uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmTo Me, 'not believing' is the exact same as 'believing', in that you can choose to either believe some thing is true or not believe some thing is true. If you do not believe (in) some thing, although opposite of believing (in) some thing it is still the exact same as having a belief, either way. Whereas, remaining open is the exact opposite of having a belief.
Fair enough. I think we have slightly different understandings of belief then. My take on belief is that it is a commitment to a particular point of view; in the current context, one either believes that god exists, or one believes that god doesn't. Insofar as theism/atheism are concerned, my understanding is that it's subtly different; theism is a specific belief-that at least one god exists; whereas atheism, rather than being a commitment to the belief that any particular god does definitely not exist, is simply the absence in belief in that god.
What you wrote here is completely fair enough also. Your understanding of what 'atheism' means shows exactly how subtle differences can cause disagreements, disputes, and confusion. I actually thought/presumed, and worse still assumed, that 'agnostic' was closer to what you were referring to about "not believing" and 'remaining open' to whether God exists or not but I just looked up one dictionary and it states, 'agnostic'; "
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.", which is much different from what i was thinking. Your understanding of 'atheism' is closer to an open person and without 'belief' either way, then I would say that surreptitious57 is more correct about 'atheism' being less irrational than 'theism' is, but only on the proviso that 'atheism' itself neither has nor holds a belief in any thing.
This discussing, accepting, and coming to an agreement peacefully of what words are to be used and what their definitions/meanings are, before a discussion takes place, is how disagreements, disputes, and confusion can be and is minimized to the most possible.
Your words, "my understanding is ..." works perfectly also for My further replies.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmTo Me, a person having a belief or be believing/disbelieving (in) some thing means that that thing is true, right, and/or correct, for the very fact that a person would not have a belief or be believing some thing if it were false, wrong, and/or incorrect?
Well, the way I understand 'belief' is that you can believe in things, or not, regardless of whether they are true.
Of course you can. You are free to choose absolutely any thing you want to. If you choose to believe (in) some thing, even if it may not be true at all, then that is fine. I am certainly not going to tell any person what they should or should not do.
Some scientists, for example, believe that the premise of string theory is true. We simply don't know whether it is a fact or not, but that doesn't stop some people believing it.
Yes I am aware that does not stop people believing in things. I observe and witness this every day. This has been going on for centuries and longer now. All I do is question, If it is not necessary, then why believe (in) some thing, especially if it might not even be a fact?
The people labeled 'detectives' is another example of when they believe some thing may be true but they have no actual evidence for. They can be heard such things such as, "I/we believe ... (to be the case)" but really they are only thinking or guessing it to be true.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmPeople are believing in what is true, to them anyway. People are not believing in what is false. If examples could be provided of when a person is supposed believing and/or not believing some thing is true, then we could take a look at it to see if it is the same as remaining open.
I don't want to trivialise this, but children believe in Santa Claus.
Children, like a lot of adults, will believe things that they are told are true, but which are totally false or there is absolutely no evidence for. But I thought this would be more evidence of why it is better to remain open, then it is to believe (in) things. I found teaching children to remain open always, instead of believing what is told to you, allows them to grow up being more able to distinguish truth from falsehoods. Unfortunately though I have a whole 'education system' to compete with as that system is teaching the exact opposite from this.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmOn a more grown up level, until recently, most physicists believed that the force of gravity would slow don the expansion of the universe.
Personally I do not care how old or "grown up" a person is, if they are still believing in things, which actually could be not true at all, then they are being just like the children do who believe (in) santa claus is real.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmIn fact, the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.
I am not really interested in what "appears" to be true. I am more interested in what IS actually true. What is actually true is some human being still
believe that the Universe
began, of which there is absolutely no evidence for.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmMost of us have some theory that underpins the evidence of our own eyes, and most of us believe that theory, but history has a habit of showing all sorts of theories to be wrong. So I agree that it is best to keep your options open.
The very reason I remain open always is because I do NOT know the truth of some things
yet, and even if I do know the truth of some thing already I still do NOT
have to believe (in) it. The Universe is always in a state of constant-creation. The Universe was never created, and just stopped. The Universe is always constantly-changing and evolving, so what 'appears' to be true one day may not be the next, which has been proven countless times already. So, one option I choose is to remain open always, than to believe/disbelieve (in) any thing.
We, human beings, gain evidence with our own eyes, BUT we do NOT need to believe nor disbelieve any thing. We can just look and have views. We can and do gain viewpoints and have points of view. We can look, we can see, and we can understand, and we can express our views and understandings as being just that, "My view is ..." or as you so eloquently put it, "my understanding is ...". We do NOT have to express any thing as though it is absolutely true, which is unfortunately exactly what happens mostly when
beliefs and/or what is
believed to be true is expressed. If you are ever in a discussion with another person and you happen to notice when either of you uses the words "I believe ..." or similar then take notice of just how much this influences the discussion either way.
Obviously when it is sometimes stated, "I/we believe ..." it is obvious that the person is not sure about that in which they are "believing" like with the "detectives", but why confuse the issue by saying some thing that is not meant? Why not just state what is actually meant and which is true, "I/we do not know ..." or "I/we think ... (this to be the case) instead? If "detectives" believe they know what happened, prior to having actual evidence and facts, then this can, sub-consciously, lead them to looking for and/or finding "evidence" that is actually not real evidence.
The reason I find having beliefs or believing (in) some thing, without having the actual facts, is unnecessary and at times can be completely harmful can be well exampled in court rooms. Depending on the country one is in some courts allow the human beings labeled "prosecutors" to open with and present the "facts". Calling some thing "facts" can instantly instill a belief, subliminally or sub-consciously, within a person. If a prosecutor believes they have the "facts" then they could not possibly listen to any other contrary thing. They are only going to look for and be expressing what they already believe is true, which can be very far from what the reality is. This can distort the true facts terribly. This same thing can equally happen with and to the people labeled "defence" also.
The same principle of
believing BEFORE acquiring actual truth and facts distorting reality also happens with the people labeled "scientists" or "physicists". If they believe such things like "the force of gravity would slow down the expansion of the Universe", then they are not open to what the actual and true facts really are. These people sub-consciously tend to look for what they already believe is true, even though others do not want to believe that is what "scientists" would do. ALL people to some degree look for, and want to find and see, what they already believe is true. It is usually other people who look for and find the opposite, unless of course when people openly admit that they found the exact opposite of what they believed to be true. But then they some times start believing the opposite is true. As is the case with some people who actually believe that the expansion of Universe is accelerating. Besides the fact that they are believing that the Universe is accelerating they also start believing that that believed expansion is accelerating.
On a completely other matter, the truth is already obvious and known if and when a person remains completely open always. But do not assume that this means what you think it means.