19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifyIf God appeared to me and said "I don't exist", I would explain to him the concept of faith.
For religious folks here, what would be a legitimate reason to not believe in your chosen? In other words, what kind of evidence would be needed in order disprove the validity of the god you follow?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifymany of us here were once believers. what convince me personally was a good full reading of the bible. that was the start. i discovered what kind of psychotic lunatic biblegod really was, and the failure of jesus to fulfill real messianic prophecies. i transitioned from christian to deist. and from there, it didn't take much to drop the remaining baggage.
For religious folks here, what would be a legitimate reason to not believe in your chosen? In other words, what kind of evidence would be needed in order disprove the validity of the god you follow?
since then i've progressed further with the discovery that all beliefs are an unnecessary mental prison which are used to keep people down and manipulate them; weather religious, political or pertaining to anything else. i have discarded all beliefs as they are useless baggage after a child has grown into the age of reason.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSee the problem with that last bit (which we have argued over before) is that you are
many of us here were once believers. what convince me personally was a good full reading of the bible. that was the start. i discovered what kind of psychotic lunatic biblegod really was, and the failure of jesus to fulfill real messianic prophecies. i transitioned from christian to deist. and from there, it didn't take much to drop the remaining bag carded all beliefs as they are useless baggage after a child has grown into the age of reason.
using one meaning of the word belief and then using that meaning to dismiss all other
meanings.
I believe I know where I left me keys.
This doesn't mean I have accepted woolly thinking or am lumbered with useless baggage
and am still an unreasoning child.
Belief can be defined thus...
1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
Now according to you you have no beliefs at all whatsoever.
Thus according to these definitions you are stating that...
You do not accept ANY statements as true or that ANYTHING exists.
You do not accept ANYTHING as true or real and have NO firmly held opinions or convictions.
I am sorry but I don't believe you.
Now as a proponent of Bayesian reasoning I would hold that beyond accepting your own existence
and the laws of logic and mathematics and thus the existence of some sort of reality...
All knowledge/information about the world/universe/reality is uncertain and probabilistic.
There is no absolute 100% certainty about the nature of the reality we live in.
There is no black and white, just shades of grey.
However there are shades of grey so light as to be almost indistinguishable from white.
And likewise shades of grey so dark as to be almost indistinguishable from black.
And using logic and reason via Bayesian theory we can calculate the probabilities as to what is or
isn't real about our reality and what is or is not true based on the evidence (observations) of the
reality we live in.
So I 'believe' (for example) that tomorrow the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.
In other words I have a strongly held (but not absolutely certain) conviction that this is true and will
happen.
And what's more so do you.
We all act on, and hold, firm convictions and have things that we accept as true (Are you disputing the
value of pi in Euclidean geometry?) to simply function and get through the day.
The fact that some of those are possibly wrong does not mean that they are probably wrong.
I can (and do) admit the possibility that everything we observe about the reality is an illusion.
But while it's possible it's not probable.
And you, I, and everyone else who is sane, act and think like it's real.
We all hold beliefs, and this is not a bad thing.
What matters is not that people believe things but WHAT things, and WHY they believe them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by SuzianneTo whom and what were you responding?
right.
I already knew that many people worship themselves, and therefore have no room for God.
Reading comprehension. It's not just for grownups. Wait, maybe it is.
It's sad, really. AND it makes baby Jesus cry. pfffft.
It's a simple and reasonable question.
Is there anything that would make you cease to believe in your chosen deity?
And if so what?
What has that got to do with people worshipping themselves?
And who do you think doesn't worship god because they worship themselves?
Because that to me seems to be a really stupid reason not to worship a god.
Particularly given all the good ones I can think of.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeVoidSpirit defines words in his own way. It's just how he rolls.
See the problem with that last bit (which we have argued over before) is that you are
using one meaning of the word belief and then using that meaning to dismiss all other
meanings.
I believe I know where I left me keys.
This doesn't mean I have accepted woolly thinking or am lumbered with useless baggage
and am still an unreasoning child.
...[text shortened]... t matters is not that people believe things but WHAT things, and WHY they believe them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell it weakens his argument.
VoidSpirit defines words in his own way. It's just how he rolls.
It's why I am always clear about precisely which meaning of the word faith it is that I
object to because there are other meanings to which my arguments don't apply.
What matters is not the label but the content.
There are meanings of the label belief that one can't practically or realistically do without.
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou seem like a reasonable and logical person in your recent explanation, unlike VoidSpirit and some others. So I do not understand why you think my belief, in a creator God and that the theory of evolution is stupid, is so logically unreasonable.
Well it weakens his argument.
It's why I am always clear about precisely which meaning of the word faith it is that I
object to because there are other meanings to which my arguments don't apply.
What matters is not the label but the content.
There are meanings of the label belief that one can't practically or realistically do without.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifyExtrapolating from "I think, therefore I am", "I think, therefore I am, and therefore He IS"
For religious folks here, what would be a legitimate reason to not believe in your chosen? In other words, what kind of evidence would be needed in order disprove the validity of the god you follow?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by googlefudgewe had this discussion before and i stated my position. the problem with your view is that you are associating beliefs with knowledge. there is no association between the two.
See the problem with that last bit (which we have argued over before) is that you are
using one meaning of the word belief and then using that meaning to dismiss all other
meanings.
one can have knowledge that something is true.
one can have a belief that something is true.
they can coincidentally overlap, but one is not necessary for the other.
I believe I know where I left me keys.
that's nice. i don't have such a belief. i have knowledge of where i left my keys.
This doesn't mean I have accepted woolly thinking or am lumbered with useless baggage
and am still an unreasoning child.
you can grow into reason and still keep the baggage of beliefs around as a matter of tradition. some depend on them more than others. you seen to have mostly discarded them and keep some around as a semantic exercise.
Belief can be defined thus...
1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
Now according to you you have no beliefs at all whatsoever.
Thus according to these definitions you are stating that...
You do not accept ANY statements as true or that ANYTHING exists.
You do not accept ANYTHING as true or real and have NO firmly held opinions or convictions.
the above definition is one of many that exists and causes too much confusion on the subject. in our previous conversation, i specifically isolated acceptance of truth as separate from belief. belief requires conviction of truth. acceptance of truth does not require conviction.
ergo, i can accept the existence of an object without having a conviction in its' existence. using the term "belief" would cause an ambiguity in my statement and result in a miscommunication.
for example:
"i believe the world is spherical"
if i stated the above, you would misunderstand my statement. you would think that i have an absolute conviction that the world has a spherical shape.
"i accept that the world is spherical"
"i think the world is spherical"
the above statements are non-committal and would more accurately describe my view of the shape of the world. if i were to further elaborate, i would include the caveat "[from a 3 dimensional perspective, according to knowledge offered by current technology and instrumentation]"
I am sorry but I don't believe you.
good.
Now as a proponent of Bayesian reasoning I would hold that beyond accepting your own existence
and the laws of logic and mathematics and thus the existence of some sort of reality...
All knowledge/information about the world/universe/reality is uncertain and probabilistic.
There is no absolute 100% certainty about the nature of the reality we live in.
There is no black and white, just shades of grey.
However there are shades of grey so light as to be almost indistinguishable from white.
And likewise shades of grey so dark as to be almost indistinguishable from black.
And using logic and reason via Bayesian theory we can calculate the probabilities as to what is or
isn't real about our reality and what is or is not true based on the evidence (observations) of the
reality we live in.
yes. i have no disagreement here.
So I 'believe' (for example) that tomorrow the sun will rise in the East and set in the West.
no you don't. you have knowledge that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west from your perspective on the surface of the planet. it has been that way for as long as you remember and you have no reason to doubt your knowledge.
In other words I have a strongly held (but not absolutely certain) conviction that this is true and will
happen.
And what's more so do you.
i don't have a belief or conviction that this will happen, i have knowledge that this will happen. although from my perspective and this time of year, the sun's position of rising and setting is further to the south.
We all act on, and hold, firm convictions and have things that we accept as true (Are you disputing the
value of pi in Euclidean geometry?) to simply function and get through the day.
i can get through the day without believing any of it. i accept them as true until such time as new information disputes it.
The fact that some of those are possibly wrong does not mean that they are probably wrong.
I can (and do) admit the possibility that everything we observe about the reality is an illusion.
But while it's possible it's not probable.
And you, I, and everyone else who is sane, act and think like it's real.
We all hold beliefs, and this is not a bad thing.
What matters is not that people believe things but WHAT things, and WHY they believe them.
it seems this is something in which you have developed a conviction of belief. your belief is wrong of course, everybody does not have beliefs.
i have merely stated my position in this discussion. this article expands on the position of [my] non-beliefs and offers the arguments in support of it.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm
don't believe any of it.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by SwissGambiti offer explanation for my terms if existing terms don't accurately describe my views. the term "belief" is too ambiguous as it stands. different dictionaries define it different ways, ergo it is necessary to be explicit in which parts apply and which do not, otherwise there will be miscommunication.
VoidSpirit defines words in his own way. It's just how he rolls.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThis post doesn't affect the premise of the question: what would be sufficient reason for you to not believe in your chosen diety?
we had this discussion before and i stated my position. the problem with your view is that you are associating beliefs with knowledge. there is no association between the two.
one can have knowledge that something is true.
one can have a belief that something is true.
they can coincidentally overlap, but one is not necessary for the other.
[qu ...[text shortened]... t.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm
don't believe any of it.
So far, no religious folks have dared answer this question.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifyMaybe they don't know. I don't know what it would take for me to stop lacking belief in deity.
This post doesn't affect the premise of the question: what would be sufficient reason for you to not believe in your chosen diety?
So far, no religious folks have dared answer this question.