Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 11 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's by definition.
FAITH is what exists in the absence of proof. Faith is what you choose to believe in when there is no rational reason to do so. By definition faith and science ARE mutually exclusive.
I gotta admit, I'm having a hard time getting through this thread at all at this point. I've been backtracking up through the CTS/SimonWho debate trying to find where the thread took the turn from funny to Science vs. Religion and I haven't found it yet.
It's a real problem, a really huge nearly insurmountable problem human beings seem to have with discussing spiritual matters--most people everywhere seem completely unable to talk about their spiritual experiences with clarity or simplicity, a.k.a. logical coherence.
For most folks the whole question of spirituality is "supernatural," which is to say totally inexplicable. They got nothing to bridge their mundane experiences of reality with their far-flung intuitions about the nature of the All. So they don't even try, or they try too hard, or they just make stuff up.
The peculiarity of my own experiences has given me at least a foothold in reconciling what I think religious folks are getting at with the observable world. There's a lot of stuff folks seem to have to take on faith that I really don't have to. And there's an awful lot of gobble-de-guck that seems to get mixed in whenever people have to take anything on faith.
Faith.
Belief.
God.
I say we leave these words out of the discussion as much as we possibly can, because they have lost all practical meaning and become factionalized buzz words, mere signifiers of division.
I'd like to start with replacing "faith" with "trust." Like faith, trust also "exists in the absence of proof." Trust is something properly offered unilaterally, or it can't really be called trust, now can it? Trust is a gift we give to the trusted.
Our ability to trust comes from within. It is a sign of our personal strength and ability to project our own values out into the world and say, "I will assume we share these values until you prove otherwise." Even when our trust has been betrayed, love may demand that we trust again.
Trusting another is impossible without trusting ourselves first; we must be willing to trust our own judgement, trust our discernment, before we can judge others at all as trustworthy or not.
Now what happens when we insert "faith" back into my comments about "trust?" And what happens when we think of the Universe as something (someone) which (whom) we love and trust? Or is that just crazy-talk?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is the problem right here. This debate is not about logic, as some wish to frame it. It is about an assessment of truth. SimonWho wants you believe that only his truth is logical, not CTS, because he wants you to believe that only his truth is right.
Everyone holds certain ideas to be indisputable. Concepts based on faith are the foundations of truth. In mathematics, they are called postulates. And logic flows from these.
Many of you, including HK and Citizen, have claimed to have undeniable “psychic” experiences, of which you cannot prove or even provide evidence of. These ideas are set forth axiomatically, not proven; they’re based on faith. They are essentially religion. So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers. Now we should eliminate words like “god,” “belief” or “faith,” because these are the words CTS uses to define her postulated notions of reality. Doing so, thereby silences CTS and reinforces HK postulated notions of reality.
The truth is that none of us have a mandate on the truth. None of us have complete knowledge of the universe. None of us can say for sure that what he or she sees or experiences or knows is the real universe or just how he or she is interpreting it. This is something that has caused Quantum theorist a lot of problems, and has led Quantum mechanics to presume that the universe does not exist independent of our thoughts. What does it mean to “know” something? That’s the problem here, not logic.
I think some of you need to learn to open your minds to the greater concept that the universe is not independent of your thoughts and that your notions or reality, no matter how certain you are of them, are not universal. Attempting to frame your position as one of science doesn’t make you right, because science is unable to provide answers to questions being posed here.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
this is an impossible subject to reach any kind of consensus on..since it requires a pre-existant spiritual nature to even consider the possibility that life exists beyond the earthly physical dimension. i say study prophecy, and its fullfillment; then we shall know whether all of this was the truth or a just some cleverly fabricated lie. the bible says prophecy is the most important of gifts for this very reason; so that unbelievers will have something physical to acknowledge, to open their eyes to the possibility that history has already occurred, and been foretold by a divine force.
i think to understand prophecy, we must have a firm grasp on the true reality of global politics; which is that the world elite are lying to us about their true intentions; IMO mainstream news is not an accurate basis for prophecy
if you believe what your told, such as the governments account of 9/11, then an interpretation of end times prophecies becomes altered by all the spin and propoganda, and by this evil Islamist concept, which obviously creates in itself a different set of prophetic variables. i for one, dont use the pentagon, the white house or Fox news(1 in the same?) for the foundation of prophecy
if(as i believe) 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by elite elements of the western world, to provide a pretext for a form of global government, using America as the "engine"; then that is not only significant because of its context, but brings us right up to date on end times prophecies. the NWO agenda(as its commonly known) is the key to interpreting scriptures, because it acknowledges the role that luciferian secret societies like the freemasons have had in establishing mystery babylon(America), the instrument of the antichrists global control, and the creator of the system of the beast. the NWO conspiracy, and end times prophecies parallel eachother beyond coincidence, to the extent that i truly believe the progression of this "war on terror" agenda is an accurate guage to interpret the signs of the (end)times
if this sounds like a bunch of crap, so be it..but be aware: if 9/11 actually was orchestrated, then any event politicized for war, conquest or campaign (like this phony "war on terror") becomes suspect. it should be considered that the final war, which the antichrists rises out of, is a conflict between Israel, Persia(Iran) and their allies; a scenario shaping up right now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers.
My religion? You'll note I have not mentioned any "psychic experiences". Indeed Citizen may well tell you how I have gleefully debunked such dreadful shows as Most Haunted (I can point you in the direction of the YouTube clips if necessary).
I've also pointed out how science shouldn't have a capital letter. I'm content for every single law, postulate and theory that has been made so far to be torn down if someone comes up with a better one.
I don't even argue there definitely isn't a God or gods so my religion isn't atheism which is sometimes held to be a religion on the grounds that it is a (lack-of)-faith based belief system.
I'm not a nihilist. I believe in beauty and truths and love and songs that makes you cry for no reason.
So if you're so sure I'm arguing my religion is better than yours, please tell me what mine is so I can know exactly why it's better than yours.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jesus, Finn, what the hell are you on about? At the very least you're reading in all kinds of things to my last post. And who died and made you CTS's knight in shining armor? She's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, Mr. Non-silencer.
Quote:If you...say so. No one can prove any experience over the internet. And you do not accept eye-witness testimony as evidence. I grant you, it ain't the strongest evidence in the world, but it is evindence.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Many of you, including HK and Citizen, have claimed to have undeniable “psychic” experiences, of which you cannot prove or even provide evidence of. These ideas are set forth axiomatically, not proven; they’re based on faith. They are essentially religion.
You and science and the courts all like material evidence most of all--the smoking gun. But we're talking about stuff for which there is every likelyhood there will never be material evidence as it ain't material in nature. If you want to say that government should not be allowed to make laws about the immaterial world, or that people should not be convicted of crimes and imprisoned based on psychic information, I'm right with you. But last I checked, we were simply having a conversation here.
Quote:WTF? Finn, you are totally off base with this stuff. Silencing CantTakeSky? Are you kidding me? I thought the words in question had been over-used on all sides and had too many clashing meanings associated with them to be of much use if our purpose here is to understand each other. So I thought it might help to try to put things another way. Feel free to disagree, but I ain't no Joe Stalin here.
So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers. Now we should eliminate words like “god,” “belief” or “faith,” because these are the words CTS uses to define her postulated notions of reality. Doing so, thereby silences CTS and reinforces HK postulated notions of reality.
And I was replying to Rue, Finn, not CTS. I thought Rue and Signy both had pretty narrow unsympathetic definitions of faith. They were suggesting that having faith in something was inherently whimsical and irrational. So I introduced the word "trust" as a way to get through to the Rues and Signys of the world. Where did you get the idea that I was attacking CTS at all?
Quote:I hope you're not still referring to me with this, 'cause none of this applies to anything I've said. I agree with your assessment of science and absolute certainty.
I think some of you need to learn to open your minds to the greater concept that the universe is not independent of your thoughts and that your notions or reality, no matter how certain you are of them, are not universal. Attempting to frame your position as one of science doesn’t make you right, because science is unable to provide answers to questions being posed here.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Who the hell said I was speaking for CTS? I spoke for myself. And I would argue that you probably couldn’t prove your psychic experiences even if you were looking me in the eye. Anymore then I could prove god to you. Or that SimonWho could prove that god isn’t beyond creation. There are simply things that are not knowable, and arguing from any direction on this requires a commitment of faith to something, whether that faith is in science, god or something less defined. And I would argue that there probably aren’t many wrong answers.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jesus, Finn, what the hell are you on about? At the very least you're reading in all kinds of things to my last post. And who died and made you CTS's knight in shining armor? She's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, Mr. Non-silencer.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aren't many wrong answers? Most religions have their own account of the creation of the universe, in contradiction to each other. Science also postulates another theory (in fact several other theories).
They can't all be true. In fact, it's likely to be either only one or none of them are true.
This is why I can't back "faith based beliefs" - because we're expected to nod our heads and say "Well, we might all be right" when that blatantly isn't the case. I may be wrong, you may be wrong - let's not pretend otherwise.
And talking about "faith" in science is another attempt to drag rational thinking back to the dark ages. People who call evolution "an unproven theory which has many detractors" should be banned from hospitals, less they be exposed to other unproven theories such as antibiotics or brain surgery. Publicly announced hypothesises, peer review, extensive testing - these things aren't the stuff of "faith". They're a sound logical process.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you deduce that something you can’t possibly know is likely to be one way or another. That sounds like faith to me.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
They can't all be true. In fact, it's likely to be either only one or none of them are true.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, you don't get any points for nit-picking words. Besides, with word-debates you end up looking like you've got nothing substantive. And then people just stop communicating with you, b/c - why bother? 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So you deduce that something you can’t possibly know is likely to be one way or another. That sounds like faith to me.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
They can't all be true. In fact, it's likely to be either only one or none of them are true.
No, it's basic logic.
Theory one says God created the world in 6 days.
Theory two says Brahma creates and maintains the universe over 331 trillion years.
Theory three says Vaak created the universe millions of years ago.
Theory four says the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in three days.
Theory five says there was a big bang 10-20 billion years ago.
The above are mutually exclusive. Religions almost always set themselves up as mutually exclusive. What is the first commandment, top of the list? What is the Shahadah, the most important pillar in Islam?
It's not my faith that says they can't be right. It's what they say.
Incidentally, I've just noticed (seriously) that I have a Buddhist Wheel of Life painting opposite my bed. Please do not take this as my endorsement of any religion, it was just given to me by my parents.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME