, but if one is actively seeking certainty, one is seeking a condition where faith is not necessary. Thus, there is a kind of paradoxical tension between seeking evidence so as to avoid "blind faith," and seeking sufficient evidence for certainty--which I think cannot be had, in any event.
Originally posted by SerendipitySo what you are saying is that the problem is people who try to twist knowledge for their own gains, rather than that knowledge per se.
Evolution made the biblical chronology (of 6 thousand years) dissapear and replaced it with a evolutionary chronolgy of 10's and 100's of thousands of years. Now there is nothing wrong with evolution per se but there is a major problem with the political appropriation of evoultionism which justified colonialism and created a allochronic discourse which ...[text shortened]...
As for the Christians, well...they're against anything that's not mentioned in the bible.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAll this anticipation, and I (as stated in another thread herein) must beg off for at least a few days. Work and home demands are such that one more straw and this camel's humps are gonna blow. Please bear with me for a little bit; I promise to get right back in the fray as quickly as time allows.
Been away a couple of days. I'm in.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAbsolutely, take all the time you need.
All this anticipation, and I (as stated in another thread herein) must beg off for at least a few days. Work and home demands are such that one more straw and this camel's humps are gonna blow. Please bear with me for a little bit; I promise to get right back in the fray as quickly as time allows.
Hope all is well!
L
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI know you cannot prove it, but that is still the starting place where
I can no more prove that there is no extra-natural category (God*), than I can prove the existence of a natural category that transcends human cognition (though that seems reasonable to me), or than I believe that the theist can prove the existence of God. Recognizing that, my rejection must be kept to a certain degree provisional and open to whatever evid ," and seeking sufficient evidence for certainty--which I think cannot be had, in any event.
both sides of the discussion begin is it not? Beginning with there is
or there isn't meaning; it does not matter what side we find ourselves
in, we are making assumptions and taking a stance and beg the
other side to move us. We know that isn't going to happen if we
don't want it too change sides. So my question to you remains, since
you quoted something that made me wonder what are those called
that reject meaning if there is meaning to found? Seem like there
should be something to label them since you brought to this
discussion, I was wondering if you knew it?
Kelly
“Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism; my bold]”
