Does faith or belief need evidence to exist?

I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

"But Rugadd, doesn't that mean I could be a mass murderer?"

Yes, it does. We have mass murderers We know they exist. You could be one.

Maybe Faith is the one thing preventing you from diving into that.

That aside, claiming anything happens that shouldn't is foolishness, or arrogance at worst.

Uzima Moto wrote: How do you act correctly in the world without knowing the nature of it? That seems counterintuitive..

Take Buddhism as an example.

You start with the observation that there is suffering. You continue with the assertion that suffering is caused by attachment to impermanent things. Thus, to be free of suffering, you have to become unattached to impermanent things. The Eightfold path is the “how to”.

Buddhism does not need to go into details of who created the world, when or why, what happens after death, if there are or aren’t gods, etc. to be able to make the observation it did.

Similarly, if a Jedi were to make the observation: life is interconnected in a complex but ineludible way (dubbed the Force) and follow up with the assertion that what happens to life in one place/time/locus has a direct or indirect effect on the whole, then it can conclude “let’s value each manifestation of the Force as sacred”. The values that spring forth then would support that: knowledge, to understand this connection better; peace, to ensure thriving of many by cooperation; harmony, to seek a balance between organisms and environments; the acknowledgment of cyclical life processes as part of how the system “works”... etc.

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

Manu wrote:

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

Manu wrote:

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

So in that case I'm wondering if you consider incorrect action just a matter of a personal guilt feeling?

VixensVengeance wrote:

Manu wrote:

“Kyrin” wrote: So then what is incorrect action? Is protesting the act of killing someone in a war incorrect action?

No. “Correct or incorrect” is individually defined, that’s what I meant.

So in that case I'm wondering if you consider incorrect action just a matter of a personal guilt feeling?

No. I consider incorrect action a matter of measuring actual results vs. intended results.

I think your going to have to be more specific. What it sounds like you are saying is something like if I go to paint a painting and I intend it to look like a masterpiece but it comes out actually looking like a finger paint that is incorrect action.

IMHO, faith = hope + belief

When we want something to be true or to happen... we "hope". When we give ourselves reasons to think that it is true or that it will happen... we "believe". When we combine these things it becomes faith and it often blinds us to reality because it creates a bias around what we want to be true. Faith doesn't mean it is or isn't true. It is worthless in making something true or false. It merely describes our emotional connection to that idea and how much we are willing to work or fight for it. Based on our effort, the thing we have faith in has a chance of becoming real, becoming true, not by it coming into existence of its own accord, but by our hands, even combined hands of all the "faithful" building or making that thing a reality. Human beings seem to work best when guided by faith. However, this working together is kind of like building the tower of Babel. There is simply no necessity of right or wrong when it comes to the ability of humans to work effectively together. Faith is more so assumed to be a good quality even though the faith of Christians, Muslims, and Jews can all threaten each other's existence.

...or so they "hope".

Manu wrote:

rugadd wrote: I don't think we can act incorrectly, personally.

An action is correct or incorrect based on how it matches up with the original intent of the individual (or the society at large, in a bigger scale). Which is why killing someone at war is not considered “incorrect action”.

but the morality of society isn't static. As the need for wars wanes we begin seeing war as an evil. Therefore killing people in war is also an evil, but considered a necessary evil when war cannot be avoided. If a war is unjust then killing is also unjust and "incorrect". However, the soldier doesn't have much choice.