Lets talk about beliefs

[King Phenomenon]

For me, I can reach out and read scripture, pray and worship, and something happens in that relationship. I'm going to make an educated guess that there is truth in my religion.

Also we all have beliefs. We can't possibly know enough about everything to operate in the world without beliefs that support a basic functioning psyche. You could Google "core beliefs" for some examples.

Belief is belief. It can be well supported or pure idiocy. It's still belief. Knowledge is just well-supported belief.

Knowing is more rewarding than believing and if it turns out you’re wrong who cares anyway no big deal really

 

[Twilight Hue]

For me, I can reach out and read scripture, pray and worship, and something happens in that relationship. I'm going to make an educated guess that there is truth in my religion.

Also we all have beliefs. We can't possibly know enough about everything to operate in the world without beliefs that support a basic functioning psyche. You could Google "core beliefs" for some examples.

The catch is asking yourself if you think you might be wrong. An educated guess allows for that, and can be adjusted accordingly.

 

[Valjean]

It's a opposition based on the other person's claim. We don't know what the opposer believes about the concept o god just that he disagrees with the statement presented.

The claim and opposition of that claim means nothing on its own. Once they support their opinions/beliefs I'd think both parties explanations are considered their beliefs and opinions unless both parties can support their statements.

The only way a nonbeliever can support his statement is to challenge the validity of the statement the other made. Of he believes God does not exist, he disagrees with the claim out of lack of experience.

In my opinion, both claim and opposition mean nothing unless the claimer can support his belief and the latter can dysprive the validity of it based on his experience, understanding, and knowledge on the topic.

The believer is making a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on him. If he cannot support his assertion it fails simply on lack of merit. The antithesis is assumed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The believer is making a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on him. If he cannot support his assertion it fails simply on lack of merit. The antithesis is assumed.

I don't understand; what is the connect you're making between my comment and yours?

 

[Riders]

What exact beliefs are the OP talking about anyways? What is it that you believe that you think you know?

 

[nPeace]

I don't need to believe something that's right in front of me. It's not like I require belief to reach out and eat my sandwich for lunch because well, I can actually reach out and eat it . ;0]

Plus I don't have beliefs. Rather I go for educated guesses that have a foundation on fact and accept the possibility that it isn't the case.

Belief is for those who are desperate to want something to be true to the point that it must be so in their minds and cannot accept that it might be wrong.

Maybe I missed the point of your earlier statements.

Do you want desperately for your statements to be true... because they aren't. They are beliefs.

A person does not have to want something to be true in order to have a belief... desperately or otherwise.
Check any dictionary if you disagree, and if you disagree with the dictionary, just give it careful thought.

Believing or thinking you are right is what? A belief.
What you are claiming here is not a sandwich in front of you.

 

[We Never Know]

What exact beliefs are the OP talking about anyways? What is it that you believe that you think you know?

Any belief. To me a belief is a belief.

 

[Deeje]

The believer is making a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on him. If he cannot support his assertion it fails simply on lack of merit. The antithesis is assumed.

Yes, so assumptions can never masquerade as facts.....beliefs are beliefs, no matter what their foundations are. Beliefs acquired from others, no matter how qualified their own teachers were, still does not replace facts and truth.

Belief is accepting what resonates with us as individuals.....proof is optional.

 

[Clara Tea]

If you accept a belief without proof, then you must accept that Fred Flintstone is real, Santa is real, and the tooth fairy is real.

So, belief and lack of belief are not logical equals.

Furthermore, there is a vast difference in a "lack of belief" and "belief that God is not real." Lack of belief means that there is not sufficient proof that God is real. It isn't about finding proof that God is not real.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Well if you know something, then you don't have to have a belief.

I think belief is just wanting something to be true in the absence of evidence.

A be it as it may if you have a belief you don’t need knowledge.

 

[night912]

I don't need to believe something that's right in front of me. It's not like I require belief to reach out and eat my sandwich for lunch because well, I can actually reach out and eat it . ;0]

Actually, you do require belief. You believe that a sandwich exists in front of you, therefore, you reached out and eat it. If you didn't believe that there's a sandwich in front of you, then you wouldn't have reached out to grab it.

Plus I don't have beliefs. Rather I go for educated guesses that have a foundation on fact and accept the possibility that it isn't the case.

You believe that those educated guesses have a foundation on fact.

Belief is for those who are desperate to want something to be true to the point that it must be so in their minds and cannot accept that it might be wrong.

Not necessarily, that's why your beliefs changes whenever those things are shown to be wrong.

Well if you know something, then you don't have to have a belief.

No, if you know something to be true, then you believe that it's true. You are being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself if you don't believe that in which you know is true.

I think belief is just wanting something to be true in the absence of evidence.

Can you believe that something is true based on evidence?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually, you do require belief. You believe that a sandwich exists in front of you, therefore, you reached out and eat it. If you didn't believe that there's a sandwich in front of you, then you wouldn't have reached out to grab it.


You believe that those educated guesses have a foundation on fact.


Not necessarily, that's why your beliefs changes whenever those things are shown to be wrong.


No, if you know something to be true, then you believe that it's true. You are being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself if you don't believe that in which you know is true.


Can you believe that something is true based on evidence?

No.

I don't need to believe I have a sandwich (unless I'm hallucinating of course) anymore than I'm eating one. (Unless I'm hallucinating of course)

And no again, because any fact can be pointed out to support my guess. That's why it's an educated guess and not belief.

I'm also willing to acknowledge that I'm in error, faced with fact and new information and change accordingly. Something people with beliefs are typically loathe to do and will dismiss any facts that can change one's beliefs.

That's why religion is primarily based on beliefs and science with guesswork isn't.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A be it as it may if you have a belief you don’t need knowledge.

That would certainly be the case when belief is all one has to go on.

No doubt knowledge can be an enemy of belief.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually, you do require belief. You believe that a sandwich exists in front of you, therefore, you reached out and eat it. If you didn't believe that there's a sandwich in front of you, then you wouldn't have reached out to grab it.


You believe that those educated guesses have a foundation on fact.


Not necessarily, that's why your beliefs changes whenever those things are shown to be wrong.


No, if you know something to be true, then you believe that it's true. You are being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself if you don't believe that in which you know is true.


Can you believe that something is true based on evidence?

Let's put it this way, Pluto is not a planet.

Everyone accepted the fact that Pluto was a planet at one time. Nobody had to believe it because it was factual.

Then one day, in light of new information, Pluto was declassified as a planet.

So henceforth Pluto was no longer regarded as a planet but rather a subclass as a dwarf planet and the solar system was amended.

One group accepted the change and didn't require any belief being new information changed those parameters.

Others however, remained dogged and insisted Pluto was still a planet and disregarded any new information. This group is those who believe Pluto is still a planet. These are the believers.


Others didn't require any belief as the new information is sufficient to ammend the view of Pluto as a planet. These are the educated guesses for which belief plays no role.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A be it as it may if you have a belief you don’t need knowledge.

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Your beliefs include everything you accept as true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If John Doe comes on and post god is real, god is caring, god is the creator of life, etc. Isn't that John's beliefs?
So if anyone comes on and says god isn't real, god isn't caring, god didn't create life,,,, isn't that their belief?
In reality 99.9% of arguments/debates here are based on opposing beliefs. You can claim you lack belief or have no belief yet you have to have belief in the evidence you accept. If you didn't have belief in it you wouldn't accept it.

Convince me I'm wrong.

Beliefs to me are relative. If they are relevant to the age we live in then evidence will be there to support their truth. If a medicine heals an illness then it can be said to be a cure.

So if a belief solves problems and brings peace to the world then peace is its evidence. For this age, outdated beliefs, I believe, are not in the best interests of the world because they are limited and this age requires universal, all-embracing and inclusive solutions.

So love for ones country, race or religion are limited and cannot bring peace because they exclude all the others. In this age I believe that only love for all humanity and acceptance of all humankind as one family can bring peace. Anything that does not serve the best interest of all humanity, in this age, is doomed to failure and will not heal the prejudices and hatreds which exist. Belief needs to be workable in the age we live in for it to be valid. Limited beliefs were universal in their age but now with all people interconnected, it is my belief they are not inclusive enough to bring us together.

 

[MonkeyFire]

That would certainly be the case when belief is all one has to go on.

No doubt knowledge can be an enemy of belief.

knowledge is my fallen angel of light. Hindus make an association between light and knowledge.

 

[night912]

No.

I don't need to believe I have a sandwich (unless I'm hallucinating of course) anymore than I'm eating one. (Unless I'm hallucinating of course)

Like I said, are being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself. Believing that a hallucination of a sandwich exist, but don't believe that an actual sandwich you're eating exist.

And no again, because any fact can be pointed out to support my guess. That's why it's an educated guess and not belief.

Again, you're being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself. You don't believe the facts, and yet, you are using the same facts as a base for your "educated" guess.

I'm also willing to acknowledge that I'm in error, faced with fact and new information and change accordingly. Something people with beliefs are typically loathe to do and will dismiss any facts that can change one's beliefs.

That's only your belief. An assertion without evidence is nothing more than a bald assertion. You have no evidence to support your claim that you just stated, I see no reason to accept it as being true, therefore, I'm not convinced. So I currently lack the belief regarding that particular belief of yours.

That's why religion is primarily based on beliefs and science with guesswork isn't.

Irrelevant. Within context, beliefs have nothing to do with religion and science. Neither one of them are based on beliefs.
Some people based their beliefs on the results and/or what's being taught in both religion and science, not the other way around.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Like I said, are being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself. Believing that a hallucination of a sandwich exist, but don't believe that an actual sandwich you're eating exist.


Again, you're being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself. You don't believe the facts, and yet, you are using the same facts as a base for your "educated" guess.


That's only your belief. An assertion without evidence is nothing more than a bald assertion. You have no evidence to support your claim that you just stated, I see no reason to accept it as being true, therefore, I'm not convinced. So I currently lack the belief regarding that particular belief of yours.


Irrelevant. Within context, beliefs have nothing to do with religion and science. Neither one of them are based on beliefs.
Some people based their beliefs on the results and/or what's being taught in both religion and science, not the other way around.

I rest my case.

 

[night912]

Let's put it this way, Pluto is not a planet.

Everyone accepted the fact that Pluto was a planet at one time. Nobody had to believe it because it was factual.

Then one day, in light of new information, Pluto was declassified as a planet.

So henceforth Pluto was no longer regarded as a planet but rather a subclass as a dwarf planet and the solar system was amended.

One group accepted the change and didn't require any belief being new information changed those parameters.

Others however, remained dogged and insisted Pluto was still a planet and disregarded any new information. This group is those who believe Pluto is still a planet. These are the believers.

That's a logical fallacy, equivocation fallacy. Sorry, but that's not how logic works. You don't get to cherry pick when and where the usage of the words, "accept" and "belief/believe" in order to make them suit your argument.

Others didn't require any belief as the new information is sufficient to ammend the view of Pluto as a planet. These are the educated guesses for which belief plays no role.

A rational person's beliefs comes after the facts, not before.

Sorry to break the news to you, but your attempt at painting "belief/believe" as being exclusive to religion and/or religious people has failed. Within the context of this discussion, science is irrelevant. And trying to use science in this discussion as a differential factor did not help your argument at all. Throwing in the word, "science" when it's irrelevant to the discussion, especially when no actual science is being done, is just the same as the "Godit" argument.

Everyone accepted the fact that Pluto was a planet at one time. Nobody had to believe it because it was factual.

Again, you're being irrational and/or dishonest to yourself. You accepting the facts and not believing the facts at the same time is illogical, it's a contradiction. Beliefs can either be based on evidence/facts or not. There are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. A person doing some critical thinking prior to believing that something is true, usually ends up with having a rational belief. Irrational beliefs are usually based on little to no evidence, no facts, misinformation, and/or illogical reasoning.

A rational person will believe in the existence of the sandwich he/she is eating, but does not believe in the existence of the sandwich in his/her hallucination.