[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> You ask if it takes faith to believe in light. You ask the same of "Light." You
> fail to acknowledge there is a world of difference between the two.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm repeating myself here, but this is not what I said. I said, you said that
> both people and dogs experience quality, but to affirm it as 'Quality' takes
> faith.
> 
> I ask, the same could be said of "light"; both people and dogs experience
> light, does it also take faith to "affirm" it as Light?

MP: Word weasel alert.

I think the root of the problem here is we have or are using different definitions 
of faith. 

Mine is merely "affirmation absent proof." (and I have said as much in EVERY 
post I've made in this thread.)

I am beginning to see that you (and now a growing cadre of MoQ soldiers) 
seem to be insistent on maintaining that the only understanding of the word is 
the one that presumes a form of "confidence" or "trust" in something. Not sure 
why you are doing this. Seems like there's a static defense mechanism 
involved. 

I'm using it as "have faith of", you are using it as "have faith in." 

I'm using it as "believe", you are using it as "trust in."

I'm not talking about faith "in" anything. I have faith "of" the existence of God. 
You have faith "of" the existence of Quality. Neither of us can prove the 
existence "of" that which we have faith any more than Leprechaunists can 
prove the existence of Leprechauns.




MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."