[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> Again, Arlo, *you* are making the infinite reductionist argument (not *I*) that
> we need faith (definition 2) for everything in your attempt to protect MoQ from
> what is in fact only your perception that I am saying it takes faith
> (definition 1) to hold it.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Oh really? Give me an example of any philosophy or idea you feel we
> can know absent "faith". 

MP: 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. 

I direct you again to my post to Andre about the words "faith" "proof" and 
"blind." Read that please. I have shown that to argue science is also contingent 
on faith is to re-define the word faith as I have used it (and been clear about it 
from the outset: definition 2) to allow you to deconstruct my point and avoid its 
knife. But that is to ignore my point, not prove it wrong. You ask me to do 
something that is entirely irrelevant to my point as if in finding me unable to 
answer you will have proven it wrong. It won't Alro. All we have is that you are 
persisting in actively avoiding my point. 

Stop deflecting. Answer my point on its merits; prove through reason that a rock 
is a rock because a dog sits in the sun, OR acknowledge that MoQ relies on 
faith (definition 2) to turn quality into MoQ's Quality.

Anything else is pedantic avoidance on your part.

YOU first used the word faith as a means to attack theism in the face of MoQ. 
THEN in defense of MoQ you would have me believe that faith is irrelevant. 
You only prove my point about your criticisms of theism v. MoQ that relied on 
"faith." 
Your defense defeats itself AND hurts MoQ in the process if one abides by it.  

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.


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