Believing vs thinking

[Sheldon]

If John said: "There is no God", would this be affirmative?

If anyone expresses a claim, they are asserting a belief they hold, since all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, and these always carry an epistemological burden of proof. Thinking and believing are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Sheldon]

Especially atheists.

Atheism isn't a belief, nor is the lack or absence of belief irrational per se. So this is just another example of the sweeping unevidenced rhetoric you seem to love posting.

 

[Clara Tea]

You are sloppily playing with language here.

Say: Bob doesn't believe a God exists, and it is more precise.

You can says: John thinks a God exists. It's in essence the same meaning as your sentence. Thinking and belief can be exchangeable as far as meaning goes.

Still, the default is why would anyone believe a God exists? No one comes to a rational conclusion a God exists via facts. The reason people end up believing in some religious view is due to their social experience and influence. This is a subconscious process and people seldom have awareness of how they are influenced by their social experiences.

Lets say that a psychic predicts many things that come to pass.

For example, in the bible, an ancient prophesy (called Revelation, which is a chapter of the bible) predicted the war in Iraq. It predicted that fiery bombs would fly through the war (and they did), but this isn't the way wars were fought thousands of years ago.

It predicted that many nations would form a coalition in mere hours. This was not possible thousands of years ago before the advent of modern communication equipment. Yet, this, too came to pass, exactly as Revelation said it would.

Revelation predicted that three presidents would rule the United States....the dragon (Bush senior), then a gap (Clinton), then Bush junior (the bible calls him a Satanic demon named the beast). This is exactlly what did happen. The bible said that it was the administration that was, but is no more (that is the Bush senior administration), and then it was the administration that was again (that is the W. Bush administration.

Revelation predicted that Washington D. C. would defeat, occupy, and corrupt Iraq (Revelation 17:18), and described it as the most powerful nation in the world.

If enough predictions come true, eventually we will have to believe them. Therefore, if a psychic who makes true predictions says that God exists, we have to believe that God really does exist. We can accept that true predictions (tested to be true) can indicate the existence of God.

So, it isn't that we have no proof of God's existence, it is that many people don't believe their own bibles. They think that ESP is silly and doesn't exist. They don't realize that psychic researchers, like Dr. Jessica Utts (currently at UC Irvine, and former chairwoman of her department), proved that ESP is real. She was one of the early researchers of psychic abilities, and worked with the CIA,. and the Stanford Research Institute, and SAIC.

 

[Clara Tea]

If anyone expresses a claim, they are asserting a belief they hold, since all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, and these always carry an epistemological burden of proof. Thinking and believing are not mutually exclusive.

Many have claimed that thinking is mutually exclusive to my existence. This would contradict De Cartes "I think, therefore I am."

 

[F1fan]

Lets say that a psychic predicts many things that come to pass.

Like when thousands of gamblers win betting on the right team winning.

For example, in the bible, an ancient prophesy (called Revelation, which is a chapter of the bible) predicted the war in Iraq. It predicted that fiery bombs would fly through the war (and they did), but this isn't the way wars were fought thousands of years ago.

I am doubtful the Bible predicted any such thing. For me to be satisfied that a prophesy is correct and valuable is when it names specific places, people's names, dates, and consequences. Feel free to present your case that the Bible predicts any modern war with these criteria.

It predicted that many nations would form a coalition in mere hours. This was not possible thousands of years ago before the advent of modern communication equipment. Yet, this, too came to pass, exactly as Revelation said it would.

Reputable historians interpret Revelations to refer to current events of the time it was written, not the future. I think that is more likely and rational.

Revelation predicted that three presidents would rule the United States....the dragon (Bush senior), then a gap (Clinton), then Bush junior (the bible calls him a Satanic demon named the beast). This is exactlly what did happen. The bible said that it was the administration that was, but is no more (that is the Bush senior administration), and then it was the administration that was again (that is the W. Bush administration.

That appears to be very liberal and generous guesses. I'm not convinced.

Revelation predicted that Washington D. C. would defeat, occupy, and corrupt Iraq (Revelation 17:18), and described it as the most powerful nation in the world.

If enough predictions come true, eventually we will have to believe them. Therefore, if a psychic who makes true predictions says that God exists, we have to believe that God really does exist. We can accept that true predictions (tested to be true) can indicate the existence of God.

So, it isn't that we have no proof of God's existence, it is that many people don't believe their own bibles. They think that ESP is silly and doesn't exist. They don't realize that psychic researchers, like Dr. Jessica Utts (currently at UC Irvine, and former chairwoman of her department), proved that ESP is real. She was one of the early researchers of psychic abilities, and worked with the CIA,. and the Stanford Research Institute, and SAIC.

One quirky thing about human psychology is a hard drive to make the self and the self's time, nation, people, etc. seem significant in history. People want to feel special and we see this behavior in what you and other theists do by interpreting old texts as if relevant to current time.

You make a lot of fantastic claims here but fail to present any facts and a coherent explanation of those facts. So your post is inadequate to be taken seriously.

 

[Audie]

If anyone expresses a claim, they are asserting a belief they hold, since all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, and these always carry an epistemological burden of proof. Thinking and believing are not mutually exclusive.

Of course. But though this is simple and
obvious it causes powerful waves of
confusion among those who insist on
total equivocation.










ipobvious

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, but the topic I would've discussed with you, is discourse on what is truth:

Every society decides to trust "authority" with:

(1) certain methodology to attain truth
(2) who is suited to implement these methodologies and what requirements they need
(3) what truths are officially to be accepted through these methods and people of "authority"

If you think this is irrelevant, that's up to you.

Thanks for reading though.

Whether or not the 'society' accepts the truths is irrelevant to whether there are, in fact, methods for establishing truth that go beyond particular societies.

For example, there are no cultural variances in the truths of mathematics. The facts that the Aztecs centuries ago discovered are just as true in China today. The facts that al Samawal discovered are the basis of our modern understanding of polynomials.

Power dynamics has NOTHING to do with the truths of math.

Neither does it have to do with the truths discovered by science. The laws of physics are the same in India as they are in Peru. The laws of chemistry are the same in the US as they are in Zambia.

That is *precisely* the strength of science: it *doesn't* depend on culture, but rises above cultures. Some cultures reject its conclusions, of course. But that doesn't affect the fact that those in those cultures could do the same experiments or observations and arrive at the same conclusions if they use proper reasoning (logic being another thing that cultures seem to be able to agree upon, like math).

 

[Link]

Whether or not the 'society' accepts the truths is irrelevant to whether there are, in fact, methods for establishing truth that go beyond particular societies.

For example, there are no cultural variances in the truths of mathematics. The facts that the Aztecs centuries ago discovered are just as true in China today. The facts that al Samawal discovered are the basis of our modern understanding of polynomials.

Power dynamics has NOTHING to do with the truths of math.

Neither does it have to do with the truths discovered by science. The laws of physics are the same in India as they are in Peru. The laws of chemistry are the same in the US as they are in Zambia.

That is *precisely* the strength of science: it *doesn't* depend on culture, but rises above cultures. Some cultures reject its conclusions, of course. But that doesn't affect the fact that those in those cultures could do the same experiments or observations and arrive at the same conclusions if they use proper reasoning (logic being another thing that cultures seem to be able to agree upon, like math).

Science has some objective evidence in some of it's fields, but it also has fields which are less objective and less proven and less factual.

 

[Polymath257]

Science has some objective evidence in some of it's fields, but it also has fields which are less objective and less proven and less factual.

Yes, most social 'sciences' are frankly not sciences at all. Many other areas don't have good quality control (psychology, and, unfortunately, medicine). There is way too much p-hacking going on. There seems to be some move to address those issues, but I have little confidence.

But, try to suggest that a p<.05 criterion is way too lax and you get howling from those that study those subjects. Try to suggest that results should be repeatable *and repeated* and those from some areas look at you like you are crazy. But, if you go to any real science, p<.0001 is a common requirement for an actual discovery. And repeatability is the *first* step in building on a result.

 

[Bathos Logos]

John believes a god does exist.
Bob doesn't think a god does exist.

Neither can be shown. So...
Does what John believes carry more weight than what Bob thinks? Or vise-versa? Why?

And before the normal of "define god", "which god" etc.. Its any god!

If Bob actually believes that no god exists, without evidence to back him up that demonstrates that no god exists (this, of course, predicated on whether or not something that meets some particular, acceptable definition of the word "god" can be demonstrated to exist or not), then no, Bob's belief that no god exists carries no more weight than any believer who positively believes that a god exists. Neither of these two competing stances about the proposition are any "better" than the other.

If, however, Bob simply replies to someone's stated position of "belief in god" with "I don't believe you because there is not good enough evidence to suggest that your belief is justified", then Bob is just reacting to what he perceives is a poor state of evidence for the given proposition. The reality is that Bob could potentially be swayed if further or better evidence were to be presented. And each of us gets our own chance to peruse the evidence and discern whether we find it lacking.

Unfortunately for those who put their stock in belief in god, we all have at our disposal in these modern times items of knowledge and belief that have extremely good evidential justification backing them. Things like our understanding of and ability to take advantage of gravity, or our understanding of chemistry and the ability to even predict which substances with react with others, etc. And so, examples abound wherein the justification for belief in the verity of the knowledge is extremely good/strong. Religious beliefs just don't meet that bar. The bar is, in a way, set... and purely religious ideas fall short every single time. Every time.

 

[F1fan]

If Bob actually believes that no god exists, without evidence to back him up that demonstrates that no god exists (this, of course, predicated on whether or not something that meets some particular, acceptable definition of the word "god" can be demonstrated to exist or not), then no, Bob's belief that no god exists carries no more weight than any believer who positively believes that a god exists. Neither of these two competing stances about the proposition are any "better" than the other.

Generally if a person is not terribly interested or motivated to believe in any sort of god in the first place they aren't going to have any personal definition of god to which they then judge and decide does not exist. Atheists tend to refer to the gods that believers claim are true and exist, and then examine what the believers describe and define.

What I have noticed over the decades is theists being less clear about what they think god is, or refer to the general references in religious texts and the community of believers. The more a god is defined the better a mind can assess whether there is evidence of it existing outside of human imagination. As theists are more vague they assume less burden to prove it, but also give less to opponents to pick apart belief and claims. Being "vague" is their new salvation.

So for Bob to decide that "no god exists" he has to have some fairly clear definition, and that will probably come from others. I think it is a pretty safe judgment to declare that the Christian evangelical God does not exist given the claims of love it is supposed to feel and express, but also how it is brutally condemning to anyone outside of basic social norms. They literally describe a god that is morally conflicted and inconsistent. In logic this would be A = -A, so the believers literally describe the impossibility of their own God.

 

[Audie]

If Bob actually believes that no god exists, without evidence to back him up that demonstrates that no god exists (this, of course, predicated on whether or not something that meets some particular, acceptable definition of the word "god" can be demonstrated to exist or not), then no, Bob's belief that no god exists carries no more weight than any believer who positively believes that a god exists. Neither of these two competing stances about the proposition are any "better" than the other.

If, however, Bob simply replies to someone's stated position of "belief in god" with "I don't believe you because there is not good enough evidence to suggest that your belief is justified", then Bob is just reacting to what he perceives is a poor state of evidence for the given proposition. The reality is that Bob could potentially be swayed if further or better evidence were to be presented. And each of us gets our own chance to peruse the evidence and discern whether we find it lacking.

Unfortunately for those who put their stock in belief in god, we all have at our disposal in these modern times items of knowledge and belief that have extremely good evidential justification backing them. Things like our understanding of and ability to take advantage of gravity, or our understanding of chemistry and the ability to even predict which substances with react with others, etc. And so, examples abound wherein the justification for belief in the verity of the knowledge is extremely good/strong. Religious beliefs just don't meet that bar. The bar is, in a way, set... and purely religious ideas fall short every single time. Every time.

Does your belief that Godzilla does not really
exist have no more weight than another's
belief the he is real and mIllions should be
spent in defense?

 

[Link]

Does your belief that Godzilla does not really
exist have no more weight than another's
belief the he is real and mIllions should be
spent in defense?

I am an agodzillalist. I don't believe in it. I have to assure myself and tell all believers in Godzilla this all the time.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Generally if a person is not terribly interested or motivated to believe in any sort of god in the first place they aren't going to have any personal definition of god to which they then judge and decide does not exist. Atheists tend to refer to the gods that believers claim are true and exist, and then examine what the believers describe and define.

What I have noticed over the decades is theists being less clear about what they think god is, or refer to the general references in religious texts and the community of believers. The more a god is defined the better a mind can assess whether there is evidence of it existing outside of human imagination. As theists are more vague they assume less burden to prove it, but also give less to opponents to pick apart belief and claims. Being "vague" is their new salvation.

So for Bob to decide that "no god exists" he has to have some fairly clear definition, and that will probably come from others. I think it is a pretty safe judgment to declare that the Christian evangelical God does not exist given the claims of love it is supposed to feel and express, but also how it is brutally condemning to anyone outside of basic social norms. They literally describe a god that is morally conflicted and inconsistent. In logic this would be A = -A, so the believers literally describe the impossibility of their own God.

I agree, and (shame on me) I almost actually left out that bit caveating that a definition of something that constitutes a "god" need be given and the "thing" under inspection meeting that definition satisfactorily. But it definitely hit me after proof-reading and for much the same reasons you pointed out. A "god" is not the same thing for everyone, and so there isn't some one-size-fits-all definition that just "works". Which, right out of the gate, makes the task of proving or disproving even a particular one difficult enough, and proving or disproving an ambiguous, catch-all version basically impossible.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Does your belief that Godzilla does not really
exist have no more weight than another's
belief the he is real and mIllions should be
spent in defense?

You injected a bit more than just the belief held up against another belief in your question. You added the weight of one of them already having been accepted and a measurable risk hinging on whether or not it is even true. When we're evaluating the two propositions, stand-alone, without such high-stakes already in play, then yes, they are equally unfalsifiable. I don't have good evidence that literally demonstrates that Godzilla doesn't exist, just as someone attempting to evidence his existence would have poor evidence also. The prudent thing to do in these situations is to simply await further demonstration either way. If such never arrives, then you have taken no action based on potentially false information. And our having zero good evidence of Godzilla's existence literally equates to Godzilla posing no threat to us... so we can safely act and react as if he does not exist... until we can't.

In your scenario, people with very poor evidence already concluded that Godzilla does (or is likely to) exist and spent millions of dollars. And such things, unfortunately, likely are possible with more plausible subject matter. For instance, having poor evidence that "weapons of mass destruction" are located in a particular area, but proceeding with a series of tactical extraction/destruction missions anyway. Obviously the risk is going to be weighed based on the plausibility of the article under consideration, but it is not unheard of that action is taken based on poor evidence/information.

So, in the case of the "weapons of mass destruction" business - which has more weight? The belief that there are WMDs in a given area, or that there are not WMDs present? Wouldn't you have to say that the weight to be attributed depends on the evidence that there is in support of either case? Meaning you have to have at least some compelling evidence either way before one belief-option seems weightier than the other.

 

[Polymath257]

I am an agodzillalist. I don't believe in it. I have to assure myself and tell all believers in Godzilla this all the time.

For many atheists, the situation looks more like a case of 'the emperor has no clothes'.

The difference is that when the young child points out there are no clothes (that the arguments for God all fail), everyone *still* insists that the clothes are wonderful and priceless.

 

[Clara Tea]

Many have claimed that thinking is mutually exclusive to my existence.

John believes a god does exist.
Bob doesn't think a god does exist.

Neither can be shown. So...
Does what John believes carry more weight than what Bob thinks? Or vise-versa? Why?

And before the normal of "define god", "which god" etc.. Its any god!

Those who believe without proof just think that they are right.

Those who believe with proof know that they are right, but perhaps there are some who do not believe the proof. For example, my friend who found a rock on a rock pile and asserted that it was a sign from God that God exists, has sufficient proof for himself that God exists, but he could not convince others.

Those who think that God exists are free to do so. However, many would argue that they have no basis for their thinking.

Some might argue that it is none of their business to examine the thinking or belief of others. But don't Christians have to prostelytize? Haven't many walked door to door to spread the word of God to others? Haven't Christians gathered in large numbers to rally for presidents (some presidents are obviously did not do God's work.....made war and torture camps, destroyed God's environment, outsourced factories abroad, then ignored the homeless former factory workers, misdirected hurricane rescue workers away from the hurricane damage while lives languished and died).

Perhaps disbelief in God is based on deeds? Can someone be of God if they torture, kill, and apathetically destroy the environment and let hurricane victims languish without aid? Perhaps it proves that they are either supporting Satan or that they do not support (or follow the laws of) God?

 

[Clara Tea]

You injected a bit more than just the belief held up against another belief in your question. You added the weight of one of them already having been accepted and a measurable risk hinging on whether or not it is even true. When we're evaluating the two propositions, stand-alone, without such high-stakes already in play, then yes, they are equally unfalsifiable. I don't have good evidence that literally demonstrates that Godzilla doesn't exist, just as someone attempting to evidence his existence would have poor evidence also. The prudent thing to do in these situations is to simply await further demonstration either way. If such never arrives, then you have taken no action based on potentially false information. And our having zero good evidence of Godzilla's existence literally equates to Godzilla posing no threat to us... so we can safely act and react as if he does not exist... until we can't.

In your scenario, people with very poor evidence already concluded that Godzilla does (or is likely to) exist and spent millions of dollars. And such things, unfortunately, likely are possible with more plausible subject matter. For instance, having poor evidence that "weapons of mass destruction" are located in a particular area, but proceeding with a series of tactical extraction/destruction missions anyway. Obviously the risk is going to be weighed based on the plausibility of the article under consideration, but it is not unheard of that action is taken based on poor evidence/information.

So, in the case of the "weapons of mass destruction" business - which has more weight? The belief that there are WMDs in a given area, or that there are not WMDs present? Wouldn't you have to say that the weight to be attributed depends on the evidence that there is in support of either case? Meaning you have to have at least some compelling evidence either way before one belief-option seems weightier than the other.

Bathos Logos said: "I don't have good evidence that literally demonstrates that Godzilla doesn't exist." Clara Tea responds: Well, I discussed the matter with Godzilla, and Godzilla said "AAAARRRRRR," which I think means that "I don't exist" (in dinosaur language).

Many knights have told kings that they slayed dragons. Given the fossils of huge dinosaurs, it sounded reasonable that huge creatures might exist, and if they insist that they spew fire, then that, too, sounded reasonable.

Bathos Logos said: "poor evidence that "weapons of mass destruction" are located in a particular area, but proceeding with a series of tactical extraction/destruction missions anyway." Clara Tea responds: (Ignoring Revelation that warns us not to attack Iraq or face God's wrath, such as Revelation 15 (seven plagues), and ignoring God's commandment not to kill). But, you are right, just as humanitarians, without religion, we should have had the patience to not attack Iraq. The reasons for war were laid out in the War Power Resolution of 1998, signed by both houses of Congress (both were Republican majority), and signed by President Bill Clinton (Democrat). Yet, Republicans didn't want Clinton to appear powerful or decisive so the resolution prohibited war, and merely gave Clinton authority to sow dissention in Iraq.

The 911 attack told us that somewhere in the Middle East there were terrorists (suspected al Qaeda at the time), and Osama bin Laden was said to be the "Where's Waldo" of terrorism by the FBI, who claimed that wherever terrorists met, there was bin Laden, somewhere in the picture. So, prior to the war in Iraq, we had nothing but a pile of innuendos. But, the America people didn't have access to covert intel. We were supposed to trust our president, and trust that the intel was sufficient. W. Bush and Colin Powell outright lied to the American people because they felt that keeping Americans safe was more important that the huge loss of lives in the Middle East.

As W. Bush said that nuclear bombs are not off the table (that is, he might nuke Iraq), the Doomsday Clock people refused to advance the clock (that is an estimation of how close we are to a nuclear war). I wrote to them, and they wrote back, saying that they didn't want to deter W. Bush from his war in Iraq. So, it depends on which political party is in power, not how close we are to a nuclear war.

Iraq (population of 30,000,000 lost about 1,000,000 citizens). Many of the soldiers sent to the front lines were shopkeepers, not soldiers, and were told that if they turned back they'd be shot. The sanctions against Saddam resulted in the starvation of Iraqi citizens (kids and women among them), and didn't impact Saddam at all, who was later found with a billion dollars in US currency in an oil drum, and Saddam, all the while, was busy building more palaces while his people starved (they were grateful for the employment). So, virtually every Iraqi citizen knew a friend or coworker who was killed by the US (that's no way to make friends). Now, after losing a war of 30 years, the US faces great resentment for their war.

This is from a region that still resents the invasion of Alexander the Great (they hold a grudge for a long time).

You made a good point that we must constantly form beliefs about the world (do they have terrorists, do they have WMD, how confident are we about our intel), and sometimes we have to quickly act on scant evidence (attack them before they attack us). So, our belief system not only establishes our theology, but also the political climate of the world.

 

[Clara Tea]

There is actually a considerable amount of evidence to cause Bob to think as he does.

There is no proof, there is a big difference

Anything can be used as evidence. A termite could be used as evidence of tooth decay. Proof, on the other hand, is difficult to obtain, and not everyone accepts it.

Sometimes answers are easy, but asking the right questions is difficult.

 

[ChristineM]

Anything can be used as evidence. A termite could be used as evidence of tooth decay. Proof, on the other hand, is difficult to obtain, and not everyone accepts it.

Sometimes answers are easy, but asking the right questions is difficult.

Lighting in the sky... Evidence Thor is angry??? Not in my book