Religion - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Wombi

thomas697 wrote:

Belief does imply certainty, if it didnt, it would be called an idea.

It's a tricky one on the one hand you have the "i'm pretty sure but there is a chance i could be wrong" belief, such as "I believe there is a nice dinner waiting for me at home" or "I believe the pope drinks whiskey for breakfast" both statements where the stater is allowing a margin of error.
Wikipedia's definition of belief
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."
so therefore you would be right, belief does imply certainty on the behalf of the individual saying it.
also interesting from Professor Wikipedia (From the "belief" page) -

"The terms belief and knowledge are used differently in philosophy.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have true knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief". The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge, because in order to be knowledge, there must be some person who knows it."

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Jhereko wrote:

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."
so therefore you would be right, belief does imply certainty on the behalf of the individual saying it.

I would disagree that this equates to certainty, if the subject maintains the possibility that the premise they hold to be true could possibly be wrong (and any premise could possibly be untrue).

EDIT:
Perhaps I have too extreme a definition of certainty? It basically entails there is no such thing as absolute, justifiable certainty. I actually have no problem with this, because it doesn't rule out reasonable belief, nor does it deny that there are absolute truths.

Last edited by SquishypuffDave on 11/16/2010 12:06; edited 1 time in total

thomas697

Gender: Male
Location: Melbourne

@SquishyPuffDave

The whole existence being relative thing is an enitrely different argument. Im trying to use my critical thinking with the skills that ive acquired and use them to the best of my ability. Whether what im doing or saying is real or not is an argument only a handful of people on earth could have the ability to argue.

In terms of trying to define things that are real such as Computers and Keys I believe that im really doing it ,why? because there is not one shred of evidence that I or my computer dont exist, and at the same time theres not one shred of evidence that It does exist so my belief that I'm real is an assessment based on whats tangible, you had to reply to something that I typed which makes me pretty comfortable in this knowledge.
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

thomas697 wrote:

@SquishyPuffDave

The whole existence being relative thing is an enitrely different argument. Im trying to use my critical thinking with the skills that ive acquired and use them to the best of my ability. Whether what im doing or saying is real or not is an argument only a handful of people on earth could have the ability to argue.

In terms of trying to define things that are real such as Computers and Keys I believe that im really doing it ,why? because there is not one shred of evidence that I or my computer dont exist, and at the same time theres not one shred of evidence that It does exist so my belief that I'm real is an assessment based on whats tangible, you had to reply to something that I typed which makes me pretty comfortable in this knowledge.

All I was really trying to say is that it is within the realm of possibility that your experiences are false, but that doesn't stop you from believing they are real, nor should they! It's a belief based on what's reasonable, not what is certain. (which is completely valid, and is no less of a belief)

Last edited by SquishypuffDave on 11/16/2010 12:14; edited 1 time in total

Wombi

@thomas697 and of course living with the notion that existence is subjective is pointless (speaking from personal experience) as it achieves nothing.

thomas697

Gender: Male
Location: Melbourne

SquishypuffDave wrote:

thomas697 wrote:

@SquishyPuffDave

The whole existence being relative thing is an enitrely different argument. Im trying to use my critical thinking with the skills that ive acquired and use them to the best of my ability. Whether what im doing or saying is real or not is an argument only a handful of people on earth could have the ability to argue.

In terms of trying to define things that are real such as Computers and Keys I believe that im really doing it ,why? because there is not one shred of evidence that I or my computer dont exist, and at the same time theres not one shred of evidence that It does exist so my belief that I'm real is an assessment based on whats tangible, you had to reply to something that I typed which makes me pretty comfortable in this knowledge.

All I was really trying to say is that it is within the realm of possibility that your experiences are false, but that doesn't stop you from believing they are real, nor should they! It's a belief based on what's reasonable, not what is certain. (which is completely valid, and is no less of a belief)

An experience based on observations cant be invalid if theres no other way for it to be viewed. I'm not saying there is no God, What I'm saying is if there were a God he should be pretty pissed off if people believed in him for stupid reasons. He'd more than likely rather someone not believe him for reasons that make sense to them than someone believe in him based absurdities.

Ive had no experience that makes me think God doesnt exist, because god existence wasnt planted in my brain at birth, therefore I reject rumours. To say that I've had an experience that made me not believe in God is absurd, because if no one told you about Gods apparent existence any event in your life that occured that made you say "That was a sign of god" you would completely dismiss.

@Jhereko I dont really understand, did you take what I said Subjectively because I was trying to be as Objective as possible?
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

I think what he meant was that constantly doubting your sensory input is pointless.

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

silverwing wrote:

And if you're right about your choice then when you die you will either be UPSET to discover you're being judged for not believing or just dead and not really feeling anything.
And for some reason, logically, it seems those who believe are more likely to have a fulfilling life and fulfilling death. Haha

Sorry for cutting out just a piece of your post, it is however, for anyone wanting to make sure it is not taken out of it's context, available in it's full version just a little ways up above.

I think our logics differ. To me it is not logical at all that you would have a more fulfilling life and/or death if you spend your life believing in something (whether in the end true or not) rather than deciding for yourself based on what you actually perceive about the world, and so far noone has been able to explain what exactly is so fulfilling about that. The whole thing about being judged after death for not believing seems highly unlogical though. If in fact there is a god, and he, as is being preached by those wanting to make sure you follow suit, is all-knowing, all-powerful, yet also loving and caring for you personally, it seems highly unlogical that he would equip you with a brain then scold you for not believing something that once you start looking at it seems utterly absurd. "But you don't know God's ways", says the preacher. That is true, but I am not the one claiming I do, you are the one doing that Mr. Preacher. And you are the one telling me what I must do.

Wombi

thomas697 wrote:

@Jhereko I dont really understand, did you take what I said Subjectively because I was trying to be as Objective as possible?

i may have misunderstood the point you were trying to convey. when I read "Whether what im doing or saying is real or not is an argument only a handful of people on earth could have the ability to argue." I responded with "and of course living with the notion that existence is subjective is pointless" meaning that i believe that everything is subjective and nothing is objective, or perhaps i'm using the wrong terms - in other words: everything can only be judged by personal judgement and there is no absolute truth - including existence (in a way "cogito ergo sum"), which i wrote because i assumed your statement was referring to the same idea (without choosing which was true).

SquishypuffDave wrote:

I think what he meant was that constantly doubting your sensory input is pointless.

pretty much yes.

silverwing

Gender: Male
Location: Perth, WA

I'm not saying - "THERE IS A GOD! GIVE GOD A CHANCE!"
I just find these Forums heavy on Why God Isn't Real and not enough thought goes into why he may be. (Regardless of people's or my current stance on the whole thing.)

I'm saying people who follow a God are as human as you or me.
Not every one of them would be ignorant. Possibly you or I are ignorant. Not every one of them would believe in God to answer life's mysteries. Maybe you and I believe in something to answer a mystery?

So a human just like YOU or I can have a different point of view.
It could be logically sound for them to believe in God.

"What?!" the reply would come, "Logically Sound??!! But How has God ever been Logically sound?!?"

Once again, if YOU have had NO experience to validate God like someone else did it would be due to a lack of something THEY have experienced to find their belief. Just like You or I may think they are lacking something to believe what we believe. And I'm not saying we all want people to change their mind. Just being open is all we all can do.

I'm trying to think of the most COMMON arguments presented by those who believe.
"I felt something DIVINE," they might say.
My response would be, "I can only trust what I know I've felt. You cannot know what you felt was DIVINE! It is a feeling."
(But I've never felt anything DIVINE to make that assumption. I'm assuming I know better than them based on something I have never felt. A common mistake made by people thinking they are logical. I've done it before. But really, I shouldn't.)

Another would be, "Look at Creation! How could all of this not be created by some Higher Being!"
And I would reply with a resounding, "It's all pretty random! We are finding things all the time to suggest a God has not got his hand in on every rising and setting of the sun, buddy!"
(But then they're suggesting [and I know this may sound stupid to those who believe in randomness] that God put those patterns into place when he Created the world and it works together so fluidly and perfectly that it is impossible to be THAT random. And with the odds for this perfect system actually existing balancing near impossible I could potentially see how one may think it was valid to believe a God is involved.)

Or maybe they would say, "My prayers were answered! My Aunty was cured of cancer! We somehow had enough food to feed so many people!"
And I would put forward, "Fluke! Fluke! Fluke!"
(But if I did not believe in a God then those three things would seem like they could occur anyway. All the time prayers are UNANSWERED so the one being answered is surely a FLUKE! And people aren't cured of cancer so this one time has got to be a FLUKE! And how the heck did everyone get fed? I don't know. Someone lied and put food in when you weren't looking because that doesn't happen! Logic! Logic Logic! Bam! Bam! Bam! But then, for argument sake, God did exist and He did answer a prayer, heal a relative and multiply food miraculously. Then the only coccurences God could ever show Humans in a physical form would be dismissed because people automatically think, "If there is no God then what would it be?" rather than, "If it wasn't human what would it be?" Thus we could potentially being as Close-Minded as those we think follow a pointless God. Gulp.)

So if God existed any choice to not believe would be against him. A Denial of Him is not taking him seriously. Either he's not real Or I don't care if he's real would offend Jesus, Allah, Yaweh, Buddah, Some Hindu elephant God with many arms if they exisated.
To most of us God is just an opposing idea. So we argue with our Idea vs. the God Idea.
Maybe (haha) we should look at it more like: Our Idea vs. God.
Then at least we're open to something a large population of the planet believes in.