almightywood

I much prefer the term belief, which also works, because my beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with a higher power, and faith has a disgusting tendency to be linked solely with that.
belief [bih-leef]  
Example Sentences Origin
be·lief   [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

3 out of the 4 definitions were applicable in the way I mean it, (though like I said I dislike the final denotation) I merely didn't intend it as the first at all.

I do find beliefs to be much more important than logic for the simple fact that logic could be used to make anything seem like anything.

Steve Smith: I held her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob!

No, I refute logic because it is capable of things like this when this is the type of thing it was created to dispel.



I don't ever pay attention to odds as a matter of course. In my life I have hot and cold streaks: either everything is going right for me, or nothing is. So winning the lottery isn't that likely. Well someone does it all the time, because it's improbable I should pretend it doesn't exist?



Again I was telling you all what the words mean to me.... Do we really have to go back and forth telling each other that our definitions are better yet again? As you can see there are multiple definitions for each word, just because I don't care to pick the same one as you, doesn't mean that yours is more valid than mine, so drop it with that shit.


subjective proof is proof that isn't universal. For instance when that one statue of jesus had bloody tears appear. Some people took it as a miracle of god, others thought of it as proof of god, still others thought it a hoax. It's all subjective.



The only thing that's provable is a fact, and the only thing that can prove it is itself. I have never once been using the first definition of belief at any point when I was talking about beliefs, so that is still not what I was talking about.

Not in any sense that I ever used the word.

Miburo

Honestly, while I find AW's position to be hilariously stupid, it really doesn't even phase me. He's basically just another stupid person on the internet who believes his stance on things shouldn't be challenged. I've seen that shit plenty of times before. It's not even the least bit shocking since it makes perfect sense for people that are obviously unable to justify and defend their stances to be against having their stances challenged. Only unique thing about him is how he takes his stupid position to the utter extreme in comparison to most other idiots. That's basically it.

I'm actually more interested in the incredibly pompous and disgustingly immoral aspect of his positions. Most people in the "opinions/beliefs can't be wrong" camp usually operate in a "You have your opinion, I have mine. It's all personal preference" way. And normally would still be against something like, for example, racist beliefs. Not AW though. He has made it pretty clear that even racist beliefs are beyond reproach, and would be more against someone criticizing racist beliefs than the actual racist beliefs. Or, basically, it's immoral to attempt to discourage and discredit racist beliefs. That's pretty horrible.

Not only that, but he treats his stance as if it is an infallible objective law that we should all obey or else we're vile immoral scum. He doesn't merely apply his stance to himself, he expects everyone to operate in the way he dictates and feels that he doesn't even have to justify his decrees. We should simply do as he says unquestionably and are undeserving to even know why.

All the while he is actually demonizing and attacking the integrity of anyone who disagrees with him in a way that he finds displeasing, while claiming the moral high-ground. Yet he actually stated that the only reason that he hasn't brutally murdered me because I posted something on an internet message board that he disliked is because he isn't computer savvy enough to track me down. And other horrible shit.

He seriously acts like we're horrible people for operating under the assumption that respect is something that is earned and that opinions/beliefs can be challenged. While in the same exact thread he acts like a tyrannical dictator that should be unquestionably obeyed, throws out completely baseless and unjustifiable personal attacks like they're confetti, claims to have coerced a friend into doing something that lead to his friend's death (Using the claim, ironically enough, to attack someone else's integrity...), stated that he would like nothing more than to maim and murder (and possibly rape) someone because of something that was posted on a message board, etc.

That's shit you don't see too often. Way more interesting to me than him being amazingly dumb.

Numinous

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, people sometimes confuse theological faith with regular faith, but that's no excuse for you to confuse belief with faith.

Of course they are applicable, FAITH IS A SUBTYPE OF BELIEF. That's the same as saying that, since the definition of mammal fits a pig since it's a mammal after all, using the word mammal instead of pig is a-ok and making assumptions on pigs using the word mammal is ok too, since you don't like some connotations that the word pigs has.

In case you didn't get it, that's just wrong. If your definition is more specific to faith than belief, use faith.

Since you had the time to fetch that quote, you could at least see you placed it out of context, since you forgot to add the entirety of the quote.

And it's obvious that doesn't make sense, you quoted a satire show. Because, by logic, that'd be a conditional proposition (If p, then q), which is false when the antecedent is true but the consequence is false.

Since the antecedent (him touching her hand and she touching her breasts) is true and the consequence is false (he did not touch her breasts), the entire proposition is simply false.

See, logic doesn't magically makes things that aren't into being, because it's incapable of such. Now faith and/or the misuse of logic are the ones to be blamed for that.

You are confusing improbable with logically impossible.

For example, you have a base 1:1.17*10^8 chance of winning the Euromillions. It is improbable you guess the right key, but its probability of happening is known, testable and quantifiable.

Logically impossible is when you have a possibility which probability is so low that is practically equal to 0. And it's not like 1:1*10^8 or 1:1*10^1000000, it's a probability with too many 0s to fit a single post.

So of course the Euromillions exists even if it's improbable, but the Earth being flat is so improbable you can dismiss it as impossible.

Seeing that we are using the correct terms established by the English language and you're not, yes, we have to go back and forth until you notice your error.

Check the word "specificity". Like I said earlier, it's wrong to use a broader word when you mean a specific subtype of that word, because people will use the broader definition and not the one you are using, since it's just one aspect of all the aspects you are inducing us to reply to. That's why insisted upon you finding a word that specifically fits your definition, so the message would be delivered efficiently.

So, again, use faith instead of belief, since it's more specific to your definition.

And that's stupid. All proof is universal and objective and if it isn't so then it's not proof at all. That's why saying "proof of God" is fallacious, because there's no such proof, the best you can get is the suggestion of God.

O'rly? Last time I heard, the empirical method used facts to prove theories/laws, and by proxy opinions and beliefs based upon said facts. If facts only proved themselves, science as we know it would be an impossible discipline.

That's because you're not talking about belief, you're talking about faith. Sheesh, get a clue for once!

__________________

uzumakinagato

Yo AW, why are you still doing this ?

Wanna improve you backhand ? or you like being the wall ? lol

__________________
Griffith- The man we all hate, still we consider him as one of the greatest villains ever. Raping the girl of you best friend before his eyes while he killed all his comrades.....




The eclips, damn that was fucked up....

ask me anything

I can't help to wonder how AW hasn't wound up in prison so far. I mean just imagine him in court on rape charges, and what his defense would be?

AW: Well, you see your honor, my definition of the word NO was clearly different for her definition of the word. My life philosophy, which I have formed over the past 25 years, has taught me that when chicks say NO they really mean they want me to choke them unconscious and anally violate them. Just because the law (and society in general) may deem that morally wrong, doesn't make it so, since nothing in fact can or can't be wrong, because that would be a statement of absolute fact. Now, I can't tell you whether or not to let me go freely, since that would violate my beliefs, but I will say that I have an airtight alibi for the crime in question, because I was on a conference call with 20 people at the time.

Judge: So would you consent to the police checking your phone records to verify this?

AW: (Ohhhh shitttt!!! I'm busted) Um, well your honor I can't really do that since it would violate their privacy, and may cause people to retaliate against them.

Judge: But nobody would have to know who they are. Just approach the bench an whisper the names in my ear. I wont tell another soul. Seriously.

AW: But......but......that would telling you what to think. I can't do that.

Judge:

__________________

Miburo

According to him, he has. And, like you said, it's not in the least bit surprising.

ninjalostboy95

You beat me to it. FML. >_<

almightywood

I confuse nothing. I purposefully choose not to use the word faith because of the connotations it inspires.

The problem I have is that you only choose to recognize the one definition of the word. Yes it makes sense to apply the common definition of the word. If you are told that only the other definitions apply in the sense that it is used, then that's okay too (though really the context should have been enough for that). If I was using a term that had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying I would agree with you, but as things stand there's nothing wrong about the way I choose to state this, it's just unusual.

It isn't wrong. I will not use the word faith. I purposefully picked belief. I have clarified the specific use in which I have picked the word. Just because there is some word that fits better based on your understanding of the words and the statement, doesn't make me, the originator of the statement, wrong in any way shape or form for maintaining the integrity of the statement in question.

Actually I just pulled it from memory.

Yes it was making fun of logic by "properly using it" in a way that is completely asinine. I use to be a huge follower of logic. Once I saw how it could be abused, I lost all interest in the academic version of it, I much prefer the layman's.

Actually no, if her hand touched her breast, which at some point it did, in the shower, etc. Then some skin particles would have brushed off on her hand, when she held steve's hand some of them should have switched to his hand, thereby the proof that he got some boob actually exists in the form of skin cells on his hand, even though in reality he never touched her boob directly (they got there via transit - transitive property).

As shown above, logic does indeed do that. And so do beliefs. However belief is intended do that, whereas logic is intended to counter that. That is why belief > (academic) logic in my opinion

The earth being flat is not improbable, it is impossible. It is neither a belief, nor a possibility, so doesn't apply to anything I have ever stated.

You mean we have to go back and forth until you accept my definition or I stop addressing you again, since I also am using correct definitions of the word.

I understand what you are saying here, but belief still does fit better than faith as far as I am concerned because of the lack of religious connotation, which as long as I clarify the specific way in which I am using belief is perfectly fine.

And saying such would be imposing your beliefs over someone in a situation that didn't originate from you since you don't believe in god. Subjective proof exists, it applies solely to the individual and not the group, and is above reproach.

A theory can't be proven, and be a theory, it is then a law. A law is a fact. So any fact only proves facts.

almightywood

sorry for double post, too long

To be quite honest it has nothing to do with anything like should. It only has to do with the way I have told you I will operate. I always do everything on my own terms. I have stated I am not going to go into detail. You all keep bugging me as though privacy isn't something people have a right to. You all also seem to think that there's only one level of respect, there's multiple levels of respect, and some of them are rights, not privileges.

No, it's immoral to attempt to tell someone they are wrong to have those beliefs. What if the person in question was a young victim of horrific gang violence. are you really going to tell them their opinion isn't justified? As I stated earlier, if you want to convince someone to change what they believe, lead by example, do it through actions, not through stupid arguments. To talk about it is immoral, and pointless.

Bullshit, I have never once tried to enforce my dominion over any one of you as a matter of course. I have only ever stated the manner and restrictions I am prepared to discuss with people of your mindset type. I knew before we even started discussing that anything else would devolve into petty squabbling, hence why I had the rules ahead of time. You ignoring what I had to say means that you just really wanted the petty squabbling.

I have asked each one of you in many ways to not pursue the avenue that you are taking with me. Yet you all insisted. You say respect is a privilege. I say it is a right. Well I have had some of my rights taken away. You guys had some of yours ganked. You got your respect ganked (what little of it you started with for being so far away from me) And your damn right I am claiming the moral high ground. I tried to be polite, I tried to be reasonable. You all persisted, so I eventually got downright mean. If you disrespect someone for any reason ever, you deserve whatever you get, and (unless something TRULY horrible occurs) nothing should happen to the person you disrespected either.

You think respect isn't a right, yet you don't understand why you're being treated how you are? ....And you all keep claiming that I am an idiot. I wasn't attacking your integrity by bringing that up, I was stating that you have a horrible approach by bringing that up. I told you if you disrespected what I had to say that would happen to you. If you asked me to do something to you (which you did by ignoring my warning) then you can't use my assistance of you in that as something negative against me.

kael03

Wow, you're stupid

Miburo

^That actually pretty much sums everything up.

AW, prove respect is a right in this scenario and I will admit I was in the wrong and give you the respect you deserve. If you can't prove it then you're only demonstrating that everything I said is spot on. You think we should operate as you dictate without you even demonstrating why we should, and if we don't you see nothing wrong with threatening to kill us and whatever other horrible immoral shit you posted throughout this discussion.

Oh, and yeah, I'd tell someone who is a racist that they're stupid for being a goddamn racist. Even if he was beat up by a gang of black dudes or whatever. Because it is stupid, and can be easily demonstrated as such.

almightywood

I don't care how you operate on your own, whenever you choose not to give respect, you don't deserve to get it. When you resort to disrespect, then that's exactly what happens to you in return. I'm a firm believer in the golden rule, that's why I treat people like they treat me. I figure that's what they must want.

Usually the more irrational the belief is that someone has, the greater the chance that belief is the only thing that is keeping them sane. I've seen more than one person snap, and I've never seen it happen due to application of someone's beliefs, it has always been through them being questioned. If you reason away the meaning of someone's life, then there is no man left with to be reasoned with anymore. I've had to attempt to convince people of the truth of facts that they are clearly mistaken about because they were starting to act out a little bit due to their mistaken understanding. I would never even attempt it if it had something to do with their beliefs.


I go off of personal experiences rather than things like studies. Little things that people like to claim to me. For instance hair is supposed to grow at the rate of about an inch a month for all humans. But 2 years after shaving my head to the skull, my hair was 3 feet long. I've seen any contradictory life evidence on any number of things like this, so I don't accept anything like reasoning that is based off of such things. I know full well that a lot of studies are funded to produce biased results.

We do know that something is pulling forces together. The fact that we don't understand why it works, or what exactly contains it, isn't the same as it not being proven to be. I would say this analogy is closer to the "do you believe in air even though you can't see it" line of reasoning. Not really applicable imo since what I am talking about are much more ephemeral things than can be explained by science, or logic. Ethics, morality, deeper meanings. Things that are defined by whatever it is that makes up a human's "heart".



I do attempt to apply everything I know and believe about a subject to it. It is how I come up with my beliefs and understandings, and how they switch between the groups. I don't trust most evidence I've "been exposed to" in general since people love to spread disinformation for personal gain.



Believe me, I don't enjoy this at all. I do this not because I enjoy it, but because it is usually a lot less unenjoyable than actually having a debate. Most people tend to give up when nothing they ask for is forthcoming, which means I don't have to go to the trouble of explaining myself to someone that I can already tell isn't going to care in the least about what anything I had to say actually entails. It isn't a game. I don't bring things up to validate their existence. I bring them up to discuss what happens afterwards. I only care about the ripple effect, not the stone that started it.

I would like to do something similar, I just don't wish to have any style of discussion that even slightly resembles an argument.



I do not admit to giving anything up little by little. If you have gathered more information it is simply because I have clarified meanings of statements I wasn't vague with. The vagaries that I am alluding to are things that I haven't ever mentioned at all though related to the conversation at hand. I still have no intention of producing them to any of the people that have been frequenting this thread for the reasons mentioned beforehand. I much prefer being civil over random douchebaggery, but I'm still pretty sure that the civility doesn't change the fact that our goals in a discussion differ.

Lol, that's probably true in a way.

I don't really like discussions in which people base what they have to say around the other person's stance, which is why I never produced it. As stated I was looking more for consideration of possible boons, detriments, or repercussions that may have arisen regardless of the likelihood of the topic.

The conversations I would like would be something along the lines of:
What kind of changes do you think would occur in human physiology and mentality if we were all forced to move under the surface of the planet.

Whereas the responses that I've been getting are more along the lines of:
We would never move under the surface of the planet!
What made us move under the surface of the planet?
Why do you care if we move under the surface of the planet?

None of which have anything to do with what I was attempting to talk about.

ACt

Wow, that makes no sense. Let's be sane by being crazy.

Seriously? You've NEVER heard of averages???

You put a lot of effort into a thing you don't enjoy. Which indicates some sort of need. I'm going to not get anything good from this, but it does beg the question: Why?

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Numinous

And I already proved that's a load of crock.

Yes, it does make you wrong because you keep hammering a word with a connotation it does not have directly when another word is much better to express that connotation. And people will reply to the original connotation, not the one you're misusing. So yeah, use faith, not belief.

Except it was not using logic, it was using algebra. Algebra =/= logic. Logically, that statement is false.

Except logic can't be abused if everyone has a clear understanding of it. It's only abused if someone involved in the debate doesn't know his/her logic all that well.

And I'm sorry, what is "layman's logic"? Because logic, as far as I know, is universal, there can't be two versions of it.

Next thing I know, you'll be proving homeopathy with the transitive property!

There's a reason why it only works in algebra, because it works with numbers that are independent entities, while everything else always has factors that aren't from the thing itself that alter its properties, therefore the transitive property loses its use.

You equate that Steve having skin cells from her breasts is proof that he got boob. What about the knowledge of feeling the breast skin itself and the underlying mammary glands and adipose tissue? Because skin cells aren't specialized in the area they're in, the skin cells from her breasts aren't any different from the skin cells of her feet.

No, it does not, because what you used wasn't logic at all.

That'd be right if you said (misused) logic. Like the one you used above. So, in my opinion, Logic> faith+ misused logic.

Yes, it does. Flat Earth was a belief extremely common before Pythagoras and Parmenides disproved it back in the VI and V centuries A.D and it still lingers as a belief today, or else the Flat Earth Society wouldn't exist. So that makes it both a belief and a possibility, only science deemed it so improbable it can be dismissed as impossible.

The last 3 definitions are pertinent to Theological Faith, while the others are to regular faith. Based on this quote:
Faith fits much better than belief.

Subjective proof does not exist, proof is objective by nature. Either you prove something or you don't, there's no middle ground where the term proof is applicable. Now the word suggestion is the word that covers that middle ground, since it means "the sequential process by which one thought or mental image leads to another". That's why there's no proof of God, if there was there'd be only one religion and everybody would subscribe to it (with the exception of stubborn idiots). Now what there might be is the suggestion of God, something that makes you think of God's existence.

This has nothing to do with my atheism, it's a matter of applying the words correctly and using logic.

Wrong. Laws aren't proven theories. Laws are mathematical explanations of facts, while theories are worded explanations of facts. That's why you don't have a Law of Evolution for the fact of evolution, you have the Theory of Evolution. And that's why you can have the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Thermodynamics.

Again, laws are mathematical explanations of facts, not facts themselves. And think of the empirical method's core for a bit. It says "Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?", not "Here are the conclusions, what facts can we use to support them?". So facts prove laws/theories, not the other way around.

__________________

almightywood

Insanity and craziness are two different things. Everyone's a little bit crazy.
If you have any opinion about anything that isn't the majority opinion, you're crazy in that regard.
Insanity is when you are crazy enough you can't function in society.


That's what I thought about it too, but apparently it's supposed to be dead set in stone at one inch for everyone - based on studies. Fuck studies.



Because I get amazingly stubborn and vengeful whenever I feel disrespected.