What is Belief?

[Iacchus]

Again, I need clarification of terms. Inasmuchas, I believe that the 'whole' is comprised of the real and the unreal, in which case, reality is not absolute; yet reality is whole, in and of itself, and therefore IS absolute; each according to a different shade of the meaning of absolute.

Is the foot generally aware of the elbow? From my own experience I would have to say no (on a conscious level anyway). So, in that sense you could say that the elbow is not real to the foot and vice versa. And yet both are integral members of the body as a whole, and virtually indispensable in terms of its overall function.

 

[Z]

God cannot be proven nor disproven, and so is likely to remain a subject of belief for a VERY long time.

Most other beliefs fall away as Man becomes more knowledgable about his world.

Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Z]

Iacchus - simple terms, please. What do you mean, "absolute"?

 

[Piscivore]

Well, you know what they say, "Reality is what remains when you stop believing." Sounds pretty absolute to me.

Because you've twisted the quote to suit your own ends. This behaviour, if deliberate (and exacerbated by the failure to cite), is akin to fraud.

Are you mistaken, or misleading?

Originally posted by Phillip K Dick
Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist.

 

[Iacchus]

Again, I need clarification of terms. Inasmuchas, I believe that the 'whole' is comprised of the real and the unreal, in which case, reality is not absolute; yet reality is whole, in and of itself, and therefore IS absolute; each according to a different shade of the meaning of absolute.

Of course you do realize that if it were any other way than this, we would have no means by which to learn about that which is absolute. In other words, so much of it involves establishing a belief in something, and then putting that belief to the test. Now, does that sound so terribly unscientific to you?

 

[Piscivore]

In other words, so much of it involves establishing a belief in something, and then putting that belief to the test. Now, does that sound so terribly unscientific to you?

Explain how you propose to "test" your beliefs.

 

[Iacchus]

Because you've twisted the quote to suit your own ends. This behaviour, if deliberate (and exacerbated by the failure to cite), is akin to fraud.

Are you mistaken, or misleading?

Do you wish to discuss the absolute nature of reality or not? Or, do you insist on continuing to subject us to your opinion?

 

[Iacchus]

Explain how you propose to "test" your beliefs.

How else do we put anything to the test accept through trial and error? And yes, it is possible (even necessary) to do such a thing in one's own personal life.

 

[Piscivore]

Do you wish to discuss the absolute nature of reality or not? Or, do you insist on continuing to subject us to your opinion?

I've tried to, several times. Each time I disagree with you, you dismiss it as "opinion". Never mind the fact you cannot come up with a useful, non-circular, unequivocal definition of "absolute" to even begin the discussions.

I'll expect you will not further misquote Philip K Dick henceforth, right? Else I'll have to further suspect dishonesty.

 

[Iacchus]

So, what do you work for the patent office or something? Or, just the status quo in general?

 

[Z]

Are you going to define 'absolute', or is this discussion at an end?

 

[Iacchus]

Are you going to define 'absolute', or is this discussion at an end?

What's wrong with this? ...

Inasmuchas, I believe that the 'whole' is comprised of the real and the unreal, in which case, reality is not absolute; yet reality is whole, in and of itself, and therefore IS absolute; each according to a different shade of the meaning of absolute.

Works for me.

 

[Z]

Then my answer to your question is 'yes and no'. Does that help?

 

[Iacchus]

Then my answer to your question is 'yes and no'. Does that help?

This is why I brought up the part about the foot and the elbow, to say that just because things are seemingly unrelated (to each other) it doesn't mean they're not. For example, who cares about all the people who work for the telephone company? And yet without them, there would be no phone service, right? Or, the same thing could be applied to the idea of nonsense. Without it (i.e., those things which are seemingly unrelated), how would we get a sense of what is real about what we do know? So, just because it may seem unreal, does not mean it's without its purpose.

 

[Piscivore]

So, what do you work for ... the status quo in general?

That's righ, and I HAVE A BADGE, so just WATCH IT!

 

[Radrook]

Belief in science is tantamount to blind faith since science can prove only what it assumes. What sciecence assumes it can only verify with more asumptions which themselves cannot be verified.
In short, those who blindly believe in science are basing their beliefs in unverifiable assumptions and calling those assumptions facts while snickering at those who they claim believe based only on assumptions.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why get technical when there's no need to?

That wasn't all that technical, Cap'n. Shall I confine myself to monosyllables for you? Will that make it better?

Do you expect me to wade past all this crap?

I suppose I shouldn't. You've amply demonstrated your desire to avoid any serious questioning of your views.

Now, wouldn't it be much easier to say that man's "relative" sense of meaning and his sense of "belief" are directly brought about by the same thing, his subjective nature?

That is a fairly easy thing to say, but, then again, so is "You're useless, Iacchus," and I haven't said that, either.

Now why is that so hard to admit?

Because I don't believe it to be true. Tell me why I should, and if your reasons be adequate, I will admit it.

 

[Iacchus]

Belief in science is tantamount to blind faith since science can prove only what it assumes. What sciecence assumes it can only verify with more asumptions which themselves cannot be verified.
In short, those who blindly believe in science are basing their beliefs in unverifiable assumptions and calling those assumptions facts while snickering at those who they claim believe based only on assumptions.

Without our sense of not-knowing, how would we base our sense of knowing? Isn't this how we learn about reality -- which, in fact is absolute?

 

[Piscivore]

Isn't this how we learn about reality -- which, in fact is absolute?

Have you snared even one person with these fish-hook sentences of yours?

 

[Iacchus]

Have you snared even one person with these fish-hook sentences of yours?

Just trying to divert Mr. Radrook's reply a bit. Would you care to answer it directly?