Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark is confused #4

Expand Messages
  • Dr. Newto Joseph
    ... From: Mark To: Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:49 PM Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:49 PM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark is confused #4


      > --rj sundseth <wrote:
      >>
      >> -M: God exists.
      >> > >
      >> > > R.J.: As a concept.
      > [...]
      >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than that of
      > fiction or not?
      >
      >God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's minds
      New10
    • Mark
      ... of fiction or not? ... New10 -M: Aren t all names, names of concepts in peoples minds? shanti Mark, Seattle
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --"Dr. Newto Joseph" wrote:

        > > --rj sundseth <wrote:
        > >>
        > >> -M: God exists.
        > >> > >
        > >> > > R.J.: As a concept.
        > > [...]
        > >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than that
        of fiction or not?

        > >N: God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's minds
        New10

        -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle
      • Dr. Newto Joseph
        ... From: Mark To: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:53 PM Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
          To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:53 PM
          Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark is confused #4


          > --"Dr. Newto Joseph" wrote:
          >
          >> > --rj sundseth <wrote:
          >> >>

          > -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?
          >
          > shanti
          > Mark, Seattle
          >
          >
          You muddy the water. I am ONLY talking about religion. By your response makes you a crazy maker

          Newton (AKA New10
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • rj sundseth
          ... From: Mark To: Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:49 PM Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            "Dr. Newto Joseph" <drnjoseph@...> wrote:
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
            To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:49 PM
            Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Mark is confused #4


            > --rj sundseth <wrote:
            >>
            >> -M: God exists.
            >> > >
            >> > > R.J.: As a concept.
            > [...]
            >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than that of
            > fiction or not?
            >
            >God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's minds
            New10


            R.J.: That is your definition. I could cite dictionaries that have other definitions, or other people could define what THEY mean by the term "god". Once again:

            Do you understand that?

            Furthermore:

            Do you have a doctoral degree in hollow rhetoric?

            Also:

            I think I liked the old 10 better. The new10 doesn't seem to think things through very well.






            SPONSORED LINKS
            True religion Religion Religion book Bad religion Christian religion Beliefs

            ---------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


            Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------






            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • rj sundseth
            ... of fiction or not? ... New10 -M: Aren t all names, names of concepts in peoples minds? R.J.: maybe. Why don t you tell us? You are the one with the real
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote: --"Dr. Newto Joseph" wrote:

              > > --rj sundseth <wrote:
              > >>
              > >> -M: God exists.
              > >> > >
              > >> > > R.J.: As a concept.
              > > [...]
              > >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than that
              of fiction or not?

              > >N: God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's minds
              New10

              -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?
              R.J.: maybe. Why don't you tell us? You are the one with the "real" definitions.

              shanti
              Mark, Seattle








              SPONSORED LINKS
              True religion Religion Religion book Bad religion Christian religion Beliefs

              ---------------------------------
              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


              Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              ---------------------------------





              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mark
              ... that of fiction or not? ... New10 ... definitions. -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because I have debated them. I don t claim any
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --rj sundseth wrote:
                > Mark wrote:
                > > > [...]
                > > >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than
                that of fiction or not?

                > > >N: God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's minds
                New10

                > -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?

                >R.J.: maybe. Why don't you tell us? You are the one with the "real"
                definitions.

                -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because I
                have debated them. I don't claim any more nor have I.

                shanti
                Mark, Seattle
              • Mark
                ... [...] ... -M: Once something is formalized(and testable) it is religious, since the axiomatic structures, that hold that concept, are held in faith. So if
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 21, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --"Dr. Newto Joseph" wrote:
                  > > --"Dr. Newto Joseph" wrote:
                  > >> > --rj sundseth <wrote:

                  [...]
                  > > -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?

                  >N: You muddy the water. I am ONLY talking about religion.

                  -M: Once something is formalized(and testable) it is religious, since
                  the axiomatic structures, that hold that concept, are held in faith.

                  So if we discuss anything with rigor, our discourse is religious and
                  in the context of our personal religions.

                  >N: By your response makes you a crazy maker Newton (AKA New10)

                  -M: By your response makes you a silly maker.

                  shanti
                  Mark, Seattle
                • rj sundseth
                  ... that of fiction or not? ... New10 ... definitions. -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because I have debated them. I don t claim any
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 24, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote: --rj sundseth wrote:
                    > Mark wrote:
                    > > > [...]
                    > > >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than
                    that of fiction or not?

                    > > >N: God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's minds
                    New10

                    > -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?

                    >R.J.: maybe. Why don't you tell us? You are the one with the "real"
                    definitions.

                    -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because I
                    have debated them. I don't claim any more nor have I.
                    R.J.: Well, I recently coined the term klabbah, and it is less confusing than rewriting the definitions of words we already have applied definitions to:

                    Klabbah; a faith-based world view strong enough to act upon.

                    Now I will debate that klabbah is what you mean to say, and if you use "faith" or "religion", you are bastardizing language.








                    SPONSORED LINKS
                    True religion Religion Religion book Bad religion Christian religion Beliefs

                    ---------------------------------
                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                    Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    ---------------------------------





                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mark
                    ... minds New10 ... the real definitions. ... confusing than rewriting the definitions of words we already have applied definitions to: Klabbah; a
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 27, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --rj sundseth wrote:
                      > Mark wrote:
                      > > Mark wrote:
                      > > > > [...]
                      > > > >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than
                      > that of fiction or not?
                      >
                      > > > >N: God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's
                      minds New10
                      >
                      > > -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?
                      >
                      > >R.J.: maybe. Why don't you tell us? You are the one with
                      the "real" definitions.
                      >
                      > -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because I
                      > have debated them. I don't claim any more nor have I.

                      >R.J.: Well, I recently coined the term klabbah, and it is less
                      confusing than rewriting the definitions of words we already have
                      applied definitions to: Klabbah; a faith-based world view strong
                      enough to act upon. Now I will debate that klabbah is what you mean
                      to say, and if you use "faith" or "religion", you are bastardizing
                      language.

                      -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith* were
                      contradictory. Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                      with ones that are stable. Klabbah is an unnessicary word.

                      shanti
                      Mark, Seattle
                    • rj sundseth
                      ... minds New10 ... the real definitions. ... confusing than rewriting the definitions of words we already have applied definitions to: Klabbah; a
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 28, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote: --rj sundseth wrote:
                        > Mark wrote:
                        > > Mark wrote:
                        > > > > [...]
                        > > > >> > R.J.[...]Do you want your god to exist in more ways than
                        > that of fiction or not?
                        >
                        > > > >N: God is not the name of anything but a concept in people's
                        minds New10
                        >
                        > > -M: Aren't all names, names of concepts in peoples minds?
                        >
                        > >R.J.: maybe. Why don't you tell us? You are the one with
                        the "real" definitions.
                        >
                        > -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because I
                        > have debated them. I don't claim any more nor have I.

                        >R.J.: Well, I recently coined the term klabbah, and it is less
                        confusing than rewriting the definitions of words we already have
                        applied definitions to: Klabbah; a faith-based world view strong
                        enough to act upon. Now I will debate that klabbah is what you mean
                        to say, and if you use "faith" or "religion", you are bastardizing
                        language.

                        -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith* were
                        contradictory. Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                        with ones that are stable. Klabbah is an unnessicary word.
                        R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use now are contradictory, and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not synonymous, as I have demonstrated. Klabbah captures exactly what you are trying to say.





                        ---------------------------------
                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                        Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        ---------------------------------






                        ---------------------------------
                        Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mark
                        ... I have debated them. I don t claim any more nor have I. ... or religion , you are bastardizing language. ... contradictory. Unstable definitions should be
                        Message 11 of 18 , Nov 28, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --rj sundseth wrote:
                          > Mark wrote:
                          > > Mark wrote:
                          > > > Mark wrote:
                          > > > > > [...]

                          > > -M: I have the real definitions of *faith* and *religion* because
                          I have debated them. I don't claim any more nor have I.

                          >RJ:[...]is what you mean to say, and if you use "faith"
                          or "religion", you are bastardizing language.

                          > -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith* were
                          contradictory. Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                          with ones that are stable.

                          >R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use now
                          are contradictory,...

                          ---------------------------------------
                          The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
                          Edition. 2000.[...]
                          faith [...]
                          2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
                          [...]
                          ---------------------------------------

                          Logical proof cannot prove logical proof, nor can material evidence
                          prove that material evidence should be the only form of evidence.

                          Because it is so arbitrary, it is faith-based definition by its own
                          defintion of faith. Use of this definition to make something *not
                          faith based* by using a defintion which IS faith based is a
                          performative contradiction.

                          Old arguments. I would prefer it if you would read past posts.

                          >RJ:...and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not synonymous,
                          as I have demonstrated.

                          -M: No, not synonymous, but someone's religion is controlling of what
                          they have faith in, but this faith will usually be just a piecemeal
                          component of their religion and worldview.

                          shanti
                          Mark, Seattle
                        • rj sundseth
                          [...Useless jargon, erased FAIRLY, and NOT to support my argument, and then...] ... contradictory. R.J.: A dictionary is not a battle ground. -M: Unstable
                          Message 12 of 18 , Nov 30, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            [...Useless jargon, erased FAIRLY, and NOT to support my argument, and then...]

                            > -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith* were
                            contradictory.

                            R.J.: A dictionary is not a battle ground.

                            -M: Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                            with ones that are stable.

                            >R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use now
                            are contradictory,...

                            ---------------------------------------
                            The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
                            Edition. 2000.[...]
                            faith [...]
                            2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
                            [...]
                            ---------------------------------------

                            Logical proof cannot prove logical proof, nor can material evidence
                            prove that material evidence should be the only form of evidence.
                            R.J.: You should probably learn what an axiom is before you say such things.

                            -M: Because it is so arbitrary, it is faith-based definition by its own
                            definition of faith.

                            R.J.: I thought you were trying to avoid self-reference?

                            Use of this definition to make something *not
                            faith based* by using a definition which IS faith based is a
                            performative contradiction.

                            R.J.: Which you are guilty of yourself, then, if you say that you need "piecemeal" worldviews to make up other worldviews.



                            Old arguments. I would prefer it if you would read past posts.

                            R.J.: I am not in the past posts that you wrote before I was here. There is no interaction. Also, if you are referring to old arguments that we have had; they still need be resolved.

                            >RJ:...and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not synonymous,
                            as I have demonstrated.

                            -M: No, not synonymous, but someone's religion is controlling of what
                            they have faith in, but this faith will usually be just a piecemeal
                            component of their religion and worldview.

                            R.J.: Please re-read what has been said about "piecemeal" up above.



                            ---------------------------------
                            Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Mark
                            ... argument, and then...] ... -M: Agreed, but philosophical environments usually are. ... things. -M: Axioms exist because of the above. ... own definition of
                            Message 13 of 18 , Nov 30, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              -- rj sundseth wrote:
                              > [...Useless jargon, erased FAIRLY, and NOT to support my
                              argument, and then...]

                              > > -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith* were
                              > contradictory.

                              > R.J.: A dictionary is not a battle ground.

                              -M: Agreed, but philosophical environments usually are.

                              >-M: Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                              > with ones that are stable.
                              >
                              > >R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use now
                              > are contradictory,...
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------------
                              > The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
                              > Edition. 2000.[...]
                              > faith [...]
                              > 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
                              > [...]
                              > ---------------------------------------
                              >
                              > Logical proof cannot prove logical proof, nor can material evidence
                              > prove that material evidence should be the only form of evidence.

                              >R.J.: You should probably learn what an axiom is before you say such
                              things.

                              -M: Axioms exist because of the above.

                              > -M: Because it is so arbitrary, it is faith-based definition by its
                              own definition of faith.

                              >R.J.: I thought you were trying to avoid self-reference?

                              -M: I was pointing out the self-reference in the competing definition.

                              >M: Use of this definition to make something *not faith based* by
                              using a definition which IS faith based is a performative
                              contradiction.

                              >R.J.: Which you are guilty of yourself, then, if you say that you
                              need "piecemeal" worldviews to make up other worldviews.

                              -M: No. Piecemeal worldviews don't make up other worldviews, because
                              a worldview can't be piecemeal. And I have clarified that several
                              times.

                              >M: Old arguments. I would prefer it if you would read past posts.

                              >R.J.: I am not in the past posts that you wrote before I was here.
                              There is no interaction.

                              -M: There is interaction if you bring up a point that you disagree
                              with.

                              > >RJ:...and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not
                              synonymous, as I have demonstrated.

                              > -M: No, not synonymous, but someone's religion is controlling of
                              what they have faith in, but this faith will usually be just a
                              piecemeal component of their religion and worldview.

                              >R.J.: Please re-read what has been said about "piecemeal" up above.

                              -M: Again, faith is usually piecemeal, while a worldview is not
                              piecemeal.

                              shanti
                              Mark, Seattle
                            • rj sundseth
                              ... argument, and then...] ... -M: Agreed, but philosophical environments usually are. ... things. -M: Axioms exist because of the above. R.J.: Wrong. Axioms
                              Message 14 of 18 , Dec 4, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote: -- rj sundseth wrote:
                                > [...Useless jargon, erased FAIRLY, and NOT to support my
                                argument, and then...]

                                > > -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith* were
                                > contradictory.

                                > R.J.: A dictionary is not a battle ground.

                                -M: Agreed, but philosophical environments usually are.

                                >-M: Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                                > with ones that are stable.
                                >
                                > >R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use now
                                > are contradictory,...
                                >
                                > ---------------------------------------
                                > The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
                                > Edition. 2000.[...]
                                > faith [...]
                                > 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
                                > [...]
                                > ---------------------------------------
                                >
                                > Logical proof cannot prove logical proof, nor can material evidence
                                > prove that material evidence should be the only form of evidence.

                                >R.J.: You should probably learn what an axiom is before you say such
                                things.

                                -M: Axioms exist because of the above.

                                R.J.: Wrong. Axioms are self evident. They have logical proof.

                                > -M: Because it is so arbitrary, it is faith-based definition by its
                                own definition of faith.

                                >R.J.: I thought you were trying to avoid self-reference?

                                -M: I was pointing out the self-reference in the competing definition.

                                R.J.: Unfortunately for you, all axioms are self-referential. So, if you have a problem with the definitions of faith and religion bearing self-referntiality, you should also have a problem with axioms as well. You are being inconsistent.

                                >M: Use of this definition to make something *not faith based* by
                                using a definition which IS faith based is a performative
                                contradiction.

                                >R.J.: Which you are guilty of yourself, then, if you say that you
                                need "piecemeal" worldviews to make up other worldviews.

                                -M: No. Piecemeal worldviews don't make up other worldviews, because
                                a worldview can't be piecemeal. And I have clarified that several
                                times.

                                R.J.: Quoting you to point out your inconsistency: "-M: Faith isn't a worldview, but a religion is."

                                "-M: Why would someone act on a thought if its not a view they
                                have on the world?"

                                Your would not ask that question if you didn't think that ANY faith (as your definition) needed a worldview in order to act upon it. You then define religion as a "faith based world view."

                                According to you (as cited above); Piecemeal worldviews DO make up other worldviews. Once again, you are being inconsistent.


                                >M: Old arguments. I would prefer it if you would read past posts.

                                >R.J.: I am not in the past posts that you wrote before I was here.
                                There is no interaction.

                                -M: There is interaction if you bring up a point that you disagree
                                with.

                                R.J.: Those are the only things I have been bringing up. How about we stick to the issues?

                                > >RJ:...and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not
                                synonymous, as I have demonstrated.

                                > -M: No, not synonymous, but someone's religion is controlling of
                                what they have faith in, but this faith will usually be just a
                                piecemeal component of their religion and worldview.

                                >R.J.: Please re-read what has been said about "piecemeal" up above.

                                -M: Again, faith is usually piecemeal, while a worldview is not
                                piecemeal.

                                R.J.: But (according to you) ANY faith is based off of a worldview. I'm not going to write your question to me again, but it is obvious by that question that I keep quoting that NO ONE would act upon anything if it wasn't a view that they have on the world (worldview). And if religion is faith-based, then it is made up of other worldviews.


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                http://mail.yahoo.com

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mark
                                ... were contradictory. ... now ... evidence. ... evidence prove that material evidence should be the only form of evidence. ... such things. ... its own
                                Message 15 of 18 , Dec 4, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --rj sundseth wrote:

                                  > > > -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith*
                                  were contradictory.
                                  >
                                  > > R.J.: A dictionary is not a battle ground.
                                  >
                                  > -M: Agreed, but philosophical environments usually are.
                                  >
                                  > >-M: Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                                  > > with ones that are stable.
                                  > >
                                  > > >R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use
                                  now
                                  > > are contradictory,...
                                  > >
                                  > > ---------------------------------------
                                  > > The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
                                  > > Edition. 2000.[...]
                                  > > faith [...]
                                  > > 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
                                  evidence.
                                  > > [...]
                                  > > ---------------------------------------
                                  > >
                                  > > Logical proof cannot prove logical proof, nor can material
                                  evidence prove that material evidence should be the only form of
                                  evidence.
                                  >
                                  > >R.J.: You should probably learn what an axiom is before you say
                                  such things.
                                  >
                                  > -M: Axioms exist because of the above.
                                  >
                                  > R.J.: Wrong. Axioms are self evident. They have logical proof.
                                  >
                                  > > -M: Because it is so arbitrary, it is faith-based definition by
                                  its own definition of faith.
                                  >
                                  > >R.J.: I thought you were trying to avoid self-reference?
                                  >
                                  > -M: I was pointing out the self-reference in the competing
                                  definition.

                                  >R.J.: Unfortunately for you, all axioms are self-referential. So,
                                  if you have a problem with the definitions of faith and religion
                                  bearing self-referntiality, you should also have a problem with
                                  axioms as well. You are being inconsistent.

                                  -M: Aren't some axioms better than others?

                                  > >M: Use of this definition to make something *not faith based* by
                                  > using a definition which IS faith based is a performative
                                  > contradiction.
                                  >
                                  > >R.J.: Which you are guilty of yourself, then, if you say that you
                                  > need "piecemeal" worldviews to make up other worldviews.
                                  >
                                  > -M: No. Piecemeal worldviews don't make up other worldviews,
                                  because a worldview can't be piecemeal. And I have clarified that
                                  several times.

                                  >R.J.: Quoting you to point out your inconsistency: "-M: Faith isn't
                                  a worldview, but a religion is."

                                  -M: *A Faith* isn't a worldview, but a religion is.

                                  I did lay down the demarkations. I did say that *faith* and *a
                                  faith* were differnent.

                                  > "-M: Why would someone act on a thought if its not a view they
                                  > have on the world?"

                                  >RJ: Your would not ask that question if you didn't think that ANY
                                  faith (as your definition) needed a worldview in order to act upon
                                  it.

                                  -M: Faiths do need worldviews, these are controlling of the faith.

                                  >RJ: You then define religion as a "faith based world view."
                                  According to you (as cited above); Piecemeal worldviews DO make up
                                  other worldviews.

                                  -M: Equivocation.

                                  > >M: Old arguments. I would prefer it if you would read past posts.
                                  >
                                  > >R.J.: I am not in the past posts that you wrote before I was
                                  here. There is no interaction.

                                  > -M: There is interaction if you bring up a point that you disagree
                                  > with.

                                  >R.J.: Those are the only things I have been bringing up. How about
                                  we stick to the issues?

                                  -M: Things are fine if I don't have to recycle counterarguments.

                                  > > >RJ:...and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not
                                  > synonymous, as I have demonstrated.
                                  >
                                  > > -M: No, not synonymous, but someone's religion is controlling of
                                  > what they have faith in, but this faith will usually be just a
                                  > piecemeal component of their religion and worldview.
                                  >
                                  > >R.J.: Please re-read what has been said about "piecemeal" up
                                  above.

                                  > -M: Again, faith is usually piecemeal, while a worldview is not
                                  > piecemeal.

                                  >R.J.:[...] a view that they have on the world (worldview)[...]

                                  -M: Equivocation - DITCH IT!

                                  shanti
                                  Mark, Seattle
                                • rj sundseth
                                  ... were contradictory. ... now ... evidence. ... evidence prove that material evidence should be the only form of evidence. ... such things. ... its own
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Dec 7, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote: --rj sundseth wrote:

                                    > > > -M: I was arguing that the competing definitions of *faith*
                                    were contradictory.
                                    >
                                    > > R.J.: A dictionary is not a battle ground.
                                    >
                                    > -M: Agreed, but philosophical environments usually are.
                                    >
                                    > >-M: Unstable definitions should be eliminated and replaced
                                    > > with ones that are stable.
                                    > >
                                    > > >R.J.: Explain how the definitions of faith and religion in use
                                    now
                                    > > are contradictory,...
                                    > >
                                    > > ---------------------------------------
                                    > > The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
                                    > > Edition. 2000.[...]
                                    > > faith [...]
                                    > > 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
                                    evidence.
                                    > > [...]
                                    > > ---------------------------------------
                                    > >
                                    > > Logical proof cannot prove logical proof, nor can material
                                    evidence prove that material evidence should be the only form of
                                    evidence.
                                    >
                                    > >R.J.: You should probably learn what an axiom is before you say
                                    such things.
                                    >
                                    > -M: Axioms exist because of the above.
                                    >
                                    > R.J.: Wrong. Axioms are self evident. They have logical proof.
                                    >
                                    > > -M: Because it is so arbitrary, it is faith-based definition by
                                    its own definition of faith.
                                    >
                                    > >R.J.: I thought you were trying to avoid self-reference?
                                    >
                                    > -M: I was pointing out the self-reference in the competing
                                    definition.

                                    >R.J.: Unfortunately for you, all axioms are self-referential. So,
                                    if you have a problem with the definitions of faith and religion
                                    bearing self-referentially, you should also have a problem with
                                    axioms as well. You are being inconsistent.

                                    -M: Aren't some axioms better than others?
                                    R.J.: No.

                                    > >M: Use of this definition to make something *not faith based* by
                                    > using a definition which IS faith based is a performative
                                    > contradiction.
                                    >
                                    > >R.J.: Which you are guilty of yourself, then, if you say that you
                                    > need "piecemeal" worldviews to make up other worldviews.
                                    >
                                    > -M: No. Piecemeal worldviews don't make up other worldviews,
                                    because a worldview can't be piecemeal. And I have clarified that
                                    several times.

                                    >R.J.: Quoting you to point out your inconsistency: "-M: Faith isn't
                                    a worldview, but a religion is."

                                    -M: *A Faith* isn't a worldview, but a religion is.

                                    I did lay down the demarkations. I did say that *faith* and *a
                                    faith* were differnent.

                                    R.J.: You SAID that, but it is still false.

                                    > "-M: Why would someone act on a thought if its not a view they
                                    > have on the world?"

                                    >RJ: Your would not ask that question if you didn't think that ANY
                                    faith (as your definition) needed a worldview in order to act upon
                                    it.

                                    -M: Faiths do need worldviews, these are controlling of the faith.

                                    R.J.: Which is saying that worldviews need worldviews.

                                    >RJ: You then define religion as a "faith based world view."
                                    According to you (as cited above); Piecemeal worldviews DO make up
                                    other worldviews.

                                    -M: Equivocation.

                                    > >M: Old arguments. I would prefer it if you would read past posts.
                                    >
                                    > >R.J.: I am not in the past posts that you wrote before I was
                                    here. There is no interaction.

                                    > -M: There is interaction if you bring up a point that you disagree
                                    > with.

                                    >R.J.: Those are the only things I have been bringing up. How about
                                    we stick to the issues?

                                    -M: Things are fine if I don't have to recycle counterarguments.

                                    R.J.: How about we stick to the issues?

                                    > > >RJ:...and how your use of "faith" and "religion" are not
                                    > synonymous, as I have demonstrated.
                                    >
                                    > > -M: No, not synonymous, but someone's religion is controlling of
                                    > what they have faith in, but this faith will usually be just a
                                    > piecemeal component of their religion and worldview.
                                    >
                                    > >R.J.: Please re-read what has been said about "piecemeal" up
                                    above.

                                    > -M: Again, faith is usually piecemeal, while a worldview is not
                                    > piecemeal.

                                    >R.J.:[...] a view that they have on the world (worldview)[...]

                                    -M: Equivocation - DITCH IT!

                                    R.J.: Ditch what?

                                    Equivocation: Intentionally vague or ambiguous.

                                    ... Which is what I have accused you of being, and which is the base for all of these posts. Now, why would I ditch my main point?



                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Yahoo! Shopping
                                    Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Mark
                                    ... [...] ... -M: If I made the axiom: All axioms are wrong , this wouldn t be very stable in a philosophical environment. [...] ... -M: No, faiths/religions
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Dec 7, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --rj sundseth wrote:
                                      > Mark wrote:
                                      [...]
                                      > > -M: I was pointing out the self-reference in the competing
                                      > definition.
                                      >
                                      > >R.J.: Unfortunately for you, all axioms are self-referential. So,
                                      > if you have a problem with the definitions of faith and religion
                                      > bearing self-referentially, you should also have a problem with
                                      > axioms as well. You are being inconsistent.

                                      > -M: Aren't some axioms better than others?

                                      >R.J.: No.

                                      -M: If I made the axiom: "All axioms are wrong", this wouldn't be
                                      very stable in a philosophical environment.

                                      [...]
                                      > > "-M: Why would someone act on a thought if its not a view they
                                      > > have on the world?"
                                      >
                                      > >RJ: Your would not ask that question if you didn't think that ANY
                                      > faith (as your definition) needed a worldview in order to act upon
                                      > it.

                                      > -M: Faiths do need worldviews, these are controlling of the faith.

                                      >R.J.: Which is saying that worldviews need worldviews.[...]

                                      -M: No, faiths/religions are the smaller category - these need
                                      worldviews, but not all worldviews are faiths/religions - some
                                      worldviews are not acted upon.

                                      shanti
                                      Mark, Seattle
                                    • rj sundseth
                                      ... [...] ... -M: If I made the axiom: All axioms are wrong , this wouldn t be very stable in a philosophical environment. R.J.: It also wouldn t be an
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Dec 15, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote: --rj sundseth wrote:
                                        > Mark wrote:
                                        [...]
                                        > > -M: I was pointing out the self-reference in the competing
                                        > definition.
                                        >
                                        > >R.J.: Unfortunately for you, all axioms are self-referential. So,
                                        > if you have a problem with the definitions of faith and religion
                                        > bearing self-referentially, you should also have a problem with
                                        > axioms as well. You are being inconsistent.

                                        > -M: Aren't some axioms better than others?

                                        >R.J.: No.

                                        -M: If I made the axiom: "All axioms are wrong", this wouldn't be
                                        very stable in a philosophical environment.
                                        R.J.: It also wouldn't be an "axiom". It would be a "hollow claim", and hollow claims are not axioms.

                                        [...]
                                        > > "-M: Why would someone act on a thought if its not a view they
                                        > > have on the world?"
                                        >
                                        > >RJ: Your would not ask that question if you didn't think that ANY
                                        > faith (as your definition) needed a worldview in order to act upon
                                        > it.

                                        > -M: Faiths do need worldviews, these are controlling of the faith.

                                        >R.J.: Which is saying that worldviews need worldviews.[...]

                                        -M: No, faiths/religions are the smaller category - these need
                                        worldviews, but not all worldviews are faiths/religions - some
                                        worldviews are not acted upon.

                                        R.J.: Ok. I suppose some worldviews aren't, however, religion is a faithbased worldview, and faiths are based off of views that we have on the world. You say that there is a difference between a worldview and a view that one has on the world because the worldview is comprehensive. however, a view that one has on the world is comprehensive of everything that constitutes that particular view, Mark.

                                        So, once again, we are back to religion and faith, as you define them, being synonymous.

                                        Klabbah,

                                        R.J.

                                        shanti
                                        Mark, Seattle






                                        SPONSORED LINKS
                                        True religion Religion Religion book Bad religion Christian religion Beliefs

                                        ---------------------------------
                                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                                        Visit your group "deathtoreligion" on the web.

                                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                        ---------------------------------







                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Yahoo! Shopping
                                        Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.