Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence.

Page 13 of 25 [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 25  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 12:01 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

31 Dec 2009, 12:04 am

_there is NO MEANING of life_

dont people GET it?
"meaning" is a WORD
its a CONSTRUCT

its an INVENTION!! !! !

"meaning of life" MAKES NO REAL SENSE.


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

31 Dec 2009, 12:09 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
a) Calling anyone's beliefs naive insanity is the same as calling those who hold those beliefs naive and insane. That is unacceptable. The fact that most members here are agnostic or atheist does not mean they should forever remain without warning about what is, truly, a hostile attitude.

The site rules say "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable." The specific instruction that was offered to us in the past by moderators has been that we may not say "Jane, you ignorant slut" but we may say "Jane, your position is ignorant/sluttish." Has this changed? Your post seems to imply that you do not draw a distinction between disagreeing with someone and insulting them.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 12:11 am

ZEGH8578 wrote:
_there is NO MEANING of life_

dont people GET it?
"meaning" is a WORD
its a CONSTRUCT

its an INVENTION!! !! !

"meaning of life" MAKES NO REAL SENSE.


Meaning can be taken to be function and there are several ways to work that out.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

31 Dec 2009, 12:17 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1


I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

31 Dec 2009, 12:24 am

TheOddGoat wrote:
"b) You cannot attribute to my personal feelings a passage that I did not write and have not quoted. "

That is a lie, in another thread you said you thought the bible was inspired by god, god is perfect and therefore his influence is perfect.


I have not said that and your construction remains an extreme overextension on which you will find no concensus of support.

As for the other items, I do not have time nor interest in going through point by point. I see it the way I see it, and understand that you see it differently. I can accept and respect that, but it won't change how I, personally, see things.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

31 Dec 2009, 12:28 am

Orwell wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
a) Calling anyone's beliefs naive insanity is the same as calling those who hold those beliefs naive and insane. That is unacceptable. The fact that most members here are agnostic or atheist does not mean they should forever remain without warning about what is, truly, a hostile attitude.

The site rules say "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable." The specific instruction that was offered to us in the past by moderators has been that we may not say "Jane, you ignorant slut" but we may say "Jane, your position is ignorant/sluttish." Has this changed? Your post seems to imply that you do not draw a distinction between disagreeing with someone and insulting them.


The problem is that some references are basically an indirect way of telling large groups of people they are ignorant sluts (to use your example). Its a fine line and I'm trying to encourage certain posters to be more careful, and understand how they sound. It is possible to have different opinions without suggesting insult.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 12:30 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1


I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.



It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 12:36 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Orwell wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
a) Calling anyone's beliefs naive insanity is the same as calling those who hold those beliefs naive and insane. That is unacceptable. The fact that most members here are agnostic or atheist does not mean they should forever remain without warning about what is, truly, a hostile attitude.

The site rules say "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable." The specific instruction that was offered to us in the past by moderators has been that we may not say "Jane, you ignorant slut" but we may say "Jane, your position is ignorant/sluttish." Has this changed? Your post seems to imply that you do not draw a distinction between disagreeing with someone and insulting them.


The problem is that some references are basically an indirect way of telling large groups of people they are ignorant sluts (to use your example). Its a fine line and I'm trying to encourage certain posters to be more careful, and understand how they sound. It is possible to have different opinions without suggesting insult.


No. Most definitely no. When I say a belief is stupid I really mean that a conviction with no basis in rational standards is just plainly obviously stupid. If people take offense at that that is tough. They can freely attack my standards and I will take no offense. And I don't care how many people have beliefs of unacceptable standards. This is not an area where democracy rules.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

31 Dec 2009, 12:55 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1


I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.



It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.


Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?

Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

31 Dec 2009, 12:57 am

Sand wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Orwell wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
a) Calling anyone's beliefs naive insanity is the same as calling those who hold those beliefs naive and insane. That is unacceptable. The fact that most members here are agnostic or atheist does not mean they should forever remain without warning about what is, truly, a hostile attitude.

The site rules say "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable." The specific instruction that was offered to us in the past by moderators has been that we may not say "Jane, you ignorant slut" but we may say "Jane, your position is ignorant/sluttish." Has this changed? Your post seems to imply that you do not draw a distinction between disagreeing with someone and insulting them.


The problem is that some references are basically an indirect way of telling large groups of people they are ignorant sluts (to use your example). Its a fine line and I'm trying to encourage certain posters to be more careful, and understand how they sound. It is possible to have different opinions without suggesting insult.


No. Most definitely no. When I say a belief is stupid I really mean that a conviction with no basis in rational standards is just plainly obviously stupid. If people take offense at that that is tough. They can freely attack my standards and I will take no offense. And I don't care how many people have beliefs of unacceptable standards. This is not an area where democracy rules.


Stupid or blindingly brilliant ;) Its all how you look at it. As the character Charlie says in the first "Santa Claus" movie, "Have you ever seen a million dollars?" You don't have to see things to know they are real, and you don't have to apply so called rational standards to all things to know they are real. That it is plainly obviously stupid remains your opinion, and not fact.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 1:15 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1


I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.



It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.


Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?

Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?


Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 1:20 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Sand wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Orwell wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
a) Calling anyone's beliefs naive insanity is the same as calling those who hold those beliefs naive and insane. That is unacceptable. The fact that most members here are agnostic or atheist does not mean they should forever remain without warning about what is, truly, a hostile attitude.

The site rules say "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable." The specific instruction that was offered to us in the past by moderators has been that we may not say "Jane, you ignorant slut" but we may say "Jane, your position is ignorant/sluttish." Has this changed? Your post seems to imply that you do not draw a distinction between disagreeing with someone and insulting them.


The problem is that some references are basically an indirect way of telling large groups of people they are ignorant sluts (to use your example). Its a fine line and I'm trying to encourage certain posters to be more careful, and understand how they sound. It is possible to have different opinions without suggesting insult.


No. Most definitely no. When I say a belief is stupid I really mean that a conviction with no basis in rational standards is just plainly obviously stupid. If people take offense at that that is tough. They can freely attack my standards and I will take no offense. And I don't care how many people have beliefs of unacceptable standards. This is not an area where democracy rules.


Stupid or blindingly brilliant ;) Its all how you look at it. As the character Charlie says in the first "Santa Claus" movie, "Have you ever seen a million dollars?" You don't have to see things to know they are real, and you don't have to apply so called rational standards to all things to know they are real. That it is plainly obviously stupid remains your opinion, and not fact.


Obviously my opinion and I have not claimed otherwise and it should be acceptable for me to say so. There is nothing illogical in assuming a million dollars to exist. There are huge amounts of reasonable doubts about God.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

31 Dec 2009, 1:30 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1


I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.



It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.


Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?

Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?


Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.


I have a coin which is about 1700 years old, has a picture of a dude on the front along with the word "CONSTANS". Such is a reference of Caesar Constantine. However it doesn't tell very much about him aside from looks. Do you have any idea where history books, such as in college history textbooks, get their information? Do you suppose that it is all archaeological? Nothing against archaeology, but you are aware that the sources of history are from copies of historical records and compilations of records from throughout the centuries and millennia? Written history is where the mass of information on the past is, and there are some criteria to meet concerning a documents historicity before it is considered reliable. Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

31 Dec 2009, 1:58 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Orwell wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
a) Calling anyone's beliefs naive insanity is the same as calling those who hold those beliefs naive and insane. That is unacceptable. The fact that most members here are agnostic or atheist does not mean they should forever remain without warning about what is, truly, a hostile attitude.

The site rules say "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable." The specific instruction that was offered to us in the past by moderators has been that we may not say "Jane, you ignorant slut" but we may say "Jane, your position is ignorant/sluttish." Has this changed? Your post seems to imply that you do not draw a distinction between disagreeing with someone and insulting them.


The problem is that some references are basically an indirect way of telling large groups of people they are ignorant sluts (to use your example). Its a fine line and I'm trying to encourage certain posters to be more careful, and understand how they sound. It is possible to have different opinions without suggesting insult.


You need to chill moderator.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Dec 2009, 2:01 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
You can state as fact that having faith faith = gullibility though.

Faith
-noun
Belief that is not based on proof: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


Noah Webster in 1828 wrote:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.


Way to use a different dictionary to me....

[imghttp://www.downloads.tripura4u.com/essential-softwares/dic.jpg[/img]

Still , the first definition basically says what I said -)



Not quite. Faith is basically taking someone at their word, such as an authority like Euclid saying "vertical angles are equal". While there is proof of it, you do not need to see it if you can trust the source. Certainly you can attack the character of the source or make all sorts of arguments to disregard. However, it is not accepting with no proof, but on the basis of trust of a source.

Perhaps the first definition you quoted is correct as well, just not in the sense you would like it to be.




You are speaking of the acceptance of validity of authority and, in matters of mathematics, that simply is not done. Nor in science where a scientist has the means and the knowledge to make the proper validation. Science prospers out of doubt since it is out of doubt that scientific fertility arises. Religion suppresses doubt since it rests on authority alone and to attack authority is to attack faith.

See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... feat/all/1


I am speaking about accepting items on authority which can be shown to be true. Such as the historicity of documents, like those of Cicero, Plato, Euclid, Cassius Dio, et al. Yes, in mathematics and science you should certainly learn how to the proofs are done, do the experiments, etc. As much as Science prospers out of doubting gravitation and magnetism, there is some room for trusting certain factors to work within their parameters.



It is by distrusting those things that are most taken for granted that science makes it's most startling and useful discoveries. It is exactly the opposite with faith which is why faith must rely on the most ancient and unavailable authorities for substantiation and why science has discarded the overwhelming bulk of ancient beliefs long ago.


Assuming you have a friend that you trust and they tell you something, do you require proof of it?

Do you believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed? Darius? Alexander? Caesar? If so, what proof do you have of their existence?


Those guys appear in history books which describe their accomplishments and there are coins that portray some of them. Whether or not they existed has no effect on my current beliefs in the nature of the universe. I grant the possibility of their existence until evidence is presented that they are fabrications. None of them is supposed to be related to an unseen presence that created the universe so it seems reasonable they may have existed.


I have a coin which is about 1700 years old, has a picture of a dude on the front along with the word "CONSTANS". Such is a reference of Caesar Constantine. However it doesn't tell very much about him aside from looks. Do you have any idea where history books, such as in college history textbooks, get their information? Do you suppose that it is all archaeological? Nothing against archaeology, but you are aware that the sources of history are from copies of historical records and compilations of records from throughout the centuries and millennia? Written history is where the mass of information on the past is, and there are some criteria to meet concerning a documents historicity before it is considered reliable. Do you have any idea how well the books of the Bible do in comparison to other historical documents?


All history is questionable. There are still questions going on about the death of Kennedy and the justification for bombing Hiroshima and there are living witnesses to those events and a great deal of documentation. Stuff hundreds and thousands of years ago are very unsure.

History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.
Ambrose Bierce