ACTING IN GOOD FAITH

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

Intrepid,

I am not positive (I'd have to look) but I think Doktor S called me a piece of wrok once. You think that's the same thing?

Not likely. Wrok is probably some satanic word or something.

Intrepid wrote:

The definition of the clarification is your own.. Doktor S. As usual, you take someone's words and put your own meaning to them.

You really are a piece of work.

And by 'my own meaning' of course you mean strip away the esoteric fuzz and bring into the light of logic and reason (where they generally quickly dissolve into whisps of fallacious nothingness)

But seriously, how are dictionary definitions 'my own meaning'?
How is hope not involved in the superstition I gave as an example?
I may be a piece of work, but unlike you I am one that knows how to think.

Those two bases for rejecting the equivalence of faith and superstition are bootless--they rely upon the insistence upon special definitions which are not to be considered universally consented to

The absurdities here multiply.

Currently, the imaginary friend crowd have asserted that all superstition must necessarily involve fear, but that their faith does not. Further, they assert that "fear of god" does not mean what fear of anything else means.

Inasmuchas these contentions are founded on nothing more than the self-serving assertions of those making them, and given that they fly in the face of the definitions which are herein provided, there is no reason to accept them.

Those two bases for rejecting the equivalence of faith and superstition are bootless--they rely upon the insistence upon special definitions which are not to be considered universally consented to; they rely upon a denial of definitions which are considered universally consented to.

I kept pointing out that I have no fear (terror) of God and yet it keeps being brought back up. So, what the heck

Quote:

I kept pointing out that I have no fear (terror) of God and yet it keeps being brought back up. So, what the heck

As I am fairly sure I spelled out a few times already, the 'heck' is that distinguishing faith from superstition based on the reference to the word 'fear' in the dictionary definition of superstition just doesnt fly if you want to apply it to belief in a deity.
Nobody here has yet been able to articulate a cohesive case for why god belief is faith and not superstition.
That is really the root of the issue.

Right. This from one who points out that just because 50,000 people believe a foolish thing it doesn't make it a less foolish thing? Something like that.

So, because it is universally (is that more than 50,000 BTW) accepted we should accept that as the norm? That's a bit bigoted isn't it ? What about those of us that actually DO NOT HAVE A FEAR (AS IN AFRAID OF) GOD? Who are you or anyone else to tell me or anyone else what definition of a word I have to use when describing something about me

Boss! You can do better than that! I'm telling ya, you guys gotta get a new script! We know this one by heart!

Momma Angel wrote:

Right. This from one who points out that just because 50,000 people believe a foolish thing it doesn't make it a less foolish thing? Something like that.

So, because it is universally (is that more than 50,000 BTW) accepted we should accept that as the norm? That's a bit bigoted isn't it ? What about those of us that actually DO NOT HAVE A FEAR (AS IN AFRAID OF) GOD? Who are you or anyone else to tell me or anyone else what definition of a word I have to use when describing something about me

Boss! You can do better than that! I'm telling ya, you guys gotta get a new script! We know this one by heart!

This, is, of course, idiocy. Language only works as communications if people consent to definitions. I have never asserted that consent in the meanings of words is inadmissible as argumentum ad populu. You are attempting to erect a strawman here, and doing your typically lame job, complete with idiotic emoticons and ill-concealed sneers.

You have posted in another thread exactly the definitions which Miss Eppie posted in this thread. I am using, therefore, terms to which you have already assented. The definition of superstition contains two examples of the word "or," a key indicator of alternative meaning. It is not axiomatic that supersition has any element of fear.

More than that, you then attempt to claim a special definition for fear of god. You provide no substantiation for that contention, so there is no reasonable basis to proceed from that premise.

You are attempting to operate from two premises, both of which are illicit. Your premise about superstition is that it necessarily entails fear, but the definition provided by Miss Eppie, identical to and from the same source that you used in another thread, does not define superstition as necessarily entailing fear.

The second illicit premise is that you have established that fear of god is a type of fear different from that which is referred to in one of the alternative definitions of supersition.

Intrepid ,
lol, all of the specifics have been coming from me, in the form of examples.
What have ANY of you to show belief in god does not qualify as superstition? Or that superstitions can not be 'hope' based? Or that a belief in god can't be 'fear' based? Where are YOUR specifics?
Basically, all you guys have made a lot of assertions, but provided nada an argument to back any of them up
I can only assume, sir, that you do not know how to think (and by that I mean use logic and apply reason) because across a score of posts I have yet to see you apply either of these things to your writing.

The absurdities here multiply.

Currently, the imaginary friend crowd have asserted that all superstition must necessarily involve fear, but that their faith does not. Further, they assert that "fear of god" does not mean what fear of anything else means.

Inasmuchas these contentions are founded on nothing more than the self-serving assertions of those making them, and given that they fly in the face of the definitions which are herein provided, there is no reason to accept them.

Those two bases for rejecting the equivalence of faith and superstition are bootless--they rely upon the insistence upon special definitions which are not to be considered universally consented to; they rely upon a denial of definitions which are considered universally consented to.

We believe because we choose to believe.

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?

neologist wrote:

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

Either you have a very liberal definition of 'evidence', or you have evidence of the divine you have been holding out on us.
Just for the record, are young earth creationists 'faithful' or 'superstitious' by your standards? Surely you will admit that particular belief flys in the face of all evidence. . .

I would probably have to use the words 'misdirected faith'

Quote:

I would probably have to use the words 'misdirected faith'

You are still left with a fatal problem. Faith cannot be scrutinized or verified, so you have no way of knowing what 'faith' is misdirected and what faith isn't.

Yup...it's a doozy.
Not so much for your average joe blow do and believe what the pastor says kinda christian, (Hi MA ) but how does someone rational deal with that problem?
I'm guessing you are just gonna say 'it's a matter of faith', but I'm hoping you'll see the circularity in that and come up with something better!