|
Post by Vegas on Mar 7, 2017 21:14:01 GMT
And all I've said is that some sorts of faith can be evidence-based... The fact that some aren't doesn't make that point moot. It does if some sorts of faith - such as a belief in something about which nothing can be known - are not susceptible to objective evidence in the first place. No... It doesn't. Even pulling that clause out of your ass doesn't change the fact that some faith can be based on evidence... Something that you already agreed to... I don't know why you're still arguing. You already conceded.
EDIT:
^YOU.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 8, 2017 4:58:59 GMT
'Faithful' and 'unfaithful', in the context of conjugal fidelity anyway, most commonly refer to behaviour, not the notion of trust in one's partner per se. It tends to refer to behaviour, but IMHO it more describes the effect of that behaviour upon the relationship of the people, the way in which they relate to each other..."unfaithful" tends to mean "someone who broke the confidence and trust in the relationship" (it can refer to a cheater even if there was no sex involved, for example, but not extramarital sex that was sanctioned by the spouse.) If someone claims to have faith in their husband or wife, generally no one suggests they're delusional and basing that on their wishes rather than the evidence of their previous encounters. Unless the evidence shows the spouse more likely to be unfaithful, of course. I guess I just don't understand why suggesting that while religious faith can be blind, that's not the only sort of faith people can have, or saying that the other sorts of faith can possibly be based on evidence, is so controversial...especially because we actually still commonly use that word to mean "confidence and trust" quite happily when there are no deities involved but rather other humans.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 11:32:26 GMT
It does if some sorts of faith - such as a belief in something about which nothing can be known - are not susceptible to objective evidence in the first place. No... It doesn't. Even pulling that clause out of your ass doesn't change the fact that some faith can be based on evidence... Something that you already agreed to... I don't know why you're still arguing. You already conceded.
EDIT:
^YOU. I wasn't arguing this point in the first place and I am glad you feel the need to remind yourself of this. I merely observe, still, that in the case where there can be no meaningful evidence to be had (since nothing can ever be known for sure about the divine outside of the circular claims of scripture and personal credulity) then whether a faith has evidence or not is.. moot. And to deliberately exclude, then include, religious faith by way of a preferred dictionary definition - as you did - is disingenuous. If all faith is subject to the same rule of thumb, why dwell on the difference?
But I see the survey associated with this thread appears not to support your interpretation anyway lol I am not surprised since, if one thinks about it, if there is evidence, especially of the convincing nature, for something then faith disappears to be replaced by confidence.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 11:40:49 GMT
'Faithful' and 'unfaithful', in the context of conjugal fidelity anyway, most commonly refer to behaviour, not the notion of trust in one's partner per se. It tends to refer to behaviour [my emphasis]**, but IMHO it more describes the effect of that behaviour upon the relationship of the people, the way in which they relate to each other..."unfaithful" tends to mean "someone who broke the confidence and trust in the relationship" (it can refer to a cheater even if there was no sex involved, for example, but not extramarital sex that was sanctioned by the spouse.) If someone claims to have faith in their husband or wife, generally no one suggests they're delusional and basing that on their wishes rather than the evidence of their previous encounters. Unless the evidence shows the spouse more likely to be unfaithful, of course. I guess I just don't understand why suggesting that while religious faith can be blind, that's not the only sort of faith people can have, or saying that the other sorts of faith can possibly be based on evidence, is so controversial...especially because we actually still commonly use that word to mean "confidence and trust" quite happily when there are no deities involved but rather other humans. ** QED and I thank you. As for using 'confidence' and 'trust' commonly in other contexts when there are no deities concerned, well, that just makes sense since we can reasonably be expected to know much more about these other things. Such as very often they can be evidenced, or follow natural expectations or previous patterns. Whereas, as we know, God allegedly works in mysterious ways while the Bible tells us that no one knows His mind, except the Holy Spirit. One can of course suggest that the church 'represents' the Holy Spirit; but then why, down the centuries has the church argued with itself much? (It even need to take a vote on whether Jesus was God lol)
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 13:36:31 GMT
I wasn't arguing this point in the first place and I am glad you feel the need to remind yourself of this. I merely observe, still, that in the case where there can be no meaningful evidence to be had (since nothing can ever be known for sure about the divine outside of the circular claims of scripture and personal credulity) then whether a faith has evidence or not is.. moot. And to deliberately exclude, then include, religious faith by way of a preferred dictionary definition - as you did - is disingenuous. If all faith is subject to the same rule of thumb, why dwell on the difference?
But I see the survey associated with this thread appears not to support your interpretation anyway lol I am not surprised since, if one thinks about it, if there is evidence, especially of the convincing nature, for something then faith disappears to be replaced by confidence.
I'm glad to see that you are still taking the time to ague that you aren't arguing the thing that you are still not arguing about.
This just confirms that this board is full of retards. Hell, You probably voted "No" even tho.. You already confirmed that you agreed with my (the actual) definition several times.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 8, 2017 13:39:08 GMT
Can't say anything given that his interpretation of the word faith was not mentioned in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 8, 2017 13:51:50 GMT
tpfkar Why do you impugn the brain in your brother's head and pay no attention to the pea in your own? Capability.ze fax
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 14:05:47 GMT
Can't say anything given that his interpretation of the word faith was not mentioned in the OP. It was from another thread where I point out that some faith - specifically NON-RELIGIOUS - can be based on evidence or prior experience and study.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 14:32:21 GMT
U still here, bro?
FWIW, you do know that Blade, Ada, Jenny, and you are four of the six that voted no. That 'cool' fartwaffle is probably a fifth.
Jus' givin' you some perspective on things...
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 14:36:22 GMT
U still here, bro?
FWIW, you do know that Blade, Ada, Jenny, and you are four of the six that voted no. That 'cool' fartwaffle is probably a fifth.
Jus' givin' you some perspective on things... I love how an internet loser somehow thinks that he's somehow above other internet losers... - "My thide ith really the cool thide... We're the thmart oneth!!.. Thee?.. We've got the numberth that proveth it."
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 15:18:35 GMT
No one is arguing my friend, but here you are probably over-thinking.
Ad hominems always reveal more about the giver than the target, unfortunately.
But all of my observations in regards to the special nature of religious faith (i.e. that which is most pertinent to a religious message board) still stand. And so I thank you. And, with this you will note the caveat at the end of my last message.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 15:25:00 GMT
Well... It was fun using "arguing" several times in one sentence... But.. "over-thinking" and all that...
Not really... I've always included myself amongst all of the retards here.
Which nobody is actually talking about... But, thanks for bringing it up again.. for the 50th time.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 15:29:01 GMT
I couldn't possibly comment. With, or without, evidence to bolster faith in your self-assessment lol
Which nobody is actually talking about... But, thanks for bringing it up for the 50th time.
In which case, to include it as part of your preferred dictionary definition was disingenuous. But again one asks the obvious question: if all faith meets the same requirements as you claim, then why specifically rule one type out from consideration?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 15:44:26 GMT
See? I now have full faith that you are a retard... based on evidence: It was included because I quoted the entire definition... to show that THE RELIGIOUS USE of the word ISN'T THE PRIMARY USE.. How many times does that have to be said?
Who the hell ever suggested that?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 15:59:11 GMT
Remember what I said about ad hominems saying more about the giver than the taker? I do. It was included because I quoted the entire definition... to show that THE RELIGIOUS USE of the word ISN'T THE PRIMARY USE..
How many times does that have to be said? And if one used a religious reference work, then the opposite would likely be the case. Besides, one is not sure whether 'primary' and 'alternative' are not being conveniently confused here. The poll suggests you do not convince.
Who the hell ever suggested that?
In which case, since you have been holding that the 'other' types of faith are ones which can always be held with or without evidence (something we both agree with), does the difference mean that you now agree religious faith can (certainly from the point of view of those who think such actual knowledge impossible), only be held without it?
I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 16:43:26 GMT
Who pays attention to what a retard says? I'd hope that if somebody uses a religious reference work.. and cited that they were only referring to the non-religious application of the word.. That I'd have enough sense in my head to follow what he said without having to whine about it being in a religious reference work. Hell.. I'm citing the dictionary.. a NON-RELIGIOUS reference work.. and you still haven't shut the fck up about it. I don't care.. I said IN THE VERY FIRST POST.. that I don't care about the religious aspect of faith...
I have CONSTANTLY said that the existence of faith based on evidence existing doesn't exclude blind faith based from existing. My original post: Your welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 8, 2017 16:44:07 GMT
As with the old IMDB, so with the new IMDB.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 8, 2017 16:46:42 GMT
As with the old IMDB, so with the new IMDB. Exactly.. Cine trying to suck his own dck with a meaningless post. All around the world same song.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2017 12:01:20 GMT
You weren't to know as you use this insulting term once more that I have an autistic brother. You do now. One would hope indeed. But that would depend on whether you would be considering faith generally or specifically excluding the religious variety before making generalisations, would it not? And so are we to consider all faith the same or not? Once again, as already asked, if there is no difference between faith and Faith, then why exclude the latter (and especially why would you bother if you really "don't care")? And, if there is a difference, then do we agree that it is impossible to have religious faith on evidence when logically there is likely to be none accessible to us (outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity of course)? I am, naturally sorry that you don't care. But for others, fine distinctions matter, especially when confronted by sweeping generalisations. It would depend on what sort of 'blind faith' one is considering for reasons already explained. It is still not clear whether you mean to exclude religious faith from all 'blind faith' as unfortunately you "don't care" enough to be bothered to consider the difference between what can be known about and evidenced, and what can't. On this basis your generalisation fails. But this just noting the strength of credulity when there is no evidence. Something I would hardly disagree with, as we see it all the time. And since no one is suggesting what you are arguing is that God is real or "dumb blind faith" (i.e. religious faith) doesn't exist, it is a straw man.
The thing is this: even if you really "don't care", there is never the less a distinction that can be made between general faith and religious Faith, for reasons already explained concerning what is amenable to evidence and proof. But I am sure this ought to be clear by now.
And you really ought to care about the things you hold opinions about or which are obvious considerations.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2017 12:23:51 GMT
YES!!
... AND IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE VERY FIRST FCKING POST THAT IT WE WERE CONSIDERING FAITH GENERALLY AND THE RELIGIOUS VARIETY WASN'T REALLY BEING DISCUSSED. I DON'T CARE!!!!!!
IF THEY CLAIM TO USE EVIDENCE.. IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME.
WHATEVER THEY DECIDED TO USE AS EVIDENCE... I DON'T SEE AS EVIDENCE.
I JUST DON'T GIVE A SHT ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE OR WHY.. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME.
I'M NOT THREATENED BY SOMEBODY ELSE'S BELIEFS.NO!
NOOBODY SAID THAT ALL FAITH IS THE SAME. EVER.
THE DISTICTION BETWEEN EVIDENCE-BASED AND DUMB BLIND FAITH HAS MENTIONED AND ESTABLISHED AS BOTH EXISTING AND VERY SEPERATE WAAAAAYYYYY TOO MANY FCKING TIMES AT THIS POINT.
|
|