flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I didnt change the words i merely cut and pasted the relevant definition. As you have shown there are multiple definitions, the one I chose most suited how I myself defined the word in this context. You have chosen to define it in yours. On that point I will agree to differ with you. be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing. verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). 4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border. 5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town. Sorry, but the carefully worded meaning you have put in bold does not back you up, quite the opposite in fact. There is no 'absolute proof' of any positive assertions outside of mathematics, and consequently everything that you think you know is in fact a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 From where? it wasn't from the source you sited I haven't chosen a definition, I've listed all the definitions from your source, all of which I agree with, none of which contain the "cut and paste" you gave EDIT: Looks like you edited your post as I was writing mine. Now I can see your full copy/paste I can see that we're looking at different words. I looked up "belief" on Dictionary.com whereas you looked up "believe". Oddly, Dictionary.com gives slightly conflicting definitions between the two, one of the reasons I always prefer the Oxford Dictionary: "Definition of believe verb [with object] 1accept that (something) is true, especially without proof: the superintendent believed Lancaster’s story [with clause]: some 23 per cent believe that smoking keeps down weight accept the statement of (someone) as true: he didn’t believe her [no object] have religious faith: there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe (believe something of) feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something: I wouldn’t have believed it of Lavinia—what an extraordinary woman! 2 [with clause] hold (something) as an opinion; think: I believe we’ve already met (believe someone/thing to be) four men were believed to be trapped" sodding english language!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I never suggested that you were, and in fact am aware that you are not religious. I just think you're being far too easy on them, and letting them have their cop out. No problem Jimmi. I think religion is quite detestable and dysfunctional in many ways... I also think it's our attempt to describe something about our own nature, the nature of the universe. Something I can't quite put my finger on. Something that isn't really a 'thing' at all. Now, this 'thing' that religion attempts to describe. Maybe, it's us. Our full and complete nature. I just feel, it's something that is worthwhile and has value. I also think it's something that we can't really grasp through the scientific process (because it's the context within which that process is happening). I feel religion is detestable, because for the most part, I think it actually takes us away from this thing. It discourages self-inquiry in favour of blind adherence to some religious authority, dogma etc. (on the other hand, religion is not detestable, because it's just human beings, and you don't start hating on a baby, just because it can't walk yet). Well I am talking about the scientific process, so we've crossed wires here. I think understanding our own being, means also, understanding and being aware of the context within which the scientific process happens. Our own being, our own awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 No I do not accept that. And it is cetainly not true 'by definition' unless you make up your own definition of science, which I see you have. No- science only deals with what it can see and measure- so the question of God does not get entertained as it lies outside that scope. If there is a god it cannot be completely immaterial and must have material manifestations or else it could not have created the universe, and certainly could not interfere. That is just a definition you are using- it does not mean it applies specifically to every concept of 'god'. If god exists then it is a physical thing that actually exists, otherwise it doesn't exist. Again, depends on the definition and how one perceives God. There is no such thing as objective morality. Really? You actually believe objective morals do not exist? It almost certainly can tell us why some people love painting A yet others love painting B, we just don't understand those systems well enough yet. Oh, so it is a question of faith... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 No- science only deals with what it can see and measure- so the question of God does not get entertained as it lies outside that scope. That is just a definition you are using- it does not mean it applies specifically to every concept of 'god'. It's not a definition it is an argument. If you believe in a god that can interfere in our universe then these interferences must be measurable, because our universe is measurable. Like if I'm in a box and there's a guy outside the box that I can't see or hear, then you're right I could never deduce anything about him, however if he starts poking the box and changing things in it then I most definitely could. Really? You actually believe objective morals do not exist?No, and I really don't think I could have been any more explicit than "There is no such thing as objective morality". Oh, so it is a question of faith...Science has already come a little bit of the way with explaining some of those things: Take music for example: I myself can give a pretty good explanation of why a C major sounds pretty sweet but if you add a C# to it it'll sound nasty. This was not possible a few centuries ago and is a result of our understanding of how sound waves propagate and how their wavelengths relate to what we call pitches, it's to do with mathematical ratios. What answers has religion given us as to why the notes C E and G sound sweet together but adding a C# results in an unpleasant sound? None that I've ever been given. It's gonna be a damned hard job to explain beauty because it requires a very deep understanding of the human mind, and neuroscience just isn't there yet, it may never get there. However, it seems very likely that there are natural explanations for why people like Picasso or whatever. The best chance we have of discovering them is via science, religion offers nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 If you believe in a god that can interfere in our universe then these interferences must be measurable, because our universe is measurable. Like if I'm in a box and there's a guy outside the box that I can't see or hear, then you're right I could never deduce anything about him, however if he starts poking the box and changing things in it then I most definitely could. Furthermore, even if there is some guy outside the universe/box that is unmeasurable then what's the point of worship? None whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Really? You actually believe objective morals do not exist? Hi Baz1. I have a hard time actually differentiating between objective and subjective... So, that's even before getting in to the do objective morals exist argument! Isn't everything subjective? I mean, I'm sat here at my desk (when I should be working) and looking out my window. I can see all kinds of things out there. How do I actually know that they really are there? I know that I am perceiving them. The things I see (houses and trees mostly) are in my awareness. Lots of other things are in my awareness also; but how can I be sure that the things I see, exist in and of themselves? Furthermore... The fact of my awareness of the things I perceive; I could argue that that in itself, has a tangible objective reality to it (perhaps represented as electrical fluctuations within the brain organ inside my skull). I think in someway, what we call, objective reality and subjective reality, share the same context, are part of the same beast, the universe being self-aware. I don't know. I have to say, sometimes I think I must come across as being quite nutty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The irony being that as an atheist Professor Higgs doesn't want it being called the 'God Particle' Of course he doesn't want it called a "God particle" why would he he's an atheist. An atheist who shares the same view as many other atheists, in asserting that religion and science are not incompatible. Prof Higgs has stated that they're are many scientists in his field who are religious believers, he doesn't like what he refers to as "fundamental atheism" and also like many other atheist academics he is a critic of Richard Dawkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Of course he doesn't want it called a "God particle" why would he he's an atheist. An atheist who shares the same view as many other atheists, in asserting that religion and science are not incompatible. Prof Higgs has stated that they're are many scientists in his field who are religious believers, he doesn't like what he refers to as "fundamental atheism" and also like many other atheist academics he is a critic of Richard Dawkins. What is "fundamental atheism"? Is that really really lacking belief in gods, rather than just lacking belief in gods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islam4me2 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Who think they can back up their claims with science. I'm getting a little bit bored of certain religious posters claiming science provides proof that their religion is true then when they are questioned on it mysteriously disappearing from the forum or blatantly avoiding the questions. So here is a thread where if you genuinely believe that science provides evidence that your religion in true you can post your claims with the aim of allowing open debate on them. If no one posts I will simply take it that you don't have the evidence you claim and you are a lying toe rag who has 0% faith and more than likely belongs to some cultish off shoot of a mainstream religion. This isn't an attack on people of faith - it's specifically to debate those who claim that there is evidence to show what they believe is true. The ball court is now open. "lying toe rag who has 0% faith and more than likely belongs to some cultish off shoot of a mainstream religion" Hang on didnt YOU tell me YOU were part of a OFF SHOT of Mainstream Buddhism, just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.