Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[Bullypulpit]

I've made my point a million times. Faith is required for the scientific viewpoint as well. your response is to lie and say you've confirmed the speed of light on your own.

To kick it up a notch, let's grant that faith is irrational, but gives hope, and thus gives people the emotional positive energy to persevere with positive, prosocial, creative behaviors, even when the reward for doing so may not be in sight. This is, objectively, quite valuable.

So, you can choose on which level you prefer to be beaten.

The "faith" you describe within the scientific community is confidence rooted in the scientific method and the information derived from both theoretical models and results of direct observation. It is rooted in the empirical, and can be independently verified and either disproven or changed with the addition of new information.

The "faith" of religion is a wholly subjective experience which cannot be independently verified and thus neither proven or disproven.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The "faith" you describe within the scientific community is confidence rooted in the scientific method and the information derived from both theoretical models and results of direct observation. It is rooted in the empirical, and can be independently verified and either disproven or changed with the addition of new information.

You accept this on faith. You've haven't conducted all experiments confirming "science" on your own.

The "faith" of religion is a wholly subjective experience which cannot be independently verified and thus neither proven or disproven.

That sounds nice.

The confidence religion instills in an individual has verifiable positive consequences on a person's behavior, and emotional well being, and thus is rationally justified.

 

[LOki]

I've made my point a million times.

You've submitted your unsubstantiated opinion a million times, and each time I've asked you to "demonstrate," and each time you offer nothing.

Faith is required for the scientific viewpoint as well.

Without fear that you will break your perfect record of not demonstrating your assertions; please demontrate.

your response is to lie and say you've confirmed the speed of light on your own.

Demonstrate.

To kick it up a notch, let's grant that faith is irrational, but gives hope, and thus gives people the emotional positive energy to persevere with positive, prosocial, creative behaviors, even when the reward for doing so may not be in sight. This is, objectively, quite valuable.

Why grant that faith is irrational? If your position is that faith is rational, make your case--don't surrender.

I'm not sure hope requires faith. If faith is irrational, are rational sources of hope preferrable?

I think that it is very likely evidence (that you again, don't supply) exists indicating that faith is objectively valuable, though I'd still rather not concede that faith is irrational.

So, you can choose on which level you prefer to be beaten.

I have no fear of being beaten in an argument-- in the end I win having obtained a better argument. Regardless, I certainly can have no fear of being beaten by the absolute NOTHING that you offer as argument.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Loki, is it your perception that you're winning this argument?

 

[LOki]

Loki, is it your perception that you're winning this argument?

Considering the meanings of "beat" and "win" in the context I presume you are using, I am most assuredly "winning" this argument.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Considering the meanings of "beat" and "win" in the context I presume you are using, I am most assuredly "winning" this argument.

demonstrate.

 

[5stringJeff]

Quit being petty.

 

[LOki]

Quit being petty.

It's quite all right. Thanks.

Considering the meanings of "beat" and "win" in the context I presume you are using, I am most assuredly "winning" this argument.

demonstrate.

The point of argument is to arrive at the conclusion that is stongest based upon the merit of the evidence and/or logic that supports it. In argument it is not enough to simply make assertions--one must maintain and defend those assertions with and from valid counters, with and from valid reposts. You have made your assertions (a hyperbolic million times), or a counter-argument to mine, and then you defaulted on the evidence and/or logic--each time. Not once RWA, every time.

My presumtion as to the context you use, is the context where each opponent presents their argument and the one who holds through to the end "wins." This, as I've explained, is not the context I use, but since you fail to bring argument in any respect, you must lose by that very default, and I am stuck accepting this rather meaningless "win."

Contrast this with the exchanges I'm having primarily with The ClayTaurus, and to some lesser extent no1tovote4. We are building our cases, and as we do so, we test each other's assertions against the evidence, and the logic, and the conclusions that follow from those tests. We each check, and check against, each other for factual inaccuraciy and logical fallacy--while honing our own arguments, we necessarliy provide the opportunity for the other to hone theirs. All the while exposing the weaknesses in each other's argument; cutting away, with greater precision and resolution the factual inaccuraciy and logical fallacy in each argument until one strong argument remains. That argument will lead to a conclusion. We will take away from these exchanges something more valuable than being right from the start, more valuable than holding doggedly to our starting assertions--we'll have the best conclusion at the end, with the best arguments that oppose it, and the best arguments to demonstrate it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's quite all right. Thanks.
The point of argument is to arrive at the conclusion that is stongest based upon the merit of the evidence and/or logic that supports it. In argument it is not enough to simply make assertions--one must maintain and defend those assertions with and from valid counters, with and from valid reposts. You have made your assertions (a hyperbolic million times), or a counter-argument to mine, and then you defaulted on the evidence and/or logic--each time. Not once RWA, every time.

My presumtion as to the context you use, is the context where each opponent presents their argument and the one who holds through to the end "wins." This, as I've explained, is not the context I use, but since you fail to bring argument in any respect, you must lose by that very default, and I am stuck accepting this rather meaningless "win."

Contrast this with the exchanges I'm having primarily with The ClayTaurus, and to some lesser extent no1tovote4. We are building our cases, and as we do so, we test each other's assertions against the evidence, and the logic, and the conclusions that follow from those tests. We each check, and check against, each other for factual inaccuraciy and logical fallacy--while honing our own arguments, we necessarliy provide the opportunity for the other to hone theirs. All the while exposing the weaknesses in each other's argument; cutting away, with greater precision and resolution the factual inaccuraciy and logical fallacy in each argument until one strong argument remains. That argument will lead to a conclusion. We will take away from these exchanges something more valuable than being right from the start, more valuable than holding doggedly to our starting assertions--we'll have the best conclusion at the end, with the best arguments that oppose it, and the best arguments to demonstrate it.

You're wrong on your assessment of my context.

I've asserted that the scientific viewpoint also takes faith in some previous assertions given you by textbooks and professor. You have NOT conducted all the experiments to confirm these facts for yourself. That is a lie.

Secondly, the faith in a correctness of a moral code or innate value of human life which stems from religious faith, is justifiable even in a logical sense if the beliefs, though founded on faith, provide objective measurable enhancements to an individuals, or societies state of being.

Rebutt, that, butt. :teeth:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Still think you're winning, loki?

Come on. You wanted this reopened. Set me straight.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Still think you're winning, loki?

Come on. You wanted this reopened. Set me straight.

Actually, I asked for this to be reopened. And it was, much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually, I asked for this to be reopened. And it was, much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

Not at all. I'm whipping ass and taking names. This guy's a fool. You want some, frat boy?

 

[LOki]

You're wrong on your assessment of my context.

Please provide the correct context then.

I've asserted that the scientific viewpoint also takes faith in some previous assertions given you by textbooks and professor.

Yes you have, but you have submitted ZERO evidence or logic to support that assertion.

You have NOT conducted all the experiments to confirm these facts for yourself.

An assertion founded upon the presumtion that this is necessary to validate faith, and the assertion is itself unfounded. Yet the salient point of this attack was addressed, and you failed to, and fail still, to repost--most predictably so.

That is a lie.

Unfounded assertion--demonstrate.

Secondly, the faith in a correctness of a moral code or innate value of human life which stems from religious faith, is justifiable even in a logical sense if the beliefs, though founded on faith, provide objective measurable enhancements to an individuals, or societies state of being.

Not in contention, but what is, is the question of it's necessity. I already allowed you that there is likey to be evidence to support this assertion. I asked you to provide that evidence (per your idiom, you did not), and I presented you the question, "If faith is irrational, are rational sources of hope preferrable?", and again (consistent with your idiom), you default.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not at all. I'm whipping ass and taking names. This guy's a fool. You want some, frat boy?

Only in your tortured fever dreams are you "...whipping ass and taking names...". Your arguments are circular and collapse upon themseleves.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Only in your tortured fever dreams are you "...whipping ass and taking names...". Your arguments are circular and collapse upon themseleves.

No. My arguments are actually more than torturous word redefinitions and lies, and thus seem foreign in this discussion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Loki, you have yet to demonstrate your victory in this thread, victory in the context of winning and not wholly nontangential to the issue of beating.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Not at all. I'm whipping ass and taking names. This guy's a fool. You want some, frat boy?

Want some what? More of your self-propping nonsense? I've got bucketloads, thanks.

Interesting you call me a frat boy, yet, in this very thread you've got the imitation down perfect.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Want some what? More of your self-propping nonsense? I've got bucketloads, thanks.

Interesting you call me a frat boy, yet, in this very thread you've got the imitation down perfect.

I believe it's called self-puffery.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've made my main points in post #190. Since this was reopened I've seen no attempts from anyone to actually discuss the issue.

Based on the concrete wall of insurmountable correctness which is post #190, I'm announcing myself winner of this thread. If anyone disagrees they can take on the content of #190 or stfu.

Why did you want this reopended clay, to whine? I'll keep going if anyone else wants to. But I will not responde to crap like "demonstrate".

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I've made my main points in post #190. Since this was reopened I've seen no attempts from anyone to actually discuss the issue.

Based on the concrete wall of insurmountable correctness which is post #190, I'm announcing myself winner of this thread. If anyone disagrees they can take on the content of #190 or stfu.

Why did you want this reopended clay, to whine? I'll keep going if anyone else wants to. But I will not responde to crap like "demonstrate".

I requested this re-opened because

1) I knew your goal was to get it shut down and locked, as is your typical behavior. And now that you've decided you've answered the question, you'll sit here and bitch and moan and toss around personal attacks in a hope of derailing and getting it closed. If your point is so awesome, then we'll all be able to see that without the need for you to constantly remind us. There's no reason to act like a little kid and do your damndest to get this re-closed.

2) Loki and I are still discussing the issue, despite the tangent you two have gone off on, and I didn't think it was fair the thread be closed before we finish.

If you deem what we're posting crap, then actually don't respond! We'd all appreciate it. Your entire presence in this thread reeks of personal attacks. It's a nice little trick to avoid having to seriously defend anything you post, but it's also quite transparent. Continue on if you'd like to actually discuss the issue, but if all you're going to do now is disrupt, perhaps you should act like an adult and excuse yourself from the thread.