I don't believe you

[Mr Walker]

7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

So does courage. So does hope. So does obstinacy. So does shame. So does love. So does compassion. So does pity. So does fear of something worse.

There is nothng distinctive about faith, and nothing about things that arose via evolution that recommends them when other things, equally indebted to evolution, are available instead to the same or better effect.

To me faith is synonymous with the abilty to hope  Courage is different. you can do something courageous KNOWING you will die bit for a good reason 

Faith is involved where an outcome is not, and cannot, be known and so requires faith or hope.

You are wrong You would die very quickly without the capacity for faith and hope. I don't know about all the others, but i think the lack of them is survivable  

 

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

There is no other way of reading it Mr Walker, what other meaning to the following is there: 

Still can't explain stuff in your own words?

Like I said Google isn't helping you here, in fact it's making you look more the fool. As the above statement is incomplete and the bolded part is incorrect. 

Maybe you cant read well enough. I am arguing exact the things I sourced which are very clear. Look at the longer pieces i since quoted These are the answers to philosophy questions on logic So go argue with them.  

Edited May 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[danydandan]

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Maybe you cant read well enough. I am arguing exact the things I sourced which are very clear. Look at the longer pieces i since quoted These are the answers to philosophy questions on logic So go argue with them.  

Your initial argument was, which anyone with two eyes and rudimentary understanding of written English can see, only a true premise can lead to a true conclusion. That's a false statement, and shows your lack of understanding of very basic logic. 

[jmccr8]

52 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry but you must. That is the way your mind and cognition is evolved to operate and you cant do anything about it 

And indeed they all involve faith. You either are using too narrow a description of faith or just cant consciously realise this as yet 

Hi Walker

It would seem that you must because that is the only way that you can function that does not mean we are subject to your understanding of why people do what they do.

55 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You dont seem to get it 

I get that that is what you need to do things.

56 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

faith enables you to do things you fear. Eg if you had NO faith or belief that you would survive an experience you would either not attempt it or do it seeking death.

That is right I have faith in myself.

57 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And you aren't getting tha t PAST experiences and actuarial statistics mean NOTHING when applied to the particular flight you are getting on (they are rally just other cognitive  means we use to allay our fears or concerns)

Most of us don't fly every day and are involved in other activities that can be just as perilous because that is how we make our money.

59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Well i cant win it if you dont accpet the terms of reference yet I am correct in what i say Humans have evolved faith as a cognitive protective measure to allow us to live with the knowledge we have about ourlseves and the world around us including our inevitable death and possible pain and suffering in the future. 

You are right for you and many of us do not share your view and that is fine but you are not right within the context of my life no matter how much you want it to be.

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It depends how you define living Happiness and comfort come from within and so the best way to live is the way which allows you to have a happy, contented mind

You dont need material luxuries for this, just the abilty to adjust your mind to your circumstances. 

Life isn't just about needs, it's also about wants and desires. Quite illogical, but time proves it in the telling. The robes of a Cynic and the austere diet of a Stoic aren't for everyone. Most find wisdom an unsatisfactory substitute for pleasure and delights.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

What requires no faith at all?.

Due to the nature of human self awareness, EVERY action of an adult human being requires a faith in the future (in specific and general things)  Without it we would do nothing and die.  As, indeed, an unfortunate number of human beings choose to do.  

 

Speak for yourself. Most are content with the now--because it's always now--we experience no other reality. Everyone is always doing something--now's the time. Some do more than others, certainly more than a tired, self-absorbed old rustic whiling away precious time squinting at a glowing screen. 

[jmccr8]

18 minutes ago, Habitat said:

 I'm not much interested in discussing faith in planes, but quite a few here are determined to play counterpoint to just about everything MW comes up with, for reasons best know to themselves. 

Hi Habitat

As Dany pointed out this is a discussion forum. Walker makes some pretty broad assumptions and claims that he projects as absolutes and is challenged. I am not speaking down or demeaning him by presenting other perspectives. If you find it too difficult to follow then maybe star gazing might be more stimulating for you.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

As Dany pointed out this is a discussion forum. Walker makes some pretty broad assumptions and claims that he projects as absolutes and is challenged. I am not speaking down or demeaning him by presenting other perspectives. If you find it too difficult to follow then maybe star gazing might be more stimulating for you.

jmccr8

Oh, I don't know about that, I think he's just a soft target whose mild demeanour brings out the worst in some people. Or, to continue the chook analogy, he meets the need to put someone down the pecking order !

Edited May 20, 2019 by Habitat

[jmccr8]

Just now, Habitat said:

Oh, I don't know about that, I think he's just a soft target whose mild demeanour brings out the worst in some people. 

So you think your exempt from the crowd, might want to look over your own posting history. You stir up a fair bit of attitude around here without commiting to the discussion.

If you are jealous for attention I am sure that I could make some time for you if you actually provide something worth discussing other than you just stirring the pot. You spend just as much time as anyone else here in the Walker pot and yet do not offer constructive discussion, why is that?

jmccr8

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

So you think your exempt from the crowd, might want to look over your own posting history. You stir up a fair bit of attitude around here without commiting to the discussion.

If you are jealous for attention I am sure that I could make some time for you if you actually provide something worth discussing other than you just stirring the pot. You spend just as much time as anyone else here in the Walker pot and yet do not offer constructive discussion, why is that?

jmccr8

Hardly spend any time here, but I do notice the absolute ratbaggery like the claim he was a major tax fraud through manipulating charity donations. One can only wonder what inspires such nonsense. Shame on anyone who read that, and did not rebut it. What a disgrace the "team" are.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Habitat

[jmccr8]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Hardly spend any time here, but I do notice the absolute ratbaggery like the claim he was a major tax fraud through manipulating charity donations. One can only wonder what inspires such nonsense. Shame on anyone who read that, and did not rebut it. What a disgrace the "team" are.

Hi Habitat

You are speaking to me and I am speaking about my interactions here and not others so stay on track. I don't have any shame for reading what anyone says nor am I responsible for them and neither are you. See you are just as much a part of the conflict and somehow refuse to accept responsibility for your part so don't go throwing stones sinner.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

15 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

You are speaking to me and I am speaking about my interactions here and not others so stay on track. I don't have any shame for reading what anyone says nor am I responsible for them and neither are you. See you are just as much a part of the conflict and somehow refuse to accept responsibility for your part so don't go throwing stones sinner.

jmccr8

It will be a red letter day when I accuse someone I don't know of stealing money on an internet forum, and the fact that I appear to be the only one that "noticed" (as if) these two instances, says a lot about the Walker Stalkers.

[jmccr8]

Just now, Habitat said:

It will be a red letter day when I accuse someone I don't know of stealing money on an internet forum, and the fact that I appear to be the only one that "noticed" (as if) these two instances, says a lot about the Walker Stalkers.

Hi Habitat

Did you read the comment that you quoted? I made no such comment and it is not what the point is with respect to what I have been discussing with Walker so why are you throwing it in my face? What do you think about faith?

jmccr8

[Habitat]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

Did you read the comment that you quoted? I made no such comment and it is not what the point is with respect to what I have been discussing with Walker so why are you throwing it in my face? What do you think about faith?

jmccr8

I have no faith in people who idly accuse others of serious crimes, without any evidence, or those that don't align themselves against such accusations. And that is without even mentioning what I regard, at times, as cruel intrusions into his personal life.

[jmccr8]

Just now, Habitat said:

I have no faith in people who idly accuse others of serious crimes, without any evidence, or those that don't align themselves against such accusations. And that is without even mentioning what I regard, at times, as cruel intrusions into his personal life.

Hi Habitat

Okay fine but could you step out of that one minuscule thought for a moment and tell me do you have faith in your toaster/car/airplane? if so why if not why?

jmccr8

[danydandan]

22 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It will be a red letter day when I accuse someone I don't know of stealing money on an internet forum, and the fact that I appear to be the only one that "noticed" (as if) these two instances, says a lot about the Walker Stalkers.

Stealing? 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

Okay fine but could you step out of that one minuscule thought for a moment and tell me do you have faith in your toaster/car/airplane? if so why if not why?

jmccr8

If you are silly enough to argue about such things, go for it, I won't be joining you.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Stealing? 

Proceeding with great caution (being able to do so only since I have faith that all will turn out well; it's evolution, don't you know?):

I think the reference is to an exchange where @Sherapy and others questioned another poster's claim to have donated A$1 million to charity over many years. This ought not to be confused with a different exchange where several people questioned that other poster for having solicited charitable donations from poor people, going from door to door in run-down neighborhoods.

Anyway, in trying to reconcile the charitable amount claimed with public records of what the poster might have earned during the time in question, either that poster or an apologist for him mentioned that Sheri hadn't taken into account possible charitable deductions lawfully allowed under Australia's tax system. At which point, the question became what was the net charitable gift? I'm unsure that that figure was ever successfully calculated.

If this is the right incident, then there was no issue of tax fraud (although how the law applied was at best opaque for those few of us here who aren't Australian chartered accountants). Stealing then would etiher be a reframing of fraud, or an echo of that earlier charitable solicitation affair, where critics didn't claim theft, just that money was taken from those whom it arguably ought not to have been taken.

Unless, of course it's even more confused than that.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by eight bits

[Piney]

45 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I think the reference is to an exchange where @Sherapy and others questioned another poster's claim to have donated A$1 million to charity over many years.

Between the American Cancer Society and throwing bones to the AFSC , the Red Cross and VOA over a period of 30 years with various other little charities my rough guess ( due to the Quaker rule of "quietly and anonymous, it's not to be written off") my total might of reached 50-70 thousand......maybe...

But let me guess. A back country gym teacher is bragging again and really needs to re-read Matthew. 

 

[lightly]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It depends how you define living Happiness and comfort come from within and so the best way to live is the way which allows you to have a happy, contented mind

You dont need material luxuries for this, just the abilty to adjust your mind to your circumstances. 

I agree Mr,.   But I also like to ,as much as I can,  adjust circumstances to suit my mind.    

My mind,and spirit,are very easily contented,  I like to take as little as possible and make it more than enough! 

              (Bonus thought). ...everyone believes in the creation, just not the same creative process.

Edited May 20, 2019 by lightly

[+Hammerclaw]

Who is the bigger fool; the fool that argues or the fool that argues about all the arguing?

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Proceeding with great caution (being able to do so only since I have faith that all will turn out well; it's evolution, don't you know?):

I think the reference is to an exchange where @Sherapy and others questioned another poster's claim to have donated A$1 million to charity over many years. This ought not to be confused with a different exchange where several people questioned that other poster for having solicited charitable donations from poor people, going from door to door in run-down neighborhoods.

Anyway, in trying to reconcile the charitable amount claimed with public records of what the poster might have earned during the time in question, either that poster or an apologist for him mentioned that Sheri hadn't taken into account possible charitable deductions lawfully allowed under Australia's tax system. At which point, the question became what was the net charitable gift? I'm unsure that that figure was ever successfully calculated.

If this is the right incident, then there was no issue of tax fraud (although how the law applied was at best opaque for those few of us here who aren't Australian chartered accountants). Stealing then would etiher be a reframing of fraud, or an echo of that earlier charitable solicitation affair, where critics didn't claim theft, just that money was taken from those whom it arguably ought not to have been taken.

Unless, of course it's even more confused than that.

 

If it was me, I didn’t use the word stealing, this is habits own take on my post. 

Keep in mind this is a new installment of “how did Mr. Walker give away a million dollars” while feeding a household of 7, paying off debts for the foster families, etc etc. all on a teachers salary in a podunk town.” (To MW, I am paraphrasing which is an acceptable form of quoting). 

There have been many versions of how this was done the latest is through a tax deduction, he claimed donated money on his tax forms and received double back? 

I said it sounded like he was a con man, what I consider as a charitable donation is one done anonymously, without the need to brag or the need for a return.

It habit wants to be outraged why not equally point out that true charity is done with no need to brag or seek a return “even a legal one” on one’s donation.

 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You CANNOT have evidences that the particular plane you are on will fly safely and arrive safely, BEFORE the event 

You can have  past experience and you can have theoretical knowldge on flight dynamics etc. but each time oyu step onto a plane you face a totally new scenario.

Past experiences and knowledge mean nothing.

Non. Sense.  You are still lost in the weeds of trying to conflate 'evidence' with 'guarantee' and 'certainty' that was called out days ago.

Past experiences and knowledge not only don't mean nothing, they mean almost everything.  I am not at all facing a 'totally new' scenario when I step on a plane.  I'm so confident that past experiences and knowledge mean something that I'm willing to make a wager, you name the amount.  The next time I have a flight scheduled I will bet you x amount that I will arrive at my destination; if my plane crashes I will pay you 10 times that amount (I'll put the potential winnings in someone else's care obviously prior to the bet), if you lose you pay x and post here that you were wrong (hey, shouldn't be any big deal, it would only be the third time ever ) and indeed didn't know what you were talking about.  Deal?  If not, and you'd be a fool to take this bet, why wouldn't/shouldn't you take this bet if you're right that 'past experiences and knowledge mean nothing'?  What else is there to inform your decision to not take this foolish bet if it's not past experience and knowledge, you'd turn down making 10 times your bet just because of faith?

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

all on a teachers salary in a podunk town.”

I'm doing all the repair work on a teacher friend's house for nothing because her salary is podunk and she's trying to support just 2 kids. 

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

I'm doing all the repair work on a teacher friend's house for nothing because her salary is podunk and she's trying to support just 2 kids. 

Maybe Australian teachers earn 3 times what canadian teachers earn.