ACTING IN GOOD FAITH

hephzibah wrote:

However... setanta... you've got to admit, you are really good at talking in circles... Wouldn't ya say?

No, reciprocation of ideas does not constitue circular reasoning.

0 Replies

You misspelled a word. Smile

0 Replies

Neo, i have "faith" that when entering an intersection with a green light, cross traffic will not ram my vehicle. I have "faith" that my Sweetiepie will rub my nose in it before she ever goes out with someone else. These "articles of faith," however, are based upon an experientially based calculation of probabilities.

I'd like to see you forensically construct the probability of the existence of your imaginary friend.

No, scratch that . . . i wouldn't like to see that, because you probably think you can, and i frankly don't need a dose of the surreal that large . . .

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You misspelled a word. (goofy emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

I do that frequently. It doesn't bother me to have it pointed out. It does irk the Bejeebus out of others, though, which is why i frequently make just such a comment.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
However... setanta... you've got to admit, you are really good at talking in circles... Wouldn't ya say?

No, reciprocation of ideas does not constitue circular reasoning.

True dat! However, in the "no reciprocation of idea's" there happens to be a lot of mumbo jumbo, big words, fancy talk, and so on with some people, that in other peoples eyes is clearly nothing more than running someone in circles with ones words. Either getting them so busy trying to figure out what one is saying that they get distracted from the main point, or just plain confusing them to the point they just dont' care anymore and concede. Smile

0 Replies

That, Miss Eppie, is a proposition which may be convenient to your argument, but which is false. The "size" of a word does not determine whether or not it is appropriate to one's contention or response. I try to use the words which most exactly express what i am thinking at the time that i write or speak.

I don't talk down to people. I write as i speak. If we were face to face and you said that i talk in circles, i would reply: "No . . . the reciprocation of ideas does not constitute circular reasoning."

If i didn't consider you intelligent enough to understand what i write, i'd not bother to address you, or i'd treat you with scorn. I've taken neither of those courses.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That, Miss Eppie, is a proposition which may be convenient to your argument, but which is false. The "size" of a word does not determine whether or not it is appropriate to one's contention or response. I try to use the words which most exactly express what i am thinking at the time that i write or speak.

I don't talk down to people. I write as i speak. If we were face to face and you said that i talk in circles, i would reply: "No . . . the reciprocation of ideas does not constitute circular reasoning."

If i didn't consider you intelligent enough to understand what i write, i'd not bother to address you, or i'd treat you with scorn. I've taken neither of those courses.

Not yet anyway. I sincerely hope you do not take a turn with hephzibah. She seems like a very nice person.

If you write as you speak, sir, I submit you have talked down to people. Shall I point out some examples?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

. . . I'd like to see you forensically construct the probability of the existence of your imaginary friend. . .
No, scratch that . . . i wouldn't like to see that, because you probably think you can, and i frankly don't need a dose of the surreal that large . . .

I just admitted in another thread that I can not prove for you (or anybody) the existence of God.

That wasn't what my post in this thread was about.

As far as the spelling thing, I could care less. I was just playing the game you sometimes play with others.

If I didn't respect your opinions, I would not spend so much time addressing them.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That, Miss Eppie, is a proposition which may be convenient to your argument, but which is false. The "size" of a word does not determine whether or not it is appropriate to one's contention or response. I try to use the words which most exactly express what i am thinking at the time that i write or speak.

I don't talk down to people. I write as i speak. If we were face to face and you said that i talk in circles, i would reply: "No . . . the reciprocation of ideas does not constitute circular reasoning."

If i didn't consider you intelligent enough to understand what i write, i'd not bother to address you, or i'd treat you with scorn. I've taken neither of those courses.

Oh setanta, I'm honestly not trying to misconstrue your words. I hope it is not coming off as that. I do have a very healthy respect for your intelligence which is quite clear in how and what you speak. Mostly, I'm just having fun with a play on words here. You see, it is easy to talk someone into a corner. I think you know that. So far as I have seen you are clever enough to not get talked into a corner. I respect that. Some however are not. (myself included in that)

Though you say you don't talk down to others, what I'd like you to see is that regardless of your intent, it can very easily come off that you do sometimes because of what you say and how you say it. The same goes for me, or anyone for that matter. I do appreciate knowing that you consider me intelligent enough to understand what you write. And that you have not chosen to treat me with scorn or just not address me. Smile

0 Replies

Mr Anderson....

Quote:

Faith can be misdirected as in the case of Saul, who before his conversion, participated in the stoning of Stephen. It is this misdirected faith that can be relabeled superstition; it has stained the history of mankind red with blood.

This seems to be the point your case is hinging on.
Who decides which faith is 'misdirected'?
Let me guess, that your faith is not misdirected is a matter of...faith?
Your distinction between the two is rather hollow dude.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
You misspelled a word. (goofy emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

I do that frequently. It doesn't bother me to have it pointed out. It does irk the Bejeebus out of others, though, which is why i frequently make just such a comment.

diid you mean bejesus? it doesn't irk me either way, incidentally, but is that because i'm unchristian?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Mr Anderson....

Quote:

Faith can be misdirected as in the case of Saul, who before his conversion, participated in the stoning of Stephen. It is this misdirected faith that can be relabeled superstition; it has stained the history of mankind red with blood.

This seems to be the point your case is hinging on.
Who decides which faith is 'misdirected'?
Let me guess, that your faith is not misdirected is a matter of...faith?
Your distinction between the two is rather hollow dude.

Good point.

Harder to explain than I had thought.

Perhaps my original thought expressed it best: Superstition is unaffected by evidence. True faith is a process of learning.

As your signature asserts. "Test everything."

But when you say "Believe nothing", do you really believe that?

BTW, who the heck is Mr. Anderson?

You may call me neo or Bob if you want. Just don't forget to call me for dinner.

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps my original thought expressed it best: Superstition is unaffected by evidence. True faith is a process of learning.

Bravo!! I couldn't have said this better myself Neo!

0 Replies

Gotta agree with you hephzibah. Neo nailed it!

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

did you mean bejesus? it doesn't irk me either way, incidentally, but is that because i'm unchristian?

Well, yes an no . . . Homer Simpson says Jeebus, rather than Jesus, which tickles me no end . . . so i used bejeebus to amuse myself . . . you know, the sin of self-amuse?

I haven't the foggiest why you are not irked, but i have noted in my own experience that devotion to superstition or the lack thereof are neither of them an indicator of potential equanimity in discourse . . .

0 Replies

I never miss an episode of the Simpsons. Homer would be the quintessential common man were it not for the existence of my friend whose name you have forbidden me to mention.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

True faith is a process of learning.

Isn't it rather a process of accepting and retaining notions as opposed to a process of attaining them? It seems to me that most articles of faith are provided by some external source, like religious authority, and then accepted and retained by faith, or would this be superstition according to you?

How does faith as a process of learning differ from the process of making notions up, then accepting and retaining them according to the definition of superstition?

neologist wrote:

Superstition is unaffected by evidence.

So what you are saying is that superstition is faith that has been disproved, and faith is superstition that has yet to be?

0 Replies

Superstition is based on fear
Faith is based on hope

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Superstition is based on fear
Faith is based on hope

You are right. Intrepid. I just don't think they're hearing it... ya know? Gotta run. Have fun Smile

0 Replies

He who hath ears..... :wink:

0 Replies

ACTING IN GOOD FAITH

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know