No. I believe that if someone believes in God, they have to know something about what, and why they believe. They must be able to give a solid reason why it is they believe as opposed to not believe. Believing in something cannot mean you bring the thing into existence. That would mean one could not actually believe in that thing, despite asserting they do. If one inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, or understanding, actually believe in something, then one can learn of this, as one learns more about what it is they believe. I think you are confused about what belief is. You seem to think of as some kind of dogmatism. Where the person, once they believe, is locked into it. Was there ever a point where you believed Peter Pan could fly? Was there ever a time when you believed the descriptions and stories about God? If the answer is yes, why did you believe? Not. If Wendy believes that the shadow belongs to Peter Pan, she will have a reason why. So at some point Wendy will come to to understand the Peter Pan is a fictitious character. Atheists who claim to have been theist at some point, are in the same position as Wendy. They read the descriptions and stories about God, they accepted what was told to them. They had no belief, or connection to God, but accepted what they were told by certain authorities. They thought they believed in God, because they did what asked of them, and they studied the Bible. But after a while, with the rise of scientific advancement, and the new atheist uprising, they began to realise that there is no God. That it's all indoctrination, blah blah blah! The reality is, they were without God, just like the biblical Cain was without God, despite his elaborate offers. They were always atheist, and they came to that understanding, the way Wendy will come to that understanding. One just doesn't believe something, and belief isn't fixed. One can, and does modify one's belief with the introduction of new information, knowledge, and experience. The natural aim of belief is to come to the point of knowledge. We have to first be true to ourselves before we can make such progress. Without awareness, we are dead. I believe that all living things have some sort of awareness, which is suitable to the limitations of their bodies. I don't think life lies. There is no reason for me to think you are making up the idea that you are atheist. Similarly I don't believe there is any reason to think someone makes up the idea that they are theist. So this is why I'm interested in why there are theists and atheists. Jan.
Ok. This falls under the umbrella of God Is, and without God. All of the above. I don't accept your "dealt with" as actual. You'll have to do better. You can't. Not while you're atheist. Jan.
You are wrong about that, of course - it is obviously logically possible, even if you are correct and it never happens. You anticipate that unlikely possible event with such confidence. Adult Christian fundies seldom come to understand. Not your belief. You don't. Few believers do, in my experience. In theory not necessarily, in practice quite often.
So you mean you do accept that someone can believe in something that is false? That one could, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, actually believe that Paris is the capital of Spain?
No. Because it isn't false. There is no Peter Pan, but I believe. The problem is, there is Peter Pan. Wendy, in due course of time, will realized that Peter Pan does not exist in the way pots and pans exist, thereby modifying her belief She couldn't believe in Peter Pan, if there was no Peter Pan, because there would be nothing to believe in. Jan.
Anti-theists can rarely see beyond their prejudice. You are one such Anti-theists. Everything you said is obviously umbrella'd by this unfortunate condition. Jan.
I think you recognize how appropriately ironic this is. This is pretty much exactly what people have been witnessing from you, substituting 'theism' with 'anti-theism'. By the way; it is an ad hom. And thus, invalid as an argument. What you are doing is tantamount to refusing to answer any questions put to you, and attempting to defend it by claiming the questioner is not a valid source of questions. Everyone else see this. I am certain you do too.
You think Paris being the capital of Spain isn't false??? I'm asking simply whether you think people can believe something that is actually false. Do you think that?
Everyone agrees. except Jan. Sarkus is using small words so Jan can understand the concept that it is certainly possible for people to believe in things that are not true. If Jan were to admit that, he would have to* admit that his belief in God is (at least, in principle) possibly a belief in something that is not true. *Unfortunately, Jan will either deflect, by posing a new question, or manipulate the statement to read as if it applies to others but weasel out of acknowledging that it applies to himself.
It's not false, it is a mistake. It would be false, if after obtaining the correct information, one still maintained the false information as true. Jan.
Indeed, so let's see what Jan does... Jan, if something is false then it does not correspond with reality. This is irrespective of validity of justification. A belief is false simply if it does not correspond to reality. A subset of such a false belief would be one that is nonetheless justified but from incorrect or incomplete information. i.e. a mistaken belief is still false if what is believed does not correspond with fact. What you are doing is equivocating "false" with "delusional" (the holding of a view despite knowing it to be contradicted by fact). Please don't. Now, let me ask you again: if someone, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, believed Paris to be the capital of Spain, would this be a false belief? Hint: does the belief correspond with fact or not? If not then...
I've already explained Sarkus. If the person believed Paris to be the capital, they would hold that belief, despite Paris not being the capital. That belief would be false. But I doubt people go to the point of having to belief something like that. I think you think belief is something one instantly does. I don't believe that Paris is the capital of France. I know it. If the capital city should change, and I still cling Paris as the capital. You may find I have a reason for this belief. But it wouldn't be false. If there are capital cities of countries, I get wrong in a pub quiz, it doesn't mean I hold a false belief mate. It simply means I am not aware of the correct answer. Both Paris, and Spain correspond to reality. The fact we get things mixed up, or have no been privy to the correct information, does not mean hold a false belief. You're talking nonsense Sarkus. All this nonsense because you want to justify your denial and rejection of God. Based on what you've written thus far, I doubt you have the mental capacity to understand what I am saying. Either that, or you're doing a great impression of a person who doesn't. Jan.
So this would be a false belief, even if it is inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension? This is contrary to what you said previously: Me, post #564: "So you mean you do accept that someone can believe in something that is false? That one could, inadvertently, due to false information, or lack of comprehension, actually believe that Paris is the capital of Spain?" Your response, post '565: "No. Because it isn't false." As ever, Jan, your lack of consistency from one post to another, your willingness to contradict yourself, is detrimental to the health of this thread. You think incorrectly. It is a false thought on your part. Knowledge is generally accepted as a Justified True Belief... so knowledge is still a belief - one that is not only justified but also corresponds with reality/fact. So if you claim to know something then you are claiming not only that you believe it, but you claim that your belief is both justified and true. (There are of course criticisms of the simple JTB approach (Gettier et al) but it is the main starting point within philosophy.) Yes, it would be false. If the belief does not correspond to fact/reality then it is a false belief. As you say in the second and third sentence of your post above: "If the person believed Paris to be the capital, they would hold that belief, despite Paris not being the capital. That belief would be false." Why do you struggle so much with the internal consistency of your arguments, even within the same post? How is anyone to know wtf you mean when you given such contradictory positions? And thus your belief is false. This differs from "I don't know" where you don't profess a belief that it is Paris. But even if you guess and get it wrong, that would be a false guess. False = does not correspond to fact. It really is that simple, and your subsequent semantic bullcrap is simply more trollish behaviour. Give it a rest already! Again, if you believe Paris is the capital of Spain, this is a false belief. Your belief does not correspond to fact. It is false. It is that simple. Actually, Jan, what you consider to be "nonsense" is relatively simple to understand, and it is true. That you think it nonsense is unfortunately a sad indictment of your willingness to troll this thread. You have made a mistake, Jan, and you simply can't bring yourself to admit it. So instead you try to play every semantic game you can. That you believe you are correct is also a false belief on your part. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So rather than actually present an argument or an explanation to clarify what you see as a misunderstood position, you resort to insults. Telling, isn't it.
Actually it wouldn't, because in order to believe, they have to have a reason. If they have a reason, it is not a false belief. I don't think so. Knowledge; facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. No it wouldn't be. We would not know until we get the reasoning behind the belief. Like I said, we would need to know the reason for the belief. It might be the the believer accepts Paris is not the capital, but have reasons why he/she believes what they do. Huh! A mistake isn't a false belief. Why would you think it is? The belief is real, but it is a mistake. Not a false belief. Examples of false beliefs are; Life owes me something. The universe is out to get me. I am stuck in my current life situation. It’s too late to start anything. Things of that nature. Getting the capital of Spain, wrong, is simply a mistake. Jan.
