God is defined, not described.

All you need do is look within. That love you have for your self comes from God. This sounds corny and stereotypical of a religious zealot, but God really does love you.
You know what else comes from god? Intestinal parasites. All you need to do is look within.
 
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.
- Buddha
 
Now, we could distinguish between somebody tentatively guessing at the answer, and somebody who gives the answer confidently in the belief that he is right. In the former case, the person might say "I really don't know, but I'm going to say Spain", or "I'll take a stab at this. Is is Spain?" In the latter case, the person might say "I remember learning about Capital Cities, and I'm sure it's Spain!", or similar.

Then one believes what one has learnt. It doesn't make it a "false belief".

In both cases, the person concerned does not know that Paris is the capital of Spain. But one person has a firm belief that it is Spain, while the other is expressing a weaker belief along the lines that "It might be Spain".

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.

Correct, and they are not necessarily to blame morally for holding the false belief.

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.

Another person, when asked the question about Paris, might say "I don't know. I couldn't possible say what country it is the capital of." That person does not have a false belief as to what Paris is the capital of. They have no belief. They are open to it being the capital of France, or Spain, or Zimbabwe, in principle.

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.

Jan.
 
Tell me why you think it is not logically possible that there is no God.

I've already explained this in the form of a logical argument.

The threshold of what they need to know is very low, though, isn't it? Obviously, they need to have been told, or have read about, the idea of gods/God. Once they are familiar with the concept of an all-powerful creator of the universe and so on and so forth, then they are free to believe in God, or not. Right?

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.

What do you mean by a "solid" reason? Can you give an example of a solid reason to believe in God?

I can. But I'm not going to.

In contrast, it took me a lot longer to find out that books like the bible and the Qur'an are, in part, also fictional stories. The difference, in part, is that people will generally readily admit that Peter Pan is fiction, whereas they will insist that the bible is the Word of God, that it's a true historical record, and so on. A lot of people just take that for granted.

So your so-called belief in God was based purely on what people told you?
No wonder you feel angry, and hurtful toward theists.

Does it matter? What would be a good reason for believing, as opposed to a bad one, according to you?

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?

Could Wendy not be mistaken in her belief? Could she not have a false

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.

Sure. Does the fact that Wendy can give a reason for her belief make Peter Pan real, then?

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.

How can you be sure of that?

Because it is the truth.
 
What's wrong, spider? If you have intestinal parasites, perhaps there is a doctor who can help.
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.
 
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.
- Buddha
Who cares what that asshole said?
 
Then one believes what one has learnt. It doesn't make it a "false belief".
If what they believe something that does not conform with fact then it is a false belief. Period.
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.
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.
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.
A delusion is a sub-set of false beliefs, being a false belief that is still believed despite superior evidence to the contrary.
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.
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?
The reality is, the example Sarkus gave was a crap one, and now you feel you have to keep it going.
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.
Anyways, let's move on from this silly example.
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.)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_91
Heck, even give wiki a spin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
 
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.
 
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.
I don't know why such things exist, or whether there is a reason. It seems that most pain is self-inflicted.
 
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"?
 
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's not "fatalism" but more of a reminder. If not for others, than more for myself.

It all begs the question: What is "Life", "itself"?
Magical. Spiritual. The best gift ever.
 
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?

Thales
 
If you lived only long enough to hear the sound of a bird singing outside your window, would it have been worth the journey?
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.
 
Back
Top