Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

read it again. you define faith differantly than i do. i know that if i have faith that i will get an answer, i will get an answer. that is verification.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

I define faith correctly.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

dictionary definitions are not always accurate for each persons use.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

I never used a dictionary. In fact, my "definitions" are the complex extended ones, not dictionary ones. And, words have specific, universal meanings. They are not dependant upon the speaker.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

like, i don't think so. so you know, like not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
ok, that answers kinda cheezy, but the meanings of words, to the people involved, can change radically depending on region and dialect. any universal, overarching meaning isn't dependent on mortals. which is one reason to listen for the sense of the words.

[ May 22, 2003, 07:41: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Sigh. That applies in limited scope to words that are only in certain regional dialects, yes. But, complex words do not change drastically in meaning from one region to another. And even if the word is used in a slightly different manner, that is immaterial; it is the concepts that matter. You are not understanding the concepts of the various forms of faith. You are only able to make your argument because you are using the wrong meanings of the word faith in the wrong context. If you refuse to even listen to my arguments instead of just brush them aside as you are currently doing (no counter-argument has been made at all), then there is little point in discussing this with you.

[ May 22, 2003, 07:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

ok.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

You responded before I finished fixing my post...

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">it looks like a counter-argument to me. at the very least it's an argument and a statement of opinion.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:05: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

No, it is not a counter-argument. It is a repetition of your misuse of "faith" to try to prove a point.

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).

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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I have said countless times, dictionaries are great for a basic understanding of a term, but they often miss the more sublte meanings and uses of complex terms.

Jack:
I never claimed to have "authority" in this matter. Just because someone is contradicting me (though not very effectively) does not mean that I am autmotatically wrong.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I already posted my argument, and he ignored it up until the very Last post or two. There is not really much in his Posts to argue against. And, any more argument on my part would be repeating what I already said, which would be counter-productive. Most of my Posts were trying to get him to actually read my post, which took quite some time.

Actually, now that I think about it, I did post another argument, that his "definition" was included in part of my "definition". His is just too narrow.

Here is a quote of myself for you:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is part of the argument that the term "faith" is much broader than Narf thinks it is.

[ May 22, 2003, 19:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No you haven't

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They don't!

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

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No you didn't.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No it... oh, I'm bored of this now. I wonder how long it will be before everyone else gets bored as well..?

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Just trying to expand people's vocabularies and help them stop making fundamentally flawed arguments...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was talking about in the past, not so much just in this thread...

[ May 22, 2003, 21:12: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Fyron, with your # of Posts, you have already said any given phrase a countless number of times ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit: 'Scoff is just baiting you.

[ May 22, 2003, 21:20: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Yes I know. That is why I did not respond to most of his post.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

yeah seems like Fyron is going to boldly go where no poster has gone before: over 6000 Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">is this another one of our useless arguments? because i thought you where brushing off my defintion because it doesn't fit your opinion. and i read your post on faith the first time i read that page, which was before you asked me to. i do not deny you your opinion of the defintion of faith, it just isn't mine. therefore, i have no need to contradict your defintion, only to post my defintion, which i have done.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Do not try to defend your refusal to allow for the possibility of being wrong by brushing off the meanings of words as opinions. They are certainly not matters of opinion, and trying to claim that they are only hurts your points. You can not simply ignore some of the meanings of a word, picking and choosing the ones that you like best. This is what would be required to be allowed if they were merely matters of opinion.

I did not "brush off" your definition of faith, I clearly stated that your definition was limited and inadequate. "Mine" (in quotes because it is not actually "mine", it is the real definition) includes the narrow meaning which you place on faith as well as the other broader meanings of the word. Language is not nearly as narrow as you seem to think it is. Nearly all "complex" words (ie: not simple words like "one" or "cat") have many shades of meaning other than what a dictionary places on them.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No I wasn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Actually, I really wasn't. I was just joining in the spirit of debate that has dominated the Last few pages of this thread.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Sorry... I was just trying to get Narf to actually read and respond to my post if he was going to contradict me instead of spouting off the same thing over and over again...

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm telling ya, he gotta be cheating somehow.
Come on Fyron, tell us your trick!!
I promise you ti's not gonna getta outta herear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

.

.
Edit: He got 6008 already!!!

[ May 23, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

i read your Posts. i didn't see anything that required an extended responce. i was simply justifeing my opinion as 'that's how it works for me'. if we have a converstation where you use your definition, i will be able to take it into account and respond. and i am not going to argue over the definition of faith any more.

oh, yeah, any lack of posting today is due to bad alergies and a lack of sleep.

[ May 24, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

So basically, you can't be wrong. Spiffy. No amount of explanation I can give will convince you that you are wrong (ie: not entirely correct, not just plain wrong), and that is not a good thing.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

i havn't seen anything to make me change my mind, and i don't want to have an extended arguement over a definition.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Your loss.