How is this definition of "belief"?

You misspelled analyst.

0 Replies

WOW... Set and Fil go atomic.

When I first came on A2K a few days ago, I initially found that the level of discourse and civility was higher than on the now-defunct Yahoo boards. Then I started to pick up some bad vibes, and now I realise that there's much more pent-up acrymony than meets the eye.

Fil, I'm rooting for you! Blow his insulting, pseudo-intellectual cliché-ridden sanctimonious punk out of cyberspace!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, that was over the top, out of bounds, and uncalled for: Setanta is not old.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

The Koreans are every bit as goofy as the Portuguese--and that goes for people who just live there, too.

Quote:

Norwegians, too . . .

Guess who was the author JL...

No it was not over the top and it was called for, but you are right in the sense I would be better off ignoring a troll...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

WOW... Set and Fil go atomic.

We shall now witness what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jesus, pages of this feeble-minded bullshit. To guess and to believe are not synonymous.

Just to the truly feeble-minded.

0 Replies

So, before this devolves into a snarling and drooling contest, I have another proposition for us.

Consider the overall goal of science. The goal is to describe reality.
We commonly mistake that to mean explain the universe.
Herein may lie the whole distinction.

To describe something you need simply relate what you observe.

To explain something you need causes and justification and whatnot.

It is not that simple, of course. But it's a different angle.

So pounce on this, if you will, mighty keyboard warriors, unless someone has any truly original and entertaining insults to fling.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

So, before this devolves into a snarling and drooling contest, I have another proposition for us.

Consider the overall goal of science. The goal is to describe reality.
We commonly mistake that to mean explain the universe.
Herein may lie the whole distinction.

To describe something you need simply relate what you observe.

To explain something you need causes and justification and whatnot.

It is not that simple, of course. But it's a different angle.

So pounce on this, if you will, mighty keyboard warriors, unless someone has any truly original and entertaining insults to fling.

I am sure you understand the problem with this, Cyracuz...which is that our senses can fool us.

REALITY may be simply to understand...it may be what many of us suppose it is.

The problem is that it may be completely different from what many of us suppose it to be.

We do not know.

We can make guesses...and try to sustain those guesses.

In my opinion, there is value in calling those guesses, guesses...rather than beliefs.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I agree with you that we are better off in springing some doubts upon our most ingrained beliefs, after all that is the purpose of doubting, to question what we think might be the case, because it might not be the case, in which case we are better off, in terms of progress, in trying doubt upon our own build systems of explanation...I never understood belief as being certain of anything but rather on being inclined to a view, a suspicion, without ultimate proof...doubting is just as much useful !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I agree with you that we are better off in springing some doubts upon our most ingrained beliefs, after all that is the purpose of doubting, to question what we think might be the case, because it might not be the case, in which case we are better off, in terms of progress, in trying doubt upon our own build systems of explanation...I never understood belief as being certain of anything but rather on being inclined to a view, a suspicion, without ultimate proof...doubting is just as much useful !

Thank you for that, Fil.

Jeez, I hope you quote what I say next, because Setanta is pretending to be ignoring me...and he really needs to see my remarks quoted before responding. What I wanted to say to him was:

Actually I was just toying with you, Setanta. I had just read some remarks you aimed at Fil:

Quote:

Not everything is about you, Fil, you foul-mouthed, hateful son of a bitch.

Quote:

**** you, you loud-mouthed would be bully. You are such a rambling idiot, that i don't even read your posts unless you are specifically responding to me. So i don't give a rat's ass what post you are referring to. You badly need to growup.

(Can you get over the fact that he actually writes stuff like that to other people!!!!!)

I was laughing so hard at your blindness and projection…and your lack of appreciation for how silly you look saying stuff like that to someone else. I wanted to say something quick and sarcastic.

Actually, in some respects, “guess” and “belief” are not synonyms. Fact is, I never said they were. That is a straw man you are building…although with your usual clumbsiness…you were doing a lousy job of it.

I said using “I believe” in these situations for “I guess”…IS A DISGUISE. It is a pretense. It is nonsense. It is an attempt to make a guess…and call it something else in order to garner respect it actually is not due.

Sorry you haven’t been able to understand that…but perhaps you can get a school kid to help you with the comprehension needed for these discussions.

Anyway, if a person says, “I “believe” there are no gods”…what else could it be but a guess?

I’d be delighted to discuss it with you, Setanta. You provide me with so many laughs, I owe ya.

0 Replies

EVERYONE ELSE...since Setanta is also pretending not to read Fil unless Fil is specifically addressing a response to him...

...anyone else who would like to quote me is more than welcome to do so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

LOL... Are you that desperate to talk to him?

And I thought set was being nasty with me... After reading what he (are you sure he's a he?) wrote to Fil, I conclude he was being nice to me, in his strange, acrymonious way....

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cryacuz. That's right. Description is the goal of Science but mainly because that promotes a degree of prediction and control. This description is also an exploration of how things "go together" (correlationally).
In a way the humanities provide degrees of "explanation", by that I mean that they give, what serve for various people, degrees of satisfaction (answers to questions that are subjectively satisfactory).
Mysticism does not answer questions but in a sense the mystical "insight" removes questions, and in so doing leaves one with a wholeness (sometimes referred to holiness).

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

LOL... Are you that desperate to talk to him?

And I thought set was being nasty with me... After reading what he (are you sure he's a he?) wrote to Fil, I conclude he was being nice to me, in his strange, acrymonious way....

Considering what we've seen from him over the years, my guess is almost everyone here thought he was being relatively nice to you! Wink

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

At the risk of inviting Setanta's invective, let me just say that his contributions, that is to say his historical comments, are, regardless of his methodology, most helpful and welcome, of a quality I do not expect in an online forum. His style of interaction probably reflect his personality, something over which he has very little control. But that applies to me as well (witness my "candyass" effort to bring about reconciliation). I've always said that I will put up with another person's personality if he or she will do two things: (1) put up with mine and (2) give something that makes my forebearance worthwhile. Setanta gives much to compensate for his rudeness. That's why he stays off my ignore list--for my sake not his.

0 Replies

You guys are wasting to much time with Set, just move along with the topic...
Frank gives us something to shoot at, I like you being stubborn ! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Frank gives us something to shoot at, I like you being stubborn !

I want to ask something to FRANK:

Assuming you have children (or nephews), when they were small, did you tell them that Santa was dropping gifts or did you tell them the truth e.g. that YOU bought that stupid toy?

And if you "enforced" the Santa conspiracy, why?

Before I get called a humourless French once again, like on the "Jesus" thread -- gee A2Knowers are a tough crowd! Smile

--, let me rush to underline this is a slightly mischevious and not entirely serious question... Razz

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Considering what we've seen from him over the years, my guess is almost everyone here thought he was being relatively nice to you!

Alright! He's my BFF no doubt! Now that's good news...

Hey sweet sweet Set, honey, I changed my mind, I'm rooting for you now! Attack! Go rhetorically for Fil's jugular; this whimpy believer deserves no less! Wink

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Je m'en fous, alors vas y ! Wink

hehehe

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know