Reply to: Muslims and terrorism, do they just accept it?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Dictionary definition of faith:

1. Complete trust or confidence in something or someone.

(I trust you'll accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source - most people have faith in it's accuracy)

Sure. Now post the entire entry (and consider this:

And finally, given the religious context of the thread & this "discussion", can you look at ANY dictionary

.

And every time I quote you, you claim I haven't.

The easy resolution to that is to use the quote functionality on the board. Then it's clear what you are quoting and whether it's fabricated or not.

You claimed earlier that you believed that morality was objective, yet you have chosen in your last post to make it subjective - your personal opinion of me is not an objective one, but you try to avoid it being a statement by putting a question mark at the end.

Ok... you seem to have a poor understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
If I say I think you are a tool, that's an objective statement. If I say ice cream is tasty, that's a subjective judgement.

That aside, in reality the question mark means I'm asking a question. Albeit possibly rhetorical.
By way of explanation, a rhetorical question is one which isn't meant to solicit a reply, but rather to make a point.

Now, if I accuse you of being immoral, in my subjective judgement, that in no way makes morality subjective in nature It only means that given the limited context that I have in this situation, my judgement that you are in fact acting immorally is subjective in nature - albeit only because I lack solid knowledge of the cause of your behaviour. Whether what I think you are doing is actually immoral or not is entirely objective.
I just don't know with absolute certainty that you are in fact doing what I think you are.

This poor grasp of objectivity vs subjectivity doesn't help the argument between us, and if anything suggests you may not be being as deliberately obtuse as I suspect.

You take quotes out of context if it suits your argument, where in context they prove the falseness of your argument.

Hit up that quote button then. I'm all for being collared for slipping up.

You ask if I am a moral coward - I think this thread shows that I am prepared to stand up for and defend my morality, which has been based on various books, teachers, family members and my life experiences.

It's shown me that you'll do whatever it takes to evade the point at hand.

Now if you don't have a good understanding of what morality actually is, then that's ok - not many people do because it's something we have a certain intuitive sense for which causes people take it for granted without ever actually considering it's nature.

But at no point have you asked me why I think morality is objective in nature. You've done everything to evade that question. This is why I call you a moral coward. You'd rather stand up and defend something you claim to be subjective in nature, which is something of a performative contradiction, while refusing to consider something that I claim to be provably true. Like an ostrich with it's head in the sand.

I don't know if you really are like that, but you are acting like that.

Does having morals make me a coward, or does it just make me different to you?

What makes you different to me, although not so dissimilar from me of 10 or so years ago, is that you don't seem to value the prospect of an objectively valid moral code, over a subjectively valid one.

You'll argue over what's right and wrong, while simultaneously claiming that there is no objectively valid concept of right and wrong.

What I call cowardice is the preference to avoid even exploring the idea of objectively valid morality, in preference for a less world-view challenging subjective (i.e. arbitrary) one, and using deceit to hide that fact.

[Martin Scroatman]

(I trust you'll accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source - most people have faith in it's accuracy)

I prefer the Collins version personally

[WTFH]

Dictionary definition of faith:

1. Complete trust or confidence in something or someone.

(I trust you'll accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source - most people have faith in it's accuracy)

And every time I quote you, you claim I haven't. You claimed earlier that you believed that morality was objective, yet you have chosen in your last post to make it subjective - your personal opinion of me is not an objective one, but you try to avoid it being a statement by putting a question mark at the end.
You ask if I am dishonest - yes, sometimes. Most humans are.
You ask if I drop context - well, not as much as you do. You take quotes out of context if it suits your argument, where in context they prove the falseness of your argument.
You ask if I am a moral coward - I think this thread shows that I am prepared to stand up for and defend my morality, which has been based on various books, teachers, family members and my life experiences. Does having morals make me a coward, or does it just make me different to you?

[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?

[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.

[NotAllThere]

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

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

[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?

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[WTFH]

Lol. No. it's an understanding that that guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption is sufficiently likely that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be true, or is the best idea we have so far.

No scientist has faith that the steel staircase won't collapse underneath them - they know that it's sufficiently unlikely to not be considered a risk.

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

[SpontaneousOrder]

And what is a good guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption, but FAITH that the idea is close to correct.

Lol. No. it's an understanding that that guess/approximation/optimisation/assumption is sufficiently likely that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be true, or is the best idea we have so far.

No scientist has faith that the steel staircase won't collapse underneath them - they know that it's sufficiently unlikely to not be considered a risk.

By your definition, maybe. Doesn't mean your definition is correct. Many people who have faith - whether that is religious, scientific or whatever, actually have that faith because they started questioning, not the other way round. Your definition is flawed.

Yeah... I can't argue with that. It's absurd. But more importantly you're confusing correlation with causation again.

You started out by saying anyone who gets their morality from a book is wrong.
You switch wording from "book" to "revelation" when it suits your argument - i.e. your reasoning is based on twisting logic.

My OP used the word revelation by way of clarification of the point. So where is the 'switching'?

Your dishonesty is what is twisted.

You claim that all religions started after the Greek philosophers.

No I didn't. Quote please.

What else would you like me to point out about the logically incorrect position you are in?

Any single point will do. So far all you've given are straw men & ad homs. I've refuted every single one, and you simply move on and invent another.

That's a significant character flaw. I'd call it evil but you don't believe in objectivity when it comes to morality.

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.

You keep using the word reasonable while arguing against the primacy of reason.

And I'm not arguing that anyone who disagrees is wrong (although I would do so long as they couldn't sow otherwise) - in this case I'm allowing someone who can't, and doesn't want to, string a coherent thought together to make an exhibition of their wilful ignorance for all to see.

As soon as you stop asking me to consider the merits of self-contradictory statements I'll take you seriously.