On no longer using the word "believe!"

You have said: The word belief is more trouble than it is worth. Say it a different way.

I have said: Belief means its own thing. Why bother substituting a word?

You have said: Because they are different, and it is better to say "It is my opinion", because a belief is just a guess that has no substantial evidence.

I have said: I disagree with your definition of the word, then.

You then said: You're stupid.

So for once, ANSWER THIS QUESTION:


If they are different, then they'll be used in different situations. If they mean the same thing, why bother replacing them?

(EDIT: Corrected weird typo)

Belief does not really "mean its own thing." In fact, Foley, most often…WHEN USED IN RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE…it has all sorts of various meanings and shadings.

My point is…considering this rather debilitating nature of the word…rather than say, "I believe…xyz"…why not say what you actually mean using some word other than "believe?"

If you are being truthful…and you type the words, "I believe there are no gods"…you have disguised the reality by using the word "believe."

That is all that is being said when someone types "I believe there are no gods"….because there is absolutely NO WAY anyone can possibly KNOW there are no gods. It has to be a guess…and it HAS TO BE a blind, unsubstantiated guess.

I am saying that using some alternate phrasing to the phrasing that requires use of "believe" or "belief" will cut major parts of the bullshyt out of the debate.

Quote:

Belief does not really "mean its own thing." In fact, Foley, most often…WHEN USED IN RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE…it has all sorts of various meanings and shadings.

Okay, I think I get you. You're saying that between the atheists, agnostics, and zealots they come up with all different conotations for the word?

Quote:

My point is…considering this rather debilitating nature of the word…rather than say, "I believe…xyz"…why not say what you actually mean using some word other than "believe?"

Well, in some cases, 'believe' is simply a more concise and eloquent word. Let's put it in your terms: "I believe in God." turns into "It is my unsubstantiated guess that God is real." That more than doubles the length of the sentence. But I follow you so far.

Quote:

If you are being truthful…and you type the words, "I believe there are no gods"…you have disguised the reality by using the word "believe."

This is where I disagree. In most contexts, people understand that believe means "I think"- because in a debate, if you had substantial evidence, you would show it and say, "There are no Gods". Saying "I believe there are no Gods" is more respectful of others' views and also has a less demanding, 'this is the truth' sort of context.

Quote:

That is all that is being said when someone types "I believe there are no gods"….because there is absolutely NO WAY anyone can possibly KNOW there are no gods. It has to be a guess…and it HAS TO BE a blind, unsubstantiated guess.

I agree, you can't prove it. But like you said, if it HAS TO BE a blind, unsubstantiated guess, I'd rather think that people can understand that the word believe means "I think" rather than "this is how it is".

Quote:

I am saying that using some alternate phrasing to the phrasing that requires use of "believe" or "belief" will cut major parts of the bullshyt out of the debate.

Sometimes this is true, other times it is unnecessary. If someone says, "Well, I believe that God has controlled us all" they are obviously hiding that they have no prove whatsoever. But if someone simply says, "I believe in reincarnation", you can tell that they aren't forcing the supposition on others. That's why I think that having people stop saying "believe" would wind up getting clunky and prolonged, where really it only makes some people clearer with the truth.

As a general matter, belief is necessary for everyone to get through the day. There are precious few things which any of us know to a certainty, so we operate--quite justifiably--on belief. Some beliefs are more justifiable than others, in that they are based on confirming experience. For example, we all believe that cross-traffic will stop when confronted with a red light, and proceed on that assumption. Early one morning, while driving as a part of my job, i approached an intersection in which the light for my direction of travel had just turned green, and just caught sight of a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed, obviously ignoring or ignorant of the red light. I threw the wheel to my left, and spun the van around, coming very close to rolling it. I saw the roof of that vehicle just pass the passenger side window as i brought the van 90 degrees to its original course. Believing that cross-traffic would stop very nearly cost me either serious injury, or even my life on that occasion. Nevertheless, based upon every other experience which i have had in which this has been true, i continue to believe that cross-traffic will stop at a red light.

There are many other matters, the most of them mundane and insignificant, in which we rely upon our reasonable beliefs rather than certain knowledge throughout each day. This is an ordinary thing, and certainly nothing to be railed at.

This specific case, however, is of Frank complaining about people discussing belief. He is attempting to shoe-horn other people's perceptions of the value of what they believe into his own, sour and snide view of those beliefs. It is an absurdity. It ought to be painfully obvious that when religious people discuss their creeds, they will be obliged to rely upon assertions of what they believe, as opposed to what they know.

What truly amazes me is that this silly, silly topic has lasted for nine pages.

As a general matter, belief is necessary for everyone to get through the day. There are precious few things which any of us know to a certainty, so we operate--quite justifiably--on belief. Some beliefs are more justifiable than others, in that they are based on confirming experience. For example, we all believe that cross-traffic will stop when confronted with a red light, and proceed on that assumption. Early one morning, while driving as a part of my job, i approached an intersection in which the light for my direction of travel had just turned green, and just caught sight of a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed, obviously ignoring or ignorant of the red light. I threw the wheel to my left, and spun the van around, coming very close to rolling it. I saw the roof of that vehicle just pass the passenger side window as i brought the van 90 degrees to its original course. Believing that cross-traffic would stop very nearly cost me either serious injury, or even my life on that occasion. Nevertheless, based upon every other experience which i have had in which this has been true, i continue to believe that cross-traffic will stop at a red light.

There are many other matters, the most of them mundane and insignificant, in which we rely upon our reasonable beliefs rather than certain knowledge throughout each day. This is an ordinary thing, and certainly nothing to be railed at.

This specific case, however, is of Frank complaining about people discussing belief. He is attempting to shoe-horn other people's perceptions of the value of what they believe into his own, sour and snide view of those beliefs. It is an absurdity. It ought to be painfully obvious that when religious people discuss their creeds, they will be obliged to rely upon assertions of what they believe, as opposed to what they know.

What truly amazes me is that this silly, silly topic has lasted for nine pages.

Frank: Why do you restrict your opinion of "belief" to only religion and philosophy?

Setanta wrote:

As a general matter, belief is necessary for everyone to get through the day. There are precious few things which any of us know to a certainty, so we operate--quite justifiably--on belief. Some beliefs are more justifiable than others, in that they are based on confirming experience. For example, we all believe that cross-traffic will stop when confronted with a red light, and proceed on that assumption. Early one morning, while driving as a part of my job, i approached an intersection in which the light for my direction of travel had just turned green, and just caught sight of a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed, obviously ignoring or ignorant of the red light. I threw the wheel to my left, and spun the van around, coming very close to rolling it. I saw the roof of that vehicle just pass the passenger side window as i brought the van 90 degrees to its original course. Believing that cross-traffic would stop very nearly cost me either serious injury, or even my life on that occasion. Nevertheless, based upon every other experience which i have had in which this has been true, i continue to believe that cross-traffic will stop at a red light.

There are many other matters, the most of them mundane and insignificant, in which we rely upon our reasonable beliefs rather than certain knowledge throughout each day. This is an ordinary thing, and certainly nothing to be railed at.

This specific case, however, is of Frank complaining about people discussing belief. He is attempting to shoe-horn other people's perceptions of the value of what they believe into his own, sour and snide view of those beliefs. It is an absurdity. It ought to be painfully obvious that when religious people discuss their creeds, they will be obliged to rely upon assertions of what they believe, as opposed to what they know.

What truly amazes me is that this silly, silly topic has lasted for nine pages.

Which would logically conclude as to why this question remains unanswered:

Quote:

Frank: Why do you restrict your opinion of "belief" to only religion and philosophy?

There IS NO WAY a person saying "I believe there are no gods" is intending to convey "I am making a blind, unsubstantiated guess that there are no gods."

You have to realize that, Foley. Saying "I believe there are no gods" (just as saying "I believe there is a God") is a smokescreen. A goddam fraud! It is pretence. GET IT!

Lemme put it in different words: Someone saying "I believe there are no gods" might be saying "I have studied the evidence and there is enough of it to conclusively confirm that there are no gods"…or "No theist has ever produced a god and there is no need of gods to explain anything about the universe, therefore I am going to assert that there are no gods" or "I am simply making a blind, unsubstantiated guess that there are no gods."

Quote:

There IS NO WAY a person saying "I believe there are no gods" is intending to convey "I am making a blind, unsubstantiated guess that there are no gods."

You have to realize that, Foley. Saying "I believe there are no gods" (just as saying "I believe there is a God") is a smokescreen. A goddam fraud! It is pretence. GET IT!

Lemme put it in different words: Someone saying "I believe there are no gods" might be saying "I have studied the evidence and there is enough of it to conclusively confirm that there are no gods"…or "No theist has ever produced a god and there is no need of gods to explain anything about the universe, therefore I am going to assert that there are no gods" or "I am simply making a blind, unsubstantiated guess that there are no gods."

It is more respectful than saying "There are no Gods." See, they could say that, if they had something to back themselves up. But because they cannot, they tack on the words "I believe..." and it becomes their view, not a fact. That is why I think that saying "I believe" is just as good as any other way to say it.

I guess you are right Treya.

Another difference between the disputed words is in application.

An opinion is often an expression of what we think ought to be, while a belief is an expression of what we think is.

Frank,

You have succeeded at insulting every single person who has joined this thread. As far as I have noticed, not one of us has agreed with you.

This is a very interesting tactic to use in an argument.

Frank,

You have succeeded at insulting every single person who has joined this thread. As far as I have noticed, not one of us has agreed with you.

This is a very interesting tactic to use in an argument.

ebrown_p wrote:

Frank,

You have succeeded at insulting every single person who has joined this thread. As far as I have noticed, not one of us has agreed with you.

This is a very interesting tactic to use in an argument.

He hasn't insulted me ebrown. Has he? I better check!


...


...


...


...


Nope. I found no insults.

...

Geez. I feel kind of left out.

Hey there Frank. It's me hephzibah. Just in case that private message didn't mention that. :wink: