On 4/25/2011 4:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 16:14, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> See, this is just like the argument over theory. We are going around and
>> around here, over what is a trinary problem, because someone wants to
>> define
>> it as a binary one, by conflating 'certainty' with some sort of 'belief'.
>
> I disagree. I think this is just a discussion over the definitions of
> words. I use "belief" to indicate the mental state in which I think
> something is true. Someone else is using it to mean the mental state in
> which I think something is true but I am not certain. I think I can
> believe something to be true of which I am certain. Jim seems to think I
> cannot believe something to be true of which I am certain. I would find
> it very confusing if someone at Fred's funeral said "I can't believe
> Fred is dead" and meant it literally.
>
But, it is much the same thing. Because belief gets used interchangably 
to define both a state of certainty, as well as a state of uncertainty, 
where you are merely presuming a fact, without necessarily having 
evidence. Many of the same people at that same funeral would think you 
where nuts if everyone was talking about the freak accident that killed 
him, and you said, "I don't have a theory about how he died.", meaning 
that you could only guess at it, not a state of certainty about how it 
actually happened. Their reaction would, almost certainly be, "What, 
with all the things people have been saying here today, you have no 
'opinion' of how it happened?"

Its exactly the same situation.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:38:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim seems to think I
> cannot believe something to be true of which I am certain. I would find
> it very confusing if someone at Fred's funeral said "I can't believe
> Fred is dead" and meant it literally.

Well, I'm talking about a literal sense, not a figurative sense of the 
word.  "I can't believe Fred is dead" is a figurative use of the word 
'belief', or a type of denial (take your pick).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 16:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But if I pull the curtains back and see that, yes, the sun is up, then I
> no longer need to believe it because I can observe that it is up.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that's how normal people 
use that word outside of religious arguments.

Would you say I'm wrong to state "I believe Elvis is dead"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 16:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:44:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Do you believe Elvis is alive?  Do you believe Elvis is dead?  Can you
>> really answer no to both of those questions?
>
> Sure, it's possible for someone with insufficient data to answer "no" to
> both questions.

Sure. Can *you* say that?  If someone asked "Do you believe Elvis is alive?" 
would you say "No"?  If someone asked "Do you believe Elvis is dead?" would 
you say "No"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 16:44, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:38:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim seems to think I
>> cannot believe something to be true of which I am certain. I would find
>> it very confusing if someone at Fred's funeral said "I can't believe
>> Fred is dead" and meant it literally.
>
> Well, I'm talking about a literal sense, not a figurative sense of the
> word.  "I can't believe Fred is dead" is a figurative use of the word
> 'belief', or a type of denial (take your pick).

Right. That's what I'm saying. I can't believe anyone at the funeral would 
say "I can't believe Fred is dead *because* he's laying here right in front 
of me, not breathing!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/25 19:46, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/25/2011 16:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But if I pull the curtains back and see that, yes, the sun is up, then I
>> no longer need to believe it because I can observe that it is up.
>
> I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that's how normal
> people use that word outside of religious arguments.
>
> Would you say I'm wrong to state "I believe Elvis is dead"?
>

I don't beleive that Elvis is dead because I do KNOW that he's dead!

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/25 18:44, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/25/2011 14:24, Warp wrote:
>> Certainty (which can be either positive or
>> negative, so technically speaking there are actually four options).
>
> No. "I no longer believe the sun is up" is not equivalent to "I believe
> the sun is not up." The latter would be disbelief.
>
> I believe evolution is true. I believe I'm sitting in front of a
> keyboard right now.

If you are sitting in front of your keyboard now, there is absolutely NO 
need to beleive it. It's a fact, so you KNOW that you are sitting in 
front of your keyboard.

The same way, as evolution has beed demonstrated to be true, one KNOW 
that evolution is true. Here again, you don't beleive, you know.

>
> Do you believe Elvis is alive? Do you believe Elvis is dead? Can you
> really answer no to both of those questions? I don't think that's how a
> normal person would treat the word "believe" in everyday English. Except
> in a discussion of religion where one side or the other is intentionally
> trying to change the meanings of words in order to make it difficult to
> express the opinion with which they don't believe, in much the same way
> as someone will say "How can you not believe in God when God is Love?"
>

"God is Love"? How can you be sertain of that?
Read the bible carefully. Is the great fload an act of love? Is the 
destruction of Sodome and Gomora an act of love?

Absolutely NOT! They are acts of HATE and IRE! How come a "God of Love" 
can commit such acts?

Then, if you read further, you'll find that he's also a WAR GOD! A War 
God don't Love, he Fight!

The answer is definitely NO! No "God of Love" could ever do those. A 
"God of Love" would find it IMPOSSIBLE to do those acts for the sole 
reason that they are antythetic to it's very nature, even if he's 
otherwise Omnypotent.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/25 19:47, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/25/2011 16:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:44:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Do you believe Elvis is alive? Do you believe Elvis is dead? Can you
>>> really answer no to both of those questions?
>>
>> Sure, it's possible for someone with insufficient data to answer "no" to
>> both questions.
>
> Sure. Can *you* say that? If someone asked "Do you believe Elvis is
> alive?" would you say "No"? If someone asked "Do you believe Elvis is
> dead?" would you say "No"?
>

Q: Do you beleive Elvis is alive?
A: No! He's dead.

Q: So, you beleive Elvis is dead?
A: No! He's dead.

Q: Why don't you beleive he's dead but you say he's dead?
A: I know that he's dead, I don't need to beleive it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> No. "I no longer believe the sun is up" is not equivalent to "I believe the 
> sun is not up." The latter would be disbelief.

  Of course it's not equivalent. There is more than one alternative to the
former. For example, "I no longer believe the sun is up, I know it."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/25 19:30, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 4/25/2011 12:28 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Thou shalt not kill. Ok, but is that in
>> general or only humans?
>
> To be clear, the term actually used in the less mangled Jewish version
> is "Murder", which specifically refers to something you do to other
> people. Mind, "people" may be a bit uncertain a term, since it can often
> be "chosen people". Or, as one person put it, "Love thy neighbor
> literally meant the person living right next door to you, not
> always/ever the one living in the next village."

Considering that the worg "gentile" in Ebraic means "Not of the Peoples" 
or "Not Human" as "Human" = "The Peoples" = "The Chosen Ones".

In the /old/ times, for a Jew, killing a non Jew was not a murder.
BUT, the same distinction was also on the part of most other nations. 
For the Egyptians, any non-Egyptian was mostly cattle.

It started to change with the Greecks under Alexander the GReat and his 
Empire building and continued with the Roman Empire. When you start 
conquering other nations and integrating them into your nation, you can 
no longer afford to view other nations as non-peoples.

Post a reply to this message