3
   

On no longer using the word "believe!"

 
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:37 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
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


It wouldn't surprise me if it was. I'm sure that I'm well thought of and talked about around here. :wink: Heh... I'm doing alright Frank. Thanks for asking. How are you doing?

Well... hmmm... I guess you are being particularly nasty. But at least you see it and well... you do bear up well under heat. You know... if you get the old heave-ho again... we'll just have to chat when you get back. Twisted Evil

Now that I've jumped on the "other side of the fence", away from religion that is, I think I'm much more willing to hear your perspective and maybe gain something from it. If you are willing to share that is. Good luck!
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:40 pm
Pardon my ignorance here, but what is "the old heave-ho"?

My only excuse is that english isn't the language we speak here in my country. My primary language is norwegian... Confused
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:49 pm
That so blows my mind cyracuz. I just always think of you as being american for some reason. Heh... the "old heave ho" means that if he keeps being "particularly nasty" there is a risk of being suspended from the forum for a while. And it's not ignorance my friend. It's just a misunderstanding is all. No big deal. Smile
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:52 pm
Treya, tell that mouse to calm the f*ck down.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:55 pm
All of Frank's suspensions were the result of big misunderstandings. He is merely one who goes to great lengths to avoid being accused of favoritism.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 08:58 pm
He's just not listening gus. You may have to whack him with your stick!
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 09:08 pm
Thanks Treya. Then I've learned something today too. Smile


Gustav

If the mouse will not sit still it's because it hasn't been fed is my general experience...
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 09:11 pm
Oh shoot... I have to feed him?

There we go... he's been fed and put to bed. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 08:09 am
wandeljw wrote:
All of Frank's suspensions were the result of big misunderstandings. He is merely one who goes to great lengths to avoid being accused of favoritism.



Twisted Evil

I love it, Wandel! And, I guess, you are correct!
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 08:29 am
We have a word that accurately conveys its intended meaning to most of us, and Frank would like to remove it from our vocabulary because he refuses to accept the fact that it is possible to "believe" in either gods or no-gods.

Frank, for many people, "believe" IS the most exact way of expressing their feelings on the subject of religion.

It is not a "blind guess" or "opinion" when people "believe" in God based on their own experiences or the testimony of others whom they respect and trust. To them, it is an absolute CERTAINTY that God exists, and they honestly "believe" that to be the case in spite of any evidence or logic that may seem to contradict any specific point of belief.

It is not a "blind guess" when people "believe" that there are no gods based on their own experiences, comparative religion studies, or logic. It may well be an educated guess or opinion, but it is rarely a blind one. People don't flip a coin and decide to be an atheist, especially given the possibility of eternal torture if they guess wrong.

Your insistence that people who express their religious suppositions as "beliefs" are either liars or deluded (or do not have an adequate command of the English language) seems to be getting in the way of an honest discussion. Please read with an open mind, pay attention to what people mean instead of criticizing their word choice, and stop insulting people for expressing opinions that differ from yours.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 09:00 am
Terry wrote:
We have a word that accurately conveys its intended meaning to most of us, and Frank would like to remove it from our vocabulary because he refuses to accept the fact that it is possible to "believe" in either gods or no-gods.

Frank, for many people, "believe" IS the most exact way of expressing their feelings on the subject of religion.

It is not a "blind guess" or "opinion" when people "believe" in God based on their own experiences or the testimony of others whom they respect and trust. To them, it is an absolute CERTAINTY that God exists, and they honestly "believe" that to be the case in spite of any evidence or logic that may seem to contradict any specific point of belief.

It is not a "blind guess" when people "believe" that there are no gods based on their own experiences, comparative religion studies, or logic. It may well be an educated guess or opinion, but it is rarely a blind one. People don't flip a coin and decide to be an atheist, especially given the possibility of eternal torture if they guess wrong.

Your insistence that people who express their religious suppositions as "beliefs" are either liars or deluded (or do not have an adequate command of the English language) seems to be getting in the way of an honest discussion. Please read with an open mind, pay attention to what people mean instead of criticizing their word choice, and stop insulting people for expressing opinions that differ from yours.


If it is "absolute certainty"...why not use absolute certainty rather than believe...which can be misinterpreted to mean guess, estimate, feeling, etc.

You protest too much here, Terry.

The reason I am saying the word should not be used is because it is abused...and it is used when other words properly convey what is being proposed...just like in your example.
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 10:16 am
Frank Apisa wrote:

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?


Frank, Frank, Frank...

It doesn't look equal because you are trying to equate 'believe' with saying "I've got no flipping idea what I'm talking about."

I'm saying it is simply an opinion that you admit you cannot prove- but it cannot be disproved either, and that is where the conotation is different.

You are purposefully putting it in a negative contotation, whereas it could easily be put in a positive like so:

"Though I really cannot prove that I'm right, I think..."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 10:22 am
Foley wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

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?


Frank, Frank, Frank...

It doesn't look equal because you are trying to equate 'believe' with saying "I've got no flipping idea what I'm talking about."

I'm saying it is simply an opinion that you admit you cannot prove- but it cannot be disproved either, and that is where the conotation is different.

You are purposefully putting it in a negative contotation, whereas it could easily be put in a positive like so:

"Though I really cannot prove that I'm right, I think..."


Foley, Foley, Foley....

...as you can see from what Terry just wrote...sometimes the person is saying "I am certain!"

Why not just use the words that mean what it is intended...rather than "I believe..." which is ambiguous?
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 10:31 am
Frank Apisa wrote:

Foley, Foley, Foley....

...as you can see from what Terry just wrote...sometimes the person is saying "I am certain!"

Why not just use the words that mean what it is intended...rather than "I believe..." which is ambiguous?


Believe is an ambiguous word, I concede, but it is only abused as such by people who have no place in debate already.

ie, if someone says, "I believe in God" and they say "I am 100% certain that God is real!", then won't they simply be annihilated by the debate itself?

Only intelligent people would understand this argument to begin with, only half of them would agree and comply, and the pathetic people who make the word ambiguous to begin with would not be corrected, and intelligent people who did comply would have no need to because they wouldn't abuse the word and wouldn't have problems reading the conotation into it.

Case in point: Stupid people will be stupid, and you can't stop them by taking away their words.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 11:10 am
Foley wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Foley, Foley, Foley....

...as you can see from what Terry just wrote...sometimes the person is saying "I am certain!"

Why not just use the words that mean what it is intended...rather than "I believe..." which is ambiguous?


Believe is an ambiguous word, I concede, but it is only abused as such by people who have no place in debate already.

ie, if someone says, "I believe in God" and they say "I am 100% certain that God is real!", then won't they simply be annihilated by the debate itself?

Only intelligent people would understand this argument to begin with, only half of them would agree and comply, and the pathetic people who make the word ambiguous to begin with would not be corrected, and intelligent people who did comply would have no need to because they wouldn't abuse the word and wouldn't have problems reading the conotation into it.

Case in point: Stupid people will be stupid, and you can't stop them by taking away their words.


Jesus H. Christ, Foley...will get a grip on it.

HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ORIGINALLY:

"It is my opinion that one of the best things humans who like to debate religion and philosophy could do would be to eliminate the words "believe" and "belief" from their discussions. "

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE THE BEST THING.

I am not trying to take the words away from them...I am suggesting that when engaged in debate, they use wording that is not ambiguous...or at least, not as ambiguous as words like "believe" or "belief."

What can you not understand about that??????
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 01:00 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:

Jesus H. Christ, Foley...will get a grip on it.

HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ORIGINALLY:

"It is my opinion that one of the best things humans who like to debate religion and philosophy could do would be to eliminate the words "believe" and "belief" from their discussions. "

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE THE BEST THING.

I am not trying to take the words away from them...I am suggesting that when engaged in debate, they use wording that is not ambiguous...or at least, not as ambiguous as words like "believe" or "belief."

What can you not understand about that??????


I don't understand why you think that intelligent people can't even read the conotation out of a word like believe. If someone is stupid and hides behind the word, then let them. They are obviously too incompitent to debate in the first place. Intelligent people will understand what you mean, or add more to what they have said if they need to.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 01:32 pm
Foley wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Jesus H. Christ, Foley...will get a grip on it.

HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ORIGINALLY:

"It is my opinion that one of the best things humans who like to debate religion and philosophy could do would be to eliminate the words "believe" and "belief" from their discussions. "

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE THE BEST THING.

I am not trying to take the words away from them...I am suggesting that when engaged in debate, they use wording that is not ambiguous...or at least, not as ambiguous as words like "believe" or "belief."

What can you not understand about that??????


I don't understand why you think that intelligent people can't even read the conotation out of a word like believe. If someone is stupid and hides behind the word, then let them. They are obviously too incompitent to debate in the first place. Intelligent people will understand what you mean, or add more to what they have said if they need to.


Foley, your reasoning and reading comprehension skills are even worse than your spelling and syntax...and your spelling and syntax are abysmal.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 06:00 pm
Foley wrote:
Frank, Frank, Frank...

It doesn't look equal because you are trying to equate 'believe' with saying "I've got no flipping idea what I'm talking about."

I'm saying it is simply an opinion that you admit you cannot prove- but it cannot be disproved either, and that is where the conotation is different.

You are purposefully putting it in a negative contotation, whereas it could easily be put in a positive like so:

"Though I really cannot prove that I'm right, I think..."



Doesn't this support Frank's statements? In your "more positive" phrasing you have eliminated the word "believe".

Personally I think Frank is on to something. People kill, torture, rape, steal, lie, pillage, plunder and what's worse, all justified by their beliefs. I have yet to hear about someone getting away with such actions when justified by their opinion or their guesses.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 09:04 am
Cyracuz wrote:
People kill, torture, rape, steal, lie, pillage, plunder and what's worse, all justified by their beliefs. I have yet to hear about someone getting away with such actions when justified by their opinion or their guesses.

People also fight, kill, and die for their beliefs that all men are created equal, that freedom is better than tyranny, and that injustice and oppression should not be tolerated. If you want to do away with all beliefs, then you have to discard the good with the bad.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 09:32 am
Nothing wrong with "beliefs."

And I don't think anyone is suggesting we do away with beliefs.

My point is...and has consistently been throughout this discussion...that when debating or discussing in the areas of religion and philosophy...since the words "believe" and "belief" are ambiguous and mean different things to different people (often mean different things to one individual at different times) it makes more sense to not use the words...and instead use the phrasing that the words are replacing.

Here is my original post:

Quote:
It is my opinion that one of the best things humans who like to debate religion and philosophy could do…

…would be to eliminate the words "believe" and "belief" from their discussions.

The words simply cause more problems than they are worth…if for no other reason than that they mean so many different things to different people.

And the expression "believe in…" ought never to be used.

Fact is, there are other ways of expressing just about every notion that contains those words…and using the "other ways" will almost always make the notion clearer to understand…and will be, at very least, a more exact depiction of what is being expressed.
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 0.05 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 10:58:01