Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

Incorrect.

How so?

Incorrect.

Again, how so?

Nope. The standard of evidence required for belief is zero. No evidence can ever result in belief. Belief should occur only when something is universally inescapably true (by the definition of belief). There is only one thing that can be said to fit that description. That other people are willing to believe things that do not fit that description is what defines them as a theist.

When belief should occur, is likewise of individual interpretation.
So your whole statement is a matter of your interpretation or opinion.
Whether or not belief occurs under your determination, is irrelevant.

To the contrary, interpretation of evidence can and does influence belief, all the time.
Its not a requirement for some, but essential for others.
Individual determination, of what is weighty and what isn't, varies as well.

 

[Famine]

How so?

Again, how so?

By being wrong.

You were told how and why the last time you were polluting this thread with the same nonsense. It's unimpressive your avoidance of it since seems to have not brought any further understanding with it.

 

[Danoff]

When belief should occur, is likewise of individual interpretation.

That statement was based on the only accurate definition of belief.

Whether or not belief occurs under your determination, is irrelevant.

See above.

To the contrary, interpretation of evidence can and does influence belief, all the time.

Only if you use "belief" in a sloppy colloquial definition.

Individual determination, of what is weighty and what isn't, varies as well.

Weight has no bearing on "belief". The word does not mean that you think something is probably true, or that you think the argument for it being true has a lot of "weight" behind it. "Belief" means that you think it is true. No amount of "weight" can take you from "probably" to "definitely". One of two things can trigger belief.

1) Something that can be shown to necessarily be true. (eg: that you exist)
2) The decision to consider something true which cannot be shown to be true (faith)

Neither of these inherently deals in "weight", "probability" or "evidence". Faith can be triggered by lots of things, but evidence is not a requirement of faith.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

By being wrong.

My congrats on such a substantive reply.

It's unimpressive your avoidance of it since seems to have not brought any further understanding with it.

Likewise, I'm sure.

 

[Famine]

My congrats on such a substantive reply.

You haven't learned - you're still making the same absolutely ridiculous claims you did when you beat a retreat from here however long ago it was. What's the point in me wasting any effort whatsoever on you when you didn't listen at the time and clearly haven't bothered to change despite being so demonstrably wrong?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That statement was based on the only accurate definition of belief.

Beliefs are formed individually based on any number of interpretive variables.
Thats a fact.

Weight has no bearing on "belief". The word does not mean that you think something is probably true, or that you think the argument for it being true has a lot of "weight" behind it. "Belief" means that you think it is true. No amount of "weight" can take you from "probably" to "definitely". One two things can trigger belief.

Apparently, you have never heard of the term, "smoking gun".

1) Something that can be shown to necessarily be true. (eg: that you exist)
2) The decision to consider something true which cannot be shown to be true (faith)

3) And anywhere in between 1 and 2.

Faith can be triggered by lots of things, but evidence is not a requirement of faith.

With that I can agree.

 

[Danoff]

Apparently, you have never heard of the term, "smoking gun".

Apparently you don't know what we're talking about. Re-read the quote that this is intended to respond to. I think you'll find that it's misplaced.

3) And anywhere in between 1 and 2.

There is nothing between those two. One is a belief in that which cannot be shown to be true, the other is a belief in that which can be. There isn't a "kinda" true. It either can be shown or not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In the mean time

أصل الكلمة
الدِين أو الدِيانة, من دان خضع وذل ودان بكذا فهي ديانة وهو دين، وتديّن به فهو متديّن, إذا أطلق يراد به: ما يتديّن به البشر، ويدين به من اعتقاد وسلوك؛ بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ. الدين في مصطلح اللغة العربية: هي العادة والشأن. والتدين: الخضوع والاستعباد، ينبني على الدين المكافأة والجزاء، أي يجازى الإنسان بفعله وبحسب ما عمل عن طريق الحساب. ومنه صفة الديّان التي يطلقها الناس على خالقهم؛ وجمع كلمة دين: أديان. فيقال: دانَ بديانة وتدين بها، فهو متديّن، والتديّن: إذا وكل الإنسان أموره إلى دينه.

الدين يتمثل بالطاعة والانقياد، فرجال الدين: هم المطيعون المنقادون، كما يُحمّل الدين الإنسان ما يكره، ومن هذا الباب تأتي كلمة الدَين (القرض): إِما بالأخذ أو العطاء ما كان له أجل، كما أجله الجزاء والحساب والعبادة والطاعة والمواظبة والقهر والغلبة والاستعلاء والسلطان والملك والحكم والتسيير والتدبير والتوحيد، وجميع ما يتعبد به للإله، من مذاهب وورع وإجبار، فالإله هو الديّان: أي القهار، والقاضي، والحاكم، والسائس، والحاسب، والمجازي الذي لا يضيع عملاً، بل يجزِي بالخيرِ والشرِ. ففي الديانة: عزة ومذلة، وطاعة وعصيان، وعادة في الخير أو الشر، والابتلاء.

See that word, قرض? It means debt. No mention of that in the English Wikipedia despite its importance. Hilarious. Whoever edited/wrote that English wiki page is not an Arab, I guarantee it.

You forgot to give the source URL, please provide that.

You also seem to forget how a wiki-worky.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You haven't learned - you're still making the same absolutely ridiculous claims you did when you beat a retreat from here however long ago it was. What's the point in me wasting any effort whatsoever on you when you didn't listen at the time and clearly haven't bothered to change despite being so demonstrably wrong?

First, I did not beat a retreat.
The debate as it usually does, and as your comments so indicate, reached a stalemate.

As we have many times in our exchanges here, we disagree on somethings, but thats life.
Quite frankly, I don't think my claims are ridiculous, but you are entitled to your opinion just as I am.

Its up to you, if you want to take another wack at it, I'm game.
I don't mind listening, but I can't promise I will agree with you.
Thats obviously another realm of distinction.

 

[huskeR32]

Most rational people will stop and think after they have been told they're wrong by 20-30 people.

Most rational people, if they know anything about this thread, won't concern themselves too much with that consensus.

Let's stop focusing on this as being a right-versus-wrong thing.

Go back and read my post. Notice that my point isn't that anyone's definition is wrong, necessarily. Rather, it's that effective communication is impossible without a consensus on the definition of the ideas being discussed.

Namely, this conversation will never accomplish anything if we can't agree on a definition of "atheism" to use. At the moment, we have two proposed definitions. One of them:
-is supported by etymology
-is agreed upon by numerous people in the current discussion, most of whom are atheists themselves
-would require only one (wait, now two, I guess) person(s) to adapt
-is supported by people who are willing to use another term to still include the BHRxRacer definition of atheism in the conversation

The other:
-is only supported by the supposed Arabic definition of the closest translatable word (I say "supposed" cos no citation provided)
-is agreed upon by one (wait, now two, I guess) person(s)
-would require pretty much everyone else in the conversation to adapt
-is supported by a person who is unwilling to acknowledge that the first definition is even a thing, which means that using his definitions would leave a giant hole in the conversation

Now, let's just be practical about this. Which definition would be easier and more logical to use?

----

@SuperCobraJet, now that you're back (yey) and still trying to do the same thing with the word "belief," I'd encourage you to apply the above logic and get on board with a more effective use of that word as well.

 

[Famine]

Quite frankly, I don't think my claims are ridiculous, but you are entitled to your opinion just as I am.

No you aren't.

 

[SalmanBH]

OH god just have them translate this part from the Wiki page:
بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ

@SalmanBH @sems4arsenal

Help? Can you please translate that for him? I don't know how old you or, or how qualified to discuss everything here, but just translate that Arabic bit. بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ

Thanks in advance.

Translation: A human's obedience and commitment to the ideology or idea that he or she has embraced

You're welcome.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No you aren't.

So I'm not entitled to my opinion?
Are you actually saying that?
Does that apply to all believers in God, or just me?

 

[Danoff]

So I'm not entitled to my opinion?
Are you actually saying that?
Does that apply to all believers in God, or just me?

Nobody on the opinions forum is "entitled to their opinion". This forum is about discussion, not for people to drop in, spout, and leave unchallenged. If you can't support your opinion here, take it elsewhere. These threads are not opinion polls.

It is the best thing about this forum.

 

[Famine]

So I'm not entitled to my opinion?

Yes. That's literally what I said.

Are you actually saying that?

Yes. That's literally what I said.

Does that apply to all believers in God, or just me?

It applies to anyone who cannot support their arguments with rationality, whatever they believe in. Or don't. Did you read the article at all?

One is not entitled to express an opinion simply because one has the opinion. One is only entitled to express an opinion that one can support.

Your opinion that people can't live without belief is one you have consistently failed to support and which has been demonstrated to be false over and over and over again. Don't think we've forgotten just because you've been avoiding the thread after the last ringing defeat for the last however many months.

 

[BHRxRacer]

How exactly is that a revelation given that the colloquial non-religious meaning has nothing at all to do with this thread or discussion.

Not religion, belief.

And by what means are we supposed to magically know this about your background and parents?

No, but I assume you read what I say and I've said that before to you, without the parents part. Would you like a citation?

However the arrogance you displace continues to amaze, so no chance at all exists that you could in any way be mistaken in either interpretation, context and/or the translation of that into English? None at all?

Funnily enough, there is. It's the same change that a god exists. So, it depends on your belief in that area

Drop the attitude - you will not be warned again.

What attitude? Care to explain exactly what rule I'm breaking?

Also, drop the not-so-friendly threats if you may, please. It's more effective of a warning when you present it in a friendly manner, like police officers (are supposed to) do.

And it doesn't mean its not, nor does it remove the potential issue of context and/or its subsequent translation into English.

It does if you speak Arabic and/or qualified to understand its history.

Actually no, the third option is that you provide proof.

Ok so let me ask you again, can you provide proof that you're a British citizen? If not, what is your citizenship and can you provide proof of it?

Quite frankly I have no intention of subjecting them to you.

Afraid I'll embarrass them, and thus put you in an embarrassing situation? Totally understandable. No sarcasm. I wouldn't want that kind of thing at work because of a guy on a forum either.

You claimed you provide the proof, and given this is an English language site provide it in that manner, as I find you claims that no one has ever translated it correctly to be highly suspect (everyone is wrong but me - seems to be your battle cry).

That's just wrong, again. I provided you with this:
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/دين_(م...B1.D9.8A.D9.81_.D8.A7.D9.84.D8.AF.D9.8A.D9.86
At least twice now and you chose to either ignorant or call ********.

Sorry but I see that as Debt doesn't/didn't necessarily involve a deity, and debt is not the same as religion.

You are right, debt does not necessarily involve a deity. Which is EXACTLY why in Arabic, the word religion/deen does not necessarily involve a deity.

It's literally what it means

Context.

All for context my dear, but not when it changes the whole meaning of the word or its implications.

If you want to go by a sloppy use of the world belief - whose sloppiness is prevalent enough that it showed up in a dictionary - then we'll have to invent another word for it for the purposes of this discussion. The concept that I am talking about exists regardless of whether you think the word I am using is the right one. Do you ever get tired of making silly arguments about definitions of words rather than actually addressing the substance that you're being smacked in the face with?

The reason there's so much confusion in the world is because of how loose the words/labels are. You can't discuss concepts and ideas without giving them specific meanings first. Preferably, ones that already satisfy the concept/idea.

@BHRxRacer Nah can't help you there sadly. Not qualified enough and wouldn't want to maybe add false info to the discussion.

I'm not asking you to get involved in the discussion, I asked you to translate one sentence which you should be able to do if you speak Arabic.

بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ.

But okay, if you're sensitive about this whole thread you can say so.

I've no idea. It's practically impossible to get a straight answer out of you and even when you give one that is then discussed you claim you meant something else or were joking.Did you miss all the posts where I keep telling you that I have no beliefs and no religion and am an atheist? Or are you ignoring them out of convenience?
Nope. You can tell, because no statistics were used.

Agnostic atheists do not believe that they know whether there is a deity. Agnostics believe they do not and cannot know if there is a deity.

So we have a new one ladies and gentlemen. Agnostic atheists. Nice.


What straight answer do you want from me on this topic? Quiz me, and compare my answers to yours.

You forgot to give the source URL, please provide that.

You also seem to forget how a wiki-worky.

I did link, but here it is again
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/دين_(م...B1.D9.8A.D9.81_.D8.A7.D9.84.D8.AF.D9.8A.D9.86

I know how wiki works, which is why I said there's no legit source online. There's only wiki (can be edit by any imbecile), or a blog/website that can be run and also edited by any imbecile.

Given that you guys LOVE sources though, I thought I'd give you one that's not edited by me. At least, that'll show that there's a significant number of people that agree with what's been said in it otherwise they would've edited it. So I'm not alone

No you aren't.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the old "There's no such thing as opinion, there is only fact". Never get tired of seeing that every once and a while.

Can you answer the following question honestly? When was the last time you were wrong in this forum?

So I'm not entitled to my opinion?
Are you actually saying that?
Does that apply to all believers in God, or just me?

Anybody that disagrees with him, practically speaking, and based on the relatively short time I've spent here.

 

[dylansan]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the old "There's no such thing as opinion, there is only fact". Never get tired of seeing that every once and a while.

So you didn't read the article either, huh?

But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate.

Doesn't sound like anyone said there's no such thing as opinion...

 

[Famine]

So we have a new one ladies and gentlemen. Agnostic atheists. Nice.

It's not new at all - it was included in the previous post that you dismissed as irrelevant. If you're not reading, it's no wonder things come as a surprise to you.

What straight answer do you want from me on this topic?

Anything would be nice.

Quiz me, and compare my answers to yours.

Why do I need to quiz you? You asked what you were regarding what you believe in. Only you know what you believe in, but for some reason you're choosing to make it vague and impenetrable. And when you do give something approaching an answer, two posts later "it was a joke".

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the old "There's no such thing as opinion, there is only fact". Never get tired of seeing that every once and a while.

Didn't read the link then.

Can you answer the following question honestly? When was the last time you were wrong in this forum?

No idea. I tend not to present my opinion as fact unless it's my opinion on taste or if it's an opinion that can be rationally supported.

Anybody that disagrees with him, practically speaking, and based on the relatively short time I've spent here.

Since I already answered, there's no need for you to make one up for me. It's bad enough you think you can reinvent my entire language without speaking for me. Don't do that again.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So you didn't read the article either, huh?


Doesn't sound like anyone said there's no such thing as opinion...

I read this from you:

Nobody on the opinions forum is "entitled to their opinion". This forum is about discussion, not for people to drop in, spout, and leave unchallenged. If you can't support your opinion here, take it elsewhere. These threads are not opinion polls.

It is the best thing about this forum.

Technically speaking, opinions don't need to be supported. They can be discussed, challenged, not supported. The only thing that needs support is claims of facts. Not opinions.

Want to turn this into an argument about the meaning of the word "opinion"? I'd rather not given how long they take.

It's not new at all - it was included in the previous post that you dismissed as irrelevant.

It was included in many of your posts before as well, I know that because I stalked you a few times

It's just funny that you actually literally made up a brand new hybrid belief.

Anything would be nice.

Oh we're doing this backwards now? Ok.

My favourite road car of all time is the E46 M3.

Your turn, ask me the question now.

Why do I need to quiz you? You asked what you were regarding what you believe in. Only you know what you believe in, but for some reason you're choosing to make it vague and impenetrable.

Not at all.

My belief: I don't believe, nor disbelieve that god(s) exist, and will not until evidence comes up.

You called that Agnostic, others like @Imari called it Atheist. Each one of you has a take on me, see why I'm arguing the meaning of words now? You can't even decide what I am.

Didn't read the link then.

I did. That's what it implies.

I tend not to present my opinion as fact unless it's my opinion on taste or if it's an opinion that can be rationally supported.

Just like I can't ever blame Hamilton?

Don't do that again.

Yes, sir.

edit

removed "most likely"

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yes. That's literally what I said.Yes. That's literally what I said.It applies to anyone who cannot support their arguments with rationality, whatever they believe in. Or don't.

Rational according to who and what?
Or is it too rational for someone's belief system?

One is not entitled to express an opinion simply because one has the opinion. One is only entitled to express an opinion that one can support.

Then it is obvious this thread should be abolished, since its very subject matter is faith based.
I guess that isn't a rational argument either.

Your opinion that people can't live without belief is one you have consistently failed to support and which has been demonstrated to be false over and over and over again. Don't think we've forgotten just because you've been avoiding the thread after the last ringing defeat for the last however many months.

A stalemate isn't exactly a ringing defeat.
But I forgot, rationale is apparently inapplicable.

Obviously something is amiss here.
Since there isn't any question about your unbelief in God, it is impossible for one to conclude you do not live without unbelief, at least on that plane.

Its also obvious that you do believe in scientific evidence as a basis for belief.
Herein is my, as you have determined, unrational false support, that is a simple two plus two equation.
Since there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of deities, is your unbelief actually determined from your belief of scientific evidence?

Its easy enough to determine.
All you have to do is answer the following question:
"If science were to show evidence for the existence of God, would you believe it?"

Forgive me in advance, if thats not rational enough for you.

 

[Furinkazen]

Since there isn't any question about your unbelief in God, it is impossible for one to conclude you do not live without unbelief, at least on that plane.

Its also obvious that you do believe in scientific evidence as a basis for belief.
Herein is my, as you have determined, unrational false support, that is a simple two plus two equation.
Since there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of deities, is your unbelief actually determined from your belief of scientific evidence?

Its easy enough to determine.
All you have to do is answer the following question:
"If science were to show evidence for the existence of God, would you believe it?"

Forgive me in advance, if thats not rational enough for you.

What? UNbelief? I mean, how desperate are people getting here?

 

[Danoff]

Its also obvious that you do believe in scientific evidence as a basis for belief.

Based on? Nothing.

"If science were to show evidence for the existence of God, would you believe it?"

I'll answer this question for myself. Not anymore than I believe anything that scientific evidence supports.

I wouldn't believe it at all, but I don't "believe" anything of science... or logic for that matter. I "believe" that I exist. Anything else can be questioned at some level, and is therefore inappropriate to "believe" in the strict technical application of the word. Perhaps more importantly... in the religious application of the word.

 

[Famine]

It was included in many of your posts before as well, I know that because I stalked you a few times

It's just funny that you actually literally made up a brand new hybrid belief.

It's not brand new.

Oh we're doing this backwards now? Ok.

I have no idea what that means.

My favourite road car of all time is the E46 M3.

Your turn, ask me the question now.

You answered a question I didn't ask and now it's my turn to ask a question for you to answer? Huh?

Not at all.

My belief: I don't believe, nor disbelieve that god(s) exist, and will not until evidence comes up.

Then you are agnostic.

I did. That's what it implies.

If you read it, you'd know it doesn't imply anything. It states very many things.

One of the things it doesn't state is what you say it implies - that there's no such thing as opinion, only fact. In fact it clearly states three different types of opinion: one which is preferential, one which is philosophical and the last which is factual.

You can't argue the first one as if it is not factual, but the other two can be argued as such. I can't tell you that you're wrong for liking strawberries, but I can tell you that you're wrong if you think strawberries are blue or if you think that strawberries evolved to be blue because it makes them more likely to be eaten by wasps.

But of course you've read the link thoroughly, so I'm not giving you new information despite you claiming it says something else. Right?

Just like I can't ever blame Hamilton?

You've been so incredibly dishonest about that and pretty much everything else that what you say cannot be trusted as what you think.

Rational according to who and what?

Rationality.

Then it is obvious this thread should be abolished, since its very subject matter is faith based.

Does GTPlanet have a policy of abolishing irrational threads?

Since there isn't any question about your unbelief in God, it is impossible for one to conclude you do not live without unbelief, at least on that plane.

Lawks.

This is exactly why you're not worth talking to. That sentence has no meaning. It's like you've just thrown together some words.

Funny, I remember saying that to you every other time you've posted in this thread for a few days.

"If science were to show evidence for the existence of God, would you believe it?"

No. I would accept it if the evidence was peer-reviewed, statistically relevant and attainable in any repeat of the experiment by any sufficiently trained third party.

Proof denies faith. If there were proof of God there would be no need for faith.


We did this last time, before you quit. We remember, even if you don't.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I wouldn't believe it at all, but I don't "believe" anything of science... or logic for that matter. I "believe" that I exist. Anything else can be questioned at some level, and is therefore inappropriate to "believe" in the strict technical application of the word. Perhaps more importantly... in the religious application of the word.

..Even "rights"?

 

[Famine]

..Even "rights"?

Of course. It's in questioning that you find answers. That's how all knowledge works.

 

[Danoff]

..Even "rights"?

Yes logic can be questioned at some level. I posted a very well documented chart of knowledge. Logic is #2... questionable at some level. The specific level that logic is questionable on is whether it applies to our reality. It appears to, but then we don't actually have any understanding of our reality. Our reality could be a computer program, or a dream. Logic has no bearing in a dream - it becomes purely an exercise, true only in-and-of itself.

 

[Furinkazen]

Because what is logical to one person can be totally illogical to another...

 

[Danoff]

Because what is logical to one person can be totally illogical to another...

No. Because logic, despite being concrete, relies on a universe that doesn't change at whim to have meaning.

 

[huskeR32]

Its also obvious that you do believe in scientific evidence as a basis for belief.

Jesus 🤬 Christ. For reasons that were explained to you so very many times during your last go-round here, that sentence is utter nonsense.

 

[dylansan]

15000 posts and it seems like very little progress has been made.