3
   

On no longer using the word "believe!"

 
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:32 pm
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)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:59 pm
Foley wrote:
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)


Okay, Foley…you are not a rocket scientist…but you are persistent…and I respect that. So, I will discuss for a while.




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."

The notion, IF THE PERSON IS BEING TRUTHFUL AND NOT ATTEMPTING TO DISGUISE THE REALITY OF WHAT HE/SHE IS SAYING, would be better and more accurately typed: "It is my blind, unsubstantiated guess that no gods exist." 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.

Now…the reason people do not use that truthful representation is fairly obvious. They do not want to be truthful…and they do not want to accurately portray what they are saying…so instead, they say (or type), "I believe there are no gods."

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.

You and I will discuss this to death…and you will either get it (grok it) and acknowledge that you grok it…or it will be obvious that you ARE INDEED not equipped intellectually for this depth of discussion.

Respond to what I have written here. I want no more of you goddam questions for now…unless the questions go to the heart of understanding what I have outlined here.
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 03:18 pm
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 proof 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.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 03:43 pm
Foley wrote:
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.


C'mon, Foley….the fact that the sentence is longer means nothing. The fact that one phrasing tells it like it actually is…and one obscures the truth is what this is all about.

I am saying that using the word "believe" in this way HIDES THE FACT that the person is actually saying …"what follows is a blind, unsubstantiated guess about whether or not gods exist."

Get that!

Quote:

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.


There is nothing respectful about pretending something is being said other than what is actually being said.

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."

No way for a listener to determine which is the true meaning being conveyed.

It is my opinion that the debate moves forward best if the alternative to "I believe there are no gods" is used…so that there is no question.


Quote:


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".


Nonsense!


Quote:
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.
[/quote]

All correct…but of no impact on the discussion.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 03:48 pm
A little bit of crust goes a long way.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 03:50 pm
There is another word that we'd be wise to just eliminate. It doesn't have any definition anyway.

And the word is....

GOD.

There it is. We don't know what it means, so you can pretty much decide for yourself what you put into it. Then you can decide if you think it is real or not. Then you can proceed to pester others about it if you want to. You don't even have to explain what you mean by the word, since everyone supposedly knows already. It's hillarious.

Oh, wait. I'll start a new thread about this in the S&R forum, so as not to derail this one. Pleas respond there if you have any thoughts.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 03:57 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 04:09 pm
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.


What amazes me that a silly, silly person like you pretends to be so reasonable and logical...when watching you pretend to be reasonable and logical is like watching a Monty Python skit!
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 04:21 pm
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.


Laughing 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?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 04:46 pm
baddog1 wrote:
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.


Laughing 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?


Read the opening post, maddog...and you might be able to understand. If you are so interested in discussing the word "believe" in a context other than religion and philosophy...why not start your own thread?
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 05:03 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 05:31 pm
Foley wrote:
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.


Foley...take another look at the argument.

How on Earth can you possibly think that "I believe there are no gods" and "I am making a blind, unsubstantiated guess that there are no gods"

...are equals?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 05:51 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 05:54 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
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.


Very well stated cyracuz. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 05:55 pm
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. Confused
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 06:25 pm
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.


You gotta take your successes where you find 'em.

I am glad you find it interesting. Please feel free to borrow the idea.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 06:27 pm
Treya wrote:
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. Confused


Treya...your name was mentioned to me in a private message I received as I just signed on...and I said that I did not recognize the name.

Sorry I have missed insulting you.

Keep posting...and maybe we can correct things.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 06:50 pm
Hey there Frank. It's me hephzibah. Just in case that private message didn't mention that. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:08 pm
Treya wrote:
Hey there Frank. It's me hephzibah. Just in case that private message didn't mention that. :wink:


Ya know...maybe the name Heph WAS in there...but it didn't register.

How ya doing Heph.

I guess I'm being particularly nasty right now (not really meaning to be all that bad)....and I'm getting lots of heat about it.

I bear up well under heat...and this too shall pass. I hope it happens before I'm given the old heave-ho again.

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:12 pm
Hey dude, if you have to go walk around and take deep breaths or count to ten, do it - do whatever - don't get shytcanned again.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/29/2022 at 12:35:10