We can build sentences with the word fairy in them, too.

(November 2, 2017 at 8:59 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 8:51 am)Cyberman Wrote: Faith = reasonable expectation is not equivalent to faith = blind hope. Especially where such hope is completely without justification.

So there is a kind of faith that is reasonable and how do You determine if a user of a religious system is using the word in the right way?

Simple. Is the object of the faith a thing that exists in reality, or can have some effect on reality? Further, is there a justification to suspect that there might be such a thing? Then the faith is justified.

One can have 'faith', ie a reasonable expectation, that the Sun will rise tomorrow based on previous instances when the Sun has risen. It might be the case that it doesn't, but that doesn't invalidate the expectation. A faith that the Sun will turn into a giant smiley face is not a reasonable expectation and has no justification to warrant it.

(November 2, 2017 at 9:00 am)Khemikal Wrote: I can build sentences with the word fairy in it too.

The difference is that the amount of available data containing fairies its much smaller. At the same time the the goal of information containing the word fairy is different to those containing the word God.

Or

A person writing a fairy tail aspires to the title of fiction writer. The point of such a work is usually entertaiment.

A person who has gone through many years of training in the field of philosophy, thus containing courses in logic for example. Who is trying to express something with the word God in it, aspires to the title of philosopher. The goal of such a work is to teach about moral rules and their implications; strengthen the resolve of the reader to not turn to evil or explain potential threats to the moral life of the reader. Explain the difference between materialistic and idealistic worldviews.


----------------------
If You find a dog with 3 legs it does not mean that dogs have 3 legs.
Similarly if You find a believer who is guillible it does not mean that believer are all gullible.
----------------------

This is more complex.

--------------------------
As to information warfare - Yuri Bezmenov explains how the Russians/ZSRR did it.

(November 2, 2017 at 9:11 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote: If You find a dog with 3 legs it does not mean that dogs have 3 legs.
Similarly if You find a believer who is guillible it does not mean that believer are all gullible

It does mean that at least one dog has three legs. People who believe unquestionably in superstitious nonsense, on the other hand, fit the definition of 'gullible'

(November 2, 2017 at 8:27 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 7:56 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Ahh, another definition of "faith".

Confidence in what we know exists and confidence in in similar outcomes from prior observations is not faith.  It in no way is related to belief without evidence.

---

Yada yada yada.  Please, tell us more about this thing called "love"...

---

We are failing, partly because people equate mythology with facts, emotional reactions with truth and choosing feeling good over critical thinking.  That, and greed.

But You would not call greeks idiots because they were using myths.
Most people are not able to read Plato or Aristotle.

The myth about Prometheus is still valid today. Look at something like the Prometheus society - why are people whose IQ oscillates around 200 using a mythological figure. Isn't it obvious that when ideas are expressed one should try to grasp the meaning anew each time a sentence is decoded and not just create a stereotype that all ideas that are expressed with a given word do not make sense.

It's still a myth.  A myth can have some truth in it, but that doesn't make it true.

---

(November 2, 2017 at 8:27 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 7:56 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Ahh, another definition of "faith".

Confidence in what we know exists and confidence in in similar outcomes from prior observations is not faith.  It in no way is related to belief without evidence.

---

Yada yada yada.  Please, tell us more about this thing called "love"...

---

We are failing, partly because people equate mythology with facts, emotional reactions with truth and choosing feeling good over critical thinking.  That, and greed.

This is basic about any language. 
The problem is that anything given in reality should be used with a benefit. Destroying something just because we do not like it is unproductive and leaves a vacuum where worse things usually take the place of the previous entity. So its not about wheather religion is bad or good, but how to interact with it to make the intercation beneficial to the user. The user himself has to teach himself to make this interaction work in this way. 

-----------------------
What is common today is the thought, that any idea that is expressed in a sentence contaning the word God in it is rubbish.

-----------------------

But if You look at this kind of behaviour from the view point of informatinal warfare it makes perfect sense. Just teach the younger generation to use different vocabulary, convince them that the old vocabulary is stupid no matter how it is being used and You create a generational gap. If You take into account that divide and conquer is the simplest idea of empowerment of one's own faction one can understand why it is so common, with multicultural societies dominating.

What is really scary, is how difficult it is to explain to anybody what is really happening. People think that existence is a safe place although we never really abandoned the law of the jungle. The most dangerous things are not the things that can kill You, but those that can hack Your mind and reprogramm it at will.

Even if Satan were not real (although I think he is) it's still better to be careful about what kind of thoughts are getting into one's mind and from what sources.
It does not matter if a person or spiritual entity wants to make a slave out of me. The necessary defense mechanism is exactly the same.

I'm not looking for the destruction of religion.  The only way to overcome magical thinking is in one's own head.  People who want to believe will find some channel for their needs until they realize they're not real or necessary.

I find it ironic that immediately after the phrase, "can hack your mind and reprogram it at will" you say you believe in Satan.

(November 2, 2017 at 9:14 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 9:11 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote: If You find a dog with 3 legs it does not mean that dogs have 3 legs.
Similarly if You find a believer who is guillible it does not mean that believer are all gullible

It does mean that at least one dog has three legs. People who believe unquestionably in superstitious nonsense, on the other hand, fit the definition of 'gullible'

But that's not the point.

If You could potentially use religion in a beneficial way - You get something that contains the experience of over 2000 years of collected human endevours.

If You take the counter part that is being presented today - science and You take the renessance to be the beginning of scientific thinking its just 600 years.

----------------------------
If You compare the battle potential of different human beings. A person who is older is usually wiser than younger people. If You can prevent a person from looking into things that could teach them lessons about humanity and You Yourself acquire this knowledge, You get what is called an informational advantage, which can be compared to something like high-ground or fort on a battlefield and thus a much more higher chance for vicotry in any conflict.

----------------------------
Since there is something like political correctness and classified information, one has to note that we live in society were free exchange of information is not possible. 

-------------------------------
So what I'm trying to say is. That most people are losers unaware of societal mechanism and not able to defend themselves against the influence of stronger players. What religion does is teach defense mechanisms against those kinds of attacks, giving the user the possibility of progress. As I said, its like GYM. If You change diet and train in a right way You will become stronger.

-------------------------------
Most people are powerholics and want power just for themselves. Since Christianity is a religion of love, the user does not aspire to the position of master, but servant. So for me it feels much better to share my experience with another person and to help them lead a better life, then to try to make them my slaves. It's even better from an egoistical viewpoint. I cannot help myself more than when I help those around me.

(November 2, 2017 at 8:45 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 8:34 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: No, it means you can believe any damn thing you want to and whinge when people ask you to justify that. 

There is another word for that: gullibility


And usually applies for those whose do not have the determination to inverstigate any topic thoroughly.

--------------------------
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/have%20faith%20in

--------------------------
Example:
If I hadn't had faith in my math teacher I would not have allowed him to teach me pythagoras theorem.
--------------------------
So if I have faith in the church I allow a certain group of people to teach me about theories that are connected to existential problems.
I do not have to accept any theory or believe anything I am not sure of. If I do not know something I just say so. Faith is the thing required to walk the distance between supposition and knowledge.

Or those who mistake "it feels so true!" with actually knowledge.

(November 2, 2017 at 9:23 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 8:27 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote: But You would not call greeks idiots because they were using myths.
Most people are not able to read Plato or Aristotle.

The myth about Prometheus is still valid today. Look at something like the Prometheus society - why are people whose IQ oscillates around 200 using a mythological figure. Isn't it obvious that when ideas are expressed one should try to grasp the meaning anew each time a sentence is decoded and not just create a stereotype that all ideas that are expressed with a given word do not make sense.

It's still a myth.  A myth can have some truth in it, but that doesn't make it true.

---

(November 2, 2017 at 8:27 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote: This is basic about any language. 
The problem is that anything given in reality should be used with a benefit. Destroying something just because we do not like it is unproductive and leaves a vacuum where worse things usually take the place of the previous entity. So its not about wheather religion is bad or good, but how to interact with it to make the intercation beneficial to the user. The user himself has to teach himself to make this interaction work in this way. 

-----------------------
What is common today is the thought, that any idea that is expressed in a sentence contaning the word God in it is rubbish.

-----------------------

But if You look at this kind of behaviour from the view point of informatinal warfare it makes perfect sense. Just teach the younger generation to use different vocabulary, convince them that the old vocabulary is stupid no matter how it is being used and You create a generational gap. If You take into account that divide and conquer is the simplest idea of empowerment of one's own faction one can understand why it is so common, with multicultural societies dominating.

What is really scary, is how difficult it is to explain to anybody what is really happening. People think that existence is a safe place although we never really abandoned the law of the jungle. The most dangerous things are not the things that can kill You, but those that can hack Your mind and reprogramm it at will.

Even if Satan were not real (although I think he is) it's still better to be careful about what kind of thoughts are getting into one's mind and from what sources.
It does not matter if a person or spiritual entity wants to make a slave out of me. The necessary defense mechanism is exactly the same.

I'm not looking for the destruction of religion.  The only way to overcome magical thinking is in one's own head.  People who want to believe will find some channel for their needs until they realize they're not real or necessary.

I find it ironic that immediately after the phrase, "can hack your mind and reprogram it at will" you say you believe in Satan.

But here its the same assumption again. You do not know what kind of data I have to keep the believe up.
And if You read further the point was in regards to something completely different. Additionaly I did not elaborate on what I think Satan is.
Just see what You did. Can You read minds?

I even put the word in brackets, to show that the point of the sentence is something different and You chose to address the least important aspect of the sentence.

(November 2, 2017 at 8:59 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote:

(November 2, 2017 at 8:51 am)Cyberman Wrote: Faith = reasonable expectation is not equivalent to faith = blind hope. Especially where such hope is completely without justification.

So there is a kind of faith that is reasonable and how do You determine if a user of a religious system is using the word in the right way?

Is it not like making the assumption that You can read my mind when You imply that I am using the word faith in the "blind hope" meaning? This is a presupposition too - in my opinion its much more absurd to believe that You know that I believe in fairies than for me to use a word (GOD) in my active vocabulary in a way that makes sense according to the rules of logic. 


----------------------
Now we have a milestone.
It turns out, that You could potentially build senteces with the word God in it that are perfectly fine if it comes to logic and making sense.

Agree?

Because faith in a religious context about things that there is no evidence for is by definition blind faith.

(November 2, 2017 at 3:58 am)Captain_Nemo Wrote: Faith means just that You understand that there are bits of information that cannot be comprehended at once.

That's just nuts, how can you understand what cannot be comprehended ?

Quote:Compare it to downloading lots of files that have been divided and packed in winrar. Unless You download all files of a given set, then extract it, then install it - and then the program can be run. Faith is the believe that if You follow certain instructions the end effect will be as promised.

But that process can be explain and demonstrated and you can also find many people who can demonstrate it to you, it really is an awful example and comparison of faith in the unknown and unexplainable.

Quote:Hell
Objective reality exists.
Because we are being lied to most of the time actions are taken that are not in accord with objective reality.
We build a thing called ego based on those actions - who we believe we are.
After death we get to know objective reality - and then hell is the act of self-condemnation that occurs because of the contrast of who we think we are and what we really are.

Yet another unfounded interpretation on a theme. Unless you are simply saying we disappoint ourselves, or that we think of ourselves more highly than we should.

Quote:Imagine it like thinking You're a diamond, for whatever reason and later You get to look into a mirror and find out that You are less than a little piece of dirt.
Not being able to stand Your own view and runnning into a loop in which You try to keep up the diamond lie, would be as I believe hell to work. The first error given in the catholic catechism is pride. Pride implies a swollen ego etc. All other errors will have their own implications.

So are you saying we make ourselves feel bad ? is so then say so don't muddle it up with a mythical place called hell.

Quote:You have to remember that the greatest gift of existence is the possibility of love. Try to imagine what happens if You force somebody to love something or somebody else. Does that work? Free will is so important because of that reason. The value of love is so great that even allowing billions of idiots to exist is worth it (God gave people the potential for wisdom, and still they chose ignorance - but if it were to be forced upon them, love could not occur, since it can only exist under the conditions of free will). Love cannot be bought and requires lots of time to learn, but brings great reward to those who care to find out what it is.

Well we can't force people to love other people, least not in any intuitive way but I am interested in your free will qualifier, can you explain what you mean by free will?