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

[Terrapin Station]

But you would not want to get rid of the animal you like.

Your comment said, "maybe it would be best to get rid of the true pest on earth." Obviously I'm not going to agree with that.

Is this thread about 'you', "terrapin station", and what you like?

My comment was about that. You quoted and commented on my comment. Are you saying that you weren't actually addressing my comment per se?

[creation]

But you would not want to get rid of the animal you like.

Your comment said, "maybe it would be best to get rid of the true pest on earth." Obviously I'm not going to agree with that.

Of course you are not. You have already proven and made it very clear that you would like things to revolve you and your own personal self-centered wants and wishes.

Is this thread about 'you', "terrapin station", and what you like?

My comment was about that.

Yes we could clearly see that your comment was about 'you', and what you like, only.

Even your response here shows that you actually think that this thread is about you, and what you like.

You quoted and commented on my comment. Are you saying that you weren't actually addressing my comment per se?

Nice attempt to try and deflect this away from you and try to to turn it back on to me, but to answer your question, No. Of course I was obviously addressing your very selfish comment.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course you are not. You have already proven and made it very clear that you would like things to revolve you and your own personal self-centered wants and wishes.

Everyone would like things to "revolve around" their preferences, their beliefs, etc. That's wrapped up in what preferences and beliefs are. This includes things like wanting other people to indulge in their preferences, too--that would be a preference one has.

Even your response here shows that you actually think that this thread is about you, and what you like.

I haven't the faintest idea what thread we're even posting in without looking for that information, which I haven't looked for at the moment and don't plan on looking for. Again, I'd prefer to interact via chat. I'm not a fan of the message board format for casual conversations.

I comment on things people say that I think are interesting for various reasons. I couldn't care less about the overall thread. I just let conversations go wherever they do. When I'm responding like this I don't pay any attention at all to what the thread was, because I don't care.

[creation]

Of course you are not. You have already proven and made it very clear that you would like things to revolve you and your own personal self-centered wants and wishes.

Everyone would like things to "revolve around" their preferences, their beliefs, etc. That's wrapped up in what preferences and beliefs are. This includes things like wanting other people to indulge in their preferences, too--that would be a preference one has.

There is another GREAT reason why to never have beliefs.

Even your response here shows that you actually think that this thread is about you, and what you like.

I haven't the faintest idea what thread we're even posting in without looking for that information, which I haven't looked for at the moment and don't plan on looking for. Again, I'd prefer to interact via chat. I'm not a fan of the message board format for casual conversations.

This might help in explaining why you go off topic so quickly and so often.

I comment on things people say that I think are interesting for various reasons. I couldn't care less about the overall thread. I just let conversations go wherever they do. When I'm responding like this I don't pay any attention at all to what the thread was, because I don't care.

Yes we are already aware that you think 'you' are in the center and you want and desire every thing to revolve around 'you' in exactly the way you want and desire them to. Even when it includes wiping out any species that you so believe your own personal life would be better without.

But, obviously you have forgotten, or you are not yet aware, that 'you' only exist because of absolutely EVERY thing that came before you. Choosing to wipe those things out because 'you' are here now is a truly absurd and selfish way to think.

[Terrapin Station]

There is another GREAT reason why to never have beliefs.

"I don't have any beliefs" is a belief you have.

[creation]

There is another GREAT reason why to never have beliefs.

"I don't have any beliefs" is a belief you have.

lol

So, explain to me how I have a belief that I do not have any beliefs.

Are you not able to think or know things without having beliefs about them?

If you are not able to, then just to let you know, I am able to, and it is a truly very simple and easy thing to do.

I KNOW I do not have any beliefs, because there is nothing that I believe. So, simple.

[Pattern-chaser]

I KNOW I do not have any beliefs, because there is nothing that I believe. So, simple.

For a start, you believe anything and everything you KNOW. You wouldn't normally bother saying so, because KNOW is a much stronger term than believe, but it's true nonetheless. You also believe things you assume, perhaps without realising, that you KNOW. In this case, it's assume that is the critical term, not KNOW.

• It is not possible for a human to function without belief.
• 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.

[Terrapin Station]

"I don't have any beliefs" is a belief you have.

lol

So, explain to me how I have a belief that I do not have any beliefs.

You assert that it's the case that you have no beliefs, right?

Another term for that--you taking it to be the case that P, is "belief."

Are you not able to think or know things without having beliefs about them?

Correct. Propositional knowledge is "justified true belief."

If you are not able to, then just to let you know, I am able to, and it is a truly very simple and easy thing to do.

You can call it or not call it anything you like. Regardless of that, asserting/thinking that something is the case is conventionally named "belief."

[Terrapin Station]

Saying "'I know that P' implies that 'I don't believe that P'" is indicative of a lack of familiarity with and a lack of understanding of rudimentary epistemology--101-level stuff.

[chewybrian]

It is not possible for a human to function without belief.

I believe you are right.

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

I believe gravity is still working, and electricity, and momentum and friction. I believe other people know and intend to honor the rules of the road and won't run me over. I believe the overpass is properly constructed and won't collapse as I cross the highway.

On and on I must assume (believe) that so many things I take for granted are still in place for me to be able to make the trip to the store, or to perform any simple task of daily life.

[creation]

I KNOW I do not have any beliefs, because there is nothing that I believe. So, simple.

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?

You can accurately tell us what 'you' believe and do not believe, but you can not accurately tell others what they believe or do not believe.

You wouldn't normally bother saying so,

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?

because KNOW is a much stronger term than believe, but it's true nonetheless.

I KNOW what I know and think, you do NOT.

I use the words I do for very specific reasons, so you changing MY words to your own words is just you completely twisting and distorting what I am saying and meaning, and therefore the very reason WHY 'you' are not understanding what I have been saying and meaning, which, by the way, is the very main thing that I have been pointing out and showing in this forum.

You are free to use any word anyway you like, but you changing my words to your own words, in your own thinking, or out aloud like here now, is the very reason why you still are not seeing and not understanding the actual Truth of things yet.

You also believe things you assume, perhaps without realising, that you KNOW.

You are so far off track and so far from thee actual Truth that this is truly outstanding.

I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing. I also do not like to assume any thing. Therefore, each and every time you think, assume, or believe that I am believing, disbelieving, or assuming any thing, then you just write that down, and then if you allow me to explain what I am actually saying and meaning, then you finally start understanding ME, and therefore start understanding thee actual Truth of things. Until then you will continue living in your own distorted little "world", which you are free to do. But please refrain from telling me what I am thinking and what I am doing, that way you will not be so continually and completely and utterly WRONG as you are here now.

In this case, it's assume that is the critical term, not KNOW.

Do NOT tell me what I am thinking and what I am doing. You are making a complete and utter FOOL of yourself as well as showing just how STUPID you can be.

Would you like me to TELL you that you do not actually mean what you saying, and then TELL you what you actually do mean?

• It is not possible for a human to function without belief.
• 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 have ALREADY PROVE that it is completely possible for a human to function without belief. In fact it is one of the most simplest, easiest, and most natural things to do.

Your unchanging BELIEF that you cannot function without belief is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY it is far better to not have any beliefs at all.

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

I do not care one iota what you believe and/or disbelieve, in fact I enjoy when you express your beliefs because I am then able to use and show PRIME EXAMPLES of how a human being with a belief is unchangeable, and is therefore completely incapable of learning and understanding anything more or anew.

'you', "pattern-chaser", are being here the very one I want to use as a prime test subject and prime example for the very reason WHY not to have beliefs.

[creation]

lol

So, explain to me how I have a belief that I do not have any beliefs.

You assert that it's the case that you have no beliefs, right?

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

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.

Just like a new born human being does not believe any thing nor does it disbelieve any thing. I am the exact same, I do not believe any thing and I do not disbelieve any thing. Very simple really. Like me.

You are free to accept this or not.

I do not care what you accept or do not accept.

Another term for that--you taking it to be the case that P, is "belief."

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

For you, "taking 'it' to be the case that P", is "belief". But for me it is NOT. Do you understand this? Are you even capable to understand this?

Just because you take some thing to be true, and believe it to be true, this does NOT mean that I take the same thing, and it does not even mean that what you take to be true, to be actually 'true' itself.

Unless of course you believe that you KNOW what the actual absolute truth is about all things, and therefore that what you say has to be true.

Are you really that incapable to, for example, "take it that the sun rises in the east" (take it to be the case that P) and NOT just be OPEN to the fact that the sun is not actually "rising"?

Or, because you take the case that P (the sun rises), therefore you actually cannot do anything other than believe that the sun does 'rise'?

You believing that whatever is "taken to be the case is P", is "belief", is just absurdly and ridiculously WRONG in and of itself, as shown here now.

Therefore, your attempt at forming an argument does not work

Are you not able to think or know things without having beliefs about them?

Correct. Propositional knowledge is "justified true belief."

Well that is for you. This is NOT for me.

Are you not able to think for and by yourself, instead of using others terms, and using them as though they are actual irrefutable Truths?

The term "justified true belief" is just some thing I would not use, for the disturbing beliefs that it puts into people.

I look at and see things without beliefs. I can, for example, think that you went to the shop yesterday. I certainly do NOT believe that it is true.

I can then clarify with you if you went to the shop yesterday, and you might inform me that you did. But I still do NOT have to believe (nor disbelieve) that this is true. I can quite simply and very easily just continue to remain OPEN.

This 'remaining OPEN' is what I do, not just for that example but for absolutely EVERY thing else as well.

I do NOT have any beliefs for the very reason that I want to remain OPEN always. Because it is only when one is OPEN when one is able to learn, understand, and reason, logically and sensibly.

When one is believing or disbelieving some thing, then they are NOT OPEN to any thing other than that belief. For an example of this, then just remember that time you tried to explain to a person what the actual truth is when that person is believing some thing else is true.

If you are not able to, then just to let you know, I am able to, and it is a truly very simple and easy thing to do.

You can call it or not call it anything you like. Regardless of that, asserting/thinking that something is the case is conventionally named "belief."

LOL

If this is what you 'believe', then so be it.

If you actually 'believe' that you KNOW what the "convention" IS, then this is more evidence of just how CLOSED a person IS when they 'believe' things.

You can call "asserting/thinking that something is the case" a "belief" for as long as you like, and you can keep distorting what thee actual Truth is for as long as you like as well. But, I look at and see things as they really and truly ARE, and then I call them for what they really and truly ARE also.

For example, I call "asserting/thinking that something is the case", "asserting/thinking that something is the case".

What can be seen here is, I call things as they REALLY ARE. Whereas, you have obviously and blatantly distorted thee actual Truth of things, to how you want them to to "be".

You are obviously 'trying your hardest' to fit things into your own little "world" of how things 'should', which, by the way, will NEVER work.

I suggest to you, and others, STOP believing things and STOP believing that you KNOW what the actual truth is. Once you, and them, STOP 'believing' things, then this will make it so much easier for you, and them, to SEE what thee actual Truth of things really IS.

[creation]

Saying "'I know that P' implies that 'I don't believe that P'" is indicative of a lack of familiarity with and a lack of understanding of rudimentary epistemology--101-level stuff.

LOL

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

To even think this is the case is absurdity beyond (dare I say it) "belief". let alone to 'believe' that this is the case.

I just love and enjoy watching the way you people 'try your absolutely hardest' and twist things around to 'try to' substantiate your already held beliefs and assumptions.

'Trying to' back up and support one's already held beliefs and assumptions is clear SIGN of a complete lack of understanding of one's own 'self'.

[creation]

It is not possible for a human to function without belief.

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?

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.

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.

I believe other people know and intend to honor the rules of the road and won't run me over.

I am not 100% sure other people know and intend to honor the rules of the road and will not run me over, and this is why I stay alert of other road users when I am near the road.

If you 'believe' other people know and intend to honor the rules of the road and "won't" run you over, then you could walk around with your eyes closed and not care where and when you walked on the road. Obviously if you 'believe' other people will not run you over, then they obviously will not, correct?

If this is not absolutely correct, then WHY 'believe' some thing that is not even correct?

I believe the overpass is properly constructed and won't collapse as I cross the highway.

What happens if the overpass does collapse? Will you not believe that? Will you disbelieve that it collapsed?

Because you previously 'believed' that it will not collapse. By the way, WHY would you 'believe' some thing that "won't happen" but thee actual Truth IS that it could or 'might happen'.

On and on I must assume (believe) that so many things I take for granted are still in place for me to be able to make the trip to the store, or to perform any simple task of daily life.

On and on I could go show just how illogical and/or unnecessary it is to 'believe' things.

I could also go on and on providing examples of WHY not assuming and neither believing nor disbelieving any thing leads to a much more productive life, leading to living a truly fulfilling and rewarding functioning life.

See, the actual reason WHY 'you' think the way you do and believe the things you do is the very reason WHY you actual 'believe' you cannot even live without 'beliefs'.

'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.

[Terrapin Station]

You assert that it's the case that you have no beliefs, right?

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.

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). 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."

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.

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 term for that--you taking it to be the case that P, is "belief."

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

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

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.