If it's spam because I repeat myself because I'm trying hard to get you to understand my basic points, then it's spam. But I don't call that spam!! What do you expect me to do when I'm trying to get my point across but you don't get it the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th[...] or 100th time? I'm finding it hard to keep asking one at a time, so I rephrase in my posts - I'm really trying to get it across.
So you agree that faith is irrational and you have to let go of your brains for it?????
What need I say next??? Your belief is probably a delusion! How do you not come to that conclusion then? I mean, from mine it almost certainly is.
If the Ferrari example - while different to Pascals Wager when I questioned to understand what you were getting at - was your attempt to say that faith was irrational and that you were 'letting go of your brains' as I put it, why didn't you just say so before?
If it's irrational and you're letting go of your brains, how is it at all logical or reasonable to believe, unless you think it's a worthwhile placebo? But even if it's that...how does that convince you then, I wonder? (If that's the case).
I never mentioned absolute proof as requirement at all. Certainly not. I am talking about any valid support for a belief whatsoever - any evidence.
You can believe what you say you believe. I don't care what X is, what I care about is that, X having no evidence - why do you believe in it?
You have answered with your "reasons" and your "reasoning" despite the fact they can't be valid to the belief because then they'd be evidence, and you believe' on faith.' But now you have made clear that you believe irrationally and you let go of your brains for it, so there can be no valid reasoning indeed (as there's also no evidence).
So how do you justify that? Without rationality, without evidence?
EvF
So you agree that faith is irrational and you have to let go of your brains for it?????
What need I say next??? Your belief is probably a delusion! How do you not come to that conclusion then? I mean, from mine it almost certainly is.
If the Ferrari example - while different to Pascals Wager when I questioned to understand what you were getting at - was your attempt to say that faith was irrational and that you were 'letting go of your brains' as I put it, why didn't you just say so before?
If it's irrational and you're letting go of your brains, how is it at all logical or reasonable to believe, unless you think it's a worthwhile placebo? But even if it's that...how does that convince you then, I wonder? (If that's the case).
Quote:You believe that it is essential, almost to complete exclusion, unless proven otherwise evidentially, that belief in _anything_ has to be founded on absolute proof, whether that be rational or physical.
I never mentioned absolute proof as requirement at all. Certainly not. I am talking about any valid support for a belief whatsoever - any evidence.
You can believe what you say you believe. I don't care what X is, what I care about is that, X having no evidence - why do you believe in it?
You have answered with your "reasons" and your "reasoning" despite the fact they can't be valid to the belief because then they'd be evidence, and you believe' on faith.' But now you have made clear that you believe irrationally and you let go of your brains for it, so there can be no valid reasoning indeed (as there's also no evidence).
So how do you justify that? Without rationality, without evidence?
EvF
