You are the Unknown Known

[RCSaunders]

Faith is an antonym of belief, describing the trust and confidence to let go and accept the unknown.

No.
Faith and belief are cognates.

They are both the antithesis of knowledge.

Doesn't belief just mean what one holds to be true?

If what you believe (hold to be true) is based on evidence and reason, and is what is actually so, that is knowledge.

If what you believe (hold to be true) is based on anything other than evidence and reason, such as inspiration, revelation, mystic insight, intuition or mysticism and has no basis in fact it is faith (or superstition).

When someone says, "this is what I believe," it only means what their view of truth is, not how they arrived at that view.

That's the way I've always understood it. Belief does not mean faith, faith is just mistaken belief.

Not arguing the point. Really curious about what others think about it.

[Dontaskme]

GOD... is a self-portrait.


Art is natural, nature is art-ificial.

Name a 'thing' that is NOT 'natural'.

'Nature', by name, and by definition, is 'natural', ALSO.

Nope, that assertion is totally wrong.

The natural ART that appears as a physical basic and inherent feature, appearing as character and quality known conceptually as a sunset sky ....IS NOT an attribute of THE human mind...which is the nature of mind.

The nature of mind is artificial...for example...this painting is a copy of an original piece of natural ART... IT'S an artificial representation of the natural........The painting is not a naturally forming image of nature.

..forming '' attributes'' is the nature of the mind...a painting known as ART...IS a mind-made image, in other words, IT'S art-ificial... NOT natural.

[Walker]

Not arguing the point. Really curious about what others think about it.

I associate the word “belief,” with the how of knowing, rather than what is known.

For example, when I’m in a windowless room with the door closed, I believe that the world outside the door is as I left it, whatever that was.

In that example, I believe in the high probability of my inference, which has concluded that in the absence of my direct experiencing, what I know of the world outside the closed door continues, as I remember it was.

If what I remember was a flux of commotion outside the door, such as a war, then I no longer infer that the world will be as it was.

I’ve learned that if I examine the world closely when I open the door, closely enough to fix specific colors and patterns in memory, I can find things as big as a house (on a crowded, known street) that I didn’t even know was there before because it escaped notice and doesn’t exist in memory … which is more in line with stepping into a new world, rather than a matter of belief or knowledge.

[Dontaskme]

you have to be there to be born into the world and you have to be there to leave the world, what you posted here is nothing but BS

What you are posting here are known concepts...appearances within the dream of artificial separation.. conceptual knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of it's reality....illusory doesn't mean existence is not, it is, but is unknowable except what is projected as concept in this imagined conception.

In reality, there is no conceptual ( I ) who lives or dies. In the same context a cat does not know it is a cat.

The ( I ) that is conceptually known, knows nothing because concepts are artificial projections, aka images of the imageless.

[Dontaskme]

Faith is an antonym of belief, describing the trust and confidence to let go and accept the unknown.

No.
Faith and belief are cognates.

They are both the antithesis of knowledge.

Nope, knowledge is a story upon was is always this immediate unknowable existence. Knowledge is the conceptual dream of separation where there is none. It's a fiction within the real...aka ...un/knowable.

[Sculptor]

Faith is an antonym of belief, describing the trust and confidence to let go and accept the unknown.

No.
Faith and belief are cognates.

They are both the antithesis of knowledge.

Doesn't belief just mean what one holds to be true?

It can be.
But since it is also holding to be true regardless of evidence, reason, ot coherence I prefer to avoid the term as redundant and ambiguous since we have "know".

If what you believe (hold to be true) is based on evidence and reason, and is what is actually so, that is knowledge.

Yes, so why not use the word "know"?

If what you believe (hold to be true) is based on anything other than evidence and reason, such as inspiration, revelation, mystic insight, intuition or mysticism and has no basis in fact it is faith (or superstition).

When someone says, "this is what I believe," it only means what their view of truth is, not how they arrived at that view.

That's the way I've always understood it. Belief does not mean faith, faith is just mistaken belief.

Not arguing the point. Really curious about what others think about it.

[Sculptor]

Faith is an antonym of belief, describing the trust and confidence to let go and accept the unknown.

No.
Faith and belief are cognates.

They are both the antithesis of knowledge.

Nope, knowledge is a story upon was is always this immediate unknowable existence. Knowledge is the conceptual dream of separation where there is none. It's a fiction within the real...aka ...un/knowable.

Nah.
See my other response

[Dontaskme]

No.
Faith and belief are cognates.

They are both the antithesis of knowledge.

Nope, knowledge is a story upon was is always this immediate unknowable existence. Knowledge is the conceptual dream of separation where there is none. It's a fiction within the real...aka ...un/knowable.

Nah.
See my other response

Nah, already debunked it.

[Sculptor]

Nope, knowledge is a story upon was is always this immediate unknowable existence. Knowledge is the conceptual dream of separation where there is none. It's a fiction within the real...aka ...un/knowable.

Nah.
See my other response

Nah, already debunked it.

nope

[Dontaskme]

nope

yep

[RCSaunders]

Not arguing the point. Really curious about what others think about it.

I associate the word “belief,” with the how of knowing, rather than what is known.

For example, when I’m in a windowless room with the door closed, I believe that the world outside the door is as I left it, whatever that was.

In that example, I believe in the high probability of my inference, which has concluded that in the absence of my direct experiencing, what I know of the world outside the closed door continues, as I remember it was.

If what I remember was a flux of commotion outside the door, such as a war, then I no longer infer that the world will be as it was.

I’ve learned that if I examine the world closely when I open the door, closely enough to fix specific colors and patterns in memory, I can find things as big as a house (on a crowded, known street) that I didn’t even know was there before because it escaped notice and doesn’t exist in memory … which is more in line with stepping into a new world, rather than a matter of belief or knowledge.

If I understand you, Walker, I think you are making a similar point to Sculptor's, which is that belief only implies what one, for whatever reason, thinks is true or is probably true, but without certainty, and therefore should not be called knowledge.

Is that right?

[RCSaunders]

No.
Faith and belief are cognates.

They are both the antithesis of knowledge.

Doesn't belief just mean what one holds to be true?

It can be.
But since it is also holding to be true regardless of evidence, reason, ot coherence I prefer to avoid the term as redundant and ambiguous since we have "know".

If what you believe (hold to be true) is based on evidence and reason, and is what is actually so, that is knowledge.

Yes, so why not use the word "know"?

Oh, I agree, it would be better, but you and I are not going to change how others use language. I think the common meaning of belief to only imply what one holds to be true, for whatever reason they hold it, is too engrained to be changed. But I personally agree with your point.

It's like Heinlein said about women and cats: "Women and cats are going to do what they do; men and dogs are just going have to relax and get used to the idea."

[Sculptor]

Doesn't belief just mean what one holds to be true?

It can be.
But since it is also holding to be true regardless of evidence, reason, ot coherence I prefer to avoid the term as redundant and ambiguous since we have "know".

If what you believe (hold to be true) is based on evidence and reason, and is what is actually so, that is knowledge.

Yes, so why not use the word "know"?

Oh, I agree, it would be better, but you and I are not going to change how others use language. I think the common meaning of belief to only imply what one holds to be true, for whatever reason they hold it, is too engrained to be changed. But I personally agree with your point.

True but when they say "I beleive", does not mean I have to take them seriously. In fact they have no right to think that anyone should take them seriously because "believe" is not a serious claim. If they are too scared to say "I know" or too dishonest to say "I think.." then they cannot expect to be taken seriously.
And since "belief" is so often connected with Faith, I am free to dismiss about claims which are beleived.

[RCSaunders]

It can be.
But since it is also holding to be true regardless of evidence, reason, ot coherence I prefer to avoid the term as redundant and ambiguous since we have "know".

Yes, so why not use the word "know"?

Oh, I agree, it would be better, but you and I are not going to change how others use language. I think the common meaning of belief to only imply what one holds to be true, for whatever reason they hold it, is too engrained to be changed. But I personally agree with your point.

True but when they say "I beleive", does not mean I have to take them seriously. In fact they have no right to think that anyone should take them seriously because "believe" is not a serious claim. If they are too scared to say "I know" or too dishonest to say "I think.." then they cannot expect to be taken seriously.
And since "belief" is so often connected with Faith, I am free to dismiss about claims which are believed.

Yes, of course.

[Age]

GOD... is a self-portrait.


Art is natural, nature is art-ificial.

Name a 'thing' that is NOT 'natural'.

'Nature', by name, and by definition, is 'natural', ALSO.

Nope, that assertion is totally wrong.

The natural ART that appears as a physical basic and inherent feature, appearing as character and quality known conceptually as a sunset sky ....IS NOT an attribute of THE human mind...which is the nature of mind.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS. So, I NEVER asserted ANY such thing as this here.

So, it is YOUR ASSERTION, which is, LITERALLY, TOTALLY Wrong HERE.

The nature of mind is artificial...for example...this painting is a copy of an original piece of natural ART... IT'S an artificial representation of the natural........The painting is not a naturally forming image of nature.

If it is NOT a NATURALLY forming image, then how was it formed, EXACTLY?

I will ask AGAIN, for CLARIFICATION: Name a 'thing' that is NOT 'natural'.

..forming '' attributes'' is the nature of the mind...a painting known as ART...IS a mind-made image, in other words, IT'S art-ificial... NOT natural.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, in "dontaskme's" LITTLE 'world of things', then EXIST some NOT natural occurrences.

Now, would you care to ELABORATE on 'this'?

If no, then WHY NOT?