Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?
If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
The gig is up.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
actually everyone operates under a belief system.
Perhaps the only persons who think otherwise are those who don't venture much into philosophy.
W.B. Yeats:
IX. The Four Ages of Man
He with body waged a fight,
But body won; it walks upright.
Then he struggled with the heart;
Innocence and peace depart.
Then he struggled with the mind;
His proud heart he left behind.
Now his wars on God begin;
At stroke of midnight God shall win.
The human problem is, in brief, this:
Then he struggled with the heart;/ Innocence and peace depart. //Then he struggled with the mind; / His proud heart he left behind.
If one goes into the whole "epistemology and such business" of one's beliefs, one ends up confused, simultaneously disillusioned and feeling deeply in illusion more than ever.
One thing I often observe in theists is that they do not think of their convictions as a "belief system". This really bewilders me, and has lead to much strife between myself and them.
Why don't some theists think in terms of "my belief system"?
Alternatively there are those who don't claim to hold any knowledge (as defined in the diagram) and operate from a basis of practicality rather than belief... "my understanding seems to work for me at present, but that is not to say it is the truth."
They therefore remain fluid and hold no belief, but nor do they claim to "know" (as defined) beyond what can be demonstrated by them in practice.
Wrong! the critically minded use knowledge, and facts.
Of course they do, they have to discuss the facts in order to ascertain a proof, truth, or whatever you want to call it.lightgigantic said:
The reverse is true of any religion as there are no facts to discuss. (only pseudo BS) Thus it is impossible for them to ascertain a proof, truth, or anything for that matter.
I believe in myself. That said I do seek out knowledge by reading and asking questions about things I do not know or understand. If those things I read cannot give me enough INFORMATION using FACTS then I tend to see those types of things as just opinions and beliefs about whatever they are not the truth.
The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).
Philosophy is exploration of ideas. But we do not necessarily believe all philosophy. That's fine, it is interesting to explore.
But to have unproven BELIEFS is delusional. One needs to always maintain a healthy scepticism to be respected by sane people.
Nobody is explaining why they believe without proof.
And nobody is attacking the point of the OP's premise.
And nobody is attacking the point of the OP's premise.
I don't think you understand.
Philosophy grants the status of proof to knowledge.
IOW if you have no necessary belief in philosophy you have no proof.
why would you assume i don't have proof?
is it because it didn't happen in a lab? in some controlled environment? it wasn't examined under a microscope or studied by scientists and written up in some journal?
all that means is that the proof is just for me. it changed me. changed my life. it's a result that i'm happy with.
First of all, what do you mean by ''proof''?
And what do we need proof of, and proof for?
As a theist, I don't go around believing in God.
As an atheist or agnostic you don't go around not believing in God.
The only way you know i'm a theist is because i've told you.
There are people who because of their affiliation to religion, may dovetail
their lives with rituals, rules, and regulations. They may even dress accordingly.
But these people can function fine in society. They own businesses, go to work, pay taxes, buy houses, go to the supermarket...
They do all the things non-believers do, so what are you actually talking about ''proof''? Proof of what exactly?
jan.
You simply call upon your beliefs to say religion brings no proof to the discussion.Wrong! the critically minded use knowledge, and facts.Of course they do, they have to discuss the facts in order to ascertain a proof, truth, or whatever you want to call it.
The reverse is true of any religion as there are no facts to discuss. (only pseudo BS) Thus it is impossible for them to ascertain a proof, truth, or anything for that matter.
:shrug:
then its quite clear
You believe proof must fit the scientific context to be valid.
(which means that if you give a certain woman a gift on mother's day without clear scientific proof, you are delusional ... by your own standard)
universaldistress,
You mean they have to be respected by atheists (here).
Don't mix up science and atheism.
Philosophy is the only genre in gaining perspectives about ''God'' (intellectually). Religion is the mechanism on how to communicate with God.
The house is science, philosophy is the home. Both are necessary as you can't have one without the other. But both are different.
Tell me something that YOU BELIEVE.
Who do you regard as sane people?
jan.
You mean they have to be respected by atheists (here).
Don't mix up science and atheism.
Philosophy is the only genre in gaining perspectives about ''God'' (intellectually). Religion is the mechanism on how to communicate with God.
The house is science, philosophy is the home. Both are necessary as you can't have one without the other. But both are different.
Tell me something that YOU BELIEVE.
Who do you regard as sane people?
jan.
All this BS doesn't prove anything. Can someone address the OP please. Trying to say the need of proof is irrelevant is moving away from a scientific context (sciforums).
If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.
If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.
I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
Well that's a given, if what's being discussed has a solid basis.
No it seems you don't understand, Whatever is discussed has to have a solid basis, before it can be ascertained as a proof or truth. With no solid basis it isn't even worth contemplating.lightgigantic said:
The question being ask is why without any prove do the religious believe.
Why you brought up philosophy is beyond me, as you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur.
I, if I was a theist, would take ths opportunity to try and justify my belief. At least offer up my individual proof for review.
Science is after all about review.
Science is after all about review.