quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

fuck..:)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

More semantics. Faith as a synonym for trust is not the same thing as religious faith.

Still boring as hell.

You need to read up on epistemology.

Firm

You're not about to try and justify your crap with Hume or Kant are you? Maybe you'd be better off sticking to semantics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

As DomKen has already pointed out your committing an equivocation fallacy, my only question is whether you're doing this intentionally or not?

Please be so kind as to explain the equivocation fallacy that I am using?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Unnecesary I'd imagine...Ken.

Reason being...you're a liberal....I'm not sure there's another political philosophy around that requires such a leap of faith.

Liberalism is based on abstract notions such as equality...and freedom....and redistribution of power. Now it is an entirely reasonable proposition.....hopefully GotSteel is reading at this point....but it requires a certain view of mankind that you couldn't possibly hope to prove. The idea is that people will thrive where power is roughly evenly distributed....and in actual fact....unlike the question of the existence of god...we have some evidence to suggest this isn't the case as we've seen how people act when they come to believe themselves to be virtuous human beings concerned solely with handing out freedom here and there and redistributing power. So...in the face of some evidence to the contrary....though not overwhelming....you continue to support this leap of faith.

I've made no secret of the fact that Liberalism is my preference....warts and all....but be honest and fair.....it requires a huge leap of faith.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

As DomKen has already pointed out your committing an equivocation fallacy, my only question is whether you're doing this intentionally or not?

Please be so kind as to explain the equivocation fallacy that I am using?

You're using a multi valued word as if it has a single meaning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2

No, but faith is a valid (and essential) element of "belief". Doesn't matter what kind of belief, religious or otherwise. If you believe something that can't be proven via science, then you are being influenced by "faith" in something.

I believe that "what goes around comes around", but I can't prove it or claim it as fact. It's a belief based upon observation and life experience.

I think the disconnect is coming in because you think in order to have a belief (in whatever) there must be science to back it up or else your belief is "unreasonable".

Surely you must have a belief about something that has never been proven scientifically.

Do you believe that hard work pays off?

Do you believe that positive thought helps people achieve goals?

Do you believe that self-doubt is a negative influence on our lives?

Do you believe that your argument here is valid?


Can any of the above actually be proven?


There isn't a single person debating on these boards who doesn't believe they are right, and that belief requires faith in something as it's basis. Can they prove they are right? Not neccessarily. But based upon their faith in A B and C, they believe they are right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I was merely pointing out to her that her definition was incomplete and not quite accurate in her claim that it requires no faith. Atheism is an absence of belief in a deity or deities, and she does have faith in her logic, reason and common sense that leads her to being an atheist.

Sticking my two cents in tho coming late to the party. The problem I have with your comment is that you are playing fast and loose with two significantly different definitions of the word. To have faith in her logic is not the same as to have Faith.

To have faith in her logic suggests she has a reasonable acceptance of its probability after examining evidence and argument.

But to have Faith in religious doctrine suggests that you are using a way of knowing that has diverged from and/or even rejected Reason. To be in Faith you have a knowledge that comes from external or personal revelation/experience despite the unreasonableness of your conclusion.

The atheist has faith in the reasonableness of his conclusion. Two very different uses of the word. Knowingly or not, you are conflating the two meanings for rhetorical purposes. A bit of sophism in your argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

~FR

Everything scientific begins with a belief/faith. Sometimes that belief/faith is provern, sometimes its disproven, both sometimes leading to a new discovery.

Think... the discovery of bacteria or the use of any medication.

The belief or faith must be present before the science begins to seek the answers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And you just made my point perfectly. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
However, I'll disengage my emotions, and ask you to state your position clearly and concisely, and we can discuss it.

It's my position that faith isn't a valid way of obtaining actual knowledge.

You need to tighten this up as it is worded poorly. Much of scientific knowledge has been obtained in the faith that something is there or will be created.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem I have with your comment is that you are playing fast and loose with two significantly different definitions of the word. To have faith in her logic is not the same as to have Faith.

To have faith in her logic suggests she has a reasonable acceptance of its probability after examining evidence and argument.

But to have Faith in religious doctrine suggests that you are using a way of knowing that has diverged from and/or even rejected Reason. To be in Faith you have a knowledge that comes from external or personal revelation/experience despite the unreasonableness of your conclusion.

The atheist has faith in the reasonableness of his conclusion. Two very different uses of the word. Knowingly or not, you are conflating the two meanings for rhetorical purposes. A bit of sophism in your argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

~FR

Everything scientific begins with a belief/faith. Sometimes that belief/faith is provern, sometimes its disproven, both sometimes leading to a new discovery.

Think... the discovery of bacteria or the use of any medication.

The belief or faith must be present before the science begins to seek the answers.

Beg to differ tazzy.

Everything scientific begins with observation, question and wonder. The question is then rephrased into a testable statement - that is an hypothesis. Usually the null hypothesis is tested first. That is the antithesis of the hyposthesis, or more simply the more doubtful cause and effect. Or "The statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data."

If the null hypothesis is shown to be unlikely by trials and obsevations (whatever the design) then the favored hypothesis has more credence. I think I have that right. It has been a while since ... lol!

The discovery of bacteria came on the shoulders of the construction of the telescope/microscope lens systems and as you likely know given your medical knowledge there is a lot of trial and error in the process of developing medications. A Lot!!

I hope that all makes sense. I am a little rusty on scientific method anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

fuck..:)

I second that.

Something tells me this is going to be another "pro-domme vs lifestyle" trainwreck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



What, then, was the "fact" while it was believed to be true, and what is it once it has been proved to be false?

For example, at one time it was believed to be "a fact" that the smallest, indivisible bits of matter were electrons and protons, which make up atoms.

Now we have quarks.

Beyond that, we have vibrating string theory, in which matter is simply a form of energy.

What "facts" make up "objective reality"?  How can they change, if "science, logic and reason" tells us that one thing is a fact today, but isn't a fact tomorrow?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Treasure, again you are wrong. Atheism is not about faith. You are misusing the word faith in order to make an argument that theism is just as valid as atheism, or the contrary that atheism contains the same logical flaws as theism. In previous threads you've also tried to claim that atheism was a religion. You just don't know what you are talking about.