Reply to: Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[d000hg]

Bloody hell folks.

We've done quite well. We've gone from the impact of the smoking ban on pubs, via a brief diversion into the erosion of civil liberties that is making fat people pay for two seats and a further diversion about why people are fat, into the general discussion on the tension between the government protecting people and people not liking being protected if they think they know best, via another discussion on whether people CAN make these decisions for themselves, into a brief comedy interlude about violence being the ultimate deterrent, before seguing into the nature of faith itself.

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.

It's like a microcosm of CUK except nobody mentioned house prices or fit birds (yet).

[Mich the Tester]

Bloody hell folks.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Crikey, didn't somebody accuse me of going off on a tangent of a very tangential argument or something earlier?

I'm neither an atheist nor religious so yet again I find myself neither at one end nor the other of this argument, though as somebody who was (and occasionally still is) a dabbler in the occult I strongly believe in forces that can be harnessed for purposes both good and evil.

What these are, whether they are supernatural, elemental or whatever, I do not know but I've certainly experienced things that can't be explained rationally.

But this in no way leads me to judge anyone else because, in fact, there is no morality attached to anything in which I believe. If I don't like somebody, I just go up to my room, make a little dolly and stick needles in it!

Ok. You're definitely trolling now :P

[SpontaneousOrder]

You specifically said if I was a religious person that would automatically mean trying to use reason would be pointless. So, yes you did.

Where?

Also, if you never noticed my avatar or the fact I consistently talk about this stuff, or that others bring it up fairly regularly, you're not really sharp enough to be tackling the great philosophical questions of the universe.

I'm not sharp enough because I never realised that your threads were seminal works of genius, and as such I should have been aware that they're required philosophy 101 reading? I called you 'doogie howser' because I couldn't remember your username :roll eyes:

If you're gonna have a dig at someone at least read it out in your head first to check it's not pure unadulterated lameness before you press submit.

[Gittins Gal]

Crikey, didn't somebody accuse me of going off on a tangent of a very tangential argument or something earlier?

I'm neither an atheist nor religious so yet again I find myself neither at one end nor the other of this argument, though as somebody who was (and occasionally still is) a dabbler in the occult I strongly believe in forces that can be harnessed for purposes both good and evil.

What these are, whether they are supernatural, elemental or whatever, I do not know but I've certainly experienced things that can't be explained rationally.

But this in no way leads me to judge anyone else because, in fact, there is no morality attached to anything in which I believe. If I don't like somebody, I just go up to my room, make a little dolly and stick needles in it!

[d000hg]

Is Doogie howser in the god squad? If i'd known I would;t have bothered attempting to employ reason.

Um, no. You said that attempting to reason with someone who had faith was a waste of time

No, I didn't.

You specifically said if I was a religious person that would automatically mean trying to use reason would be pointless. So, yes you did.

Also, if you never noticed my avatar or the fact I consistently talk about this stuff, or that others bring it up fairly regularly, you're not really sharp enough to be tackling the great philosophical questions of the universe.

[darmstadt]

Some slight anti-capitalistic tones in that site (i may be mistaken), but as you brought it up -

- Voltaire

Nah, one for the Mail readers here:

The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. - Noam Chomsky

[SpontaneousOrder]

You said that attempting to reason with someone who had faith was a waste of time.

No, I didn't.