Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

LOL

Do you know of ANY ONE who when says; "I know that P", is implying "I do not believe that P"?

You just said that you don't believe things, you know things.

It's also very common among a species of atheist that's very populous on the Internet who don't understand that "belief" isn't limited to "faith" in the sense of having no empirical or logical basis. They're very fond of saying things like "I don't believe that such and such, I know that such and such," or "I don't think that such and such, I know that such and such." I've run into different examples of those fools tens of times over the years. Your aversion to understanding that you have a plethora of beliefs reminds me of them, regardless of your motivation for it.

[Pattern-chaser]

...Now you think or believe that you have the right and ability to tell me what I would normally bother saying and what I would not normally bother saying. This is beyond a joke.

How about 'I' tell you what 'I' do and do not do, and 'you' can tell me what 'you' do and do not do, and 'we both' do not tell the 'other' what they do or do not do?

Do you think that this is fair and right? Or, do you still believe that you have the right, and ability, to KNOW and TELL others what they think and do, and do not think and do not do?

[...]

You are so CLOSED, and therefore now so totally incapable of seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS.

It is vital to inspect all comments along these lines to confirm that the underlying issue is not merely different people using different words ... differently.

I'm sorry for your anger. I did not intend to provoke this. A discussion would be nice, but that clearly won't be possible. I think perhaps you could have conveyed your message without so much anger and personal invective, but you chose not to. I chose not to continue a dialogue with someone as touchy as you.

[chewybrian]

For a start, you believe anything and everything you KNOW.

I do NOT believe anything and everything I KNOW.

What is it with these people who think that they can tell others what they believe or do not believe?

There is nothing I know with greater certainty than the fact that I can never know anything with certainty. I will always have finite information in an infinite universe. "Truth" is just widely held opinion, and is always subject to revision or retraction. We will never really KNOW anything.

I believe you are right.

So, if you 'believe' that this is right, then either; HOW does a new born human 'function', or, what are the beliefs a new born human has?

A newborn doesn't really function. They survive and respond with instincts and learn to function over time. What tasks do you think a 2 day old baby is accomplishing?

How can I get on my motorcycle and ride to the store without taking a hundred things for granted along the way?

Instantly you have just opposed your own belief here.

You have just proven that you can take things for 'granted', without 'having to' necessarily 'believe' things.

'Taking things for granted' is NOT the same as 'believing things'. If it was, then one word is completely redundant from the english language.

And, if you meant 'believe' and not 'granted', then say what you mean, and, mean what you say.

OK, Dr, Suess... . Taking something for granted is a form of belief, as is having faith, The English language is rich, not redundant.

I believe gravity is still working, and electricity, and momentum and friction.

And you and any one is free to believe whatever you choose and like to believe. But even if you did not believe these things, then you will still function.

You are not "stuck" on earth because you 'believe' 'gravity is still working'. Gravity is still going to do what gravity does whether you believe it is working or not.

The point is that if I don't believe in gravity and all that stuff then I will be tentative in every motion and decision. With each step, I will need to verify that I am still not floating away. If I don't trust ANYTHING, then I can't really function at all.

'you' are all being fooled into 'believing' things, which when looked at Truly OPENLY and Honestly it can be seen are NOT true at all.

Nonsense. I believe what seems logical and useful to me. I am sometimes fooled, like anyone, but that does not mean I am not being honest with myself. It is necessary for basic functioning that I decide to believe in certain things and question others. It is wise that I reserve the right to change my mind when new evidence or ideas come to light. It is impossible that I could ever KNOW anything, and I am limited to belief or disbelief.

[creation]

I do NOT have to "assert" that I have no beliefs. But yes this is what I am saying.

"Asserting" is a synonym for "stating." So, for example, when you write the sentence, "I have no beliefs," you're stating, asserting, claiming, forwarding, etc. something. Those are all terms for the same thing.

I KNOW this.

If you read the actual words I used and/or clarified, then you would also already know that I already knew this.

It truly is so simple to make you see and believe things, which really are not even there and do not even exist.

I clearly answered your question already when I wrote: 'Yes that is what I am saying'.

I was just adding to the fact that I did not 'have to'. I wrote this in an order, and with words, which would lead you to misinterpreting and misunderstanding me.

It is the case that I just neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. Therefore, the Truth IS I just do not simply have any beliefs at all.

There's no way to escape that you think this is the case when you write that (well, as long as you're being honest, which I assume you are).

OF COURSE there is no way for me to escape that I think this. This is exactly what I have been saying and pointing out all along.

If you didn't think it was the case, you wouldn't write it. You'd write something else instead, such as "It's not the case that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything." Whatever you say in that vein is a statement or claim or assertion, etc. A term for that, a term for saying something that you think or know etc. is the case is "belief."

I have already provided examples and proof of how I have NO beliefs. If you want to believe that I do, then go ahead. I certainly will not stop you.

Also, OBVIOUSLY, that is A 'term' for 'that'. But, as I have very subtly been pointing out, if any one wants to delve deeper into looking at and discussing this, then 'that term' can be clearly seen to be a false, wrong, and/or incorrect use of 'terms'.

Just like a new born human being does not believe any thing

As long as it's conscious and it's intentionally doing anything, the newborn has beliefs. If it's not conscious, or it's only instinctually doing things, then it wouldn't have beliefs.

Okay.

What beliefs does a new born baby have?

Does every new born born have these exact same beliefs?

And, how do you KNOW this?

Also, what actions/behaviours would you call "intentional" and what ones would you call "instinctual"?

And, if a new born is "doing things instinctually" only, and therefore has no beliefs, then how is it functioning (and surviving).

You, and others, have asserted and claimed that humans cannot function without beliefs. And, therefore could not also survive without beliefs.

You are free to accept this or not.

Rather you're free to not understand what beliefs are or to deny that you have any, but that doesn't change the fact that you have countless beliefs that are employed around the clock, in anything you consciously, intentionally do, anything you state, etc.

ANOTHER ONE who believes that they have the ability KNOW what the actual thoughts are, which arise within others. You are SO WRONG. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. If you are truly incapable of understanding this, then do be it.

And, you are SO BLIND you cannot even SEE what you are actually doing here.

I do NOT have this type of distorted thinking at all, which you obviously have here.

Translation: "I don't actually understand what beliefs are." Which is more than obvious by the claim that you don't have any.

So, are you 'trying to' TELL us readers that 'you', "terrapin station", KNOW what things actually, and irrefutably, ARE?

Maybe it would be much better if we all just come to 'you' for the true, right, and correct knowledge.

For you, "taking 'it' to be the case that P", is "belief". But for me it is NOT.

What's at issue isn't the words we're using. It's whether certain things are the case, whatever we name them.

And, I have proven what is the case. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, simply because of the nature of 'beliefs', themselves.

[Terrapin Station]

OF COURSE there is no way for me to escape that I think this.

Right. And another word for "I think (or know) this (is the case)" is "belief." You might not like using that term for this, you might have an aversion to using that term for this for some reason, but saying that you have a plethora of beliefs simply amounts to saying that you have a plethora of things that you think (or know) are the case.

[creation]

LOL

Do you know of ANY ONE who when says; "I know that P", is implying "I do not believe that P"?

You just said that you don't believe things, you know things.

If you want to quote me, then how about you quote me properly and correctly, instead of quoting me with what you assume and/or believe I am saying? If you quote me with the actual words I use, then you will not be as wrong as you are, nor as often as you are.

The actual words I used were;
I do NOT believe anything and everything I KNOW.

I used these words in reply to your words, which were;
For a start, you believe anything and everything you KNOW.

So, if we want to look at my words, then I suggest:

1. We look at the actual words I used.

2. We look at in what context I was using those exact words.

3.We do not look at what you assume and/or believe I am saying and meaning.

What I actually said and meant was in context to the absolutely wrong and incorrect assertion you made about ME. I was just correcting you.

Now, however, and unfortunately you have twisted what I have actually said and turned it around to what you think, assume, or believe I said. You were wrong in that other reply and you are wrong in this reply.

I did NOT say; "I don't believe things, I know things". This is so out of context.

What I said is; I do NOT believe anything and everything I KNOW Again I said this in reply and context to what you actually said.

What I actually said and what you said I said are two very different things, and mean two very different things.

What I said and meant is; What I know I do not believe. Which is very different to what you assume and believe I said and meant.

And to add to this I have also ckearly said; I NEITHER disbelieve anything as well.

This all means that the things I know, I neither believe nor disbelieve.

This is nothing like what you said, I said.

It's also very common among a species of atheist that's very populous on the Internet who don't understand that "belief" isn't limited to "faith" in the sense of having no empirical or logical basis. They're very fond of saying things like "I don't believe that such and such, I know that such and such," or "I don't think that such and such, I know that such and such." I've run into different examples of those fools tens of times over the years. Your aversion to understanding that you have a plethora of beliefs reminds me of them, regardless of your motivation for it.

1. You are so far from the actual reason of WHY I say what I say.

2.Your belief that I do not understand what you have been saying is so far from the actual Truth of things.

3.You looking at my words based on and from your assumptions, which are based off of your own past experiences, is the very reason WHY you continually misread me, misinterpret me, mistake me, and/or misunderstand me.

[Terrapin Station]

1. You are so far from the actual reason of WHY I say what I say.

"regardless of your motivation for it."

[creation]

...Now you think or believe that you have the right and ability to tell me what I would normally bother saying and what I would not normally bother saying. This is beyond a joke.

How about 'I' tell you what 'I' do and do not do, and 'you' can tell me what 'you' do and do not do, and 'we both' do not tell the 'other' what they do or do not do?

Do you think that this is fair and right? Or, do you still believe that you have the right, and ability, to KNOW and TELL others what they think and do, and do not think and do not do?

[...]

You are so CLOSED, and therefore now so totally incapable of seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS.

It is vital to inspect all comments along these lines to confirm that the underlying issue is not merely different people using different words ... differently.

I'm sorry for your anger.

What "anger" is that?

I did not intend to provoke this.

Do you know one of the best ways how to not provoke annoyance and/or anger in others?

I will give you a clue; LISTEN to what they are actually saying, and do not listen to what you assume or believe they are saying.

Also, what else helps is you not telling others what they are thinking and/or meaning.

What I found very helpful is to just clarify with others BEFORE making any assumptions at all.

A discussion would be nice, but that clearly won't be possible.

Well that is certainly one assumption that you have quickly made and one conclusion that you have also quickly jumped to, without absolutely any clarification at all.

For the fact is I would LOVE to have a discussion. One without people telling me what I am thinking, and one with people clarifying with me FIRST about what I am actually meaning BEFORE they make assumptions and jump to conclusions, which they believe are true.

I think perhaps you could have conveyed your message without so much anger and personal invective, but you chose not to.

Once again you have made assumptions and jumped to conclusions BEFORE you find out what the actual FACTS ARE.

For all you know I could be laughing all the way through this and could be completely enjoying how easy it is to get my test subjects assume and believe things, as well as to say the things that they are.

I chose not to continue a dialogue with someone as touchy as you.

Most people do give up when they do not like what I am pointing out and/or are incapable of clarifying their own views.

Also, have you ever considered that what you believe another is feeling from what they write, could in fact be completely and utterly wrong?

Or, are you infallible from being wrong?

[creation]

I do NOT believe anything and everything I KNOW.

What is it with these people who think that they can tell others what they believe or do not believe?

There is nothing I know with greater certainty than the fact that I can never know anything with certainty. I will always have finite information in an infinite universe. "Truth" is just widely held opinion, and is always subject to revision or retraction. We will never really KNOW anything.

Therefore, I suggest; If you will never really KNOW anything, then there is really never any use to believe anything is true as well.

So, if you 'believe' that this is right, then either; HOW does a new born human 'function', or, what are the beliefs a new born human has?

A newborn doesn't really function. They survive and respond with instincts and learn to function over time. What tasks do you think a 2 day old baby is accomplishing?

Survive. They do this by doing what is necessary to get what they need to keep living and surviving.

Are you saying here that new burns do not have beliefsn

If you are, then when do they start having beliefs AND start functioning?

Instantly you have just opposed your own belief here.

You have just proven that you can take things for 'granted', without 'having to' necessarily 'believe' things.

'Taking things for granted' is NOT the same as 'believing things'. If it was, then one word is completely redundant from the english language.

And, if you meant 'believe' and not 'granted', then say what you mean, and, mean what you say.

OK, Dr, Suess... . Taking something for granted is a form of belief, as is having faith, The English language is rich, not redundant.

These may be forms of your beliefs, but considering I do not have any beliefs they are not forms of beliefs to me. Instead they are what they really and Truly ARE, which is; One is 'taking something for granted' while the other is 'having faith', which BOTH neither have to have things being believed it disbelieved. What they are is forms of 'thinking', and not forms of 'belief, to me.

By the way, what has some "dr suess" got to do with this?

If you want to just find and see thee Truth of things, then you just need to speak thee Truth. You may believe and disbelieve things, but I do NOT.

And you and any one is free to believe whatever you choose and like to believe. But even if you did not believe these things, then you will still function.

You are not "stuck" on earth because you 'believe' 'gravity is still working'. Gravity is still going to do what gravity does whether you believe it is working or not.

The point is that if I don't believe in gravity and all that stuff then I will be tentative in every motion and decision.

So are you trying to say that each and every human being moves about and makes decisions very tentatively, that is; until the day and age that they start knowing about AND believing in gravity?

If you are, then I think that not ALL human beings will believe that this is true.

With each step, I will need to verify that I am still not floating away. If I don't trust ANYTHING, then I can't really function at all.

You keep using different words. Now you are using the 'trust' word.

Nonsense. I believe what seems logical and useful to me. I am sometimes fooled, like anyone, but that does not mean I am not being honest with myself.

Just about every sentence I say gets taken out of context and misinterpreted.

When, and if, anyone puts forward their beliefs, and then we look at them and into them Truly OPENLY and Honestly, then we will be able to see which ones are avtually true and which ones are not. You even just admitted that you are sometimes fooled. I am just saying how to NOT be fooled all the time. Being honest with 'your'"self" is a whole other matter.

It is necessary for basic functioning that I decide to believe in certain things and question others.

One point is if you believe some thing, then you do NOT question.

I am functioning basically and I have absolutely NO beliefs at all. Therefore, beliefs are NOT necessary for basic functioning.

But, if you want to continue to believe that beliefs are necessary for YOUR basic functioning, then so be it. Enjoy.

It is wise that I reserve the right to change my mind when new evidence or ideas come to light. It is impossible that I could ever KNOW anything, and I am limited to belief or disbelief.

If you do believe this, then it MUST BE SO.

Also, do you believe that it is impossible that you could ever KNOW anything?

[creation]

OF COURSE there is no way for me to escape that I think this.

Right. And another word for "I think (or know) this (is the case)" is "belief."

Of course that is another word. But, obviously it is NOT the actual word for what one actually means.

Obviously, if one 'thinks' some thing, then what that actually means IS; This is what I THINK. If one wants to express that they 'believe' some thing, then I suggest they use the 'believe' word instead of the 'think' word.

You might not like using that term for this, you might have an aversion to using that term for this for some reason, but saying that you have a plethora of beliefs simply amounts to saying that you have a plethora of things that you think (or know) are the case.

To me, one can either 'believe' some thing is true, 'think' some thing is true, or 'know' some thing is true. All, of which, obviously can mean very different things.

And, what has also become obviously clear, I hope by now from this thread, is these three words can mean very different things to different people.

By the way, there is a very specific reason WHY I do not use the belief word, in relation to my views, is because I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

[creation]

1. You are so far from the actual reason of WHY I say what I say.

"regardless of your motivation for it."

Is that a question or a statement?

I suggest IF you are seeking answers to some thing specific, then you ask a very specific question. Then I will KNOW how to answer you properly and correctly, so that I can give you the actual Answer/s that you are looking for and seeking.

The reason I say what I say are for very specific reasons. The motivation I have for saying the things I do have no bearing on how close or how far you are from discovering the actual reason for why I say what I say.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course that is another word. But, obviously it is NOT the actual word for what one actually means.

Obviously, if one 'thinks' some thing, then what that actually means IS; This is what I THINK. If one wants to express that they 'believe' some thing, then I suggest they use the 'believe' word instead of the 'think' word.

Again, "I believe that P" is basically a synonym for "I think that P" or "I know that P."

Are you one of those people who would say that there are no synonyms?

[chewybrian]

then say what you mean, and, mean what you say.

OK, Dr, Suess... .
By the way, what has some "dr suess" got to do with this?

Quoting from memory, about 50 years ago, I think it goes: "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent."

[creation]

Of course that is another word. But, obviously it is NOT the actual word for what one actually means.

Obviously, if one 'thinks' some thing, then what that actually means IS; This is what I THINK. If one wants to express that they 'believe' some thing, then I suggest they use the 'believe' word instead of the 'think' word.

Again, "I believe that P" is basically a synonym for "I think that P" or "I know that P."

Again, if one says; "I believe that P", then this is obviously different than saying "I think that P" and "I know that P". We could even say that they are literally 'very different'.

This can be clearly SEEN and evidenced, just now. Just look at the words themselves and think about what they actually mean in regards to how one views things.

When you say; "I believe ...", "I think ...", and " I know ..." do you mean the exact same thing? Do these three obviously different words mean the same thing to you?

See, I suggest doing what I do, that is; Say what you mean, and, mean what you say. Especially in a philosophy forum, and even more so if you want to be fully and truly understood.

Are you one of those people who would say that there are no synonyms?

No.

How many of "those people" are that that you know of that would say such a thing?

[creation]

then say what you mean, and, mean what you say.

OK, Dr, Suess... .
By the way, what has some "dr suess" got to do with this?

Quoting from memory, about 50 years ago, I think it goes: "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent."

Ah okay.