Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

The other is that the thing you believe is your best guess.  Most theists believe in their religion using the second denotation. 

This is completely wrong, as most religions include speaking with "god" in their texts. Which would define absolute belief. You won't find many Christians saying they think the bible is false.

[Andir]

The other is that the thing you believe is your best guess.  Most theists believe in their religion using the second denotation. 

This is completely wrong, as most religions include speaking with "god" in their texts. Which would define absolute belief. You won't find many Christians saying they think the bible is false.

Not all of it in entirety, but you can hardly find someone that believes it's all true... or they come up with "excuses" as to why it was written that way.

[Durin]

The other is that the thing you believe is your best guess.  Most theists believe in their religion using the second denotation. 

This is completely wrong, as most religions include speaking with "god" in their texts. Which would define absolute belief. You won't find many Christians saying they think the bible is false.

It is 100% correct by definition.  "We are saved by grace through faith." 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

"Faith" in Christ in terms of the first definition.  Faith meaning, "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Note the interchangeability with faith and belief.  If you lack a belief, you lack faith, but lacking belief is the same thing as not believing in much the same way that lacking faith is the same as having no faith.

It's all semantic.  People believe what they believe.  This very discussion was the basis for the invention of the concept of being "agnostic".  The strict definition is believing that the question of God's existence is unanswerable and, ultimately, not important. 

We've regressed 150 years.  People do not comprehend the terms they now use for this discussion.  They do not realize that the definitions themselves are settled matters.  This comes as no real shock until you realize the extent to which this misunderstanding has permeated both the government and higher education.  That's where it gets spooky to me.  Masses of everyday people not understanding this is perfectly normal.  People who make their livings in education and government cannot claim ignorance, and their positions dictate that they fully understand and are able to behave ethically given the realities involved.

[Micro102]

The definition of those words have been tossed about constantly on these forums so they really don't have a set meaning. Otherwise post these set meanings. If some dictionary says they are something that doesn't mean much because you will find different definitions in different dictionaries. Something recognized by the government or church would be viable.

[Siquo]

Yes, now I'm interested in your (note the use of your) definitions as well.

I agree it being mostly semantics, but we haven't been able to accurately and unanimously define the concepts of: belief, faith, religion, atheism, agnosticism, omni-anything, benevolence, God, a god, and for some people even science and logic apparently have arbitrary definitions...

[RAM]

If we assume for a moment that there is a god, be it because of a near-death experience or similarly unshareable reason, why would it be appropriate to choose a specific religion or personal belief?

It would seem that throughout history people have found wildly different entities when they have gone looking for gods. I would have to guess that either there are no gods, that there are multiple gods, or that humans lack the equipment to know what gods actually want from them. In any of these scenarios a specific religion(including personally developed beliefs) should not be presumed to be accurate...

[Neruz]

Saying, "I don't believe anything that can't be proven," just is untrue.  You believe thousands of things you can't prove.  You have to.  Life doesn't give you a chance to do otherwise.  To act only when there is firm knowledge is to become paralyzed.

Not true; everything i believe can be proved. I personally have not proven everything, but the possibility that the proof could be gained by me exists.

[RAM]

They can be proven to be consistent, which is a perfectly valid proof!

[Neruz]

That too.

[Siquo]

Not true; everything i believe can be proved. I personally have not proven everything, but the possibility that the proof could be gained by me exists.

Cool. Name one belief of yours that can be proven without using any assumptions in the entire chain. 

[Neruz]

Not true; everything i believe can be proved. I personally have not proven everything, but the possibility that the proof could be gained by me exists.

Cool. Name one belief of yours that can be proven without using any assumptions in the entire chain. 

Well then you need to go right to the start, which would be 'the evidence from my senses coincides with the physical reality'.

If this is true, i should be able to touch this desk.

*Touch*

It appears to be true.


--Edit--


Hmm, that is woefully unclear; what i mean is 'all my senses coincide with each other' since you can't go anywhere with 'what if my senses are being fooled!'

[Siquo]

Ah, but now you assume that if something happens 1000 times, that it will also happen the 1001th time... 


Which is a totally reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption, something a scientist should always be aware of.

[Andir]

Ah, but now you assume that if something happens 1000 times, that it will also happen the 1001th time... 


Which is a totally reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption, something a scientist should always be aware of.

But there comes a point when you have to narrow down the focus of that something to something that is repeatable millions/billions (every) of times and you have a law.  Gravity for example.  It always pulls us down.  There's no 1001th time when Gravity has pulled us up.  That's the "reality" we live in and that's a very reasonable assumption to make.  Living, hoping, or praying for that 1001th time to occur could be considered unreasonable belief.  Much like praying for a miracle.

[RAM]

They can be proven to be consistent, which is a perfectly valid proof!

Not true; everything i believe can be proved. I personally have not proven everything, but the possibility that the proof could be gained by me exists.

Cool. Name one belief of yours that can be proven without using any assumptions in the entire chain. 

Things can be proven with respect to a co-extant world in which many things seem to be proven according to many other things. If you disregard this you have nothing, if you accept it then religion bears more similarity to fiction than reality...

[Durin]

The definition of those words have been tossed about constantly on these forums so they really don't have a set meaning. Otherwise post these set meanings. If some dictionary says they are something that doesn't mean much because you will find different definitions in different dictionaries. Something recognized by the government or church would be viable.

No, dictionaries do not have various meanings.  Dictionaries are in fact made using a very specific process, and while the way certain dictionaries state a definition may vary slightly, the basic meanings are the same.

That, and I touched on the history of the discussion concerning belief and faith as it pertains to the question of God going back 150 years.  I'm sorry, but this is why atheism in its current form is so troubling to me.  Modern atheists are not skeptics.  They are very aggressive, assertive ideologues who seem to be unable to express rational explanations of what they actually believe, nor to comprehend very simple concepts. Then someone asks me, "ok, what are your definitions?"  This while citing posts I have made where I have described in precise detail what the definitions are...?

It's all very spooky to me.