Jake_Ellison

Alright, let's try this Kendall's way: Here's the two meanings of the word faith:(as quoted by you-I'm going to leave out the examples, because they were written by a five year old:) 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing; 2. belief that is not based on proof; First you say "Not all faith is religious." Here, you use faith to mean the (2.) definition. Then, you say "People can have faith in their own abilities." Here you use faith to mean the (1.) definition. Would you agree with my assessment, and that faith(1.) and faith(2.) are two very different concepts?

Well, then your belief is not a hypothesis, it's an educated guess. However, you do admit that you could be wrong, so it's not faith. As for the Bible quote, I happen to be familiar with it. In Christian mythology, Demons are condemned souls, they do not benefit from Jesus dying for their sins, the way humans do. As a result, while they do have an irrational belief in Jesus (and the fact that he died, was resurrected blah blah blah), meaning that they do have faith in him( here, faith meaning to believe in something without proof ), they are not loyal to him, and they do not trust him (here faith meaning loyalty or trust). The quote basically is aimed at telling the faithful that it is not enough to believe the events in the Bible, you must also believe them to be good: which means trust in God's actions and loyalty to Him (or Jesus, as the case may be). But this trust -in the floods, plagues, suffering being good- is just as irrational, so you cannot go ahead and use the term in science. (like the dictionary I called stupid) If I were to change a few words with exact matches, the quote would read: " demons take Jesus's existence and deeds on faith, but they don't trust him" -wouldn't you agree this means the same thing? I never disputed the fact that the word faith has several different meanings. However, trust and loyalty are less likely to be considered axioms than "irrational belief", so it made sense to think that you meant the latter. The fact that you used it to attack reason confirmed my assumption.

Actually, he probably knows nothing(varying levels of success doesn't tell me anything about the methods-it could mean a positive or negative sum of success-I'll assume it's neutral or negative): that means his choice to use the services is B. If however he were experienced enough, he would know that these methods don't work: then, he would choose rationally. Of course, his choice would be not to use them. A. would never be the answer. However, if by "varying levels of success" you mean more good than bad, then any human being is perfectly capable of doing the math and realizing this, so it would be A. To sum it up: I would need to know the exact nature of the medicine man's practices, in oreder to answer your question directly. I answered based on both possibilities.

Thank you. Deciding to use the word "believe" should prove to Kendall once and for all that my point on the definition of faith was well made, and now I agree 100% with your example. It is also a good example of what a hypothesis is: a believe, by a rational person, in something he seeks to prove.

Both the dictionary example (faith in a hypothesis) and the example Shylock gives later (faith in your legs working in the morning), are using faith to mean a rational expectation that something is likely to work. I violently disagree with that definition. There's nothing embarrassing about that point, and I used strong language to make it, in order to stress my aversion to that specific website, which rarely gets anything right. I'm in a brick house, in the middle of a forrest, with the light of the candle straight as an arrow, proudly pointing towards the sky.

The website is moronic (look into it if you don't believe me, punch up a few definitions), and completely useless. The example is stupid: it seeks to illustrate the exact opposite of what it's supposed to illustrate: the difference between faith and belief. If you look up the definition of both words(moronic and stupid), hopefully in a different place, you'll find that they fit quite nicely. Your aversion to calling things what they are is strange, given your obvious intelligence and attention to detail. I did however not insult Shylock, so there is no need for you to jump to his defence. In fact your decision to do so by dismissing my point is annoying me: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." in a dictionary definition of "faith" is not a valid example: it suggests that faith, rather than rational belief, is used in scientific research. Of course, I went further than that by saying something that I cannot prove, because it is a somewhat subjective (but widely held) opinion : using "to have faith" to replace "to believe", when it comes to rational ideas or plans such as a scientific hypothesis, is probably wrong, and bad writing at best. However, even though you said nothing to refute even this part of my argument (you just said the example was perfectly valid), it is not necessary to my larger point that the example is stupid: the attempt to link the word faith to the scientific method (in a dictionary of all places) is plenty proof of that. That said, I consider the matter closed. I'm not going to sit here and explain words. It's really not a fun activity.

Not only did you do selective googleing, until you've found a moronic website that backed up your idea of what the word means by a stupid example at (2) ( The correct version of that sentence would be: He believed that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.), but you left out even meanings that are closer to reality, which appeared on this website. That's dishonest. Let's look at another, in my opinion more credible, definition at the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary: We're obviously not talking about "loyalty", so that leaves these definitions: Perfectly clear, perfectly in tune with Peikoff's definition. (specifically 2b is contained in that definition) You seem to be confusing the concept "faith" with "belief": Belief can be based on reason, as well as faith. In your previous examples, the belief you mistakenly call "faith" is actually based on reason(proof), not faith. (for instance, you believe, rather than have faith, in your legs working, because of proof: you've seen them work all your life, and nothing changed. Saying that one has faith in rational beliefs is in fact a mistaken use of the term, in proper English, and you wouldn't find it in older, prestigious works of literature.) Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is the blind belief in something, as opposed to belief based on reason.

Reason is not an axiom, but "axiom" is a logical concept, and faith is the anthitesis of reason and logic. Saying faith is axiomatic is like saying a chair is a mammal, or the numer 5 is a vowel. Again, check the definiton.

Can you imagine someone on TV calling those parents who are unhappy with the new test the disgusting human beings that they are? That person would be forced to apologize or fired the next day, because of a media onslaught against him or her.

Best line ever: Jack Bauer to the UN Representative(blue helmet in hand), with the rebels approaching, armed to the teeth: "Still wanna talk to them? I didn't think so. Why don't you go hide in the shelter with the other children?"

To Kendall: Sure. That's however not saying much, since I feel the same way about letting a 55 year old do that. What I'm disagreeing with is the government not allowing a twenty year old to drink, because of the officially stated and exclusive(1.) reason that they tend to get behind a wheel (statistically, more often than older people). I agree. However, that conservative estimate, according to our justice system, is definitely at 18, not 21. (hence my statement at (1.)) What leads me to that conclusion? A vast majority of people between the ages of 18 and 21 face the same justice a 40 year old would face, because their "cognitive development and ability to make life choices"(your words) is considered that of an adult. (A twelve year old, on the other hand, faces a different standard of justice, because he is considered a child.) This was my assumption, and this is what I asked your opinion on: Can you give me a reason why a 20 year old should be considered a child when it comes to drinking (not drinking and driving, just drinking and then making a choice, like a 30 year old), and yet perfectly capable of deciding right from wrong, hence facing "adult" justice? (and the choice of whether to join the army, take up a mortgage, donate a kidney etc.) If you cannot, then my assumption surely stands, he is an adult, with restricted rights. In this case, government can legislate as the owner of the road, not as a "legitimate government, concerned with individual rights". (The obvious contradiction comes from the fact that our government is not entirely legitimate, because it owns roads) In general, the owner of the road can decide on the age limit of its clients, and bear the legal responsibility for that decision. In my opinion, the owner should always prevent everyone who's under the influence of alcohol from driving: including children who's parents think their offspring is safe to drive drunk. Therefor, on our public roads all drinking and driving should be illegal, just as it IS: The parent's judgment doesn't matter.

I'm not convinced by your argument: A 20 year old is a responsible adult, and he is treated as such under the law. He faces the same justice, for his mistakes, that a 22 year old faces, so our society obviously considers him an adult. Right? If you agree, then the next logical step is to assume that the government is restricting such an adult's freedom, because he poses an additional risk to society, statistically: 20 year olds are somewhat more likely to commit a crime under the influence of alcohol than the average adult. (let's say that risk is 150% of a normal person's, although I think that is a high estimate) -this justifies preventing them from drinking. Doesn't this approach justify the government taking similar measures against any segment of the population, that is 150% more dangerous, in certain conditions, than the average person? I know for a fact young black mails are far more likely than that to become gang-members: shouldn't society prevent them from gathering in groups larger than three? There are many other examples.

I think the better solution would be to get rid of "age of majority laws", and leave it up to parents what a child can or cannot do, before they turn 18. The state should only intervene when the parents are causing great harm to the child. As far as the laws that dictate what a person should do above that age (before 21), they are abusive: I realize that the age at which one grows into their rights is set arbitrarily, but it has to be based on the age of adulthood: 21 is far too late. Perhaps if some parents believe their child is not yet an adult at 18, they should jump through hoops, and pay for the legal proceedings that put them in charge of their children for longer. Why should a majority of young adults be treated as children, for the sake of a few overgrown children.

The time it took you to write that little essay, you could've just picked up the dictionary, and checked what faith means. But hey, at least you're defending faith because you don't know what it means. It's a good sign: it means that you can still learn to be a good person. In my book, a mistake always beats some loon who bases their life on fantasies: just make sure you correct that.

The fact is so few people are killed in nuclear accidents, and they are so rare, that this technology is the safest and cleanest energy source in the world: opposition to it on these grounds is irrational, and it leads me to assume that NZ has been exposed to even more environmentalist propaganda than other western countries. You cannot cite minor spills that may have been concealed by companies, and ignore the fact that no one dies in these hypothetical accidents. In the mean time, thousands die in coal mines, in dams bursting, etc. By what criteria are nuclear plants so dangerous? As far as Chernobyl being a deterrent, you're right: we should not build plants based on Soviet designs, and then leave a communist system in charge of the Safety Department. But that also applies to every single human endeavor (submarines, children's toys, etc.), not just nuclear plants. It's an argument against communism, not nuclear power. And for the record, "I know a doctor who worked in Iraq" is not acceptable scientific evidence. If you want to prove that depleted uranium warheads are dangerous to our soldiers, you need to come up with scientific studies that prove it, not hearsay and Internet noise, or B movies about Gulf War Syndrome.

Only the former. I'm mainly interested in a rational explanation to what it is, for the purpose of knowing what people are talking about. From what you wrote, I gather it's basically focused thinking: consciously setting time aside to think about one issue, or organizing one's thoughts on the issue. Is that right? And yes, I'd love to check out that reference you mentioned.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. -sN *** Here's the start of the wiki page: "Meditation is a mental discipline by which one attempts to get beyond the conditioned, "thinking" mind into a deeper state of relaxation or awareness. Meditation often involves turning attention to a single point of reference. It is recognized as a component of almost all religions, and has been practiced for over 5,000 years......." -and then it really goes into made up terms and dimensions etc.. It cannot be understood without exploring weird religious concepts first and I just don't have the time for that, so I decided to post the queston here, hoping someone could put it in terms a science-minded person (who isn't a psychology major!!) could understand. What I am curious about is: 1. Can anyone give a scientific reason as to why it would make sense to explore the idea. 2. A reasonable explanation, using scientific terms, as to what is the big deal? What is it, and why is it so attractive to people who practice forms of it? I'm not really interested in getting into it, but I 'd like to be able to understand people I know, who talk about it.

Sounds nice. I have a couple of questions: 1. Are you allowed to invite me over to hang out , let's say forever, or is that a no-no in your country? In other words, what type of immigration policy does NZ have? 2. Are you about to ban the Internet, like your cousins to the south just did? 3. How do you know a nuclear spill lingers for millions of years? There has never been one in the West, despite countries like France getting 25% of their energy, or more, from nukes. There are hundreds of plants everywhere, have been for decades, and yet all the backyards are nice and clean, wine and cheese and body-odor everywhere:). So why should I worry about my back yard? Especially since one of your windmills could topple over and kill me at any time, or the dams could break.(it's certainly more dangerous than a nuclear plant) 4. I don't particularly value repair and re-use either (except when it makes sense-which is rare). What would happen to someone like me in NZ?

Dr. Peikoff was asked about the "sense of life" a person has, and the issue of changing that sense of life came up. He said he believes it can be done, but it is very difficult, and it requires specialized training. (I believe that was the exact expression he used) He did not give any other details, but I'm pretty sure he meant the same thing you are talking about.

Oh come on, if this is such a thread wrapper upper, surely you can share with us the context in which that was said. We just established that Freddy was a complicated man, and thesis are being formulated on proving that Rand and Nietzsche are opposed. Surely it is possible that by rationality he means something slightly different in german than objectivists do in english. Or, we can take this into another direction: "Machines have destroyed man's humanity, taken him away from the soil, robbed him of his natural arts, killed his soul and turned him into an insensitive robot. There's an example of it—a woman who runs a railroad, instead of practicing the beautiful craft of the handloom and bearing children." --Guess Who

They haven't escaped government meddleing at all. Microsoft was persecuted for years by both the US and the EU, Yahoo mergers keep getting prevented, ridiculous privacy laws are being passed etc. I think many of them are actually looking for a way into government, assuming that they'll be able to control this democratic czar and get some things done through this new institution, that they can't seem to be able to get done through the justice system and the SEC/FCC nightmare. Others are of course just looking for protection from Big Brother, like the car companies and the financial industry. I agree, even if they get a few mergers and deals through with shady arrangements and campaign contributions, on the long run they'll regret their decision.

Wow, with this defence, who needs enemies? I was actually about to look into this litlle book, now you've completely turned me off of it. Did he write anything less "obscure" and convoluted I can check out, to see if I get a taste for it? [edit] Sorry, I think you are saying the Objectivist Forum is obscure, but not the book. In that case, never mind. (obscure is relative, but I haven't found it inaccessible, as far as I've checked it out)

"anything you know may be wrong" obviously means exactly that, retard: anything you know may be wrong = there is nothing that can be known = nothing can have meaning, as far as we know = nothing has meaning ( since there is no other conscious mind in the Universe to evaluate the meaning of things, as far as we know-oh, wait, is that a bad word?) -unless of course you want to bring God into this. I assume you're agnostic too, since saying that we know there is no God (or saying that there is one) would both negate your little theory that anything we know may be wrong. We didn't say everything is relative, you did. How else are we supposed to interpret that? That is not jumping to conclusion, that is a very simple logical equivalence, please ask any high school math teacher you know, they'll tell you.( I hope at least the math teachers still can. Go with an older one, just to be safe.)

There is no need for any convincing. All the "convincing" took place with the two parties raising record amounts of contributions for the latest election campaign, from unions and companies alike: that taxpayer bailout is long bought and payed for, ready to be delivered.

You had nothing constructive to say, before or after this sentence (the sentence you chose to argue with, the straw man, was actually only a joke; and then I asked for an example of a preconcieved notion, because I doubt you're using the expression correctly, not directions to where I colud find the definition ) , so I'll just ignore all that and answer this one sentence: If everything you know may be wrong (meaning nothing can be 100% right ), what is morality to you? Morality is a code that guides one's actions. If nothing is right, no right action can be taken. Good doesn't exist. We could just be existing in a virtual reality machine, constructed by an alien civilization which is running a test to see what will happen: if that's true, there is no right or wrong, existence doesn't exist, perception is imagination, reality is invisible. If I assume everything I know could be wrong, I am paralized: I have nothing to guide my actions. In fact my best course of action would be to kill myself, because there is a small chance I'll go to heaven. (You certainly cannot tell me not to, because there is no heaven. After all, you could be wrong: maybe there is a heaven, and only people who kill themselves before the age of 30 get to go there.) P.S. Why are you typing at your keyboard? How do you know I'll see your response? Stop doing that, everything you know could be wrong: "You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into............. the Twilight Zone. How do you know I'm not an evil spirit? I'm coming for your soul through the wires, booooooo, booooooooo, hahahahhahahaha.