A-believerism or A-deism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 01:02 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(26-02-2013 09:04 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  C'mon man. Contribute something yourself. Give communication a try. You're way behind--my several pages to your few, uninformative questions.
What I'm trying to get through your thick skull is that it's impossible to answer your questions unless you clarify their content. I have asked you twice for clarification and it would have taken you merely a couple of seconds to answer all of them, yet you decided to continue your self-loathing and condescending act. You can continue with the mental masturbation for all I care, it doesn't seem very much like you're interesting in a productive conversation.

(26-02-2013 09:04 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  Maybe my last post will help. I did, after ClydeLee made some substantive comments, realize that I was unclear, but he focused on my point, not something tangential.
Your discussion with ClydeLee is completely unrelated to ours. You are still debating about the meaning and usage of the term "faith" with him while I'm addressing what I consider to be your main argument.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
27-02-2013, 02:10 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(27-02-2013 01:02 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 09:04 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  C'mon man. Contribute something yourself. Give communication a try. You're way behind--my several pages to your few, uninformative questions.
What I'm trying to get through your thick skull is that it's impossible to answer your questions unless you clarify their content. I have asked you twice for clarification and it would have taken you merely a couple of seconds to answer all of them, yet you decided to continue your self-loathing and condescending act. You can continue with the mental masturbation for all I care, it doesn't seem very much like you're interesting in a productive conversation.

(26-02-2013 09:04 PM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  Maybe my last post will help. I did, after ClydeLee made some substantive comments, realize that I was unclear, but he focused on my point, not something tangential.
Your discussion with ClydeLee is completely unrelated to ours. You are still debating about the meaning and usage of the term "faith" with him while I'm addressing what I consider to be your main argument.
haha, that's my point. YOU insist that it's my main argument, even after I tell you it's tangential.

Great example not just of not listening, but of a stereotypical personal attacker, btw. Thanks. When you can't figure 'em out, and when they won't comply, slam 'em! Typical. Thanks for showing more of your true colors. I wonder, do you have yet more flashy feathers to put on display?

If you had anything to say, you'd have said it by now. Plumb empty, eh? Scraped the bottom of the barrel and this is the best you can do? I've put plenty of material out there for you to actually criticize with something thoughtful. All you can come up with are slurs?

At least I've got something to masturbate. Chicken. LOL :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 02:23 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 06:38 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(27-02-2013 02:10 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  haha, that's my point. YOU insist that it's my main argument, even after I tell you it's tangential.

Great example not just of not listening, but of a stereotypical personal attacker, btw. Thanks. When you can't figure 'em out, and when they won't comply, slam 'em! Typical. Thanks for showing more of your true colors. I wonder, do you have yet more flashy feathers to put on display?

If you had anything to say, you'd have said it by now. Plumb empty, eh? Scraped the bottom of the barrel and this is the best you can do? I've put plenty of material out there for you to actually criticize with something thoughtful. All you can come up with are slurs?

At least I've got something to masturbate. Chicken. LOL :-)
I rest my case. Drinking Beverage

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 05:08 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
Nice post.. but you completely ignored the point of why I said you're going in circles. I explained that and nothing in that post is something I have an issue with.. it's what you are deliberately saying faith is in your own words. I'm not putting any indications on what I think faith is when I see what you are saying.

YOU SAID, as you reexplained in your point, faith to you is using rationality and critical thinking. But you also said, "No amount of information, evidence, or reason can eliminate the chance
that our action will fail, and yet we act anyway. That's faith."

So you are saying faith is using evidence and reason... but faith is acting without regarding evidence or reason. That is the issue I have with your use of faith.

And I tried to bring it back to what points it seems you made in the first post.. but you ignored that to talk about what you think people are having an issue with while ignoring the complaints.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
27-02-2013, 06:26 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(27-02-2013 02:10 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  At least I've got something to masturbate. Chicken. LOL :-)


And this, boys and girls, is what we call 'mental masturbation'...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(27-02-2013 02:23 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 02:10 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  haha, that's my point. YOU insist that it's my main argument, even after I tell you it's tangential.

Great example not just of not listening, but of a stereotypical personal attacker, btw. Thanks. When you can't figure 'em out, and when they won't comply, slam 'em! Typical. Thanks for showing more of your true colors. I wonder, do you have yet more flashy feathers to put on display?

If you had anything to say, you'd have said it by now. Plumb empty, eh? Scraped the bottom of the barrel and this is the best you can do? I've put plenty of material out there for you to actually criticize with something thoughtful. All you can come up with are slurs?

At least I've got something to masturbate. Chicken. LOL :-)
I rest my case. Drinking Beverage
Vosur and EvolutionKills, so glad that I was able to give you some reason to feel good about yourselves! Hope it doesn't happen too rarely, LOL! ;-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(27-02-2013 05:08 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Nice post.. but you completely ignored the point of why I said you're going in circles. I explained that and nothing in that post is something I have an issue with.. it's what you are deliberately saying faith is in your own words. I'm not putting any indications on what I think faith is when I see what you are saying.

YOU SAID, as you reexplained in your point, faith to you is using rationality and critical thinking. But you also said, "No amount of information, evidence, or reason can eliminate the chance
that our action will fail, and yet we act anyway. That's faith."

So you are saying faith is using evidence and reason... but faith is acting without regarding evidence or reason. That is the issue I have with your use of faith.

And I tried to bring it back to what points it seems you made in the first post.. but you ignored that to talk about what you think people are having an issue with while ignoring the complaints.
OK ClydeLee, I didn't intend to ignore your point, and I'm not sure that I did, but I just got home and too tired to go back and check right now. I will tomorrow or asap. Thanks for taking some time and thought and for your response. :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 03:27 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(28-02-2013 02:51 AM)millardjmelnyk Wrote:  Vosur and EvolutionKills, so glad that I was able to give you some reason to feel good about yourselves! Hope it doesn't happen too rarely, LOL! ;-)
Likewise. [Image: gentleman.gif]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
05-03-2013, 12:30 AM
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
(27-02-2013 05:08 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Nice post.. but you completely ignored the point of why I said you're going in circles. I explained that and nothing in that post is something I have an issue with.. it's what you are deliberately saying faith is in your own words. I'm not putting any indications on what I think faith is when I see what you are saying.

YOU SAID, as you reexplained in your point, faith to you is using rationality and critical thinking. But you also said, "No amount of information, evidence, or reason can eliminate the chance
that our action will fail, and yet we act anyway. That's faith."

So you are saying faith is using evidence and reason... but faith is acting without regarding evidence or reason. That is the issue I have with your use of faith.

And I tried to bring it back to what points it seems you made in the first post.. but you ignored that to talk about what you think people are having an issue with while ignoring the complaints.
OK, ClydeLee, maybe here is the problem.

You think that I'm saying that "faith" is using evidence and reason... but also that faith is acting without regarding evidence or reason. You have a problem with that. I would too, if I were doing both at the same time, but I'm not. Again, you're ignoring both sequence and temporal directionality.

Reason and evidence support speculative predictions, too, not so differently than the way that they support faith. Speculation remains academic until we commit something valuable in order to act on the speculative proposition. No matter how much reason and evidence we apply to a prediction, we can't completely eliminate uncertainty, so some degree of speculation remains. Once we commit a valuable to action, we involve faith that covers the remaining uncertainty. The more valuable the thing we commit, (money, time, loyalty, physical welfare,) and the more risk involved, the greater the need for faith. Like I mentioned before, people who carefully avoid risk tend to be unfamiliar with faith, not that they avoid it, but they spend so much attention on risk avoidance that they tend not to notice what little faith they utilize.

Here's the sequence that might not be clear to you:

Before we've thought enough to be reasonable, we believe certain things and are willing to act on them. We do that by faith. If you disagree, then I suspect you have forgotten childhood. Then we get experience, which instigates and informs our reason and, thanks to memory, gives us evidence. Reason itself is initially developed through happenstantial experience, not logic, as part of a conditioning process, not a process of reason. Prior to reason, experience can in no way be considered "evidence" in the sense we're using it. The only way to identify evidence and understand what it's evidence of is to first have believed and reasoned certain things that enable us to recognize it and make sense of it without prior benefit of evidence, (at least not THAT evidence.) Reason and evidence also inform what we believe. It's not linear. At any point, we act by committing to a proposition that we believe is likely to go as predicted, given past reason and evidence, but we can never be certain. Faith enables us to bridge that gap of uncertainty and commit to action in spite of it.

Here's the temporal directionality that might not be clear to you:

I explained before that reason and evidence refer to PAST events and facts. Faith can be based on reason and evidence in exactly the same way that science is: with regard to the PAST. With regard to the future, reason and evidence are INSUFFICIENT to achieve certainty. Hume made that very clear. I haven't read a convincing rebuttal to him. This insufficiency comes in two aspects:

1) Information from the past might not apply to the future. The assumption that, since the sun "rose" billions of times before, it will therefore rise again tomorrow, is both uncertain and unverifiable. One day the sun will not rise. No one can guarantee that we'll get notice of its demise beforehand. It could even happen tomorrow. UNCERTAIN because we cannot be certain before the fact. UNVERIFIABLE because, if we wake up tomorrow and the sun rises, we will have verified that it DID rise AFTER THE FACT, not that it WILL rise before the fact. If you can't get the difference, you'll have trouble understanding me. Quantum physics has raised questions about our very notion of causality, for Pete's sake! How can we be certain that past evidence indicates future probability if we're not even sure whether or not causality is an illusion?

2) No matter how much evidence and reason we acquire that indicates a future event is likely to happen, NO AMOUNT of evidence or reason can take into account the unknown values of variables that we're aware of, (because we can't determine their values until after we measure them, AFTER an event or action occurs,) MUCH LESS the values of variables that we're not even aware of but, unknown to us, WILL affect the outcome we're trying to predict.

Looking forward to what comes next, which is what we do when we're deciding to act, the very best any of us can do is base our decision to act on past reason and evidence and take a leap of faith over the future unknowns of #1 and #2, a leap that's consistent with reason and evidence, although we simply don't know whether our action will turn out like we predict it will. 99 times out of 100 still means that THIS time might CERTAINLY be that one exception out of 100, but we just won't know it until AFTER we act. We call those exceptions "accidents" and "surprises."

Bottom line, there is just no way for beings with finite awareness/cognition/knowledge to avoid faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2013, 11:51 PM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 11:55 PM by millardjmelnyk.)
RE: A-believerism or A-deism?
Haha, silence speaks loads. It's been over a month since my last post. Whassamatta? Speechless?

Just as a great example of precisely the problems I pointed out about the scientific PROCESS (as distinct from the scientific method) check out this killer, short video by Ben Goldacre: What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe @ http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_wh...ribe.html.

Notice a couple of things.

First, the nature of the problem is WITHHELD information. We don't have reliable systems for managing information that we don't know exists. We don't have ANY systems for that, reliable or not. And yet all that silence can add up to a great, big LIE.

Second, the detection, diagnosis, and remediation of the problem required scrutiny and resolution from OUTSIDE both the scientific process and the scientific community, decidedly political interventions for a political problem that severely affects the quality and reliability of the scientific process as we know it.

And this is just ONE of the decidedly HUMAN vulnerabilities of the scientific process.

Bottom line, the high regard and BLIND FAITH in the scientific process held by many these days is NO LESS IRRATIONAL than any other form of belief. He who is without sin in this regard can cast the next stone. Please do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: