logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-05 05:06:54 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Open for business: The CoV Store!

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Church Doctrine

  Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
previous next
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Revisiting the Great Faith Wars  (Read 19328 times)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #120 on: 2010-01-28 00:19:32 »
Reply with quote

The origin of "faith" is from "fides", "trust" or "love". It is indubitably the acceptance of something because of the source, not because of the thing imparted. Always a first class logical fallacy.

In every language I know, including some non Indo-European languages, that is the origin of the word used for faith. Any other usage is due to deliberate confusion and contamination introduced by Webster with the acknowledged intent to benefit religion. Watching atheists doing the twist around this demonstrates vividly that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.76
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #121 on: 2010-01-28 20:46:19 »
Reply with quote

One of my childhood friends, Brian Bouffard; "Historically speaking, religions are awesome for justifying atrocity."
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #122 on: 2015-08-03 22:39:08 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Debbie on 2010-01-22 21:05:22   

I should add :
-------------------------------------
1.  Faith is a sin which can exist outside dogma. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said that faith is where emotion is substituted for evidence.

When reality is ignored that is a sin against reason.  Faith is ignoring reality, and is therefore a sin. Faith is what I like to call perverted hope.
-------------------------------------
2.  Dogma exists outside faith. It is the doctrine. One can easily live within the dogma and have no faith. Whether the obedience be out of apathy, fear, or faith, the same effect occurs - propagation of myth as truth.


Each sin is equally destructive. They are distinct ideas from one another but tied together in a rich history.

Again, I say they each deserve designation as sin.


As I have tripped the light fantastic through time and reflect in this discussion I have to admit I have changed my mind in this point of language and Dogma is actually a form of Faith but FAITH is really the best word to attach as a SIN for CoV. This is something worth adjusting I think.

Cheers Fritz
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.96
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #123 on: 2015-08-08 11:41:54 »
Reply with quote

Agreed. I've opened a new vote on the issue >> http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=voteResults;idvote=96
Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #124 on: 2015-08-15 10:43:25 »
Reply with quote

After many more years of experience of Internet discussions, I have decide that:

Faith: Pretending to know things that are not true [Sam Harris], that you do not, and indeed cannot know about [Hermit]

Belief: Assigning a truth value in the face of compelling intersubjectively verifiable counter evidence, or sometimes without sufficient compelling intersubjectively verifiable evidence. [Hermit] {Afterthought, The inversion of the original order of insufficient evidence and counter-evidence is deliberate, based on experience, as is the addition of "intersubjectively verifiable" to evidence, as some clowns think that their imaginary things should be regarded as evidence).

And my agreement that "Faith" describes the sin better than "Dogmatism" is stronger than ever.

A few useful neologisms:

Religiot: Anyone who vests belief in any god thingies or forces or "the supernatural" or regards themselves as being affiliated to any deistic or theistic religious organization. Religiot orginated because religiots cannot agree between themselves on the meaning of religion, and because there is no all inclusive word for people who are not atheists.

Christer, noun: Anyone vesting belief in any aspect of the so called "Jesus" (not a Hebrew or Aramaic name) or Saulus/Paul's "christ" (not even a name at all, but a Greek translation of "anointed one"). Christer originated because the christers hate each other too much to agree about what makes a person a "christian." So there is a new term on the block which is defined to be all inclusive.

God Thingies, noun plural. God thingies are anything claimed as possessing attributes qualifying them to be regarded as deities by anyone at any time, including by referring to any god thingies as deities without proving that such god thingies possesses such attributes, or indeed identifying what attributes would be sufficient and necessary to regard god thingies as deserving of being regarded as deities. In this Universe things may occur as objects (comprised of energy or matter) about which intersubjectively verifiable predictions may be made or as imaginary objects for which this is not the case. Until somebody explains what intersubjectively verifiable evidence there is for an attribute or attributes qualifying something possessing such an attribute or attributes as a deity, and then shows intersubjectively verifiable evidence that a particular god thingie or thingies exist and possesses those attributes, all god thingies will remain imaginary. God thingies are plural not only because mankind has introduced hundreds of thousands of such god thingies (billions if we include the various forms of ancestor worship) all of which are equally as valid only as imaginary objects, at least until the above conditions are met for one or more of them, but also because until the attributes of such a god thingies are fully qualified, it cannot be known whether or not such a god thingie is congruent with other god thingies.

Goddities,  noun plural. Goddities are god thingies where their supporters though repeatedly challenged, still cannot provide any evidence that their god thingies possess any attributes that earn them the right to be regarded as deities and where they are prima facie ridiculous, in that they cannot assist their supporters in any way in this process, no matter the cost to their followers of their belief.

Weyken, transitive and intransitive verb, noun. Weyken is provisional falsifiable intersubjectively verifiable knowledge preferably derived by means of application of the scientific method (which is the end result of the proper application of agnosticism). Weyken is the counterpoint to gnosis (assigning a truth value in the absence of evidence) and lies at the opposite end of the knowledge axis which incorporates:  Gnosis - Agnosticism - Weyken.

Mappig, noun: the provisional and useful internalised mental maps sustained by weyken (replacing "belief systems" IFF they are supported by weyken).

And a useful questionnaire supporting the above:

The following simple questions should be easy for you to answer. You are invited to answer my questions if you think that I am incorrect. Please note that in the following, where evidence is sought, that this means that the evidence should be in a form which may be intersubjectively verified.

1) What attributes make your god thingies deserving of being regarded as gods and why?
2) What evidence do you have that possession of these attributes is necessary and sufficient to regard a thingie as a god thingie?
3) What evidence do you have that such attributes may exist in this Universe?
4) What evidence do you have that your god thingies possess such attributes?
5) What evidence do you have that other thingies do not possess these attributes?
6) What evidence do you have that your god thingies exist?
7) What evidence, however hypothetical, might lead you to change your mind over any of the above?
8 ) Can you provide a single falsifiable prediction made by the alleged existence of your god thingies that would be falsified if they did not exist?
9) Consider that anything that has a significant affect upon the Universe may be detected through its affect upon things in the Universe. If there is evidence that your god thingies have affected the Universe, where can that evidence be evaluated? If there is no evidence your god thingies have affected the Universe, then why should they be regarded as deities?
10) Why should anyone take your ideas about god thingies seriously if you don't know enough about them to be able to answer the simple questions above about them?
[v 0.41]

Along with a formal proof:

Modern science, no matter how many times you try to qualify or mischaracterise it, eliminates many possible attributes that have been proposed as qualifying things as god thingies.

For example, we can take recourse to set theory to build a model of the Universe resulting in the following:
1) Real things are things about which predictions can be made which can be validated by means of intersubjective verification (definition)
2) Imaginary things are things that can be imagined.
3) The Universe consists of all things which can be experienced, real and imaginary (definition).
4) All things that can be experienced in the Universe are real, imaginary or both (corollary 3).
5) All imaginary things in the Universe may be placed in the set of imaginary things (tautology).
6) All real things can be imagined (corollary 1).
7) All things in the Universe may be placed in the set of imaginary things (MP 6 + 5).
8 ) For each object in the set of imaginary things which is a real object, the object must possess at least one attribute identifying the object and therefore it can be predicted that the object possesses at least that attribute (MP 7 + 1)
9) Any object that does not have at least one attribute identifying the object is not a real thing (MT 8 + 1)
10) Anything that can detect any property of any thing can be detected (Quantum Mechanics observer effect)
11) Anything outside the Universe is incapable of determining anything about objects inside the Universe, because if it could determine anything, it could be experienced and would be inside the Universe (MT 3 + 10)
12) Nothing outside the Universe can determine anything inside the Universe (Contradiction 11).
13) Nobody to date has been capable of providing intersubjectively verifiable evidence of the attributes necessary and sufficient to ensure that a god thingie qualifies to be regarded as a deity. (Conclusion from Internet survey [above questionnaire on Disqus over the course of 4 years).
14) Gods are imaginary things, because there is no intersubjectively verifiable prediction that can be made about the attributes of god thingies (MP 8 + 13).
« Last Edit: 2015-08-17 18:14:21 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.96
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #125 on: 2015-08-16 12:37:29 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: David Lucifer on 2015-08-08 11:41:54   
Agreed. I've opened a new vote on the issue >> http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=voteResults;idvote=96



Since the vote is sitting at 81% decisiveness I declare that it overrules the earlier vote and I've changed the name of the first sin to Faith >> http://www.churchofvirus.org/sins.html (first update since 2002-05-22!).
« Last Edit: 2015-08-16 12:40:23 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #126 on: 2015-08-16 23:58:43 »
Reply with quote

Democracy in Action !
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed