Believing vs thinking

[PureX]

That still doesn't mean belief requires the rejection of all doubt. Beliefs are not all equally valid.

YOUR beliefs are "valid" though, aren't they. Or you wouldn't claim to "believe" them to be. That's what a "belief" essentially is: the proclamation of your accepting "X" as valid (accurate, true, etc.). Which means that you have rejected, and are still rejecting the possibility of "X" being invalid (inaccurate, untrue, etc.).

Just watch these threads and see how often and how adamantly people are fighting to REJECT any inference that what they "believe in" is invalid (inaccurate, untrue, etc.). They are clearly NOT open to the idea that their beliefs are wrong, or even could be wrong. And they are actively fighting that notion. They are actively fighting against any form of doubt or skepticism. And by "fighting", I mean they are seeking by any means to discredit, dismiss, or otherwise eliminate any opposition to their presumption that validity.

And if you're looking, you will see this among the theists and the atheists, alike. Because both camps have their fair share of "true believers".

 

[Audie]

Pretty sure that's not true, why would you think this?

"A" Belief may be like that.

As far as I can tell, everything I believe
is provisional.

I don't do unshakeable faith.

 

[Audie]

Because it's the presumption of correctness (belief). And one cannot logically presume something is correct while also suspecting that it's not. One can hope that something is correct while also understanding that it may not be, though. Which defines the difference between belief and faith.

Show us someone besides you who so
defines religious states of mind.

 

[Sheldon]

YOUR beliefs are "valid" though, aren't they. Or you wouldn't claim to "believe" them to be. That's what a "belief" essentially is: the proclamation of your accepting "X" as valid (accurate, true, etc.). Which means that you have rejected, and are still rejecting the possibility of "X" being invalid (inaccurate, untrue, etc.).

I don't reject any possibility they might be false. I don't believe even objective facts are absolutes, since I must accept they have to remain tentative in the light of new evidence, however unlikely.

 

[PureX]

Show us someone besides you who so
defines religious states of mind.

If you have to appeal to the opinions and ignorance of the masses to try and negate the point I'm making, you have nothing to work with. It's like saying that because the vast majority of humans believe that God exists, and I say God does not exist, I must be the one that's wrong. The truth is I am smarter than most people, and a lot more discerning when it comes to subtle but significant differences between ideas and perspectives. So if you want to negate some observation I pose, you're going to have to do better than the average human's lack of personal insight.

 

[Sheldon]

The truth is I am smarter than most people,

 

[Audie]

If you have to appeal to the opinions and ignorance of the masses to try and negate the point I'm making, you have nothing to work with. It's like saying that because the vast majority of humans believe that God exists, and I say God does not exist, I must be the one that's wrong. The truth is I am smarter than most people, and a lot more discerning when it comes to subtle but significant differences between ideas and perspectives. So if you want to negate some observation I pose, you're going to have to do better than the average human's lack of personal insight.

I just wanted one example, little suspecting that you are the only example!

Well played.