|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 21:08:44 GMT
There isn't any faith to it. I express responsibility and concern. Those don't require faith, so perhaps you need to define what you mean when you're using the word faith. It clearly isn't the same definition I use.
Faith is believing something without evidence. And you just said I used evidence, so there's no faith. Where are you confused?
Sht. I was hoping that I could edit my post before you could respond... either case.. there's the original and the point is really the same. Of course there's faith involved. I have faith that you love your mom. Yeah.. and that evidence is questionable... I have to have faith that it's not. You use a definition that is crazily circular and mind-numbingly self-serving. Simply put: Faith is having a belief that you strongly believe.. most of the time: enough to act on it. Nope, there's no faith. You have evidence that I express actions associated with love to my mom. Notice I don't act that way to your mom. No faith required. The ability to prove something beyond question doesn't matter.
My definition of faith is not circular. It's quite straight forward. If you believe in something like a god, for which there is no evidence, and no method of verification, then you are believing it without evidence. Which is to say on faith.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
 
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 21:08:56 GMT
Yes, because we have an understanding of the laws of physics, and just saying they don't work the same elsewhere is something you have to demonstrate. Inductive reasoning is when the conclusion is broader than the premises. If you find a couple of metal needles in a haystack, then you may reasonably say that all needles in the haystack are made of metal. And it is unreasonable to ask for someone to shift through every piece of hay to negate this assumption. It is not how science or logic works.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 21:10:31 GMT
Yes, because we have an understanding of the laws of physics, and just saying they don't work the same elsewhere is something you have to demonstrate. Inductive reasoning is when the conclusion is broader than the premises. If you find a couple of metal needles in a haystack, then you may reasonably say that all needles in the haystack are made of metal. And it is unreasonable to ask for someone to shift through every piece of hay to negate this assumption. It is not how science or logic works.
Of course it's not.
And yet religion is like claiming there is an invisible intangible golden harp in the stack, and still not bothering to look.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 21:12:20 GMT
What is this disagreement you have with the understood, general meaning of words? Why does the actual meaning of the word 'faith' trouble you so? You'd be taking just as silly a position if you created a thread titled "LYING... WITH HONESTY"
What single word would you use to describe belief in something with no evidence and no means of verification?
That would still be faith.. just of a different kind. I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL FAITH HAS REASON.
I'M NOT ARGUING THAT BLIND FAITH DOESN'T EXIST.Do you not see how fcking stupid that is?  |
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 21:18:41 GMT
Inductive reasoning is when the conclusion is broader than the premises. If you find a couple of metal needles in a haystack, then you may reasonably say that all needles in the haystack are made of metal. And it is unreasonable to ask for someone to shift through every piece of hay to negate this assumption. It is not how science or logic works.
Of course it's not.
And yet religion is like claiming there is an invisible intangible golden harp in the stack, and still not bothering to look.
What's not? My definition of induction, my analogy, or that science and logic do work this way? And please elaborate. And why the fuck do you keep bringing up religion when I've already told you that I'm an atheist! |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 21:20:30 GMT
Nope, there's no faith. You have evidence that I express actions associated with love to my mom. NNotice I don't act that way to your mom. No faith requiredotice I don't act that way to your mom. No faith required. The ability to prove something beyond question doesn't matter.
My definition of faith is not circular. It's quite straight forward. If you believe in something like a god, for which there is no evidence, and no method of verification, then you are believing it without evidence. Which is to say on faith.
Of course there is... (You just saying stupid sht doesn't make it so).. Either I believe you or I don't... If I believe you. I am putting faith in the fact that you really love your mom. Based on the evidence that you provided.
 Yeah... Nobody suggested that you loved my mom. You know.... The move Derailed wasn't this derailed.
So... What do you call belief in something based on evidence.... but that still might not be true? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 21:23:12 GMT
Of course it's not.
And yet religion is like claiming there is an invisible intangible golden harp in the stack, and still not bothering to look.
What's not? My definition of induction, my analogy, or that science and logic do work this way? And please elaborate. And why the fuck do you keep bringing up religion when I've already told you that I'm an atheist! It's not as in, it's not how science and logic works. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 21:24:21 GMT
Nope, there's no faith. You have evidence that I express actions associated with love to my mom. NNotice I don't act that way to your mom. No faith requiredotice I don't act that way to your mom. No faith required. The ability to prove something beyond question doesn't matter.
My definition of faith is not circular. It's quite straight forward. If you believe in something like a god, for which there is no evidence, and no method of verification, then you are believing it without evidence. Which is to say on faith.
Of course there is... (You just saying stupid sht doesn't make it so).. Either I believe you or I don't... If I believe you. I am putting faith in the fact that you really love your mom.
Yeah... Nobody suggested that you loved my mom. You know.... The move Derailed wasn't this derailed.
So... What do you call belief in something based on evidence.... but that still might not be true? Seriously no, there's no faith. It's all evidence based, even if that evidence isn't sufficient to be called proof. You're already admitted this, so I don't know what you're even discussing at this point. |
|
Froggy
New Member
@froggy
Posts: 32
Likes: 10
|
Post by Froggy on Feb 26, 2017 21:33:33 GMT
At this point it's all just devolved into an argument over definitions. A lot of clearly take faith to mean "belief that goes beyond the evidence," while vegasdevil is using some sort of broader definition that encompasses (apparently) any sort of belief in the probability of something for which there is some (any) uncertainty. The former is more akin to the dictionary definition (IMO).
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 26, 2017 21:33:51 GMT
It's not as in, it's not how science and logic works. I agree. So do you agree that what you stated: 'Yes, because we have an understanding of the laws of physics, and just saying they don't work the same elsewhere is something you have to demonstrate' was unreasonable and not how science and logic works? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 21:38:46 GMT
At this point it's all just devolved into an argument over definitions. A lot of clearly take faith to mean "belief that goes beyond the evidence," while vegasdevil is using some sort of broader definition that encompasses (apparently) any sort of belief in the probability of something for which there is some (any) uncertainty. The former is more akin to the dictionary definition (IMO). NO. Mine is the primary definition:  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 21:41:41 GMT
Seriously no, there's no faith. It's all evidence based, even if that evidence isn't sufficient to be called proof. You're already admitted this, so I don't know what you're even discussing at this point. I'll ask again... What do you call belief in something based on evidence.... but that still might not be true? |
|
Froggy
New Member
@froggy
Posts: 32
Likes: 10
|
Post by Froggy on Feb 26, 2017 21:49:35 GMT
Mine is the primary definition: In your scenario 1 I don't have complete trust or confidence that the trapeze artist will not get hurt -- I recognize that the performer may be incompetent or may make a mistake, though of course I think that the probability of either of those is small. Therefore by the above definition I am not demonstrating faith. In your scenario 2 I think that Johnnie is capable of doing the juggling, but I do not have complete trust or confidence that he will succeed. Again I am not demonstrating faith by this definition. If you think that your scenarios are demonstrations of faith then you must have another definition of "faith" in mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 22:21:00 GMT
Do you not see how fcking stupid that is? You know I didn't say that, right? You're 'other kind' of faith isn't faith. By your 'definition' everyone has faith in something, or uses faith somewhere. I don't. You're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 22:58:38 GMT
Mine is the primary definition: In your scenario 1 I don't have complete trust or confidence that the trapeze artist will not get hurt -- I recognize that the performer may be incompetent or may make a mistake, though of course I think that the probability of either of those is small. Therefore by the above definition I am not demonstrating faith. In your scenario 2 I think that Johnnie is capable of doing the juggling, but I do not have complete trust or confidence that he will succeed. Again I am not demonstrating faith by this definition. If you think that your scenarios are demonstrations of faith then you must have another definition of "faith" in mind. Now you just want to argue over the definition of, and/or the degree to which something is, "complete". You have enough to count on to think that your not bringing your kids to be traumatized for the rest of their lives... Whether or not you call that "complete" I don't give a fck about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 23:01:31 GMT
Do you not see how fcking stupid that is? You know I didn't say that, right? You're 'other kind' of faith isn't faith. By your 'definition' everyone has faith in something, or uses faith somewhere.
I don't. You're wrong.EVER??!!  You're out of your effin' mind. Or should I say that you're "Lying... With Honesty"?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:05:08 GMT
You know I didn't say that, right? You're 'other kind' of faith isn't faith. By your 'definition' everyone has faith in something, or uses faith somewhere.
I don't. You're wrong.EVER??!! You're out of your effin' mind. Or should I say that you're "Lying... With Honesty"? You're welcome to name ONE thing I have faith in. Knock yourself out. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 26, 2017 23:06:40 GMT
There's a lot of evidence for that. I'll mention just one: we can observe the spectra of distant astronomical objects (which also happen to be distant in time) and notice that the familiar traces of chemical elements that are observed on earth are also there in the light from the distant objects. The emission line patterns in the spectra are very dependent on the chemistry and physics of atoms, so we can conclude that the distant atoms behave the same as the local ones. Thanks for that, I learnt something new. Does this method or any say anything about whether this has always been the case? You're welcome. By good fortune in this case it does (if by "always", you mean within the confines of the observable universe, which has been measured for size and age). When I mentioned "distant in time", I was referring to our ability to look not only a long ways away but way back in time. That's because the speed of light is finite, so distant objects are also seen as they were long ago. If we look at an object 10 billion light years away, we are also looking at how that object was 10 billion years ago. As we look at galaxies near the edge of the observable universe, we are also looking at objects as they were shortly after the big bang. When we look at the spectrum of the light from these distant objects, we can see the familiar hydrogen emission lines exactly the same as in a lab on earth, so we can deduce that hydrogen behaved the same at the beginning of our universe as it does now. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 23:08:33 GMT
EVER??!! You're out of your effin' mind. Or should I say that you're "Lying... With Honesty"? You're welcome to name ONE thing I have faith in. Knock yourself out. Dude... I don't know you. But.. If you expect me to believe that you've never put faith in anything ever... I do know that you are out of your fcking mind. |
|
Froggy
New Member
@froggy
Posts: 32
Likes: 10
|
Post by Froggy on Feb 26, 2017 23:10:32 GMT
Now you just want to argue over the definition of, and/or the degree to which something is, "complete". ... Whether or not you call that "complete" I don't give a fck about.
"Complete" was your word, Sport. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have cut it and pasted it. You said earlier that my betting on something that had only a 5/6 chance of occurring, while recognizing that I had a 1/6 chance of losing, was also somehow an act of faith. |
|
- "ANY ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN ANYTHING ONLY DOES SO OUT OF STUPITY!! IT CAN'T BE BASED ON ANTHING!! IT HAS TO BE THAT WAY!! IT HAS TO IT HAS TO IT HAS TO!!!!"
