What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[Orias]

It is not the use of words that does the English language a disservice, it's the bottling of them.

The same could go for any language.

Its all subjective to perception.

 

[Meow Mix]

You can give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day, you can teach a man to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life.

I think your missing her point however...

Some people are too stupid to understand.

Yes you can outline and provide you perception of the cow, however, even if you had outlined it, turning the picture sideways proves that its not a cow anymore.

Its like going into a debate without accepting the possibility that the Opposition may be correct.

Its called being narrow minded.

In this situation, you both provided great logical points, and face it, you won't win, she won't win. Simply because its a basis of perception.

Your arguing redundant points.

You could point to a star in the sky and outline it, yet some people may not see what point or star you are trying to make evident.

Faith is evident as reason, simply because there is reason for faith to exist.

Then there is no need for discussion -- ever.

If I make a statement I shouldn't bother having to back it up because according to this train of thought, I'd be giving you a fish rather than teaching how to fish. Why should I tell someone for instance why a series of subtractions and short divisions (long division) works when I could just say "Oh you don't understand why it works? Well, you're blind then. Sorry."

I understand what you're trying to say but I disagree with it. It's perfectly rational to defend a position once stated; it's not so rational or even nice to make a statement and then say "Oh, figure it out yourself."

That's the point of the cow. I'm using it as an analogy for providing evidence, not for perceiving whimsical things in clouds. If I make a statement that something exists and someone says "I don't see evidence that supports your position," it would be fatuous for me to say "Ah, so you're being intentionally blind then. Sorry, can't help you." It would be more prudent for me to try to (by analogy) "outline the cow" for them to help them understand my perception and why I made the conclusion that I made.

To use mball's analogy, entering a debate forum and making assertions and then refusing to support them on the grounds that everyone is too nescient to understand them is like trying to play baseball and then running away from the ball. It's very silly in my opinion.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is not the use of words that does the English language a disservice, it's the bottling of them.

Oh, today well private. Human more!

 

[Meow Mix]

If you had outlined that shape and asked me what it was, I don't think I would have said cow. I don't think I would have seen anything.

And whether you accused me of being blind or not, I was. I did not see the cow, nor did I think to look at it like that in order to see the cow. Eventually, I would have because I was open to possibility of the cow.
So were you. I don't see the problem here.

And I'm open to the possibility of gods existing. I don't see any evidence though, and instead of "outlining the cow" for me everyone is just telling me I'm too stupid. It's not very nice.

I didn't say you are deliberately being blind. You are choosing to be blind. In the case of the cow picture, you did not chose to be blind. You just didn't see(in terms of eyesight). You are confusing the two.

The red part is contradictory, and I'm not confusing anything because the cow example is only an analogy.

 

[Orias]

Then there is no need for discussion -- ever.

If I make a statement I shouldn't bother having to back it up because according to this train of thought, I'd be giving you a fish rather than teaching how to fish. Why should I tell someone for instance why a series of subtractions and short divisions (long division) works when I could just say "Oh you don't understand why it works? Well, you're blind then. Sorry."

It depends on the subjective situation. Hence my input and argument for this story.

In some cases, you are better of handing fish over to the people who are dependant on others (the coginitively disabled).

Realize, not all people have the cognitive ability to perceive the abstract.

And math is irrelevant to any logical situation, because there is more than one way to solve a math problem, like 2+2=4, but so does 3+1 and 1+1+1+1, and so on...

I understand what you're trying to say but I disagree with it. It's perfectly rational to defend a position once stated; it's not so rational or even nice to make a statement and then say "Oh, figure it out yourself."

I disagree.

In most situations, people get an even greater understanding for figure things out by themselves.

But again, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

That's the point of the cow. I'm using it as an analogy for providing evidence, not for perceiving whimsical things in clouds. If I make a statement that something exists and someone says "I don't see evidence that supports your position," it would be fatuous for me to say "Ah, so you're being intentionally blind then. Sorry, can't help you." It would be more prudent for me to try to (by analogy) "outline the cow" for them to help them understand my perception and why I made the conclusion that I made.

I agree with you, and was not arguing against this circumstance. However, I may seem to contradict my stance. But I am aruging with and against you

To use mball's analogy, entering a debate forum and making assertions and then refusing to support them on the grounds that everyone is too nescient to understand them is like trying to play baseball and then running away from the ball. It's very silly in my opinion.

Well first of all, its quit an assumption to presume that one is being deliberatly "nescient" when in fact, the Opposite may assume greater understanding, from understanding from their own position.

I get what you mean though, the point of the game is to catch the ball and make the batter get out.

But what if the ball hits you in the face?

 

[Magic Man]

To use mball's analogy, entering a debate forum and making assertions and then refusing to support them on the grounds that everyone is too nescient to understand them is like trying to play baseball and then running away from the ball. It's very silly in my opinion.

I'll be expecting my royalty check by the end of the week.

Oh, today well private. Human more!

Yes, go incense tidal born contiguous, hat although shoehorn ten.

 

[PolyHedral]

In some cases, you are better of handing fish over to the people who are dependant on others (the coginitively disabled).

Why are you still here, when you obviously cannot respect your audience?

And math is irrelevant to any logical situation, because there is more than one way to solve a math problem, like 2+2=4, but so does 3+1 and 1+1+1+1, and so on...

Please actually study some math before making a statement like that. 2+2=3+1=1+1+1+1=4 are all different expressions of the same value. Incidentally, logic is a subset of math.

Yes, go incense tidal born contiguous, hat although shoehorn ten.

No, the green is the wrong shade of intelligent, thus the sleep never screwdrivers.

 

[Willamena]

Oh, today well private. Human more!

Sounds just like "Poetry, My Arse" (a book Stephen sent me a while ago).

If the point you're making is that nonsense is nonsense, I can't see anyone disagreeing (crans her neck to look).

However, "nonsense" is just that - words that we (the reader) make no sense of. It doesn't mean they contain no sense, or that they make no sense to everyone.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And I'm open to the possibility of gods existing. I don't see any evidence though, and instead of "outlining the cow" for me everyone is just telling me I'm too stupid. It's not very nice.

I have outlined the cow. You don't see what I'm saying as outlining the cow, just as being stupid and irrational. That's why I say you're blind.

 

[Willamena]

The onus is on us for making sense (whether of cow or Chao), just as it is on us for making no sense.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sounds just like "Poetry, My Arse" (a book Stephen sent me a while ago).

If the point you're making is that nonsense is nonsense, I can't see anyone disagreeing (crans her neck to look).

However, "nonsense" is just that - words that we (the reader) make no sense of. It doesn't mean they contain no sense, or that they make no sense to everyone.

In my opinion, altering the definition of a common word that's foundational for most debates is counterproductive to debate. Suppose I defined "true" as "false" and "to know" as "to believe." What am I accomplishing other than muddying the waters and making something that could otherwise be perfectly clear into a nebulous quagmire that prospective readers have to wade through in order to draw anything from?

I find it to be pointless and a waste of time when there already exist words that can describe the concepts.

 

[Meow Mix]

I have outlined the cow. You don't see what I'm saying as outlining the cow, just as being stupid and irrational. That's why I say you're blind.

When did you outline the cow? Can you link it or do you remember what the thread title was called?

 

[Meow Mix]

The onus is on us for making sense (whether of cow or Chao), just as it is on us for making no sense.

Then why are some abandoning that onus? What do they gain out of redefining common words to mean completely different things, sometimes even as the opposite of how they're normally defined? (strikeviper uses "know" in the same sense that English speakers use the word "believe," after all!)

 

[Comicaze247]

"Faith" and "Reason" are mutually exclusive.

Faith is believing something regardless of proof.

Reason is believing something because of proof.

Once you reason out your faith, it is no longer faith, but reason.

Faith requires no proof, often times leading to unfounded assumptions and rules/actions/laws/beliefs based on those assumptions, which are often false.

Reason does require proof, leading to rules/actions/laws/beliefs based on fact, and therefore, on truth. And when once one acts on the basis of truth, one is more able to function in a positive, progressive way.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

When did you outline the cow? Can you link it or do you remember what the thread title was called?

I believe it was the 'What is Faith' thread, though I've been doing it since I started posting here, so it's kind of everywhere.

 

[Willamena]

In my opinion, altering the definition of a common word that's foundational for most debates is counterproductive to debate. Suppose I defined "true" as "false" and "to know" as "to believe." What am I accomplishing other than muddying the waters and making something that could otherwise be perfectly clear into a nebulous quagmire that prospective readers have to wade through in order to draw anything from?

I find it to be pointless and a waste of time when there already exist words that can describe the concepts.

Words can mean multiple things on multiple layers without losing one iota of value. They are not inflexible --they are shaped by context, by metaphor, by grammar, and most importantly, by our unique understanding of them (their definition). Definition is inherently arbitrary: we each have our own unique vocabulary built up from childhood --it's astounding that we can communicate at all. But really, it's not so hard if you just relax and allow the word to mean something in the context it's being offered instead of trying to bottle it into a context you want it to be used in.

Try a little poetry. Please.

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe it was the 'What is Faith' thread, though I've been doing it since I started posting here, so it's kind of everywhere.

Oh, but I recall that conversation. If you're referring to the "ready, fire, aim" bit I objected that such is just applying reason to random topics, not what is often meant by "faith."

Have you ever at any point justified the existence of a god? That's what I'm curious about.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Words can mean multiple things on multiple layers without losing one iota of value. They are not inflexible --they are shaped by context, by metaphor, by grammar, and most importantly, by our unique understanding of them (their definition). Definition is inherently arbitrary: we each have our own unique vocabulary built up from childhood --it's astounding that we can communicate at all. But really, it's not so hard if you just relax and allow the word to mean something in the context it's being offered instead of trying to bottle it into a context you want it to be used in.

Try a little poetry. Please.

Tip: Oxford Dictionaries Online - English Dictionary and Language Reference

All the definitions you'll need can be found there, even in different contexts.
Just let us know which definition you are using and I'm sure we'll get along fine.

 

[Meow Mix]

Words can mean multiple things on multiple layers without losing one iota of value. They are not inflexible --they are shaped by context, by metaphor, by grammar, and most importantly, by our unique understanding of them (their definition). Definition is inherently arbitrary: we each have our own unique vocabulary built up from childhood --it's astounding that we can communicate at all. But really, it's not so hard if you just relax and allow the word to mean something in the context it's being offered instead of trying to bottle it into a context you want it to be used in.

Try a little poetry. Please.

I realize they have multiple meanings and contexts, but the problem appears to be that many people fail to distinguish them and engage in rampant equivocation.

There also seems to be a problem with making up new and sometimes contradictory contexts for common words. My objection is merely pragmatic; why would they do that? Why not use a new word or one that's closer in meaning to what they're trying to convey than to use what normally in English means the opposite? It comes off to me as unnecessarily nebulous, and I question why I should bother wasting my time learning essentially a new language for something that could perfectly well be said in plain English.

It strikes me as childish, sort of as if I slipped you a piece of paper that appeared like gibberish until I also handed you a decoder ring, a wink, and a giddy "tee hee!"

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Oh, but I recall that conversation. If you're referring to the "ready, fire, aim" bit I objected that such is just applying reason to random topics, not what is often meant by "faith."

Have you ever at any point justified the existence of a god? That's what I'm curious about.

Ready, fire, aim perhaps?

I tried, you didn't like it.