Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[rtwngAvngr]

I requested this re-opened because

1) I knew your goal was to get it shut down and locked, as is your typical behavior. And now that you've decided you've answered the question, you'll sit here and bitch and moan and toss around personal attacks in a hope of derailing and getting it closed. If your point is so awesome, then we'll all be able to see that without the need for you to constantly remind us. There's no reason to act like a little kid and do your damndest to get this re-closed.

2) Loki and I are still discussing the issue, despite the tangent you two have gone off on, and I didn't think it was fair the thread be closed before we finish.

If you deem what we're posting crap, then actually don't respond! We'd all appreciate it. Your entire presence in this thread reeks of personal attacks. It's a nice little trick to avoid having to seriously defend anything you post, but it's also quite transparent. Continue on if you'd like to actually discuss the issue, but if all you're going to do now is disrupt, perhaps you should act like an adult and excuse yourself from the thread.

What's your point clay, I mean about the topic? I didn't really want this closed, I really wanted it to continue. I just don't argue with Jeff when he's in one of his moods.

Why don't you address this: It's post #190

You're wrong on your assessment of my context.

I've asserted that the scientific viewpoint also takes faith in some previous assertions given you by textbooks and professor. You have NOT conducted all the experiments to confirm these facts for yourself. That is a lie.

Secondly, the faith in a correctness of a moral code or innate value of human life which stems from religious faith, is justifiable even in a logical sense if the beliefs, though founded on faith, provide objective measurable enhancements to an individuals, or societies state of being.

Why don't you quit whining like a sissy?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What's your point clay, I mean about the topic? I didn't really want this closed, I really wanted it to continue. I just don't argue with Jeff when he's in one of his moods.

Why don't you address this: It's post #190



Why don't you quit whining like a sissy?

I don't address your post because it doesn't concern me. Your intentions needed to be pointed out. Now that you're objectives for this thread have been exposed, I can go back and respond to Loki. Post 190 was in response to Loki, so Loki can address it if he so wishes. And if he doesn't, and it goes completely response-free, that's still no reason for the thread to be closed. Head back to the drawing board.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't address your post because it doesn't concern me. Your intentions needed to be pointed out. Now that you're objectives for this thread have been exposed, I can go back and respond to Loki. Post 190 was in response to Loki, so Loki can address it if he so wishes. And if he doesn't, and it goes completely response-free, that's still no reason for the thread to be closed. Head back to the drawing board.

My intention was to put this whole discussion in context, which I've done quite successfully. You can impute sinister motives to me, but that's your paranoia showing.

 

[misterblu]

...that's your paranoia showing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Another form of Dutch Oven is farting under a blanket. Dinner's Ready!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Tell me about "conclusive." And tell me why you deem it necessary.

I will try to accomplish this as I respond to your points. Please let me know if I fail.

I'll tell you why I don't think it is: beliefs which are conclusions based in [completely wrong] evidence; which in the wording of our definition would be "conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in [completely wrong] evidence has been established" is still evidence based belief, even if the evidence is wrong. Demanding "conclusive" (as I understand it) evidence would have the unfair effect of rendering all certainty not based in faith to be necessarily (by definition) without error--certainly a grand boon to the anti-faith argument;

It would render all certainty not based in faith to be necessarily without error, but that is not what I would consider an indictment of faith.

or perhaps, that if the certainty one holds contains error, that certainty then (by definition) would have to be considered faith--a rather unfairly unflattering comment on faith. Specious, yes, but not beyond the kind of dumbass reasoning I've been subjected to outside our conversation.

Of course any certainty that contains error would be faith. But so also would certainty without error yet also without conclusive evidence or logic. Again, I don't see this as an indictment of faith.

There is, however, one more argument I levy against this: That any uncertainty by definition then means "faith", such that one's certainty where the slightest possibility that the evidence in support of it might, in some distant future, be refuted, must now be considered baseless in evidence.

Absolutely agree up until the words "baseless in evidence." Faith can be based upon evidence. Christian faith is based upon the evidence of the Bible. Whether you think said evidence is valid or not is a different discussion, but assuming (go with me here) that the Bible is valid evidence, then Christian faith most certainly is faith based on evidence, yet not conclusive evidence. Yes?

Placing "conclusive" (again, as I understand it) will lead to a conclusion that is no different than saying, "Since there is no such thing as certainty in irrefutable evidence, then there is no such thing as certainty in evidence, and thus there is no meaningful distinction between beliefs based in evidence and those that are not, thus all certainty in one's beliefs is faith." You'll note the question begging tautology.

Perhaps we should re-examine the fine line that is the difference between "belief" and "faith?"

We now stipulate "faith" can be right, even if no evidence, or logic is validating it; I am very good with this. It is consitent with our definition, and certainly the spirit of fairness within which we are using it.

Good.

We should allow, in the same interest of fairness, that other (non-faith) convictions can be wrong without them being considered faith.

But I disagree. Faith and absolute certainty do not co-exist. I think we can agree that the eventual elimination of faith is desireable, but that should not preclude us from using faith until that goal is reached. Where it gets murky is when people decide that they are ok accepting faith as their absolute certainty, when in reality the goal should be a constant strive to render it pointless.

Faith is faith regardless of whether the evidence regarding it is existent or not, so certainly it doesn't require such evidence to be "conclusive."

Faith based on evidence dictates that the evidence exists. The validity, or conclusiveness, of the evidence is what is up for debate.

The crux of the biscuit is in the criteria one uses for stating certainty; evidence or not: belief (have we agreed on "reason"?) or faith. Likewise, beliefs based in evidence should not need to be "conclusive" to be considered evidence based beliefs.

I agree. The way you've worded this, it appears as though you think that I'm insinuating that faith and belief are oil and water: Faith is conviction in certainty for which no conclusive evidence is present, and belief is conviction in certainty for which conclusive evidence is present. And if you are, that is not my position. If anything, my position is that faith and belief completely overlap each other.

If anything (and I'm not advocating for this), I'd replace the term "evidence" with terminology that better indicates that certain confirmably palpable quality of things, that all things we agree to be real in the same reality, possess. But since we are being fair, I think "evidence" is fair shorthand for "that certain confirmably palpable quality of things that all things we agree to be real, in the same reality, possess."

Evidence is fine with me.

As a bit of a closing:

Including the word conclusive would effectively say: Absolute certainty is always desireable and preferable, but when/where absolute certainty is not possible/is not yet attained, faith exists.

I think we've opened another section of Pandora's box, and need to re-examine faith vs. belief. This is becoming quite the chore!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If anything, my position is that faith and belief completely overlap each other.

Clay, this is my position as well. If you could learn to understand simple language and quit being a pod, you could see that.

I know YOU wanted to be the one to take down loki. But I did it in about 1% of the time and effort. Server space ain't free. think of jimmy. :teeth:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay, this is my position as well. If you could learn to understand simple language and quit being a pod, you could see that.

Of course I see that. Don't shit on my desire to discuss it more in-depth, and my lack of desire to utterly condescend towards anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Of course I see that. Don't shit on my desire to discuss it more in-depth, and my lack of desire to utterly condescend towards anyone who thinks otherwise.

No. You just pretend I have no point at all and that I'm just there to be a troll. Isn't that condescending? Or is it that I don't count as a human being?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I never crapped on your desire to discuss anything at length. If you felt it was unnecessary to do so because of my utter smackdown, yet still wanted to hear yourself rattle on, then, well, I guess calling me names and trying to shame me for participating was the right move!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No. You just pretend I have no point at all and that I'm just there to be a troll. Isn't that condescending? Or is it that I don't count as a human being?

You made your point, deemed yourself victorious, then started being a troll through, mostly, ad hom attacks and condescension. As I said, all very transparent.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You made your point, deemed yourself victorious, then started being a troll through, mostly, ad hom attacks and condescension. As I said, all very transparent.

In lieu of anymore actual discussion besides, "demonstrate" or "go away", I was just having some laughs. Pull the stick out.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I never crapped on your desire to discuss anything at length. If you felt it was unnecessary to do so because of my utter smackdown, yet still wanted to hear yourself rattle on, then, well, I guess calling me names and trying to shame me for participating was the right move!

You are so self-obsessed and delusional its sickening. And you and eightball most certainly did crap on those of us discussing the issue at an in-depth level.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

In lieu of anymore actual discussion besides, "demonstrate" or "go away", I was just having some laughs. Pull the stick out.

Well, there's still a discussion going on, it's just one that doesn't predominantly include you. I realize this upsets you, and that that is why you so pathetically kick and scream like a 4 year old in a grocery store, but there are tons of other threads that you can go and feed your ego with.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You are so self-obsessed and delusional its sickening. And you and eightball most certainly did crap on those of us discussing the issue at an in-depth level.

I know you are, but what am I? You're projecting again.

You are the one so obsessed you can't agree with me when we actually agree. Your mind is warped by hatred.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I know you are, but what am I? You're projecting again.

You are the one so obsessed you can't agree with me when we actually agree. Your mind is warped by hatred.

Hey retard: we agree, at least on a very simplified level, on this issue. I have no problem admitting that. I have a problem with you condescending towards anyone who wishes to examine things at a detailed level. I'll take your silence regarding you and eightball as tacit agreement.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey retard: we agree, at least on a very simplified level, on this issue. I have no problem admitting that. I have a problem with you condescending towards anyone who wishes to examine things at a detailed level. I'll take your silence regarding you and eightball as tacit agreement.

Clay decoder says: "Examining things at a detailed level" = "a bunch of verbal masturbation"

You can't keep people off threads because they don't write in the same grossly and unnecessarily verbose fashion as you and your even more dippy friend.

Take my silence to mean nothing, as silence generally does.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know you're used to winning, clay. But the thing is, I'm one in a million, and it's your time to lose.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay decoder says: "Examining things at a detailed level" = "a bunch of verbal masturbation"

So you ARE shitting on our desire to discuss things in-depth.

You can't keep people off threads because they don't write in the same grossly and unnecessarily verbose fashion as you and your even more dippy friend.

You're right. I can't. I can point out your intention now is to merely disrupt until either someone responds to your post, the thread gets closed, or you get banned from the thread. Perhaps you could go start another poll about which you think will happen first?

Take my silence to mean nothing, as silence generally does.

No thanks. Besides, you've validated my assumption.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I know you're used to winning, clay. But the thing is, I'm one in a million, and it's your time to lose.

How can I lose when I "agree" with your proclaimed winner?