Capital Punishment: Murder?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i dont understand the difference you are placing upon hope and belief, i believe
that i will be resurrected by i cannot say for sure, i also hope that i will be resurrected,
but i cannot say for sure, i dont know why you think these two elements are mutually
exclusive. I both believe and hope that i will resurrected, but i cannot say for sure, is
that any better?

I never said that hope and belief are mutually exclusive. I just implied that there's a difference between the two. At any rate, I am not concerned with this too much. You have answered my question: you believe that you will be resurrected.

Now, my issue is that in your first post on the previous page, you seemed to be agreeing with me that you have no good reasons to believe that you will be resurrected. And yet you have stated that you do believe that you will be resurrected. It is this incongruity that I am interested in your addressing.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I never said that hope and belief are mutually exclusive. I just implied that there's a difference between the two. At any rate, I am not concerned with this too much. You have answered my question: you believe that you will be resurrected.

Now, my issue is that in your first post on the previous page, you seemed to be agreeing with me that you have ...[text shortened]... that you will be resurrected. It is this incongruity that I am interested in your addressing.

ok, i think.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, i think.

Ok, so please feel free to go ahead and address the incongruity that I described.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Ok, so please feel free to go ahead and address the incongruity that I described.

I dont see any incongruity myself, your perceptions are not mine, sorry. I can offer no
empirical evidence that i will be resurrected, its a Biblical promise for those who are
faithful.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont see any incongruity myself, your perceptions are not mine, sorry. I can offer no
empirical evidence that i will be resurrected, its a Biblical promise for those who are
faithful.

So you don't see any incongruity in a situation where one agrees that he has no good reasons to believe that P and yet says that he does believe that P?

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you don't see any incongruity in a situation where one agrees that he has no good reasons to believe that P and yet says that he does believe that P?

I dont think that position is incongruous, illogical certainly
but not contradictory. Its his belief. Gut-feeling.

No religion has proof but you couldn't say all its adherents
were incongruent because of their belief. I think it far more
refreshing and honest when theists agree they have no proof
or reason for their beliefs.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I hope Liverpool FC will win the EPL, but i don't believe they will. 🙂

'Hope springs eternal' should be Liverpool's motto.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you don't see any incongruity in a situation where one agrees that he has no good reasons to believe that P and yet says that he does believe that P?

Enter stage right: Faith talk.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I dont think that position is incongruous, illogical certainly
but not contradictory. Its his belief. Gut-feeling.

No religion has proof but you couldn't say all its adherents
were incongruent because of their belief. I think it far more
refreshing and honest when theists agree they have no proof
or reason for their beliefs.

Incongruous doesn't necessarily mean contradictory, and I didn't say anything about the subject of "proof".

I meant 'incongruity' as in something not appropriate or not in harmony. Do you think it is generally appropriate, or in harmonious keeping with one's epistemic environment, that he believe such propositions on no good reasons? If not, then I doubt we disagree on anything here.

I agree it can be refreshing when theists are so open about the lack of justification for their beliefs, but it doesn't seem to make those beliefs any more appropriate.

Originally posted by bbarr
Enter stage right: Faith talk.

Yeah. I still like the breakdown of different readings of 'faith' that you once provided in this forum. I can't seem to find the original posting, but you reposted it on the first page of this thread: Thread 102108. Good stuff.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont see any incongruity myself, your perceptions are not mine, sorry. I can offer no
empirical evidence that i will be resurrected, its a Biblical promise for those who are
faithful.

Lol....So do they get it yet? Apparently not or maybe or yes or no or they could be or maybe not or odds are they will or we think maybe they should or could or who knows? Lol
Your answers have been crystal clear Robbie, it is not you and they do this all the time because as the Bible says thay have "no powers of perception" in their minds with spiritual matters. It's like a foreign language to them and unless they ever take the time to study the Bible with God's help, it will always be foreign to them.
This is actually why God had the Bible written as he did. One has to search out God and his ways. If no searching is done, zip on the understanding.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah. I still like the breakdown of different readings of 'faith' that you once provided in this forum. I can't seem to find the original posting, but you reposted it on the first page of this thread: Thread 102108. Good stuff.

Thanks. I naively thought that would get more traction. I'm not sure theists really want to get clear on how they use terms like 'faith', since that would make ad hoc equivocation more difficult.

Originally posted by bbarr
Thanks. I naively thought that would get more traction. I'm not sure theists really want to get clear on how they use terms like 'faith', since that would make ad hoc equivocation more difficult.

Hmmm, interesting post. http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=102108

I generally define faith (as I use it) to mean something along the lines of this...

"A belief in the proposition P that is held without evidence to justify such a belief, or, held despite evidence that contradicts P."


I fully admit that there are other meanings of the word faith, but I don't use them. (and I always (try) to define the term in any post
in which I use it)

It is this cognitive action (that I term faith) that I find to be both morally reprehensible and dangerous and is what I most oppose
about religious (or other superstitious) belief.



EDIT: I am not sure that this neatly fits within any of your proposed definitions.... Your thoughts on this would be welcome.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I meant 'incongruity' as in something not appropriate or not in harmony. Do you think it is generally appropriate, or in harmonious keeping with one's epistemic environment, that he believe such propositions on no good reasons? If not, then I doubt we disagree on anything here..

I think you and I would agree that there is not (nor ever can be)
any proof for the supernatural. Therefore anyone who believes in
the supernatural either does so on faith alone or on flawed logic/evidence.

We point out at length flaws in arguments supporting the existance
of gods, souls, an afterlife, etc.

The only theists we can take seriously are those with no evidence
to support their beliefs! Therefore I do not take their position as
iinappropriate. (Just illogical)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hmmm, interesting post. http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=102108

I generally define faith (as I use it) to mean something along the lines of this...

[b]"A belief in the proposition P that is held without evidence to justify such a belief, or, held despite evidence that contradicts P."


I fully admit that atly fits within any of your proposed definitions.... Your thoughts on this would be welcome.[/b]

That seems like the first construal of (4).