Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

If you are going to try and argue against "my definition" of faith (which isn't mine, it is a reflection of what faith really means), you have to argue against it directly, not continue using the term in improper manners. And saying "nah uh, you're wrong!" is in no way shape or form a counter-argument.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

i pointed out a diferent usage of commen terms. i also acknowlegde that it was cheezy and i wasn't trying to be insulting, just make a point. and the ancient isrealite's defined faith as a verb. what faith really means is one objective meaning and a number of subjective meanings. my definition difers from yours, that i know of, in that i beleive faith can be confirmed. since you seem to understand that, i only have left to say that disscusions of subjective definitions, which yours, unless you are omniscient, is, tend to annoy me, and i don't think we're going to get anywhere here, since i don't see any reason why i can't use my definition.
signing off.
if this message is in any way impolite, i'll fix it tommorow. i apologize if it is.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Narf, "faith" in english means a lot more than what the ancient Israelis used it for. You can have faith in something without any religious connotations at all. And, you can have deeply religious faith in something as well. You seem to be ignoring the former and only accepting the latter, which is not good.

My "definition" includes all common usages of the term faith. You are just brushing off all but the one that fits your agenda.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

*dogscoff puts on a fake John Cleese moustache.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes it is.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

*shakes head at DS* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

*nods vigourously at IF in contradiction*

EDIT: Anyone who wants to practise their debating skills with socrates himself, click here.

[ May 22, 2003, 10:58: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning, especially as there is someone sitting there contradicting you, and you claim not to use a dictionary, instead apparently relying solely on your own authority in the matter, and seeming to assume that your authority will be recognized. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Curious - you seem to be primarily doing the "nah uh, you're wrong!" bit too:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You just contradict him - no reason given;
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agin - you just assert that you are correct; no reason given;
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here, you just declare that your definitions are the right type, and that there is no speaker dependence, which would imply that you are the prescriptivist in the argument.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why should he post a conter argument when all you have been doing is contradicting him, and not arguing yourself? You just keep repeating that he has the "wrong" definition, that Narf is "not understanding the concepts" and that you're right. Nowhere have I seen a rational argument for this (in this thread "arguing" against Narf, anyway); you seem to just keep restating your own belief that you are right. At best, you define what you mean by faith. You aren't arguing either.

Please, contradict me on this. Quote yourself where you were actually giving evidence or showing logic in the Last few pages of this thread in the segment where you are talking to Narf about faith, and explain how that was evidence or logic; all I see you doing is contradicting Narf flat out, except for that one little spot where you define what you mean by faith.

It would appear that your argument with Narf is essentially the argument that can happen between any two people, one of whom has a descriptivist approach to language and one of whom has a prescriptivist approach to language. The descriptivist is confident in their own position because language is a flexible thing, and they are sure they are using the definition the majority of people are using, and so are correct. The prescriptivist is confident in their own position becuase language is an inflexible thing, and they are sure they are using the correct definition.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is the dictionary definition:
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
- Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

And here is a more succinct definition:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain

I hope that clears things up! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

This is what I get for just glancing over a topic because the title didn't seem directly interesting or applicable.

Just to get my foot in the door, perhaps a good definition of "faith" would be 'a trust in an assertion or a person based on the perceived trustworthiness of the person making the assertion and/or the authority on which that assertion is based". You therefore deal with both the basis of believing in the object of faith, and deal with the (probable) lack of direct evidence for the assertion believed in.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

This is an old post, but I read it today and really, really need to get my two cents in :

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, well, those scientists probably never lived in my neck of the woods. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif (end rant).