20 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can stipulate any meaning you want for the term 'faith', but that doesn't mean anyone should take your claims about faith seriously. If I stipulate that the term 'justified' is only to be applied to beliefs arrived at via the toss of a coin, then that is my prerogative, but nobody would then have any reason to take anything I say about the justification of beliefs seriously. That's the price you pay when you decide to speak your own idiosyncratic language.
[b]Does this mean that my belief that I live in Seattle is based on faith?
Absolutely. Demonstrable faith, relying on givens. Faith, nonetheless.[/b]
EDIT: From now on I will use the term 'freaky faith' (or 'ffaith' for short), to refer to your strange notion.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrThe point being, of course, that that which is believed is determined by one (or some combination) of the three modes of perception: empiricism, rationalism or ffaith.
You can stipulate any meaning you want for the term 'faith', but that doesn't mean anyone should take your claims about faith seriously. If I stipulate that the term 'justified' is only to be applied to beliefs arrived at via the toss of a coin, then that is my prerogative, but nobody would then have any reason to take anything I say about the justification o ...[text shortened]... use the term 'freaky faith' (or 'ffaith' for short), to refer to your strange notion.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEmpiricism and Rationalism aren't modes of perception, they are epistemological orientations that differ over questions like whether we can have substantial a priori knowledge, whether any of our concepts are innate, and in general the extent to which our knowledge of the world is dependent on our sensory experiences. Of course, you should feel free to redefine 'perception' (or 'rationalism' and 'empiricism'😉 any way you see fit. Perhaps we should petition for your very own fforum where you can discuss ffaith and fperception and the rest of it withut any of the pesky semantic constraints that derive from terms' etymology and actual usage.
The point being, of course, that that which is believed is determined by one (or some combination) of the three modes of perception: empiricism, rationalism or ffaith.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrHow silly of me to use the word "perception" in such an impercise manner. The use of the word was related to how one achieves understanding; how one apprehends something. Or, in short, the standard definition of the word.
Empiricism and Rationalism aren't modes of perception...Of course, you should feel free to redefine 'perception' (or 'rationalism' and 'empiricism'😉 any way you see fit.
withut any of the pesky semantic constraints that derive from terms' etymology and actual usage.
But of course, the etymology of the word is in stark contrast to my fast and loose use of its meaning, to wit:
1483, "receiving, collection," from L. perceptionem (nom. perceptio) "perception, apprehension, a taking," from percipere "perceive". First used in the more literal sense of the L. word; in secondary sense, "the taking cognizance of," it is recorded in Eng. from 1611. Meaning "intuitive or direct recognition of some innate quality" is from 1827.
But don't take it on ffaith of my submitted definition.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH'Perception' in the broadest sense of the word, is the process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing (from the OED). Empiricism and Rationalism are not ways or modes of becoming aware of anything at all. They are philosophical schools of thought. Empiricism and Rationalism may make claims about the nature of perception (since perception is one avenue to justification and knowledge), but they are certainly not modes of perception. To claim otherwise is just to make a category mistake.
How silly of me to use the word "perception" in such an impercise manner. The use of the word was related to how one achieves understanding; how one apprehends something. Or, in short, the standard definition of the word.
[b]withut any of the pesky semantic constraints that derive from terms' etymology and actual usage.
But of course, the etymolo ...[text shortened]... quality" is from 1827.
But don't take it on ffaith of my submitted definition.[/b]
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by whodeyCan we proove that there is not God? First of all you must have a good look at the word proof. In the mathematical world a proof requires some axioms and definitions. At a bare minimum I would need:
Think about this for a minute. When those of faith say that they are 100% convinced that there is a God, then those who do not beleive ask us to prove it or retract our statement. However, those who say that they are convinced 100% that there is no God are not held to the same standards. Prove to us that there is no God or retract your statement as well. ...[text shortened]... e facts. Well? What are these facts? Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
1. A definition of God.
2. The axiom that the Universe was not created in a state that would give to all intents and purposes a history before its creation. For example if that the universe was not created last week with all human beings having memories of prior events. I have heard this sort of creation refered to as creation of a 'fully mature' universe complete with starlight in transit from stars that never existed etc.
One critical axiom that is taken as fact by many scientists is that the Universe is governed by a set of rules which are true throughout the universe. The only real conclusion about God that a scientist can make from a scientific point of view is that if God exists then he makes sure that he is totaly undetectable from a scientific point of view. The interesting logical argument then becomes that he cannot perform miracles in an evironment being monitored by scientific instrumentation. What surprises me is how many Christians spend a lot of thier time trying to find scientific evidence for God.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrYour bald spot is showing.
'Perception' in the broadest sense of the word, is the process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing (from the OED). Empiricism and Rationalism are not ways or modes of becoming aware of anything at all. They are philosophical schools of thought. Empiricism and Rationalism may make claims about the nature of perception (since perception is one avenue to ...[text shortened]... are certainly not modes of perception. To claim otherwise is just to make a category mistake.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTheist: "Atheism requires faith because of X, Y and Z."
Your bald spot is showing.
Bbarr: "Actually, X, Y and Z entail that all beliefs are based are faith."
Freaky: "Yep."
Bbarr: "But that's not what the term 'faith' means."
Freaky: "You're splitting hairs."
Where did you get the idea that intellectual dishonesty was a virtue in discussion or debate?
20 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarra dj becker mimic?
Theist: "Atheism requires faith because of X, Y and Z."
Bbarr: "Actually, X, Y and Z entail that all beliefs are based are faith."
Freaky: "Yep."
Bbarr: "But that's not what the term 'faith' means."
Freaky: "You're splitting hairs."
Where did you get the idea that intellectual dishonesty was a virtue in discussion or debate?
besides that 's a fallacy of Equivocation isn't it?
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrFaith is both what is believed and the belief itself. As atheism is a belief system (either the non-existence or lack of proof of existence of God), when one employs this belief system, it is what they believe.
Theist: "Atheism requires faith because of X, Y and Z."
Bbarr: "Actually, X, Y and Z entail that all beliefs are based are faith."
Freaky: "Yep."
Bbarr: "But that's not what the term 'faith' means."
Freaky: "You're splitting hairs."
Where did you get the idea that intellectual dishonesty was a virtue in discussion or debate?
That faith is based on rationalism (albeit skewed), but it is faith, or trust, nonetheless.
Intellectual dishonesty? Here, in your own backyard, you make absurd claims relative to Kant, and you wish to discuss intellectual dishonesty? You talk like a person disconnected from reality, stubbornly refusing the warmth of its fire.
20 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, that which is believed are propositions; declarative statements that something is the case. Beliefs themselves are just that: simply beliefs. They may qualify by virtue of their propositional content as being part of one's faith, where 'faith' refers to some body of doctrine. They may qualify by virtue of their origin as being based on faith. They may qualify by virtue of an absence of evidence in their favor as being based on faith. It's best to keep these considerations separate, if you want to be understood.
Faith is both what is believed and the belief itself. As atheism is a belief system (either the non-existence or lack of proof of existence of God), when one employs this belief system, it is what they believe.
That faith is based on rationalism (albeit skewed), but it is faith, or trust, nonetheless.
Intellectual dishonesty? Here, in your ...[text shortened]... ? You talk like a person disconnected from reality, stubbornly refusing the warmth of its fire.
The beliefs of the atheist may either be based on rational or empirical considerations. Atheists are certainly not committed to advocating any sort of rationalism about either justification or the origins of knowledge or the nature of concepts. One atheist may fail to believe because they take the existence of God to be logically impossible. Others may fail to believe becaue their experiences do not require postulating God in order to be explained.
I haven't made any absurd claims about Kant. In fact, I haven't even made any false claims about Kant. You see, unlike you, I've actually read Kant, as well as the secondary literature on his ethical theory, and I've taken classes on Kant, and written papers about Kant. Of course, I may say something about Kant that conflicts with things you've cribbed from the internet, but one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the internet.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrOriginally posted by Halitose
but one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the internet.
Didn't Kant assert in his Critique of Practical Reason that morality requires a belief in the existence of God, freedom, and immortality, because without this said existence there can be no morality?
bbar's response:
"No he didn't."
Atheists are certainly not committed to advocating any sort of rationalism about either justification or the origins of knowledge or the nature of concepts.
No one said they were so engaged. My post was focused on their means of arriving at their belief in atheism.
I haven't made any absurd claims about Kant. In fact, I haven't even made any false claims about Kant.
As absurd can mean "ridiculously incongruous" or "unreasonable," and false can mean "contrary to fact or truth" or "deliberately untrue," the statement you made in response to Halitose was patently absurd and false.
You see, unlike you, I've actually read Kant, as well as the secondary literature on his ethical theory, and I've taken classes on Kant, and written papers about Kant.
As one who didn't wait until adulthood to become immersed in philosophy, I find it more beautiful to ignore your intended slight. Nonetheless, apparently, you possess the mythical secret de-coder ring which is requisite for a proper understanding of Kant's rantings. The rest of the world outside of your hermetically-sealed world is clearly deluded.
