Logical Faith

[Andromus]

Hello, I'm Andromus This is my personal view, my own perception on the life I'm living, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the matter.

 

If you're looking for a place to administer your faith, to me it would only be logical to place it within yourself and others, and the universe we live in... Not an unfathomable construct of man that's primarily used as an excuse to shed blood. Half of my family is christian, and half of my Grandpa's town prayed for him in his final hours. I am grateful for these loving caring people, but I am sad they are fooled into believing they are required to follow a middle man religion in order to be allowed to place their faith in a higher power's hands. I personally don't believe in any god type character who is solely responsible for the creation of existence, nor heaven or hell, and on the heaven/hell note I'd just like to add that I believe death(-) is no different from life(+), as both are purely our own perceptions of it. But to people who do believe in God, then maybe you can agree with one thing, God is good, religion is bad. In science I believe there is balance in every aspect of the universe via positive(+) and negative(-) effect. There are many good aspects to religion, like the strength and resources it can provide for a family in need... (its been 10 minutes now looking for another positive reason, still researching) ... Alright well, that's a pretty big positive anyways, but the negative is millions, perhaps billions of people over the last couple thousand years have been brutally slaughtered in its name (reasonable negative).

 

I truly believe in the power one could attain from believing in god, but to me it would be the same thing as attaining power from anything else you put enough faith into. In my opinion its only logical to place faith in everything you know, not the things you don't, that just doesn't make sense to me, when your praying to god you're attempting to place your faith out into the universe's hands itself hoping something hears you. So you say, "Well then, why do I know for a fact God answered my prayers when I needed him the most?" Then I say, "Well, we are walking transistors capable of vibrating on any wavelength the universe has to offer, including your personal perception of god." Then you say, "Well then who is the transponder??" Then I say "Everyone and everything." ... I only want whats best for everyone on Earth, and in my opinion, it's a simple slap in the face, administered by a crying, starving child, saying, "Life is all that matters, not the reasons why"...

 

I won't be debating this topic, If you'd like for me to elaborate on any points further, I may. But I am not here to debate this, only to share my opinion, as I respect and understand the opinions of those who do believe in god and religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pwagen]

I won't be debating this topic, If you'd like for me to elaborate on any points further, I may.

Don't really see the point of posting something on a discussion forum if you're not willing to discuss it.

 

 

as I respect and understand the opinions of those who do believe in god and religion.

If they create so much evil and problems, why?

[Phi for All]

I won't be debating this topic,

 

!

Moderator Note

If you're unwilling to discuss a subject, then you're preaching or soapboxing, which is against our rules. You should probably start a blog, or find someplace to teach. Everyone else is here to learn through discussion.

 

Shall I close the thread? If your beliefs are fragile, sacred things that can't stand being examined, there's no point opening a thread here. Nothing personal, but we're a discussion forum.

[Andromus]

Sorry, let me reiterate... I'm open to discussion, I just want to clarify that I don't want to say who is right and who is wrong. In essence, I just want to discuss both sides the topic in the most peaceful manner possible without offending others. Saying that I didn't want to debate the topic was the wrong choice of words. I'm still not sure how to put it properly.

 

 

 

If they create so much evil and problems, why?

 

As, I said of balance, a lot of goodness has come from religion, more over, good people.

[Phi for All]

Thanks for clarifying. Since I don't need the mod hat, I'll toss it aside and join in, if you don't mind.

 

 

 

How do you define "faith"? Is it just a very strong belief, or is it an unshakeable, abiding, unquestionable belief?

 

You talk about faith having power, as in, "...attaining power from anything else you put enough faith into." This suggests that faith is quantifiable, and I've heard people talk about it like that ("if you truly believe", "have a little more faith"). How do you increase your faith in something?

[Andromus]

 

 

How do you define "faith"? Is it just a very strong belief, or is it an unshakeable, abiding, unquestionable belief?

 

In my eyes, faith is simply the opposite of doubt, either way, both "faith and doubt" don't actually exist in their own individual rights, as they are just directional terms indicating the route you envision of possible outcomes via belief. I am no scientist, but I do believe that it is a measurable force. So when you ask if faith is a very strong belief, I would think that it is entirely up to the brain power emitting this frequency of belief.

 

I've heard that it is possible to measure the strength of a positive thought brainwave versus a negative thought brainwave, and according to their(was either TV or youtube) calculations, positive thoughts are roughly 100x stronger than negative thoughts. I have no idea if that is actually true or not.

 

I'd like to say faith would equal the value of positive thought (100/1 scale) x thought (cubed I'm thinking?) where thought(T³) = the measurement of neutral thought, like the amount of energy that was required for you to think of "Apples and Oranges"), and doubt would be the value of negative thought (1/100 scale) x T³. Only reason I'm thinking to use cubed in the equation is because I'm guessing thought has to be multiplied by our apparent 3 dimensional limitation. If I was to go overboard even further (if that's possible) I would even bet it should be T4... a quartic equation.

 

I don't know how to write equations, but if you can just play along(try to see), my guess is it would be something like:

 

F=PT³ where D=NT³ .....Now again, I have no idea what I'm doing writing formulas, and not sure why I'm proceeding with this, but anyways....F=Faith, D=Doubt --- P=100/1 ---- N=1/100---. Now, I'm probably going to get torn to shreds for attempting to post a formula with almost no knowledge of how to do so properly, I'm just trying to paint a picture of what I'm guessing. Maybe someone here from the mathematics department can have a look at this? Hopefully they can interpret my lack of actual math principal. Sorry for that ><

 

For the final question, how do we attain power from this? Well, as far as my understanding goes, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So we already know that anything we say or do, will effect us in return with an equal reaction, and I'm pretty sure most of us are on board with the fact that the same goes with our thoughts aswell.

 

Now lets say every single thought wave that's happening right now, from every person on earth, were creating these cosmic frequencies that are the reaction to your action of thought. Now here's the thing, we change our thought so frequently, like constantly spinning a tuning dial, but if we stuck on the same thought, we begin to resonate with the "reaction". Like stopping the tuning dial so you can actually listen to the frequency that's being transmitted. One can truly be exceptional with the power of their thoughts, but I only live for the day when everyone can be made aware of this. Because right now, the only groups of people that are exploiting this actually are religious people, who gather in groups to "pray" for someone. I'm trying to peel back the curtains on that "pray" word, and where these prayers are being transmitted too. I want everyone to exploit this, and use it to help everyone else. I would sound like Peter Pan if I were to tread further on this note ><

Edited April 17, 2014 by Andromus

[Phi for All]

 

In my eyes, faith is simply the opposite of doubt, either way, both "faith and doubt" don't actually exist in their own individual rights, as they are just directional terms indicating the route you envision of possible outcomes via belief. I am no scientist, but I do believe that it is a measurable force. So when you ask if faith is a very strong belief, I would think that it is entirely up to the brain power emitting this frequency of belief.

 

OK, so that makes doubt quantifiable too. By that definition, is faith 100% surety, while doubt is anything less?

 

I'm not sure I understand the part about envisioning routes of outcomes and using faith to alter them. How does faith accomplish this?

 

And now we have "brain power" as another quantity. I'm trying to pin down some of the variables so the definition of faith is less vague and malleable. If it's to be meaningful to more than just yourself, your definition needs further editing. And it helps us all to nitpick our definitions of such things, to keep the foundations of our beliefs strong.

 

For instance, I've found it necessary to separate belief into three categories. Hope, trust and faith. If I'm merely wishing that a certain explanation is true, like life after death, then I call it Hope. I have nothing to support this belief, but I like it anyway, so I Hope that somehow my consciousness (if it's separate from my physical brain) lives on after my body dies.

 

If I can find evidence to support an explanation, I don't have to hope anymore, I can start to Trust. The more supportive evidence there is, the more I can Trust that explanation. This is how I feel about science. It gives me a way to quantize my belief that makes logical sense. I can build on Trust in a way I can't with Hope. I have no real way to increase Hope based on the parameters of that type of belief.

 

Faith asks me to believe strongly, but requires me to do so without supportive evidence. Many people think requiring evidence is anathema to faith, that it should be a belief based solely on feelings. Faith seems to ask me to believe more strongly than I would with either Hope or Trust, and to base that belief on things I can't really know, like if there's a god or which religion is "right" or that Uncle Leo's cancer was cured by God but not the leg he lost in the war.

 

So this is why I ask you to define faith. I want to know why you think it has a quantifiable power when it seems to have nothing to tether it to reality. Faith is supposed to be so strong, but it seems to float above a non-existent foundation.

 

I've heard that it is possible to measure the strength of a positive thought brainwave versus a negative thought brainwave, and according to their(was either TV or youtube) calculations, positive thoughts are roughly 100x stronger than negative thoughts. I have no idea if that is actually true or not.

 

That doesn't sound right. Stronger by what measure? I'll check around, but I've never seen a study that shows a pessimist's brain is using more than the 25 watts of energy the optimist's brain uses. If it truly affected power by a couple of orders of magnitude, we'd all know about it.

 

There have been studies about positive thinking affecting recuperative processes. I'm not sure they were able to conclude that there's a method for measuring the quantity of this effect.

For the final question, how do we attain power from this? Well, as far as my understanding goes, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So we already know that anything we say or do, will effect us in return with an equal reaction, and I'm pretty sure most of us are on board with the fact that the same goes with our thoughts aswell.

 

That particular Law is in regard to force. How do you measure the force of a thought, at least one that doesn't simply translate to lifting an arm to deliver the force?

Now lets say every single thought wave that's happening right now, from every person on earth, were creating these cosmic frequencies that are the reaction to your action of thought. Now here's the thing, we change our thought so frequently, like constantly spinning a tuning dial, but if we stuck on the same thought, we begin to resonate with the "reaction". Like stopping the tuning dial so you can actually listen to the frequency that's being transmitted. One can truly be exceptional with the power of their thoughts, but I only live for the day when everyone can be made aware of this. Because right now, the only groups of people that are exploiting this actually are religious people, who gather in groups to "pray" for someone. I'm trying to peel back the curtains on that "pray" word, and where these prayers are being transmitted too. I want everyone to exploit this, and use it to help everyone else. I would sound like Peter Pan if I were to tread further on this note ><

 

I know how powerful thoughts can be, they can have a huge effect on much of our lives, but I'm not sure this "power" can be equated to an energy or force. Certainly one can train one's mind to be more focused and efficient, but is that increasing some sort of measurable energy?

 

Prayer is tricky. I mentioned earlier that Uncle Leo's cancer went away when his church group prayed for him, but that same group couldn't pray his amputated leg back. And while there are a million stories about faith curing cancer and other illnesses, nobody ever had their leg grow back after being amputated, whether prayer was involved or not. This should make us question whether faith is really at work in ANY of these situations.

[Andromus]

 

 

OK, so that makes doubt quantifiable too. By that definition, is faith 100% surety, while doubt is anything less?

 

I wouldn't say that, I would like to think of faith/doubt as the grand scales used to multiply the factors of emotional thoughts. So lets just say that the power of a neutral thought was equal to 1, faith is equal to 10, and doubt is equal to 0.1. That being said, I'm redefining the word Faith as the summation of positive thoughts used in any given scenario, including hope,joy,thankfulness, love and so on, where doubt is the summation of all negative thoughts, but the value of which is not equal to the opposite of faith, given the strength of positive and negative thoughts(if that actually has been proven or not). With more emotional factors involved, the more powerful the transmission.

 

 

 

I know how powerful thoughts can be, they can have a huge effect on much of our lives, but I'm not sure this "power" can be equated to an energy or force. Certainly one can train one's mind to be more focused and efficient, but is that increasing some sort of measurable energy?

 

As far as I'm aware, our body is completely reliant on the vibration of molecules, when it comes to healing, feeling good, even looking good. If we use faith and doubt as the summation of all positive and negative thoughts as I've defined, then a large portion of our physical makeup as it stands today is a reflection of this. For example, If you strongly believe you're ugly, you're probably only going to get uglier in appearance, as if you're commanding the molecules in your body to react this way. That might be a measurable force of belief? For me that previous statement is more than true, as it effects my every day life. I have a pretty severe complex regarding my face, that seems to shift in appearance greatly based on my thoughts, I feel I'm living proof of this molecular coherence.

 

This is where I have learned through personal experience the power of physically emanating the strength of your body. For example, when your sad, you put on your sad face and feel/look like garbage, when your happy, you put on your happy face, and look/feel great. This is where I put on my unimaginably powerful face. For me, Its tightening of the face, piercing gaze like you've seen the end of the universe and back, and a small grin. The emotion that comes along with that is great confidence in yourself and your abilities. But anyone can fake a smile with no actual emotion behind it, so truly believing that you are powerful helps. Using this belief in myself has resulted in being asked out on dates by the most beautiful of girls, crazy right? I know. Considering I used to think I was one of the ugliest people out there, and never had a chance at attracting anyone. I believed I was correct in thinking I was ugly because of the fact I couldn't attract any girls, now I realize that indeed I was right, but I was causing this reaction on my own, emanating my own thoughts. Now, I have Faith in myself, not doubt, and it's working.

 

So when I say to put your "faith" in something, In essence I'm asking you to put all of your positive thoughts into something, and emanate these thoughts throughout your physical construct.

 

In regards to my original post, administering all of your positive thoughts in yourself would be much more constructive than placing them in a god figures hands, as there would be too much lingering doubt, and not enough direction. In my opinion, this would be step 1, to make the world a better place.

 

Step 2 would be administering faith in all others around you, a nearly impossible feat when you take a look at people today. I have a lot of doubt in step 2, which is not good, not good at all. I have great faith in step 1 though.

 

For the beautiful shining world that many long for, I think it would be found through this 2 step process.

 

I've just thought of a silly example to demonstrate the 100/1 and 1/100 strength of faith and doubt. Let's say you had faith(any positive thoughts at all, like hope,gratefulness,confidence) in the fact that you were going to go to the store today, the chances are very high that you will be going to the store. Now lets say you doubt you will be going to the store today, chances are that you still might end up going, because doubt is nowhere near as strong as faith. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

Prayer is tricky. I mentioned earlier that Uncle Leo's cancer went away when his church group prayed for him, but that same group couldn't pray his amputated leg back. And while there are a million stories about faith curing cancer and other illnesses, nobody ever had their leg grow back after being amputated, whether prayer was involved or not. This should make us question whether faith is really at work in ANY of these situations.

 

I doubt a single person had faith in the regrowth of his limb in the first place, where clearly the issue was the removal of the cancer, the limb remaining intact is completely secondary, I realize the leg was lost at war, not removed because of the cancer, but the point still stands of his overall health, surviving. We already know that limbs can grow back in other species, not with our personal human genetics at this time, but I have faith in science and biogenetics, If more people had faith in the fact that his leg would grow back, then maybe more research and effort would go into the correlating field of study and present itself to him, making it entirely possible, for him, or for people in the future to regrow their limbs.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Andromus

[Phi for All]

 

I wouldn't say that, I would like to think of faith/doubt as the grand scales used to multiply the factors of emotional thoughts. So lets just say that the power of a neutral thought was equal to 1, faith is equal to 10, and doubt is equal to 0.1.

 

This seems to define doubt as a 100% negative factor. It always reduces your figures on faith, which seems to be 100% positive.

 

Sometimes doubt can be helpful. I left for a meeting Tuesday and had to turn around and come back home because I doubted I had locked the back patio door, and I hadn't. Doubt kept me from having an unlocked house all day. Doubt makes us question how we do things, makes us strive to do things better, keeps us wondering if what we're doing is best.

 

Sometimes faith can be harmful. Lots of cases where folks don't get their kids immunized or treated for a disease because their faith tells them 100% that their god will take care of it. Faith can be fatal. Also lots of cases where folks were convinced the Rapture was about to happen, so they sold everything they had and gave it away so they could enter Heaven meek and poor like the Bible says.

 

Before you reply to this part, read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

As far as I'm aware, our body is completely reliant on the vibration of molecules, when it comes to healing, feeling good, even looking good. If we use faith and doubt as the summation of all positive and negative thoughts as I've defined, then a large portion of our physical makeup as it stands today is a reflection of this. For example, If you strongly believe you're ugly, you're probably only going to get uglier in appearance, as if you're commanding the molecules in your body to react this way. That might be a measurable force of belief? For me that previous statement is more than true, as it effects my every day life. I have a pretty severe complex regarding my face, that seems to shift in appearance greatly based on my thoughts, I feel I'm living proof of this molecular coherence.

 

You're starting to go off into the weeds here. While your mental state can affect the way you groom yourself, it does not rearrange any molecules to make you better or worse looking. You can hold the muscles in your face a certain way based on what you're thinking, but you're not changing anything physiologically. The mind has no mechanism to alter the body in this way. It's critical to the function of several systems, but none of them can do what you're describing.

This is where I have learned through personal experience the power of physically emanating the strength of your body. For example, when your sad, you put on your sad face and feel/look like garbage, when your happy, you put on your happy face, and look/feel great. This is where I put on my unimaginably powerful face. For me, Its tightening of the face, piercing gaze like you've seen the end of the universe and back, and a small grin. The emotion that comes along with that is great confidence in yourself and your abilities. But anyone can fake a smile with no actual emotion behind it, so truly believing that you are powerful helps. Using this belief in myself has resulted in being asked out on dates by the most beautiful of girls, crazy right? I know. Considering I used to think I was one of the ugliest people out there, and never had a chance at attracting anyone. I believed I was correct in thinking I was ugly because of the fact I couldn't attract any girls, now I realize that indeed I was right, but I was causing this reaction on my own, emanating my own thoughts. Now, I have Faith in myself, not doubt, and it's working.

 

Studies have been done that show a correlation between how you hold your body and various mental states. There's an actual chemical reaction that happens when you smile, and quite counter-intuitively it makes no difference if the emotions behind the smile are real or not. Just the act of stretching those smile muscles sends a nice happy hormone cocktail to your brain.

 

Here's a fun one to try. Stand up straight, arms relaxed at your sides, chin on your chest. Then look up as if at an imaginary audience who is applauding, then slowly raise your arms up into an overhead V and stand there basking. You don't even have to imagine the audience, it's the raising of the arms gesture that signals the release of the hormones.

 

There is a really good TED Talk on this subject, but I couldn't find it in a quick search. I'll be able to look this up tomorrow.

So when I say to put your "faith" in something, In essence I'm asking you to put all of your positive thoughts into something, and emanate these thoughts throughout your physical construct.

 

So far, your definition of faith covers the positive thinking aspect, but what concerns me most is how you apply it as a form of belief. If I explain a certain phenomena to you, and you believe my explanation, are you just going to tell yourself you really, really, really, really believe in it, or are you going to check into my explanation to see if it has merit? Because most of the things people tell me they have faith in are things they can't possibly know about, so I can see why you'd have to use faith, since you can't rely on evidence.

I doubt a single person had faith in the regrowth of his limb in the first place, where clearly the issue was the removal of the cancer, the limb remaining intact is completely secondary, I realize the leg was lost at war, not removed because of the cancer, but the point still stands of his overall health, surviving. We already know that limbs can grow back in other species, not with our personal human genetics at this time, but I have faith in science and biogenetics, If more people had faith in the fact that his leg would grow back, then maybe more research and effort would go into the correlating field of study and present itself to him, making it entirely possible, for him, or for people in the future to regrow their limbs.

 

Really? In all of recorded history, you don't think there was a single pious, devout, faithful believer who really thought his god could do anything, even grow back a lost leg?

 

I made up Uncle Leo, so his leg doesn't have to be lost in a war. Let's say he lost it while helping to build the new church. And yes, regeneration is possible in some species, so it's not something that couldn't possibly happen, which makes it even more likely that someone would think an omnipotent god could fix it.

 

The real point is that it calls all healing by faith into question. There are correlations between healing and positive thought, but not on the level many people think, like healing cancer or reversing disease. Again, since we're talking about things we can't possibly know ("God cured Aunt Cathy's cancer"), isn't it much more likely that Aunt Cathy's doctor did what she paid him to do?

 

And while I like the idea of more research into embryonic tissue regeneration, I don't think it's going to happen because a bunch of folks think they can fix themselves with faith. Historically, when people think they have something all figured out, the last thing they want to do is spend more money to investigate further.

 

That's actually one of the perks of working with science. The methodology requires you to think of problems in terms of hypotheses, which may eventually become full theories, but are never considered "proof". A theory is always being challenged by new evidence, something we wouldn't do if we thought we'd "proven" something to be true.

 

IMO, your statements show that you value some explanations more than others. What is the source of that value? You say you "have faith in science and biogenetics", but are you basing your belief on the raw gut feelings of faith or do you believe so strongly because you could actually go check any evidence you want, run the experiments yourself if you felt it was necessary, review your results with peers to find out if they refute or support the findings? This is what I mean by trust as a form of belief. I trust science because I can actually check it against reality to see if it holds up. If so, it's a trust-worthy explanation.

[Pozessed]

How do you increase your faith in something?

 

Discern and question everything that you may doubt about your faith. Once you have found a question that may conjure doubt in your faith, look for a truth that you trust as you find the answer to your question. Your faith may change, but it should become stronger in your personal belief or disbeleif.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Pozessed

[Phi for All]

 

Discern and question everything that you may doubt about your faith. Once you have found a question that may conjure doubt in your faith, look for a truth that you trust as you find the answer to your question. Your faith may change, but it should become stronger in your personal belief or disbeleif.

 

But I doubt everything that isn't based in reality. I also don't believe in "truth" as an objective measure either. I'm more of a "preponderance of evidence" kind of person. What I trust is what I can observe and test to be real, and that's actually quite different from asking me to believe strongly in feelings and intuitions and supernatural explanations.

 

And by the scale Andromus and many others use, faith is an abiding, unwavering, 10-on-the-scale type of belief which is marred by doubt. That seems to suggest there's some sort of purity measurement rather than a strength measurement going on here, like you can't have pure white sand if there's a grain of black. So how do you make something stronger than 100%?

[SamBridge]

In my opinion its only logical to place faith in everything you know,

How do you know what you know is even what you know? The basis for all knowledge we have is epistemological and ultimately based on axioms. And how do you know god doesn't exist? Did you look for him in your basement? Did you check Andromeda? So what logical reason do you have to assume he doesn't exist?

 

And Phi why do you still only have two stars? Doesn't anyone get a promotion? Or I guess, I only observe from my own point of view, maybe it's a trick and there's some delay in the computer and you've actually already been promoted.

Edited April 20, 2014 by SamBridge

[Andromus]

 

 

How do you know what you know is even what you know? The basis for all knowledge we have is epistemological and ultimately based on axioms. And how do you know god doesn't exist? Did you look for him in your basement? Did you check Andromeda? So what logical reason do you have to assume he doesn't exist?

 

Hence the reason I said exactly what you quoted me saying. I don't know god, but I can look down at my own two hands. Words are just words, you can throw out as many as you want, but every time you do, you're creating another label for something. This entire world is composed of labels that are supposed to fit in even larger categorical labels, ultimately dividing everything. As I said earlier about peeling back the curtain on the "prayer" word, its logical to say that words themselves are nothing, the pure truth to words is the connection they imply within yourself. As easy as it is for your perception of the color red, to be different from mine, is the same when using words like Faith or god. The general idea for my post is to redefine certain words for those who wish to share my perception of them, for example let me explain a quote from Phi:

 

 

 

Sometimes doubt can be helpful. I left for a meeting Tuesday and had to turn around and come back home because I doubted I had locked the back patio door, and I hadn't. Doubt kept me from having an unlocked house all day. Doubt makes us question how we do things, makes us strive to do things better, keeps us wondering if what we're doing is best.

 

Here, you are using the word doubt in its original context and definition. If you wish to share my perception of the newly defined doubt, you would see that no negative thought went into remembering the fact that you might not have locked the door. In fact, you were exhibiting positive thoughts by doubting you locked the door, simply just using the regular definition of the word doubt. It seems to me that you could replace the word doubt with "curiosity" in every use of your quote. A very positive thing.

 

 

 

 

 

And by the scale Andromus and many others use, faith is an abiding, unwavering, 10-on-the-scale type of belief which is marred by doubt. That seems to suggest there's some sort of purity measurement rather than a strength measurement going on here, like you can't have pure white sand if there's a grain of black. So how do you make something stronger than 100%?

 

 

I'm not sure why you guys keep mentioning this value of 100%? Where is this coming from? I'm simply talking about the strength of radio waves here, being amplified by certain factors. It's coming across to me that you think negative thinking is a negative value, when I've said its just amplified by a lesser value than a positive frequency, there is no 100% or negative values here. 1+10 = 11 .... 1 +0.1 = 1.1..I'm not saying those are solid factors either. When your thinking purely negatively, you are still amplifying your thoughts, you're just amplifying them on a very weak scale.

[Phi for All]

Here, you are using the word doubt in its original context and definition. If you wish to share my perception of the newly defined doubt, you would see that no negative thought went into remembering the fact that you might not have locked the door. In fact, you were exhibiting positive thoughts by doubting you locked the door, simply just using the regular definition of the word doubt. It seems to me that you could replace the word doubt with "curiosity" in every use of your quote. A very positive thing.

I used to think negativity was always bad, but like much in life, it balances positive quite well. Negative things aren't bad things. As I mentioned, doubt can help. Failure makes us try harder. Death makes us value life. Trying to ignore the negative or put a white hat on it decreases its value to us, imo.

 

Even fear, arguably one of the most negative and pervasive states of mind, can keep us safe and make us take stock of our future and our preparedness for it, if we use it correctly. It's not the negativity itself that's good or bad, but rather what you do with it. I think it can be a tool like a knife, helpful or harmful.

 

I'm not sure why you guys keep mentioning this value of 100%? Where is this coming from?

So lets just say that the power of a neutral thought was equal to 1, faith is equal to 10, and doubt is equal to 0.1. That being said, I'm redefining the word Faith as the summation of positive thoughts used in any given scenario, including hope,joy,thankfulness, love and so on, where doubt is the summation of all negative thoughts, but the value of which is not equal to the opposite of faith, given the strength of positive and negative thoughts(if that actually has been proven or not). With more emotional factors involved, the more powerful the transmission.

This seems to imply that Faith is at the top end of the scale you're using, something to work towards, something you can increase to a theoretical maximum (IOW, 100%). You seem to claim faith is the strongest form of belief, but fail to provide anything more than feelings to increase and support it. If there is nothing above 10, or below 0.1, aren't you saying faith is 100% belief?

 

I'm not saying those are solid factors either. When your thinking purely negatively, you are still amplifying your thoughts, you're just amplifying them on a very weak scale.

Any factor you use in an explanation should be solid, trust-worthy. Also, please explain the difference between what you're saying here and what I observe in reality. Negative thoughts seem to "amplify" on a very strong scale on a regular basis. Some argue that negativity has more power for individual harm than anything else ("He's his own worst enemy").

 

I'm also not comfortable with where the whole positive/negative thing is going. It seems far too subjective to be any kind of useful definition. Uncle Leo's side lost the war, and everyone said THEY were evil and sadistic. But Uncle Leo talks about the war like his country was proud to be ridding the world of what THEY thought was evil. We thought they were negative, dark and cowardly, they thought they were positive, bright and courageous. Both sides believed strongly. Shouldn't a definition of faith be more objective?

 

I've just thought of a silly example to demonstrate the 100/1 and 1/100 strength of faith and doubt. Let's say you had faith(any positive thoughts at all, like hope,gratefulness,confidence) in the fact that you were going to go to the store today, the chances are very high that you will be going to the store. Now lets say you doubt you will be going to the store today, chances are that you still might end up going, because doubt is nowhere near as strong as faith. Does that make sense?

No, because it's just as likely in the first scenario that you still might NOT go to the store for some reason, just as many reasons as you might go to the store in the second scenario. And I'm unclear about why you're applying any form of belief to a conditional situation like going to the store. What is there to believe in in that context? What explanation are you being asked to subscribe to?

[Andromus]

 

 

No, because it's just as likely in the first scenario that you still might NOT go to the store for some reason, just as many reasons as you might go to the store in the second scenario. And I'm unclear about why you're applying any form of belief to a conditional situation like going to the store. What is there to believe in in that context? What explanation are you being asked to subscribe to?

 

Personally I think it does work here. Try not to look at belief like such a godly term here, as it is still applied to this situation no matter how minuscule it may be. If you didn't exhibit the smallest amount of belief, trust me, you wouldn't go to the store, period. If you took all the positive aspects thinking about the store, like your glad to restock on cigarettes/milk/bread, hope they have this or that, a small amount of thankfulness the store is open this late, ridiculous amounts of subconscious thoughts you don't even realize you have when you think "I'm going to the store"...Now add In a couple negative thought factors and see if you will still go, someone was murdered there last night, the place was held up a dozen times this month, I hate the guy that works there and he's weird, or I'm weird and I don't like people seeing me at the store. Even if you never thought of the exact words, or any words to describe your feelings on the scenario, your feelings on the matter are within you, the need to translate them into words isn't even necessary, and entirely up to you. I think the store is a perfect example, something so mundane and thoughtless, when in actuality, so many factors are involved to get you to move from point A to B regardless of destination or reason.

 

 

 

I'm also not comfortable with where the whole positive/negative thing is going. It seems far too subjective to be any kind of useful definition. Uncle Leo's side lost the war, and everyone said THEY were evil and sadistic. But Uncle Leo talks about the war like his country was proud to be ridding the world of what THEY thought was evil. We thought they were negative, dark and cowardly, they thought they were positive, bright and courageous. Both sides believed strongly. Shouldn't a definition of faith be more objective?

 

As I am uncomfortable with war of any kind, there are many like me, on both sides of every war. People who purposefully aim in the air to avoid killing another, people who were aware of the greed from their own side, with a complete unwillingness to fight for their leaders diluted cause. I'm not sure what part made you uncomfortable, especially enough to segway directly into war from positive and negative thoughts. You can only take what remains from war it self to identify it, the only true physical remainder of war is relocation of people, dead bodies, rape conceived babies, and materials. Everything else is secondary (non physical) in war, like what you think about it, or what it did to your family, what it means for the rest of your future. Those are all examples of collateral damage that is caused within a persons mind. The way you describe each individuals beliefs as the victor, and then ask if the definition of faith should be more objective? You answered the question yourself my friend. Yes, faith should be more objective, and that's my point exactly. Having two separate mind frames on the matter is a result of labeling, take your labels off and you would realize the real war is between a handful of people playing a massive game of chess. Take two people playing a game of chess, and one of them is your friend. The only reason you want him to win is because of your biased opinion of him over the other. Now replace the chess pieces with your other friends. Now you really want him to win, preventing the loss of as many friends as possible. When that very same story is happening on the other side of the table as well. I guess in order for faith to be more objective, both players would realize the potential loss is too great for either side, admitting the game should not be played at all. You don't need to combine faiths, you don't need to surrender or proclaim new faith. As you said, you just need to be more objective with it. I'd like to put 2 pieces of bread into a toaster and have 3 pop out, as opposed to 1 toasty winner.

 

 

 

Any factor you use in an explanation should be solid, trust-worthy. Also, please explain the difference between what you're saying here and what I observe in reality. Negative thoughts seem to "amplify" on a very strong scale on a regular basis. Some argue that negativity has more power for individual harm than anything else ("He's his own worst enemy").

 

Well, I'm afraid this religious portion of the science forum wouldn't exist if that was the case. As far as trust-worthy goes, I placed my trust in the research I came across displaying the readings of an EEG machine, showing that positive thoughts are indeed much, much stronger than negative thoughts. I don't see where I have taken the path forking from your perception of reality, I haven't strayed from science the least bit. If the given research was true in measuring brain waves, then I am purely demonstrating the factors involved that would give light to its findings. Breaking down the emotions of a human being, categorizing them, and giving the summations names. If I had an EEG machine on hand, this would be a lot easier to prove for myself. The reason the factors can never be solid or trust-worthy is simply because of each individuals output. Personally I would like to see more research on this field, and possibly be a part of it if I could, as I am a hyper sensitive and very curious as to the measurements of my brain waves when emitting specific thoughts.

 

As for negativity being more powerful when it comes to bodily, environmental or mental harm, I couldn't agree more. But that does not make it a stronger force than positivity, it's just more viable of an emotion to cause harm. If it were up to me, and my personal beliefs on everything in the universe, positivity and negativity would indeed be equal in strength, now the only reason I haven't proclaimed this is solely based on the research I came across regarding the signal strengths that say otherwise. I require more evidence on these tests, but I currently believe in amplifying thoughts by way of emotion.

 

 

 

This seems to imply that Faith is at the top end of the scale you're using, something to work towards, something you can increase to a theoretical maximum (IOW, 100%). You seem to claim faith is the strongest form of belief, but fail to provide anything more than feelings to increase and support it. If there is nothing above 10, or below 0.1, aren't you saying faith is 100% belief?

 

 

I realize redefining terminologies doesn't go over very well, especially with words as meaningful as faith and doubt, and then attempting to mathematically equate them. All of that just sounds ridiculous. But alas, that is what I've been trying to accomplish here. The reason why I chose faith to be the word that defines the summation of all positive thoughts used, Is simply because I believe that is what religions ask of you to do for god, when using this word "faith". I'm not saying faith is 100% belief. I'm saying that if positive and negative thoughts can be measured properly, then this is why they would appear so different in signal strength. When it comes to displaying these readings accurately, I think the human aspect would be very unreliable, as some, if not most people simply have no control over their emotions whatsoever, especially when asked to display them truthfully on the spot. Maybe we care about the effectiveness of machines over our own bodies, which is why they work so much better than we do ourselves.

 

I will discontinue my mathematical approach on the matter, As I am under qualified to debate this with such lack of evidence and mathematical principal.

 

 

 

I used to think negativity was always bad, but like much in life, it balances positive quite well. Negative things aren't bad things. As I mentioned, doubt can help. Failure makes us try harder. Death makes us value life. Trying to ignore the negative or put a white hat on it decreases its value to us, imo.

 

Even fear, arguably one of the most negative and pervasive states of mind, can keep us safe and make us take stock of our future and our preparedness for it, if we use it correctly. It's not the negativity itself that's good or bad, but rather what you do with it. I think it can be a tool like a knife, helpful or harmful.

 

Defining which thoughts are negative and which are positive is the real game. As I said earlier, the original definition of doubt wouldn't even belong under the category of Doubt as I've defined. Doubt itself is indeed has positive factors, or is more of a doorway to them. Fear as well, doesn't even belong in my category of negative thoughts. Fear is a natural instinct that doesn't require any emotion at all, that's right, it doesn't even have to involve being scared. It can be an instantaneous reaction without even a thought, where even the least evolved forms of life exhibit this instinct, it's the thoughts that come before or afterwards that would be positive or negative. Same with Death, that's not even close to a negative factor in reality, It's up to the people you've left behind to control their emotions about you dying. Personally I can't wait to die, as I find it to be a very positive aspect, like the words "The End" at the end of a good story, what's negative about that, especially if you're the book? Negative thoughts are things that lead to negative activity by way of your own thinking. So again what you've used here as examples of negativity, are not actually negative at all, they are aspects of life that either positivity or negativity can be applied to, its up to you. Where a solid negative emotion is simply hate, anger, prejudice, things that are used purposefully to directly diminish positive aspects.

[Acme]

Hello, I'm Andromus ...

I only want what's best for everyone on Earth, and in my opinion, it's a simple slap in the face, administered by a crying, starving child, saying, "Life is all that matters, not the reasons why. ...

...Personally I can't wait to die, as I find it to be a very positive aspect, like the words "The End" at the end of a good story, what's negative about that, especially if you're the book? ...

You contradict yourself many times in this thread, but the above quotes stand out to me. Which is it? Life is all that matters or death is all that matters? If you really can't wait to die, wouldn't you have committed suicide already? And if death is really so positive, shouldn't the crying , starving child just be killed by the same reasoning? I see no logic in any of what you have written other than the word "logic" itself.

[Andromus]

 

 

You contradict yourself many times in this thread, but the above quotes stand out to me. Which is it? Life is all that matters or death is all that matters? If you really can't wait to die, wouldn't you have committed suicide already? And if death is really so positive, shouldn't the crying , starving child just be killed by the same reasoning? I see no logic in any of what you have written other than the word "logic" itself.

 

I'd like for you to actually find any contradictions and post them please. I don't believe I've contradicted myself in any way, especially on the life and death note. When I say life is all that matters, and that death is a positive thing, the only contradiction created there is in your own mind, simply because you have no idea what death is, or life for that matter, you assume they are two completely different things, or at least that one of them has to be opposite to the other, yet you only have your own perception of it, that's it my friend, whether they are positive or negative is up to you. Of course I can't wait to die to find out what it's like, but I'm not in a hurry to force it obviously. I'm very curious about it, and yes, maybe the positive humane thing is to put that child to death, and out of it's miserable life, but saying such things would be severely lacking in hope, a positive thought that would help. The meanings of words, the meaning of scenarios, the meaning of pictures, the meaning of life, are either positive or negative factors based on your own perception (100% true), you must understand this one sentence above all.

 

Just what is so illogical about measuring brain waves, and attempting to increase their potency with emotions? A completely understandable theory, and the underlining factor of this thread.

 

Taking my perception of life and death is-what-it-is, my perception. I welcome you to believe in whatever you want when it comes to life or death. However, this is not the reason for my post.

 

I've redefined terminologies of two words to fit my perception, that's it. If you don't "get it" It's because your not supposed to, unless your willing to view it from my perspective with my newly defined words, which is the entire reason I've posted this in the first place. I keep hearing this 100% certainty of the value of faith, but no, faith is just a bowl, and all the positive thoughts possible are the cheerios that fill it, the size of the bowl and the cheerios are up to you, but remember, cereal is not the same without the Milky Way. Try a bowl of this in the morning, just try to fill it up with any positive thoughts at all, doesn't matter what they are about, as long as they are positive to you. Just try to at least attempt it. It's probably very difficult for almost everyone to even get a single metaphorical cheerio in the bowl by pure will of their mind. Try it first, then tell me I'm wrong. Close your eyes, picture an empty bowl, pick up a cheerio in your mind, and associate a funny, if not hilarious moment that's recently happened in your life to this cheerio. Really think about that thought as you place it into the bowl, I hope its hilarious. IF you managed to do this, and it worked for you, see if you are strong enough to continue filling this bowl one thought at a time. If you notice how good your starting to feel after just two positive thoughts, try to comprehend poring in a full bowl of cheerios at the speed you would in real life and associating an individual thought to each cheerio in real time, that is a higher level of consciousness my friends, and mastering the poring of the cereal is how to get there.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Andromus

[Acme]

I'd like for you to actually find any contradictions and post them please.

I gave 2 contradictions. First, you give life the highest value, then you give death that accord. Second, you haven't killed yourself so you can't "not wait for death".

 

When I say life is all that matters, and that death is a positive thing, the only contradiction created there is in your own mind, simply because you have no idea what death is, or life for that matter, you assume they are two completely different things, or at least that one of them has to be opposite to the other, yet you only have your own perception of it, that's it my friend, whether they are positive or negative is up to you.

Excepting what I tell you, you have no knowledge of what I do or do not know.

 

Of course I can't wait to die to find out what it's like, but ...

Again you contradict yourself. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

 

The meanings of words, the meaning of scenarios, the meaning of pictures, the meaning of life, are either positive or negative factors based on your own perception (100% true), you must understand this one sentence above all.

No; not everything is a zero sum game.

 

I've redefined terminologies of two words to fit my perception, that's it.

That's illogical and that's it.

 

If you don't "get it" It's because your not supposed to, unless your willing to view it from my perspective with my newly defined words, which is the entire reason I've posted this in the first place.

Good luck with all that nonsense then.

[Phi for All]

 

I'm not sure what part made you uncomfortable, especially enough to segway directly into war from positive and negative thoughts.

 

Positive and negative, the way you're using them, are entirely subjective. They mean different things to different people, yet you want to use them in a definition of faith you're asking others to understand. I get the perspective, I'm just not comfortable with your methodology, it's flawed because it's subjective.

 

I use strong imagery like war because it has a yin/yang aspect rather than a less sophisticated positive/negative one. War and killing can be good as well as bad, depending on whether you're the victim or the victor. If you don't like war, lets use lies. Lies are bad, negative, horrible things always, right? But if you're a parent, the first time your child lies to you is actually a cause for celebration. Lying is an extremely complex mechanism for assessment and management of future risk. It's a high function reaction that shows the child is not only thinking about the future, he's thinking about ways to make his future better. That's really positive, don't you think? It provides a great platform for some ethical training so the impulse isn't stifled while the socially unacceptable behavior disappears.

 

You have a lot going on in this definition, but the main thing I'm looking for is how you apply faith when an explanation is given for something. If I explain that the sun will rise tomorrow because the Earth will spin on its axis so you face our star again come morning (plus, I make a prediction based on gathered evidence and actually tell you to the minute WHEN the sun will rise), and you believe me, what are you using to believe me, your faith? If I tell you that your consciousness can never die and that you'll become pure thought when your body goes, and you believe me, what are you using, faith? And if I explain that you're really lucky and the sect of Christianity you and your family belong to is the correct one, and you'll all be going to heaven while everyone else goes to hell, and you believe me, are you using faith then?

 

These three explanations have extremely different reasons one might believe them, but you seem to be using faith on all of them. How can faith be a meaningful form of belief when it's applied evenly to three completely different explanations? And if it's not applied evenly to all, then why not, what makes some explanations require less faith than others?