|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:54 pm
RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it. Blind faith is a bête noire of mine, yes. And like anything that is blind leads to making poor decisions.When beliefs are not questioned-- and taken at face value...when the kool-aid is drunk without wondering the cyanide it contains, one runs the risk of dying intellectually and as an individual. One knows the surgeon knows how the body works and can tell what to operate,remove, extract and cut. He is human,but through technical training he can do what is necessary. He does not rely on blind chance or whether the issue will go away by praying. He has faith in his knowledge acquired through meticulously studying human physiology. I do not de-bunk, I apply to the context of the discussion or my argument. Blind faith is what I said it was-- blind, unwarranted, unyielding. If I find anything that contradicts my beliefs I will consider it and even alter my views. I do not believe in absolutes. But I will go with what has the greatest sum of proof on its side that I can examine, process,study and rely upon without having to go to great lengths to make sense of it... namely, having to disconnect myself from reality. Only thing I would argue in this is your statement that absolutes do not exist, which would in itself be an absolute statement, which makes it a self-defeating statement = P. But I would also like to point out that not all faith is blind, and if you are going to make such a claim in understanding this point, then separate faith and blind faith. Um, just like there is no perfection-- or no absolutes. And is it really an absolutist statement? Can you point anything that is absolute? Not all faith is blind,I agree. And yes, we can separate the two of them. One is believing without seeing anything or wanting to test the reasons for those notions...another one arises from having tested and having understood pretty thoroughly. How is it not an absolute statement? It absolutely claims that NO absolutes exist. But since it claims that none exist it makes it a self defeating statement. I am not making an 'absolute' claim here. I am going on what I know -- based on what proof I have collected, what has been explained to me in books,documentaries and studies. That nothing , in this natural world is 100% proven--- we have really good theories and some hypotheses, but we have no total knowledge and certainty yet of what 'is' and 'is not'. In the current state of our evolution, we are still discovering many things. But one thing I know, there always will be doubt--skepticism keeps things fresh. Besides, if something is absolute and perfect, it means it becomes a closed system.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:20 pm
XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Actually the best definition I have ever heard of faith goes like this "Faith holds onto what reason once accepted despite changing emotions"-C.S. Lewis. For instance I reason perfectly well that a surgeon is good at what he does, but yet I get scared none the less when I am strapped to the table, it is the faith I have in the surgeon, put into the surgeon by reason, that he will do his job well, by what the past has shown. You have merely taken faith and twisted it into such a way to make it seem like a horrid beast. Yet you seem to not realize that you use it within your own beliefs. For instance you put faith into your ability to reason at all or that science isn't just giving you a nice little lie. (Though I do love science, and believe it has its place) Though my original definition taken from the dictionary itself was not debunked as a matter of fact you completely ignored it. Blind faith is a bête noire of mine, yes. And like anything that is blind leads to making poor decisions.When beliefs are not questioned-- and taken at face value...when the kool-aid is drunk without wondering the cyanide it contains, one runs the risk of dying intellectually and as an individual. One knows the surgeon knows how the body works and can tell what to operate,remove, extract and cut. He is human,but through technical training he can do what is necessary. He does not rely on blind chance or whether the issue will go away by praying. He has faith in his knowledge acquired through meticulously studying human physiology. I do not de-bunk, I apply to the context of the discussion or my argument. Blind faith is what I said it was-- blind, unwarranted, unyielding. If I find anything that contradicts my beliefs I will consider it and even alter my views. I do not believe in absolutes. But I will go with what has the greatest sum of proof on its side that I can examine, process,study and rely upon without having to go to great lengths to make sense of it... namely, having to disconnect myself from reality. Only thing I would argue in this is your statement that absolutes do not exist, which would in itself be an absolute statement, which makes it a self-defeating statement = P. But I would also like to point out that not all faith is blind, and if you are going to make such a claim in understanding this point, then separate faith and blind faith. Um, just like there is no perfection-- or no absolutes. And is it really an absolutist statement? Can you point anything that is absolute? Not all faith is blind,I agree. And yes, we can separate the two of them. One is believing without seeing anything or wanting to test the reasons for those notions...another one arises from having tested and having understood pretty thoroughly. How is it not an absolute statement? It absolutely claims that NO absolutes exist. But since it claims that none exist it makes it a self defeating statement. I am not making an 'absolute' claim here. I am going on what I know -- based on what proof I have collected, what has been explained to me in books,documentaries and studies. That nothing , in this natural world is 100% proven--- we have really good theories and some hypotheses, but we have no total knowledge and certainty yet of what 'is' and 'is not'. In the current state of our evolution, we are still discovering many things. But one thing I know, there always will be doubt--skepticism keeps things fresh. Besides, if something is absolute and perfect, it means it becomes a closed system. Well whether or not we know something absolutely is not proper grounds to claim there are no absolutes. I could be ignorant of a person existence or doubtful of it, but does that make him any less real if he is real, or any less unreal if he isn't real? Of course not that would be a fallacious claim. Not only that but I am quite sure that we are able to be sure about things, for if nothing were truly absolute than we would not be able to know that things are not absolute. Let me explain quite a different way, "If there were no light therefore no creatures with eyes we would never have known it was dark, darkness would be without meaning." If we cannot see that it is dark than we cannot know it is dark, just the same if we cannot know something as absolute then we cannot claim that there are no absolutes or we are defeating ourselves, it makes for quite the fallacious statement. But I must say I am sure things are absolute. For instance if I may borrow yet another quote "I think therefore I am"-Rene Descartes in other words if nothing else exists at least I know I exist for I think, this is an absolute. Now you also claim that blind faith is the enemy of thought, yet you claim you cannot be 100% sure of anything, that there are no absolutes. By making this claim you are saying that 1. you are against thought. 2. that you hate what you are, or in the very least disagree with what you agree with. For if we cannot be 100% sure of anything, then we blindly follow, by blind faith, our Cognitive Faculties in which we cannot fully accept by reason as reasonable do to our inability to know anything as absolute. Next you bring up that if things were absolute it would make it a closed system, is this an appeal to emotion or logic? To me it seems an appeal to emotion rather then logic, which is exactly what you say we ought not do. Let me explain, you say that since nothing is absolute it makes things more interesting, then you claim that it would make things a closed system to argue against absolutism. But this is hardly the most ironic thing of your argument against absolutism, the most ironic thing is that you keep using statements as absolutes to try and prove that nothing is absolute. You say 'there will always be doubt' which the always there makes the statement an absolute. or 'In this state of evolution we are still discovering things' which is an absolute claim that we are learning. If you truly believed what you are trying to teach, then trying to teach anyone anything at all would be something that goes against what you are teaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:57 pm
RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith XxrationalsexybitchxX RsnblFaith Only thing I would argue in this is your statement that absolutes do not exist, which would in itself be an absolute statement, which makes it a self-defeating statement = P. But I would also like to point out that not all faith is blind, and if you are going to make such a claim in understanding this point, then separate faith and blind faith. Um, just like there is no perfection-- or no absolutes. And is it really an absolutist statement? Can you point anything that is absolute? Not all faith is blind,I agree. And yes, we can separate the two of them. One is believing without seeing anything or wanting to test the reasons for those notions...another one arises from having tested and having understood pretty thoroughly. How is it not an absolute statement? It absolutely claims that NO absolutes exist. But since it claims that none exist it makes it a self defeating statement. I am not making an 'absolute' claim here. I am going on what I know -- based on what proof I have collected, what has been explained to me in books,documentaries and studies. That nothing , in this natural world is 100% proven--- we have really good theories and some hypotheses, but we have no total knowledge and certainty yet of what 'is' and 'is not'. In the current state of our evolution, we are still discovering many things. But one thing I know, there always will be doubt--skepticism keeps things fresh. Besides, if something is absolute and perfect, it means it becomes a closed system. Well whether or not we know something absolutely is not proper grounds to claim there are no absolutes. I could be ignorant of a person existence or doubtful of it, but does that make him any less real if he is real, or any less unreal if he isn't real? Of course not that would be a fallacious claim. Not only that but I am quite sure that we are able to be sure about things, for if nothing were truly absolute than we would not be able to know that things are not absolute. Let me explain quite a different way, "If there were no light therefore no creatures with eyes we would never have known it was dark, darkness would be without meaning." If we cannot see that it is dark than we cannot know it is dark, just the same if we cannot know something as absolute then we cannot claim that there are no absolutes or we are defeating ourselves, it makes for quite the fallacious statement. But I must say I am sure things are absolute. For instance if I may borrow yet another quote "I think therefore I am"-Rene Descartes in other words if nothing else exists at least I know I exist for I think, this is an absolute. Now you also claim that blind faith is the enemy of thought, yet you claim you cannot be 100% sure of anything, that there are no absolutes. By making this claim you are saying that 1. you are against thought. 2. that you hate what you are, or in the very least disagree with what you agree with. For if we cannot be 100% sure of anything, then we blindly follow, by blind faith, our Cognitive Faculties in which we cannot fully accept by reason as reasonable do to our inability to know anything as absolute. Next you bring up that if things were absolute it would make it a closed system, is this an appeal to emotion or logic? To me it seems an appeal to emotion rather then logic, which is exactly what you say we ought not do. Let me explain, you say that since nothing is absolute it makes things more interesting, then you claim that it would make things a closed system to argue against absolutism. But this is hardly the most ironic thing of your argument against absolutism, the most ironic thing is that you keep using statements as absolutes to try and prove that nothing is absolute. You say 'there will always be doubt' which the always there makes the statement an absolute. or 'In this state of evolution we are still discovering things' which is an absolute claim that we are learning. If you truly believed what you are trying to teach, then trying to teach anyone anything at all would be something that goes against what you are teaching. Perhaps I ought to be more clear. I do not believe in absolutes. Just like I believe nothing is 100% certain. There is place for doubt in everything. And it is not my place to teach anything to anyone-- merely to question. Take it as you will. And we are learning every single day, adapting, you could say. So, is that not an appeal to reason by what we can clearly see with our eyes? And a closed system--as you may or may not know, is one in which nothing leaves or goes in,no energy flux, no exchange of anything and it tends to die and wither. That is a statement from reason. Did I ever say we could not appeal to emotional intelligence? ...hell, I know that we can,sometimes in order to make things more relateable. Learning is a personal experience--- I have been through events in my life which have shaped my weltanschauung and my ethics,morals, opinions,etc. I know I cannot claim to hold any answers--only go based on the light that has already been shed on the workings of nature,the human psyche and human behaviour, amongst other things. Blind faith is the enemy of rational thought. And I cannot be against thought for we depend upon thought and the formation of connections and relations between ideas to form definitions,hypotheses,theories. " By making this claim you are saying that 1. you are against thought. 2. that you hate what you are, or in the very least disagree with what you agree with." Um,no... that is a mis-interpretation. And I do not 'hate'...that is a very strong word that requires that I loathe myself and feel threatened by those things in myself I see in others, which I do not. Blind faith and superstition are not threatening,they are amusing,to say the least...but not threatening, unless they become overly dogmatic and their adherents seek to become violent,pugnacious and bellicose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
