Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My question is valid. You of course don't need to answer.

No, I guess I don't need to answer, but I will anyway just so I can be more annoying.

".., 'which is better, a child who doesn't know what 65 divided by 13 is (and freely admits it) or a child who is absolute and unyielding in his belief that the answer is 6000?' "

Seeing as this seems to be unrelated to the actual topic, on the surface of it, I'd have to admit that the unyielding child needs a spanking.

But, as it relates to knowing whether there is an absolute standard of morality or not, I'd say the one that insists he doesn't know there is one fails basic truth testing. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
No, I guess I don't [b]need to answer, but I will anyway just so I can be more annoying.

".., 'which is better, a child who doesn't know what 65 divided by 13 is (and freely admits it) or a child who is absolute and unyielding in his belief that the answer is 6000?' "

Seeing as this seems to be unrelated to the actual topic, on the surface ...[text shortened]... or not, I'd say the one that insists he doesn't know there is one fails basic truth testing. 😉[/b]

Come sir, you don't require a spanking. (Perhaps a firm poke with a carrot?)

Originally posted by FMF
It's not entirely clear from your mish mash of seemingly peeved and blurted assertions what your definition of "faith" is exactly, but I am pretty sure the definition I offered is nearer to the truth.

".., but I am pretty sure the definition I offered is nearer to the truth."

"When people believe in something they don't "know" to be true, it's called "faith"."

So what you're saying is is that faith is believing something one doesn't know to be true, and at the same time you're saying your definition of faith is "nearer to the truth".

So, according to you, it's true that faith is believing something one doesn't know is true.

Well, if that makes sense to you, then you must have more faith than anyone.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Come sir, you don't require a spanking. (Perhaps a firm poke with a carrot?)

I prefer a cattle prod. Sure behavior modifier.

Originally posted by josephw
So what you're saying is is that faith is believing something one doesn't know to be true, and at the same time you're saying your definition of faith is "nearer to the truth".

So, according to you, it's true that faith is believing something one doesn't know is true.

Well, if that makes sense to you, then you must have more faith than anyone.

Courtesy of google, I'd more or less go with this definition of faith: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.".I don't think it's controversial at all, although you seem to. My off-the-top-of-my-head "faith is believing something one doesn't know to be true", I'd say, is nearer to being a true definition of "faith" than your attempt which was "Faith is acting on and living out what one knows is true based on what the author of life has said" which appears to me to not really be a definition of the word but instead you it's you kind of boasting about how absolutely certain you are about your beliefs.

Originally posted by FMF
Courtesy of google, I'd more or less go with this definition of faith: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.".I don't think it's controversial at all, although you seem to. My off-the-top-of-my-head "faith is believing something one doesn't know to be true", I'd say, is nearer to being a true ...[text shortened]... t instead you it's you kind of boasting about how absolutely certain you are about your beliefs.

Faith isn't only just a word with a definition, nor is it just another way of saying belief. The full meaning is probably best encapsulated by a verse in Hebrews: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

The broader meaning of faith is known and understood experientially by its application to life and living.

If life were an engine, faith would be its fuel.

Originally posted by josephw
Faith isn't only just a word with a definition, nor is it just another way of saying belief.

Well, it is actually. It just is. Look, I get your sincerity. I get your certainty. But please stop distorting or hijacking English language words or capitalizing them incorrectly in your efforts to hammer away about how sincere and certain you are about the stuff you believe. I get it. I'm sure most non-Christians get it.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, it is actually. It just is. Look, I get your sincerity. I get your certainty. But please stop distorting or hijacking English language words or capitalizing them incorrectly in your efforts to hammer away about how sincere and certain you are about the stuff you believe. I get it. I'm sure most non-Christians get it.

You inject too many personal issues into the discussion. Don't be so concerned about my certainty or sincerity. They have nothing to do with the topic, and they're actually not your business.

What you should be concerned about is the way you hijack, distort and misrepresent the intent of any particular poster you just so happen to disagree with,,,with what appears to be a deliberate attempt to draw the discussion away from the topic.

Originally posted by josephw
You inject too many personal issues into the discussion. Don't be so concerned about my certainty or sincerity.

Your distortion or hijacking of the conventional meaning of the English language word "faith" and your capitalizing of the word truth are caused by your personal issues and your need to exhibit your certainty or sincerity as if these two attributes of yours can turn something you have faith in [for your own personal religious reasons] into something that is somehow "true" for non-religious, non-superstitious, non-theist people. You have strong "faith". Good for you you.

Originally posted by josephw
What you should be concerned about is the way you hijack, distort and misrepresent the intent of any particular poster you just so happen to disagree with,,,with what appears to be a deliberate attempt to draw the discussion away from the topic.

You seem to lay down this same old same old barrage of white phosphorus every time we get into a discussion. You can do better,

Originally posted by FMF
You seem to lay down this same old same old barrage of white phosphorus every time we get into a discussion. You can do better,

No problem. Let's do it again sometime. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
No problem. Let's do it again sometime. 😉

Your constant resort to dismissing stuff you disagree with as "obfuscation" (I don't think you even know what the word means) or "hijacking" or "deflection" or "irrational" or "illogical" sometimes makes it seem like you are posting for the sake of posting and don't have anything to say, aside from bald assertions like you-know-who.

Originally posted by FMF
Your constant resort to dismissing stuff you disagree with as "obfuscation" (I don't think you even know what the word means) or "hijacking" or "deflection" or "irrational" or "illogical" sometimes makes it seem like you are posting for the sake of posting and don't have anything to say, aside from bald assertions like you-know-who.

Jeez. All I meant was it's water under the bridge. I'm moving on. But there you are again dredging up old rivalries. Hell, hasn't it been at least a day since we argued? I'm not keeping score.

Originally posted by josephw
Jeez. All I meant was it's water under the bridge. I'm moving on. But there you are again dredging up old rivalries. Hell, hasn't it been at least a day since we argued? I'm not keeping score.

More deflection.

Originally posted by FMF
More deflection.

Ok. Why don't you boil it down to something substantive? We can continue this tomorrow. I started my day 21 hours ago. I'm too tired to argue about it anymore today. I'm going to bed.