|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2004 : 06:24:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Sounds like confusion between "trust" and "faith". You trust that your friends will come through on their promise. I could be wrong, but for me "faith" always carries a spiritual connotation. You use faith when you are describing something that can not be explained another way....such as belief in a God. That is way I do not comprehend the meaning behind the word. Why would I ever believe anything that does not have some sort of reasonable (fact based) explanation?
Most people are theists. The reasons tend to be that faith fulfills some basic needs that you may not have.
1) The need for mysticism/connectedness to the universe. This need is not present in atheists. Whether this need is learned from our parents and peers or not, it is still a psychological need.
2) The need for ceremony. All religious observances have a bit of ceremony to help the practioners feel connected to the community.
3) The need for a higher being which unconditionally loves them. (Not present in Buddhaism)
God does not (and logically would not) have any meaning to an atheist. God is merely a theological construct for a concept of an abstract, intelligent force which exists outside space/time. The concept of God is meaningless outside of any particular religion. If one looks at the way fundies argue about other religions, it becomes evident that only their brand of God(tm) has any relevance to them. The fundies tend to claim that either the practioners of other religions are worshiping shadows or their version of Anti-God(tm). (aka The Devil, Old Scratch, Satan, Beezebub, etc.)
Theological constructs in general have no meaning to atheists. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 06:45:44 [Permalink]
|
The reason I obsess about how words are defined is because communication is very important to me.
Therefore, knowing how Ricky and astropin define the word faith will prevent me from using it in any context outside of that when speaking to them.
However, it can easily cause miscommunication between Ricky and astropin if they become derisive towards people who use the word faith and mean it as I do, and as the etymology dictates, thus cutting off communication. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 10:20:47 [Permalink]
|
| Wolfstan & SciFi Chick I stand corrected. That being said it seems to me that the meaning of words can and do change over time. While faith may have come from trust, my guess is that most people today would associate it as Ricky and I do. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 16:51:30 [Permalink]
|
I started this at lunch at home, went back to work where I can not get into this site, and now I'm back. So, without reading over the posts again...
quote:
[quote]Ricky wrote:
Now I still disagree on the faith part, but maybe its because I'm using a faulty definition (or at least one that is different from yours). Faith to me is believing in something and thinking its true without really knowning if its true. Using my definition, one can only have faith if there is no evidence suggesting that its true, and all the evidence is suggesting it is false (a 0-0 evidence senario falls under Occam's Razor). One could have faith in God, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. However, because you have know your friends, you can cite from past experience how they will react in a given situation. This is evidence that allows you to put trust in them.[/quote]
You're not using a faulty definition, you are using definition #2, whereas SciFi is clearly using definition #1, which is always the first and foremost used definition. Faith, in the sense of fidelity and loyalty has little to do with religious faith or faith without proof, as definition #2 states. Trust and loyalty are faith's closest allies. And people use faith in the #1 sense all the time, such as:
"I have faith in my country..."
"We have faith in her leadership abilities..."
"Son, I have faith in you, I think you can do it."
It's not quite trust in these contexts, it's more like "sincerity of intentions" and loyalty, as definition #1 states.
Words do evolve; the groups and committees that decide on additions and subtractions from their dictionaries every year argue and debate like no others. Some words become archaic or find new usages--like the #2 definition! This isn't just academic--language is a collection of who we are. SciFi (yea, another English major in the world!)is right again in saying that faith has been usurped by religious people.
"Come all ye faithful."
"He is one of faith (or do they say Faith)."
"He has a strong faith."
It's like faith has become only THE faith, a faith in God or some god. When someone says to me, "You have no faith," I reply, "What faith are you talking about?? I have faith in a variety of things!" My faith lies in nature or Nature, if you prefer. Kil hit on this in his essay. My loyalty lies with nature, not some abstract God or god. How else would I describe my loyalty to nature? Kil is correct in saying that, yes, we have lots of proof and evidence through the study of science, that nature behaves in certain known ways, but nature throws us surprises all the time, right? I have faith in the contunuum of nature.
Religion doesn't OWN the word faith.
Definition #1 still stands.
I think the important thing is what people put their faith in. Shall I be loyal to an abstract concept that was taught to me by my parents and/or others because they said so? Or do I place my faith in what I can see and observe and what I am a part of? Like Kil was saying about the weather: do I put my faith in meteorologists and satellite photos of hurricanes brewing and thus do not take my boat out? Or do I leave it in the hands of God or a god? Well, that's silly some would say--even religious people agree with meteorologists. Uh, so then what do I need a god for?
Anyway, language is important and clarification is sometimes necessary, especially if there's a big generation gap. It's why people get whacked out over the word niggardly, because they don't know what it means. I could go on and on. Ricky, I totally understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree with the statement of yours I bolded. Some people never lose their faith in their friends even if they screw up many times. I guess too it's sad when one loses faith in oneself.
Anyway, I tend to implore people to use Merriam-Websters online. I love my 7th Collegiate hardcover, but there have been way too many new words. It's the best dictionary (along with the OED) there is, IMO. The links are excellent, so that by the time you finish with the word and it's synonyms, you really get a true understanding of the nature of the word.
They also return emails. I complained recently about a word that wasn't on their FREE access and they gave me the definition in the email. I think I'm going to do the pay one.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=21&y=20 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 17:21:03 [Permalink]
|
| Damn, for $30 a year that's a nice service. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 18:48:54 [Permalink]
|
And what's with that 'to', 'two' and 'too' crap? Somebody should be hanged. Or hung. Or... Dammit!
Sorry. Back to what you were saying... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 06:54:56 [Permalink]
|
What would you like to bet that dictionaries are written by liberal arts majors and not scientists? LOL.
Of course, they take into consideration what people are saying. You can't very well tell people to stop using words. That's censorship. And communication will be lost if you ignore the meanings of words that are being used.
Finally, as a writer, it would be very boring for me if I didn't get to use synonyms. Might be boring for the reader as well.  |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 08:47:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do they have a group of people who revise the English language? I know that they add a few words in here and there, but there are some big problems that can be easily fixed. I mean, anything that would make communication better. Just a slow gradual process, maybe changing 10-20 words a year or something.
Some info on how dictionaries are written / revised:
http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/worddetectives/revising/?view=uk
http://www.m-w.com/help/faq.htm |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 11:03:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Astropin, are you possibly a Noncognitivist?
No not quite that extreme. Probably more like this:
Methodological atheists, who claim that there is no good objective evidence either for God's existence or for God's nonexistence, but there is a certain methodological principle which places the burden of proof upon theists, and since they fail to meet that principle, the only rational position to take is that of atheism. (Some methodological atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof. No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God.)
And I should add that if the evidence for a given proposition changes so will my view.
Then again, in the extreme I just might be this:
Unknowability agnostics, who say that not only is there no evidence relevant to the issue of God's existence but that there could be none. They may view the issue as so abstract and removed from human experience that it is impossible that we should have any evidence regarding it, one way or the other, so the matter is essentially unknowable. (Note that people with this outlook could easily move over to the position of noncognitivism. They are making the claim that the matter of God's existence is essentially unknowable and that there could not possibly be evidence regarding it, one way or the other. If they were to conclude that the sentence "God exists" therefore does not express any proposition at all, then they would be noncognitivists. But if, instead, they allow that there is a proposition expressed but it is simply one that we cannot ever legitimately claim to be true or false, then they are to be classified as "unknowability agnostics."
Just because when it comes to "God" it seems to me that there would always be a better explanation than an Omnipotent being. Take the example of "Q" form Star Trek....not a God, but most people sure would mistake him to be just that. Reminds me of Arthur C. Clarks statement about highly advanced technology being idistinguishable from magic.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 12:04:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
quote:
Astropin, are you possibly a Noncognitivist?
No not quite that extreme. Probably more like this:
Methodological atheists, who claim that there is no good objective evidence either for God's existence or for God's nonexistence, but there is a certain methodological principle which places the burden of proof upon theists, and since they fail to meet that principle, the only rational position to take is that of atheism. (Some methodological atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof. No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God.)
And I should add that if the evidence for a given proposition changes so will my view.
Then again, in the extreme I just might be this:
Unknowability agnostics, who say that not only is there no evidence relevant to the issue of God's existence but that there could be none. They may view the issue as so abstract and removed from human experience that it is impossible that we should have any evidence regarding it, one way or the other, so the matter is essentially unknowable. (Note that people with this outlook could easily move over to the position of noncognitivism. They are making the claim that the matter of God's existence is essentially unknowable and that there could not possibly be evidence regarding it, one way or the other. If they were to conclude that the sentence "God exists" therefore does not express any proposition at all, then they would be noncognitivists. But if, instead, they allow that there is a proposition expressed but it is simply one that we cannot ever legitimately claim to be true or false, then they are to be classified as "unknowability agnostics."
quote:
Originally written by Theodore M. Drange
Methodological atheists, who claim that there is no good objective evidence either for God's existence or for God's nonexistence, but there is a certain methodological principle which places the burden of proof upon theists, and since they fail to meet that principle, the only rational position to take is that of atheism. (Some methodological atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof. No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God.)
< ... snip ... >
Unknowability agnostics, who say that not only is there no evidence relevant to the issue of God's existence but that there could be none. They may view the issue as so abstract and removed from human experience that it is impossible that we should have any evidence regarding it, one way or the other, so the matter is essentially unknowable. (Note that people with this outlook could easily move over to the position of noncognitivism. They are making the claim that the matter of God's existence is essentially unknowable and that there could not possibly be evidence regarding it, one way or the other. If they were to conclude that the sentence "God exists" therefore does not express any proposition at all, then they would be noncognitivists. But if, instead, they allow that there is a proposition expressed but it is simply one that we cannot ever legitimately claim to be true or false, then they are to be classified as "unknowability agnostics."
- see Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998)
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 13:30:38 [Permalink]
|
| I apologize for not including the link myself. I did not intend for anyone to think I wrote those definitions myself. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
