Muslims and terrorism, do they just accept it?

[WTFH]

No I didn't. Quote please.

I already quoted you earlier where you stated that reason came first, then faith made reason taboo etc.


Are you that forgetful that you don't even remember the absurdity of your own rants?




To quote my current ClientCo boss: "We can fix broken, but we can't fix stupid".


I'm out of here. It's clear you don't have a reason for your beliefs and that your faith in your opinion is so strong that you cannot respond reasonably with anyone who has logic on their side.

[NotAllThere]

...
No, he's just arguing that anyone who disagrees with his belief is wrong and he will religiously fight to the death to defend his belief, no matter how reasonable you and I are.

It is ever SO with him. What's sad is that he actually thinks he's being rational and logical, but he's only parroting what others have said. For example, the idea that founded faith (as opposed to blind faith) is no faith at all comes from Hume, but that's because that Hume defines faith as belief without foundation. Even a man as smart as that couldn't spot the circular reasoning - so what hope does SO have? On the other hand, it's fun to rattle his cage once in a while.

[SpontaneousOrder]

And a non-scientist? For example, a child. If they do not know that it is sufficiently unlikely, what do they rely on?

Trust in their parents' care & protection. If their parents fail them enough, that trust will wane and "it's ok, it's safe..." won't suffice.

[WTFH]

Trust in their parents' care & protection. If their parents fail them enough, that trust will wane and "it's ok, it's safe..." won't suffice.

"Trust", you mean the exact same as "have faith in"?

Wow, maybe faith isn't such a bad thing if it allows you to just accept things you don't fully understand.

[SpontaneousOrder]

What's sad is that he actually thinks he's being rational and logical, but he's only parroting what others have said. For example, the idea that founded faith (as opposed to blind faith) is no faith at all comes from Hume, but that's because that Hume defines faith as belief without foundation.

What's sad is that having defined my terms in my OP, and then clarifying that point for you later, you still stab away at the straw man

[SueEllen]

I should be banned soon for insulting another female user because she didn't agree with my comments about one set of Muslims against another set.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I already quoted you earlier where you stated that reason came first, then faith made reason taboo etc.

I'm denying the accusation. You have to explain how I said such a thing (because "all religions came before greek philosophy" is certainly nothing like any phrase I uttered).

Otherwise it's not an argument. You just repeat yourself endlessly for pages without actually making an argument or addressing any of my rebuttals.

"Trust", you mean the exact same as "have faith in"?

Wow, maybe faith isn't such a bad thing if it allows you to just accept things you don't fully understand.

Trust is not the same as faith. *if* you are obtuse enough to miss that given the context of the conversation, then I defined the difference with regards to my OP several pages back. You STILL bang on at the straw man!

You even complained that I used the word revelation, and then insist on equating that with trust. It's rank dishonesty and sophistry - except you're not very good at it.

I defined my terms, so you can't base your objections on different definitions of those terms.

Do you know what a straw man is?

[NotAllThere]

...
Do you know what a straw man is?

It's your favourite way of arguing, isn't it?

[WTFH]

SO's argument, summarised:
All faith/trust is evil, unless you use his definition of each word, which is different to normal human definitions, but he uses them to cause confusion.
Religion came after reason.
Morality is objective, subjectively speaking.
Morality must not be taught, or learned from a book. Because if you learn it, you are learning a lie.
Reason does not require full understanding, because if reason required full understanding, then nothing would be reasonable.

My simple point is:
If reason does not require full understanding, then there must be a certain element of faith involved in accepting something you (personally) cannot fully understand at the minute.

[SpontaneousOrder]

SO's argument, summarised:
All faith/trust is evil,

There you go fabricating words to put in my mouth again. Shame on you.

unless you use his definition of each word, which is different to normal human definitions, but he uses them to cause confusion.

Dictionary definition will do.

Religion came after reason.

I asked you to explain that several times now. You refuse, but keep repeating it. It's also entirely besides the point - which is telling.

Morality is objective, subjectively speaking.

Again with the fabricating (that's lying - if you haven't figured that out yet) words to for me.

I argued all along that it's either objectively valid or not. Subjectivity doesn't factor.

Morality must not be taught, or learned from a book. Because if you learn it, you are learning a lie.

Again with the lies. if fact this is the first time you've phrased it like that, and it's an evasion. You're back peddling.

I said that if the source of your moral code is revelation, then you aren't being virtuous, and you're encouraging evil.

I never said the word lie, or alluded to lies. I very explicitly pointed out that it's the source of your moral reasoning, or lack of it, that is important.

Reason does not require full understanding, because if reason required full understanding, then nothing would be reasonable.

And again with yet more lies... Are you seriously so lacking in integrity?

Reason is the source of understanding. You seem to have a real problem with cause & effect. You keep making either incoherent or self contradictory assertions.

My simple point is:
If reason does not require full understanding, then there must be a certain element of faith involved in accepting something you (personally) cannot fully understand at the minute.

Holy ****.... no. What is so hard for you to understand?

Do you think physicists who talk about dark matter fully understand it? and do you think they'd appreciate you suggesting that they rely on faith in accepting their theories as being the best theory they have?

Do you think that people walk to work in the morning rely on faith to not worry that there might be an earthquake which opens up the ground beneath them and swallows them whole? Or does empirical evidence and a dose of reason suggest to them that it's sufficiently unlikely that it can be considered not a risk?

And finally, given the religious context of the thread & this "discussion", can you look at ANY dictionary and honestly conclude that 'faith' is defined as any kind of synonym for 'trust', which you seem to like to imply now and then (despite my explicit clarification to the contrary) ?

Or are you a dishonest, context-dropping, moral coward?