Another thought on seeking

[We Never Know]

I believe there are differences between

1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)

2. I have faith (hope/have trust that X is true, even though not 100% sure)

3. I know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information as a fact)

Before someone were to find religious practice, path, or practice, they need to know their deal breakers.

I.e. your deal breaker is something you know us true without question:

Giving charity is who I am
Expressing love defines me as a person
I cannot exist without freedom of expression
My identity is lost without knowing where I came from

and so forth.

If a religion or practice conflicts with your identity, there is a conflict and not a religion to adopt.

i.e. the Buddha's Dharma says we have no identity. All is a product of change. If you know you have an identity, the Dharma may conflict with your value.

Likewise, if having an origin or finding the source of all things and people is irrelevant, believing in a creator would not be an ideal path to look into.

You can believe you have a creator, but, we can accept anything is true when it may not be.

You can hope that a creator exists is true, but if someone challenges your experiences, you may have some dissonance and doubt.

If you know a creator exist, like two and two, it is a fact. You will not budge, no matter what.

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

Enjoy

Many things in life happen without there being a second witness and in some cases without evidence. In my opinion its doesn't make them not true.
For example of if were out in my field last night and saw a small meteor streak across the sky for a few seconds before it burnt out but no neighbours or anyone else saw it, did it happen?

 

[stvdv]

To those who are seeking, it is best they know their value(s) as to make sure if they are seeking a religion, that it doesn't conflict with what they Know is true

Very true for me

Though it takes a lifetime++ to know thyself. So, sometimes Trial&Error will occur. No problem for me. I always get up once more than falling down.

They say "the Master will call you", so then there is no need to search. All comes at the right time. We only have to eat when hungry, drink when thirsty, sleep when sleepy AND Love.

 

[stvdv]

Many things in life happen without there being a second witness and in some cases without evidence. In my opinion its doesn't make them not true.

I agree.

Needing evidence that is peer reviewed, only proves lack of self confidence to me

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Many things in life happen without there being a second witness and in some cases without evidence. In my opinion its doesn't make them not true.
For example of if were out in my field last night and saw a small meteor streak across the sky for a few seconds before it burnt out but no neighbours or anyone else saw it, did it happen?

I don't see the connection to what you're saying and my OP.

 

[We Never Know]

I don't see the connection to what you're saying and my OP.

From your OP...
"1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)"

Read that what you posted and see if you get the connection.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From your OP...
"1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)"

Read that what you posted and see if you get the connection.

I see that it's connected to that comment, but not sure how it connects with the OP point or context.

 

[We Never Know]

I see that it's connected to that comment, but not sure how it connects with the OP point or context.

Um... So your comment of... "1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)" has nothing to do with the OP?
Why is it in the OP?
My post was about things being true without evidence.
Now that's funny.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Um... So your comment of... "1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)" has nothing to do with the OP?
Why is it in the OP?
Now that's funny.

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

You have to read the whole thing to get the point. Since people don't read the whole post, they pick one or two "verses" and go from there. Usually points are in the beginning or end of posts and the body/context or support in the middle.

 

[We Never Know]

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

You have to read the whole thing to get the point. Since people don't read the whole post, they pick one or two "verses" and go from there. Usually points are in the beginning or end of posts and the body/context or support in the middle.

Good grief!

Your #1 was about accepting something without evidence.

To quote it again "1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)"

My post clearly said "Many things in life happen without there being a second witness and in some cases without evidence. In my opinion its doesn't make them not true."

So you think my post isn't tied to your OP?

Lets ask the panel(other posters) and get a ruling here!

 

[We Never Know]

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

You have to read the whole thing to get the point. Since people don't read the whole post, they pick one or two "verses" and go from there. Usually points are in the beginning or end of posts and the body/context or support in the middle.

If someone experienced something without another witness being there, the ONLY knowledge you have of it is by what they tell you they experienced. How will you decide whether its true or false?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good grief!

Your #1 was about accepting something without evidence.

To quote it again "1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)"

My post clearly said "Many things in life happen without there being a second witness and in some cases without evidence. In my opinion its doesn't make them not true."

So you think my post isn't tied to your OP?

Lets ask the panel(other posters) and get a ruling here!

I was letting you know I was not clear with the connection between the two statements. Nothing more than that. It really wasn't that big of a deal. Asking for clarification is natural in a discussion. Not every person will get it (especially on the internet) first-read and I would not expect them to.

 

[We Never Know]

I was letting you know I was not clear with the connection between the two statements. Nothing more than that. It really wasn't that big of a deal. Asking for clarification is natural in a discussion. Not every person will get it (especially on the internet) first-read and I would not expect them to.

And I gave you the clarification you were seeking.

 

[Trailblazer]

If someone experienced something without another witness being there, the ONLY knowledge you have of it is by what they tell you they experienced. How well you decide whether its true or false?

I would look at other supporting evidence in an effort to determine if they were telling me the truth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If someone experienced something without another witness being there, the ONLY knowledge you have of it is by what they tell you they experienced. How well you decide whether its true or false?

I wouldn't know. I haven't really thought about that in my OP. The OP didn't talk about the nature and definition of belief, knowledge, and faith. It was differentiating the three words and how finding a religion is best when it doesn't conflict with what a person knows (not believes and not have faith) is true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For example of if were out in my field last night and saw a small meteor streak across the sky for a few seconds before it burnt out but no neighbors or anyone else saw it, did it happen?

Why we believe it is because we have seen it happening many times, and it is such a common phenomenon. You can see meteors streaking to their oblivion every hour in the night sky. The question is about some extra-ordinary happening like raising the dead or walking on water. To believe that we need stronger evidence. Not pointing only at the extra-ordinary happenings in Christian beliefs, but all - Muslim and Hindus too. I am not speaking against any particular Abrahamic religion.

I would look at other supporting evidence in an effort to determine if they were telling me the truth.

I would be equally doubtful about the 'supporting evidence'. If they were speaking a lie it does not matter if otherwise in their normal behavior, they were good people. So many priests of the religions declare things (including those who are supposed to be prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis and may be of good character - really, what do we know about the true character of any person, perhaps his/her wife/wives/husband may know, if they have any, but they may not have spoken, sometimes even they would not know - human can be very devious), but their beliefs and pronouncements may be extremely biased.

 

[We Never Know]

I would look at other supporting evidence in an effort to determine if they were telling me the truth.

A week or so ago in another thread I posted where some years back I fell off a 30 foot cliff. Didn't get harmed at all except a few slight red marks.
I was by myself, no witnesses and I won't try to remake it to show it happened. Does the mean it didn't happen?

What other supporting evidence in your effort to determine if I were telling you the truth would you look at?

 

[We Never Know]

I wouldn't know. I haven't really thought about that in my OP. The OP didn't talk about the nature and definition of belief, knowledge, and faith. It was differentiating the three words and how finding a religion is best when it doesn't conflict with what a person knows (not believes and not have faith) is true.

Everything I posted isn't based on our about religion. I don't have it.

 

[Nimos]

I would look at other supporting evidence in an effort to determine if they were telling me the truth.

I looked at the moon one day and im 100% sure I saw smurfs there!!

Might be better to wait for them to bring you the evidence, why should you waste time looking for them?

 

[Trailblazer]

A week or so ago in another thread I posted where some years back I fell off a 30 foot cliff. Didn't get harmed at all except a few slight red marks.
I was by myself, no witnesses and I won't try to remake it to show it happened. Does the mean it didn't happen?

No, it either happened or it did not happen. Whether other people believe it happened has nothing to do with it.
The example I often use is of a man murdering his wife. If a man murdered his wife and left no evidence at all would that mean he did not murder his wife? Of course not. It would simply mean that he was able to commit the crime and leave no evidence behind. And he won't get convicted because a jury will not believe he murdered his wife since there is no evidence.

What other supporting evidence in your effort to determine if I were telling you the truth would you look at?

I would check with other people who know you to find out if you were a person who generally tells the truth or of you were a liar.

 

[Trailblazer]

I looked at the moon one day and im 100% sure I saw smurfs there!!

Might be better to wait for them to bring you the evidence, why should you waste time looking for them?

It would depend upon how important it is for you to know if there were smurfs there.
If you really wanted to know you would look for evidence, not wait around for door-to-door service.