Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I'm not sure that I would consider individual results proof.
Certainly it is proof in your life and that's great for you but for others I would say that what you are describing, regardless of how you arrived at the conclusion, is faith.
Well I'm not sure that I would consider individual results proof.
Certainly it is proof in your life and that's great for you but for others I would say that what you are describing, regardless of how you arrived at the conclusion, is faith.
or it could be seen as ignoring anything which might seem to challenge one's own view of reality!
Sorry, you've confused me again. Who is having trouble with their view of reality? You or me?
It appears to me that just like back in post 21 when you stated that "the existence of god is a faith based belief?" and I gave the example that i don't do anything on faith, but need proof, you've said well you're still going to call that faith because that's how it looks to you.
I then said, it appears when someone's experience might challenge a world view (the original statement that any belief in god is faith based), rather than admit that another view might just have some validity, and hence prompt further exploration, for your own comfort (and heavern forbid having to possibly examine or re-examine any set-in-stone-for-forevermore conclusions on how the world works) you're going to dismiss altogether anything that looks different, and still call it "faith." Neat. Tidy. Closed loop. Closed thinking. It works!
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 03-15-2008 at 10:51 AM..
It appears to me that just like back in post 21 when you stated that "the existence of god is a faith based belief?" and I gave the example that i don't do anything on faith, but need proof, you've said well you're still going to call that faith because that's how it looks to you.
I then said, it appears when someone's experience might challenge a world view (the original statement that any belief in god is faith based), rather than admit that another view might just have some validity, and hence prompt further exploration, for your own comfort you're going to dismiss that altogether, and still call it "faith."
Are you getting snippy with me? Because it's really not necessary.
In my example I explained that one persons proof is not really enough. It is enough for you and I have already said that's great but it is not enough to prove this to others.
I could say that I believe that unicorns really did exist, that I have worked out a theory and done tests and my conclusion is that they definitely exist. BUT that would be my opinion and it would be faith based and have no statistical relevence to the rest of the world. So I could be quite happy in my belief that unicorns really did exist but to everyone else it would be a purely faith based conclusion.
AT NO POINT did I dismiss what you had to say, I was simply asking questions and trying to clarify what you meant. Perhaps if you have already decided what I think on this subject we should not bother pursuing it further.
It appears to me that just like back in post 21 when you stated that "the existence of god is a faith based belief?" and I gave the example that i don't do anything on faith, but need proof, you've said well you're still going to call that faith because that's how it looks to you.
I then said, it appears when someone's experience might challenge a world view (the original statement that any belief in god is faith based), rather than admit that another view might just have some validity, and hence prompt further exploration, for your own comfort you're still going to call it "faith."
Isn't it a beach when people take that approach? ive been trying to convince my family that there are gnomes living in our garden but they don't believe me. Now normally i wouldn't believe in them either but they gave me irrefutable proof of their existence in the form of a series of mathematical statements(which ive forgotten), this was enough to convince me but turns out that they are invisible to everyone else but me which seems to prevent them from accepting whats blindingly obvious.
They still wont believe me no matter how many times i repeat its true, they go on about this "objectivity" and "empiricism" crap like a mantra. They won't accept that my claims have as much validity as say germ theory simply because they fear that my words, when accepted without question, might totally rock the way they think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is having trouble with their view of reality? You or me?
Because it's really not necessary. 
