|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
David H. Burns wrote:
>> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As
>> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
> Are you speaking from experience?
To some extent, yes.
>> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
>> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know
>> what attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't
>> believe in god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually
>> give me a convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I
>> would know why."
>
> It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has
> actually said.
I wasn't talking about what he said. I was talking about my experiences in
general discussing this sort of stuff. Jim just gave another good example:
"I know *instinctively* that it's true."
> Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we
> mean. You use of the
> terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)
I was saying precisely what I meant. ;-) Faith is that which turns belief
into "knowledge", altho I obviously use that latter term losely.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |