"Real" ringworlds

[Fyron]

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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.

[Fyron]

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 ]

[dogscoff]

*dogscoff puts on a fake John Cleese moustache.

And saying "nah uh, you're wrong!" is in no way shape or form a counter-argument.

Yes it is.

[Fyron]

*shakes head at DS*

[dogscoff]

*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 ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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),

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.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

Curious - you seem to be primarily doing the "nah uh, you're wrong!" bit too:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.

You just contradict him - no reason given;

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I define faith correctly.

Agin - you just assert that you are correct; no reason given;

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

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.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

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.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning...

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!

[General Woundwort]

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.

[Erax]

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

Originally posted by Dingocat85:
Note 2: Some scientists think that the only reason humans are so smart, is that when deciding between a man with intellect and a man who's fit, women have repeatedly chose those with brains

Yeah, well, those scientists probably never lived in my neck of the woods. (end rant).