Fatih = Assumption

I was sitting in my Religion and Popular Culture lecture tonight and the prof was making a point about how everyone has faith in something.

Basically he started with the 'big' things (i.e. faith in gOD) and moved down to less and less 'big' things (i.e. faith in self, faith in others, faith in bus driver not to crash). And finally he closed by saying that we even have faith in simple things, like a lightswitch and its connection to the lights turning on and off.

Ame made a similar point in the "Faith" thread recently.

He seemed rather pleased with himself, but I was left with this thought:

We don't have 'faith' that a lightswitch will turn on a light, we 'assume' that a lightswitch will turn on a light.

Clearly his was starting from the 'big' end of things in an attempt to show how faith in gOD is justified because we use it all the time.

But could the same thought experiment not be done in reverse using the word 'assume'? You assume that the lightswitch will turn the light on and off, you assume that the bus drvier will not crash, you assume that others will not fail us, you assume that if we work hard we can succeed. And finally, you assume that gOD exists.

If nothing else, this shows that the two words are clearly interchangeable.

So, religion is based on an assumption. Who could've seen that coming? Oh wait...me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
If nothing else, this shows that the two words are clearly interchangeable.

---

If you are following a religion, you are assuming it, belevieng in it, having faith in it, are one with it, etc..., its part of being in ideology. The thing here is that he is telling you to assume religion as if it were anything else, not for its causes or ideas(wich should be why you belive in it), its not like you assume the bus driver won't crash, you first see if he is drunk or something, you take knowledge out of something before giving to it, thats what I see wrong with his statement.

I see what you mean.

But the point I did a poor job or making was that faith is merely a dressed up synonym for assume.

I mean, psychologically, people have more respect for a statement of 'faith' than for a statement of 'assumption'. But it's the same thing, it's all semantics.

If people would just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that 'faith' is no different than assumption, religion would be much less prominent.

It's a lot more difficult to maintain a following if you start telling people, "You have to assume that gOD exists!"

Assume: to accept something to be true without question or proof
Faith: great trust or confidence in something or someone
Faith(religuosly): strong belief in God or a particular religion

yeah, they are kind of alike, the diference is that to have faith, doesn't imply acceptance, but to belive. You assume the religion when you start in it, like in christianity, you get baptised(the funny thing about this is that they do it to you when your on an age that you only know how to eat buggers). To have faith in that religion is when you start believing in it. Now either people accept or belive I don't know, I guess people would rather listen to faith since its something you can loose, rather than assumption, wich they "technically" already have :| and to have faith, you must first assume(this whole subject would make a great preaching at church), the problem may lay on two things, either people are ignorants on what they assume, or the preacher whants them to forget what they assume and just make them believe, but this last one I would guess is unitentional(by not talking about acceptance) :? .

It depends on how bad you need it or not too. What kind of person are you.
You do not assume things if the light switch had to work in order for you to live. Like the big red switch to set of all those nukes...0_o!
A lot of people that are religious have a need for answers and rely on there being a higher god or what have you.
Some people assume the worst, possibly relying more on faith.
If I had kids that my friend took to school, I would rely on them and have faith in there decision making. But I would not assume.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that relying on something is different yet than both faith or assumption.

Faith is the Belief that your Assumptions are correct.

With faith, assumption is not a main component. Some assumptions can be made after establishing a foundation.

One of my favorite quotes:

"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use". -Galieo Galilei

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Genjyo
With faith, assumption is not a main component. Some assumptions can be made after establishing a foundation.

---

I agree. An assumption is really not founded by anything but your own preemptive thought of what should or will happen.
Faith has less ambiguity and is founded behind someones beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Genjyo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Genjyo)</div>

Quote:

---

With faith, assumption is not a main component. Some assumptions can be made after establishing a foundation.[/b]

---

But how is that foundation constructed? You assume that what you read and what your parents tell you is true.

<!--QuoteBegin-Howe
An assumption is really not founded by anything but your own preemptive thought of what should or will happen.

---

Right and wrong, an assumption can also be blindly accepting the opinions of others.

i.e. Fahrenheit 9/11 is all objective truth because Micheal Moore says so.

That's not any different than, "gOD exists and loves me because my parents, peers and priest say so".

And when it comes down to it, regardless of all the 'soul-searching' you may have done, all your doing is taking the word of others as truth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Quote:

---

Right and wrong, an assumption can also be blindly accepting the opinions of others.[/b]

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker@
i.e. Fahrenheit 9/11 is all objective truth because Micheal Moore says so.

---

That was a sad misinterpretation of the truth. Words and phrases taken out of context to make his points. But you don't assume he is right do you. You either do or don't believe him

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
That's not any different than, \"gOD exists and loves me because my parents, peers and priest say so\".
And when it comes down to it, regardless of all the 'soul-searching' you may have done, all your doing is taking the word of others as truth.

---

Although we have our free will to decide our own truths, doesn't all of our thoughts come from someone else, somewhere, at some point. How many of us out true pioneers of a true thought from its conception?

None of us. Everything has been done before. There are new interpretations,
and science continues to uncover new information daily, but, the underlying
motivations and processes are the same. I still think primal survival insticts
drive our lives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by R.Carter
None of us. Everything has been done before. There are new interpretations,
and science continues to uncover new information daily, but, the underlying
motivations and processes are the same. I still think primal survival insticts
drive our lives.

---

I think that our primal nature as sentient beings are deteriorating over time as our brains take over the burden of primal survival instincts. All a will to succeed /survival.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howe
Although we have our free will to decide our own truths, doesn't all of our thoughts come from someone else, somewhere, at some point. How many of us out true pioneers of a true thought from its conception?

---

As Carter said, none of us (well, very few) are 'pioneers' of new thoughts and ideas.

That's why new ideas and knowledge should always be derived from old, or from empirical observation.

If people want to assume that gOD exists, by all means go ahead, but 2 problems arise;

1) belief structures are created, people are supressed and manipulated, wars are fought, people die.

2) it's a pacifier, a crutch and has a huge negative impact on progress.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

As Carter said, none of us (well, very few) are 'pioneers' of new thoughts and ideas.
That's why new ideas and knowledge should always be derived from old, or from empirical observation.
If people want to assume that gOD exists, by all means go ahead, but 2 problems arise;

1) belief structures are created, people are supressed and manipulated, wars are fought, people die.

2) it's a pacifier, a crutch and has a huge negative impact on progress.

---

I could not agree with you more!

I used to think this "crutch" was a good thing for society, promoting well being, love and such. But I think the things that you have pointed out over seed a positive influence by far.

Definition of Faith according to the dictionary.

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. "Faith, that is, fidelity, -- the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason." Coleridge.
3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faith.
(B) The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life, and makes a man a true Christian, -- called a practical, evangelical, or saving faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please him [God]." Heb. xi. 6. "The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind which is called "trust" or "confidence" exercised toward the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior." Dr. T. Dwight. "Faith is an affectionate, practical confidence in the testimony of God." J. Hawes.
4. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church. "Which to believe of her, Must be a faith that reason without miracle Could never plant in me." Shak. "Now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed." Gal. i. 23.
5. Fidelity to one's promises, or allegiance to duty, or to a person honored and beloved; loyalty. "Children in whom is no faith." Deut. xxvii. 20. "Whose failing, while her faith to me remains, I should conceal." Milton.
6. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity; as, he violated his faith. "For you alone I broke me faith with injured Palamon." Dryden.
7. Credibility or truth. [R.] "The faith of the foregoing narrative." Mitford

Definition of assume according to the dictionary.

1. To take to or upon one's self; to take formally and demonstratively; sometimes, to appropriate or take unjustly.

2. To take for granted, or without proof; to suppose as a fact; to suppose or take arbitrarily or tentatively.
The consequences of assumed principles.
- Whewell.

3. To pretend to possess; to take in appearance.
Ambition assuming the mask of religion.
- Porteus.
Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
- Shak.

4. To receive or adopt.
The sixth was a young knight of lesser renown and lower rank, assumed into that honorable company.


In regards to a belief in god was the following quote:

Quote:

---

1) belief structures are created, people are supressed and manipulated, wars are fought, people die.
2) it's a pacifier, a crutch and has a huge negative impact on progress.[/b]

---

In other words, It's not that there is a problem that cannot be solved. You are the problem, unable to solve it. The real cause of these things is a lack of understanding. A belief in god of itself has no relevance. Many people believe in god and do not contribute to the above negative effects.

What a stimulating discussion so far.

Regarding what can be considered as established foundation, the truest record is nature, along with our existence.

Everyone should really investigate and decide for themselves what to make of this reality. There comes a time when one will see if what "their parents taught them" or what they heard/read is accurate.

Coming from an atheistic mindset I concluded the world exists. Now with a christian mindset I am still confident of an existing world. We have at our disposal the data to then proceed theories about what best explains the occurence of such data. Therefore, presuppositions are made no matter who you are.

I believe I understand your idea Brady, but I may differ and say all reasoning is based on those presuppositions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Incesticide
In other words, It's not that there is a problem that cannot be solved. You are the problem, unable to solve it. The real cause of these things is a lack of understanding. A belief in god of itself has no relevance. Many people believe in god and do not contribute to the above negative effects.

---

There has more death in the name of religion than any other thing on earth. The problem. Those people can but don't then let others decide their fiat.

You can always play the card there are some. Yes there are some of everything, but that does not sum it up.
Thanks for the dictionary terms. It can clarify things
Dictionary terms are useful. But being able to establish when and how it translate to a particular discussion is the important part. Otherwise it could be a foreign language.
You can tell someone the answer. You cannot make them understand.

Quote:

---

there has [been]more death in the name of religion than any other thing on earth.[/b]

---

Don't blame Religion though. Do you blame the subject mathematics for all the people who can't calculate without producing an error?

Why blame the subject Religion because of those who are bad at it.
Just something to ponder if you blame the subject religion.

Quote:

---

You can always play the card there are some.[/b]

---

I know I have a bunch of those cards. Your not suppose to be looking at my deck. Cheater.

Quote:

---

Yes there are some of everything, but that does not sum it up.[/b]

---

get out of town. This is not what I was saying.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the dictionary terms. It can clarify things
Dictionary terms are useful. But being able to establish when and how it translate to a particular discussion is the important part. Otherwise it could be a foreign language.
You can tell someone the answer. You cannot make them understand.[/b]

---

If you consider the dictionary terms of the words that I posted. It becomes obvious what is going on.

Thank you howetzer

The point is, is that believers see their religion as true. The full truth and nothing but it. Their vision is right and no other will ever come close.

That's why atheists and theists colide =)

I believe there are no certainties. Everything is relative (and blablastuff). Christains and other religious people however have chosen to accept( in our eyes believe in) a certainty.

Thats fun about religion. The certainty.

Deal with the fact that we are all a buch of atoms with no purpose you silly religious people!:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Quote:

---

there has been more death in the name of religion than any other thing on earth.[/b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Incesticide@
Don't blame Religion though. Do you blame the subject mathematics for all the people who can't calculate without producing an error?
Why blame the subject Religion because of those who are bad at it.
Just something to ponder if you blame the subject religion.

---

You have a good point about not blaming religion entirely. But different from mathematics, where people have a principle concept to follow, yet can't understand it. Religion has been modified and divided over the years to create and appease the masses and there vices on our own accord.
So who do you blame? Although it is once removed from religion itself, that is where the entire concept was created.



<!--QuoteBegin-Incesticide
If you consider the dictionary terms of the words that I posted. It becomes obvious what is going on.

---

I believe that the terms (in plural) ironically in regards to our discussion are not clear cut and can have different interpretations given the topic at hand

Howie :)

Has threre really been more deaths in the name of religion than anthing else? There have been a crap load in the name of atheist regimes this past century. But that doesn't really matter, since the deaths have nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with those people's interpretation of it. Instead of the analogy of math, it is more like "don't blame science because someone invented the atomic bomb and dropped it on some cities." It completely depends on what you are using it for. Crusades? Suicide bombers? What does that have to do with religion except that some crazies came up with their own crazy interpretation of religion. If they were actually following religion, in the true sense of the word (which is a deep personal relationship with yourself and has nothing to do with dogma or blind faith) then they wouldn't be killing people! You also have to look at the people who truely practice religion and have amazing inner experiences and are completely at peace with themselves and the world, that is religion, not running around like an idiot killing people because you were told to by some other idiot. So there are both sides, human nature can make the best and worst out of anything. So the idea isn't created out of religion, it is exactly the opposite of religion! It is created out of an interpretation, which has nothing to do with the religion.

Which brings me to this assumption vs. fatih. First of all it is difficult for me in these religious discussions because I think I have completely different views than both the theists or atheists. I do not define religion, and therefore God, in the same way. As I see it, there is a true sense to religion and a counterfeit sense (which is how most people view it, knowingly or unknowingly). The counterfeit sense is that you are only basing religion on blind faith; that there is some entity "God" that controls you; that different religions cannot co-exist; that there are certain dogmas you must abide by; basically any exoteric, group-oriented version. What I think is the true sense of religion is based on an inner experience after much time of questioning, finally coming to some realization about your relationship to the world which completely changes your view of everything; knowing that God is not some "thing" to be looked up to, separate from yourself, but that in fact no separation ever existed; that every religion in essence is the same, with only outer differences; and that there are no rules one has to follow to be "accepted".

That said, if you are talking about the counterfeit sense, than yes, I can see how you can say religion is based on an assumption. It has nothing to do with what one actually knows, but on what others tell you to believe, so there is no proof either from the exoteric or esoteric world. But if you are talking about religion in the true sense, then it is not an assumption because it is based on the fact that you actually went through some inner experience and have acquired knowledge of something greater than yourself, therefore having faith in it (when I say something greater than yourself, think more along the lines of Buddha-nature or Tao, because the concept of God is so skewed for most people). So there is no proof in the outer world, nor will there ever be, there can only be proof in the inner world because that is where the change occurs. It is about personal realization, how you view the world on a daily basis, and nothing to do with whether some "god" told you to do this or that. Every dogma, faith, or whatever is a secondary phenomenon based on an actually inner experience. Unfortuantely only some people actually take the time and effort to examine themselves close enough, and most people have to be told what to do, but always missing the point. There is no substance to what most people think is religion, it is only an outer shell, devoid of any true meaning. It is all out of habit and fear. True religion takes effort and the ability to throw yourself into the unknown, which most people cannot and will not ever do, it is much easier if they get their weekly fix and feel like they are apart of some community, or on the other hand, completely reject the idea that it can do anything for them, based on false information.

That was my assumption syzygy. Disease or maybe natural disasters may have created more death. But I still believe religion would top them all.
I don't feel that your interpretation of religion is correct. You call them, "some crazies came up with their own crazy interpretation of religion." You even said in your sentence it is a religion. In my opinion most religion is blind faith. Faith is the foundation of religion. Not your own deep personal relationship with yourself. That would be more the opposite.

Assumption is a more concrete and if anything, closer to tangible expectation based on experiences from the past. We assume the light switch is gonna work tonite, cuz it's work 999 out 1000 times. Faith is a complete jump out of traditional and objective thinking, and implies something more extreme. ie. belief in heaven to escape the yucky feelings with fear of the unknown afterlife

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AirRick101
We assume the light switch is gonna work tonite, cuz it's work 999 out 1000 times. Faith is a complete jump out of traditional and objective thinking, and implies something more extreme.

---

Looking at it that way, faith seems even worse than assumption...and we all know that when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me....so what does faith make?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by howe
Most religion is blind faith. Faith is the foundation of religion. Not your own deep personal relationship with yourself. That would be more the opposite.

---

That is your religion that you have for yourself. Now you understand what we are saying?
Like I already mentioned. Because people can't calculate do not blame mathematics.

Look at the definition of faith, and then before jumping to conclusions about what you percieve as religion please read this.

http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html
http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/33254.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo
The point is, is that believers see their religion as true. The full truth and nothing but it. Their vision is right and no other will ever come close.

That's why atheists and theists colide =)

I believe there are no certainties. Everything is relative (and blablastuff). Christains and other religious people however have chosen to accept( in our eyes believe in) a certainty.

Thats fun about religion. The certainty.

Deal with the fact that we are all a buch of atoms with no purpose you silly religious people!:)

---

Hello! I am glad you have an opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. The reason I don't coincide with these thoughts is because if nothing has any meaning and we are just a random accident, then why strive for freedom and justice? Why do we invest so much into the future of our society? Why go into fields of Law, Science, and Medicine? Why bring the healing of people's physical damage when there is no purpose, when there is no right or wrong?

[quote]The reason I don't coincide with these thoughts is because if nothing has any meaning and we are just a random accident, then why strive for freedom and justice? Why do we invest so much into the future of our society? Why go into fields of Law, Science, and Medicine? Why bring the healing of people's physical damage when there is no purpose, when there is no right or wrong?
It's helpful to look at all organisms as information conduits. Whats the information? Our genetic material.

One day, this fancy self-replicating molecule called RNA formed spontaneously in some goo and since then it's mutated and been selected to perform this job of replication more and more efficiently.

For the most part, it's succeeded (bacteria and single-celled organisms dominate the planet and reproduce rapidly). However, another class of organisms have arisen in plant and animal life and of course those are further divided into kingdoms, families and species.

Fast forward to now and you have an extremely complex, social being. The homo sapien. Everything, however, is still reducible to reproduction. Freedom? More opportunity for genetic variance. Justice? That's tough to sum up quickly, but all of morality is an evolved behaviour. Law? Science? Medicine? Protecting our genetic investments and symbolic of status for mate attraction.

Right and wrong are evolved instincts that ensure the protection and propagation of our genetic material.

To say that everything is a meaningless accident is a bit misleading. It's more like a natural playing out of a random circumstance, according to some basic physical and chemical laws.

Thanks for your response. If I may ask, where do morality and ethics come from? Are they just human inventions?

About what you mentioned:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Quote:

---

Everything, however, is still reducible to reproduction.[/b]

---

It reminded me of what the Bible says. <!--QuoteBegin-Genesis 1:27&#045;28
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, \"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it\"

---

Similar to Gen 9:1-3

Emphasis mine.

[quote]Thanks for your response. If I may ask, where do morality and ethics come from? Are they just human inventions?
No, they play a very important role in (especially early) evolution. Not many offspring would be born if we were running around killing each other and stealing food and supplies. It was necessary for early human civilizations to be co-operative to maximize survival. Therefore, the genes for an increased tendency to co-operate (along with moral instincts) were selected over genes that promoted more destructive, self-centered behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

No, they play a very important role in (especially early) evolution. Not many offspring would be born if we were running around killing each other and stealing food and supplies. It was necessary for early human civilizations to be co-operative to maximize survival. Therefore, the genes for an increased tendency to co-operate (along with moral instincts) were selected over genes that promoted more destructive, self-centered behavior.

---

evolution clearly doesn't work in the real world, then :-P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

No, they play a very important role in (especially early) evolution. Not many offspring would be born if we were running around killing each other and stealing food and supplies. It was necessary for early human civilizations to be co-operative to maximize survival. Therefore, the genes for an increased tendency to co-operate (along with moral instincts) were selected over genes that promoted more destructive, self-centered behavior.

---

Hi! Does this mean that morals and ethics are result of genetics? Sorry, just asking for a little clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Genjyo
Hi! Does this mean that morals and ethics are result of genetics? Sorry, just asking for a little clarification.

---

Yes sir. But it's not as if it's a specific gene. A variety of genes would go into something as complex as morality.

Also, the nurture side of things (ie. how you were treated by your parents, etc) influences things heavily. It's always a compromise between your genetics and your environment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

Yes sir. But it's not as if it's a specific gene. A variety of genes would go into something as complex as morality.

Also, the nurture side of things (ie. how you were treated by your parents, etc) influences things heavily. It's always a compromise between your genetics and your environment.

---

So if morality is a by-product of genetics, how was it introduced in order for it be passed down to future generations? If I'm understanding your viewpoint, in order for species to survive, cooperation is a key factor. That would render morality to be survivability.

Ps. This very likely changes the theme of your thread, please advise. Peace!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Genjyo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Genjyo)</div>

Quote:

---

So if morality is a by-product of genetics, how was it introduced in order for it be passed down to future generations?[/b]

---

Random mutation. Keep in mind that co-operation is not common to humanity. In fact it can be observed even in the bacterial kingdom.

There is a species of bacteria that travel in large groups to hunt prey. When they find something to eat, some of the bacteria are programmed to produce a chemical toxin. They then release it into the surroundings to kill the prey so that everyone can feast.

When the area's food supply has been exhausted, the majority of the bacteria form a stalk and a few lucky ones on top turn into spores, they end up getting carried away in the air and will eventually start new colonies wherever they land.

This sort of cooperation engrained into the genetics of the bacteria is what has become our morality and justice.

<!--QuoteBegin-Genjyo
Ps. This very likely changes the theme of your thread, please advise. Peace!

---

Meh, I prefer to let threads evolve into whatever.

This random mutation does not seem so random when you put it into the context of human civilization. While we are living organisms amongst many, our awareness and ability to ponder these things separates us from all other lifeforms. If it is a blind chance then there is no meaning to life or morality. In other words, no purpose to human history.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Genjyo
If it is a blind chance then there is no meaning to life or morality. In other words, no purpose to human history.

---

Agreed. I don't see the problem here...

Chemically speaking, you and I are strikingly simlar to a bottle of Coke. Why should our existence be any more significant?

[quote]I don't feel that your interpretation of religion is correct. You call them, "some crazies came up with their own crazy interpretation of religion." You even said in your sentence it is a religion. In my opinion most religion is blind faith.

I didn't say it is a religion, I said it is a counterfeit religion which makes it not a religion. It is true that what most people think of as religion is based on blind faith, but I'm saying that they are missing the point. It shouldn't be based on blind faith and it doesn't make sense to base it on blind faith. Instead of depending on others, people should take responsibility for themselves. After all, the subjective experience is the basis for our reality. Shouldn't we (and aren't we the only ones who can) find out for ourselves what that means?

[quote]Faith is the foundation of religion. Not your own deep personal relationship with yourself. That would be more the opposite.
Yeah but: Your own deep personal relationship with yourself is the foundation of true religion. The opposite being blind faith as the foundation of counterfeit religion. It all depends on where one focuses their orientation.

If you take the Latin meaning for religion, "religare" which means to re-link, as in relinking with one's source, or essence than it should be clear that it can only be based on a deep personal relationship with yourself and not blind faith (even though this word has come to mean something else to most people, I am trying to get at the origin, what it first meant for people, not how we have destroyed it through history***). How is blind faith going to get you back to the essence of yourself? You can only do that through much reflection on yourself and the world.

***as a side note, it is interesting to see how the meaning of words have changed throughout time. If you research it you will find that words that had a neutral or positive connotation with them became reversed in the Middle Ages and now have a negative connotation. What happened to us? And have we gotten out of the dark ages yet (psychologically, that is)?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
Chemical speaking, you and I are strikingly simlar to a bottle of Coke. Why should our existence be any more significant?

---

Again, it depends on where you focus your orientation. If you decide to view reality from the basis of the physical world (now that's what I call an assumption!), then we are nothing more than a bottle of RC cola. I know you will disagree with me, but consciousness is the foundation of reality, and the physical is but a base reflection. Time, space and matter are secondary. They are aspects of the image of reality manifesting in the mind. They exist within consciousness and not the other way around. But again, you will disagree because your have oriented yourself towards the physical. Nothing wrong with that, but things of the temporal world will always change and I believe it is something we will eventually get over once we realize that we cannot explain consciousness from the perspective of the physical (which goes back to my post on the topic of infinity, you cannot create the more from the less). Instead we should focus our attention on how the physical world is able to manifest itself from consciousness. But this will never be explained by chemicals, it can only be examined by those who chose to explore the nature of consciousness for themselves. This is true religion, accept nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by syzygy
Nothing wrong with that, but things of the temporal world will always change and I believe it is something we will eventually get over once we realize that we cannot explain consciousness from the perspective of the physical (which goes back to my post on the topic of infinity, you cannot create the more from the less).

---

That's the flaw in your logic. Consciousness is nothing more than the sum of several pattern analysis systems working in parallel.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

Consciousness is nothing more than the sum of several pattern analysis systems working in parallel.

---

Explain to me how this isn't and assumption. Science is still very far from being able to explain all of the intricacies of the brain and how it effects consciousness, and whether it is the source or not. So in order for you to say that, you are tapping into a large area of faith in your own beliefs. How can your convictions be so strong without faith to begin with. If you didn't believe you were right you wouldn't be able to say things so strongly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mickeys_Elbow
Explain to me how this isn't and assumption. Science is still very far from being able to explain all of the intricacies of the brain and how it effects consciousness, and whether it is the source or not. So in order for you to say that, you are tapping into a large area of faith in your own beliefs. How can your convictions be so strong without faith to begin with. If you didn't believe you were right you wouldn't be able to say things so strongly.

---

My 'assumptions' are based on empirical observations and the work of the world's leading cognitive scientists.

Perhaps I should've qualified the statement by starting it, "All evidence points to the fact that...". Sorry.

But you're right, I do make a few assumptions.

1) Reality is material.
2) This material operates according to a fundamental set of physical laws.

If you reject one of those assumptions, fine. But you're rejecting a WHOLE lot more at the same time.

I have faith in Brady.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

Agreed. I don't see the problem here...

Chemical speaking, you and I are strikingly simlar to a bottle of Coke. Why should our existence be any more significant?

---

While thinking this very question, a realization struck me. First, the sole act of pondering is significant. Then I started to look around the city and saw the architectural and engineering enterprises of humankind. No living organism (and soft drink bottle) other than humans can create a vast array of stories, pictures, electronics, create and advance technology.

While cooperation is present in other organisms, I don't think that can equate to morality. I don't believe we can classify bacteria as having morality.

There's more to our human brain than just for survival, it has a far greater capacity.