Atheism is a faith.

[Tricky]

I seriously thought that this would be done by now.

LOL. You haven't been here long enough to realize that we are perfectly happy saying the same thing over and over.

I was trying to challenge the thought that atheism was not corruptible. The mistake I made was to think that if someone could turn their atheism into a faith or religion, then that must mean that it IS a faith or religion. Yet, that would only mean that those people have a faith and religion and that doesn't change what atheism truly is.

Corruptible? I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure there is a pure form of atheism to be corrupted. A lot of people view it various ways.

But a religion? Not the way religion is most commonly used. With rare exceptions, people mean "religion" to be their way of believing in a god (Buddhism excepted). If someone asks, "are you religious?", it would be totally incorrect to answer, "Yes, I am an atheist", no matter how important your atheism is to you or how loudly you proclaim it.

Now, part of my line of thought was that no person could be truly without faith. However, since you can't really gather enough evidence to show that everyone has some faith, it will remain my faith.

Ah, that word, "faith" again. As I mentioned (much) earlier, I believe everybody has some faith in some things regardless of how much they try to rely only on evidence. There is not time enough on earth to gather evidence about every single assumption, that is required for life in our society, even though technically, it is possible. But this is a different thing that the faith that one has in religion. Such religious faith implies that it would be impossible to gather evidence on some or many of the assumptions.

Off topic, but for sake of precision, deep space isn't zero pressure. Since there are still particles floating around there, there must be a pressure. These particles can collide with a surface and therefore a pressure is felt. It's been thought to be on the order of atto to picoPascal, but there is a pressure.

"Absolutely" correct. You can't reach absolute zero either. In order to do so, you would have to cool something with a substance that was colder than absolute zero.

 

[I less than three logic]

No, I have not read all the above posts in depth, nor did I claim to. I've been addressing those which are replies to mine.

Incorrect. This very line of conversation is a result of you addressing my statements in reply to hammegk's, not yours.

Was that an honest answer?

Who's? Yours? I don't know, that's why I asked. Mine, yes. Hammegk stated all but one, which while not absolutely all in the strictest sense, he's statement still covers absolutely every other opinion, including your "Hillary Clinton is my favorite candidate." as being a matter of faith. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Do you call people's honesty into question on a regular basis before learning the facts?

Not people's, mostly just yours. I've found it is a particularly good button to press to get a reaction out of you. Doesn't work on everyone, you can question my honestly all you like, I won't be upset at the mere questioning of it. Since the accusations will most likely be shown incorrect.

Have I called your honesty into question?

Perhaps, I'm afraid I don't keep track. I think it is entirely possible that you haven't as well.

How many times have you done so to me, or outright called me dishonest?

Again, I honestly don't know. I've agreed with others assessments that you were being dishonest, and even attempted to point out where you did so.

Please answer that question, so I don't have to run the search "for evidence".

No problem.

(Okay; in all "honesty", I'm going to run the search anyway, because I think you might now try to be "dishonest", but here's your chance to "honestly" confront my questions. So what are you going to do?......................)

Hope you enjoy yourself. As for what I'll do, I'll answer your questions and wait for you to post a bunch of links where I've used the word dishonest, probably with some snipped quotes presented out of context so those that probably won't dig further might think you could be correct.

I agree with hammegk, with the addendum that faith is measured; the amount of faith needed to reach a decision is balanced by the amount of evidence available which lessens the amount of faith required.

I call that uncertainty, and where you fill the uncertainty with faith, I hold only a provisional opinion and retain the uncertainty as doubt.

 

[Huntster]

....But a religion? Not the way religion is most commonly used. With rare exceptions, people mean "religion" to be their way of believing in a god (Buddhism excepted).

As has been pointed out a couple of time in the thread, the thread title is "Atheism as a Faith?"

If you would like to superimpose "religion" onto "faith", I would agree.

Now, don't backpedal. I can turn my dictionary into a thesaurus. Many here won't like it.....

 

[RandFan]

Atheism says nothing about the existence of unicorns.


Atheism says nothing about the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.


Atheism says nothing about tea, cups, orbits, or suns.


Guess what?


Again!





[yawn]


How many irrelevant things can you post?



One more, it seems. Atheism says nothing about a willingness to change one's mind in light (or in lieu) of evidence.

Damn, what crawled up your butt?

I'm using Dawkins argument who says we are ALL athiests about something. The argument only works if you are not a pedant.

 

[LaPalida]

In my country, Huntster, we say "he lies in a bed" and "that hen lays an egg". Who is to say which is correct? A dictionary? I'll bet they don't agree either.

Hehe I thought you said: He lies in a bed... and then he lays an egg.

 

[RandFan]

The doctrine of atheism:

I'll grant you that but I take exception to the definition.

There is nothing that dictates that doctrine can't change or evolve with the advent of evidence.

In fact, that is exactly what I've been writing ad nauseum:

The amount of faith required to adhere to a belief/faith/doctrine/etc is directly opposed to the amount of evidence available.

Bingo, and there is no evidence for unicorns so I remain atheistic as to them as I do anything without evidence. Technically I'm agnostic as to unicorns, fairies and leprechauns but I'm happy to say that I'm atheistic as to their existence and I suppose that you are also.

Dawkins: There is an infinite number of things that we could believe in but we are all atheists in regards all but a few of them. Some of us just go a few things more (paraphrased).

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, I have not read all the above posts in depth, nor did I claim to. I've been addressing those which are replies to mine.

Incorrect. This very line of conversation is a result of you addressing my statements in reply to hammegk's, not yours.

Which means I read your post, not necessarily hammegk's.

Quote:
Was that an honest answer?

Who's? Yours? I don't know, that's why I asked. Mine, yes. Hammegk stated all but one, which while not absolutely all in the strictest sense, he's statement still covers absolutely every other opinion, including your "Hillary Clinton is my favorite candidate." as being a matter of faith. Do you agree or disagree with that?

No, I don't. "My favorite" is a matter of fact. It is subject to change, but it is not based on faith.

Quote:
Do you call people's honesty into question on a regular basis before learning the facts?

Not people's, mostly just yours. I've found it is a particularly good button to press to get a reaction out of you.

You are perceptive after all.

Yet, you never seem to quantify your allegations.

So, it is a convenient button, one depressed regularly and in desperation, and since you have been unable to establish dishonesty, is a dishonest tactic.

Quote:
Have I called your honesty into question?

Perhaps, I'm afraid I don't keep track. I think it is entirely possible that you haven't as well.

This is a searchable forum. "Evidence" is available.

You're digging yourself quite deep, aren't you?

Quote:
How many times have you done so to me, or outright called me dishonest?

Again, I honestly don't know. I've agreed with others assessments that you were being dishonest, and even attempted to point out where you did so.

Unsuccessfully, too.

Keep digging. Your holes cannot be filled back in.

Quote:
(Okay; in all "honesty", I'm going to run the search anyway, because I think you might now try to be "dishonest", but here's your chance to "honestly" confront my questions. So what are you going to do?......................)

Hope you enjoy yourself. As for what I'll do, I'll answer your questions and wait for you to post a bunch of links where I've used the word dishonest, probably with some snipped quotes presented out of context so those that probably won't dig further might think you could be correct.

As I honestly stated, I ran the search. I limited it to this thread.

I will be quite happy to run it forum wide, and will do so if you persist in your tactic.

Stop digging. All these craters are unsightly, and they can be quite dangerous.

Quote:
I agree with hammegk, with the addendum that faith is measured; the amount of faith needed to reach a decision is balanced by the amount of evidence available which lessens the amount of faith required.

I call that uncertainty, and where you fill the uncertainty with faith, I hold only a provisional opinion and retain the uncertainty as doubt.

Belief/Disbelief, Faith/Doubt, Certainty/Uncertainty.

Yet again, all are measures of opinion, which is a necessary component of judgement when knowledge is unavailable.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Damn, what crawled up your butt?

I'm using Dawkins argument who says we are ALL athiests about something. The argument only works if you are not a pedant.

Heh, sorry about that, RF. I quoted that from and aimed my reply at Huntster.

Here, you can have some popcorn, if you like.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RandFan
Damn, what crawled up your butt?

I'm using Dawkins argument who says we are ALL athiests about something. The argument only works if you are not a pedant.

Heh, sorry about that, RF. I quoted that from and aimed my reply at Huntster.....

Well, thank you very much. I love when people aim love at me.

I loved every word of it. Please continue with such wisdom.

 

[Tricky]

Well, thank you very much. I love when people aim love at me.

And we love to hear the bb rattle around.

 

[LaPalida]

Please do. That is my favorite definition of faith. It's the one that I identify with the most.

However, it certainly isn't the only one, as the dictionary so clearly illustrates.

Huntster don't you think it's a little ridiculous to use all definitions of a word when you hold a discussion? It's obvious that when we talk about faith we mean something other than when we talk about informed belief? We already stated what we mean by faith stop trying to change what we agreed upon as a definition. Who cares about the other definitions? You know the word bridge has many definitions too, but when I say "you're burning bridges" I think it's pretty obvious I don't mean "Any of several card games derived from whist, usually played by four people in two partnerships, in which trump is determined by bidding and the hand opposite the declarer is played as a dummy." nor would I try in the middle of the discussion to try to change the meaning that I agreed upon before. So maybe before starting a discussion a definition of atheism and faith should have been agreed upon? So far this has led to nothing because if you can't agree on a definition of a word then discourse is impossible (as is obvious by this drawn out thread about meanings of words and bickering about dictionary definitions has nothing to do with the actual topic, a statement that the OP didn't clarify or define).

 

[I less than three logic]

Which means I read your post, not necessarily hammegk's.

Well, if you didn't read all the posts, how can you honestly claim nobody made any claim whatsoever? You can't claim a negative unless you have all, absolutely every other bit of information, to prove the negative correct. That is just the way it works. In order to claim that nobody did something, you have to know everything everyone has done.

No, I don't. "My favorite" is a matter of fact. It is subject to change, but it is not based on faith.

Right, so what is this disagreement about again? If you had read the information pertinent to what you were talking about, this wouldn't be an issue.

You are perceptive after all.

Yet, you never seem to quantify your allegations.

What allegations? I asked, you either had to read all the posts or you can't honestly claim nobody made the claim. You can't do both.

So, it is a convenient button, one depressed regularly and in desperation, and since you have been unable to establish dishonesty, is a dishonest tactic.

Again, it was just a question. I didn't use it to discredit your statement on the fact you were being dishonest. No tactic was used at all, just clarification of why you thought you could make the claim that nobody did something when they clearly, as I pointed out, did.

This is a searchable forum. "Evidence" is available.

That it is, but I couldn't care less.

You're digging yourself quite deep, aren't you?

If you say so. You might even find someone that agrees with you.

Unsuccessfully, too.

Perhaps, it is irrelevant however, so no sense quibbling over it.

Keep digging. Your holes cannot be filled back in.

What is with your fascination with holes?

As I honestly stated, I ran the search. I limited it to this thread.

Nothing in your post said anything about limiting what you were talking about to this thread.

I will be quite happy to run it forum wide, and will do so if you persist in your tactic.

What tactic?

Stop digging. All these craters are unsightly, and they can be quite dangerous.

Yes, yes. The hole thing again. You should pick up some more analogies, you're sounding repetitive and boring.

Belief/Disbelief, Faith/Doubt, Certainty/Uncertainty.

Yet again, all are measures of opinion, which is a necessary component of judgement when knowledge is unavailable.

Again, connotation and denotation mean nothing to you. You should really take a course or two on communication.

 

[joobz]

LOL. You haven't been here long enough to realize that we are perfectly happy saying the same thing over and over.

I keep posting here, so I guess equally enjoy beating the dead horse. After all, I'm the one who dragged that rotting carcass in here.

Corruptible? I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure there is a pure form of atheism to be corrupted. A lot of people view it various ways.

my meaning behind corruptible isn't a deviation from a pure state, but that it can be used as a force for oppression. I've read many posts now where there's a view that atheism is "above theism;in that it can't be used as such. And that is wrong. Any view can be taken over by opressive zealotry, even if it means that the view becomes hipocritical.
as in, "Peace by any means neccessary!"

But a religion? Not the way religion is most commonly used.

I was using religion to mean an organized faith with symbols, ceremonies, rituals and a unified code.

With rare exceptions, people mean "religion" to be their way of believing in a god (Buddhism excepted). If someone asks, "are you religious?", it would be totally incorrect to answer, "Yes, I am an atheist", no matter how important your atheism is to you or how loudly you proclaim it.

That statement is incorrect if the person was atheist because of a skeptical rationalization.

It would also be incorrect if the person said, "No, I'm an atheist." had they arrived at atheism by a non skeptical route.

Ah, that word, "faith" again. As I mentioned (much) earlier, I believe everybody has some faith in some things regardless of how much they try to rely only on evidence. There is not time enough on earth to gather evidence about every single assumption, that is required for life in our society, even though technically, it is possible. But this is a different thing that the faith that one has in religion. Such religious faith implies that it would be impossible to gather evidence on some or many of the assumptions.

and this is what I've come to understand and why I retracted the whole, "if no one can be devoid of faith, then atheism is a faith" issue.

But there is a seperate mistake that also seems to be made by people (and why i was making my former statement)

I've seen on these boards statements to the like "I have no beliefs, I'm an atheist." which isn't necessarily true.
It would be true to say
"I'm an atheist, because I'm a skeptic and therefore take nothing on faith." But there is no "skeptical" prerequisite to being an atheist.

"Absolutely" correct. You can't reach absolute zero either. In order to do so, you would have to cool something with a substance that was colder than absolute zero.

I'm not certain that is the reason why you couldn't reach zero kelvin. I would think it's more because in order to extract energy out of a system, that system's particles must be able to collide and lose kinetic energy with the boundry wall of the system. As the temperature decreases, so does the collision rate and therefore it becomes kinetically improbable. Not to mention that at those cold temps, quantum takes over and goofy things happen.

What's really cool is that it is now possible to recreate in lab nanoKelvin temperatures, which has been used to create Bose-Einstein Condensates. It's hard for me to imagine such low temps.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Please do. That is my favorite definition of faith. It's the one that I identify with the most.

However, it certainly isn't the only one, as the dictionary so clearly illustrates.

Huntster don't you think it's a little ridiculous to use all definitions of a word when you hold a discussion?

Again, I didn't. I referenced 3 of 8, because 3 fit the application.

It's obvious that when we talk about faith we mean something other than when we talk about informed belief?

That is what I refer to, also.

We already stated what we mean by faith stop trying to change what we agreed upon as a definition. Who cares about the other definitions? You know the word bridge has many definitions too, but when I say "you're burning bridges" I think it's pretty obvious I don't mean "Any of several card games derived from whist, usually played by four people in two partnerships, in which trump is determined by bidding and the hand opposite the declarer is played as a dummy." nor would I try in the middle of the discussion to try to change the meaning that I agreed upon before.

And I have not done as you analogize. Stop trying to allege I have done so.

So maybe before starting a discussion a definition of atheism and faith should have been agreed upon?

That is exactly what I have tried to do. There has been ferocious resistance, it should be obvious why that resistance exists, it is based on ideology, I will continue to point it out unto eternity, you are welcome to continue an and all apologist attempts along with the others, and I will continue to lay them to waste.

So far this has led to nothing because if you can't agree on a definition of a word then discourse is impossible (as is obvious by this drawn out thread about meanings of words and bickering about dictionary definitions has nothing to do with the actual topic, a statement that the OP didn't clarify or define).

Yup.

And the beat goes on....................

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Which means I read your post, not necessarily hammegk's.

Well, if you didn't read all the posts, how can you honestly claim nobody made any claim whatsoever?

When did I claim that "nobody made any claim whatsoever"?

You can't claim a negative unless you have all, absolutely every other bit of information, to prove the negative correct.

That post of yours is so significant, I'd like to repeat it yet again:

You can't claim a negative unless you have all, absolutely every other bit of information, to prove the negative correct

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POSITION: ATHEISTS CANNOT CLAIM A NEGATIVE UNLESS THEY HAVE ALL, ABSOLUTELY EVERY OTHER BIT OF INFORMATION, TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE CORRECT.

THEY CANNOT.

THEREFORE, THEY ARE RENDERED TO STATE THEIR POSTITION FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF FAITH, JUST LIKE THEISTS, BECAUSE THEIR POSITION IS UNKNOWN.

Sorry. I'm afraid I've typed that so many times that I now feel compelled to resort to such highlighting to get the message across.

BTW, I anticipate attempts to deny that has been my message. I'm fully prepared to go back into the record to quote my position ad nauseum.

And thank you for finally coming around, even if you really didn't intend to do so.

Quote:
This is a searchable forum. "Evidence" is available.

That it is, but I couldn't care less.

Indeed. You have repeatedly illustrated your lack of respect for evidence.

Quote:
You're digging yourself quite deep, aren't you?

If you say so. You might even find someone that agrees with you.

And if I didn't, do you think that would matter?

Quote:
Keep digging. Your holes cannot be filled back in.

What is with your fascination with holes?

Depends on if you're looking up or down.

I'll try my best to illustrate it to you. Clearly, you won't understand until they start to cave in around you.

Quote:
As I honestly stated, I ran the search. I limited it to this thread.

Nothing in your post said anything about limiting what you were talking about to this thread.

Correct. You have a long history on this forum of accusing me of dishonesty. I limited my search to this thread, because I didn't want to be tempted to derail it further with your baseless and erroneous allegations of dishonesty on my part.

That time will come...................

Quote:
I will be quite happy to run it forum wide, and will do so if you persist in your tactic.

What tactic?

Accusing me of dishonesty in your attempts to avoid being cornered by facts.

Quote:
Stop digging. All these craters are unsightly, and they can be quite dangerous.

Yes, yes. The hole thing again. You should pick up some more analogies, you're sounding repetitive and boring.

Repetition is clearly necessary with those of deficient understanding. It is a long known method of teaching.

Quote:
Belief/Disbelief, Faith/Doubt, Certainty/Uncertainty.

Yet again, all are measures of opinion, which is a necessary component of judgement when knowledge is unavailable.

Again, connotation and denotation mean nothing to you. You should really take a course or two on communication.

If you only knew......................

 

[Huntster]

....I've read many posts now where there's a view that atheism is "above theism;in that it can't be used as such. And that is wrong. Any view can be taken over by opressive zealotry, even if it means that the view becomes hipocritical.
as in, "Peace by any means neccessary!"

Appeasement.

Don't go there. Fight.

Not only is it right, it's fun.

 

[I less than three logic]

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POSITION: ATHEISTS CANNOT CLAIM A NEGATIVE UNLESS THEY HAVE ALL, ABSOLUTELY EVERY OTHER BIT OF INFORMATION, TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE CORRECT.

THEY CANNOT.

THEREFORE, THEY ARE RENDERED TO STATE THEIR POSTITION FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF FAITH, JUST LIKE THEISTS, BECAUSE THEIR POSITION IS UNKNOWN.

Childish formatting does not change the meaning of your text.

Now, that is a good position to have, however it fails because atheism does not claim a negative. It is simply the position of not believing the positive.

Accusing me of dishonesty in your attempts to avoid being cornered by facts.

No accusing was done. I asked if you read all the posts in order to establish that no one had made such a claim or if you made such a claim without doing so. If you did not read all the posts, then you can not honestly claim no one has made such a claim. This is simple, it is an undeniable fact.... well it is undeniable while still being intellectually honest at least.

Repetition is clearly necessary with those of deficient understanding. It is a long known method of teaching.

It is apparently a flawed method. I would suspect it was a method used while you were taught English for at least 12 years if you graduated from high school, and your fallacious appeal to popularity will not change the fact.

 

[Tricky]

I keep posting here, so I guess equally enjoy beating the dead horse. After all, I'm the one who dragged that rotting carcass in here.

Sticks for everybody!

my meaning behind corruptible isn't a deviation from a pure state, but that it can be used as a force for oppression. I've read many posts now where there's a view that atheism is "above theism;in that it can't be used as such. And that is wrong. Any view can be taken over by opressive zealotry, even if it means that the view becomes hypocritical.
as in, "Peace by any means neccessary!"

Usually this is the point where people like to mention Stalin and how the USSR was officially atheist. Obviously, any restriction of (open) belief that is forced on anyone is oppression, but I think that misses the point. The reason Stalin didn't want religion around is because he didn't want any competition for loyalty. He wanted people to be "Stalinists". Atheism, simply because it has no power structure or competing authority, was the default. It was precisely because atheism is not a faith that it became a tool of Stalinism. (And of course, religion survived his oppression.)

I was using religion to mean an organized faith with symbols, ceremonies, rituals and a unified code.

Do we look organized? Heck we can't even agree on what "atheist" means? And I've never heard of an atheist ritual. No symbols either, at least not well-known ones. If there were an atheist church, it would have probably been bombed years ago.

That statement is incorrect if the person was atheist because of a skeptical rationalization.

It would also be incorrect if the person said, "No, I'm an atheist." had they arrived at atheism by a non skeptical route.

This discussion has always made the rounds, and I'm not sure what side I'm on. Lots of people say "atheism is the default" because "never having thought of God" results in "lack of belief". But in reality, you'd either have to be incredibly young or completely out of touch with reality to have never even heard of God, so I believe that the overwhelming majority of atheists have heard of God, but found the concept untenable. Indeed, how could you even use the word "atheist" unless you had heard of God? However briefly, they were at some point, skeptics about God. Of course, it is possible to reject God and still believe in Him, but that's not atheism.

Just as we all have faith in some things, we are all skeptics about some things. There is no such thing as an "absolute believer".

and this is what I've come to understand and why I retracted the whole, "if no one can be devoid of faith, then atheism is a faith" issue.

Yes, I've been watching you. I'm impressed with the way you actually listen to what people say. I hope you will stick around.

But there is a separate mistake that also seems to be made by people (and why i was making my former statement)

I've seen on these boards statements to the like "I have no beliefs, I'm an atheist." which isn't necessarily true.

It is not only untrue, it is stupid. Everybody has beliefs. But in fairness, to them (since I wasn't there) it could be that it was strongly implied that they didn't have "religious beliefs". Even that is iffy. I believe there is no evidential basis for religion. It is a belief about religion, but not a belief in religion. A semantical battle ensues... again.

It would be true to say
"I'm an atheist, because I'm a skeptic and therefore take nothing on faith." But there is no "skeptical" prerequisite to being an atheist.

I kinda disagree, as I've explained above. If you know what atheism is, then you've at least considered the existence of God. If you rejected God because of insufficient evidence, then you're an atheist. If you rejected him because there was evidence that you don't like, then you are what I would call an "anti-theist".

I'm not certain that is the reason why you couldn't reach zero kelvin. I would think it's more because in order to extract energy out of a system, that system's particles must be able to collide and lose kinetic energy with the boundry wall of the system. As the temperature decreases, so does the collision rate and therefore it becomes kinetically improbable. Not to mention that at those cold temps, quantum takes over and goofy things happen.

What's really cool is that it is now possible to recreate in lab nanoKelvin temperatures, which has been used to create Bose-Einstein Condensates.

Well, you're definitely more knowledgable about such things than I. I only had "kitchen physics". I know enough to get by. But you're right about such low temperatures being "really cool".

It's hard for me to imagine such low temps.

I would imagine it to be like kissing Ann Coulter.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POSITION: ATHEISTS CANNOT CLAIM A NEGATIVE UNLESS THEY HAVE ALL, ABSOLUTELY EVERY OTHER BIT OF INFORMATION, TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE CORRECT.

THEY CANNOT.

THEREFORE, THEY ARE RENDERED TO STATE THEIR POSTITION FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF FAITH, JUST LIKE THEISTS, BECAUSE THEIR POSITION IS UNKNOWN.

Childish formatting does not change the meaning of your text.

Apparently, it doesn't help drive home the point, either.

Now, that is a good position to have, however it fails because atheism does not claim a negative. It is simply the position of not believing the positive.

And the opposite of the positive is?..............................

Quote:
Accusing me of dishonesty in your attempts to avoid being cornered by facts.

No accusing was done. I asked if you read all the posts in order to establish that no one had made such a claim or if you made such a claim without doing so. If you did not read all the posts, then you can not honestly claim no one has made such a claim.

Yet again, please cite where I claimed that nobody made such a claim. (Please excuse the highlighting, but please see it, and please respond to it.)

Quote:
Repetition is clearly necessary with those of deficient understanding. It is a long known method of teaching.

It is apparently a flawed method.

You are ample proof of that.

I would suspect it was a method used while you were taught English for at least 12 years if you graduated from high school, and your fallacious appeal to popularity will not change the fact.

It is a method used throughout the primary education system throughout the world.

I attempt to use it here. For some (like you), it doesn't work.

I'm not a professional teacher. Mrs. Huntster is. She works special ed. She works with people like yourself - who have special needs. Repetition is even more necessary in such environments.

You are clearly a more special challenge than the children she works with.

I will work harder.................

 

[I less than three logic]

Yet again, please cite where I claimed that nobody made such a claim. (Please excuse the highlighting, but please see it, and please respond to it.)

The silliness was completely intended, to show that not all opinions are faith.

All opinions aren't a matter of faith, and nobody is saying such:

I used red because you had already abused the bold.

This is becoming tiresome. I realize you are extremely unwilling to admit any mistakes or misunderstanding. You’ve already said that you haven’t read all the posts. (I hope I don’t have to quote that too.) So you can’t make any claims about what nobody has said until you do so. Somewhere during the course of this conversation you have made a mistake, whether you’re willing to admit it or not.

ETA - an address to this point too.

And the opposite of the positive is?..............................

Not believing the positive is not claiming the negative is true. That would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. I want proof either way, until then I’ll reserve my opinion in doubt, not in faith that the negative or positive is true.