Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, Oct 9, 2017.
You know what else comes from god? Intestinal parasites. All you need to do is look within.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I don't follow. What do you mean, spidergoat?
God loves us so much he created human-specific parasites. I was being sarcastic.
What's wrong, spider? If you have intestinal parasites, perhaps there is a doctor who can help.
Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us be thankful.
Then one believes what one has learnt. It doesn't make it a "false belief".
No. One person has a firm belief in the process of acquiring that knowledge. Upon realising the his answer is incorrect, he only needs to make a simple adjustment.
To categorize as a "false belief", is not only wrong, but potentially, psychologically damaging.
I don't know why morals has come into it, but if someone maintains that Paris is the capital of Spain, despite knowing that it isn't. Then that person is delusional. If you want to call that a false belief, be my guest.
It means they don't know. Knowing whether Paris is the capital of France, or Spain, is not about belief. Either you know it or you don't.
The reality is, the example Sarkus gave was a crap one, and now you feel you have to keep it going.
Anyways, let's move on from this silly example.
I've already explained this in the form of a logical argument.
Again, this is an atheist comprehension of God. It doesn't matter that God has these attributes, to believe in God. These are things you begin to understand in the due course of time.
I can. But I'm not going to.
So your so-called belief in God was based purely on what people told you?
No wonder you feel angry, and hurtful toward theists.
It does matter why you believed.
Why did you?
I went to church for about two years. I learned to play music in the church (the best place to learn IMO), and I never once believed what I was being told about God, Christianity, and Jesus. Simply because I wasn't satisfied with any of the answers. Eventually, after about 2 years I wasn't really welcomed there anymore, because I was asking too many difficult questions, and it was clear I was not going to become a member.
I always accepted God, but I never really understood how God could be. That took years of focusing my mind on the subject matter.
Once I was ready to let go of what I thought I knew, it became easier to understand. The thing is, it's not even complicated. It's very simple. But you have to be in the right state of mind to do this. Actually it is the same with any subject matter. One has to be in the right state of mind to understand it.
So why did you believe?
Peter Pan does exist, which is why we're talking about him. For some reason, Wendy believes he is real, like pots and pans. The question is; Why does she think this is so, although she has never touched him, and doesn't know of anyone who has.
We cannot know what is behind that statement until we are aware of the reasons why.
Peter Pan is real, which is why we're discussing him. But the fictional character that we identify as Peter Pan, is not real in the way pots and pans are.
If Wendy believes that the fictional character is real, like pots and pans, then Wendy could be delusional.
Because it is the truth.
Doesn't change the fact that god, if it exists and created all life, is trying to torture us with horrific insects for no good reason.
Who cares what that asshole said?
If what they believe something that does not conform with fact then it is a false belief. Period.
You categorically misunderstand what a false belief is. I know you have a penchant for trying to redefine things to suit your agenda, but I'm not sure why you're struggling with the concept of a false belief simply being a belief that is held that does not conform to fact. The rationale, or lack of, for holding the belief is irrelevant to it being a false belief.
A delusion is a sub-set of false beliefs, being a false belief that is still believed despite superior evidence to the contrary.
Yes, knowledge is about belief. The predominant philosophical view of what knowledge is, as mentioned previously, a Justified True Belief. I.e. to hold knowledge, to know something, requires three things: (1) the holding of the belief that what you think you know is true; (2) adequate justification for believing it to be true (noting that there is considerable debate in philosophical circles as to what constitutes "adequate"); (3) that the belief is true / conforms to fact.
So to say that knowledge is not about belief rather smacks in the face of the main philosophical view. While you're of course entitled to your own philosophy on the matter, it would help if you explain how you would distinguish between a belief and knowledge?
Your struggle with the example quite clearly highlights your inability to understand what it is really quite a simple notion: any belief held, for whatever reason, that is not true is a false belief.
Since you can't seem to grasp what the example quite clearly explains, I would suggest that moving on will only lead to problems down the line, especially if you view "moving on" as a tacit acceptance of your notion of what "false belief" is.
Maybe you should look up what "false belief" is in, say, the theory of mind, notably the "false belief task" (a test to see if children can distinguish between what they believe and what someone else may believe, and at what age this ability develops.)
Heck, even give wiki a spin...
He was quite the optimist. I totally misunderstood him until I understood him.
I understand him and still think he's a bad person for starting a religion and perpetuating irrational myths. I much prefer the late U.G. Krishnamurti.
I don't know why such things exist, or whether there is a reason. It seems that most pain is self-inflicted.
Except for genetic diseases, parasites, natural disasters...
I like him too.
If you lived only long enough to hear the sound of a bird singing outside your window, would it have been worth the journey?
Bowser — Is "Life" indeed so "Fatal"? Does that equivalence ("is") truly apply in this relation? Ought one become a sort of "fatalist", in the face of "it"? And to what does such a "fatalism" amount? It all begs the question: What is "Life", "itself"?
It's not "fatalism" but more of a reminder. If not for others, than more for myself.
Magical. Spiritual. The best gift ever.
What? Is that a "religious" view, that you are proffering? Or a more "philosophical" one, as in your "philosophy of life"? How should I receive this so-called gift?
Ask a baby dying from cancer. My point isn't that there is no joy in life, but that there is no one to thank. If there was, I would have a few complaints about their sociopathy.
Separate names with a comma.