|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:53 pm
It seems that this entire thread is about definition. Which is arbitrary.
What exactly is the threadmaker asking? What the most common definition is?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:39 pm
aaarhus I really don't know what I could say to cover things as a whole... but I could speak for myself about a belief that I do know others would seriously question... or even state isn't possibly true (or possible to be true... whichever). Not going into details on it, I can say that it's not completely blind faith, since there is "evidence" that it could be true. Yet... I also reason that things could be false for me, and that the evidence supporting it could be caused by something else. What I mean to say is that my set of beliefs isn't found from nothing... but the things that it has been formed by could be false. Thus... it would be easy for someone to just say it's a false belief, yet I find it hard to believe it's completely false. (nods) That's kinda what I'm trying to get across with the distinction between 'faith' and 'blind faith.' Sadly, a lot of people nowadays call them equivalents since empiricism dominates the minds of many so that they don't see a difference. By defining them as equivalents, it sets up the stage nicely for religion bashing. After all, by definition they're being irrational, believing in something without proof, and therefore brainwashed and ignorant. Which obviously, is quite offensive. There are those who fall into this category, but that's blind faith. The faithful usually accept what they believe can be proven false, since the proof they find is personal to them. They believe, in the end, because they wish to, I think. Or at least that's how I am. whee As for the definitions bit, the most common of anything isn't neccesarily the most correct. A lot of dictionary definitions relating to religion are very poorly constructed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:40 pm
Starlock aaarhus I really don''t know what I could say to cover things as a whole... but I could speak for myself about a belief that I do know others would seriously question... or even state isn''t possibly true (or possible to be true... whichever). Not going into details on it, I can say that it''s not completely blind faith, since there is "evidence" that it could be true. Yet... I also reason that things could be false for me, and that the evidence supporting it could be caused by something else. What I mean to say is that my set of beliefs isn''t found from nothing... but the things that it has been formed by could be false. Thus... it would be easy for someone to just say it''s a false belief, yet I find it hard to believe it''s completely false. (nods) That''s kinda what I''m trying to get across with the distinction between ''faith'' and ''blind faith.'' Sadly, a lot of people nowadays call them equivalents since empiricism tes the minds of many so that they don''t see a difference. By defining them as equivalents, it sets up the stage nicely for religion bashing. After all, by definition they''re being irrational, believing in something without proof, and therefore brainwashed and ignorant. Which obviously, is quite offensive. There are those who fall into this category, but that''s blind faith. The faithful usually accept what they believe can be proven false, since the proof they find is personal to them. They believe, in the end, because they wish to, I think. Or at least that''s how I am. whee As for the definitions bit, the most common of anything isn''t neccesarily the most correct. A lot of dictionary definitions relating to religion are very poorly constructed. Since I''m one of the world''s great post-whoring champions, I''ll revive an old thread for the hell of it...plus, I remembered something I was going to say, and thought of something new, for the hell of it. Starlock, in response to one of your earlier posts, the one about empirical proof, I don''t believe anything. Even if it is proven. A lot of "proven" things have been struck down as modern science goes by. For instance, it was thought of as lunacy that someone could ever go to the moon. However, some believed, and it happened. ...I totally forgot the point of that paragraph, because I lost my train of thought at "lunacy" and "the moon" in the same sentence...meh. My new thought is that the most common definition may not be the most correct, but who''s to say what "correct" is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:52 pm
I don't tend to use any 'most common' definitions whenever possible. I use definitions set up by the authorities on the subject. I'm not sure where 'faith' stands in that spectrum, but I suspect it's more along the lines of what I outlined according to theologists. Namely because to define it as 'blind' disses theology entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:10 pm
I think I need to elaborate, as I was cut short last time...
I was trying to say that usually the most common definition is the one that's most widely known, and knowledge makes things right and wrong, not a book.
Consider the term 'computer'. Three hundred years ago, did we have these highly technological machines everywhere? Certainly not. But we still had computers then. In fact, we have them now. We just call them 'accountants'. Over the years, the word 'computer' stopped meaning the person who did the computing, and started meaning any kind of machine that did any kind of work for someone. The book changed the word's definition when it was realized that the definition was irreversibly changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
