I have a feeling that I'm somewhere in between the two of you in terms of talent or knowledge at or of the game of chess. I'll watch, though. You two are having fun. my only advice to you is to attack always, and learn from that. Always be looking to attack. If your opponent seems to have one up on you in terms of protected pieces, sometimes it's better to just attack prior to them and sacrifice as few as possible to stop what could otherwise be a catastrophic ending. You're probably outmatched by . He knows common openings which shows - probably - his level of knowledge is well beyond a beginner, but he seems to be a good teacher.

Enjoi.

Perhaps faith is a self-imposed inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken. A consciously chosen refusal to believe or even consider anything to the contrary.

The universal calibrates your vision. It helps you see patterns. — frank

"Belief systems" seems a better description than "the universal"... "Helps" is far too neutral or positive.

The strength of the US is that the US means so many different things to different people.
— ssu
The perfect Humpty Dumpty land, then! — baker

:point:

Yup. It has shown itself to be exactly that.

Anyone who expected differently has not been paying attention. — StreetlightX

:point:

Yeah, I'd figured out that that's probably where he first moved.

:point:

Those who believe they've been persecuted, perhaps, will believe that there will come a day of reckoning, when the persecution stops?

In today's modern age, the persecuted may take the 'form' of poor people(Americans) who know that something is inherently deeply wrong with the government in that it's supposed to be making decisions based upon their best interest, but it's clearly not been successful in doing so. Combine that with a deep-seated warranted belief that politicians(most anyway) are dishonest about what's actually motivating their own decision making(public policy), and you have fertile soil to sew the seeds...

Trump was/is looked at as a savior... because of those poor people's faith.

I don't see it.

What role is faith playing here? — frank

This is a good question.

Her parents have reasoned away why Q's predictions didn't come true. — frank

That's the role faith plays. The reasoning away...

Why is their faith so strong? — frank

That's a psychological question. I would say that there's much more to learn by seeking to answer how it became so unshakable.

"For years, believers of QAnon have been waiting for "The Storm," a day of reckoning foretold by Q during which these elites would be exposed, rounded up and possibly even executed. It seemed "The Storm" was always just around the corner.
Lily's father frantically called her days before the inauguration, imploring her to come home for her safety, she said. Her parents were so sure Q's predictions were going to come true.
But then Biden became president and nothing happened.
Lily hoped that her family would finally return to her after Biden's inauguration.
Her parents have reasoned away why Q's predictions didn't come true. "They blame themselves for not understanding what Q meant," she said. "For not being smart enough to be able to know what really is going to happen."
Now Lily, like others who have lost loved ones to QAnon, is left wondering how to move forward." — frank

Yes. Exactly!

They're scholars — frank

Use them then. By all means...

Quote these scholars on faith in the sense we're discussing here. The term is also used as a synonym to a belief system(denominations). That sense isn't under examination. I do think that Janus has been equivocating the senses though. No fault, just pointing out a potential point of confusion, and/or miscommunication.

Let's just say that I'm uniquely qualified to assess faith. I've seen it up close and personal. I've lived in it's immediate presence. I've watched it used as a means to condone completely unacceptable things like the behaviour/treatment of others. I've watched it used as a means to condemn helpful, well-intended, inclusive, respectful, but different people and world-views. Indeed, to this day, faith rears it's ugly head in many a conversation I have with certain family members, to their own detriment because having it has caused them to be far more confused, and angry at all the wrong people and things than need be.

Indeed, the very point of the paper is to drawn and maintain a distinction between faith and religious belief.
— creativesoul

There are a number of fantastic scholars of religion to rely on. — frank

Like the wise men?

It presupposes the existence of Zeus. It shows the role of authority throughout history as it pertains to religious belief. It shows that religious belief is not in it's own category. It shows that most - near all - religious belief is learned and it leads us to...

...consider the source.
— creativesoul

I don't know what you're trying to say. — frank

Religious belief is no different to any other about what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen.

Faith is unshakable conviction
— creativesoul

I don't know why you think that. Faith is frequently shaken, lost, regained, etc. It can be strong or weak. — frank

You think that this somehow contradicts what counts as faith? What's lost, shaken, or regained?

When it is lost or shaken, is it unshakable?

No.

If one has unshakable conviction, then they have faith. If they do not, they do not have faith.

Hence... as a matter of the highest merit, one will refuse all evidence to the contrary, as a means to show and/or demonstrate their faith.

It presupposes the existence of Zeus. It shows the role of authority throughout history as it pertains to religious belief. It shows that religious belief is not in it's own category. It shows that most - near all - religious belief is learned and it leads us to...

...consider the source.

You're putting a microscope on a quirky aspect of Christianity. — frank

I'm not saying that all religious belief is held with unshakable conviction. Indeed, one point of the paper is to draw and maintain a distinction between faith and religious belief. How else to do that if not putting a microscope upon faith?

Eh, for the majority of religious people in human history, faith wasn't much of an issue. You believed Zeus lives on a mountain because that's what the wise people said. — frank

Think about that.

Noah's ark...

The parting of the Red Sea...

The second coming of Christ...

Jonah and the whale...

Job - now there's a story about faith!

Again, I think this is a misunderstanding of faith as interpreted within certain (most) Christian traditions. The idea that faith is an unshakeable authority... — Possibility

That's not what I said. Faith is unshakable conviction that some claim or another(many usually) is true. True believers have it. All of them. That goes for fundamentalist(literalists) and others alike.

Authority does play a role in this, for unshakable trust in the truthfulness of God's Word is taught to be aspired towards, honored, exalted, and revered... in spite of any and all 'worldly' claims to the contrary.

That dissolves the earlier notion of intersubjective/subjective...

All religious belief is adopted. Edited to add:Well, strictly speaking that is clearly not true. I mean, someone somewhere had to come up with it first. But, aside from that, the point stands. Even moreso, the first beliefs served to fill in the gaps in the people's knowledge base about the way things are, were, and/or will be.

So, after knowledge to the contrary was acquired concerning those beliefs, to maintain the previous religious explanations for what's happened, was happening at the time, or will happen later(than that time) was a matter of(was to demonstrate one's own) faith.

...if we’re honest and conscious of how others relate, that this relation at least possibly exists prior to (or beyond) its meaning so attributed. ‘Truth’ is an example of this, and so is ‘existence’. Both of these relations exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful... — Possibility

Why the scare-quotes around the terms truth and existence? The words are part of a relation, so if that's what you're saying by calling them both relations, I would concur. However, as parts of language use, they are meaningful, so it doesn't make sense to say that both exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful.

I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic. — creativesoul

I disagree... completely.

It seems that perhaps your framework will not allow us to say something about that which exists in it's entirety prior to meaning, without ending in self-contradiction, but that inevitable result is - I strongly suspect - due to the inherent flaws within that framework.

The age of the earth for starters???

Speech that can be shown to incite insurrection is not protected.

There can be no evidence to the contrary for any Christian beliefs?

Are you saying that?

Without his speech there would have been no insurrection attempt. The case is easy to make. McConnell made it. Trump will stand trial. One man created it. One man.

Not all speech is protected.

There's nothing unconstitutional about charging a former president.

Not sure of the numbers. I've watched on PBS, and that's the story they've been telling(the one I repeated).

Bullshit. Trump will be charged.

The pattern of behaviour before during and after is the evidence. It's more than adequate.

55-45 no witnesses. Presumably everyone knew that the 2/3 majority conviction was out of reach, and the GOP threatened to hold up any and all proceeding aside from the impeachment until after... So... vote on record and get it over with.

Expect criminal charges...

McConnell made the case. He needs tried in the justice system. Impeachment and conviction results only in removal from office. McConnell said that result would have allowed Trump to get away with what he is clearly responsible for, provoking - inciting - the insurrection. He is no longer president after-all.

The case needs to be made in regards to what Trump did during the insurrection. That looks like what's going to happen with witnesses. If Trump meant any of the peaceful things he said, if Trump did not want exactly what happened, he would have been just as horrified as nearly everyone else and would have done whatever was in his power to do to STOP it.

Did he?

Existing and existing meaningfully...

Do you draw and maintain that distinction?
— creativesoul

Yes - but in terms of relational possibility, not just logical possibility. — Possibility

Not in terms of what it takes in order for something to become meaningful(existing meaningfully)?

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic.

But if we can say something... — Possibility

More self-contradiction.

A bit more on the faith aspect...

It is too much to say that faith requires no justification: many religious people offer arguments not just for belief in God but for their particular creed. What is true is that the kinds of arguments they offer cannot be claimed to have anything like the degree of warrant that would justify the irrevocable commitment of faith. It is true that faith brooks no argument, not in the sense that the faithful are unwilling to offer responses to criticisms, but that no argument will make a true believer give up his faith, and this is something he is resolved on in advance of hearing any argument.

Faith is unshakable belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The saying goes "walk by faith not by sight". The key point above is the last statement. One with faith has already made up their own mind that nothing will change what they already believe, and they've done so - many times - quite deliberately, consciously, and knowingly. To do so in Christianity is held up as one of the most admirable qualities, if not perhaps the most admirable that a believer can have.

No acceptable enforcement of authority in tradition, text or community alone, no. — Possibility

To be clear...

Are you suggesting that there ought be no rules governing human behaviour? That there ought be no such thing as an enforceable clearly written code of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour?

:worry:

From the article Banno linked...

To explain the origin of life, Dawkins invokes a planetary version of the anthropic principle. He states it thus. We exist here on Earth. Therefore, the earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet is. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions of life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.” (GD, 135) On the face of it, the planetary conditions for our support are immensely improbable and call for explanation. No, says this anthropic principle, far from being improbable they are necessary; and necessary truths call for no explanation.

In order to know the odds that some particular event is going to happen one must know each and every actual outcome and all the individual particular influencing factors regarding each. The actual information is not within our grasp; those actual numbers are completely unknown. That said, we could probably be close though, in our predictions, regardless of our lack of omniscience... depending upon whether we're predicting the likelihood of past, current or future events, and perhaps most importantly... also depending upon the particular details of the prediction itself.

So, when we take the total number of planets that either currently are, or have ever once been capable of sustaining life as we know it, and we divide it by the total number of planets in the universe, we will soon arrive at some mind boggling, seemingly damning numbers.

If we then think about those numbers as if they somehow provide adequate reason to believe it near impossible that we should even be here, we've altogether forgotten that...

The odds are one hundred percent that we are, and Hume's guillotine has perhaps never been more appropriate.