Philosophy Now Forum

Hi, Arising!

Being pedantic about language outside of context is of little use, I think. But even within a very specific context, the meaning of words vary subtly from person to person, which the quoted examples were intended to show.

I agree that English is a great language. It's probably the most progressive language in the world, in the sense that it contains more words and fewer rules for how to use them than other languages.

As for this thread though, I don't think it's going anywhere. There is no point debating the meaning of a word unless you need to define it in a precise way in order to communicate something specific. And this particular debate doesn't seem to beabout anything other than atheists and theists defining "belief" in slightly different ways in order to feel better about their own position.

Agreed, it's not going anywhere. I had hoped, but alas...

But here's something that I do think I see: there are some who wish to claim that what they are doing is in some way different from what somebody else is doing, without necessarily claiming that either is right or wrong. And on the other side, are those who claim that "both sides are doing the same thing, and therefore what I'm doing can't be wrong." Kind of a "safety in numbers" thing.

I'll let you puzzle out which I think is which on your own...

I see the difference and I see the sameness. But the notion that "what I'm doing can't be wrong" is ridiculous. The possibility of being wrong is one of very few certainties in life.

My take is simple notvacka, the theists proposition is either a belief or its a truth proposition. Beliefs have no relationship to truth in the world, i.e. whether its true or false is immaterial to those who believe. Why? Because if they say its a true proposition then they have to, if they wish to prove it is true, show or point to the state of affairs that the proposition proposes, so all I ever want is for someone to show or point me at a 'god' and so far no-one in the whole history of religious belief, apart from the Eygyptians and Romans, have been able to do this. And all they did was say this human being is a 'god' which I think falls far short of the theists claim for their 'god'. Now they've proposed lots of things that they say are good evidence but lately science has put the kibosh upon all of them and so far they've not come-up with anything to replace them. So I think that those who say they believe in a 'god' are like you admit, just holding a belief that suits their needs but there is no need for me to accept that what they say is a truth in the sense of what they believe actually being a state of affairs in the world. The only issue is they seem to get very upset if I say so whereas I care not that they say such a thing as long as they don't wish to impose it upon me. People can believe in what they like as long as it does not involve me in having to keep quiet upon pain of censure, death or violence.

I came across this quote while reading 'The True Believer' and thought about this thread.....

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not. The atheist is a religious person. He believes in atheism as though it were a new religion. He is an atheist with devoutness and unction. according to Renan," The day after that on which the world should no longer believe God, atheists would be the wretchedest of all men. "

Eric Hoffer