21 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am not sure which questions are answered yes or no. But I think you are saying that:
Selectively. No; Yes. Yes; No.
Faith is not random selection, but is in fact merely Empiricism and Rationalism. Seems like a bit of a cheat to make it a third alternative?
Its as if you are saying:
"My method is special, my method is called 'Faith'.
PS: my method is actually the same as yours, I am just a bit more 'selective' about it"
But your selectiveness is either random, or you are using 1. and 2.
Or more likely, your selectiveness is based on less rational things like personal desire.
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadEmpiricism: I'll acquire information from what I can see, hear, taste, smell and touch from the day of my birth forward.
I am not sure which questions are answered yes or no. But I think you are saying that:
Faith is not random selection, but is in fact merely Empiricism and Rationalism. Seems like a bit of a cheat to make it a third alternative?
Its as if you are saying:
"My method is special, my method is called 'Faith'.
PS:[i] my method is actually the same as you ...[text shortened]...
Or more likely, your selectiveness is based on less rational things like personal desire.
Rationalism : I'll believe what I can logically deduce and induce from the information I've acquired and remembered.
Faith: I'll selectively believe names of persons, places, things, concepts, statements. Absolute truth, always. (gb)
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am sorry, but it is still not clear what you are trying to say. Are you saying that 1. and 2. do not involve names of persons, places, things, concepts etc?
Empiricism: I'll acquire information from what I can see, hear, taste, smell and touch from the day of my birth forward.
Rationalism : I'll believe what I can logically deduce and induce from the information I've acquired and remembered.
Faith: I'll selectively believe names of persons, places, things, concepts, statements. Absolute truth, always. (gb)
Or are you saying they are not 'selective'?
If I believe my sisters name is Angeline, did I use 1., 2. or 3.? If 3. is my sisters name therefore a matter of Faith?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour characterization of 'faith' is clear as mud. And, did you even bother to look at the empiricism vs rationalism link I posted (may have been in the other thread)? Seems not.
Empiricism: I'll acquire information from what I can see, hear, taste, smell and touch from the day of my birth forward.
Rationalism : I'll believe what I can logically deduce and induce from the information I've acquired and remembered.
Faith: I'll selectively believe names of persons, places, things, concepts, statements. Absolute truth, always. (gb)
As far as I can tell, with 'empiricism' you're referring to concepts or knowledge gained through observation and the senses; by 'rationalism' you're referring to concepts or knowledge gained through routes independent of the same (such as intuition, innate sense, some combination of these coupled with deduction). And by 'faith perception' you're referring to some largely volitional process where you claim you "choose" your beliefs based on what options appear "better" to you. If your 'faith perception' has other relevant dimensions (perhaps that make it overlap obviously with the other two), you have not adequately detailed them (despite my urging you to look at bbarr's posting in the thread to which I linked to see if it triggers something, again may have been in the other thread).
As to the question of which of these are "operative" (as you asked in the other thread), I assume you mean which are viable in bringing the agent to knowledge or justified belief. I would think both empiricism and rationalism are operative in this sense, but it may depend on what area(s) of discourse or study we are talking about; the link I provided on empiricism vs rationalism has good background discussion about this. On the other hand, I have no confidence that your 'faith perception' is "operative" in virtually any area of discourse or study that we could be talking about, for at least a couple reasons: (1) there's no good reason to think one has a robust capability to selectively "choose" his beliefs in such a way to begin with and (2) even setting (1) aside, there's nothing about one's selectively "choosing" a belief in this way that provides that the belief will have relationship or connection with one's actual evidential basis for belief, so there seems to be no reason to think the belief would be justified. It would only seem to ensure that the content of the belief (or its implications) bears some connection with the agent's affective/conative attitudes, which is not the right recipe. In fact, as I mentioned before, your description of 'faith perception' seems wholly consistent with a process where one simply "chooses" based on appeals to consequences, which is an obvious logical fallacy.
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJello156 Posts with numerous relevant passages of quoted Scripture, detailed commentary and supporting comment =
If you're not actually interested in discussing such things, then why bother wasting everyone's time?
"If you're not actually interested in discussing such things, then why bother wasting everyone's time?" (LemonJello)
No where but in a "spirituality" forum on the internet. Thank you. (gb)
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI repeat: If you're not actually interested in discussing such things, then why bother wasting everyone's time?
156 Posts with numerous relevant passages of quoted Scripture, detailed commentary and supporting comment =
"If you're not actually interested in discussing such things, then why bother wasting everyone's time?" (LemonJello)
No where but in a "spirituality" forum on the internet. Thank you. (gb)
22 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterI still don't get it. Is that what 'Purple Memo' means? If so, what bait? Are you saying he's just a troll and admitting to it?
You took the bait...
Or is he admitting to obfustication and sidelining the discussion in order to avoid answering the earlier questions?
Either way, it seems rather stupid of him.
Especially considering that his favourite past time is starting threads on how to improve this forum.
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm saying grampy bobby likes to play games with people.
I still don't get it. Is that what 'Purple Memo' means? If so, what bait? Are you saying he's just a troll and admitting to it?
Or is he admitting to obfustication and sidelining the discussion in order to avoid answering the earlier questions?
Either way, it seems rather stupid of him.
Especially considering that his favourite past time is starting threads on how to improve this forum.
Originally posted by twhitehead"What is the Purple Memo?" (twhitehead)
I have no idea what you are talking about. What is the Purple Memo?
"Purple: of the color purple; regal, imperial. Origin of PURPLE Middle English purpel, alteration of purper, from Old English purpuran of purple, genitive of purpure purple color, from Latin purpura, from Greek porphyra First Known Use: before 12th century." (/Merriam-webster.com) "Memo: get the memo, to be aware." (onlineslangdictionary.com)
"Purple Memo" [an arresting visual focus adjective coupled with an every day slang phrase] in context was intended to draw attention to the fact that one hundred and sixty two (162) post later, sadly, you still don't have a clue. (gb)
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyInterestingly, I got it the first time around. Or maybe I'm just the only one to cop to it. I suppose if I claimed not to get it, it would be easier to yank your chain.
"What is the Purple Memo?" (twhitehead)
[b]"Purple: of the color purple; regal, imperial. Origin of PURPLE Middle English purpel, alteration of purper, from Old English purpuran of purple, genitive of purpure purple color, from Latin purpura, from Greek porphyra First Known Use: before 12th century." (/Merriam-webster.com) "Memo: get the m ...[text shortened]... at one hundred and sixty two (162) post later, sadly, you still don't have a clue. (gb)[/b]
But then again, I understand English, and I understand everyday colloquial or slang usage, as does anyone who is normal and hears it every single day of their life.
How did these troglodytes get in here anyways?
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWho's the stupid one?
I still don't get it. Is that what 'Purple Memo' means? If so, what bait? Are you saying he's just a troll and admitting to it?
Or is he admitting to obfustication and sidelining the discussion in order to avoid answering the earlier questions?
Either way, it seems rather stupid of him.
Especially considering that his favourite past time is starting threads on how to improve this forum.
The one who makes the unusual, yet still understandable comment, or the one who claims not to "grok" it? Maybe the one who claims the other is stupid "doth protest too much".
Of course, I do realize that if you admitted that you do understand English, then maybe you'd be expected to actually participate (with intelligence, or a reasonable facsimile thereof), instead of trying to drag everyone down to your level and to be given a pass for your behavior, as many here seem wont to do.