Faith

[SurveyMack10]

Please provide proof as to where I mentioned faith.

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 26, 2011, 06:05:30am:
"Belief in God requires faith"

Obvisouly I've mentioned faith in regard to Christianity as it is a critical part of the belief system. However, we were discussing atheism so when I asked for proof of me mentioning faith I meant as relevant to the current conversation, the one regarding atheism.

Just as obviously, your quoted mention of faith is relevant in the context of your attempt to characterize atheism as a "belief system", (which would inherently include "belief" & "faith" concepts).  Therefore, the quote was contextually-relevant.

If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith"


Name one which does not.

You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition).  Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).

Nowhere in the above quotation did you show that I mentioned faith as related to atheism.

Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith"in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith".
[/quote]

1). You just asked me to prove a negative claim (something you have repeatedly reported as illogical)-

Not quite; you invented a false dichotomy, (namely, "If that were true it would mean that EVERY belief system involves the idea of "faith""), as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith - or, more likely an implication that there are philosophical schools of thought which are not inherently religious, (and there are non-religious philosophies which are not religious belief systems ... which is the context of discussion). The challenge for you to name one was not a request to prove a negative claim, (since you didn't make a negative claim in that instance).

... this severely hurt your credibility as you asked me to do something you claim to be against

You've attempted to pull this deceit several times before; claiming that something you don't like insulted you and thus "hurts my credibility", (illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion).  Next time you get the hankering to try pulling that crap again, remember your hypocrisy in this context.

2). Belief and faith are not the same thing, by DEFINITION.


Oh?
"be·lief:
noun bə-ˈlēf

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
-- merriam-webster


"2faith
verb ˈfāth
transitive verb archaic

a: believe, trust

1faith
noun

a: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(b): complete trust
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs" --merriam-webster


Note the "belief and trust in and loyalty to God" part under the definition of "faith".  These definitions contradict your contention which shows that your contention is false.

Although, it has been proven you choose your definition over webster's so maybe they are the same thing to you.

On the contrary, no such thing has been "proven" since I'm using the quoted definitions from merriam-webster to substantiate the interrelated concepts of "faith" & "belief".  Therefore, you've once again failed to substantiate your false contentions and are not actually 'debating' here.

3). We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree. I doubt you will do the same, but this is a waste of both of our time.

Given that you aren't actually debating but, merely blandly disagreeing without supporting your disagreement with anything other than empty opinions, I concur that it is a waste of time to even agree to disagree with you.

I never claimed that my sole opinion was the one that determines who is credible or who is not,but I have found that usually those who act maturely and consider other's opinons are deemed more credible than those who insult everyone who feels differently than they do, especially when the other person was merely trying to have a discussion. So, I am not trying any "crap," but merely urging you to keep the conversation mature and discuss the issues rather than throwing an insult into every response you make, there is absolutely no reason for anyone on this forum to read any of that nonsense.

Onto the actual issue:
Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.

[falcon9]

Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.

Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition).  Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).  Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise.  Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied.  Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.

[falcon9]

I never claimed that my sole opinion was the one that determines who is credible or who is not ...

It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions.  This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions.  These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.

... but I have found that usually those who act maturely and consider other's opinons are deemed more credible than those who insult everyone who feels differently than they do, especially when the other person was merely trying to have a discussion.

There are unsupported opinions and substantiated opinions; the vast majority of your 'opinions' have revealed themselves to be unsupported personal bias preferences of yours and not substantiated objectively.  Your focus upon such tangential aspects of this "discussion" exemplifies the diversionary nature of your prior responses.  Would it not be much more "mature" to ignore such slights as you perceive and focus instead upon the context of what is discussed?  Before you jump to the counter-attack to accuse me of being 'immature' once again; I have focussed upon the context of the discussion points all the while, (despite your insistance upon being "insulted" when you dodge addressing the issues raised within the context being discussed and go off on tangents).

So, I am not trying any "crap," but merely urging you to keep the conversation mature and discuss the issues rather than throwing an insult into every response you make, there is absolutely no reason for anyone on this forum to read any of that nonsense.

After a posted reply stating the speficic definition of atheism did NOT define it as a belief system, your 'mature' reply was:

"Dodging"


Since you often toss derrogatory remarks such as empty accusations of immaturity throughout these discussions, (rather than actual rebuttal with substantive dissent), your hypocrisy was characterized as "crap".  If you don't like it, stop doing it or at least complaining when you get what you dish out.

 

[SurveyMack10]

Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.

Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition).  Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).  Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise.  Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied.  Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.

"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion, resulting in the assumption that you meant all belief systems are religious (I never asked if you were asserting that all religious belief systems relied upon faith, I asked it you were asserting that all belief systems rely upon faith--when you responded and made the comment quoted above it could be inferred that you meant that all the belief systems I spoke of were religious ones)

[SurveyMack10]

It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions.  This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions.  These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.

Quote from falcon9:
"(illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion).  "

This is where you asserted that I was claiming that my sole opinion is the one that decides who is credible and who is not, in this context the person's credibility being mentioned was yours.

[SurveyMack10]

There are unsupported opinions and substantiated opinions; the vast majority of your 'opinions' have revealed themselves to be unsupported personal bias preferences of yours and not substantiated objectively.  Your focus upon such tangential aspects of this "discussion" exemplifies the diversionary nature of your prior responses.  Would it not be much more "mature" to ignore such slights as you perceive and focus instead upon the context of what is discussed?  Before you jump to the counter-attack to accuse me of being 'immature' once again; I have focussed upon the context of the discussion points all the while, (despite your insistance upon being "insulted" when you dodge addressing the issues raised within the context being discussed and go off on tangents).

OBVIOUSLY those were opinions...Hence the intro to the statement being "I have found..."
When did I ever say that everything that comes out of my mouth is a proven fact? Every single person in this world has opinons that others disagree with- that's LIFE. Just because you do not agree with my opinions, that does not make them lies or fabrications as you like to put it.
However, they are not unsupported as I just told you I drew them from personal experience.
Yes, they are substantiated thank you for noting that as well (the prove provided was that they are from personal experience)
Obviously the statement we are talking about is a personal opinion, I  never said it was not. Personal opinions reflect personal bias, so yes I guess that is a good observation of the obvious on your part...I'm not sure what point you are making with this?
I did not dodge anything by bringing this up, notice how after every time I brought this up I provided a clear transition into the discussion of the issues. This projection is more relevant to you using personal attacks as a way to divert from the issues.
I did not reply by calling you names or other petty tactics, I merely stated that your insults have been noted and that they were lowering the integrity of the enitre forum (doesn't sound too immature).
Show what I dodged please since you feel so strongly about it instead of just making unsubstantiated claims. If I DID leave something unanswered and within the same response said "I agree to disagree"  then it definitely is not considered a dodge, merely an acknowledgement that this is a subject we will never agree on. It was also likely that I got tired of going through the hateful digs to find the reference to the actual issues, these likely did not happen but it is a possibility as there have been many times I have read a response full of insults and though "what a waste of time it is to speak to someone who lacks respect."

[falcon9]

Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.

Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition).  Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).  Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise.  Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied.  Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.

"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...

The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.

... resulting in the assumption that you meant all belief systems are religious (I never asked if you were asserting that all religious belief systems relied upon faith, I asked it you were asserting that all belief systems rely upon faith-

Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith.  Within the context of non-religious philosophical concepts, it depends on which specific ones are being alluded to.  The question posed to clarify what exactly you were asking was inherent in requesting that you name a non-religious "belief system", (not an impossible task, was it?).

-when you responded and made the comment quoted above it could be inferred that you meant that all the belief systems I spoke of were religious ones)

Any such inference would derive from the context of the prior discussion, (which focussed upon religious belief systems before the segue into non-religious atheism being alledged to be a "belief system").

[SurveyMack10]

After a posted reply stating the speficic definition of atheism did NOT define it as a belief system, your 'mature' reply was:

"Dodging"


Since you often toss derrogatory remarks such as empty accusations of immaturity throughout these discussions, (rather than actual rebuttal with substantive dissent), your hypocrisy was characterized as "crap".  If you don't like it, stop doing it or at least complaining when you get what you dish out.

 

The reply of "dodging" was not meant as a rude one. However, I was busy with schoolwork and wanted to let you know that you ignored the content of my post.

[falcon9]

It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions.  This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions.  These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.

Quote from falcon9:
"(illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion).  "

This is where you asserted that I was claiming that my sole opinion is the one that decides who is credible and who is not, in this context the person's credibility being mentioned was yours.

The word "sole" wasn't used, (as your exerpted quote clearly shows).  Your derisive and unsupported opinion regarding another person's "credibility" remains your subjective, biased and personal preference.  As such, it carries little weight except to yourself so, why mention it to others?

[SurveyMack10]

"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...


The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.



I'm sorry but that is simply not true.
I said "belief systems"
You respdonded with "religious belief systems"
you implied that I was referring to religious belief systems only in my statement when I definitely was not, so I told you that is not at all what I meant..and it STILL is not what I meant.

You asked me to show a religious belief system that did not rely on faith whenever I never even claimed that one existed

[SurveyMack10]

It was never asserted that you "claimed" that; it was alluded that you rely upon your unsupported opinions to reach inaccurate conclusions.  This does detract from the "credibility" and validity of such unsubstantiated opinions.  These are differentiated from considered opinions which have something of a substantial foundation other than personal bias/preferences.

Quote from falcon9:
"(illogical conclusion since credibility does not rest upon your subjective and highly biased empty opinion).  "

This is where you asserted that I was claiming that my sole opinion is the one that decides who is credible and who is not, in this context the person's credibility being mentioned was yours.

The word "sole" wasn't used, (as your exerpted quote clearly shows).  Your derisive and unsupported opinion regarding another person's "credibility" remains your subjective, biased and personal preference.  As such, it carries little weight except to yourself so, why mention it to others?

you said "does not rest upon your" therefore referencing my sole opinon- please show where you referenced anyone else's opinion in that post.


Furthermore, are you suggesting that personal opinions don't carry weight in a debate?

[SurveyMack10]

"Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith.  Within the context of non-religious philosophical concepts, it depends on which specific ones are being alluded to.  The question posed to clarify what exactly you were asking was inherent in requesting that you name a non-religious "belief system", (not an impossible task, was it?)."

Many nonreligious people live by a set of beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with anything religious. These beliefs are which they base their daily choices- people can choose what they believe is right and wrong without adhering to a religion.
"Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith." That is all well and fine, but I never claimed they didn't so I do not know why this is being continually repeated.

[falcon9]

OBVIOUSLY those were opinions...

To clarify a distinctive difference there; those opinions were unsubstantiated personal preferences reflecting a subjective bias.

Hence the intro to the statement being "I have found..."
When did I ever say that everything that comes out of my mouth is a proven fact?

You didn't, which is why your empty assertions were challenged, (that is, an opportunity to support them was presented but, missed).

Every single person in this world has opinons that others disagree with- that's LIFE. Just because you do not agree with my opinions, that does not make them lies or fabrications as you like to put it.

More accurately, I disagreed/dissented with your unsupported opinions and that too is life, (that is, the lack of evidence for or, reasoning underlying such "opinions" - not unreasoned personal biases).

However, they are not unsupported as I just told you I drew them from personal experience.

Unless your "personal experience" consists of some unspecified reasoning process or observational evidence, the support is flimsy.

Yes, they are substantiated thank you for noting that as well (the prove provided was that they are from personal experience)

No, you haven't supported them with either the reasoning process or, observational evidence, (as opposed to preferential bias), which underlies such "opinions".  Therefore, they remain unsubstantiated thusfar.

Obviously the statement we are talking about is a personal opinion, I  never said it was not. Personal opinions reflect personal bias, so yes I guess that is a good observation of the obvious on your part...I'm not sure what point you are making with this?

Your concession of the point made is sufficient to show your admission of making unsubstantiated assertions framed as "opinions".

Show what I dodged please since you feel so strongly about it instead of just making unsubstantiated claims.

Looking upthread, it can be seen that you've dodged, (failed to answer contextual challenges to your assertions; namely that "atheism is a belief system" in this instance).

If I DID leave something unanswered and within the same response said "I agree to disagree"  then it definitely is not considered a dodge ...

It may not be considered to be a dodge _by you_ however, since it failed to answer the challenge made to your assertion, it definitely WAS a dodging of that challenge.

[SurveyMack10]

Not every belief system is a religious one. That entire idea is illogical. Many people aren't religious but still live by a set of beliefs.

Since I haven't suggested that "every" belief system is religious, your indirect strawman is disregarded as illogical, (however, the context of the previous exchanges has been within religious belief and faith concepts, which specifically exludes atheism).
You asserted that "atheism IS a theory or belief system", (via an appeal to authority: webster definition).  Unless you're implying some unspecified differentation between "belief" and "faith" in the religious context, the direct implication of your comments was that 'atheism is a belief system that requires some sort of "faith", (noting that this assertion was challenged as lacking substantiation, not that it was webster's definition but, that you used it as support for your contention and that your contended assertion remains unsubstantiated).  Surprisingly, I agree that not every belief system is a religious one and never contended otherwise.  Nor have I tried to imply that atheism is a religious or
non-religious belief system or, a belief system which requires "faith" as you have indirectly implied.  Atheism itself is not defined as a 'belief system', (religious or otherwise), because it does not require belief or faith in a lack of evidence.

"as if to imply that there are _religious_ belief systems which do not rely upon faith "--this is where you implied that when I said belief system I was referring to those only involving religion ...

The comment didn't imply "only", it merely included your implication that atheism was a belief system which relied upon some unspecified 'faith'.

... resulting in the assumption that you meant all belief systems are religious (I never asked if you were asserting that all religious belief systems relied upon faith, I asked it you were asserting that all belief systems rely upon faith-

Within the context of _religious belief systems_ being discussed, they do all rely upon faith.  Within the context of non-religious philosophical concepts, it depends on which specific ones are being alluded to.  The question posed to clarify what exactly you were asking was inherent in requesting that you name a non-religious "belief system", (not an impossible task, was it?).

-when you responded and made the comment quoted above it could be inferred that you meant that all the belief systems I spoke of were religious ones)

Any such inference would derive from the context of the prior discussion, (which focussed upon religious belief systems before the segue into non-religious atheism being alledged to be a "belief system").

Before you accuse me of dodging anything, if I ignored anything from this feel free to politely bring it to my attention as the formatting of your post was distinctly hard to distinguish new comment from old.

[falcon9]

The reply of "dodging" was not meant as a rude one. However, I was busy with schoolwork and wanted to let you know that you ignored the content of my post.

The excuse for the false accusation you made is rejected as a non sequitur.