new "rules" of chat

[_bobby_]

Umm, Chat in Chat. That's an original thought, anyone interested in trying ?

[Alliteration]

Surely the definition of faith is upholding your belief even when it is challenged?

You're wrong on two counts here. 1) Not all challenges are sound; a challenge simply existing doesn't mean one should change one's mind. 2) Belief despite, or in spite of, evidence to the contrary is Fideism - not faith. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive.

That's what always annoys me about the whole "Let's prove God is real" debate. If we could prove the existence of a higher power then there would be no such thing as fideism.

Also not true. Not everyone is reasonable, and existence of even the strongest case for something isn't going to change everyone's mind. There's still people who think the president of the U.S. is a reptilian alien. That doesn't mean we can't prove otherwise.

So I do agree that people who have faith should be strong enough to bat away challenges to their belief. But I do see why people get offended, especially by more fervent atheists like Dawkins. He seems to get so annoyed by the fact that people believe in God when all the science says otherwise.

I'm not Dawkins, I'm not a fervent atheist, and I'm certainly not annoyed that people believe in God. What I am annoyed by is people who resist epistemic legwork.

He's missing the point. If I had fideism I think I would get pretty annoyed if someone got into a discussion with me and simply refused to accept that is what I believe. After all that's what fideism is about, it's not about proof.

Your annoyance would carry no value, and your beliefs would remain unjustified.

Well my point got away from me a bit there. But in short some people have a tendency to go over the top when they challenge someone's belief. You can discuss beliefs very easily without being disrespectful.

Nowhere did I say or imply that anyone should challenge others in an over the top or disrespectful manner.

Care to try again?

[masterstroke]

Here's my view of chat. Engaging in chat is like going to a party and trying to start a conversation with someone. If no one wants to discuss religion or politics you're out of luck and either have to find another subject to discuss or join in the current discussion.

Is Milovana chat the appropriate venue for political and religious discussions? Possibly, in the proper context. For example, how has the Religious Right affected laws regarding the marriage of gay and lesbian couples. However, if no one wants to discuss that you're going have to find another subject to discuss. If no one in the chat wants to discuss religion or politics and you keep bring up religion or politics all you are doing is annoying the other people in the chat.

I have two friends who have for the most part stopped speaking to each other because of political discussions. When I talk with one of them I have to usually cut off the conversations because of his political tirades. The other I usually just tune out the rant because its usually short. However, both of them can be just as annoying.

[Banquo]

You're wrong on two counts here. 1) Not all challenges are sound; a challenge simply existing doesn't mean one should change one's mind.

Where did I say anyone should change their mind? I simply put forward that believing should be enough for a person with a faith. What relevance would their faith have if it was proved with science. It's the act of believing in a higher power that gives many people comfort. Whether the challenge is sound or not holds no relevance whatsoever.

Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive.

Again, nowhere did I say this, you're putting words in my mouth and making a strawman out of an argument that isn't there.

There's still people who think the president of the U.S. is a reptilian alien. That doesn't mean we can't prove otherwise.

This is another pretty disingenuous line of argument, nowhere have I said that faith should remain unchallenged. Or that it can't be proved wrong. Just that for someone who believes in something, in many cases that proof doesn't matter.

I'm not Dawkins, I'm not a fervent atheist, and I'm certainly not annoyed that people believe in God. What I am annoyed by is people who resist epistemic legwork.

So simply because people philosophise about any given subject they should be given the time of day? Why is that? The fact that you get annoyed when people resist another group of people having a good old think about something shows a massive and overwhelming need to fucking get over yourself.

Nowhere did I say or imply that anyone should challenge others in an over the top or disrespectful manner.

Yet you have shown here that you are quite happy to address a simple throw away comment in an arrogant, over blown and completely over the top manner. You're "Strawman" diatribe displays you don't have a respect for others comments or beliefs. It's no wonder that people clearly get offended by you when you try to challenge their beliefs because you put forward such an aggressive and deliberately confrontational argument.

Care to try again?

Anyone would think you are trying to compensate for something Allit. *polishes magnifying glass*

And seriously, I'm not "trying" anything Allit, it was a simple comment saying why people shouldn't get upset by others challenging their faith, if that's what they believe then so be it. All I was saying is that people have a right to get annoyed when people come at them like a rabid dog that's seen a crumb of food on their chin. A demonstration of which you have nicely provided. If you're struggling to grasp the analogy, you are the rabid dog.

Put simply, people have a right to be annoyed when you act like an pompous overbearing little shit.

[Alliteration]

*taps microphone* Is this thing on? Good, it's time to get downright bombastic.

Le statement the first (Deus Nova):
You didn't say anyone should change their mind, nor did I think you did. What I did do is critique your definition of faith. Whether the challenge is sound is relevant to whether one is engaging in fideism (what you erroneously call faith - this point is conspicuously absent in your most recent reply. One might almost think you yourself are a fideist. Then again, one might think that despite your technicolor dreamcoat, your eyes are solid brown. But that's based on posts other than this one.)

Le statement the second (The Double Deuce):
Nowhere have you said that faith should remain unchallenged? You haven't claimed that it can't be proved wrong? Not explicitly, no, but let's vivisect this precocious little counterfactual:

If we could prove the existence of a higher power then there would be no such thing as faith.

Obviously, you think there is such a thing as faith. So we can exegete a quick modus tollens out of your statements:

If we could prove the existence of a higher power, then there would be no such thing as faith.
There is such a thing as faith.
Therefore, we cannot prove the existence of a higher power.

You're backed into a very strong stance here - not only should faith remain unchallenged, it cannot be challenged. (Philosophy 101: Ought implies can.)

Le statement the third (Nth time's a charm)
Well gee Rainbow Dash, you noticed that I'm confrontational. *Applause*. You're right, I have no respect for the beliefs of others. Should I? Why? Epistemic relativism is bullshit. Not all beliefs are equally valid - some people are just wrong. I do, however, respect people. Most of them anyway. Yes, I'm "over the top", but in a fun way. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED???

Le statement the fourth (humiliation fetish?)
Compensating for something? Hmm, maybe. Perhaps it's my incredibly small penis. Might wanna lose the magnifying glass and take up acoustic microscopy, cause I also like shoving things down my dickhole. LOL GEDDIT???

But, hey, I'm a pompous overbearing little shit. But remember kids, you can discuss beliefs very easily without being disrespectful. Just not without vomiting up a bag of sour skittles.

[Banquo]

But, hey, I'm a pompous overbearing little shit. But remember kids, you can discuss beliefs very easily without being disrespectful. Just not without vomiting up a bag of sour skittles.

I'm glad you admit that though I'm not sure you are capable of having a conversation without being disrespectful as you continue to demonstrate.

I shall not waste any more of my time addressing your points Allit; at least not while you continue to put words into my mouth, and make Aunt Sally's out of arguments that aren't there. Hence why your discussion on Fideism was absent from my reply.

Like I said in my previous post, you seriously need to get over yourself. It's a wonder you can get through doorways with a head so swollen with your own pride.



*EDIT* For addition of rainbow colours. YOU KNOW'S YOU FUCKING LOVES IT.

[Alliteration]

Awwww, you're giving up? Come on! Are you mad because your jab at my nanodick didn't make me cry? If you insult me again I promise I'll draw crocodile tears on my face with a crayon. I do have trouble getting through doorways, but that's more due to my immense posterior than my ego. You may take me seriously, but I don't take me seriously. Now how long before you drop trou so I can taste the rainbow?

P.S. damn, that .gif is mesmerizing. All glory to the hypno-toad!

[Banquo]

P.S. damn, that .gif is mesmerizing. All glory to the hypno-toad!

Isn't it just.

Now how long before you drop trou so I can taste the rainbow?