1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 May '06 18:50
    We all exercise faith all the time. I show faith in my mechanic (that he knows what he is doing) . I takes risks (or leaps of faith) in trusting people on instinct. A manager keeps faith with a player in his team. A depressed man holds on to faith that life is worth living , even against his feelings or how things seem at the time. I get to find out things through faith too. I make a change or try an experiment with something to see if it works without really knowing , this could easily be said to be faith. I use faith to hold on to something that I know to be true , usually when my back is against the wall or things are going astray. I trust myself in certain situations , and this certainly can feel like a leap of faith.

    I can imagine doing all this as an Atheist too. So why all this fuss over faith as if it is contrary to reason? And why should God be any different from anything else in life? It would be pretty unlikely that God didn't involve some kind of faith.

    So guys, if you mean blind faith is opposed to reason then say this, otherwise stop throwing the baby out with the bath water. Faith is no big deal - Get used to it.

    (Some of you may have noticed by now that 'get used to it' is turning into a bit of a catchphrase for me , I am aware of this irritating habit but I like it for the time being so Get used to it--oooops there I go again...)
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    20 May '06 18:55
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    We all exercise faith all the time. I show faith in my mechanic (that he knows what he is doing) . I takes risks (or leaps of faith) in trusting people on instinct. A manager keeps faith with a player in his team. A depressed man holds on to faith that life is worth living , even against his feelings or how things seem at the time. I get to find out th ...[text shortened]... itating habit but I like it for the time being so Get used to it--oooops there I go again...)
    I don't really use the word 'faith'. I don't really understand what it means. I think it's poorly defined and not a useful word.
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '06 19:00
    Originally posted by knightmeister

    So guys, if you mean blind faith is opposed to reason then say this
    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."

    Was Galileo wrong? Did God intend for us to not use our intellectual capacities?

    If we come to one conclusion via reason and a competing conclusion via blind faith, do you think God intends for us to reject what our reason tells us? Are we making the most of God's gifts to us when we do this?
  4. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    20 May '06 19:02
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."

    Was Galileo wrong? Did God intend for us to not use our intellectual capacities?

    If we come to one conclusion via reason and a competing conclusion via blind faith, do you think God intends for us to reject what our reason tells us? Are we making the most of God's gifts to us when we do this?
    presuming there is a god that is , or was your post a sign of your 'faith'?
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '06 19:05
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    presuming there is a god that is , or was your post a sign of your 'faith'?
    My post is a sign that I am beginning a reductio proof, accepting a set of premises for the purpose of demonstrating that they lead to a position to which the premises' original adherent may not realize that he is implicity adhering.
  6. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    20 May '06 19:09
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    My post is a sign that I am beginning a reductio proof, accepting a set of premises for the purpose of demonstrating that they lead to a position to which the premises' original adherent may not realize that he is implicity adhering.
    The premises are false therefore your post is redundant sir.........
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '06 19:141 edit
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    The premises are false therefore your post is redundant sir.........
    I have updated my title to indicate that I have less interest in truth than in consistency. It's futile to bicker over whether a particular premise is true. It's more interesting to bicker over whether a set of premises is consistent.
  8. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    20 May '06 19:23
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I have updated my title to indicate that I have less interest in truth than in consistency. It's futile to bicker over whether a particular premise is true. It's more interesting to bicker over whether a set of premises is consistent.
    I take the view that if people are making inconsistent statements in debates about matters which are typically discussed in these forums, then those discussions are a waste of time; the potential for inconsistency in such arguments, which tend to rely much more on synthetic than analytic content, is low unless the person is talking shit.

    In relatively practical debates like these (ie, debates about how the real world is or isn't), it's more interesting to consider 'truth' in the sense of 'degree of believability'.

    Have you found any interesting inconsistencies in this forum yet, or just standard, boring ones?
  9. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    20 May '06 19:25
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I have updated my title to indicate that I have less interest in truth than in consistency. It's futile to bicker over whether a particular premise is true. It's more interesting to bicker over whether a set of premises is consistent.
    Consistant? consistantly in error?
  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '06 19:281 edit
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    I take the view that if people are making inconsistent statements in debates about matters which are typically discussed in these forums, then those discussions are a waste of time; the potential for inconsistency in such arguments, which tend to rely much more on synthetic than analytic content, is low unless the person is talking shit.

    In relativ ou found any interesting inconsistencies in this forum yet, or just standard, boring ones?
    I'm working on earthing an interesting one in the Age of the Universe thread. So far, KellyJ appears to believe that humans were designed to both reproduce and live forever. Any inconsistency that fails to acknowledge the implications of finite resources coupled with infinite exponential growth is an interesting one.
  11. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '06 19:28
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    Consistant? consistantly in error?
    Nope. Consistent.
  12. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    20 May '06 19:36
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I'm working on earthing an interesting one in the Age of the Universe thread. So far, KellyJ appears to believe that humans were designed to both reproduce and live forever. Any inconsistency that fails to acknowledge the implications of finite resources coupled with infinite exponential growth is an interesting one.
    I think I'll have to read that thread to determine whether he means that the human race is designed to live forever as a whole (which would be consistent with the inconsistency you've pointed out with the Malthus problem) or that individual humans are designed to live forever (which would be inconsistent with our experience).
  13. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    20 May '06 19:37
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Nope. Consistent.
    i disagree with your form of analysis, whats the point of extracting consistent errors when there the original premise is errror why keep pointing out further errors
  14. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    20 May '06 19:42
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    i disagree with your form of analysis, whats the point of extracting consistent errors when there the original premise is errror why keep pointing out further errors
    You disagree with arguments by contradiction?

    If I wish to prove something is the case, and to that end prove that the assumption of it not being the case is inconsistent with something I already know, what error have I made?

    If someone's premise is in error, their conclusion could still be correct, so attacking the premises of an argument doesn't fully refute its conclusion, although it does mean that they will need a new argument. Therefore, it is sensible to explore each step of an argument. One possible and reasonably common discovery in doing this is that of a new argument from one of their premises which gives a different conclusion to the one they gave, which does provide a full refutation.
  15. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    20 May '06 19:48
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    You disagree with arguments by contradiction?

    If I wish to prove something is the case, and to that end prove that the assumption of it not being the case is inconsistent with something I already know, what error have I made?

    If someone's premise is in error, their conclusion could still be correct, so attacking the premises of an argument doesn't ...[text shortened]... which gives a different conclusion to the one they gave, which does provide a full refutation.
    If the premise that there is a god is a false one then why follow that premise to be true when addressing if faith is correct or not within religion as it obviously isn't as proved by the falseness of the first premise, namely the existance of god.

    In another context you and Dr Scribbles would have my full agreement but not in this context, so we'll agree to dis agree ................
Back to Top