ACTING IN GOOD FAITH

Intrepid,

That doesn't fly either, because I have been using the same definition of 'faith' in all instances.
Maybe I confused you when I said 'faithful to something' and your simple mind associated that with being faithful to a partner. Apples and oranges.

Actually you have failed the reading comprehension test.
Here is the definition of faithful

Again, you are guilty of an attempt at equivocation, and again, you have been foiled.

Maybe it makes you feel all manly and powerful to call somebody simple minded. It only shows your inability to hold a civil conversation.

If you can't admit the error of your post, it doesn't matter to me. If you want to change what you said and try to imply that others mistook what you meant, it doesn't matter to me.

It seems that your signature line is fitting....

Doktor S. Are you going to answer?

I did. You overlooked the last sentence of my post.

Personal opinion based on overwhelming evidence and a firm grasp of both sociology and psychology, and the nature of religion in regards to each.
But yes, I'll concede this as opinion.

Nice attempt at saving face, but that doesn't change the facts that
A - There was no error, you were proven wrong,
and
B - I'm better than you.

1 - I have no reason to save face.

A - You proved nothing

B -

Intrepid,

Doktor S is a Satanist, remember? :wink: The ego is the thing! So, he IS better than you and simple minded little me.

Neo,
the case I'd like to see you build is one to establish that faith is subject to change, while superstition isn't.
I'd actually really like to see any sort of coherant case to distinguish the two. Something stronger than 'well, why are there two words then?'
If anyone can do this on this board neo, it's you. You are by far the smartest proponent of your side of this debate.

A true legend in his own mind.

So then you have faith that faith is in fact just superstition.

Watch out, Neo. Sounds like the old divide and conquer thing to me.

But, I have all the confidence in the world in you. Go get him!

Flattery will get you. . .

Some effort on my behalf.
Gotta go for a while. I'm bookmarking here.

This was for Doktor S in reference to this:

No.
However that faith is distinct from superstition is yet to be demonstrated.
I am taking the only logical position.

So can you demonstrate then?

Can I demonstrate that they are the same thing? Sure.
Let's compare a common superstition, lets say that there is in fact such a thing as 'luck' and that it can be influenced by tokens such as 'rabbits feet', with a belief in a deity.
They both require 'faith in magic or chance' as per the definition of superstition.
They both are irational beliefs arising from ignorance, as per the definition of superstition. I say ignorance because to 'know' something requires a valid form of epistomology, and faith does not meet that standard by any definition.
They both require belief without evidence, as per the definition of faith.
They both imply a confidence in an idea, as per the definition of faith.

Now, what have you to illustrate they are in fact. separate and distinct?

Faith is slightly ordered but is essentially superstition as both are illogical or unsciebtific.

It is not just fine--it is germane. You accused me of name-calling for the description i rendered of your imaginary friend. That description is based upon the scriptural canon to which you adhere--of which Leviticus is a part. The scriptural canon is alleged to be the word of god--if written by men, it is alleged to be inspired directly by your god, and therefore inerrant. If Leviticus were true 2500 years ago, a because it is the word of god, that will not have changed--it will be true today. If at any time it were not true, then your scriptural canon is not inerrant, and cannot reasonably be taken to be the word of your god. Unless, of course, you alleged that your god is not omniscient . . . unless, of course, you allege that your god plays word games with the "faithful" simply to amuse itself . . .



This is a strawman--i simply pointed out that a foetus is not a child.



This is not at all relevant to this discussion--it does, however, reveal the big chip you carry around on your shoulder. You really should get some anger management counseling for your hatred of the United States and your resentment of Americans. Then you should try exercises in clear thinking--such as recognizing that that silliness has no bearing on this discussion.

In fact, longer before anyone else at this site, i have pointed out the occasions upon which the United States has launched military operations on other nations, has oppressed other peoples, has acted covertly in a manner which is illegal under international law to subvert other governments. I can do it more accurately and in more detail than anyone i have yet seen making such allegations at this site. Your fellow countryman (whom i will not name, as that is against my principle for referring to members here) has ranted against the United States in an even more irrational manner than you--as hard as that is to believe--but he still missed a lot of good examples, and came up with ludircrous crap when he did make the allegations.

The point of all of that is that i don't have any blinders on with regard to the actions of the United States government throughout history and currently. Nor have i any illusions about the crimes of the Canadian government, nor of the British colonial officials who preceeded them.

And i don't have any blinders on with regard to the topic of this thread . . .

**************************************

You have not addressed the topic of this thread. You have not advanced a cogent argument to distinguish faith from superstition. You have not established that superstition is irrational whereas the basis of your faith is rational. I have mentioned scripture precisely because it is the surest way to show the irrationality--and therefore the superstitious character--of organized religion. If your scriptural canon is the word of god, the Leviticus still applies; MOAN's burroshit about a new covenant is meaningless--if scripture is inerrantly the word of an ominiscient and omnipotent god, then all of it is eternally true. Your boy Hey-Zeus said the he was the law, he did not say the law had changed, or that one can conveniently and notionally hold certain embarrassing portions thereof to be now null and void. If your scriptural canon cannot stand up to scrutiny (and i submit it cannot, because of the character it gives your god, and because of the egregious errors of history and geography, and the patent contradictions), then it knocks the sole, feeble prop you have for asserting that there is any rational basis for your faith.

Why don't you try discussing the topic at hand, Lack of Intrepidity, instead of bringing your shoulder with it's huge chip in here to demonstrate your complete lack of the christian values of personal conduct you claim you adhere to?

Superstitions can be quite complex, or ordered if you will. Imagine a guy that sits in the same chair and wears the same sweater while drinking the same brand of beer each week because his team once won a big game when he did that. That guy, and even crazier counterparts to him, are really out there.
My point..I fail to see a distinction based on complexity.