Blind Faith

Something has always irritated me about theists. They pride themselves on their faith, yet, in my eyes, refuse to admit what it is.

Faith, by it definition, requires that you believe something simply for the sake of believing it, and if you do, you will reap benefits from it in your psyche. Occasionally I come up with a question of faith in myself, but not a religous one. Like, "How do I make the leap that if I try to love myself as much as I can that the changes I make in my my mind about the person I want to be will be the right choices." A few years ago I answered that question with faith. At this point I can answer that question with a boat load of personal research and observed affects on myself. So in this instance, faith turned into study which then turned into fact.

But lets take faith from a religous stand point. The most common question of faith in most religions is, "Is there a creator?" Now, faith in this instance is almost always ansered by any theist by using their dogma. Their bible. Koran. Their texts or the culture. Their history. Thier churches.

To someone raised on the insides of these things, they will feel as if those things are not just... interpretations of spiritual humanity, but concrete correctness of which they can choose to base thier entire moral and ethical codes off of.

And this is what irritates me about it. If you know anything at all about history you know that it is a pretty unreliable scource. First of all, history is written by the winner's of the dispute, and everybody wants to be the winner. Secondly, politics have always used religion as a tool to persuade large groups of people into thinking likely as to push agenda, almost always designed for the personal gain of the poloticians themselves, and not the people they govern. King James VERSION? That words alone should send up red flags. King James version means some people were uncomfortable with the historical "fact" of their rpesent day and needed a revision in order to change a couple things around. I think it was one of the king henrys, the guy that killed all his wives, he LITTERAL changed religions multiple times to push his own personal power. The romans changing to Christianity. All of these things point towards the indication that all of the dogmas, all the texts and all of the histories that theists base faith off of are clear maniplation tactics desienged to distort information in order to control.

Then theists take it upon themselves to have "faith" in these distortions as if they are some kind of divine... something, in which they can trust and guide themselves with.

Because they choose to remain blind to where their "faith" trully comes from, they choose to have blind faith. Which in turn hurts themselves. And, the most irritating part of it all, as a way to ignore this, they push their blind faith onto others, under the guise of wisdom. Because if others believe in it, then the doubts that they feel in their hearts can be more easily ignored.

I am not a man of faith. I do have beliefs, and when it comes to the inevitable end of me understanding that I can never know wether those beliefs are true or not, I do not close my mind to the possibility and claim faith as victory. I question myself and learn again. Knowing that I will never perfect this knowledge, I know that I will always change it. Until the day I die. This is how I remain open minded, humble, and aware. Not blindly following my defense mechanisms, desiegned to hide from my fears.

The urge to resist that what we do not understand is quite common. And judging by what you both have expressed it's pretty clear to me you two do not understand faith. Nor do you choose to, though you exhibit it every day. Just being honest.

See, true faith isn't blind. It's true, religion carries with it a whole lot of dogma. But what you fail to see is that anti religion carries the same amount. Both claim "logic" as a basis for their views. Dogma is found in every learning institution on the globe. "Religion is used to control" is a common dogmatic response from secularists. And as with all dogmas, there is an element of truth to it. The fact is though economics are used far more then religion to control others just as economics are the reasons for most wars.

The truth is from before the time of religion primitive man has looked into the sky and concluded upon observing nature that it must be the wondrous works of a supreme being, a creator. And the more we learn the more people like me see that it is. Others choose not too. But the fact that we are gaining more understanding of how it works, doesn't prove or disprove why it works. For that one must move past the search for physical knowledge and seek spiritual knowledge.

But to do that we have understand that truth can take us where our intellect can't go. And if you're not willing to go then there is no use in perusing truth any further. Just shore up your belief systems with platitudes and the like minded thinking of others while seeking the pleasures/ rewards of this existence and die. There is nothing else left, if your'e not willing to follow truth where ever it takes you.

Firstly I would like to say that I have not had a religious debate with some one for some time. The reason why is because theists get so angry at me for what I have to say to them, and, aswell, how closed minded and unwilling to empathize with me, or any one who disagrees with them. I do believe that you are harboring much anger inside of you, by how I percieved your tone, and I believe that the anger inside of you towards your own personal pains with religion is coming out on me. I believe that this is going to make it hard for you to be able to have a reasonable conversation with me.

I'll tell you a little about myself so that way you can better know where I'm coming from, and discuss with me, instead of with the ideas you already have about what I may be.

I will promise you right now that I am open to being wrong about my ideas of faith. In fact, as asked myself many questions about the uses of faith after posting this thread. Ideas that I did not have befor posting the thread. Which, btw, is why I come here. To gain and change. ( and unless you are doing the same I am going to fail at learning from you. so please try to be humble, for my sake ) Questions like, "I know that faith can be a bad thing, if I use it as a defense, but how can I use it as a good thing? Lets say I have faith that I will look much better and feel much better by working out then maybe that can motivate me." But then I say to myself, thats not faith, thats study of reality. Faith would be more along the lines of not knowing anything about nutrition and health and hoping that by praying to the creator of all things to make me sexy, that, if I believe enough, it will happen.

I would also like to say that you used a lot of generalizing statements in your response to me, all as a defense of what I have suggested, that all faith is blind. Your statements not only had to do with the premise you assumed I had, but also with my character. This also makes me feel like I cant trust you to have an open conversation with me. You asked me no questions. you told me that I was closed minded before having a conversation with me.

You also made an outraegous claim of assumed knowledge, something many theists do.

Unless you admit to me that you do not know what ancient people thought before text, I will lose respect for you. Both of us know its impossible. Its not like I won't understand your short sidedness though, instead show me how their is a difference between your definition of faith and mine.

quote:

---

Unless you admit to me that you do not know what ancient people thought before text, I will lose respect for you

---

First let me express my regrets that we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot.

Now as for your ultimatum, I can not give you what you want. For I would keep your respect but I would lose my self respect. Because I believe "texts" do provide us with the knowledge of what ancient peoples thought. That is why they became texts...to record what they believed to be true. So in essence we can know what they thought.

I want to apologize however for seeming as though I was angry. I don't type well so I tend to be blunt, using as few words possible. Let me assure you I wasn't angry.

You percieved correctly in that I harbor some "pains" with religion. But my faith is solid.

When I responded I was generalizing my remarks in response to the general remarks that were made. If you wanted to converse we can and I too can promise to be open minded. But honestly, can you empathize with my position the same way you want me to with yours? Just saying I see similar red flags like you see in me. Which I do not hold against you because we obviously have reasons for what we believe. My point is we all have faith, theist as well as atheist. To me, it's just a matter of placement.

Anyway I can tell you some things about me and you can tell me about you as you alluded, keep it civil and perhaps we can learn something from eachother.

I'll start with a question. Is there any texts you find trustworthy? I ask because reading text is a large part of my learning apparatus. Combined with experiences of course.

I appreciate the positive attitude.

I can see where you're not following me. First you said you KNOW what ancient people believed. (btw I when I say ancient I'm talking about humans in the most basic form, before society, before mass control, before religion on a mass scale. the reason why humans in the most basic form is the most rational way to look at it is because they had the same brain and same emotions, save for enviromental changes of modern society, therefor posed the same spirtual questions, in order to better understand their emotions, which is why we do it) Then you tell me that if you concede to not KNOWING, meaning absolute knowledge, of what these people felt when looking up that you would lose respect for yourself because it would cause you to question your beliefs.

Believing is not knowing. Saying that it is, is pretending to see something, to know something, that you don't. And claiming strong faith in you blind assumption, which is what this is, does not make it any more true. Saying it does is having faith in what you have chosen to be blind to.

This is blind faith. If im not mistaken the first things ever written were shipments for cargo. They used symbols in order to represent items, they didn't have words or spelling. Which means that while being sophisticated enough to have ecomony they were not sophisticated enough to have dogma. Meaning that whatever texts you are referencing are coming after the time of ancient people, after societal control. Therefor they can't be trusted because they are being used for personal gain, not spiritual growth. Meaning that you don't actually know what they felt, because it is impossible. But because you need ancient people to feel the same way you do in order to respect yourself, (respect is nearly synonomous in the mind for love) you choose to blind yourself to the fact that you don't know, and claim faith in your beliefs as victory AND knowledge. Making you a blind believer in something that is not true.

Now, I dont know anything about you, other than you think you know what ancient people thought, and you use that assumed knowledge as a way to respect yourself, and that you "faith" in your beliefs is what prevents you from admitting you are wrong here, but I can assume, have faith in, the premise that you do this with other things. But like I said, I am not a man of faith.

Admit that you do not KNOW what they felt, that you BELIEVE that they felt what you do, acknowledge that this is the flaw in faith, and you will feel better.

Having faith in a belief does not change the belief.

You have proven yourself wrong here, all I did is observe it.

Sorry, but I think you've jumped the gun. Yes it's generally believed that ancient hieroglyphics first appeared on tokens in order to represent possessions. But logic would dictate that as the ability to 'record' began to arise people would use that ability for practical needs first; then progress to other needs and desires of expression. For instance when the internet first came on the seen the only sites out there were support sites that only techies for the most part had visited or even knew of. Did you realize that? But now look at what it's become! All the diverse expressions of what people believe are true and right come about as the newest form of 'recording' becomes more accessible.

To assume people didn't have the thoughts they did and texts do not accurately reflect those thoughts just because the first forms of writing was related to the practicality of commerce demonstrates a tremendous amount of faith on your part. Indeed you've have proven yourself wrong here. Again, if they didn't have them as you suggest by insisting I can't know that they did, then why would they record them as the ability to do so became more abundant just as with the modern day internet?

The Egyptian hieroglyphic depicting the 'eye' is a reference to "god." If this isn't a true reflection of culture even before the hieroglyphic was created then please offer some evidence besides "you don't think so because it was just meant to control people." Besides they were already using commerce to do that.

I see your point concerning the victors of wars and their personal agendas but as in all proven cases throughout history; prior writings some how survive. That's how history is pieced together. Not by just taking the word of the latest authors. A simple example to make my point would be this: Alexander the Great took his army and virtually ended the Roman empire. Yet roman writings reflecting their culture still exist. That alone disproves your theory.

It's too bad we can't get passed this. But you should realize that your overreaction to the fallibility of texts in general have given you a bias that blinds you from examining other perspectives.

Im not talking about hyroglyphics. Im am talking about before their time. I am talking about BEFORE religion... I am talking about the oldest wriiten records found. They are cargo reports.

And I'm not really concerned about the texts so much, thats not really where Im trying to come from. I am trying to show YOU that texts arent a vaid source of information. I don't really care about them either way because I am talking about innate original human emotions.

And I didn't assume anything. I'm not the one saying that I know what ancient poeple thought, I dont. You are the one saying that you know what ancient people thought because of what you've read.

And you have yet to adress YOUR issue with faith that I outlined for you in my last post.

Thats the second time in a row you have diverted from my claims about you by making claims about me...

Correction, that was the third time I turned it back on you. And I'm doing so because you're exhibiting the exact blind faith that you ranted against. You just won't admit it.

What you've have done since your first post was to define what faith is to you and project your definition of faith onto others. My responses have been to expose that flaw you have. To make you see it for what it is. Blind faith.


Once I initially responded you then projected your definition onto my faith and I chose to "address" it as I saw fit.


I didn't take the bait and it seems to have upset you? Sorry but I have shown logically that we are able to determine thoughts of ancient peoples based on their recorded reflective thoughts. You simply state over and over you don't believe them and now you claim they don't matter. All because you don't know. You don't know what people thought before the time of recorded history so in your mind no one can. Despite the fact that the records themselves reveal what the prevailing thoughts were as concluded by phds the world over. You don't think they are right so my faith is flawed???

Your assertion that people like me adhere to "blind faith" could not be further from the truth. Please don't mistake my forthright style for anger. I'm just calling it like I see it. That's how I address it.

Now if you're interested in what faith is to me it's quite simple. It is believing that there are things in existence that we do not pick up with our normal senses based on the evidence derived from the things that are picked up by our senses. I would hardly call that a blind faith.

"before recorded history"

"the records themselves"

K

The thought comes first. The recording of the thought follows. You really do not understand that? You believe that the first recorded thought ever had to be of God other wise they never did before that period of time? You truly don't think that prevailing thoughts before the first written communications didn't occur and that the eventual calligraphy that arose never in anyway reflected them?

Your blind faith isn't uniquely yours. Most atheists use the same methods as you. But that's okay, you're free to believe as you will. Just remember it was you trying to push your beliefs onto me, not the other way around. Have a good night.

You made a claim of knowledge you dont have. What ever you think im trying to do other than to get you to see that is wrong. In the beggining of speaking to you I told you that your anger towards atheists would get in the way of you listening, and it has. Thanks for the attempts to demean me, it made your intentions clear.

I didnt push anything. You contradict yourself, I point it out, you attack. You know damn well you dont want me to have a good night. Call that faith.

You really think issuing an ultimatum isn't attacking someones faith in anyway?

Well what you said was theists tend to get angry...I have not. Disagreeing with you is not "attacking" I never laid claim to knowledge I didn't have or could not know. Anything I said I provided sound logic for saying it. You disagree because you think nothing written in history is true. If you believe that then you believe it. There is nothing else to discuss so I truly wish you a good night. No ulterior motive behind that.

Omg, this is the last time I am saying this to you, or anything for that matter.

I am not talking about written ideas about mens thought. I am talking about innate human emotion. YOU are talking about history. I am talking about emotion. You are using history to justify your concepts on emotion. In order to get that out of the way, I am discussin humans before history.

You said that you KNOW what humans, before history, felt when they looked up at the sky. In your very next post, after I questioned that idea, you said you BELIEVE what you previously said you KNOW. I am trying to show you that BELIEVING is not KNOWING, even if you have something to back your beliefs up.

You have refused to acknowledge that point EVERYTIME. You have diverted, demeaned and closed your eyes. You have turned an argument about what faith is, into you justifying why you have it by attacking me.

You are not discussing MY points. This is MY thread. These are MY ideas under scurtiny. If you are going to try to prove me wrong, at lesat try to prove my IDEAS wrong. This doesn't have anything to do with history. Your just clinding on to it to avoid my point.

That you said you KNOW something that you BELIEVE, because of FAITH. Please adress this. Please re-read all of my posts. Please attempt a conversation about any of the points I've have made and please stop diverting.

Btw, you also said that if you were to acknowledge that you are claiming false information, that you are 100 percent sure that ancient looked up into the sky and "concluded" (like there were scientists back then or something) that there was a creator. And because of this, you feel justified in doing the same. The idea of yours that I am challenging is not the text you base this of of, it is your willingness to believe it in order to keep your self-respect that prevents you from hearing this out. After you read this part of my post, please go back and read Decius' post, as he talks about theiets' need to feel accomplished by having faith.

Now, I believe there is a discrepency about the word ancient, which I have tried to clear up. You talked about ancient people because you are trying to justify your emotional outlook on god by saying that they're innate emotional outlook on god is the same as yours. Good argument, because it can be argued. IF the innate state of human emotion is was to have a sense of god watching us, a being, a creator, then it would further your argument about faith being innate in us aswell. Which is your whole argument, faith is innate and I am expereinceing just as much as you. (see how i've been listening) What you have failed to listen to is that you are choosing to put faith, a blind faith, in something that you can not know is true or not. I am not doing that. I am not saying that I know what ancient people felt. You are. I am not saying that I know what innate human emotions were in ancient people, you are. What I am saying is that when ever you through religous text into the mix, there is a lot of information distortion rpesented for the sake of personal gain, NOT divine understanding. Which is why I proposed that we discuss human emotion, BEFORE THAT. You refuse to do that, because the self-respect you wagerd on this conversation is clinging to the faith you put in something that we both know is flawed, your damed texts. And instead of letting go of that and discussing your own personal use of faith in this conversation, you have been attacking me.

Why not just discuss how you used faith to assume knowledge? You know that you did this becuase you wrote it down. First you said know, then you said believe. "Adress" that please.