Agnostics...Immobile?

[SNPete]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Let me introduce you to myself, tman. I have no beliefs.

Surely you jest!

A man's gotta believe in something!

I believe I will have another drink!!! ;-D

[Athena]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Like I said, there is no such thing as a person who has no beliefs. The only type of people who are living and have no beliefs are vegitables. You choose to belief that god doesn't exist. That's a belief. Others choose to belief that god does exist. That's a belief. I choose to belief that there is no proof for either of the former two beliefs and thus they are irrelevent. That, again, is a belief.

I think you are being antagonistic. You seem to have a closed mind and to be arguing those who do not have a closed mind don't exist. The first step to wisdom is to hold the idea "I don't know". When are heads are too full of an idea to add to what we think, we can not know truth.

Several times the bible says God is beyond our compacity of understanding, and the bible warns us to not be so sure of what we know. We can believe God exist, without interpreting the bible literally, and without accepting the only true God is the God of Abraham.

There are two was to interpret the bible, abstractly of literally. If we interpret the bible literally, sickness is caused by demons, and people can literally see and count the number of demons leaving a person's body. Now I have never experienced this so it is hard for me to believe this true. I believe it is virus and bactria, the unclean things the Hebrews spoke of and why they encouraged washing hands, that makes people sick, and there are dysfunctions of the body like heart failure that make people sick. When Jesus said it isn't unclean things but what is in our hearts that makes us sick, this should not be taken too literally and I have watched ministers sweat blood when they careless used this verse of the bible and suddenly realized he is speaking to parents and children, and mothers are glaring at him for saying we don't need to wash our hands. Laugh, immediately they begin back tracking and trying to explain we do need to wash our hands, and why Jesus appears to have said otherwise.

Do we literally believe Adam and Eve or do interpret this abstractly? Jesus said he speaks in parables because humans are more apt to listen to these stories. They are not meant to be taken literally. Are there literally demons that Jesus chased from people's bodies and that must live in our bodies today, and if we have good hearts can we keep the demons out? Literally or abstractly, how do you intrepret the bible? We can hold we do have demons, fears and resents, and we know these can make us sick, this is not a belief in the supernatural, but a different understanding demons. Protestants thought they were reforming religion by intrepreting the bible literally, and this created a huge, huge problem!!! It makes the bible quite unbelievable for many. The problem is made so much worse when people insist on a literal intrepretation of the bible, and that those who don't do the same don't understand God and God's will.

Do not be close minded. It is fair to not know. We can believe reincarnation is a possibility, or heaven and hell is a possibility, or maybe there is no life after death. We can really no know.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Those are 2 separate beliefs.

Those are two different statements. A statement is not a belief. I can state all sorts of things that I neither understand nor believe.

Your belief is either that you're not going to have a belief that there is a god or your belief is that there is not a god.

You are using an overly broad meaning for the term belief.

Here is what Webster's says about the word:

Quote by: Webster's Main Entry: be•lief Pronunciation: b&-'lEf Function: noun Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan 1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

Most people mean 1) when they use the term. That is of course why it is the number one definition. Then 2) is the next most popular. It would appear that you are using some form of 3) in the sense that if I state it then I believe it. That is of course unless I am lying to you, or I am an actor or I am reading a script. So you do not actually know if I do believe what I am saying unless you know that I am lying, acting or just reading. However, exactly how would you know if I am lying, acting, reading or not? Your form of belief requires more belief on your part than it does on my part.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

If you believe it so, I can't change your mind.

[Starboy]

Good then we have established what you mean by the term belief. From your point of view what I have is a belief that I lack a belief in god(s). Apparently from your point of view I am incapable of knowing if I lack a belief in god(s) (which is funny because then you would have to presume that I didn't have a belief). So do you think that your belief that my belief in my lack of belief in god(s) is also just a belief? If so then are you saying that you are incapable of knowing if you believe that I have a belief in my having a lack of belief in god(s)? If that is the case then why bother making any positive statements at all? After all it will only be a belief which you might not actually believe in.

Gotta say, I hope you don't really believe in what you believe you believe because if you do believe it then I would not want to be you.

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Choosing to have no beliefs at all is a belief.

I can string words together in nonsensical streams too. What else can you do?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I can string words together in nonsensical streams too. What else can you do?

Should I explain it in easier to understand terms?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Starboy If that is the case then why bother making any positive statements at all?

Because you'd need proof that your belief was true for it to be a statement.

Gotta say, I hope you don't really believe in what you believe you believe because if you do believe it then I would not want to be you. Starboy

Everyone wnats to be me.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Because you'd need proof that your belief was true for it to be a statement.

Errrrr, that was my point. By your reconing all statements are beliefs.

Everyone wnats to be me.

Sure, I can see the line forming. But then that is only a belief.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Starboy Sure, I can see the line forming. But then that is only a belief. Starboy

All non math human thoughts are only beliefs.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 All non math human thoughts are only beliefs.

Why are math thoughts not beliefs? Is that a belief?

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

They are until you prove them to be true.

[tman_ndsu08]

I guess, to be technical, in philosophy you can use words to prove certain things to be true that would be true from any point of view in the entire universe, and thus true.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They are until you prove them to be true.

But isn't that a belief?

Starboy

[Agent007]

It is not a belief since it occurs whether or not we believe it or not. All theorems in Euclidean geometry, for instance, are true facts in Euclidean geometry even if we did not believe them or use hyperbolic geometry instead.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I guess, to be technical, in philosophy you can use words to prove certain things to be true that would be true from any point of view in the entire universe, and thus true.

Now we may be getting somewhere. How do you know that what you say is "true" is for the entire universe?

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Because there is no observation involved.

Anywhere you observe the thought "1+1=2", you can always only conclude that it is true. If you can do this from every observable position in the universe (and there are infinitly many of them), then the thought is true. There is no need for an observation at all if you can prove that the conclusion at one point of view will be the same for all points of view. You can do this with math.

Again, in the same matter, if you can prove a position true with words (and a QED at the end), then you win again. But proving a position true with words is usually a bit harder than math. An example might be something like "if all tigers are zebras, and all zebras are lions, then all tigers are lions", etc. This is true from any posible observable point in the universe.


However, a theory that is based on observation, like the theory of black holes or something like that, might change depending on the point of view that you're looking from.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Should I explain it in easier to understand terms?

So you're purposely being obtuse?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So you're purposely being obtuse?

No, acute.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Because there is no observation involved. Anywhere you observe the thought "1+1=2", you can always only conclude that it is true. If you can do this from every observable position in the universe (and there are infinitly many of them), then the thought is true. There is no need for an observation at all if you can prove that the conclusion at one point of view will be the same for all points of view. You can do this with math.

In the case of math 1 + 1 = 2 is defined to be "true". Math is a closed man made system with rules for "proof" and rules that constrain what the system deals with. So all the pieces are known. Perhaps not all the consequences of those pieces but at least all the pieces. Since it is man made and since man can only exist here you still do not know if 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere in the universe. It is not as if there are not other kinds of math. And it is not as if mankind knows about all of them.

Again, in the same matter, if you can prove a position true with words (and a QED at the end), then you win again. But proving a position true with words is usually a bit harder than math. An example might be something like "if all tigers are zebras, and all zebras are lions, then all tigers are lions", etc. This is true from any posible observable point in the universe.

I think you need to study logic more. You have a very naive concept of it.

However, a theory that is based on observation, like the theory of black holes or something like that, might change depending on the point of view that you're looking from.

Okay. What does any of this have to do with you little game of calling all statements beliefs? Is not a mathematical statement a belief? Isn't defining 1 + 1 = 2 as "true" a belief? Unless you are trying to back out of you silly statements by diverting the discussion. But fret not, it is only a statement therefore it is only a belief.

Starboy