path to truth

Originally posted by @apathist
Missing from your analysis is the fact that rational thought adjusts when give new data. There was no faith that the first understanding must be absolutely correct.

Not at all I said the process not a singular conclusion.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Mind dependent, so your process is gathering information and processing it all with your mind. As I said earlier you are putting faith into your process, that the data means what you think, you are correctly evaluating it, and you have clarity of thought to do this. Then you act/walk accordingly to what you think.

No I am not putting faith into my process that the data means what I think they mean; I am putting knowledge into my process that the data means what I know they mean herenow: When I see the traffic light turning red, I stop. No faith. Just knowledge.

Likewise, I act/ walk accordingly to the evaluation of the mind. No faith. Just knowledge.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No I am not putting faith into my process that the data means what I think they mean; I am putting knowledge into my process that the data means what I know they mean herenow: When I see the traffic light turning red, I stop. No faith. Just knowledge.

Likewise, I act/ walk accordingly to the evaluation of the mind. No faith. Just knowledge.
😵

Knowledge, that might have to be rejected later due to something new! So you are walking on shifting sand as if it were a solid foundation. Yet you think you are not trusting, not believing and putting faith into this at all.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Not at all I said the process not a singular conclusion.

Faith belief isn't known for adapting to new information.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Knowledge, that might have to be rejected later due to something new! So you are walking on shifting sand as if it were a solid foundation. Yet you think you are not trusting, not believing and putting faith into this at all.

I always move keeping in mind that there is solid foundation only herenow; and when I move, I do so in full awareness of the danger to face an outcome that is not the one I calculated. Therefore I 'm sure I am not trusting, not believing and putting faith into this at all.
😵

Originally posted by @apathist
Faith belief isn't known for adapting to new information.

So instead of one book of the Bible, Genesis, or just one chapter, there is the unfolding revelation in 65 other books as well.

No "new information," you see ?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I always move keeping in mind that there is solid foundation only herenow; and when I move, I do so in full awareness of the danger to face an outcome that is not the one I calculated. Therefore I 'm sure I am not trusting, not believing and putting faith into this at all.
😵

So you live in constant state of you know what is currently being used to support what you think is true, is more than likely wrong, when something else comes along?

Originally posted by @apathist
Faith belief isn't known for adapting to new information.

Inflexibility would be called for if what was a matter of faith, was something static when that
was the point. If faith was in something that required change, a fluid result would make that
the point. You are applying a strange limited point of view about faith, it has to do more
with what is being trusted than the word faith itself.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So you live in constant state of you know what is currently being used to support what you think is true, is more than likely wrong, when something else comes along?

No, I do not live in a constant state of any kind. Constant states are non-existent –everything is ever-changing and relative, one cannot step into the same river twice.

I live in an ever-changing state where I know that whatever I think is "true" for the time being, is in fact solely true to me herenow. If in the future whatever I hold as provisionally true herenow proved to be false, it’s only natural. As long as my sight is sharp herenow, my provisional, subjective truth is that I see the visible objects without distortion herenow; when my sight will become problematic, I will live keeping in mind that I suffer of sight problems. My ever-changing, mind-depended truth is existent strictly in relation to specific causes and conditions.
The same holds as regards ear and sound, nose and odor, tongue and taste, body and touch, mind and mental objects.

When it boils down to theories of reality, there is no problem either. If a provisional evaluation of the mind will be proved in the future untenable, it’s only natural. In this case I will cross-check the data again and, if they hold water at that specific frame of spacetime, I will embrace them provisionally and I will discard my older approach.

Where exactly in this process do you see any trace of faith?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No, I do not live in a constant state of any kind. Constant states are non-existent –everything is ever-changing and relative, one cannot step into the same river twice.

I live in an ever-changing state where I know that whatever I think is "true" for the time being, is in fact solely true to me herenow. If in the future whatever I hold as provision ...[text shortened]... discard my older approach.

Where exactly in this process do you see any trace of faith?
😵

One cannot step in the same river twice, true but water will always make you wet if you
go into it and it touches you. It is foundational what we are talking about, either the
universe had a purpose when it was started or not. If not it doesn't matter what either you
or I think about rivers, sunshine, lollypops, or anything else, things are, and we die. Now if
that isn't the case, and God did create it, then every atom, snowflake, rain drop, human
heartbeat, came with cause, from the littlest things, to the largest.

You are putting your faith into one position, I've seen statements from you that put you
clearly in one camp not the other. With either stance, everything else takes on meanings
that are not there if the other is true.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
One cannot step in the same river twice, true but water will always make you wet if you
go into it and it touches you. It is foundational what we are talking about, either the
universe had a purpose when it was started or not. If not it doesn't matter what either you
or I think about rivers, sunshine, lollypops, or anything else, things are, and we die. ...[text shortened]... With either stance, everything else takes on meanings
that are not there if the other is true.

Neither do I answer unanswerable pseudodilemmas, nor I come up with religious beliefs in order to provide answers to unanswerable questions. You see a "purpose", very well, it is you the one who puts faith in one position. Not me.

I do not put faith in one position, because I reject both of them. I would have a position if I were strictly grounded either on the blind belief that “The universe is not created by G-d” or on the blind belief that “The universe is created by G-d”. For the time being I am an atheist because there are many viable theories of reality as regards Kosmos that do not require the existence and the intervention of G-d. When there will be evidence that G-d is strictly required, I will reconsider the available data.

As you see, as regards your question about Purpose/ No Purpose, my fair answer is: I Do Not Know. Where exactly in this process is there any trace of faith?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Neither do I answer unanswerable pseudodilemmas, nor I come up with religious beliefs in order to provide answers to unanswerable questions. You see a "purpose", very well, it is you the one who puts faith in one position. Not me.

I do not put faith in one position, because I reject both of them. I would have a position if I were strictly grounde ...[text shortened]... my fair answer is: I Do Not Know. Where exactly in this process is there any trace of faith?
😵

You do answer these questions and you just gave me your rational, which is there are many viable theories. You believe someone, suggesting anything, is better than taking a stand, even though declaring to be an Atheist is a stand. You believe it is the smart call for some strange reason to declare independence on the topic, which is again putting yourself firmly in one camp while renouncing the other.

I also reject the notion that these are unanswerable questions, they may appear that way if you don’t allow certain answers to be viable. If you reject the truth as not viable than everything becomes possible.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You do answer these questions and you just gave me your rational, which is there are many viable theories. You believe someone, suggesting anything, is better than taking a stand, even though declaring to be an Atheist is a stand. You believe it is the smart call for some strange reason to declare independence on the topic, which is again putting yourself ...[text shortened]... in answers to be viable. If you reject the truth as not viable than everything becomes possible.

Clearly, the pseudodilemma “Purpose/ No Purpose” consists of two extremes, from which I adopt none. You already know that my fair answer is “I do not know”, therefore your assumption that I do answer these questions is false. How can you claim that I answer them, when I already told you that I do not know the answer, and when I also told you that this pseudodilemma is unanswerable by means other than blind religious beliefs? Any "truth" based on religious beliefs is "truth" solely to the followers of the religion that pontificates it. It is not "truth" to me, however.
So, although I clearly renounce both camps, you do not want to acknowledge this fact. Why is that?

Furthermore, when I told you I am an atheist herenow I explained in full that this is just my provisional personal truth right now, which is strictly grounded on my mind-depended knowledge that can be discarded in the future in the light of new evidence.
The fact I am an atheist today is neither “a stand”, nor a product of faith, as you falsely assume. It simply means I evaluate all the religious theories of reality as non-viable, so I do not feel the need to identify myself as a theist. Where exactly in this process do you see any trace of faith?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Clearly, the pseudodilemma “Purpose/ No Purpose” consists of two extremes, from which I adopt none. You already know that my fair answer is “I do not know”, therefore your assumption that I do answer these questions is false. How can you claim that I answer them, when I already told you that I do not know the answer, and when I also told you that this ...[text shortened]... to identify myself as a theist. Where exactly in this process do you see any trace of faith?
😵

Opinions can be found among followers of any belief system, truth isn’t dependent upon man. Which I believe is a real issue the way you look at things since your big into your mind knowing what is and isn’t.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Opinions can be found among followers of any belief system, truth isn’t dependent upon man. Which I believe is a real issue the way you look at things since your big into your mind knowing what is and isn’t.

No.
You cannot come up with a non-subjective way of determining which subjective impressions of ours support knowledge of “objective reality” before the subjective formation of subjectively accessible markers of the reliable subjective impressions. All the methods as regards knowledge, judgment and thought are grounded strictly on subjective impressions and hence on subjectivity. The same holds as regards all the religious doctrines regardless of religion.

Therefore, it is not properly said that “truth isn’t depended upon man”. Your purely subjective opinion that “objective reality” is not grounded "upon man" is false, because “objective reality” is grounded strictly on our consensus over our collective subjectivity😵