i don't think those are known as trees or hands in japan, russia, india. those are simple nouns that you use to describe them.

Completely misses the point.

We both understand the words we're using. That proves the point being made which is... That s/he who speaks necessarily presupposes a backdrop of truth. If, and only if, we know what it would take for a claim to be true, do we understand what the claim means. We necessarily believe that that is a tree, is called "a tree". That object is what we think of when someone says "tree". As we acquire subsequent belief regarding the things that we call "trees", our understanding expands accordingly. That belief can be...

1. unjustified and false
2. justified and false
3. unjustified and true
4. justified and true

It cannot be anything other than belief.

yes, we simply don't agree on the word usage.



precisely. we PRESUPOSE a backdrop of proof but i don't neccisarily believe what i say is TRUTH when i say something that i haven't experienced.

i THINK We necessarily believe that that is a tree, is called "a tree". That object is what we think of when someone says "tree". As we acquire subsequent belief regarding the things that we call "trees", our understanding expands accordingly. That belief can be...

substitute the word 'think' or 'presupose' or 'seems feasable', etc., for the word 'believe' and i'd agree.



sure it can. i can think it's justified to think it's plausible like the big bang or evolution. i can think it's unjustified to presupose that creation is plausible. in both cases i've not stated a belief.

I thought we were discussing the attributes of belief and whether or not a belief can be described as anything other than temporary.

Quoted in red is a belief you hold of which you have no experience.

So, do you claim to know the thoughts of all "god fearing" people now?


You claim that as an Agnostic, you believe nothing that you haven't experienced.
Well, has your experience shown that "I think" is synonymous with "I believe"?

That statement is false.

Not only that, people don't normally talk like that.

I'm willing to listen massage.

I believe my keys are on the dresser, I do not know for a fact, and in fact may have not experienced them having been there, the kids where told to put them back on the dresser, did they? I believe so, but I can check to see if the they are indeed up there.

God is no different. I believe no god exists, let me check . . . yup no god, ill check back later . . . till then I still believe its not there, my belief does not preclude my checking. Conditional beliefs are not the same as blind faith.

Millions of examples, millions. Everyday. Belief is flexible, it is not this black and white switch JR wants it to be so passionately. Reason can move a certain belief to an uncertain belief, it can strengthen an old belief, or create doubt.

Belief is a spectrum of acceptance based on limited knowledge, the belief is only as strong as the knowledge, how rigorous the formation and auditing of that knowledge tends to determine how accurate the belief. Taking issue with how many of the religious form and audit there knowledge is one thing, taking issue with all of belief is quite another.

They are NOT the same however strong the relationship may be.

Agreed. Here's the useless definition of belief that jrbogie offered...



Belief begins long before we know what a concept is, or have a worldview replete with taking a position on something's truth or falsehood. The irony is that he's fulfilled his own definition of belief.

All belief is about(stems from) life experience. The fact of the matter is that we are often wrong about our experiences. This denies the equation of knowing what we experience. The true believer thinks the same way. Some beliefs never change at the root, they merely acquire a newfound object of thought.

Using language(speaking) requires believing that the terms reference something meaningful, i.e. requires believing that they correspond to fact/reality. Truth is correspondence. Therefore, speaking presupposes a backdrop of truth.

That is why the simple question...

"Do you believe that what you're saying is true" quickly separates the nonsense.

What exactly do you mean by that? ..And what kind of experiences are you talking about, internal or external?

A mistake is a breach between thought/belief and reality.

?????



And what kind of experiences are you talking about, internal or external?



Explain.

What kind of mistake?

Please sight an example I don't understand what you are trying to say. It makes no sense and is too ambiguous.

i think everyone here understands that you see my views as useless. but i've defined nothing. all i've done is respond to this thread where you asked for our thoughts. you've utilized a strange tactic if encouraging a fair exchange of ideas on the topic was your goal with all the personal innuendo you've tossed at me. these funny smiley faces really aren't all that funny and of course they do nothing that lends to the disscussion. but you just keep it up. i'm here for the entertainment after all and seeing adults personally attacking other's thoughts as 'useless' is indeed entertaining.

All 'kinds' are the same in that regard.



I think/believe X. X is not the case. I've made a mistake.

You have identified(defined) how you 'see' belief, and you've now denied it. It's not that I see your views as useless, I mean you put them to use. It's that the definition you've offered for belief is lacking in it's ability to account for belief, as humans put it to use in everyday lives, and therefore is useless as setting out what belief is. You've equated all belief to religious belief mired in incorruptible conviction/faith.



If you interpret my responses here as an attack on you personally, may I suggest that this thread is not for you? I don't know you personally. The responses here are about the validity of the writing, not the quality of the persons doing the writing.

i do see your responses as personal attacks and i'll decide what threads are right for me.