Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

But it is you who has irrevocably made up your mind. How is it that you know that which is beyond the capacity for humans to know? You are claiming you do.

Hubris, another form of Pride!

Now I have made a judgment of your capacity for learning. You do not have it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"You can not name the TAO/DAO"
"The name of GOD can not be spoken"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If it's nonsensical, yes.

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say I wasn't interested in a discussion (why it should any less than honest makes no sense), I just want to know how it ties in with our discussion. You seem reluctant to explain.

I'm allowed to dismiss perspectives in a discussion. You don't seem reluctant to dismiss my perspectives, and you don't see me crying into my beer.

What is it relevant to? We're talking about faith, and how it works. It applies to everyone, including the neuro-scientists. The little bit I watched had nothing to do with the discussion. Or if it does, then you need to put it into context.

I see. We're at ad-hominem hotel.

Atheist dogma. You all end up there eventually.

Jan.

 

Either that or we know everything. And that is a tall order. Even for an elitist.

Really?

You obviously don't realise your ownhypocrisy.

Do you have a personality disorder?

Jan.

 

Are we talking about God?

Jan.

 

In furtherance of post #680.
Almost all living things have the capacity to perceive and react to environmental values and functions.

Flowers employ Heliotropism
Slime Mold has a sense of Time.
Chameleons can precisely triangulate the Distance of its prey.
Lemurs can subconsciously Count (knowing the difference between more and less)
Octopi can solve Complex (compound) problems
The list is endless.

To me, this would indicate that these natural mathematical functions are pervasive and persistent, at least on earth and every living organism has the capacity to use them as they relate to their specific form of existence.

 

Well, if you tried conversing with me instead of others it could be constructive.

Are you even familiar with what I said?

 

I'm not ideologically committed to breathing, or drinking water, so I know what you mean.

Of course it's absent. That's why you're atheist. Your whole thought process is atheist, and all that atheist entails.
Someone who is blind from birth can only perceive from a blind perspective. No matter how evidence of the seeing world they may obtain. So you are atheist first, and because you are atheist, there can be no evidence. The idea of needing evidence to show God, is an atheist one, hailing from the perspective. It is the very yoke that prevents them from God-realisation.

Of course your going to remark, there is no evidence for God, so I am assuming God. Remember, this is all your own perspective. But what you have effectively done, is to keep yourself convinced that God does not exist.
You're in a loop.

And so loop, loops on.

Jan.

 

No I'm no familiar, which is my point.
If you explain what you meant, instead of playing games, I will converse with you, as much as you like.

Jan.

 

Oh, and, if you're so caught up in your beliefs why don't you cheer innocent people dying by terrorists?

Or do you already?

 

Did you hear Jan talking about himself? Listen to what he said.

Who knows?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, it's rationalist. Internal evidence, i.e. feeling an experience of god, cannot be trusted, because perceptions cannot be trusted.

 

I would prefer it not to rain, is generally what people mean. "I Wish It Wouldn't Rain" is a well known hook for songs, and that's about the size of that hope.

That's obvious. What's your point?

You keep making these obvious points.
What do you think I'm referring to?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
"Faith" is the combination of everything, including how you go about achieving that goal.

Going back to the thread title. Faith helps to break down the barriers of what you think you can't achieve, if you have the strength to percevere. It allows you to gain knowledge you didn't have before, by being exposed to it.

If one simply sits down and wishes something to materialise, as you seem to be implying, one will receive exactly, the results of one's actions. Presumably, if one thinks something can simply materialise by wishing it. It follows that one knows how it can be done, and will work toward achievement.

It is "less guaranteed" because you are atheist. The whole notion of guarantee, is due to being atheist.

What is unstable about it?

You think like that because you are atheist. You already do not accept, or believe that God even exists. As such you have no choice but ask these kinds of questions, or have serious doubts.

The problem is, you think you're position is right, and anything that contradicts it, is wrong. So you won't entertain the idea that you are currently incapable of comprehending God.

Theist don't think in that way, because it is obvious that God exist.
I accept that for you, God does not exist.
You need to start accepting that your atheism is your reality, and stop trying to make it everyones.

You don't know that God exists.
That's all you can know for sure.

Theists already believe in God.
Atheists don't know what that even means.
What you say is your perception, not mine.

Again, this is an atheist concept. It doesn't hold, because there is no comprehension of what or who God is.

Jan.

 

An atheist trying to explain how a theist comprehends God? Very amusing indeed.

The reality is, an atheist has no idea of God. So theists, don't be fooled into thinking they do.

Jan.

 

Why do you think you have to ask me that? Because I am a theist?

Jan.

 

Amazingly, a single person can hold both views over the course of their lifetime, so we already know you are most likely delusional when you claim special theist knowledge. At least you can't argue your case if held to a rational standard.

 

You can't play the victim.

Do you relish in the deaths of civilians?

Oh and, you're not interested in dialogue.