|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 9, 2017 12:50:43 GMT
... is the general understanding and meaning? I liked Bon Jovi, I thought they were cooler than most rock bands of the time.
Of course, Guns'n'Roses came along, and pissed all over them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2017 16:38:24 GMT
To which the question remains the same, as to why you would think excluding religious faith from a discussion of 'faith' on a religious notice board would be interesting enough to make the effort. Or why you would type in shouty letters and be rude to someone who asks you some questions about it. Er.. If you "don't see" something as evidence, then that rather invalidates the view that one can always have faith with evidence, as well as not-with, doesn't it? I mean one can just not recognise the evidence upon which any faith is founded. I know this can be done, as an atheist, in regards to religious faith (the one you don't care about) where I am sceptical for instance about the purported evidence of scripture.
Is that why you are now shouting in red?
You need to make yourself clear here. Is that 'dumb blind faith' the religious sort? Or is it just any old faith, without evidence? And if it is the latter, and you make a distinction, does this mean you care after all - at least enough to differentiate? In any case, as far as evidence is concerned, what do you think is the difference between normal faith and religious faith? No, I just try and take someone by what they write down.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2017 20:58:31 GMT
I hope your ears can handle all the shouty letters that I typed. Now.. to answer your question by answering your question: BECAUSE I CAN!!
IT'S ONLY BEEN ANSWERED 50 FCKING TIMES THAT IT'S NOT A RELIGOUS ARGUMENT.. JUST A STATMENT OF GENERAL FACT... ONE THAT YOU ALREADY SAID YOU AGREE WITH.
^Shouty letters
No.. It doesn't. Whatever they believe and why... DOESN'T DEFINE ALL FAITH.
Dude.. You seriously need to pull your head out of other people's religious asses... STOP MAKING IT ABOUT RELIGION... IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. And THAT exists, too... That's not a realm held solely for the religious.
To me?... Most religious faith is just wishful thinking based on hopes and fears.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2017 21:00:26 GMT
Idk...
I don't even think that rises to belief.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 10, 2017 15:59:51 GMT
I can, but it may become wearing for others used to regular adult communication skills.
Do you always do things just because you can? In any case, then you can perhaps grant me the chance to quiz you about your notions of religious faith - equally, because I can..
Indeed, which is why I have moved things on to more interesting considerations, quite a while back now.
Er, but you have just been claiming, in shouty letters to boot, that all faith is not under consideration here just the secular kind. Make yer mind up. And you 'not seeing' what is claimed as evidence, in any situation, would be enough to discredit the idea that one can always have faith-with-evidence. For, if you don't accept the evidence or just don't see it yourself, how would you know it is always possible to have it? (You have not indicated whether any evidence is objective or subjective to count, after all). This would especially apply to religious faith where, since we note that you "don't care" about it, and so then presumably this means that through the profound disinterest, along with their claims you discard any evidence such folk may have.
So then please answer: if religious faith is the same as all other faith, why exclude it? And if it is not, then what is the difference in regards to evidence pertaining? I have already suggested a likely difference to help you out.
Indeed, but that goes without saying.
How would you know?
But can't wishful thinking and hopes be the same with any type of faith?
With all this I am just trying to discover why you so deliberately exclude religious faith from the original definition if there is no distinct difference that you can describe.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 10, 2017 18:22:20 GMT
No... But that doesn't stop me from doing sht that I can do... I'm still allowed to do things that I can do. You can pretend that this you "moving on".. but.... It still seems that this is just you still hung up on a subject that wasn't even being discussed daaaays ago.
Yeah... in shouty letters... NOTHING SAID THERE IS IN CONFLICT. One person's type of faith does not define everybody else's type of faith... no matter the type.
What?... That anybody can have blind faith.. including the non-religious? Are you seriously that biased... or stupid?
Jesus Christ!... YES!!... BLIND FAITH IS A TYPE OF FAITH! IT EXISTS!!.. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL FAITH IS BLIND?... NO. Nobody ever said that it was the fcking same, you f.... Only said that it isn't the same as "all" faith.... A thousand times.... Here.. 1,0001: BLIND FAITH IS NOT THE SAME AS ALL FAITH. FAITH BASED ON EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS ALL FAITH. THE ARE TWO DIFFERENET TYPES OF FAITH. Here.. No shouty letters... Because.. It is just a statement that faith based on evidence and study can exist. That's it. The end. You already agree.. This discussion was over days ago.. You're just too stupid to know it... and I'm just too stupid to let it. FINAL EXAMPLE:
There's a ghost thread on this board. People on there have faith that ghosts are real.. because they saw them... To them.. That's evidence.. I don't see that as evidence.. But.. They do. They have faith... not because of blind faith.. but... because they have evidence. Now.. Some people will study numerous stories of ghost sightings and come to the conclusion that ghosts are real. They have faith in ghosts.. not because of blind faith.. but based on study. Now... I do not believe in ghosts nor would I ever put faith in a medium or spiritualist... but, they do and will.. because of evidence and study. I think they are being dumb.. but.. I'm not going too get pissy about their faith or why they have it. You should try that sometime.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 14:58:01 GMT
tpfkar This thread is beautiful. ze fax
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 13, 2017 20:29:34 GMT
tpfkar This thread is beautiful. ze faxHow's basement life Rabbit?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 20:48:05 GMT
Between the two of us, only you with your logic-free kinkdom living with with your parents would know that answer, glamour kitten. Catholic abuse of orphans
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 13, 2017 20:54:42 GMT
Between the two of us, only you with your logic-free kinkdom living with with your parents would know that answer, glamour kitten. Catholic abuse of orphansDid mommy send dinner down the laundry chute for you yet?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 20:59:59 GMT
tpfkar Cowable whisper dude, projection and freewheeling fantasy are what let you guys believe such morbid, campy, chanty shyte. Priest abused girls
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 13, 2017 21:02:23 GMT
tpfkar Cowable whisper dude, projection and freewheeling fantasy are what let you guys believe such morbid, campy, chanty shyte. Priest abused girlsHey moron unless you actually click the quote feature I don't get a notification. Didn't mommy teach you anything?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 21:08:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 10:35:04 GMT
Indeed. But do you do them well?
Nope, I have long accepted, as you have acknowledged, that most faith can be with or without evidence. The interest now is whether religious (or "blind" as you deem it) faith per se is ever amenable to the same consideration since some things are unknowable by definition. It is a shame that you don't find the matter interesting. On a religious board, as already pointed out, that would be where the focus naturally falls.
I am sure this is true, but it would not effect my general point, that to acknowledge that evidence exists one must first recognise it. And your comment is odd, since you have assured me that you are not defining all faith, apparently - just the non-religious kind, it seems.
But wasn't this thread all originally about you defining faith for everyone?
Remember what I said earlier about ad hominems ? I do.
No answer then?
Indeed; but the point I was making is that, since one can argue that religious faith necessarily lacks the possibility of evidence (outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity) then 'blind' is all it can be, i.e. that religious faith is always something held without empirical confirmation. Something, from your wording, you would seem to accept off and on. After all, just because one is convinced that one has evidence does not mean that the evidence necessarily exists. But I am sure you really know that.
I am still not sure whether you are distinguishing between faith with and without evidence here - or "blind" i.e. religious faith and the rest. And, in the latter instance, just remind me then as to what you would say the essential difference is? You don't appear to have that clear (although I have, helpfully, told you what I would argue it is).
But this is something new from you. Why does 'study' necessarily have to provide evidence?
Please see above for the request to distinguish the difference from religious and other faith. Otherwise they might as well be the same and your refusal to include Faith in all faith seems unsupported does it not?
I forgive you.
Fascinating; but it does not effect the consideration of religious faith. Unless one considers God a ghost, of course. And once again: neither does the fact that someone thinks there is evidence mean that evidence must be there to be had or is even possible. Then can always be faith for which evidence is forever impossible. How can something really 'be' evidence if an objective or independent arbiter does not see it as such? By blurring such things it appears to be having your empirical cake and eating it - and was all discussed already. You still don't seem to have this contradiction resolved.
You seem to confuse a consideration of the limits of religious evidence with 'being pissy about faith', which is a shame. One is fully entitled to believe in whatever one wants. Even the idea that the definition of all faith can be comprehensive and exclusionist at the same time, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 11:45:32 GMT
Yup. Oh good. Then, we're done here. By the way.. How'd you vote?
Uhhhhh.. Yeah. That's why I'm not using a single person's faith to define all faith for everyone... ...Is English just your second language? Dude... Jesus Christ.. For the love of God.... It's just faith.... PPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. NOT REALLY DISCUSSING "RELIGIOUS vs NON-RELIGIOUS". Never was. Do you believe that there can be faith based on evidence? Yes or no. After that one little word?.... DON'T GIVE A SHT. So.. You are that stupid. The answer, stuuuuupppid, is that it's pretty fcking basic that anyone can have blind faith in anything, including the non-religious. Yes! Now STFU. But no.... you won't. - "Buuuuuuttt... The religious......"I'm sure that you're not sure.... Because.... ad hominem.
No it's not... It was mentioned in the original OP.
Dear God, man.
You sure that it's not just your brother.......? Go get help. There has to be some kind of medicine that can help this kind of stupid. It's not a consideration of religious faith....
THAT is why it's called "evidence"... and not "proof". A lot of evidence is considered objective.
You haven't been able to shut the fck up about the religious for days..... That's pretty much the definition of "being pissy" about something.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 12:47:16 GMT
Perhaps an example of ... faith in yourself without evidence lol Only if you can tell me the difference between religious and all other faith, which was evidently enough so that you excluded it from your definition. Presumably there was a reason? Take it on faith ... that it wasn't in your favour. That's not what I said, but thanks for pointing it out. Although arguably your definition of faith, doing second in the poll still lol, is exactly that: one person's idea of faith, and presented on a pretty exclusionist level for no apparent reason given, as I have shown. But, by excluding religious faith from the rest then an opposition is inevitable, an elephant in the rooms to speak, leading to the obvious question I keep asking you. By 'not discussing' types of faith while claiming to define it all, the impression is more of 'don't want to discuss' or even 'aren't able to discuss' - something even you apparently feel the need to differentiate, for reasons still unknown. With most types of faith, yes, as already agreed as you ought to remember. But with some particular metaphysical sorts where the evidence cannot, by definition, likely ever be known (and so we cannot be sure it exists) then the answer could well be 'no'. But I have explained this already. And I still observe that no one bothers with faith, or talks of it, when there is evidence so in this light the question is moot. But we've been here before. I am naturally disappointed that you don't give a sht. Others do, you see.
If you remember, we are talking about faith possible with evidence, not the mere fact of whether faith can be held. Is evidence always possible for every thing when we define a thing? There's not too many ways I can put such an obvious consideration. But I appreciate the diversion.
Btw: personal insults are still not flattering to the giver, just making you sound aggressive and defensive.
The answer, stuuuuupppid, is that it's pretty fcking basic that anyone can have blind faith in anything, including the non-religious.
But we are considering the specific case of faith with evidence. But once again I thank you for the evasion.
Oh dear, still relying on personal insults to make a point, eh? Its not big or clever, though it is certainly colourful... And why, exactly, would 'study' necessitate, or equal, evidence? So, no answer again, then? I am losing ... faith that you can offer one LOL. OK then; let me phrase the usual (and answered) question in your preferred terms. What makes faith - other than religious - different so that you felt the need to distinguish it when making your assertions? I hope this helps. But I am talking about subjective evidence, especially of the sort that no one else will accept or which cannot be known about with meaning, as you ought to realise. I am simply trying to find out why you excluded religious faith from a consideration of all faith and what for you makes it necessary to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 13:48:19 GMT
Points.
You're a moron.
Of course. You're a moron. - "Derp! I agree with you... but, you didn't say enough bad sht about the religious! Derpty derp!" Yeah.. With morons like you voting?... No shit.Even then..... 12 to 9 isn't that distant of a second. Edit: Considering that you already agreed that faith can be based on evidence.. You should have voted "yes"... and it should be 10 to 11... but.. stupid is as stupid does... Nobody is really excluding religious faith... It's just not the main emphasis of the actual definition... You're like a retarded pittbull with rabies... unlock the jaw, dippy. No distinction had to be made:
THE MAIN DEFINITION OF THE WORD ISN'T RELIGIOUS.
REEEEEEETTTTTTTAAAARRRRRDDDDD.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 14, 2017 14:05:06 GMT
tpfkar The egalitarian nature of the Internet is something to behold. ze fax
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 14:21:03 GMT
Thank you for not resorting to ad hominems once again.
Since I have not said this, unfortunately it is a strawman.
Oh dear, it appears that it is insults instead of rebuttals now, all the way down...
Well, since I do not agree with your definition entirely and in every instance (and you cannot tell me it excludes religious faith) I think my choice was correct. It is still not possible to have faith with evidence, especially in the realm of the metaphysical, where evidence is not possible.
I can see why you are being defensive and aggressive with insults. It is because you do not have an argument. Or, just don't wish to address the obvious points I have made.
No one is suggesting it is. But that does not mean metaphysical questions, religious or not, can necessarily be faith-based with evidence, especially when others do not, or cannot for logical reasons, recognise the 'evidence' suggested.
So then: you still don't have an answer to my question, apart from the usual shouting and rudeness? That, if really 'no distinction had to be made' then why did you make one by not considering the case of (and being insulting in big shouty letters to those who do) religion?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 14, 2017 19:30:28 GMT
Nobody is suggesting that you literally said that.. You've just implied it - FOR A WEEK - with your "Of course I agree that faith can be based on evidence....but..... religious faith....." FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE. THAT is where the conversation stops. Well... That's where it should have stopped a week ago, anyways.
Can faith be based on evidence? Yes. NOBODY IS SAYING... OR SUGGESTING... THAT IS THE CASE FOR EVERY INSTANCE. There is no need for a "Yes... but..." It's just "yes". The "but"s are already implied.... That's the difference between using " can be" and not using " always is".
You do realize that nobody is really shouting... right?
|
|