RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle A 'perfectly reasonable assumption' is not an act of faith. Please don't conflate the two. Your statement embeds the anti-theist assumption that faith is NOT reasonable. Please don't start that shit. Don't you have any insects to play with? K. Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:21:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is jumping off a ten story building believing it only exists in the imagination. Is that the British English definition, or are you just making shit up? On this side of the pond, faith is belief not based on proof. K. A reasonable assumption based on probabilities is not faith. Faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience or objectively being able to repeat an experiment.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:23:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics. Tweakabelle is not right, and neither are you. Faith may be either reasonable or unreasonable. K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:26:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience or objectively being able to repeat an experiment. Well fuck all, now you think you're a dictionary. That's encouraging. Have you told anyone else about this? K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:29:31 AM)
quote: As I said, I've given up assuming John and Jane Doe see as self-evident everything I think they should. And therein lies the problem of your god-like self delusions.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:33:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics. Tweakabelle is not right, and neither are you. Faith may be either reasonable or unreasonable. K. Faith is irratonal, even if it is a psychological need for many people, simply because it is not based on evidence. My neighbour's belief that a toy teddy bear raping Barbie will produce a monster, is faith and is irrational, until teddy raping Barbie does produce a monster or until she produces an hypothesis that introduces an element of doubt. As for simply stating I and tweakabelle are wrong is the same nonsense you criticise other people of on these threads, merely making an assertion without any evidence or intellectual underpinning.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:36:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience or objectively being able to repeat an experiment. Well fuck all, now you think you're a dictionary. That's encouraging. Have you told anyone else about this? K. A dictionary merely defines words, not an idea Duh! But if you insist. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Moonhead -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:50:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Yeah, but, it was quite a fun piece of shit, no? It was at the time, but it really isn't wearing at all well now.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:55:53 AM)
quote: What we can't do, however, is prove that it is real; which leads us back to your original comment in this side-topic: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML If there is no real way to prove it are you not back to Faith then? Exactly so again. Everything we do from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night, our entire life, and our entire scientific enterprise to boot, is based on faith; faith that the world is real. That this is a perfectly reasonable assumption is validated by our personal experience. But it remains an assumption: We cannot prove it. My question, which you quoted, was my polite disagreement. We are not saying the same thing. We test reality repeatedly, incorporating new data when necessary until the calculus reduces the intervals between our predictions and the results. At some point the interval is more or less zero. The reality we tested is irrefutable. It is proven. Faith is merely a prior prediction to which we assign probabilities which are then tested. Once validated in the manner I described faith gives way to the truth of reality. We differ in that I am saying there is a way to prove reality and you say there is not. The problem with faith in a supernatural world is that it is not subjected to testing. I am guessing that is the conundrum that lies at the foundation of the philosophical insistence that we cannot know reality. If I attribute that wrongly to your thinking I apologise.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:58:53 AM)
Have it as you wish, but even Karl Popper would not go as far as being dragged along that line by the likes of you. Just so you know.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:07:30 AM)
For sake of elucidation to others re Karl Popper: He said that the human mind is incapable of absorbing all of reality, all at once. That being out of the way, he said that in order for something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable, that is, capable of being disproved. This of course eliminates anything of a spiritual nature. Which also means, for those paying attention, that there are other aspects to the universe and, more importantly, to humans, other than what might be obtained by purely scientific pursuit.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:07:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is irratonal... simply because it is not based on evidence. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience... What's irrational here is your categorical claim that faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience. That's not even close to the definition that I linked, or even the one that you yourself quoted. Faith is believing in something without proof. I'll be the first to admit that faith can be unreasoning and based on nothing but hearsay, but it can also be rational and based on the evidence of experience. To flatly deny this, as you insist upon doing, shows that risking an intelligent discussion would not serve your interests. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience or objectively being able to repeat an experiment. Well fuck all, now you think you're a dictionary. That's encouraging. Have you told anyone else about this? K. St Augustine said "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." Do you hold to this, Kirata? If so, can you show us how St Augustine had it right, but Meatcleaver has it wrong? What is the difference?

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Yeah, but, it was quite a fun piece of shit, no? It was at the time, but it really isn't wearing at all well now. I hope you didn't spend too much on your floor-sweeping black leather coat, Moonie.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:24:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer St Augustine said "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." Do you hold to this, Kirata? If so, can you show us how St Augustine had it right, but Meatcleaver has it wrong? What is the difference? The definition of faith that I am working from is the dictionary definition that faith is believing in something without proof. K.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:24:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata but it can also be rational and based on the evidence of experience. To deny this, as you do, amounts to a frank admission that having an intelligent discussion would not serve your interests. If faith is based on evidence and probability, it is hardly faith. Faith based on perceived experience that cannot be objectively reproduced as evidence for a third person is hardly evidence of experience. To the evidential experience of a blind man, the sun doesn't shine but the evidential experience of someone who can see, is that it does so independent evidence is required to find out who is right. Faith is only relevant for the individual who isn't interested in evidence.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is irratonal, even if it is a psychological need for many people, simply because it is not based on evidence. ... merely making an assertion without any evidence or intellectual underpinning. You describe the stock markets and the derivatives markets so perfectly, right there.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:26:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer St Augustine said "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." Do you hold to this, Kirata? If so, can you show us how St Augustine had it right, but Meatcleaver has it wrong? What is the difference? The definition of faith that I am working from is the dictionary definition that faith is believing in something without proof. K. So, you don't hold to St Augustine's view of faith, then?

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:33:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If faith is based on evidence and probability, it is hardly faith... If we're going to have this discussion, can we please conduct it in English? Evidence is not proof. Now look, I've debated priests before and I know the feeling well. I am not interested in listening to you recite your catechism, or in redefining English words to suit your agenda. If all you want to do is preach, we're done here. K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So, you don't hold to St Augustine's view of faith, then? It would depend on what he meant by what he said in the quote you cited. I'm better (I hope) at saying what I mean than what Augustine meant, so I'd prefer to stick with my strong suit. K.

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625