A-believerism or A-deism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 09:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...t-is-faith

I can't stand faith. It is a useless and outdated concept that the world would be better off without.

Having said that, I do not care what the individual beliefs of any person are. As long as they leave me out of it and do not ask for their beliefs to be given precedent over anyone else's or that any laws/rules/regulations be specially adapted so as to accommodate their beliefs.

I can no more refute the claim deists make than most other religious zealots. But it too is irrelevant. The Deist has the burden of proof and until such time as they demonstrate it, they are a slightly more rational version of a theist.
HAHA! You and I have very different definitions for faith.

Psychologically, we can't think without faith: faith in our thinking, our perceptions, the things we heard and the people we heard them from. I suppose we could call it "trust" but the prevailing notion of trust is way too passive to capture the assertiveness and affirmation involved in deciding that something is worth acting on.

Every time we decide and act, we're exercising faith in bunch of things at a bunch of levels. Just think about driving your car. Do you check all four tires, the oil, and the brakes every time before you take off? No. You act in faith that they are all in working order. Sometimes that faith is proven wrong; most times it works just fine.

You do all that--and a thousand other things every day--without specific evidence. That's faith. Especially when it comes to personal interaction, especially intimate interaction. What are you going to say when she tells you, "I love you!" Where's your evidence? LOL! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 11:11 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 01:45 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  So you're saying that, for example, you have no problem with "faith" per se, just with the irrational extremes some people take it to?
I too will avoid speaking for all atheists (because I am unable to), but many atheists I know share DLJ's sentiments; in that they couldn't care less what a person believes, so long as those beliefs are not negatively effecting society as a whole. To an extent, I agree with this. However, to a slightly greater extent, I don't. I am not merely anti-fundamentalism; I am anti-irrationality in general. If a person believes with full sincerity that drinking a bottle of homeopathic water makes them healthier, I take issue with that, and will attempt to convince them that their belief is irrational. That's not because I'm some intellectual nazi who wants everyone to think the way I do (although, wouldn't it be easier if we all thought alike? Not as interesting, but much easier). It's because irrationality - in any form and to any varying extreme - is just as its name would suggest: irrational. It is not reasonable. It is a mental disease. Of course, in the realm of mental diseases, drinking homeopathic water is a simple bout of the common cold when compared to the Cancer of religious fundamentalism. And generally, not too many people get upset about the fact that the cold is so common. Instead, they focus all their time on Cancer research.

But me; I'd rather there were no sicknesses out there at all. I'd rather people didn't go around sniffling and sneezing as a common but still very malicious virus attacks their upper respiratory system. I'd rather do away with disease altogether. It's the same with irrationality. Even the kinds that are kept to one's self are still irrational. What's more, much like viruses, irrationality has repeatedly demonstrated its potential to mutate and become something much, much worse.

To summarize: irrationality (faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, homeopathic pursuits or any other irrationality you can think of) is a disease, and I believe it must be treated as such. I'm much like Dawkins in that way. (Though, some may not look at that as a good thing. lol)
I'm totally with you on anti-irrationalism. Me too. Which is why I'm surprised that you like Dawkins. His arguments are jokes. He writes like he got a C- in Logic 101. He resorts to the anthropic principle as a defense against the HORRENDOUS odds against life as we know it happening as a result of chance factors. The AP is a truistic notion developed by Tipler, who authored books such as "The Physics of Immortality" in which he argues from physics that immortality, resurrection from the dead, and a kind of heaven that will occur at the "Omega Point" are not only possible, not only probable, but absolutely certain to happen! Really Charlie? Sorry, I don't take Dawkins anywhere near seriously.

So let me challenge you about equating faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, homeopathic pursuits with irrationality. Don't be a victim of confirmation bias. That some or even most faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, or homeopathic pursuits are irrational does not preclude the possibility of rational faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, and homeopathic pursuits. Or put another way, how can you be sure that all the behavior that you label as faith, religious belief, superstitious behavior, or homeopathic is actually irrational? Maybe there are some valid, legitimate, and effective behaviors that you label "irrational" incorrectly.

Just because you can knock a straw man down doesn't mean that real men don't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 11:58 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If I invent the idea that my mind is subconsciously connected to an infinite wall of knowledge and that this is where inspiration comes from, then that is an irrational human fabrication. It's irrational because there is nothing to justify believing such a thing. It's a fabrication because I made it up. But as time goes on and I'm actually able to produce evidence that this wall of knowledge exists and that I'm connected to it, then at that point it becomes rational to hold that belief because it's justified and backed up by evidence.
Well, according to that ALL knowledge is irrational, because all knowledge eventually traces back to inputs for which we have no evidence for reliability. Most of them (genetics, most of our past experiences we've long forgotten, and the tangential origins of the inputs that eventually impacted us,) we are completely oblivious to. How could we then have "evidence" to know whether or not they were fabricated?

For example, almost everything I learned in American History was a substantial lie. Yes, ok, Washington and Lincoln existed. I'll grant that. But the picture that was painted and the import of that picture was absolutely false. We still celebrated Columbus day back then. I was never told that he was a genocidist. I was never told that the "Westward Expansion" was basically an ethnic cleansing, nor that "Manifest Destiny" was a crock of shit excuse to displace citizens from their country in total denial of their rights and the existence of their country.

Read Chomsky's "How the World Works." You don't need to buy everything he says. What struck me was the HUGE disconnection between actual events and the BS way that they were reported--or completely ignored. With that kind of credibility gap in play, what makes us think that we know anything at all?

So what evidence do you have that you weren't deceived about all kinds of things unawares? Hmmm?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 08:56 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 08:11 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 09:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...t-is-faith

I can't stand faith. It is a useless and outdated concept that the world would be better off without.

Having said that, I do not care what the individual beliefs of any person are. As long as they leave me out of it and do not ask for their beliefs to be given precedent over anyone else's or that any laws/rules/regulations be specially adapted so as to accommodate their beliefs.

I can no more refute the claim deists make than most other religious zealots. But it too is irrelevant. The Deist has the burden of proof and until such time as they demonstrate it, they are a slightly more rational version of a theist.
HAHA! You and I have very different definitions for faith.

Psychologically, we can't think without faith: faith in our thinking, our perceptions, the things we heard and the people we heard them from. I suppose we could call it "trust" but the prevailing notion of trust is way too passive to capture the assertiveness and affirmation involved in deciding that something is worth acting on.

Every time we decide and act, we're exercising faith in bunch of things at a bunch of levels. Just think about driving your car. Do you check all four tires, the oil, and the brakes every time before you take off? No. You act in faith that they are all in working order. Sometimes that faith is proven wrong; most times it works just fine.

You do all that--and a thousand other things every day--without specific evidence. That's faith. Especially when it comes to personal interaction, especially intimate interaction. What are you going to say when she tells you, "I love you!" Where's your evidence? LOL! Big Grin
What you are describing is trust and knowledge that we have gained about the things we use every day and trust in the people we interact with every day. When you say that we are acting in faith that all the things about our car are in working order without inspecting them each and every time, what you are really referring to is the knowledge we gained for ourselves through science and engineering. We trust the parts that we have installed on our cars because those parts have gone through extensive testing for safety and durability. We don't have to do a 50 point spot inspection on our car parts because the companies that produce those parts have already done that testing for us.

When a soldier pulls the pin on a hand grenade, he is putting trust in the company that produced that grenade.
That company puts their grenades through rigorous testing and each part is tested to maintain a high level of reliability.
When Joe from down the street shows you the grenade he made from watching a youtube video, again you use knowledge to determine a level of trust that you can put into how this grenade will perform under combat situations. The level of trust is extremely low and only an idiot would dare use it given that a hand could be lost in the attempt.

Faith comes in when you have no knowledge at all about anything. Faith is blindness.
Faith is wearing a blindfold and not knowing that you are walking toward the edge of a 100ft cliff.
Faith is hearing someone say "You're headed toward a cliff" and you reply "I have faith that god will stop me before I fall"

If a woman you've never met walks up to you and tells you "I love you" are you taking that on faith ?
No, you're making an assessment based on her behavior. You can assess her behavior because you've been interacting with other human beings for your entire life. You know when someone is sincere. You can tell when someone is feeding you bullshit.
Ok, maybe YOU can't tell when someone is feeding you bullshit. I don't know.

When the woman that you have been involved with for a period of time expresses a heart felt feeling to you, the evidence of that expression has been built up over all the time that you've spent with her. We trust the people that we spend time with because they have earned a certain level of trust, day in and day out. The evidence of trust piles up every day so that when someone tells you to duck down NOW, you duck down. When someone tells you with tears in their eyes that your dog has died, you trust that they aren't intentionally driving an emotional knife in your heart for no reason. This isn't a matter of faith. It's trust.

When people see god in natural events, it's no wonder they see faith in events that are based in trust.

You are taking things that we have information about and layering other words on top of them trying to give those words meaning.

Faith is placing trust in nothing for no reason.
I have faith that the spirit sword of Argasy will protect me from the tornado while I stand in my back yard.

I trust that the underground bunker with 3 ft of concrete on all sides will protect me from the tornado.
^ Do you understand why this is trust and not faith ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
19-02-2013, 09:26 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 08:41 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 11:58 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If I invent the idea that my mind is subconsciously connected to an infinite wall of knowledge and that this is where inspiration comes from, then that is an irrational human fabrication. It's irrational because there is nothing to justify believing such a thing. It's a fabrication because I made it up. But as time goes on and I'm actually able to produce evidence that this wall of knowledge exists and that I'm connected to it, then at that point it becomes rational to hold that belief because it's justified and backed up by evidence.
Well, according to that ALL knowledge is irrational, because all knowledge eventually traces back to inputs for which we have no evidence for reliability. Most of them (genetics, most of our past experiences we've long forgotten, and the tangential origins of the inputs that eventually impacted us,) we are completely oblivious to. How could we then have "evidence" to know whether or not they were fabricated?

For example, almost everything I learned in American History was a substantial lie. Yes, ok, Washington and Lincoln existed. I'll grant that. But the picture that was painted and the import of that picture was absolutely false. We still celebrated Columbus day back then. I was never told that he was a genocidist. I was never told that the "Westward Expansion" was basically an ethnic cleansing, nor that "Manifest Destiny" was a crock of shit excuse to displace citizens from their country in total denial of their rights and the existence of their country.

Read Chomsky's "How the World Works." You don't need to buy everything he says. What struck me was the HUGE disconnection between actual events and the BS way that they were reported--or completely ignored. With that kind of credibility gap in play, what makes us think that we know anything at all?

So what evidence do you have that you weren't deceived about all kinds of things unawares? Hmmm?
Someone has really done a hatchet job on your ability to trust information gained about the observable world.
To you every book in the library on every subject could simply be a fabrication. No truth to be found anywhere.
All the evidence gained throughout recorded history on literature, biology, mathematics, chemistry, sports, history, physics, psychology, medicine, astronomy, the list goes on and on.
To you there is no mountain of evidence. Because it COULD all be fabricated lies.

And yet they have lured you in to trust only their words and the word of god as written in the bible.
Ignore the observable world and trust only the word of god. Everything else is a lie.


Imagine if I raised you as my child and from an infant, I told you to only trust what I say.
Do not trust anything you hear in school. Do not trust your friends. Do no trust any other family members. Only trust me.
They are all liars. Nothing they say is true. Don't fall for any of their lies.
If you want to know the truth, come to me and I will always tell you the truth. You can trust me and only me.
Everything can be fabricated. All those books that you will read in school. Someone wrote all of those lies to get you to think like them. They want to brain wash you. Don't let them.
You have to trust me.

^Is this what happened to you ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
19-02-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
Rahn,
Please clarify.
When a woman I've never met before says "I love you long time", should I trust her?
And does "Luv U Short Time" really mean LUST?
Yours faithfully
DLJ

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 01:21 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 07:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 07:33 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  Haha, I agree completely!

So thinking atheists and thinking theists ought to join forces! I know a lot of churchgoers who are appalled by the likes of the Tea Party, Glen Beck, Pat Robertson (but who listens to him anymore) and that ilk. Probably just like a lot of Muslims are appalled by jihadists.

Instead of arguing over the existence of God, we should get together and focus on the real problem: the bastardization of faith.

After all, even atheists are believers: they believe in SOMETHING, even if it's just their own thinking. We all (hopefully) have people that care about us who we believe. The psychology of faith is the same regardless what it's applied to.

Faith isn't the problem. People who use it as a tool to influence and control others because they are all SCARED SHITLESS are the problem.

I used to be in the ranks of the religiously insane. I know how the thinking works. Those guys are not confident, powerful people. They are scared to death. They live in a world of devils and demons with death at hell at the end of it. God is pretty much just a means of escape.

They need to be talked down from their hysteria and paranoia, not whipped up into a frenzy, and certainly not feared. They can be handled. Together we could figure it out.


I can't really agree fully.

I think all belief without evidence is a problem as it is not rational. Moderates are just less of a problem.
I completely agree with that belief without evidence is a problem and is not rational. I don't accept the converse, though, that all belief is irrational. (not saying you advocate that, but many do.)

In between is rational belief, based on evidence or a reasonable expectation that evidence exists. Please see my post to TheBeardedDude at 6:11pm today. We all are believers and don't usually bother looking for evidence in almost everything we do. Also, my post to ClydeLee at 5:49pm. Most people's definition of "evidence" is far too narrow, excluding much of the reasons for our most important life decisions.

What evidence does a guy have that the woman of his dreams won't divorce him in 5 years and take him to the cleaners? Anyone who commits a lifetime of love to another human being does it on the basis of faith without evidence. Evidence cannot play a role in any matter that revolves around intention, because evidence involves looking back, while intention involves looking forwards. Evidence, as Hume made clear centuries ago, does not apply to the future, only to the past. We apply past results to future performance by faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 02:03 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 08:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 08:11 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  HAHA! You and I have very different definitions for faith.

Psychologically, we can't think without faith: faith in our thinking, our perceptions, the things we heard and the people we heard them from. I suppose we could call it "trust" but the prevailing notion of trust is way too passive to capture the assertiveness and affirmation involved in deciding that something is worth acting on.

Every time we decide and act, we're exercising faith in bunch of things at a bunch of levels. Just think about driving your car. Do you check all four tires, the oil, and the brakes every time before you take off? No. You act in faith that they are all in working order. Sometimes that faith is proven wrong; most times it works just fine.

You do all that--and a thousand other things every day--without specific evidence. That's faith. Especially when it comes to personal interaction, especially intimate interaction. What are you going to say when she tells you, "I love you!" Where's your evidence? LOL! Big Grin
What you are describing is trust and knowledge that we have gained about the things we use every day and trust in the people we interact with every day. When you say that we are acting in faith that all the things about our car are in working order without inspecting them each and every time, what you are really referring to is the knowledge we gained for ourselves through science and engineering. We trust the parts that we have installed on our cars because those parts have gone through extensive testing for safety and durability. We don't have to do a 50 point spot inspection on our car parts because the companies that produce those parts have already done that testing for us.

When a soldier pulls the pin on a hand grenade, he is putting trust in the company that produced that grenade.
That company puts their grenades through rigorous testing and each part is tested to maintain a high level of reliability.
When Joe from down the street shows you the grenade he made from watching a youtube video, again you use knowledge to determine a level of trust that you can put into how this grenade will perform under combat situations. The level of trust is extremely low and only an idiot would dare use it given that a hand could be lost in the attempt.

Faith comes in when you have no knowledge at all about anything. Faith is blindness.
Faith is wearing a blindfold and not knowing that you are walking toward the edge of a 100ft cliff.
Faith is hearing someone say "You're headed toward a cliff" and you reply "I have faith that god will stop me before I fall"

If a woman you've never met walks up to you and tells you "I love you" are you taking that on faith ?
No, you're making an assessment based on her behavior. You can assess her behavior because you've been interacting with other human beings for your entire life. You know when someone is sincere. You can tell when someone is feeding you bullshit.
Ok, maybe YOU can't tell when someone is feeding you bullshit. I don't know.

When the woman that you have been involved with for a period of time expresses a heart felt feeling to you, the evidence of that expression has been built up over all the time that you've spent with her. We trust the people that we spend time with because they have earned a certain level of trust, day in and day out. The evidence of trust piles up every day so that when someone tells you to duck down NOW, you duck down. When someone tells you with tears in their eyes that your dog has died, you trust that they aren't intentionally driving an emotional knife in your heart for no reason. This isn't a matter of faith. It's trust.

When people see god in natural events, it's no wonder they see faith in events that are based in trust.

You are taking things that we have information about and layering other words on top of them trying to give those words meaning.

Faith is placing trust in nothing for no reason.
I have faith that the spirit sword of Argasy will protect me from the tornado while I stand in my back yard.

I trust that the underground bunker with 3 ft of concrete on all sides will protect me from the tornado.
^ Do you understand why this is trust and not faith ?
You are missing a couple of distinctions.

There is a big difference between:

1) the science and engineering that go into the design of a product
2) the very unscientific processes that take that design and fabricate an actual instance of the design
3) an instance of a product at work getting wear, tear, and stress and eventually failing

No amount of science and engineering can preclude bad designs from being accepted as good ones. Example: Titannic, thalidomide, Corvair (still debatable, I admit.)

No amount of science and engineering can preclude manufacturing defects. Example: factory recalls.

No amount of science and engineering can prevent your tire from going flat or your brakes from failing due to wear, hazards, or sabotage. Example: flat tires, broken hoses, sticky radiator thermostats, bustted belts, etc

In all those ways in which general scientific/engineering knowledge have absolutely no relevance, you drive your car by faith.

It really cracks me up how resistant people are to this use of the term "faith." Conditioned reflex if I ever saw one.

Faith does not ONLY "come in when you have no knowledge at all about anything" unless you define it that way. Faith is not blindness unless you define it that way. That's fine, I can work with that; but then you need to give me your term for the confidence we act on every day in the absence of specific (not general) knowledge that's relevant to the success or failure of what we do. "Trust" doesn't do it, like I already mentioned--too passive. I can trust you without relying on you or acting on what you tell me, because acting involves my commitment to the proposition that taking action is desirable or necessary, something that's only partly dependent on my trust in you. I'm talking about the confidence that covers what's left over besides my trust in you. You are not the whole enchilada. I could go with "confidence" if you like. Tomayto, tomahto.

That brings up the second distinction, one of temporal orientation. Evidence and trust are functions of the past. I'm talking about confidence in the future. Without confidence in things that we can't see (atoms for example) and things happening that haven't happened yet, we would be stuck in catatonic states unable to take a step. And yet, we take steps all the livelong day.

Again, general knowledge (model or photo of an molecule) does not substitute for specific knowledge, i.e., these molecules that make up this chair I'm sitting in. I have no evidence that this chair is made up of the molecules I read about in Scientific American. Someone else who has actually examined the molecules that make up the chair he or she sits in can claim to have evidence. For me, at best, that's second-hand evidence; little more than hearsay.

"If a woman you've never met walks up to you and tells you 'I love you' are you taking that on faith ?" Yes, and so are you.

"No, you're making an assessment based on her behavior. You can assess her behavior because you've been interacting with other human beings for your entire life." Again, past results do not assure future performance.

"You know when someone is sincere. You can tell when someone is feeding you bullshit." Actually, more than 50% of us cannot, judging by divorce rates. Throw in extra-marital breakups and it's more like 80%. Unless you're still with the one you first loved back in the day and she or he has caused you no disappointment worth mentioning. Then I'll accept that you are one of the exceptional few. I am not.
Haha, and yes, I'm very good at detecting bullshit. Angel (naw, just kidding... about the smiley. this is me: Hobo )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 02:19 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2013 02:24 AM by millardjmelnyk.)
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(19-02-2013 09:26 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 08:41 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  Well, according to that ALL knowledge is irrational, because all knowledge eventually traces back to inputs for which we have no evidence for reliability. Most of them (genetics, most of our past experiences we've long forgotten, and the tangential origins of the inputs that eventually impacted us,) we are completely oblivious to. How could we then have "evidence" to know whether or not they were fabricated?

For example, almost everything I learned in American History was a substantial lie. Yes, ok, Washington and Lincoln existed. I'll grant that. But the picture that was painted and the import of that picture was absolutely false. We still celebrated Columbus day back then. I was never told that he was a genocidist. I was never told that the "Westward Expansion" was basically an ethnic cleansing, nor that "Manifest Destiny" was a crock of shit excuse to displace citizens from their country in total denial of their rights and the existence of their country.

Read Chomsky's "How the World Works." You don't need to buy everything he says. What struck me was the HUGE disconnection between actual events and the BS way that they were reported--or completely ignored. With that kind of credibility gap in play, what makes us think that we know anything at all?

So what evidence do you have that you weren't deceived about all kinds of things unawares? Hmmm?
Someone has really done a hatchet job on your ability to trust information gained about the observable world.
To you every book in the library on every subject could simply be a fabrication. No truth to be found anywhere.
All the evidence gained throughout recorded history on literature, biology, mathematics, chemistry, sports, history, physics, psychology, medicine, astronomy, the list goes on and on.
To you there is no mountain of evidence. Because it COULD all be fabricated lies.

And yet they have lured you in to trust only their words and the word of god as written in the bible.
Ignore the observable world and trust only the word of god. Everything else is a lie.


Imagine if I raised you as my child and from an infant, I told you to only trust what I say.
Do not trust anything you hear in school. Do not trust your friends. Do no trust any other family members. Only trust me.
They are all liars. Nothing they say is true. Don't fall for any of their lies.
If you want to know the truth, come to me and I will always tell you the truth. You can trust me and only me.
Everything can be fabricated. All those books that you will read in school. Someone wrote all of those lies to get you to think like them. They want to brain wash you. Don't let them.
You have to trust me.

^Is this what happened to you ?
I love it! An atheist calling me to task for not trusting! How'd that happen? Thumbsup

You exemplify a pattern I've observed for a long time: both atheists and theists have trust preferences. You gave us a long list of yours. When it comes to demonstrating reasons for their trust, they play a shell game: apply my standard to your game and call your game a failure. Of course, my game by definition passes my standard, as yours does yours. And as long as we insist on comparing apples to oranges, we'll get nowhere.

In all fairness, I agree with most of what you say about fabricated god stuff. What is quite unfair and presumptuous is your application of that BS to me. It's understandable. My position is located in a very different paradigm than the god debate takes place in. Glad to talk about it if you're interested. Otherwise, just know that my understanding of god and faith is not anything close to the notions you're knocking. Like I tell my atheist friends and acquaintances: I don't believe in those ridiculous, horrible gods either. But I object to the common atheistic implication that those are all there are to consider.

Also, I'd ask you to not get personal. My thinking is not an artifact of mental dysfunction. Plenty happened to me, as I assume is true for you if you have some years behind you. Just because someone claims things that don't make sense to you, don't jump to the conclusion--or as in this case, insinuation--that their thinking is defective or the result of past abuse or whatever you might be implying. At least explore it a bit. I get the same kind of aggressive, ad hominem defensiveness from religious crazies! Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 04:45 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2013 05:05 AM by DLJ.)
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(20-02-2013 01:21 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  ...
What evidence does a guy have that the woman of his dreams won't divorce him in 5 years and take him to the cleaners? Anyone who commits a lifetime of love to another human being does it on the basis of faith without evidence.
...

Close.

It was 14 years. But now I have the evidence, I won't make that mistake again.

Drinking Beverage

(20-02-2013 01:21 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  ...
1) the science and engineering that go into the design of a product
2) the very unscientific processes that take that design and fabricate an actual instance of the design
3) an instance of a product at work getting wear, tear, and stress and eventually failing

No amount of science and engineering can preclude bad designs from being accepted as good ones. Example: Titannic, thalidomide, Corvair (still debatable, I admit.)

No amount of science and engineering can preclude manufacturing defects. Example: factory recalls.

This doesn't seem right to me. Lots of "science and engineering" has precluded bad design and defects.
Trial and error, too, is a scientific approach.... testing.

Science and engineering is not only involved in the design but also the manufacturing stages and testing stages too. That's why e.g. tyres burst as infrequently as they do.
MTFB (Mean Time Between Failures... reliability) is also calculated scientifically.

Testing provides evidence and determines probabilities. Science does not provide guarantees... it's a learning process.

Faith provides false guarantees (with a high degree of probabilities).

(20-02-2013 01:21 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  I'm talking about the confidence that covers what's left over

That's called a Risk Assessment and we do it instinctively every time we cross a road or sit on a chair or have sex with a stranger.
Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: