Here's an example of what happens when you attempt to mix philosophy with Science, in this case, post modern philosophy. Talk about a [bleep] show.....
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Time for a new thread on religion, this has deteriorated.
They all go the same way. Faith is a poor tool for separating fact from fiction. Frustration sets in. Then come come the attempts to make it personal, the insults, as secure in their anonymity as they are cowardly.
Do you know what's cowardly? Refusing to answer a simple question because it would blow your argument out of the water.
That's cowardly. And anonymity works both ways, sport.
I not only answered your question, I addressed your question. It's not my fault that you can't understand what is being explained. That's an observation, not an insult.
Once again, the key to understanding lies in justification. Justification means that a belief or conviction of truth is adequately supported with evidence.
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
Faith as a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence may or may not be true, but if true, it is true as a matter of luck not justification.
What you stated above is an answer to a question, but not the question I asked.
It's not that I don't understand your answers, sport. You don't understand the question.
In fact, I don't beleve you've understood much of anything I've said on this thread. Take this gem for instance:
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
This may come as a shock to you, but I said the same thing many pages ago. So it's obviously not the answer to a question I would ask, and I find it curious that you feel the need to "enlighten" me on something I've already stipulated.
My question had nothing to do with whether faith is justified. My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
Try answering the question I asked, not the one you want to answer.
Time for a new thread on religion, this has deteriorated.
OK, how's this for a start?
Mine's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday either.
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
What you stated above is an answer to a question, but not the question I asked.
It's not that I don't understand your answers, sport. You don't understand the question.
In fact, I don't beleve you've understood much of anything I've said on this thread. Take this gem for instance:
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith, by definition, is a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence, hence an unjustified belief.
This may come as a shock to you, but I said the same thing many pages ago. So it's obviously not the answer to a question I would ask, and I find it curious that you feel the need to "enlighten" me on something I've already stipulated.
My question had nothing to do with whether faith is justified. My question was limited to your assertion that faith could be proven wrong due to contradictions among different faiths.
Try answering the question I asked, not the one you want to answer.
It's quite clear that you don't understand explanations, or why definitions are given. I gave the definition of faith, not for your benefit, but to be clear on what I was referring to when I used the word (there being a fair bit of equivocation associated with the word ).
Which happens to relate to your question - If two theories contradict each other, are both negated? - for the reasons given: justification.
If you had paid attention to what I said, you'd understand that if two theories contradict each other, either one is wrong and the other is right, or both may be wrong. That depends on evidence.
One with crystals, karma, and good feelings? Don't forget the cannabis and/or shrooms. Or if you wanna go retro we can bring back those guys that bugged everyone at the airports.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Smokepole is apparently incapable of understanding explanations.
How difficult can it be?
If two 'theories' contradict, both cannot be true. One must be wrong, or both can be wrong, but both cannot be true. Whether something is true or false is determined by evidence.
Smokepole is apparently incapable of understanding explanations. .
Incorrect, I understood your "explanation" just fine. It just wasn't an answer to the question I asked.
That answer doesn't require an "explanation," it's a yes or no proposition.
But tell me something, does this technique you're using normally work? You know, the technique wherein you claim to be answering the question put before you but aren't, and insist that the other party just can't understand your answer?
Maybe if you keep repeating it someone will believe you, It might work.
