|
Post by Vegas on Feb 28, 2017 4:02:29 GMT
And I bet all of your saws are circular, too.... It's just based on evidence, that's all. I don't know why you keep trying to shove the term faith in there, but it just doesn't apply. REPEATING STUPID SHT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. AT NO POINT, DOES THE PRIMARY DEFINITION OF "FAITH" RELY ON THE ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE. You're creating a requirement in the definition that doesn't really exist. ....Just for the chance to trick your dumb self into thinking that you are smarter than others... and than you are.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 4:09:10 GMT
AT NO POINT, DOES THE PRIMARY DEFINITION OF "FAITH" RELY ON THE ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE. It does when you're talking about the faith you use to believe a god exists.
Like this definition here "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" from Merriam Webster.
Now seriously, it sounds like you just keep responding for the sake of it. You aren't really making any points, just blabbing, and it's really pointless. So I'm going to let you respond with whatever you want to, and I can assure you I won't be back to read it, so have a good time.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Feb 28, 2017 5:17:45 GMT
I think the ability to have reasonable faith is a really important part of human social interactions...think about the faith you have put in a stranger when you undergo surgery, for example, or get into an aeroplane.
Which (as the OP points out) is not to say that faith can't be misplaced, or entirely unreasonable. Just that it isn't always. Often, it is based on reasonable assumptions, like the skill of the surgeon or pilot in question, and their ability to successfully carry out the task at hand.
As far as religion goes, I think the problem is that a lot of the evidence we use to form belief is subjective rather than objective, and such what appears reasonable to one person seems entirely unreasonable to another. It would explain why people of similar cultural beliefs might form similar opinions about the reasonableness of any given religious belief, though.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 28, 2017 12:46:27 GMT
AT NO POINT, DOES THE PRIMARY DEFINITION OF "FAITH" RELY ON THE ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE. It does when you're talking about the faith you use to believe a god exists.
WHICH WE ARE NOT. IT'S ONLY BEEN 7 PAGES AND 2 DAYS OF DUSCUSSING THIS... BUY A CLUE. Okay... Here's Miriram Webster: Even then.. What you quote is the secondary implication of the secondary use. Even it's main definition when applied to God.. DOESN'T REQUIRE AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.... and even the mention of the definition of having a lack of evidence isn't even religion-based.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 0:03:27 GMT
Just to be clear with this... THIS STILL DOESN'T SAY "NO EVIDENCE". There is a difference between "evidence" and "proof". Example: Circumstantial evidence is evidence.. but, it's not proof. You can still use evidence to form a belief that you put faith in without actually having concrete proof. Even your point doesn't really have a point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 0:19:45 GMT
Yeah... Because starting a dialogue about something means that you are bent out of shape about it. An entire thread??!! Lemme spoon feed you. You were bent enough in another conversation to create a new OP about it, are still continuing to argue with others about it, and are overwhelmingly outnumbered in your interpretation. That brings me to this reply- That's probably not that big of deal for me... I'm not a pussy who gets bent out of shape over the mere mention of the word "faith".
You do understand that it's others using the generally understood definition, not yourself, right? You do understand that's what's been going on for EIGHT PAGES, RIGHT? Fuck it. Let's do it this way...
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 0:28:47 GMT
No, dippy... I decided to take a new take on a on old thread... Being "bent out of shape" had nothing to do with it. I was specifically trying to remove all "religion" aspects from the conversation... Didn't work.. You fundies are too bent out of shape about religion. I've posted the actual definition too many times in this thread for this bullsht to fly... Try harder.
Here... One more time:
"Has to be based on no evidence" isn't fcking mentioned.... anywhere.
Yeah.. But.. I'm far too modest to actually say that I've been kicking your asses for these eight pages... but...
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 4:37:37 GMT
Just to be clear with this... THIS STILL DOESN'T SAY "NO EVIDENCE". There is a difference between "evidence" and "proof". Example: Circumstantial evidence is evidence.. but, it's not proof. You can still use evidence to form a belief that you put faith in without actually having concrete proof. Even your point doesn't really have a point.
And yet there still is no evidence of a god.
Unless you have some.
So your point has no point, and honestly, you don't seem to be able to engage in productive conversation. I can't tell if that's on purpose, or because you're just not able to, but talking is more or less pointless, so I won't be doing that any more. Respond as you will.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 4:50:45 GMT
Just to be clear with this... THIS STILL DOESN'T SAY "NO EVIDENCE". There is a difference between "evidence" and "proof". Example: Circumstantial evidence is evidence.. but, it's not proof. You can still use evidence to form a belief that you put faith in without actually having concrete proof. Even your point doesn't really have a point.
And yet there still is no evidence of a god.
Unless you have some.
So your point has no point, and honestly, you don't seem to be able to engage in productive conversation. I can't tell if that's on purpose, or because you're just not able to, but talking is more or less pointless, so I won't be doing that any more. Respond as you will.
You're the only one constantly talking about God.. Concession noted.Thanks for playing. Now enjoy that year supply of Turtle Wax and the home version.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 4:56:48 GMT
And yet there still is no evidence of a god.
Unless you have some.
So your point has no point, and honestly, you don't seem to be able to engage in productive conversation. I can't tell if that's on purpose, or because you're just not able to, but talking is more or less pointless, so I won't be doing that any more. Respond as you will.
You're the only one constantly talking about God.. Concession noted.Thanks for playing. Now enjoy that year supply of Turtle Wax and the home version. Concession of what? You never said anything that mattered. See ya
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 5:01:21 GMT
You're the only one constantly talking about God.. Concession noted.Thanks for playing. Now enjoy that year supply of Turtle Wax and the home version. Concession of what? You never said anything that mattered. See ya YOU - > - "Lalalalalala... I can't hear you... Lalalalalalala" You really put me in my place with your winning skills of reason.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2017 19:18:47 GMT
I think what Froggy and myself are saying is that it doesn't make sense to use "faith" to describe your confidence level in something based purely on evidence and reasoning. This seems to be a pretty obvious distortion of how the term "faith" is typically used in meaning belief or confidence past the point that reasoning/evidence leaves off. Then.. You are kind of poisoning the well of discussion. If you only define faith as being based on the unreasonable/irrational.. It's not poisoning the well. I just don't think you're using "faith" to mean what most people mean when they use the term. With your definition, casinos have "faith" that they'll make money in the long term; as opposed to just relying on the logic of math.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 19:23:20 GMT
It's not poisoning the well. I just don't think you're using "faith" to mean what most people mean when they use the term. With your definition, casinos have "faith" that they'll make money in the long term ; as opposed to just relying on the logic of math. Well... Technically.. They do. They use the logic of the math to come to that conclusion. No business has a guarantee that they will be profitable... They open with faith that the math will pay off... As far as casinos go.. It usually does.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2017 19:35:53 GMT
It's not poisoning the well. I just don't think you're using "faith" to mean what most people mean when they use the term. With your definition, ; as opposed to just relying on the logic of math. Well... Technically.. They do. They use the logic of the math to come to that conclusion. No business has a guarantee that they will be profitable... Like I said, I think you're either using a very non-standard definition of "faith" or else you're misunderstanding the definitions you're using. I read through the thread where you posted one definition, and acting on something with a knowledge of probability with a positive expected value is not the same as certainty that the positive outcome will happen any given time. As an example, consider a coin-flip: we know the odds are 50/50, but if someone bets you $2 to your $1 it will land on heads, you take the bet. You don't take the bet because you have "faith" it will land on tails, you take the bet because you stand to win more than you stand to lose given the odds. Casinos operate the exact same way. In fact, their profit margins are much smaller than the example above (a casino business making a profit involves more than this "probability edge" though; I was just referring to them making money on the games rather than the business as a whole. No casino loses money because they lose at the games they set up).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2017 19:41:12 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? RE the invariant laws of physics: in the abstract, I'd say this is something that can be assumed due to Occam's Razor a priori of any evidence. A variant universe would be innately more complex as you'd have to have multiple sets of laws occurring either at different times (in that they change) or different places. Invariant laws would mean one set would apply everywhere at all times. Now, the thing with Occam's Razor is that it doesn't give you proof of anything, all it does is tell you that the more complex hypothesis requires evidence in order to favor it over the simpler one. Plus, as cham went on to explain, we actually DO have evidence that the laws existed far away a long time ago into the past. So all the evidence we DO have is for invariable laws and none for variant ones.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 19:48:12 GMT
I've only quoted two dictionaries... several times each... but... Here... Again: I'm only going to c & p the main definition of each.. as it has been said that I am being dishonest by posting the entire definition to include the secondary "religious" meaning. NOW... Show me any where in those prime definitions that stipulates a complete lack of reason or evidence for said faith. ANY WHERE THAT DESIGNATES "NO EVIDENCE" AS PART OF THE DEFINITION. ANY WHERE.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 19:56:32 GMT
The main argument is that you can have a reason for putting faith in something.. anything. What that reason is.. could be based on evidence. We might be getting muddled in my shitty examples of that... So forget the casino thing.. and try one I used in another thread:
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2017 20:15:54 GMT
I've only quoted two dictionaries... several times each... but... Here... Again: NOW... Show me any where in those prime definitions that stipulates a complete lack of reason or evidence for said faith. ANY WHERE THAT DESIGNATES "NO EVIDENCE" AS PART OF THE DEFINITION. ANY WHERE. You cut off my post too soon: "I think you're either using a very non-standard definition of "faith" or else you're misunderstanding the definitions you're using." The issue is now what you think "complete trust or confidence" in something means. If the evidence takes your confidence to 99%, then that's not "complete trust or confidence," but if you decide to treat that 99% like it's 100%, then that extra 1% is where the "faith" is. Similarly, in my coin-flip example, if I believe the coin-flip is 50/50, not 100/0, but I choose to bet because I'm getting favorable odds, I do not have anything remotely close to "complete trust or confidence" I will win the bet on a single flip. In reality, we can never be 100% certain of anything. To achieve that we've have to be omniscient, and we aren't. We might can be 99.999999999999% certain, in cases where all the evidence points one direction (the sun rising tomorrow), but that's it. To treat anything as if you're certain requires faith, but typically the issue is about how much faith it requires. Treating a 50/50 proposition as a certainty requires much more "faith" than treating a 99.999999999% proposition with certainty, and it's really dishonest to pretend like there's no difference between these two things. Plus, it's so common as to be cliche that people invoke "faith" as a means of ignoring or countering contradicting evidence. "Oh, I know my husband came home late with messed up hair and lipstick on his color and his pants unzipped, but I have FAITH in him!" I doubt anyone would claim certainty that the bridge would hold them. Whether they choose to cross or not doesn't depend on certainty, though, it depends on whether they think the risk is worth the reward. Same thing with my coin flip example but without any solid math. Seeing 5 people safely cross is evidence that it's safe, but whether it's safe enough that will entirely depend on how much value you put on crossing VS how much of a risk you think crossing is. Still, to repeat the central point: crossing doesn't depend on you being certain the bridge is safe. The only way you're putting "faith" in its safety is if you tell yourself there's no risk involved and the bridge is completely safe.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 20:44:18 GMT
Nope. Not gonna start arguing over the definition of "complete". If your faith is compete enough to act on it... It's complete enough.
No... It depends on how much faith you place in that bridge... round and round we go. That is utter bullsht. There could be the answer to all of my prayers on the other side of that bridge... I ain't crossing if I don't have faith in it to keep me alive long enough to get it. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd....
Just how - pray tell - do you come to that conclusion??? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 20:46:47 GMT
Nailed it.
|
|