(March 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I have faith that logic works. Is that irrational?

Not at all, so long as you are not confusing faith with Faith. Faith and logic cannot work in accordance with each other, because Faith has proven time and time again that it derives its conclusions from creativity.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:28 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Not at all, so long as you are not confusing faith with Faith.

Nice try. You can't hide your vitriol behind a capital letter. Just admit you were wrong.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Nice try. You can't hide your vitriol behind a capital letter.

Yes, I can, because there actually is a huge difference between faith and Faith.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Just admit you were wrong.

I cannot admit to being wrong when I am clearly right.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Faith is by definition an irrational belief still strongly held.

Don’t be a clown! Faith is not a type of belief; but rather, the stance you take in the absence of certainty. For example, if you believe that other people have minds, then you do so in faith, because there is absolutely no way to know for certain. Claims to the contrary already assume what they try to prove.

---

(March 10, 2014 at 11:53 am)Bad Writer Wrote: Believing something without proper evidence is the most dishonest position you can possibly take in any walk of life.

Then I guess that makes you dishonest, unless you have a complete and internally consistent understanding of reality.

I believe I do, based on the evidence available to me. You don't have to believe me, as you don't have enough evidence to justify whether or not I am truthful.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 11:53 am)Bad Writer Wrote: Believing something without proper evidence is the most dishonest position you can possibly take in any walk of life.

Then I guess that makes you dishonest, unless you have a complete and internally consistent understanding of reality.

Empiricism is the only internally and externally consistent method of understanding reality. Lots of people have internally consistent but externally inconsistent beliefs about reality. Usually they reside in mental wards.

Really, your poorly stuffed and unconvincing strawmen are tiresome and insipid.

The only people claiming to have a "complete and internally consistent understanding of reality" are religious folks, and they're lying on multiple levels.

---

(March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Faith is by definition an irrational belief still strongly held.

Don’t be a clown! Faith is not a type of belief; but rather, the stance you take in the absence of certainty. For example, if you believe that other people have minds, then you do so in faith, because there is absolutely no way to know for certain. Claims to the contrary already assume what they try to prove.

There you go again, making your own definitions for words.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://i.word.com/idictionary/faith

(March 10, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Don’t be a clown! Faith is not a type of belief; but rather, the stance you take in the absence of certainty. For example, if you believe that other people have minds, then you do so in faith, because there is absolutely no way to know for certain. Claims to the contrary already assume what they try to prove.

There you go again, making your own definitions for words.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://i.word.com/idictionary/faith

2.a, 2.b, and 3 are using the word 'faith' in a different sense, as in, "He is a man of the faith," and thus don't apply to this conversation. I realize the word faith is a hot button, but let's try to keep some perspective.

(March 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 10, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: ...why a theist like you...would still persist in avoiding reality for the mere comfort that the unreasonable faith provides.

I have faith that logic works. Is that irrational? I also have faith that our senses do not decieve us. Is that irrational too? What is with you, clowns, trying to impose your notions of what may motivate some believers onto all believers? Where is your evidence? By your own definition are your baseless responses rational?

What are your motives for belief, other than intellectual dishonesty, willful ignorance, and the chance to feign intellectual superiority?

(March 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What are your motives for belief, other than intellectual dishonesty, willful ignorance, and the chance to feign intellectual superiority?

You crack me up dude

I found what appears to be a good explanation of Aquinas' Second Way. I was unfamiliar with it, so perhaps others are as well, so I thought I'd share.

http://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009...nd-way.pdf

The 1st and 2nd Way work together. I do not believe either works on its own. Otherwise I found the critique fair despite a couple red herrings, like overdetermination.