Mahroo Mastafavi

'Thinker' is too kind a word - it abuses the concept being displayed......

Post 21

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:06am

Ed,

blasphemous: from [ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blasphemous ]
"
Adj. 1. blasphemous - grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred; "blasphemous rites of a witches' Sabbath"; "profane utterances against the Church"; "it is sacrilegious to enter with shoes on"
sacrilegious, profane
irreverent - showing lack of due respect or veneration; "irreverent scholars mocking sacred things"; "noisy irreverent tourists"
2. blasphemous - characterized by profanity or cursing; "foul-mouthed and blasphemous"; "blue language"; "profane words"
profane, blue
dirty - (of behavior or especially language) characterized by obscenity or indecency; "dirty words"; "a dirty old man"; "dirty books and movies"; "boys telling dirty jokes"; "has a dirty mouth"
"

I'm sure you meant the second sense of the word ... "obscenity", ... "has a dirty mouth".

Agreed.

Post 22

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:12am

Good story, Nick. It's very similar to my experience with my history teacher in High School that opened my mind to science. Although, his views were not subjective by any standard, considering his past experience in intel analysis, mathematics, and what not.

But, as for saying all Oists are stuffy, I could dare say it's just most people in general stuffy, Nick. You know the old saying, you are what you eat? Well, working in a chinese food kitchen, you would be surprised how regular people are in their eating [myself included]. So, just by that odd observation of regularity in eating habits, it doesn't need to add Oist to any tag of any particular set of stuffy, extremely regular boring people. Stuffy people, as the title, would do. :)

As for me, I still like the familar, but I also study the unfamilar to a point where I doubt a man like you could keep up. *shuffles through some weird stuff about multi-threaded computer languages and their logic* ^_^

-- Bridget wonders if she's 'The Doctor' *looks for a blue police box* ^_^

Post 23

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:25am

Is logic a tool? Is it always adequate? Are inductive arguments conclusive and completely certain? Are deductive arguments not circular? Are there not paradoxes which challenge the completeness and closure of logic systems?

I did write the essay about perception, logic, and language where I developed my views and defended logic and reason as self-critical. Other tools we use to deal wth reality are not. You didn't challenge me on the arguments presented there. If you take issue with them, you should have.

People who raise logic and reason up as a god will consider it blasphemous to say there is faith involved in it. "Faith," to them, is like "sin," and they become so upset they cannot argue rationally. They have to throw insults or flames or simply condemn and not support their accusations.

Reason is a tool we use to understand realty or get a handle on it. It is like a net we use to drag the ocean for objects we can study. We learn a lot from the objects we catch, but there are still smaller objects which fall through the holes in the net. Those objects could shed more light on what we catch. However, if we make our net too tight, we catch too much. It defeats the purpose of having a net which identifies the objects we catch.

We may never know everything, but we keep trying. We don't get too satisfied with what we know because that is when learning stops. We don't want to cling to something and consider as blasphemous anything which challenges it. That is what some relgious people do, people who depend more on uncritical faith than reason.

It is "bad faith," self-deception, to have religious faith in logic and reason, to avoid the questioning and the doubt, to regard as impious anyone who disagrees with the sacred views. It is fundamentalism and bigotry, not search for truth.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 24

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:26am

Mike, I actually meant the first one ...

======================
irreverent - showing lack of due respect or veneration
======================

Nick lacks due respect of logic. In a sense, he has not yet learned how to think. He chooses to use (il)logical categories to place logic in bed with faith -- in effect, sneaking faith into the concept of logic through the back-door, so to speak.

So here he is, proclaiming that he's identified (beyond doubt) an essential characteristic of logic (ie. belief without sufficient evidence) -- he's used logic to become certain that logic can't produce certainty. Like Kant, he's blind BECAUSE he has eyes -- because he has a PARTICULAR method of knowing reality.

Ed

Post 25

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:48am

(Nick) It is "bad faith," self-deception, to have religious faith in logic and reason, to avoid the questioning and the doubt, to regard as impious anyone who disagrees with the sacred views. It is fundamentalism and bigotry, not search for truth.

(Me) Nick, you can't know the mental states of a person, therefore to claim self-deception is faulty. No more mind reading, please, stop such a sophomoric tactic for the sake of a cordial and decent argument.

-- Bridget

Post 26

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:52am

belief without sufficient evidence

Belief with sufficient evidence is still belief.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 27

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:04am

And belief is not the same as faith.

-- Bridget

Post 28

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:52am

Yes, it is.

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:44pm

And that is the wormhole - the myth that all is belief, with knowledge considered merely belief 'with certainty'.....

Post 30

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:21pm

I think knowledge can be justified belief or belief with a high degree of certainty. At some point along the continuum, I'll call it knowledge and attach truth and falseness to it, with the qualification still in my mind that I could be wrong. I know when I'm taking a leap.

I'm not sure what ths has to do with Plato, who claimed that truth was absolute, independent of the senses and prior to man. For all the criticsm Rand heaped on Plato, she was much closer to his theory of knowledge than she was to
Aristotle's.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 31

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 3:55pm

Nick, even the analytics do not agree with your supposition that belief is the same as faith. Not even Quentin Smith. So, you got the Analytics, Platonics, Objectivists, Empiricists, and just about anyone that still thinks definitional shift is bunk all disagreeing with you. Now, you have to tell each and every one of us, probably numbering in the millions, with thousands of papers on the issue, from theology to linguistics why your wonderful and magical redefining of belief as faith some how works. And why for thousands of years, through hundreds of latin and non-latin languages that belief and faith have never been intermixed once as the same concept.

You got a big titanic argumentation to lay down, Nick. That's why we disagree with you. It's not an Oist thing, it's a reason thing that transcends the uncommon assertions of different philosophical camps to which allow each one of them to debate each other: universally accepted definitions. You are fighting against the very foundation for knowledge, discourse, and progress. And that is your error. And it is yours to bare if you wish, but don't expect anyone anywhere at anytime to show respect for your error.

Again, j00 b33n pwnt, kekekekeke! ^_^

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/30, 3:57pm)

Post 32

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 5:27pm

What Bridget said.

Ed
[good going, Bridget!]

Post 33

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 6:17pm

Bridget,

Do you think you can just say anything and get away with it? If Quentin Smith distinguishes between faith and belief, show me where. I�ve seen him talk about agreeing or disagreeing with what people believe. I don�t see the significant difference between that and saying he agrees or disagrees with that in which people have faith. You go on and on speaking for Analytics, Platonics, Objectivists, Empiricists, and just about anyone, but you don�t directly quote anyone who says specifically that belief is not the same as faith. Do you assume I haven�t read any philosophy and will be intimidated by all this? I�d be offended that you would think I�m so na�ve. Maybe you can fool Ed but not me.

Check the definitions in dictionaries. In Marriam-Webster, faith is defined as firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. In Encarta, faith is defined as belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. In Infoplease, faith is defined as belief that is not based on proof. In American Heritage, faith is defined as 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief. , trust.

So, faith is belief, in the conventional parlance. There is no titanic argumentation to lay down. If anyone is fighting against the very foundation of knowledge, discourse, and progress; it is you.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 34

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:41pm

(Nick) In Encarta, faith is defined as belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.
(Me) Wooo, you pwnt yourself there, dude. It states WITHOUT LOGICAL PROOF.

Where's that video clip of Trinity pwning an agent saying, "Dodge this" ? Cause I think it fits you, being that you are the agent and oddly your own vainquisher. So, please stop ASSuming that belief is faith and vice versa. It ain't, get over it.

-- Bridget

Post 35

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:22pm

Yes, well, inductive logic is inconclusive, and deductive proof is circular. So, logical proof is not provable by logical proof. I've been told it is a sophisticated pronouncement of faith. Anyway, this debate is about whether or not belief and faith are synonymous. I think they are close enough to be used interchangably in non-technical conversation. In techncal writings, definitions can be stipulated. However, it is not proven that Quentin Smith, Analytics, Platonics, Objectivists, Empiricists, and just about anyone disagrees with me that belief is the same as faith. Both can mean the holding of a view drawn on not enough proof or evidence. And, remember, inductive reasoning does not check all the evidence. There is a leap of faith, which is synomous with belief.

You should go argue about whether or not circles are squares or squares are circles. There is probably less certainty about that than there is about whether or not belief and faith are the same. You are just making a fool out of yourself, Bridget.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 36

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 7:58am

Nick,

Is the inductive logic that led to the generalization that both the Morning Star and the Evening Star are separate instances of the one planet Venus, inconclusive?

Is the inductive logic that led to the generalization that all live elephants are necessarily larger than all live fleas (because of the # of cells required for elephant organs; and the respiratory mechanism of fleas), inconclusive?

Is the inductive logic that led to the generalization that there's no chemical compound: 'helium sulfide', inconclusive?

Is the inductive logic that led to the generalization that all of Canada is north of all of Mexico, inconclusive?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/31, 7:59am)

Post 37

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:34am

(Nick)You should go argue about whether or not circles are squares or squares are circles.
(Me) That is what you are arguing. You want circles [belief] to be squares [faith].

(Nick) There is probably less certainty about that than there is about whether or not belief and faith are the same.

(Me) Nope, they are NOT the same. You are talking to someone that studied theology. The definition of faith cannot mean the same as belief. Faith is reverence, and HOPE, for things unperceived. There is no faith in induction. You need to prove there is. Saying, "well blah blah, you don't know it all therefore it's faith... blah blah blah" is not a proper answer. Not knowing everything is not taking it on faith. It's taking it on assumptions. No one has reverence for the unknown. No one hopes for things that are not reliably[sp?] based on the facts unless they suspend critical thinking. YOU, Nick, are being an idiot because you want any level of uncertainty to be equivocal with total uncertainty and total hope and reverence. And that is your problem. They are not equivocal. Stop equivocating liberally and accept what is.

(Nick) You are just making a fool out of yourself, Bridget.

(Me) Again... PROVE... IT... WITH... EVIDENCE... Stop being like a little fundie saying, "Well it's proven you're being a fool because you disagree with me and provide a proper refutation, therefore I am right.. HAHAHAH!" That is how you are sounding, Nick. Like a fundie. I got a numerous bibles here for you to latch onto, then all you need is a black suit, white shirt, a tie, and shoes. Oh and a bicycle too like the JW's! Because, that is what you are; another fundie from another angle. If anyone disagrees with you therefore they do it in 'bad faith', or self-deception, or are lying, or are evil. Why not just start a new religion, Nick? Cause you already got the dogmatic personality down, and the disregard for definitions also help, fundies do that too.

You maybe wondering why I am being so rude, Nick, it's because I deal with people like you of the religious sort every day. They use the same bunk tactics, the same lies, and the same disinformation. If you cannot be morally honest and accept the definitions for belief and faith to be unequivocal like a morally guided, rationally bound human being, then exit stage left from the forum, because I will continue to post refutations for your claims each and every time. And the more you post, the more I will post. The more you lie, the more I will deflate those lies. It is that simple, Nick. Be honest, and I will talk you to with some civility. Be dishonest, and you continue to get the 'joker' face. It's that simple. The ball is in your court.

-- Bridget

Post 38

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:03am

Ed, just gve me an example of an inductive argument. I want to see if you really know what one is. Show me the difference between an nductive argument and a deductive argument. Yes, some truths have been determined by inductive reasoning, but it doesn't mean leaps weren't made to get to them.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 39

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:21am