Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 22:03:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 15, 2017 13:16:49 GMT
eyes:: Nobody is suggesting that you literally said that..
Then best not use speech marks and place any unsourced quotation as a criticism of someone which is not theirs. I will have faith you can see the sense in this.
But is that all faith? Or are you being disingenuous again? Is the metaphysical generally, leaving aside religion as such, even amenable to evidence?
I am sorry you are sad; but then think how I feel, dealing with anyone who does not answer obvious questions and, more, refuses even to contemplate a topic obvious and relevant on this board.
But your OP did not say that it was a definition of just 'some' instances. Your words to another for instance, back at the start, that "Please show me exactly [in dictionary corner] where it says that "All faith must not be based on evidence"" suggest that you consider the opposite true: that all faith, might indeed be so based. That 'all' would be the same as every instance, would it not? I think so. And, as previously noted, you also included the dictionary definition of religious faith. You can see how this suggests confusion, which you are still trying to explain away.
Meanwhile I am still waiting to here how religious faith, since you took the trouble to then exclude it, differs from all other faith. I have told you my argument and my view. It appears you have nothing to say.
So your 'yes' means we are still considering every instance after all? For me then the answer is still a yes-but, or even a 'no', since some types of faith cannot logically be evidenced, at least outside of personal credulity and the claims of esoteric works. Whether 'souls' exist for instance. Or the existence of a tea tray, with my name on it in, orbiting Andromeda. In both these instances, and others, evidence cannot be had - and so one cannot 'have' with something which is unavailable, or base faith on something with no meaning. And, you can note, we are not even talking religion, the other obvious example. I hope this helps.
Where evidence is impossible, there can be no faith possible 'with evidence'. And so I thank you for helping to make this clear. And hair splitting is just weasel words; your definition was of faith: first, it appeared, all faith, then faith without religious faith, and now some faith from even this diminished scope of consideration that just 'can be'. LOL
Bold caps is the equivalent of shouting. I also have faith that you are yelling as you type, probably standing up too lol. But that, as so much faith invariably is, remains without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 15, 2017 20:48:15 GMT
Well.. I had faith that you'd have enough sense to figure out that I wasn't directly quoting you... But.. I now have faith that you don't have enough sense. No, moron... Only the faith that is based on evidence.... NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT ALL FAITH IS BASED ON EVIDENCE. For the love of God... Please tell me at this point you're just pretending to be this stupid. 'cause.. I'm sure, at this point... that you may say that you have a brother that is "special"... but.. when asked.. I'm sure that your parents count two "specials" in their offspring. Hell... Try dealing with a retard who doesn't understand basic English. You can not be that fcking stupid.
That ^ is not the opposite of "Please show me exactly [in dictionary corner] where it says that "All faith must not be based on evidence"
The opposite argument of that, moron, would be that some faith can be based on it. You know?... The one thing that I've only said a hundred times in this thread... The one thing that you already agreed with... The one thing that was the whole start of this conversation.
Only to an imbecilic twit. The whole definition was cited (by two sources) to show that the "religious" aspect of the word is a secondary meaning. Something else that has only been said a few dozen times in this thread.
You can't bitch that I'm including it and excluding it in the same breath... I'm not excluding sht. The religious meaning of the word isn't the sole meaning of the word. You have already agreed that some faith can be based on evidence... The only thing that was being argued.... now.. In your head, I can only assume that you have enough smarts to make a distinction between faiths that are based on reason.... and faith that it not. Notice, how I don't assume that you think that all faith is based on evidence when you say that "Some faith can be based on evidence"? If not.. NOTICE THAT, MORON. Now... Apply that standard to what was said a thousand times: SOME FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE.
Well... Retarded people like to make up a lot of shit in their heads. Like this flat out lie:
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 16, 2017 14:48:11 GMT
Yes thanks I did figure. That will be why it was identified as a straw man, a fallacy where the impression is given that someone has said something where it is not the case. You can look up how such things works if you want. Remember what I keep saying about personal insults and how they show you up? I still do. See immediately above for how this sort of lazy ad hominem reflects badly on the giver. Indeed, no one is; but thank you anyway for the shouty letters once more. But that is not my point - which is more subtle, that not all faith even can be based on evidence, which is something that you apparently think - notably in faith examples of the metaphysical variety, where evidence cannot be known, or is simply unavailable. But I think you really know all this, and indeed you never disagree. Well whatever, and as you have shouted, more than once, I guess I am just not as clever as you. Since I have already told you that I have an autistic brother, this new slur is a new low. But one imagines as such it makes you feel even more clever. I have faith in that. As in what "all faith" means?
The point was - and is - that you were clearly considering "all" faith, as is clear from the context (i.e.your dictionary corner being concerned with defining faith as such, to your satisfaction generally). This logically would obviously not initially exclude that of the religious variety - and, as we see from your own words below in this current exchange, you actually consider it before expressing disinterest, which means you don't exclude it. You may well have gone on to remove religion (for reasons that you still prefer not to answer lol) but this opening inconsistency is clear. It is still not obvious what you see as the difference is between religious faith and the rest, if "all faith" really 'can' be evidenced - at least enough so that you feel the need to differentiate and exclude, as you say. But I have asked you this several times. And you know I will keep on asking.
Thank you for not continually using ad hominems. It is so refreshing. But, seriously, including a definition of something which you specifically wish not to discuss is confusing at best, disingenuous at worst. Especially when you then offer no good reason for excluding it except that you "don't care". After all if you don't, why should anyone else care what you think about it? Or it could be, as in your own words (which you helpfully quote with another example of "all" below) that you were discussing "all" faith and, quite sensibly, at that point wished to lay out all definitions to defend a general point. And once again, without knowing why you exclude the consideration of religion from your arguments then we have no context - it just suggests you have realised a weakness in your overall claims which you to hide. You "don't exclude" anything? Why, QED then and I thank you. See? You are not an imbecilic twit, and here is the proof! The point still stands notwithstanding that some faith cannot be objectively evidenced, by the very definition of it, whether 'reasonable' to some to claim evidence or not. Well you say are the cleverer of the two of us, after all and it is very kind of you to understand what I say, rather than making up quotes, say. But: are we back to your first "all faith", or the later "all faith - less religious faith" again here? For as I have already argued, some faith is just not amenable to evidence and so cannot be expected to be based on such. Since you have nowhere disagreed with this, I can only assume this can be taken as true. And, since you still don't disagree with the view that some faith can be based on evidence are you here, by implication, agreeing that some faith cannot be based on evidence? If so, QED. I so pleased that in your many observations you are proving not a moron. To which the reply is, again as before - some faith is just not amenable to evidence. Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? I have. There is no need to shout this at me after the usual insulting, since this is not something I am suggesting or ever have. But I appreciate the diversion. And I hope that you are not suggesting this something I have said, since that would be your second straw man in as many messages. Surprising that, from one who is so clever. - Where we see, first, you are indeed considering 'all faith' since, well you say so. QED again then, LOL. And here too, far from excluding it, I see you actually consider religious faith - your "not caring" not being the same at all as a "not including". Thirdly, as repeatedly pointed out, my point is still I would not agree that for every sort of faith one can find evidence, or there is some to be found in such instances, at least outside of personal credulity and confirmation bias. Hence your view that all faith can have (i.e. not 'must be based on') evidence is ... wrong. Finally, it is not certain that just because someone decides their own 'reason and experience' it necessarily equates to objective evidence (since similar 'reason and experience' may invalidate the singularly subjective) and can be disagreed upon. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 17, 2017 14:36:35 GMT
I can not believe that you are actually this fcking stupid. NOBODY EVER SUGGESTED OTHERWISE, STUPID. Yeah.. Apparently there is... It's been two weeks and you still haven't figured this shit out: I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT ALL FAITH IS BASED ON EVIDENCE.
Hear that, dumbass? How the hell are you reading that???
Try it this way... Forget faith... Apparently "faith" turns you into a dipshit. Let's say that I was in an argument about birds.. Somebody said that birds are defined by flight. I point out that not all birds fly. I link a dictionary definition that says that birds are defined by having wings.. and most wings enable flight. Now, you - in your infinite stupidity - are now demanding that I am saying that all birds are flightless and that I am being disingenuous about linking the definition that mentions flight. I'm not saying that all birds can't fly.. Just that some of them can't. Moron.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 22, 2017 13:42:48 GMT
Good, and so it appears we still agree on this, lol. The problem is that you confuse someone making observations about your 'definition' and asking obvious questions with the seeing of a supposed 'refutation'. And so, to return to the only simple and mild question left, and one you keep avoiding for some reason: is this why you excluded religious faith from consideration? In other words, when you wrote:
It might have been best that you instead 'continued the conversation' with an explanation as to why 'faith' in this sentence of yours which appears to apply to faith as a class actually does not - the absence of the word 'some' heralding none of the caveats you later insist on. But I am sure felt that such imprecision was useful at the time.
I still remember what I said about ad hominems. I am surprised that you don't. But I have faith you will, eventually.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 22, 2017 18:21:11 GMT
Oh... I do. You're just stupid. It's not an ad hominem when it's actually true. THANK YOU FOR ILLUSTRATING MY POINT: NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT "MAGIC BIRDS"... THEY ARE ONLY BEING "EXCLUDED" IN YOUR DUMB, MORONIC, STUPID FCKING HEAD... because you're having a conversation that nobody else is having with you. The only conversation is whether or not that "SOME FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE" is true or not... You already agreed that it is. CONVERSATION OVER. AND THE OPPOSING ARGUMENT TO THAT IS THAT SOME FAITH [my emphasis] CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE, YOU ILLITERATE MORON, YOU.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 22, 2017 22:21:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 23, 2017 11:57:54 GMT
Something a reasonable person would see as an insulting term as the only or substantive reply is an ad hominem. Which is a fallacy. In this case is also not objectively true, since I have a degree and my intelligence has been tested. But, good try at excusing rudeness as a disputation tool. Well perhaps you "don't care" about other considerations, but some of us certainly do. Since you have already agreed with me that some faith is not amenable to evidence, and so in a sense your definition is irrelevant, I really don't know why you are still shouting. QED then in regards the use of insults. And they are still not big, funny or clever. But they do reveal a lot about you. And yet, here you are in this two-way exchange, LOL. Although having someone shouting and swearing is not really a 'conversation', at least where I live, I grant you...
Yet again, here you are...
I am naturally disappointed that you still don't wish to tell me why religious faith was excluded or what would make it so necessarily different from all other faith that it needs to be considered excluded, which on a religious message board is quite pertinent. You say you don't care, but then you did enough to leave it to one side, so one sees a contradiction. That is the only thing I have left to discover. You see (and I know I can tell you this now we are such friends) the suspicion is that you secretly knew that your definition of faith - still doing badly in the poll I see - is made irrelevant by this yardstick, for reasons that any Logical Positivist of the traditional type would be pleased to explain again to you.
But you know I will keep asking. But at least you agree that there are some sorts of faith, be it religious or just the broadly metaphysical in nature, that are not susceptible by definition, to ever having objective or empirical evidence. Which was my other point and so I thank you.
Yes; so you keep saying - and I keep agreeing with you, remember? But in repeating yourself pointlessly around a fact that we both agree on, you seem to be getting grumpier and grumpier. This is probably why you missed the point that I was merely making about consistency: that your quoted words "faith based on reason" is not the same as 'some faith based on reason'. And I don't understand why you can't remember the observation I made only last time that adding caveats and observations to your definition is not the same as a refutation you obsess about everywhere. All along I have simply been making obvious observations, while it seems you repeat yourself in louder and ruder terms with something I demurred with from a long time back now. I hope you do understand by now, lol. But, faith in that eventuality is fading...
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 23, 2017 16:41:16 GMT
Dipsht... You can't read minds. Nobody is grumpy... let lone grump ier.
Get your money back. See?... You're a fcking moron.
" some faith is not amenable to evidence" is quite relevant to the fact that some faith is... The part of the definition that was in question. And.. THAT is all that matters... Yet, here you are again. YES, DIPSHT! THAT WAS ESTABLISHED 3 FUCKING WEEKS AGO... I STATED IT IN MY OP.
Are you fcking high? 9 to 13 isn't a bad showing... It's definitely not the ass-whopping that Eddy obviously thought it was going to be. Hell... Your vote is just one reason to laugh at this poll: YOU ACTUALLY AGREE THAT FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE... THE DEFINITION THAT WAS IN QUESTION... AND YOU STILL VIOTED "NO" BECAUSE YOU"RE A FUCKING MORON. Edit: IF you had a brain in your head... and answered accordingly... the "score" would be 10 to 12.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 23, 2017 16:47:46 GMT
OMFG I'M NOT UPSET DIPSHT! DIPSHT! MORON FUCKETY RETARD FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU@^%@&(%(&*%!&(5690!!!
On another note, Flaneur, you've truly mastered the formatting functions on this site. How you're parsing and quoting all that multi-font rage without the empty-quote-block mess that most seem to make of it is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 23, 2017 16:50:10 GMT
OMFG I'M NOT UPSET DIPSHT! DIPSHT! MORON FUCKETY RETARD FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU@^%@&(%(&*%!&(5690!!!On another note, Flaneur, you've truly mastered the formatting functions on this site. How you're parsing and quoting all that multi-font rage without the empty-quote-block mess that most seem to make of it is beyond me. According to your own logic, a-hole... You'd be accused of posting in rage.. But.. You're also a hypocritical a-hole. So, there's that.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 23, 2017 23:17:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 24, 2017 12:16:34 GMT
Is that why you shout and are rude?
A sarcastic remark does not make the literal truth of what I say invalid. But I appreciate your difficulty here. No, just one who sees a necessary caveat to your overweening definition and its implications. But I think you really know that. And the observation about ad hominems still stands. But I suppose it is all you have to fall back on now. Then you can tell me why you exclude religion from your definition. You know I will keep asking. Please also quote where you make this specific point in the OP - that it may not be possible to have meaningful evidence for faith in some cases, as opposed to just that one can have faith without evidence, say. You have lost the poll, my friend. Is that what makes you so angry LOL? I voted 'no' since you still seemed to be unsure whether you were considering all faith or just the preferred faith which for unexplained reasons it seemed you still felt it best to include. Also, on a religious board, for reasons already discussed, I felt that you were being disingenuous. So it seemed better to vote 'no' then rather than demur with a 'yes' - a decision which your 'dictionary corner' specific inclusion of religious faith, and talk of "all faith", in at least two exchanges with others as quoted here, justifies. And even if we exclude religion, as you apparently ended up doing, other metaphysical faiths face the same problem with the meaningfulness and availability of possible evidence. But I think you really know this - and indeed lately you have grudgingly agreed to this same view. Unfortunately I don't all have a brain so unique as yours. It is a cross I have to bear. Any news on why religion was excluded from the definition - and why, if you really "don't care" about faith of the metaphysical type, why you bothered with it at all? That inconsistency and the sense of disingenuousness is really all that's keeping this going. But I have faith I will get an answer one day.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 24, 2017 12:36:52 GMT
I'M NOT SHOUTNG!
DEAR FCKING GOD!! NOBODY IS EXCLUDING RELIGION. It is the overall definition of the word "faith" that is being applied..... religious faith is only one aspect of faith.... IT IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE HOW IT RELATES TO RELIGIOUS FAITH. I'M NOT EXCLUDING IT. "Faith" does make you an imbecille. If somebody says that cars are defined by having an engine in the front... And I point out that not all cars have engines in the front.. and use the definition to show that cars are not defined by having engines in the front. You have just spent the last month crying like a complete retard "WHAT ABOUT BMW??? WHAT ABOUT BMW??? WHY ARE YOU EXCLUDING BMWS???" when nobody is excluding BMWs in the overall discussion of cars. It is just an overall statement of "faith"... That it can be based on evidence. You agree. Retard. No... But your imbecilic posts do.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 24, 2017 13:01:21 GMT
QED. LOL.
That's very kind of you. But I think you know by now my views, which stem from a logical positivist position.
So now you are saying that your definition of faith does include all faith after all? I thought you had been insisting it didn't and that you weren't in fact concerned with "all faith"? Make yer mind up lol That seems a little hard on faithists; credulous, maybe. But imbecilic? I am more concerned about those magical cars, in which one cannot tell whether the engine can be meaningfully evidenced in the first place, and so the evidencing of engines is not an option, as you might be expected to know. For if something does not exist then it cannot ever be 'evidenced'. Once again I can only repeat : you appear to be finding an attempted rebuttal of your claims when all I am doing is offering caveats. For what reason this so exercises you, and causes the shouting, I cannot know. The problem is, you see when I read back and see you saying, things like this It appears to be arguing the opposite to that which you now you apparently agree, that religious faith is not amenable to evidence (in that no one knows the mind of God, and that He works in mysterious ways etc etc) other than that of personal credulity and the claims of scripture. You can see the problem in following your logic. A belief in God, or the existence of the soul or some other metaphysical concerns are not amenable to evidence outside of personal credulity and the claims of scripture. Since we both agree with this - and agree we agree, despite your previous words quoted just above - then the caveat stands. I still remember what I said about ad hominems . And you really, really ought to too by now. So the question now is, if you have been telling me that you excluded religion from your overall consideration of faith, that you "don't care" about it - then why it is now back in LOL? In which case it is once again not the fact that "all faith" can be held with evidence, for reasons just explained. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 24, 2017 14:31:39 GMT
Okay... I've got to call it quits on this one... This baby is dead. We were at the point of ridiculousness a week ago... The fact that this is still a thing is beyond definition. We're just repeating the same sht over and over.. I mean: If you haven't figured out by now that I don't mind calling you a dipsht because you're a dipsht... just proves that you are a dipsht, dipsht. So... Have fun in your magical car chasing after magical birds arguing endlesslyh against a premise that you agree with. I hope they find a cure for whatever type of stupid that you are suffering from.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 24, 2017 14:57:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 24, 2017 15:41:27 GMT
tpfkar Gotta love that blade-level brain of yours at work. ze fax
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 24, 2017 20:11:19 GMT
tpfkar Gotta love that blade-level brain of yours at work. ze faxFrom the guy who insisted that mocking his love of rape jokes was "making rape jokes", it was hardly a surprising spin.
|
|