How is this definition of "belief"?

@Fil Albuquerque,

...and such it goes that there is believing and believing...rational beliefs result of informed guesses to the extent we are satisfied with a certain degree of explanatory power based on past previous examples, culturally accounted for in our group of reference and to whom we trust, as from our own present day observations...we, as Set explained, tend to think of these assumptions not as guess work and rather as well funded opinions...we believe in them because they do indeed seam to accurately represent reality...but then of course this is not the end of our story and there's also another kind of belief deeply ingrained in our instinct with a tremendous power over our emotions and deep convictions...it regards our awareness on the existence of agents that may not be present or be visible and that nonetheless can impact our life's in a negative way, specially because we can't tell what they're thinking or planning...its a gang/group mentality, the well present notion, that there are thinking beings, animals and people, out there in direct competition for our resources...to my opinion the idea of a conscious personnel God arises from this notion of permanence of intentional agents out of our control, which either, precede us and yet justify our world, the world into which we are born, or that are with us, but that we can't see or know anything about their planning (potential enemy's), or those that will carry on after we long gone...either way the central element on which we frame the problem is that we can't do nothing about them except speculate on their intentions...thus is no wonder that our awareness of them, our awareness of life at large beyond our own existence projects into this idea of a Cosmic mind with unfathomable power that we rather have on our side...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...in its primitive form the supernatural it is nothing but the extension beyond ourselves and our lives of that which is after all natural, the permanence of the world...it is super because we as individuals can't control it all although we are inherently "programmed" to try and be in control...in that measure God is a projection done upon Life itself at large !

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Using conventional words is a matter of choice but it does help in the communication. We can't all start to tamper with the language and expect to be understood. This thread is a good example: as long as it is mired in vacuous semantics, it will not reach the level of actual, rapid communication.

There are no vacuous semantics involved. I have been very clear that when I am speaking to you about a guess of mine...I will use "guess." If I am speaking to you of a speculation, supposition or anything else...I will use those words.

You are the one having a problem with this. Apparently you will not be able to understand what I am saying unless I say "I believe..."

I AM NOT GOING TO USE believe.

Now, can we get off this? Allow me to use the words I want to use...and you use the words you want to use. If you honestly do not understand the words "guess" "estimate" "suppose" "speculate"...I will include a dictionary definition for you help if you ask for it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Jesus! It's not like I am in a position to deny you the right of using any word you'd like, right?

The point I am trying to make is that this choice of yours will reduce your capacity to communicate with other people (not only me). It will tend to muddle the discussion.

If I decided to not use the term, say, computer, but use the words "information management machine" instead, I might be entirely right on a legal level and even on a semantic level (computers do much more than computing), but it will reduce my ability to communicate effectively with others.

People who speak their own singular language often end up talking alone. There's a price to pay for everything, Frank.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Jesus! It's not like I am in a position to deny you the right of using any word you'd like, right?

The point I am trying to make is that this choice of yours will reduce your capacity to communicate with other people (not only me). It will tend to muddle the discussion.

If I decided to not use the term, say, computer, but use the words "information management machine" instead, I might be entirely right on a legal level and even on a semantic level (computers do much more than computing), but it will reduce my ability to communicate effectively with others.

People who speak their own singular language often end up talking alone. There's a price to pay for everything, Frank.

Nonsense. If anything...it will open the discussion. Instead of using a generic word like "believe"...I will use the word that most closely fits the conversation.

Obviously "I believe there are no gods" versus "It is my blind guess there are no gods" are not quite the same...but to suppose the former is more effective than the latter is gratuitous nonsense.

"I believe a horse other than Orb will win the Belmont" is different from "I calculate that a horse other than Orb will win the Belmont"...but to suppose the former is more effective than the latter is gratuituous nonsense.

"I believe you just feel like arguing" is different from "I am of the opinion that you just feel like arguing"...but to suppose the former is more effective than the latter is gratuitous nonsense.

Deal with it rather than try to rationalize it, Olivier. It is my opinion you will be doing yourself a favor.

1 Reply

Believing is an action which folds and unfolds in time and not a static state of affairs...

Believing does not require to not doubt at all times but rather that our doubting is not enough to shatter our expectations...

In fact it is the present awareness of doubt, the lack of certainty, that empowers believing as distinct of knowing, and closer to expecting...

Believing is perhaps best described as a social act, the public announcement on where we stand on fringe ill defined matters to which knowledge cannot be claimed...

Of course I don't say I believe X, for instance that I am alive, I claim I am alive...when I have no doubt I don't say I believe I say I know...if I had to say anything about believing on being alive I would probably assert others believe they are alive but that I know I am the one really alive...in turn if oddly enough I ever come to say I believe I am alive its not because I am convinced of it, but because I have come to realize, I've progressively become aware that anything to which I refer to is far to complex to be circumscribed to my Cosmogony...in that sense acknowledge believing is an act of intelligence...

Believing is a state of active hope where there is conscience of uncertainty...

Normally we use believing as coinage not to assert what we ourselves believe, which we think to know, but instead to make an assertion upon what others think to know and that we understand as a state of belief...
No wonder that the use of believing has an heavy connotation as it denotes a weakness regarding the impossibility of certainty and resolution...of course it can go the other way around as clever people see the acknowledging of such weakness as the first step for changing their minds...the fact that we believe rather then know it implicitly admits the possibility of being wrong...

I am more worried with people that claim to know then with people that claim to believe...

Believing in Gods or that onions with olive oil are good for your health is essentially a cultural statement...its only dangerous when questioned...

Now you guys in America guess what you've be doing wrong all this time...the problem is not God Religions nor believing...
...the problem is polarization...black and white do or die politics...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Deal with it rather than try to rationalize it, Olivier. It is my opinion you will be doing yourself a favor.

What favor are you talking about? I love precision but not with a passion. I go by Popper's advice on these matters, as on many others: "try and reach the degree of semantic precision necessary to solve the problem you're trying to solve, but not more."

Using other words than belief solves your problem, i.e. the term calling for some sort of automatic respect from others. I don't have this problem. I piss on your beliefs, Frank!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Deal with it rather than try to rationalize it, Olivier. It is my opinion you will be doing yourself a favor.

What favor are you talking about? I love precision but not with a passion. I go by Popper's advice on these matters, as on many others: "try and reach the degree of semantic precision necessary to solve the problem you're trying to solve, but not more."

Using other words than belief solves your problem, i.e. the term calling for some sort of automatic respect from others. I don't have this problem. I piss on your beliefs, Frank!

Then you are pissing on yourself, Olivier...because as I have said many times, I have no beliefs.

If you wanna piss on my opinions, my speculations, my calculations, my considerations, my whatever...you are welcome to do so. Make sure you shake well before putting your horn away or you will dribble down your pants leg.

Interesting that you do not have the intellectual and ethical wherewithal to simply acknowledge that using precise words are every bit as good (probabaly much better) than using a generic word like "believe."

You are going to be one of the losers here, Olivier. My guess is that you were one of the losers over at that Yahoo site also. I will try to help you get past that, but it will take a world of work on your part...and as I said, I don't think you have it in you.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Here let me help you dumb ass clown :

"Your 2 sentence is very interesting...it reports ,,,,,,,,,, "to" what is true (that which is being the case)...the problem is what happens and what you believe did happen often (perhaps always) are not the same..."

...what comes in green should be the focus of your attention if it was the case you were an honest instead of deliberately "noisy" debater...

Jane, you ignorant slut. I was polite and respectful to you for umpteen pages while you took every opportunity to be arrogant, snotty and condescending to me, so I said "**** it." Now I'm having fun. You are nothing but a play toy to me.

You mouth-breathing half-wit, I guess you failed to comprehend the simple sentences that I dumbed-down for you the first time. Sentences don't "report" to anything. Learn the ******* language before you try to communicate with it, dumbass.

I'll try once again to make this simple enough for you to understand. "Let's see what happens" doesn't even imply that anything happened. It doesn't refer to any object. It doesn't imply any belief. It doesn't imply a ******* thing except that the observer is waiting for something to happen. Christ, how dense can you be? Seriously, have you ever taken even the most basic class in Philosophy? What's the matter, adolescent nose-picker, you can't get into college? In that case:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/tumblr_mblb9bDXGr1rwjzpqo1_500.gif

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have no beliefs.

You harbor beliefs, as I have proven. You just decide to call them something else. Your semantic decisions do not affect reality.

Quote:

Interesting that you do not have the intellectual and ethical wherewithal to simply acknowledge that using precise words are every bit as good (probabaly much better) than using a generic word like "believe."

Thanks for the laugh... By dropping one word from your lexicon, you won't gain in precision, you will instead loose in precision. Try and figure that one out before you come back to try to bark at my pants.

Quote:

You are going to be one of the losers here, Olivier.

LOL... My question is not if I loose or win here. Nobody ever wins on a message board, in case you haven't noticed yet. My question is: what can I learn here?

If it's about some semi-retarded, bored dudes insulting one another ad nauseam, not much I guess. If on the other hand some of the guys and gals here have creativity, stamina and interest in life (more than what the "boredom club" displayed on the other thread), maybe I can enjoy it, and maybe I can even learn something, so I'll end up staying.

But if I decide it's not working and go, the only thing I will have lost is time... You on the other hand will cry for me to come back... like you cry because Setanta put you on iggy, and you keep asking other posters to quote you so he can read your venom... Sad, really.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I have no beliefs.

You harbor beliefs, as I have proven. You just decide to call them something else. Your semantic decisions do not affect reality.

Quote:
Interesting that you do not have the intellectual and ethical wherewithal to simply acknowledge that using precise words are every bit as good (probabaly much better) than using a generic word like "believe."

Thanks for the laugh... By dropping one word from your lexicon, you won't gain in precision, you will instead loose in precision. Try and figure that one out before you come back to try to bark at my pants.

Quote:
You are going to be one of the losers here, Olivier.

LOL... My question is not if I loose or win here. Nobody ever wins on a message board, in case you haven't noticed yet. My question is: what can I learn here?

If it's about some semi-retarded, bored dudes insulting one another ad nauseam, not much I guess. If on the other hand some of the guys and gals here have creativity, stamina and interest in life (more than what the "boredom club" displayed on the other thread), maybe I can enjoy it, and maybe I can even learn something, so I'll end up staying.

But if I decide it's not working and go, the only thing I will have lost is time... You on the other hand will cry for me to come back... like you cry because Setanta put you on iggy, and you keep asking other posters to quote you so he can read your venom... Sad, really.

You have not proven anything, but if you want to feel better about yourself by claiming you have...fine with me.

I have no beliefs.

You simply want to classify my opinions, expectations, suppositions and such as "beliefs" so that you can say I have beliefs.

Good luck with that.

You will be a loser here...as you undoubtedly were a loser in your previous forum. This has little to do with winning/losing. Some losers actually win arguments. You will be a loser whether you win or lose individual contentions.

As for Setanta...I would wish you another "good luck."

I'm going to enjoy watching you dig the hole.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier, I am giving Frank the "benefit of the doubt" regarding his claim to epistemological absolutism. I am confident (notice I didn't say "sure" or "certain") that he knows his very existence rests on a system of tacit assumptions or presuppositions. I "believe" that he means to claim that he endorses no formal doctrines.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Olivier, I am giving Frank the "benefit of the doubt" regarding his claim to epistemological absolutism. I am confident (notice I didn't say "sure" or "certain") that he knows his very existence rests on a system of tacit assumptions or presuppositions. I "believe" that he means to claim that he endorses no formal doctrines.

Thank you, JL.

Of course I make assumptions and of course I have presuppositions. I have mentioned that many, many times.

But there is no law, man-made or of nature, that requires that people call those assumptions and presuppositions "beliefs."

They are my assumptions...and my presuppositions. I do not feel any need to disguise them as "beliefs."

If others want to disguise them by using words like "believe" and "belief"...they can do so.

0 Replies

@FBM,

...you are indeed beyond words Bubba, bye, you're off my antenna !
Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...you are indeed beyond words Bubba, bye, you're off my antenna !

Tired of people pointing out the stupidity in your posts? It's about time. Yay! I hope you learned something. Dipshit.

1 Reply

@FBM,

No you poor sad idiot... "Lets see what happens" clearly presupposes:

1 - that you and others can see
2 - that something will happen
3 - that you and other people can see what happens...

Perhaps it is the case to consider that you won't see what happens less alone what others see, but will in turn see what you think/imagine is happening...

WHATEVER YOU CAN SEE NEEDS NOT BE WHAT HAPPENS OTHER THEN TO YOU !

Now shove it up and get out of my face you retarded troll...

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Olivier, I am giving Frank the "benefit of the doubt" regarding his claim to epistemological absolutism.

I'm okay with Frank, just floggin' him when he seems to want a floggin', and discussing more naturally when he seems to want that...

Quote:

I am confident (notice I didn't say "sure" or "certain") that he knows his very existence rests on a system of tacit assumptions or presuppositions. I "believe" that he means to claim that he endorses no formal doctrines

Well, his ambiguity comes with his choice of words...

The idea that words are magical and their suppression can affect reality is as old as writing itself. In their hieroglyphs, ancient Egyptians used to mutilate some ideograms considered dangerous (e.g. the bee coding for Upper Egypt) so they won't harm burried pharaohs...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Olivier, I am giving Frank the "benefit of the doubt" regarding his claim to epistemological absolutism.

I'm okay with Frank, just floggin' him when he seems to want a floggin', and discussing more naturally when he seems to want that...

Quote:
I am confident (notice I didn't say "sure" or "certain") that he knows his very existence rests on a system of tacit assumptions or presuppositions. I "believe" that he means to claim that he endorses no formal doctrines

Well, his ambiguity comes with his choice of words...

The idea that words are magical and their suppression can affect reality is as old as writing itself. In their hieroglyphs, ancient Egyptians used to mutilate some ideograms considered dangerous (e.g. the bee coding for Upper Egypt) so they won't harm burried pharaohs...

What precisely do you have against calling a blind guess a blind guess...rather than a "belief"...and how in the world can you consider calling a blind guess a "belief" as intellectually or ethically superior in any way to calling it a blind guess?

Answer that!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Olivier, I am giving Frank the "benefit of the doubt" regarding his claim to epistemological absolutism.

I'm okay with Frank, just floggin' him when he seems to want a floggin', and discussing more naturally when he seems to want that...

Quote:
I am confident (notice I didn't say "sure" or "certain") that he knows his very existence rests on a system of tacit assumptions or presuppositions. I "believe" that he means to claim that he endorses no formal doctrines

Well, his ambiguity comes with his choice of words...

The idea that words are magical and their suppression can affect reality is as old as writing itself. In their hieroglyphs, ancient Egyptians used to mutilate some ideograms considered dangerous (e.g. the bee coding for Upper Egypt) so they won't harm burried pharaohs...

How the hell can you suggest that calling a guess a guess...is being ambiguous...but calling a guess a belief is not?

What are you thinking about? Or are you not thinking?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No you poor sad idiot... "Lets see what happens" clearly presupposes:

1 - that you and others can see
2 - that something will happen
3 - that you and other people can see what happens...

Perhaps it is the case to consider that you won't see what happens less alone what others see, but will in turn see what you think/imagine is happening...

WHATEVER YOU CAN SEE NEEDS NOT BE WHAT HAPPENS OTHER THEN TO YOU !

Now shove it up and get out of my face you retarded troll...

What a ******* dumbass post. Now you're just trying to disclaim what you stupidly said before. Where is the "object" that you claim the sentence "reports to" [sic] in "Let's see what happens."? Where's the OBJECT, moron?

So, after being arrogant and condescending to me for pages and pages, while I politely and patiently tried to decipher your pathetic attempts at logic and English, now you can't take it? If you can't take it, don't dish it out, ass-wipe. Laughing

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know