you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

i hope the reaction was not a visceral one.for that was not my intention.i just felt it proper to give an insight where my views may lie.it was a generalization of where i am coming from.nothing more.nothing less.
and i certainly would not presume to impose my views upon you my friend.i just felt it would give a modicum of context to where i was coming from.
that video does not encapsulate my views,just gives context.

as for MDMA.i traveled with the raves for years,my ex roomie was a basement chemist and made it,that and many other compounds.liquid xanax for one (which was his downfall btw.R.I.P teddy) so i am quite familiar with its effects.my faith has a shamanistic quality to it so i do not rebuke mind-altering drugs to perceive the universe through different eyes,in fact i welcome it.

in regards to your letter.
having put things in such a manner i would tend to agree with you.faith and belief should be discussed,but since many see debate as am antagonistic polemic,i tend to avoid such words.to me debate is about sharing views and information,not a winner take-all paradigm.so in respects to how you expressed your views on that,i agree wholeheartedly.debate is a win-win in my book.
if i am carrying around disinformation and do not realize it,i have no problem with changing my thoughts when faced with better and more conclusive evidence.it is the ignorant who refuse to let go of long held ideas that no longer serve any purpose but to continue their own delusion.
a better analogy would be:if my fly was open i would hope somebody would point that out and not let me walk around with my wanker hanging in the wind.

which i believe is what you will attempt to do.your participation so far has been enjoyable,and done with great respect,so i have no problem with engaging with you.
the sharing of ideas is one of our greatest strengths dont you think?it is because of this wonderful conversation that i have revealed a part of how i see things.not to convince you,but to give you a better context.my philosophy has been a 30 year work in progress.i usually do not reveal anything due to peoples childish ability to jump in and assume...well..everything.so i find it prudent to not say anything,just that i am a man of faith.for if and when i DO reveal my views,i get hammered from not only atheists but religious folk as well.i am well equipped to deal with both,and my occupation gives me ample weaponry to deal with fundamentalists decisively.i actually prefer to discuss with atheists,because at least they are curious and there can be a discussion.except for militant atheists,they can be just as rigid as the fundamentalist,and the discussion garners little but dust.

i would hear your reaction to the video.i do hope i can clarify some aspects for you.remember,it was just a generalization.nothing more.
i look forward to your response.
till next time..namaste.

that was a fantastic video!you should post it.i think its a valuable component and a great tutorial.
i agree wholeheartedly with the videos premise,and i think it also strengthens my position.
let me explain:
the reason why i stated it would be futile to argue one way other the other matters concerning faith was expressed quite eloquently in the video you shared.
i have no concrete evidence or data that can concretely convince you of anything.however,i do not reject or dismiss the findings of science in order for me to retain my faith.so while you will find me agreeing with you on many subjects concerning science,you will also find i will not put any facts on the table concerning my faith.because there are no facts and i am very aware of this.
maybe it would help if i gave you an idea how i view things:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Perceiving-Reality-A-useful-philosophy
notice the lack of dogma?of a bearded white dude with jealous,genocidal tendencies?
a total lack of judgment?
the video i shared is a very over-simplified explanation of how i view reality.
could i be wrong?
of course.my faith is not based on a book,or a theology so i have the freedom to be curious and ask questions.my faith is organic in its ability to evolve along with my understand of the universe.so if anything defines my faith,it would be science.
which is only limited by our ability to observe and test.
in my opinion,science is the testing and validating the observable physical universe.basically..the study of the creator.the more science uncovers the more that is revealed that is beautiful,poetic and far more complicated than any doctrine or dogma could ever imagine.

i state i am a man of faith because thats what it is..faith.i have faith that we all have a divine spark.a part of us that is sacred and connected to the creator/god/goddess/buddha/the All,whatever you wish to call it.we are all co-creators..we are all just "potential",raw and un-tapped.i cannot prove with any conclusive evidence that what i feel/think is correct.so it must be called what it is...faith.
we are mind/body/spirit.
i say this with conviction,but i have no way to prove this to you,and to try without any measurable means would insult you.so i dont try.

i shall give you one example where i hope you have experienced to relate,somewhat ,to what i am attempting to convey:
ever love a woman? ever love her so completely that when you were together it seemed you fell into her?and she you?where you both seemed to have created a space that was so lovely as to be over-powering?that when you were together time seemed to stop?
would you be insulted if someone said to you "bah,thats just chemicals and hormones.nothing more,nothing less".
but you KNEW..it was more,and to reduce it to mere chemicals and hormones just cheapened the experience.and if it IS just chemicals and hormones,electric synapses firing.then we should be able to replicate this affect yes?
but we cant..not yet at least.
is there something more? is it possible?
understand i am not trying to convince you of anything,i am just asking the same questions i ask myself.one of the millions i ask myself.
i left the church at 14 due to my pastors absolute failure to answer my questions.
because if you do a little research and study the history of the bible,qu'ran,torah et'al dogma and doctrine will fall short everytime.they are man made...its obvious.
but what of those questions?the answers is what i find most intimate and revealing.

i believe,through the experiences and encounters,that we are more than our sum parts.what that actually is,i do not know,but i am "faithful" we are more and shall continue to ask the questions.it is also for this reason i do not try to convince anybody else that my "faith" is valid in their eyes.that would be me seeking validation,and i need none.

the only thing i am wary of,and i think its a large reason why i do not attempt to convince anybody of my faith,is the trap of conflation.to use information and mold it to fit my world view.religious people do this ad nauseum,as do consprisy(sp?) theorists and politicians.while being faithful may fly in the face of logic,i do my best to employ logic as often as i can.
but when your questions deal with things outside the realm of the phyisical universe sometimes all you have is faith.

i am thoroughly enjoying this conversation my friend.i am doing my best to construct complete sentences and paragraphs for you.but i am the run-on-sentence king.you on the other hand,write beautifully.
thank you very much for your insight my friend.
the conversation continues.
till next time...namaste.

i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

LOL..think you meant to post that on my page.
but im glad i stopped by cuz i read your clarification and it didnt make sense.
now it does =)
while not getting too into philisophical conundrums,i agree that it was my fault in not clearly defining that i was using the term agnostic in its literal translation.
which would cover the majority of us,believer/non-believer alike.
i used it (incorrectly) to express the common ground believers and non-believers actually stand on.
your explanation covers some people,im guessing you to be one of them,but not all.
and it does fit into my premise.
in my line of work i deal with both ends of the spectrum,and both give me pause.
what is the difference of the person who comes to me quoting scripture and believing themselves to be completely righteous to the person quoting dawkins and they too,believing themselves to be righteous?
the only difference is semantics.
i do not believe you fall into either category,and you quite succinctly pointed out the troubles of labeling.
which goes nicely with my premise, (failed as it was)there is no certitude.
the question does not intrigue me,it is the ANSWER that i find most fascinating in its revelation.
i am a seeker of truth,that is my path.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail,but i NEVER stop trying.
i really appreciate your clarifying definitions for me.
it speaks to your character,and that is a good thing.
well met my friend.
till next time..namaste.

No worries man, I'm glad that you don't take it the hard way, too many people do you know.

I think the reason why you're getting "attacked" is because it appears that you don't understand what atheism actually is.

Heres the problem that you're seeing with Sam's argument and I noticed it happening too. Sam didn't actually say what he does believe, he just said what he doesn't believe.

That might sound odd but in the case of this video, he said he's an atheist which defines what he doesn't believe, then he goes on to talk about what people should think (more or less) which makes it seem that he thinks that people should think these things too because he's an atheist or that these beliefs come from atheism.

And thats the big part of the problem that a vast majority of people miss entirely. Atheism, inherently, says nothing about what you believe.

Sam should have finished what he was saying (I saw it happening too), and said "I'm a secular humanist". At which point you would have an idea of where his beliefs are coming from.

If someone says "I'm an atheist", but doesn't tell you what they do believe, you'll never know where they get the justifications for their actions.

If someone says "I'm an atheist, and a secular humanist" you'd have a good picture of what they don't believe and what they do believe. Sam really should have finished his sentence.

I don't want to seem like I'm ranting, I just want to make sure that the points that people are making are understood by you. Mostly because I'm making them too, I just don't get emotional about it.

What offends atheists is when people make the assumption that positive claims are being made by atheism itself (which it doesn't). Just FYI

In reply to this comment by IAmTheBlurr:
Enoch,

I'm going to approach this as logically and without emotion, so when you read this, think Spock.

I understand your conclusion in your long post but I find it to be fundamentally false due to your premises being products of misunderstanding the term and qualities of "atheist".

Here are three unique statements to ponder. "There are no gods." "I don't believe that there are any gods." "We can't know if there are any gods."

Which one of those three best describe something that a purely atheistic person would say, and which would best describe what a purely agnostic person would say?

.
.
.

The correct answer is that a purely atheistic person would say "I don't believe that there are any gods" and that a purely agnostic person would say "We can't know if there are any gods".

The reason why neither are the first statement is because a purely atheistic person does not make any positive claims to the non-existence of any gods, a purely atheistic person an only make the statement that they do no believe in any gods. In this sense, someone can be both atheistic and agnostic in what they understand.

If anyone ever flat out says "There are no gods", they aren't just an atheist. I don't know what the term is for someone who makes the positive claim for there are absolutely absolutely no gods but it certainly isn't "atheist"; i don't even know if that term exists.

You know, someone should invent that word, it would clear up a lot of misconceptions.

Your rant seems to be littered with misconceptions about the terms of atheism and about what, in your mind, atheists are claiming. I just want to clear that up. I think that once you understand that purely atheistic people do not make any positive claims to the existence or non-existence of something, you'll understand that someone can state that they don't have any god beliefs -and- that we don't know what claims can be true, that people can be both atheistic and agnostic without containing contradicting thoughts.


i was using agnostic in its literal translation.not knowing.
by your comment..you agree.
but i thank you for clarifying,and doing so respectfully.
i get crap every time i comment on a sam harris video.
i agree with his premise,his execution sucks.
if you want to have an atheist argue an atheist point of view,grab dawkins or hitchens.
maybe sam harris's books are amazing,on that i cant comment having never read them.
i was just commenting on his debating skills on the videos i watch here on the sift.
in which i am summarily attacked,as if i somehow have personally offended all atheists.
and nobody sees the irony in that?
anyways.i understand your point,and as usual my point got lost in my own translation.
i am a great speaker (believe it or not LOL) but my sentence structure is something less than desirable.
nuance is lost in text many times.
i do grow weary of such inane arguments.they garner little but dust on a shelf.
i was actually trying to make a point that we are all on the same side.
that fundamentalist and absolutist thinking is dangerous.
ah well....guess not this time.