On no longer using the word "believe!"

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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??????

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.

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..."

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.

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.