XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:24:34 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:07:41 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:58:09 +0000, grabber  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On 13/01/2015 00:06, felix_unger wrote:   
   >...   
   >>>> I know you think you're being clever,   
   >>>   
   >>>No, I don't think it takes any particular cleverness to establish shared   
   >>>understandings of the words you're using in a discussion; what's in   
   >>>question is why you would want to go out of your way to resist gaining   
   >>>any such understanding.   
   >>   
   >>    No, that's not what's in question at all. He's apparently aware that   
   faith   
   >>is faith, and it seems he's also aware that faith is faith REGARDLESS OF how   
   a   
   >>person comes to have faith in something. It also appears that he's not stupid   
   >>enough to be somehow tricked into unlearning...LOL...which you amusingly   
   though   
   >>dishonestly refer to as "understanding". Hilarious!   
   >>   
   >>>So when Malte says: "Call it 'faith=confidence' if you like, but don't   
   >>>equate it with the faith of the theist that there is a god", he is   
   >>>alerting you to the possibility that you and he may intend different   
   >>>things by "faith".   
   >>   
   >>    He's trying to get away with a dishonest trick. What he thinks he could   
   gain   
   >>by it is what's in question, so, what do YOU think he could gain if he could   
   >>fool felix into believing faith is not faith? LOL...sometimes just ASKING   
   about   
   >>the atheist position is hilarious...but try to answer the question if you   
   >>possibly can make an attempt.   
   >>   
   >>>And then when you say, in response, that "I don't understand what you   
   >>>mean. faith is faith", it seems that you wish to wilfully ignore this   
   >>>distinction. Why would you want to do this?   
   >>   
   >>    There isn't one. Chicken is dishonestly trying to impose one where it   
   >>doesn't exist because he's ashamed of his own faith in probably everything he   
   >>has faith in. You probably are too. If you're not, then let us know some of   
   the   
   >>things you have faith in that you're not ashamed of having faith in.   
   >   
   >There are varied uses of the word faith   
      
       Varied uses but faith is faith none the less. What do you think you could   
   gain if you could make it appear that faith is not faith? What would you like   
   faith to appear to be since you don't like faith to appear to be faith, do you   
   have any clue about that? What would you like evidence to appear to be since   
   you   
   don't like evidence to appear to be evidence?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)