|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 21:09:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2017 21:39:58 GMT
tpfkar Nor all caps, oh most wise and articulate one. Nor massive fonts, excessive bold, abounding line feeds, inarticulate cursing + epithet-slinging, or any other of your shrill tantruming, for that matter. ze fax
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 1, 2017 21:43:49 GMT
Cupcakes is rabbit.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 21:48:54 GMT
Cupcakes is rabbit. Way ahead of you... Already got the fat fcking retard on IGNORE. Bless his retarded over-worked heart.... He tries sooooooooooo hard.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 1, 2017 21:49:52 GMT
tpfkar Nor all caps, oh most wise and articulate one. Nor massive fonts, excessive bold, abounding line feeds, inarticulate cursing + epithet-slinging, or any other of your shrill tantruming, for that matter. ze faxYou're looking nice and fit Rabbit. That's quite a gut you got there.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2017 22:16:10 GMT
tpfkar I knew you'd love the common look, whisper kitten.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 1, 2017 22:19:40 GMT
tpfkar I knew you'd love the common look, whisper kitten.
That's years of continuing to eat after you're full to build a gut like that rabbit. Very impressive.
I bet sleeping is even uncomfortable for you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2017 22:26:53 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 Dude, you can't claim you're using a normal dictionary-approved definition of faith, and then in response to people saying your dictionary-approved definition does not fit the examples given turn around and claim you're not going to argue about what the definition claims while arbitrarily introducing your own criteria ("acting on something = faith") not found in the dictionary definition you posted. Besides, what I said about the bridge and the coin-flip pretty much destroys the notion that it requires faith to act on something. Here's an even better example. If someone bets me $10 to my $1 that a roll of a die will land on 6, I also take the bet, even though I'm 83.3% certain I will lose the bet. If anything, my "faith" would be closer to "I'll lose the bet," that "I'll win the bet," but I take the bet because, again, I have positive expected value (+EV in gambling parlance). There's even a means of calculating exactly what the EV is: 83% * -$1 = -$.83 + 17% * $10 = $1.70. $1.70 + -$.83 = $0.87. So I expect to make $.87 over the long run, even though I'm more likely to lose $1 on any given roll. Now, where exactly is my "faith" in making this bet even though I acknowledge I'm most likely to lose the bet? Faith requires certainty as per your own definition. Don't post a definition and then act like that key word wasn't part and parcel of it. Well that's you. You can't be certain you won't die in a horrible car accident every time you get in your car and drive somewhere, yet people do it everyday because they decide it's worth the risk. Do you really convince yourself that such an accident isn't a possibility? You come to this conclusion by having faith. But I already said that having faith the bridge won't collapse is just ignoring the evidence and reality. You can still choose to cross the bridge without ignoring the possibility of it collapsing, the same way you drive to the market without ignoring the possibility of getting into a wreck.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2017 22:27:33 GMT
tpfkar Kitten, sometimes I'm still fascinated by the level of stupid you're able to muster.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2017 22:30:02 GMT
tpfkar It won't help you any when you howl and moan and sling that karaoke gut around. You and kitten make quite the team. ze fax
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 22:30:15 GMT
tpfkar Kitten, sometimes I'm still fascinated by the level of stupid you're able to muster. Kyle Gass would approve of this post.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 22:51:36 GMT
No it doesn't. "Certainty" is a word that you are inserting into this conversation. I'm not denying the use of the word "complete"... I'm just not getting into what nth degree of confidence one must have for it to be "complete"... If it's enough to apply it in the real world... that's complete enough for me. When you do the "free fall backwards" at a team-building exercise... Do you have a doubt that your team might not catch you? Of course... Is it a "certainty" that they will catch you?.. No. But, you have a faith in them.... complete enough to actually fall back. No... I do not have faith that I am somehow accident proof.... There's no evidence for it.
Not really. What lies beyond the bridge plays little into how trustworthy you deem the bridge... How much you are willing to risk IN SPITE of your faith in the bridge is what you are talking about. Off hand.. I'd say that you don't really have any... Or you just relying on blind dumb luck.... You do know that I'm not saying blind faith based on nothing doesn't exist, right? That kind of faith exists, too.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 0:06:38 GMT
No it doesn't. "Certainty" is a word that you are inserting into this conversation. Your definition said: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." "Complete trust or confidence" is "certainty." What in the world else would it be? Look, all these different examples aren't getting us anywhere. The simple point is that people can and do act all the time on all kinds of things without "complete trust or confidence" in whatever they're doing. All you're doing is posting examples of people having enough trust or enough confidence to do what they're doing because the risk is worth the reward. This is only faith if you convince yourself there is no risk. But there shouldn't even be the need for debate. Complete is pretty damn unambiguous, and I can't imagine what you think "complete trust" could mean other than "certainty." Further, I don't understand why you don't understand people can act on all kinds of things they have very little trust in. All of my betting examples demonstrate this pretty conclusively. In neither the dice nor coin-flip situation are you confident at all you'll win; you simply conclude that the risk is worth the reward and do it. Exactly, and yet you choose to drive your car knowing an accident is possible. That's what I mean by the ability to act on such things without faith and while recognizing the risk involved. All your examples are cases of where there's risk that an individual decides is worth taking for whatever reasons; not situations where they have "faith" the risk isn't there. I wasn't thinking of it in terms of what, specifically, lies beyond the bridge... I just assumed that in coming to the bridge you had some reason you wanted to cross it to begin with. You mentioned other people, so maybe you're mountain climbing with friends and want to continue to journey with them. In that case, the "reward" of continuing on with your friends maybe worth whatever risk you think there is in plummeting to your death. Not really sure what you mean with the "how much you are willing to risk..." part. But it's not "blind dumb luck" to rely on math. My point with the dice example was in showing how you can act on something where you're likely to lose because the risk is worth the reward. I even showed how this was so mathematically. This mentality comes from my years of playing poker professionally, which is a game of nothing but risk/reward. My decisions aren't based on my "faith" that I know my hand is good or no good, or my "faith" that my opponent has X or Y; it's based on my understanding of the underlying math and this risk/reward paradigm. In fact, I make money from people who only act on "faith" and think they can accurately guess when they're best or when their opponents are bluffing. I think this can apply to just about anything in life. Not all decisions come down to how confident you are in a positive outcome, since the risk/reward tends to determine how uncertain the outcome can be until you're no longer willing to do it. To go back to the dice, you can't just ask me to bet on it coming a 6; I have to know how much I'm risking and how much I stand to win. If I stand to win more than 5:1, then it's worth it. Obviously in life we rarely have these precise, mathematical numbers, but we do still intuitively try to gauge how much we're risking against whatever possible reward there is, compare that to how certain we are of any outcome, and act accordingly. You can do this without "faith," without having any high (much less "complete") confidence that something will turn out how we hope.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 2, 2017 1:27:44 GMT
Well.. And fine-tuned skill. It takes years of practice.. and an ability to bluff and read other people.
And at no point is real faith applied.. You are just weighing a risk. It's not an act of faith to understand that you probably are going to lose... You're just hopeful that you don't.. because it has a huge pay off. Hell.. Say that there is a bullet in the head for anyone who loses... and that "faith" of yours goes away quick. There's a difference between that and... let's say... the buying of stock that your friend has some information on that will pay off... Sure, you might lose money.. But, you are putting faith in your friend's word... If he has already proven to be trustworthy and reliable. Yeah.. But at no point do I claim that I have faith that I'll never get into an accident.. nor do I even think that's actually true. Once again... "Hoping for the best" really isn't faith of any kind... Even blind faith. Well.. I do think that it doesn't necessarily necessitate that certain concept of "certainty".... I'm not sure that "YOU MUST BE 10000% CERTAIN" is the desired emphasis of the definition. Having faith in something doesn't automatically mean that you can't have doubts or question your faith. I'm not sure that that's what they meant to imply.
Once again.. I jump out of a burning window because the firefighters tell me not to worry.. They'll catch me... I have faith that they will.. I'll also have some doubts.. but my faith in them was "complete enough" to actually jump.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 3:25:12 GMT
Well.. And fine-tuned skill. It takes years of practice.. and an ability to bluff and read other people. The "fine-tuned skill" is nothing but "getting better at approximating probabilities and keeping track of tendencies." Bluffing involves the same probabilities, and "reading" is basically useless online, and less useful offline than most think. It's not like Hollywood where the key to winning is noticing people's tells. The real game is much subtler and more technical; but it's tough to make drama out of people doing advanced mental algebra and probability calculations. Correct, and that was my entire point. You said that faith is about acting on something you have "complete trust and confidence in." My dice example was a way of showing that you can act based on an analysis of the risk/reward, and you can do that in a way where faith isn't involved at all. I think most of the examples you've offered in this thread are the same. In each case, the person just decides the risk is worth the reward; they don't necessarily have complete trust and confidence that something bad won't happen (the trapeze artist won't fall, the guy won't juggle the chainsaws, the bridge won't break, etc.). Even though in your examples the person has more confidence than in my example with the die roll the general point still stands. Right, so, again, you can act on things where an outcome isn't certain without having faith. You driving a car while acknowledging the risk is the same as a person crossing a rickety bridge while acknowledging the risk, or taking your kid to see a trapeze artist while acknowledging the risk, etc. So how would you describe the difference between you driving a car knowing that an accident is possible and you having faith that in driving the car? It seems to me that if you're having doubts then you don't have "complete trust and confidence," since the entire idea of "complete trust" would seem to be "trust without doubts," or else what does the "complete" refer to? If you have doubts, but also faith, this would seem to be more inline with my definitions of faith essentially being belief beyond where the evidence leads.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 2, 2017 3:54:47 GMT
First off.. Get out of the house more often... Second.. Yeah. You learn to read people's past serious bets and bluffs, even on-line... There's more to measuring up your opponent than just reading their faces and "tells" Third... Yeah.. all of that math and probability sht. But.. Everything that you act in doesn't require as act of faith... Yeah.. And you can act on having faith in something... Do these two concepts really negate the existence of the other? Yeah.. And you can act on having faith in something... Do these two concepts really negate the existence of the other?
Having it to the point that you act on it.
Do we really have to go over this again?
Okay.. I'm about done. I'll break it down.. Any problem with this?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 4:05:36 GMT
First off.. Get out of the house more often... Second.. Yeah. You learn to read people's past serious bets and bluffs, even on-line... There's more to measuring up your opponent than just reading their faces and "tells" Third... Yeah.. all of that math and probability sht. LOL, I do play live. In fact, I vastly prefer it to online, but it's tougher to make a living live because of the slow pace of the game and the fact you have to play much higher levels for a comparable income rate. I make about as much playing $1/$2 online as I do playing $10-$20 live, eg. I wasn't including tracking players' tendencies (past bets/bluffs) in the "reading them" category. To me, that's a very different thing than reading body language and stuff. We agree on this point. So how do you know that someone acting on something is a result of them having faith or them analyzing the risk/reward? No, both things can happen, we agree. My general point is simply that knowing someone acted isn't evidence that they acted on faith VS on analyzing the risk/reward. So the question then becomes: how do you tell the difference, and what IS the difference in the mind of someone acting on one VS the other? Well, I'm not sure sure if "mindlessly without thought" is necessarily opposed to "weighing risk and loss." I think the latter can happen unconsciously. As for the "act in faith based on evidence and reason," my general issue is what role you think the "faith" plays beyond the evidence and reason.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 2, 2017 12:55:49 GMT
Okay.. So far I think we're cool with just about everything.. Let's see if we can work through this last little bit: I think the general disconnect comes from the tendency that my fellow atheists have a tinted view of religion. To them, "faith" is a religious word, and therefore... it must be stupid. "It can't be reasonable, the religious are uneasonable." But.. There is far more non-religious things one can put faith in. And there are reasons for that faith. Hell.. The one dictionary definition uses this sentence as its example: "This restored his faith in the politician"Well.... What did? Obviously, it is a reference to something seen.. a bit of evidence.. that he could now base his faith on. His faith had evidence. THE END. And they all lived happily ever after.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 2, 2017 13:19:52 GMT
tpfkar I think the connect comes from you scrambling to overwork a word to try to make the unreasonable sound more reasonable. The same vocab abuse as Ada, Arlon, Blade & Co. You're in the Co. ze fax
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 13:25:21 GMT
This is an extension of a discussion that I was having with Archie... over the existence of faith based on reason and that all faith isn't just blind faith based on nothing. I'm not arguing that God is real or that dumb blind faith doesn't exist... Just that you can have faith in something that isn't a known fact based on reason and experience.. not just because you have a stupid desire to do so. How this can be applied to religion?.. That's up to the individual to decide.. I don't really care about that. Nothing against faith, but I wouldn't say that you're describing faith. Faith as an epistemic basis is different than empirical evidence and logic (the latter being the same as reason). This doesn't make faith desire-oriented. But it's not faith if it's empirical or logic-based. Those are different epistemic modes than faith.
|
|