thats what red does, uses the dictionary to try to misinterpret things. clearly we mean faith in the religious sense, the kind of faith that god asks for, the kind of faith that proves your commitment to god. if there were evidence, faith wouldnt be required. for the purposes of this discussion, faith mean belief without, or in spite of, evidence. most religions supposedly reward this. if religions didnt require faith, they wouldnt be religions, they would simply be science.
this is such a pointless thing to do. you know what the word faith means in this context, why do you bother misinterpreting it? we dont mean faith in the sense that you are speaking of. we dont mean confidence based on reason. we dont mean faith like "if i drop this coin i have faith it will fall to the ground, because of gravity". that isnt faith. it is reason and logic. i just dont see the point of reminding us that words can be used differently in different contexts. that doesnt mean you caught someone in a logical trap, it is just a waste of time.
we both know it does. you use words in a different sense and then pretend that means something other than the original meaning. here is what you are doing: me: i think faith as a concept is silly red: well do you have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? me: thats not what i mean by faith red: HAHAH LOLZ MARTIN HAZ FAITH martin: but i mean faith in the sense that something is believed on faith because there is no evidence. i dont mean faith like i have faith in something because of reason red: too late i am not listening i misinterpreted a definition to make an impossibly stupid and invalid point.
How revealing is this statement? :lol: Red uses actual dictionary definitions and encyclopedia references to corroborate his point about what terms actually mean and what is accepted usage. martin complains that this is twisting the truth and waves his arms and ridicules anybody that disagrees with him. he likes fluid definitions, for obvious reasons. But he can't change what is. Pity him.
again, red, again. the word here is nuance, context. talented readers understand words in context. we are not primitive dictionary robots. we should hold ourselves to a higher standard with our reading skills than you are. words have context. your goal shouldnt be to remove them from that context. this is so simple that it will come off as condescending. blame yourself. in this discussion, we are discussing religious faith. we are not discussing deductive reasoning. we are discussing why, for example, people are sure that jesus is lord. that is faith. there is not sufficient evidence, but the religion teaches folks that faith will be rewarded. having faith that jesus died on the cross for our sins is the key to christianity, according to most interpretations. so faith, in this context means belief that isnt necessarily supported by reason, but by something else, like i dunno, heartfelt magic or whatever. we are not discussing faith in the sense i mentioned, like the "faith" i have that sun will rise tomorrow. that is an imprecise way to state things. more accurately, i think the sun will rise purely based on accumulated rational evidence, not faith. so my "faith" isnt really faith in the religious sense. see how a word can have different implications in context, little fella? dont be a troll, dont argue things you know are stupid just to irritate. if you are getting trounced, just deal with it, dont try to be an annoyance, forcing folks to explain things we all already know, just to be an obstructionist.
That's what you are discussing. And losing to the believers, I might add. I was discussing a quote that Rex posted by Nietzsche. I am making a deductive reasoning point and I can if I want to. I only mentioned you as an example. I didn't mean to embarrass you by exposing your own faith in technology as a parallel to faith in God, but by your hysterical reaction I see that I have and I'm quite delighted.
you are certainly free to confuse words in different contexts. but an intelligent man should seek to discuss things in the context they were intended, not muddle up the issue by introducing different contexts that are not relevant to muddle up the discussion. again, we both know what "faith" means in the context of a religious discussion. if you choose to ignore that, it certainly is your right to be a useless obstructionist, trying to drive the discussion away from what anyone meant. when you go to the doctor, and he gives you antibiotics to cure your infection, and he has "faith" that they will work, would you then classify him as a "faith healer". why not? he has faith in his techniques, does he not? hahah ayou go to a faith healer! lolz are you a caveman? hahahah that is how obnoxious your stupid point is.
