About believing

[Primo]

I had recently a discussion with a priest (yes, with a priest, a good friend of mine who hasnīt rapped me but regularly invites me to football-games), comming to this conclusion:

Even if you donīt believe in God, you do believe in plenty of things. For example: You do believe in the map of the earth. You have - of course - plenty of good reasons doing so, but unless you actually were in space or flew around the earth many times you donīt know. Now, it is very likely that the map is in fact correct, donīt get me wrong. But believing and knowing, even in science, are two different things. We too canīt know for sure that God exists, but we believe in him. We too have plenty of good reasons to do so, and it is very likely that he exists, but we donīt know.

Or that Barrack Obama was born August 4, 1961 - you werenīt there, you have to believe it to be true. Even Obama has to believe it. Of course, it is very likely that he actually was born on that date, but you werenīt there and you donīt know.

What do you say? What is believing for you and what knowing?

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

yes, with a priest, a good friend of mine who hasnīt rapped me but regularly invites me to football-games),

Thats called grooming ha ha.

We too canīt know for sure that God exists, but we believe in him. We too have plenty of good reasons to do so, and it is very likely that he exists, but we donīt know.

What are the reasons you say we have to do so??I was told as a kid he existed and was also told santa claus and jack frost and the boogieman existed but i have since found these people to be fiction

[MathiasOfAthens]

I had recently a discussion with a priest (yes, with a priest, a good friend of mine who hasnīt rapped me but regularly invites me to football-games), comming to this conclusion:

Even if you donīt believe in God, you do believe in plenty of things. For example: You do believe in the map of the earth. You have - of course - plenty of good reasons doing so, but unless you actually were in space or flew around the earth many times you donīt know. Now, it is very likely that the map is in fact correct, donīt get me wrong. But believing and knowing, even in science, are two different things. We too canīt know for sure that God exists, but we believe in him. We too have plenty of good reasons to do so, and it is very likely that he exists, but we donīt know.

Or that Barrack Obama was born August 4, 1961 - you werenīt there, you have to believe it to be true. Even Obama has to believe it. Of course, it is very likely that he actually was born on that date, but you werenīt there and you donīt know.

What do you say? What is believing for you and what knowing?

Science doesnt say God DOES NOT EXIST, but it cant prove he exists either. Neither can religion. But Science can disprove claims made in the bible which are claimed to have come from this God. Science can back up evolutionary and biological claims that the bible claims came about by a God. We know things about the planet because the evidence backs up those claims. We cant prove or even find a shred of evidence for a god creating the planet, much less doing it in 6 days. We can not find evidence for a world wide flood that shaped canyons. But we do find evidence for evolution and our ancestors.

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

But what about all the other gods the Greek ones for example does Zeus and Aphrodite.And the Egyption Sun God why dont we believe in them.Science has not proven them wrong as The Sun actually exists

[Primo]

Thats called grooming ha ha.

What does that mean?

What are the reasons you say we have to do so??I was told as a kid he existed and was also told santa claus and jack frost and the boogieman existed but i have since found these people to be fiction

I actually didnīt want to discuss the existence of god in this thread.

Science doesnt say God DOES NOT EXIST, but it cant prove he exists either. Neither can religion. But Science can disprove claims made in the bible which are claimed to have come from this God. Science can back up evolutionary and biological claims that the bible claims came about by a God. We know things about the planet because the evidence backs up those claims. We cant prove or even find a shred of evidence for a god creating the planet, much less doing it in 6 days. We can not find evidence for a world wide flood that shaped canyons. But we do find evidence for evolution and our ancestors.

Do you think evolution is disproving a claim hold by the bible?

But what about all the other gods the Greek ones for example does Zeus and Aphrodite.And the Egyption Sun God why dont we believe in them.Science has not proven them wrong as The Sun actually exists

No one believes in these gods anymore. And since the ancient greeks portrayed them without perfect character they wouldnīt have done nothing against that.

Also I actually wanted to discuss about what we believe and what we know, not what the bible says.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Take Human evolution for example. The bible certainly claims god made us and whether your church takes Adam and Eve as literal the bible still has something to say with overall human evolution from more or less primitive species.

[Jack04]

I find belief to be a bit of a catch-all term that prevents discussion. Take as an example political beliefs. Most people find that they hold political beliefs, which are often held in a manner which is disproportionately strong to the evidence in support of it. On the other hand, it is entirely possible to start from a clean sheet and build up political ideas based entirely on the available evidence. Both are often referred to as political beliefs, however I would refer to them in a different way, perhaps (as I used) "beliefs" and "ideas". Beliefs, whilst not necessarily contradictory to the evidence are held strongly irrespective of the available evidence, whereas ideas are typically weakly held and very much subject to change should evidence be presented demonstrating them to be false.

So, I accept the idea that the maps are correct, but that idea is very much subject to change should I drive into the sea as a consequence of those maps. However I hold a political belief, which determines my acceptance of the available evidence. I'd argue that in this case, beliefs clearly make for a poorer argument than ideas. Beliefs in most cases also develop over long periods of time and exposure to polarised opinion, whereas ideas are typically reached largely independently. Both beliefs and ideas are also possible for the majority of subjects (though again (especially with religion) both are typically referred to as beliefs).

Edit: ... and you can "know" something because of either a belief or an idea.

[Phier]

I had recently a discussion with a priest (yes, with a priest, a good friend of mine who hasnīt rapped me but regularly invites me to football-games), comming to this conclusion:

Even if you donīt believe in God, you do believe in plenty of things. For example: You do believe in the map of the earth. You have - of course - plenty of good reasons doing so, but unless you actually were in space or flew around the earth many times you donīt know

But the evidence is there whenever I need it. I've flown small planes and the local topography fits the bigger map. When I go places following a map, it leads me to where I need to be. I have seen the effect of the curvature of the earth at sea. If anything made me think the map was false I would no longer 'believe' in the map as accurate. Now there is a chance, Africa and Asia are giant Hoaxes (as I haven't been there as well as a few other places), but being so far everything has worked out exactly as shown I have no reason to doubt them for now.

.

Now, it is very likely that the map is in fact correct, donīt get me wrong. But believing and knowing, even in science, are two different things. We too canīt know for sure that God exists, but we believe in him. We too have plenty of good reasons to do so, and it is very likely that he exists, but we donīt know.

I have absolutely no good reason to believe God, or gods, exist. I see no place where they are doing anything at all. I see no need for their hands in the natural world, I do not need them to live my life and enjoy it. They do not protect my children (obviously) they do not keep me from disease, they do not make my business succeed. Any god is at best an observer and at worst sadistic.

Or that Barrack Obama was born August 4, 1961 - you werenīt there, you have to believe it to be true. Even Obama has to believe it. Of course, it is very likely that he actually was born on that date, but you werenīt there and you donīt know.

Actually people lie about their birth dates all the time. I had a great grandmother that always said she was older than she was long before her mind was going. We just have no reason to verify the documentation for most people, but its there. If you want to know my birth date as officially recorded its on file. Now it could be an elaborate lie, but the probability of it being a lie is rather remote as it would require a lot of effort for absolutely no gain.

What do you say? What is believing for you and what knowing?

Knowing is knowing on what you think are facts. They might be wrong but you have no reason to doubt them.

Belief is taking the most likely probability based on incomplete data. I can not know if there is a god or not, but the probability appears to be low, and the probability of an old testament style earthly god EXTREMELY low.

[chriscase]

There is a difference between behaving as if one "believes" something and actually "believing" it. When the scalawags are sitting down at your table, it's advantageous to behave as if you they are your guests, since that may give you the opportunity to escape - an opportunity which will be harder to come by once you're tied up in the basement. Thus it goes with religion.

[Primo]

Take Human evolution for example. The bible certainly claims god made us and whether your church takes Adam and Eve as literal the bible still has something to say with overall human evolution from more or less primitive species.

The bible actually declared evolution long before the science:

1. Die Bibel weiß schon auf der ersten Seite im Schöpfungsbericht 1. Mose 1,1-2,4, dass die Menschen und die Tierwelt zusammengehören.

In dieser Hinsicht brachte Darwin gar nichts Neues! Der Erschaffung der Menschen geht die Erschaffung der Tiere in drei Gruppen voraus. Zuerst die Wassertiere und dann die Lufttiere, beide Gruppen am fünften Tag. Die dritte Gruppe, die Landtiere, wird dem sechsten Tag zugeordnet und diesem gleich auch die Menschen. Die Menschen haben keinen eigenen Tag. Sie teilen ihren Schöpfungstag mit den Landtieren. Enger konnte man sich damals die Zusammengehörigkeit von Mensch und Tier gar nicht vorstellen!

This is my (bad) Translation - If you can, read it in german:

The bible knows already on the first side of the story of the Creation (1. Mose 1, 1-2,4) that the human world and the animal world belong together.

In that aspect Darwin discovered nothing new! The Creation of Humans is after the creation of the animals in three main groups. First Water animals, then flying animals, both on the 5th day. The third group, the land animals, is created on the 6th day together with the humans. The Human donīt have an own day. They share the day of their creation with the land animals! Closer the ancient humans couldnīt imagine their relationship with the animals!

And no one has ever claimed a human day is as long as a day for god. So it fits perfectly with evolution - Darwin was a few thousand years to slow.

So evolution doesnīt, in any way, contradict the bible.

[Phier]

So evolution doesnīt, in any way, contradict the bible.

Only if you take genesis to be completely allegorical and omit huge swaths of time from human existence as not worthy of making its pages.

[Primo]

Only if you take genesis to be completely allegorical and omit huge swaths of time from human existence as not worthy of making its pages.

Sorry. Donīt understand that. English is a foreign language for me, so plz explain?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Ah yes, the old argument that claims that since you haven't observed anything you can't say it is false or true and therefore my god is real. Notice the enormous leap there that demonstrates the lack of logic in this argument.

[Primo]

Ah yes, the old argument that claims that since you haven't observed anything you can't say it is false or true and therefore my god is real. Notice the enormous leap there that demonstrates the lack of logic in this argument.

I actually didnīt mean it that way. I just wanted to discuss about believing and knowing of everyday things

[chriscase]

Equivocation. Religious apologists never seem to tire of it.

[Primo]

Equivocation. Religious apologists never seem to tire of it.

Maybe I should have opened the thread under the name: All words Primo doesnīt understand. Sorry

[StealthFox]

I once had a professor tell my human evolution class something like this: "Science is not something you believe in. Science is something you accept as the best current explanation for how the world works. Science is always changing with new evidence and data. Religion is something that you do believe in based on faith."

Also, there is no conflict between the Bible and modern science, specifically, there is nothing to say that evolution was not the means which God used to create life on Earth. Of course, there are those who interpret the Bible literally and this is where the conflict occurs -- in interpretation and not in the actual text.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Science doesnt say God DOES NOT EXIST, but it cant prove he exists either. Neither can religion. But Science can disprove claims made in the bible which are claimed to have come from this God. Science can back up evolutionary and biological claims that the bible claims came about by a God. We know things about the planet because the evidence backs up those claims. We cant prove or even find a shred of evidence for a god creating the planet, much less doing it in 6 days. We can not find evidence for a world wide flood that shaped canyons. But we do find evidence for evolution and our ancestors.

I think you are missing the point the OP is trying to make. "We" don't know jack . A few people know a little bit about certain things and "WE" eat it up for fact with very little proof. I have never seen France, but I believe it is there. I have no proof that George Washington lived, other than the word of others...but I believe it.

Ah yes, the old argument that claims that since you haven't observed anything you can't say it is false or true and therefore my god is real. Notice the enormous leap there that demonstrates the lack of logic in this argument.

Speaking of giant leaps...where does he suggest that his God is real because you really can't be sure if anything anyone tells you is true? Your post was a giant lack of logic.

[chriscase]

Maybe I should have opened the thread under the name: All words Primo doesnīt understand. Sorry

Seriously? You do have access to the Internet, right?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.