Thread: Belief is the death of thought.

Lulz...

I think (only think ) that everything you don't experience and witness yourself, and then trust and theorise upon in being something other than the possibility of being nothing and everything, is a belief.

E.g., christians going to church worshipping a white man with a beard living in the clouds.

That is faith, unless they have witnessed/experienced it themselves.

Faith (or belief) is not positive nor negative, and as everything else, cannot be judged without simultaneous internal (and external) duality.

Faith is almost always here. It is in almost everyone.

Reality is the current witnessing/experience that is currently happening.

Our consciousness does not live in the past. How can it? Only if we 'remember' what we interpret has happened. It is then created in your mind as how you interpret (infer) it, and you experience it at that moment. In the present.
It cannot possibly live in the future, unless in inference... inference being faith itself.

The only 'truth' is in the present. What i am feeling right now, what i am witnessing, experiencing... is the only 'reality'.

If someone lives in the unknown (the unknown, being anything not in the reality [being the present]), which is almost everyone in this world, will have faith. Faith that their inference into the past is correct... Faith that their inference into the future is correct... Faith that anything, but the present is 'real'.

-Jake

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

Lulz...

I think (only think ) that everything you don't experience and witness yourself, and then trust and theorise upon in being something other than the possibility of being nothing and everything, is a belief.

E.g., christians going to church worshipping a white man with a beard living in the clouds.

That is faith, unless they have witnessed/experienced it themselves.

Faith (or belief) is not positive nor negative, and as everything else, cannot be judged without simultaneous internal (and external) duality.

Faith is almost always here. It is in almost everyone.

Reality is the current witnessing/experience that is currently happening.

Our consciousness does not live in the past. How can it? Only if we 'remember' what we interpret has happened. It is then created in your mind as how you interpret (infer) it, and you experience it at that moment. In the present.
It cannot possibly live in the future, unless in inference... inference being faith itself.

The only 'truth' is in the present. What i am feeling right now, what i am witnessing, experiencing... is the only 'reality'.

If someone lives in the unknown (the unknown, being anything not in the reality [being the present]), which is almost everyone in this world, will have faith. Faith that their inference into the past is correct... Faith that their inference into the future is correct... Faith that anything, but the present is 'real'.

-Jake

I think that this may hold true if most of your words are used very loosely.

I agree, as soon as doubt within a person's mind is eliminated, the idea stops evolving and without evolving ideas culture cannot move forward. It's not just religion, it's everything traditional vs progressive. If the people that thought stone was simply the best way to build things ahd their way, we would have never invented cement.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Everything is based on truth.

Everything is true.

What you see, you feel, you smell... all that you sense is real... whatever it may be, it is still something. If only a dream? It would still be a dream.

'Real' is the witness, and the witnessed.

Perhaps this is the first time I've actually grasped one of your apparently vague nonsense posts, but this is the first thing I've read in a long time which really spawns a whole new way of thinking. Thanks!

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

A simple example:

A person eats an orange.

That person writes and tells about what an orange tastes like.

Anyone who has never eaten an orange reads or listens and believes or has faith in this other persons description.

Those other people have to have the "but" clause as they dont really know themselves.

When those people eat and taste an orange for themselves they no longer need the believe or faith, nor the myriad of description that could exist talking about that same experience. They know for themselves.


Just apply the same principle to everything else.

Out of those who never actually do any tasting there will always be skeptics and critics, but what do they really know?

Of course among those who have tasted you have the barrier of language to overcome. Many can have the same experience and put vastly different labels on that same "taste".

You people all seem to be assuming that we should trust our senses as the one source of 'objective truth'. Being lucid dreamers, we should know that this is not always advisable. Hallucinations happen, our brains are imperfect machines - when you taste the orange, you do not know for sure what the orange tastes like, only what it tastes like to you. Any information gleaned from our subjective observations and experiences can only be trusted in a subjective context. There is no guarantee that it is relevant to objective reality.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You people all seem to be assuming that we should trust our senses as the one source of 'objective truth'. Being lucid dreamers, we should know that this is not always advisable. Hallucinations happen, our brains are imperfect machines - when you taste the orange, you do not know for sure what the orange tastes like, only what it tastes like to you. Any information gleaned from our subjective observations and experiences can only be trusted in a subjective context. There is no guarantee that it is relevant to objective reality.

You are the one that read such into the analogy. An anology was all it was. Something liken as to something else so as to get a point across. It was even suggested that one verbal description would likely be different than another. There is no disagreement with you as what was said was basically the same as what you just said but in less detail.

¤ You people
¤ assuming
¤ objective
¤ analogy

= syntex error

Originally Posted by Howie

¤ You people
¤ assuming
¤ objective
¤ analogy

= syntex error

I would have called that a "context error"

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

You are the one that read such into the analogy. An anology was all it was. Something liken as to something else so as to get a point across. It was even suggested that one verbal description would likely be different than another. There is no disagreement with you as what was said was basically the same as what you just said but in less detail.

I'm very well aware that that was an analogy

My point was, you seemed (to me, at least) to be using this analogy to imply that a first-hand experience of something like God (or tasting the orange) could be trusted - you said:

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

When those people eat and taste an orange for themselves they no longer need the believe or faith, nor the myriad of description that could exist talking about that same experience. They know for themselves.

I was merely saying that even a first-hand experience is very subject to misinterpretation and even outright hallucinations, perception of things which do not even exist in the first place.

When you say you have to have faith that when you hit a key on your keyboard that it types the letter, i do not see how you have to "believe". If i press a key, and it works, then i am assured that it will next time, am i not? And why do i find all of your "analogies" of belief have nothing to do with belief?

@ The orange example: The orange's taste is subjective .

Originally Posted by thegnome54

My point was, you seemed (to me, at least) to be using this analogy to imply that a first-hand experience of something like God (or tasting the orange) could be trusted -



I was merely saying that even a first-hand experience is very subject to misinterpretation and even outright hallucinations, perception of things which do not even exist in the first place.

Most trust in the illusion of the physical world they live in each day without giving such a second thought. Ones perception of hallucination is anothers perception of reality. Neither can be absolute as both are ultimately one in nature. Nothing is absolute and what is absolute is nothing.

So just what can be trusted?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I agree, as soon as doubt within a person's mind is eliminated, the idea stops evolving and without evolving ideas culture cannot move forward. It's not just religion, it's everything traditional vs progressive. If the people that thought stone was simply the best way to build things ahd their way, we would have never invented cement.

C.S. Peirce, a great American philosopher, was the one who said, "Thought at rest is belief, thought in motion is doubt."

So its not that belief is bad, but that it can act as the center of gravity for thought in motion. Too much belief means that one doesn't have any room for thought, and too much doubt means one has no stable direction by which to measure the productiveness of their thought. Sorry if someone said this already.

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

Lulz...

I think (only think ) that everything you don't experience and witness yourself, and then trust and theorise upon in being something other than the possibility of being nothing and everything, is a belief.

E.g., christians going to church worshipping a white man with a beard living in the clouds.

That is faith, unless they have witnessed/experienced it themselves.

Faith (or belief) is not positive nor negative, and as everything else, cannot be judged without simultaneous internal (and external) duality.

Faith is almost always here. It is in almost everyone.

Reality is the current witnessing/experience that is currently happening.

Our consciousness does not live in the past. How can it? Only if we 'remember' what we interpret has happened. It is then created in your mind as how you interpret (infer) it, and you experience it at that moment. In the present.
It cannot possibly live in the future, unless in inference... inference being faith itself.

The only 'truth' is in the present. What i am feeling right now, what i am witnessing, experiencing... is the only 'reality'.

If someone lives in the unknown (the unknown, being anything not in the reality [being the present]), which is almost everyone in this world, will have faith. Faith that their inference into the past is correct... Faith that their inference into the future is correct... Faith that anything, but the present is 'real'.

-Jake

lets see how long have we not believed, 1...2...3..4 no wait we havn't believed god lived in the coulds from the time of the birth of the airplane.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

lets see how long have we not believed, 1...2...3..4 no wait we havn't believed god lived in the coulds from the time of the birth of the airplane.

Fool you once, shame on me. Fool you twice....

You fail to see past the excess noise in my posts, which this time is purely there as support.

If this example has been caught in your net of defense, how about another?

I have endless metaphors, though it seems if i mention the word 'God', you shall come to the defense of that which you do not understand.

'God', is not what you think. Realise past this, and you'll realise i am not the offense.