Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#45337 - 12/20/10 05:06 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Dan_Dread]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Language is only useful insofar as it facilitates clear communication of ideas. Your whole point here is what? Taking the word back? Then what word would you suggest we use to describe belief without evidence?

Pointing to my sig was a nice attempt at a passive aggressive insult, but I assure you even though you say in 100 words what others can say in a sentence, I am still following you. It's just that your general thesis here is useless, and further it is counterproductive on a few levels.



I don't deem that to be an insult at all. Many see you as a very straight forward kind of person. Who else would I want to point out inconsistencies of my threads than you? (This is also not meant to be a snide remark.)

The only problem here, that I am seeing of course, that you are not pointing out inconsistencies. You are merely saying "no, you are wrong because this is what this word means and THAT word is really what you meant to use".
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45339 - 12/20/10 05:10 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Fnord]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Fnord

So WTF is the argument about again?


The argument (well, my comment, really) is that the OP wants to purposefully use a word that has multiple meanings in a number of contexts (including this thread) where other words / concepts would be a better fit.

Each of us is clearly free to use whatever words we want to mean whatever we want. Unfortunately, as this thread has shown, there are (at least) two consequences of this:

Language is a means of communication because people share their understanding of what various words mean. If definitions are not shared, confusion results. Using the word "faith" in this forum and not imply spirituality causes confusion in those who normally make the association.

Second, the definition does not work. Clearly, one can prove Soup by opening the can.

That being said, you are all perfectly free to use whatever words you want
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#45340 - 12/20/10 05:10 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Dan_Dread]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
Really?

trust
- 6 dictionary results
trust
   /trʌst/ Show Spelled[truhst] Show IPA
–noun
1.
reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2.
confident expectation of something; hope.
3.
confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4.
a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5.
the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
6.
the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.
7.
charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone's trust.
8.
something committed or entrusted to one's care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.
9.
Law .
a.
a fiduciary relationship in which one person (the trustee) holds the title to property (the trust estate or trust property) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary).
b.
the property or funds so held.
10.
Commerce .
a.
an illegal combination of industrial or commercial companies in which the stock of the constituent companies is controlled by a central board of trustees, thus making it possible to manage the companies so as to minimize production costs, control prices, eliminate competition, etc.
b.
any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity or service.
11.
Archaic . reliability.

Can we stop with the semantics here and get back to the topic?
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45341 - 12/20/10 05:13 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Autodidact]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Fnord

So WTF is the argument about again?


The argument (well, my comment, really) is that the OP wants to purposefully use a word that has multiple meanings in a number of contexts (including this thread) where other words / concepts would be a better fit.

Each of us is clearly free to use whatever words we want to mean whatever we want. Unfortunately, as this thread has shown, there are (at least) two consequences of this:

Language is a means of communication because people share their understanding of what various words mean. If definitions are not shared, confusion results. Using the word "faith" in this forum and not imply spirituality causes confusion in those who normally make the association.

Second, the definition does not work. Clearly, one can prove Soup by opening the can.

That being said, you are all perfectly free to use whatever words you want


Which is why I clearly stated in the original post how I was using the word faith as to clear up the confusion and the semantic battle ensues even through this. Words are subjective to their users. Confusion can arise any time with any thing. There is nothing wrong with using a word within your own definition as long as you make yourself clear that is how you are using the word. Which I, in fact did, through example and definition.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45342 - 12/20/10 05:19 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: orgasmic

You are merely saying "no, you are wrong because this is what this word means and THAT word is really what you meant to use".

No that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying your thesis is completely pointless. Using a word that is commonly defined one way to mean something else that is better described by a less nebulous word (trust) is an effort in obfuscation.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45343 - 12/20/10 05:23 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Dan_Dread]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Originally Posted By: orgasmic

You are merely saying "no, you are wrong because this is what this word means and THAT word is really what you meant to use".

No that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying your thesis is completely pointless. Using a word that is commonly defined one way to mean something else that is better described by a less nebulous word (trust) is an effort in obfuscation.



So I would make better to use a word that doesn't mean the same thing for me that it does for you? Isn't that kind of hypocritical to suggest when you are in fact suggesting that I am using something out of context via your context of the word?



Edited by OrgasmicKarmatic (12/20/10 05:25 PM)
Edit Reason: unneeded edit
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45345 - 12/20/10 05:34 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
LOL what?

What word doesn't mean the same thing to us both? words have definitions, people that agree on a definition can use that word to communicate information.

What is hypocritical about my pointing to the fact that faith is the word used to describe the phenomenon of believing something without evidence? That if you choose to start ignoring this people aren't going to know wtf you are talking about unless you first point out that you actually mean trust?

Anyway, I have said the same thing in ten different ways and I am not going to bother with number 11. If you want to dull the edge on the tool that is language, you go right ahead.

Me, I'll continue to use it in a way that conveys information in a more direct fashion.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#45349 - 12/20/10 06:09 PM Faith and Satanisms [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
@O.K.:
as i use the term 'Satanism' it is a single ideology and not an umbrella term. I reserve that categorical distinction for 'Satanity' because it makes more sense to me. so many religious paradigms consent to fly under a banner presented to them by Christian culture as if they are singular ideologies that i am not pleased to accept this standard of engagement or description. pluraled, yes. Satanisms are too individually-centered to pretend they have a contiguous inherence. your supposition that all Satanisms are ideologically-based and suppose their own accuracy is myopic, by my understanding, though it probably describes the bulk of those who have escaped the Christian Church. once one accepts the individual basis of all dimensions of a Satanism's construction, then every aspect of spirituality and religion achieves that 'playground' aspect to which you referred.

if you observe internet stratification you will see, i think, an hierarchic distribution of attention generally paid to featured and recorded media in combination with the visual (emphasized), sound (secondary), and text (tertiary) preferences afforded to TV. these often make possible an ignoring of what we do not like, but only successful moderation prevents our observation of what remains in the wake of the object of that filtration (i.e. even though we may ignore an irritating person we will continue to see the irritation of others who do not properly utilize the ignore features until the irritant reforms or is excluded from participation). I leave as academic and unimportant the determinations as to their 'reality'. your mention of getting them on cam to determine their reality is disputed by various chat-moderators in heavily restricted zones where they must ask the individual to reply and mimic their gestures. take that mouldy can back to the store and ask for a refund. consider not returning to that soup distribution center.

when it comes to a consideration of the term 'faith', as you and others have commented on it, there are several possible meanings for it, some of them applying to religious activities and some more secular or conventional. The King and others have applied the anti-theist significance of greatest objection to the term when defining it as believing what you cannot rationally demonstrate (my words). it amounts to trust in religious authorities regarding unseen forces, afterlives, and cosmologies. it is this significance which achieves the greatest opposition by Satanists and rationalists the world over. comparably, you choose to emphasize the following: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." as such, this is consonant with the wide variety of applications within religion, and its most objectionable noun is a doctrinarian cult that requires us to 'take on faith' what we cannot ever confirm in our experience or by rational processes. the ordinary trust issues you bring up in reply to such criticism seem of a different character and, while they may play into a general epistemological analysis of reductionism, they are ultimately unimportant to most Satanists (because as rationalists we can agree about them).

amongst some observations on psychology and religion, you contend that "faith is something that is used after one has logically processed the available information". this is utopian and unrealistic in the extreme, especially where religious contexts are concerned. you say that you want to drop the religious aspects of it, and as such it quickly loses its objectionable significances, becoming 'trust' and 'allegiance' to ordinary and conventional things instead. you suggest also dropping the "mysticism" that comes with this word, and, while for you and the Satanists you run with this may prove to be valuable for you, i suggest that the cost of tossing that Bathwater may be very high.

in an examination of the term 'faith's religious significance (which is all that matters to me in a critique of it - the other trust/allegiance issues about whether Schroedinger's Cat is in the box, whether i will wake up tomorrow, whether Sol will rise, whether my friend will come to my aid, are useless to me), due to the transphysical contentions of religious which they adhere to the term, it largely is a matter of personal experience, yes. those who feel that they can somehow employ a methodology of ascertainment interior to their experience do so and thereby rest upon the type of knowledge that this generates.

in your posts you explain what i regard as your Satanism, in a manner that i explain as RHP (exporting its authority so as to generalize). I suggest to all Satanists that you don't bother doing this if you want to be taken seriously by those who disagree with your methods. ;\) the Method of Religion as it comes to rest and be employed in Satanity will generally begin to include more faith-based suppositions. it has from the start, and in a variety of doctrines and dogmas since its inception numerous ridiculous things have been supposed "essential" or "axiomatic" to it, despite the emphasis placed on individualism. your contention that "religion has no place in Satanism" is very humorous, hopeful, and futile from what i can see. insofar as your spirituality remains solitary, you may preserve yourself from cultic dynamics.

as time wears on and more about the Satanic is relegated to disclosures about the past, it will simply be impossible to endlessly doubt everything absent a severe disconnect from reliable historical records and a complete re-invention of the Satanic Wheel. in fact, in order to feel that one makes any progress at all, a suspension of that doubt must in fact take place. how it does so and what one allows to stand unchallenged by further doubt will vary for each Satanist. doubt does indeed have a featured and prominent place, from the de facto Doubt-Goat of Crowley through the emphasis on it in LaVey and beyond. it might be exascerbated to the posture of extreme nihilism should the Satanist seek to pursue such folly.

your linguistic equations, while possibly a reflection of what is asserted, make no sense to me. proof is best understood as a testing application to an hypothesis, only the simple believing that it somehow ratifies. as implied above, the reason it is being avoided by Satanists is because of the way that it is used as a means of shutting down the mind in some religious contexts ('faiths'). one is required to suspend rational thought and accept the creed. to the rationalist this is anathema, and many Satanists are rationalists (as well as being anti-Christian or at least anti-doctrinarian in our preferences).

if you want to 'reclaim' the term faith and employ it in novel ways within Satanism that's fine. I suggest to you that numerous Satanists of spiritual and theistic character have been and will continue to employ it to relate dogmas which they have concluded are realistic and often require it of their faithful adherents to their creeds. this is the Way of Religion, and seems always to have been so. they rationalise the use of this method either by pragmatism or in the throes of their arrogance thinking they are helping their converts. I suggest that, instead of tearing out pages from your dictionary you simply get a better one. so many of them have been written by Christians that i no longer find many of them valuable. construct your own lexicon from the ground up, obtain an online dictionary and restructure to fit your need. dictionaries aren't Bibles, though ought to reflect societal usage and, in a personal library, one's own preferences of term meaning.
_________________________
.o.Making friends is amongst the finest skills which we may master.o.

.o.I will support you.o.


Edited by nocTifer (12/20/10 06:25 PM)
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#45350 - 12/20/10 06:17 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Just a point of order here that I'm sorry, but goes back to the idea of faith and soup...

When you go to the store to buy soup and (surprise!) you get soup, it isn't faith, it's simply presumptive expectation. You've gone to the store and gotten soup before. In fact, you are 99 years old, and have gone to the store every day and gotten soup when you bought the can marked "soup." Now, whenever you go to the store, your mind is conditioned to expect that there will be soup. Your natural reaction to personal experience is to presume that since this is the way it always HAS been, this is the way it always WILL be.

And in 99.999999999 percent of the time, your presumptive expectation will be right. However, through no part of your own, yet through direct human interactions with the product, anomalies in your ALMOST quantifiable presumptive expectation might find (because it happens)...

Labels might have been loosened in shipping or in storage. While can usually are coded, inexperience or laziness on the behalf of an overworked and underpaid stock clerk might see him attach the soup label to the can of Leseur Peas and vice versa.

A caselot of Vevco Spaghetti (I worked there as a young kid... thanks, Mr. Viviano!) becomes Vevco Minestrone Soup when an inexperienced puncher loads the wrong labels into the automatic labeler at the packing station and before the mistake is caught 200 cases are loaded onto a semi truck full of spaghetti. The puncher may be new, but he's nobody's fool. He's not going to tell the boss he made a mistake, stop the line and go digging through 2000 cases of spaghetti already loaded on a truck... he wants to keep his job, so the anomaly goes through.

A goof off canner decides to slip a lizard into a soup can and use it as a practical joke to scare his mother. Unfortunately, I (I mean HE... It wasn't me) forgets to mark the can and it simply becomes one of thousands on the packing line.

These are some instances of disruption to the presumptive expectation that could cause one to "lose faith" in the math of expectancy. This would not be a failure of belief or faith, simply an anomaly in expectation based on historically accurate presumptions.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#45352 - 12/20/10 07:21 PM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
And those presumptive expectations can easily be messed up.

I don't know if you remember that some put glass or needles into baby-food. Those parents that discovered it will, even when there is a 99.99% chance everything is fine, each time check to see if there isn't anything harmful in it.

Fear can easily override basic knowledge or reverse the expectations. Something which greatly aids terrorism.

D.

Top
#45355 - 12/20/10 07:58 PM Why Faith? [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
I'm hoping you can better explain what your purpose in this discussion is, as you get the chance.

Last I saw you were headed off to read Redbeard, as you mention in your introduction, and other things. I was looking towards Machiavelli and then maybe De Sade or Nietzche after that, the idea was for you to see the range of freedom available to you once you give up slave morality and work on building a personal ideology in recognition of the world as it actually is. And this seems to have worked, sort of; though your choices may have been more derivative than I would have gone for, you are definitely showing signs of a "revaluation of all values."

But it seems like it may be difficult for us, still, to flash on what you are actually trying to accomplish. If you had just gotten back from MiR and you were trying to undo the tyranny of political correctness, or redefine the word "wog", it might be clearer. What do you stand to gain by doing intensive semantics with a term that has degenerated into meaning "believing things that ain't so"? Are you just trying to take their Faith away from them at a whole new symbolic level?

If so, I might be able to help. Here's the ghost of St. Paul:

 Originally Posted By: Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I like to use this, in a more serious dispute, as a picture of the scientific method. When we have a hypothesis, we go ahead and start by believing it, even without evidence. This isn't blind stupidity though, we are doing it for a reason. Assuming it were true, what effects would we expect to see? What results would we logically obtain, under what circumstances? This is the gospel of Falsifiability. Without believing the theory, without imagining it to be true, we could never make the logical steps necessary to test it. We could never know anything about reality in a modern scientific sense, we could never have understood relativity and what it reveals about cosmology and the nature of our universe, without this method.

 Originally Posted By: Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

But we can't just stop there! We have to really test the theory, we have to do the suggested experiments, we have to be able to replicate them. If our hypothesis is true, it will stand up to the sort of scrutiny that man-made religions generally can't and won't and dare not. So in order to make it work, we have to not only believe but also disbelieve. And, it has to work, or, it's worthless.

Here's St. James in response:

 Originally Posted By: James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

If we like our hypothesis, if we want it to be true, if we refuse to test it, and ignore the results that others get by testing it; if we argue in circles to prove we are right, without ever considering the immanent fact that in the real world, we have to be wrong, wrong, wrong, to ever be right; that is when our "faith" has degenerated into mere superstition. If it doesn't work, the experiment is over, we have to get over it, and go on, until something does.

 Originally Posted By: James 2:19
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

This sort of thing will make them hop and squeal. If coopting their terminology and using it against them is a viable goal, then I can recommend no better use of "faith" than this line of argument.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45357 - 12/20/10 08:51 PM Re: Faith and Satanisms [Re: nocTifer]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To nocT,

I think there may be some valuable stuff in your post, but am having some trouble getting a handle on it.

Can you employ some concision so I can get more of a handle on your post.

What is Satanity?

Maybe I am a bit boring and old fashioned by thinking LaVey has set up the definition of Satanism in his works, but sheesh at least I can get some understanding of the meaning of the word.

To Org,

I have to admit I am having trouble understanding your position as well. You are in flux I think which is good though. Don't know where you will land?

Top
#45358 - 12/21/10 12:51 AM Re: Faith and Satanisms [Re: ]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hello there MatthewJ1. conciseness? how about some quick cliff's notes?

(to O.K.)
if you want to 'reclaim' the term faith and employ it in novel ways within {your} Satanism that's fine. your linguistic equations, while possibly a reflection of what is asserted, make no sense to me. in order to feel that one makes any progress at all, a suspension of that doubt must in fact take place. insofar as your spirituality remains solitary, you may preserve yourself from cultic dynamics. it largely is a matter of personal experience, yes. you say that you want to drop the religious aspects of it, and as such it quickly loses its objectionable significances. there are several possible meanings for it, some of them applying to religious activities and some more secular or conventional. take that mouldy can back to the store and ask for a refund. consider not returning to that soup distribution center.

better? Satanity is the aggregate of all extant Satanisms. \:\)
oh, Happy Eclipsing Lunatix, and Happy Solstice, one and all.


Edited by nocTifer (12/21/10 12:59 AM)
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#45359 - 12/21/10 01:14 AM Re: Faith and Satanisms [Re: nocTifer]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Ummm yeah, by concision I mean removing unnecessary words and jargon in order to say what needs to be said while using as few words as possible. Aim for the cleanest possible syntax.

Satanity. Hmmm, maybe I am just a touch annoyed today, but:

"Satanism is the only religion which serves to encourage and enhance one’s individual preferences, so long as there is admission of those needs. Thus, one’s personal and indelible religion (the picture) is integrated into a perfect frame. It’s a celebration of individuality without hypocrisy, of solidarity without mindlessness, of objective subjectivity. There need be no deviation from these principles. They should summarily negate internecine strife and bickering. Any attempts at Satanic “reformation” should be seen for what they are: creating problems where none exist. There should be no place in any religion for reformers whose very religion is the fetish of reformation. There is even a place and title for compulsive dissidents, and if they can wear the mantle, they are welcome. They would delude themselves to be revolutionaries. In our camp, they are called “House Masochists.”
LaVey, The Feared Religion

Top
#45367 - 12/21/10 06:47 AM Re: Faith - Dirty word or misconception? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
faith=trust

faith=belief without evidence

Two separate definitions for the same word. This isn't rocket science.


Actually they are not separate definitions. If I say I have faith that X, I am believing X to be true without proof (I'll return to your use of the word "evidence" in a separate reply). Here X is a state of affairs. If I say I have faith in X, I am believing that X will act in accord with my assumptions. Here X is a person. The latter cases are translatable into statements about states of affairs, and so are really just special cases of the former.

JK
_________________________



Top
Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.