Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[teeny]

So what's your answer to the question in the OP?

 

He has clearly stated his point that he knows there is an after life !

[RootsBooster]

According to the OED Faith = 1. Complete trust or confidence. 2. Strong belief in a religion. 3. A system of religious belief.

 

I said ' Faith is thinking that your belief is true'.

 

In what way is that incompatible with the OED definition?

 

1,You have a belief and complete trust and confidence that that belief is true.

 

2, You have a strong belief that your particular religion is true.

 

Both of those appear to agree with my comment.

 

What definition do you have that disagrees?

 

 

I haven't claimed it isn't 'incompatible' with the OED. It is, however, a redundant use of wording. If you have a belief, by definition you think it is true, so saying that "faith is thinking that your belief is true" is just pleonasm.

 

The way you presented it is an assertion that the definition of faith is "thinking that your belief is true", which it is not.

Faith and belief are largely synonymous, the word faith tends to be used more in conjunction with theistic belief though.

 

Semantics whilst mildly interesting can become boring after a while.

Based on your previous post, I'm inclined to believe you don't find it as boring as you claim

Belief is thinking that something is true without absolute proof that it is a fact, therefore it is a belief that you hold.

 

Were you to possess positive proof you would no longer need to believe, you would know.

Belief does not require absence of evidence/proof. You can have evidence and still believe.

You can know something and still believe it.

Belief is something that you are convinced of/accept as truth.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 10:01 ----------

 

He has clearly stated his point that he knows there is an after life !

 

Yeah, I get that, I'm asking what his answer to the question in the OP is though

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 10:08 ----------

 

Didn't it indeed?

 

Well I'm so pleased about that, as for some reason I do tend to get a little irritated with people who claim to know more about what a person believes or doesn't believe,than the person themselves.

 

They tend also to be the people who claim to know the definition of words better than the compilers of dictionaries.

 

As you say, fortunate, we dodged a bullet on that one.

 

I'll bite then, in the past people who have pointed out that you're an agnostic atheist don't claim to know more than the information which you've given them. That information about yourself tells us that you are an agnostic atheist.

If I remember correctly your only point of argument was that you were using an old edition of the OED for your definition, which I have no means of verifying.

Edited January 15, 2015 by RootsBooster

[mjw47]

I haven't claimed it isn't 'incompatible' with the OED. It is, however, a redundant use of wording. If you have a belief, by definition you think it is true, so saying that "faith is thinking that your belief is true" is just pleonasm.

 

The way you presented it is an assertion that the definition of faith is "thinking that your belief is true", which it is not.

Faith and belief are largely synonymous, the word faith tends to be used more in conjunction with theistic belief though.

 

Based on your previous post, I'm inclined to believe you don't find it as boring as you claim

Belief does not require absence of evidence/proof. You can have evidence and still believe.

You can know something and still believe it.

Belief is something that you are convinced of/accept as truth.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 10:01 ----------

 

 

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 10:08 ----------

 

 

I'll bite then, in the past people who have pointed out that you're an agnostic atheist don't claim to know more than the information which you've given them. That information about yourself tells us that you are an agnostic atheist.

If I remember correctly your only point of argument was that you were using an old edition of the OED for your definition, which I have no means of verifying.

 

I claimed that I was Agnostic and I quoted the following definition.

 

" Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God and who believes that proof of either will very probably never be known".

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAgnosticism&ei=n523VMiCBqy27gaC4IGwCg&usg=AFQjCNGfRsjv3T9aLdZ339dud8iSxaho1Q

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fagnostic&ei=n523VMiCBqy27gaC4IGwCg&usg=AFQjCNEtzD4rJ2uFWDrQ93Tj2o0_Cge7Cw

 

Both of the above links support that definition.

 

This did not however convince the posters who kept on insisting that the word agnostic alone amongst the other descriptions could not be used on it's own.

 

According to them it had to have a prefix or suffix included. When I asked them to provide some proof of this preposterous claim they were unable to back it up.

 

I am Agnostic, no other qualifier is required, and only an ignorant person would argue against someones stated position without any other knowledge of that person other than what he's told them.

 

'You can know something and still believe it'. Can you?

 

If you presently believe that your football team will win on Saturday and they do so, do you carry on believing that they will win or do you now know they have won?

 

Believing carries an element of doubt, knowing is certainty, it is now a fact and no longer just a belief.

 

Which is why the word Faith attached to belief is not a tautology it is a reinforcement.

 

Belief is something many people have in that they think something is true, Faith is an additional 'certainty'. You can challenge someones belief and they may be prepared to debate it with you. Faith cannot be reasoned with, and it's pointless trying.

Edited January 15, 2015 by mjw47

[RootsBooster]

I claimed that I was Agnostic and I quoted the following definition.

 

" Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God and who believes that proof of either will very probably never be known".

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAgnosticism&ei=n523VMiCBqy27gaC4IGwCg&usg=AFQjCNGfRsjv3T9aLdZ339dud8iSxaho1Q

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fagnostic&ei=n523VMiCBqy27gaC4IGwCg&usg=AFQjCNEtzD4rJ2uFWDrQ93Tj2o0_Cge7Cw

 

Both of the above links support that definition.

 

Both of the above links only partially support that definition. The first one (Wikipedia) gives the literal definition first, which is the one everyone bar yourself was using the last time this came up, after that it gives a definition according to the opinion of philosopher William L. Rowe, which is the one you cling to.

The second link (Dictionary.com) also gives the literal definition first, the one you prefer is listed thirdly. It is worth noting the synonyms listed there;

"Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan."

Also interesting to note that you stand by OED for some definitions but abandon it and look elsewhere if it doesn't suit you.

 

This did not however convince the posters who kept on insisting that the word agnostic alone amongst the other descriptions could not be used on it's own.

 

According to them it had to have a prefix or suffix included. When I asked them to provide some proof of this preposterous claim they were unable to back it up.

 

I am Agnostic, no other qualifier is required, and only an ignorant person would argue against someones stated position without any other knowledge of that person other than what he's told them.

Nobody claimed it needs a prefix or suffix.

I don't have a problem with the definition you use for agnostic. The problem is that you won't admit you also qualify as an atheist, even though you have stated on many occasions that you don't have a belief in God. That is the knowledge I and others have about you, it is all that is needed.

'You can know something and still believe it'. Can you?

 

If you presently believe that your football team will win on Saturday and they do so, do you carry on believing that they will win or do you now know they have won?

 

Believing carries an element of doubt, knowing is certainty, it is now a fact and no longer just a belief.

Believing is a conviction or acceptance that something is true, there is no element of doubt. The element of doubt comes from not knowing, that's all.

 

Which is why the word Faith attached to belief is not a tautology it is a reinforcement.

 

Belief is something many people have in that they think something is true, Faith is an additional 'certainty'. You can challenge someones belief and they may be prepared to debate it with you. Faith cannot be reasoned with, and it's pointless trying.

You're (I think deliberately) mixing past and present tense.

 

If your team won, you would not only know they won, you would believe they won.

Edited January 15, 2015 by RootsBooster

[monkey104]

So what is it going to be? Give God the finger or wait for heaven?

[Ryedo40]

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

Do agnostics assume[believe] God exists - but nothing can be known about its existence or nature? Is it a position that pre-supposes God?

[RootsBooster]

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

Do agnostics assume[believe] God exists - but nothing can be known about its existence or nature? Is it a position that pre-supposes God?

 

I would say no, if nothing can be known about something's existence (including whether it exists or not) then it doesn't pre-suppose God's existence

[Alan Ladd]

Heaven for the music.

 

Hell for the company.

[Ryedo40]

I would say no, if nothing can be known about something's existence (including whether it exists or not) then it doesn't pre-suppose God's existence

 

I'm not too sure. I get the impression that to believe nothing can be known about it or its nature, you have to assume its existence. Otherwise you've got no foundation to hold the belief that nothing can be known of its existence or nature.

 

Even the statement "if nothing can be known about something's existence" assumes 'some thing'.

[RootsBooster]

I'm not too sure. I get the impression that to believe nothing can be known about it or its nature, you have to assume its existence. Otherwise you've got no foundation to hold the belief that nothing can be known of its existence or nature.

 

Even the statement "if nothing can be known about something's existence" assumes 'some thing'.

Yes, in the same way talking about unicorns suggests 'some thing'. It doesn't mean pre-supposition to believe in them though.