• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists, quit confusing the two.

corbin said:
I generally agree.

Atheists don't seem to acknowledge the existence of philosophy.
Click to expand...
That's a blanket statement that doubtfully applies to the very heterogeneous group one can label, atheist. My experience is atheists aren't even all skeptics. They arrived at their conclusions via different roads.
 
TShaitanaku said:
No real problem, I just don't consider your category I issues to be "beliefs."

To me these are evidenced understandings, knowledge, and considerations.

Beliefs, faith, unsupported conjecture, fanciful ponderings, these are things that are the antonyms of evidenced, referenced, supported and empirically/logically derived considerations.
Click to expand...
That seems overly exclusive to me. I think a belief is anything you believe... for whatever reason. However, it is the reasons why you believe a certain thing that separate more rational beliefs from less rational ones. I refuse to let religion co-opt a perfectly good word.
 
Tricky said:
That seems overly exclusive to me. I think a belief is anything you believe... for whatever reason. However, it is the reasons why you believe a certain thing that separate more rational beliefs from less rational ones. I refuse to let religion co-opt a perfectly good word.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that belief should be an arelgious word but it seems that the word that should be used - faith - has fallen out of favour. Often when many of the religious folks say "I believe in X" they are really saying "I have faith in X".
 
corbin said:
To the Ancient Greeks it certainly did...
Click to expand...

Some did and some did not - what we refer to as Ancient Greeks covers a long period of time and a wide spectrum of beliefs, philosophies and faith. You can't really say they held a particular view.

ETA: When you think about it your comment is ironic given the Greek origins of "Scepticism" :)
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I agree with you that belief should be an arelgious word but it seems that the word that should be used - faith - has fallen out of favour. Often when many of the religious folks say "I believe in X" they are really saying "I have faith in X".
Click to expand...
Sure, that's how many religious people mean it, but it doesn't mean they are using the wrong word or that the word now is a synonym for "faith". It is a "belief", however unfounded in evidence.

For example, a conversation between a fundamentalist and a biologist might go:

Fundamentalist: I believe the biblical story of creation as to the origin of life forms on earth.
Biologist: Well, I believe in abiogenesis and evolution as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Neither one is using the word incorrectly.
 
Tricky said:
That seems overly exclusive to me. I think a belief is anything you believe... for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Why would you need to believe something that you can demonstrate evidence for?
 
Darat said:
I agree with you that belief should be an arelgious word but it seems that the word that should be used - faith - has fallen out of favour. Often when many of the religious folks say "I believe in X" they are really saying "I have faith in X".
Click to expand...

Though I consider the terms "faith" and "belief" to be strongly and tightly synonymous, I do agree that "faith" is generally more appropriate, with the same qualification that I apply to "belief" (a consideration, or opinion, held without empiric evidentiary support). The same is prevalent, from my perspective, with regards to the term "confidence". Too many seem to use the terms "belief/believe" when it would actually seem more appropriate to say that they have confidence in their understandings or knowledge.

I'm not pedantic enough that I try to insist others adhere to my conventions, but I generally do make a significant issue out of expressing my uses of some terms in an attempt to make my arguments and statements more easily, and properly, understandable.
 
Tricky said:
Sure, that's how many religious people mean it, but it doesn't mean they are using the wrong word or that the word now is a synonym for "faith". It is a "belief", however unfounded in evidence.

For example, a conversation between a fundamentalist and a biologist might go:

Fundamentalist: I believe the biblical story of creation as to the origin of life forms on earth.
Biologist: Well, I believe in abiogenesis and evolution as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Neither one is using the word incorrectly.
Click to expand...

I can see how both statements would be more clearly understood and appropriate if stated as:

Fundamentalist: I *have faith* in the biblical story of creation as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Biologist: Well, I *have confidence* in abiogenesis and evolution as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Not only (to my perceptions) is this more clearly accurate of what the two are (or probably should be) stating, but it distinguishes between supported evidentiary understandings and unsupported conjecture/conviction, without a lot of necessary additional qualification and clarification.
 
TShaitanaku said:
No real problem, I just don't consider your category I issues to be "beliefs."

To me these are evidenced understandings, knowledge, and considerations.

Beliefs, faith, unsupported conjecture, fanciful ponderings, these are things that are the antonyms of evidenced, referenced, supported and empirically/logically derived considerations.
Click to expand...

Words, twisted beyond recognition, convey no meaning.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Without evidence all you have is faith/beliefs.
Click to expand...
Or you can honestly accept and admit - "I don't know".

The problem with faith/beliefs is they are most often claimed/accepted to be knowledge/truths.

To fill in the blanks in knowledge with faith/beliefs is an irrational (aka stupid) and potentially dangerous thing to do.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.
Click to expand...

For those religions that are concerned with the behavior of adherents, what is universally true is that some type of power outside this world dictates what is right and wrong. However, the problem is that even if you believe in that power, no religion ever attempts to explain why this power must be listened to at all, only that according to this particular power it's wrong not to listen to it. It's always a foregone conclusion. So I don't believe theology is a useful tool in exploring those questions for that reason alone.

God says it's wrong to do that. What makes God the absolute authority on morality? God said so.
 
Tricky said:
Sure, that's how many religious people mean it, but it doesn't mean they are using the wrong word or that the word now is a synonym for "faith". It is a "belief", however unfounded in evidence.

For example, a conversation between a fundamentalist and a biologist might go:

Fundamentalist: I believe the biblical story of creation as to the origin of life forms on earth.
Biologist: Well, I believe in abiogenesis and evolution as to the origin of life forms on earth.

Neither one is using the word incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Just to add my two cents to this, I tend to use the word "faith" to imply trust, and "belief" or more precisely, "believe," to imply a guess.

I have faith in a person to do what he says he'll do; thus, I'm trusting him.

I believe it's going to rain, based on the weather, but I'm only guessing, as sometimes those dark clouds spill not a drop.
 
dirtywick said:
For those religions that are concerned with the behavior of adherents, what is universally true is that some type of power outside this world dictates what is right and wrong. However, the problem is that even if you believe in that power, no religion ever attempts to explain why this power must be listened to at all, only that according to this particular power it's wrong not to listen to it. It's always a foregone conclusion. So I don't believe theology is a useful tool in exploring those questions for that reason alone.

God says it's wrong to do that. What makes God the absolute authority on morality? God said so.
Click to expand...
First provide evidence a god exists, othwise all god claims and speculations are moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom