[Michael] To what end? Any answer is irrelevant to my point and only feeds into your incessant attempts to deflect from my as of yet un-answered critique.
[Arlo] Nice try. To this end. YOU claim your position DOES NOT reduce all ideas to faith. I ask NAME ONE that you feel DOES NOT require faith. You won't answer for the obvious reason. I am not deflecting anything. I've answered your question. My dog laying in a beam of sunlight IS evidence OF/FOR Quality. Period. If YOU don't see that, then YOU don't understand the MOQ. YOU said, that the AFFIRMATION of that experience AS Quality takes faith. I ask, does ALL experience affirmed as Experience take faith? Again, you won't answer for obvious reasons. [Michael] I have shown that to argue science is also contingent on faith is to re-define the word faith as I have used it... [Arlo] So "science" is, IYHO, above faith? Using your "affirm" logic, does seeing an apple fall to the ground PROOF OF Gravity? Or does affirming that experience as Gravity take faith? What I gather now is that you are talking "degrees of faith". That while all ideas are, ultimately, "faith-based", some require less faith, or faith-of-another-flavor. No? So "science" is faith-based, just needs "less" or faith-lite. Your use of "blind" is kinda weird. What is the distinction between "faith" and "blind faith", in your opinion. [Michael] All we have is that you are persisting in actively avoiding my point. [Arlo] What we have is my answering your question but you insisting that it is not an answer. You can keep doing that no matter what I say. Whatever. [Michael] Anything else is pedantic avoidance on your part. [Arlo] Says the person who hasn't answered any of my above questions. [Michael] YOU first used the word faith as a means to attack theism in the face of MoQ. [Arlo] YOU say the MOQ is as faith-based as "theism". No? If so, what ISN'T? All you keep doing, as you did with "theism", is strive to redefine the game so that eeeeeeverythign is faith, eeeeeverythign is theist. Whatever. You yourself said, "its all just another flavor of kool aid". God. Quality. All the same. All faith-based. The MOQ is just another theism with Quality as its God. Again, whatever. I understand your psychological needs to play that game, but I am not up for it. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last to do anything you can to justify "God" and "faith" in the face of the MOQ's anti-theism. Hell, Platt even invented his own personal Qualigod to fill that need. [Michael] You're lost Arlo, you've come round the horn and defeated your own point and it leaves me wondering why I even bother to continue this line of discussion. [Arlo] Funny. I'm within the MOQ. If that's "lost" to you, so be it. But sure, you can easily find someone else to hawk your faith and theism stuff on (I'm sure Platt will slather you with adoration for this). We can let this drop, not like you're answering anything anyways. With DMB, Krimel, Horse and myself all answering you repeatedly, I would think that yes, this "discussion" isn't worth continuing at all. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
