Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[MyUserName]

...
There may be more twists I miss since I'm working from memory, and probably there's a whole side-thread of MUN attacking me for being a homophobic hypocrite throughout which I haven't seen, but overally I think we've covered everything now.

I have never noticed anyone quoting me pointing out that he is a homophibic hypocrite*?
Not that he reads any of my posts of course ... did I miss something? Or maybe his God told him?

*if the cap fits etc.

[Wanderer]

Um, no. You said that attempting to reason with someone who had faith was a waste of time. Since many great thinkers have had faith, you're demonstrably wrong.Sorry but if you believe there is no evidence, you're mistaken (whether you think it proves anything is another matter).

I think what was meant is that trying to reason with someone on matters of faith is a waste of time. By it's very definition, someone with faith doesn't require evidence to prove anything and if there was evidence then there would be no need for faith.

That doesn't mean that people who have faith can't debate or reason on matters not related to faith though.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think what was meant is that trying to reason with someone on matters of faith is a waste of time. By it's very definition, someone with faith doesn't require evidence to prove anything and if there was evidence then there would be no need for faith.

That doesn't mean that people who have faith can't debate or reason on matters not related to faith though.

I meant that I would use my time differently had I known that reason, evidence & logic weren't a prerequisite to dhoog forming an opinion.

That's not to say that he is incapable of using reason - just that, at the very least, he chooses to apply reason to his opinion forming process on an ad-hoc basis.

That means that providing proof of his misunderstandings is not necessarily an indicator that he will change his value judgements, and therefore I'd rather back a horse with better odds.

**edit** " trying to reason with someone on matters of faith is a waste of time." but that too. It's so ridiculous that the only reason to talk about it is to ridicule. I wouldn't bother writing pages trying to turn someone from that train of thought.

[mudskipper]

I think what was meant is that trying to reason with someone on matters of faith is a waste of time. By it's very definition, someone with faith doesn't require evidence to prove anything and if there was evidence then there would be no need for faith.

That doesn't mean that people who have faith can't debate or reason on matters not related to faith though.

+1. It's difficult to word it without sounding like you're having a go - but that's what faith is - believing something despite lack of empirical evidence. If conclusive evidence was there, there would be no need for faith. So trying to convince someone that their faith is misplaced is pretty futile.

[MaryPoppins]

So trying to convince someone that their faith is misplaced is pretty futile.

I don't get why anyone should try to?



Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

[mudskipper]

I don't get why anyone should try to?



Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

True. But it normally starts with wanting to understand why/how someone can believe something that seems like a 'fairy story' to someone else, and degenerates into a slanging match

Edit: When someone uses their religious beliefs to justify what seems to someone else to be wrong (e.g. gay marriage, women in burkhas) then that's likely to lead to arguments about whether their beliefs are reasonable.

[d000hg]

I meant that I would use my time differently had I known that reason, evidence & logic weren't a prerequisite to dhoog forming an opinion.

In hindsight it doesn't seem to have stopped you, in fact it's only led toy ou posting more about it

**edit** " trying to reason with someone on matters of faith is a waste of time." but that too

Fair point but suggesting just because someone has faith means they can't discuss faith in an academic/theological way is silly. Theology is a perfectly valid field of study.
You might not be able to convince someone that the entire crux of their faith is wrong, but if that's the only reason you are entering into the discussion in the first place, then how dull.