[Questioning Everything]

[Dalek Prime]

How can a person not have beliefs? It's impossible not to hold any.

Does a new born baby have beliefs?

If a new born baby is a person, and they do not have beliefs, then that means it is possible to not hold beliefs.

If however you say a new born baby can have beliefs, then what are they exactly? You are not a newborn. I was talking about you. Don't change the argument on me.

Also, provide some of the beliefs you have and I will show you how exactly you CAN not hold them. I believe I am aware, because I am. And I wouldn't be aware, save for this temporal consciousness, which is my essence, allowed by my physicality. But let's keep it simple; I am aware.

[Dalek Prime]

Depends on how you define belief.

I choose to make a pragmatic distinction between knowledge and belief.
I take belief to the a thing taken as true, without rigorous support.
And I take knowledge as a thing taken as true with rigorous support.

For me, I don't give a rat's arse for belief, and have no respect for another's belief when it is used as if it were the same as knowledge.

I don't believe.

However, as for ken, who claims to believe nothing, what he takes to be true is so obviously false it's palpable.

Yes, that was in reference to ken's statement. He goes beyond belief based on knowledge. That's just silly.

What is it exactly that you two believe or think I take to be true?

If this question ever gets answered, then we will be able to look at what or who is really silly here.

I've already stated this clearly. That you believe you have no beliefs, which in itself is contradictory. Unless of course you are defining 'beliefs' as chestnuts or some random object. In which case, perhaps at the moment you don't have any chestnuts. In which case, I will admit to possibly being mistaken.

[Noax]

If you have NOT noticed yet, I say there is absolutely nothing that needs to be believed or not.

You seem to define belief as only those things rationalized. And babies have apparently never rationalized, which is absurd. OK, fine, a limited definition, and I suppose I could discard any one of those. I'm saying not all beliefs are rational. We're talking about different things.

The reason it took so long was because the people were wanting to hold onto and maintain a belief, which they had already obtained. If people did not have beliefs and thus were truly open in the beginning, then the amount of time that it would have taken to expose and see the Truth would have been far, far quicker.

Much like the belief you're holding onto here, yes.

By the way what do you allege having a belief in exactly is something that does really matter?

Do you read my posts?

You assume it will be light tomorrow, and that's all you need to be fit, unless you're in charge of steering your own spacecraft to some destination, in which case you had better be knowledgeable about orbital mechanics if you expect to live. The truth makes you more fit in that case.

'You' may assume things but I do NOT. So speak for you only and do not try to speak for I.

You don't believe the light will return tomorrow? Not sure what I got wrong in my representation of your estimated belief.

Pick an example where lies make you more fit.

I have neither any beliefs nor disbeliefs (in) anything so I can not provide any real examples.

Maybe you have not really asked any deep questions. You hold no view whatsoever as to the nature of yourself and the universe? No work "something-ist" applies to you? The entire thing is a mystery because they're all plausible to you? Seems to be what you're trying to tell me.

The very reason I provided that example, which was obviously not noticed, is because that was what the people's of one era once believed, which was obviously not true.

So you hold a belief that the world orbits the sun? I thought you didn't believe anything. But a different story has conflicts. You're open to the conflicting view then?

The ones who have beliefs and are holding onto them and maintain those beliefs that they do then they are NOT open and thus NOT able to hear and see what the actual Truths are. Hobbs' choice is prime example of this.

How can you be open to truth if you don't recognize it when it goes by? You claim to hold no beliefs, therefore you know no true thing. Trick is to hold a belief, but keep the willingness to update that knowledge. You can't do that if you believe nothing. As an example of your closed mindedness, you hold a pretty hard belief that Hobbes is wrong and you are totally closed to learning more about yourself in this regard.

I asked you if can provide an example of some thing that YOU allege one can not simply be chosen to be unbelieved? If you can, then provide the example of where and when you do it. I want the examples of when YOU do it.

I thought I did. I do rationally not believe those things, but that's not the same as actually not believing it. The rational part does not always get a vote in these things.

And, I will ask again, what are the exact biases that YOU have that you do not want to be free of?

You apparently didn't like me stating one.

I asked you what does 'biases' mean to you, and you for some reason wrote this.
The question again is what does 'biases' mean to you.

You really don't like any of my answers.
How about this then: "A bias is a belief held before applying rationalization."
Whether or not rationalization is ever brought to bear seems to depend on if the belief is even identified as such. Not sure how you define 'bias' since you're having such trouble with my view.

They can not be gotten rid of, obviously. I also would not class them as beliefs.

What if they're demonstrably false?

Of course I consider it could be wrong. I have stipulated many times previously that absolutely everything I write is open to being wrong. Always have and always will be.

Maybe you're wrong about Hobbes' assessment.

Again you used the word 'believed'. Every time a human being says they believe, then I question them why have the belief in the first place when it is unnecessary and could in fact be totally incorrect, untrue, and false?

You find drawing breath unnecessary?

Is that meant to be a "trick" question?

Best way to understand a definition is to make a distinction between what it is and what it is not. Your "ability to choose" definition lacks that. Trying to get a clarification.

NOT having the ability to choose, would be the difference from un-free will if I had to take a guess.

Brilliantly clarified.

A simple machine has free will by your definition. A (classic example) thermostat chooses to turn on the heat when it gets cold enough. Do you envision yourself in similar terms to that example? If not, what's the difference?

Yes a person can work as simple as a machine in that it only chooses to look from a thought that has already been gained. What is even more simple is when that thought is then believed to be true, right, and correct.

OK, this clarifies things a little more. Free will is nothing special if you're attributing it to a thermostat.

To Me, it is not a question of does free will or determinism exist but that they both exist equally.

They are different views of the same thing, and they are contradictory views.

It is a clue that there is a biased belief somewhere in there even if you can't identify the bias.

You will persist that I have biased beliefs "somewhere" even when you can not draw them out and put them here in front of everyone so that you could actually back up what you are trying to say. The belief YOU have that I also MUST have biased beliefs will NOT allow you to see what is actually happening here. You even go to the lengths of suggesting that I have them and I can not identify the bias. It is like YOU want Me to look for, find and identify, what is NOT there, because YOU have absolutely no hope of doing it yourself.

If as you allege they are there, then just identify them for ALL to see now.

By the way you have yet to even identify the biased beliefs that you, yourself, have, and provide the examples of them for us here so that we can look into them in more depth. Do you know WHY you continue to refuse to provide examples?

The difference however between human beings and self driving cars, though, is human beings have the ability to look at things from a truly open perspective, and thus have the ability to imagine, invent, plan, learn, discover, understand, and create absolute new and more things, whereas self driving cars do NOT have this ability.

They're not programmed to do those things, no more than you're programmed to go 1km/minute. Doesn't mean something similar cannot be thus programmed.

I do not understand this at all and do not even know what question to ask for clarity.

I noticed. I read up on trends in math and science and use that to find inconsistencies in typical philosophical views. My goal was to find at least a plausible view that is not contradicted by said math and science. Choosing to turn a blind eye to it all works for most people. If some finding contradicts the view you hold, just ignore that finding. In this way one can claim a view free of contradiction.

I am not claiming I know any answers. But I at least try to find something that works. Do I rationally believe any of it? Some of it, I suppose I do, but I'm also quite aware that I'm probably wrong. Do I really believe any of it? Well, less of it. As I said, the rational part of me is not in charge of it. You seem to only have an awareness of rational belief.

That I find myself to be this top-of-intellectual-food-chain entity is beyond improbable.

HOW could some thing that exists be beyond improbable?

Not finding the existence of Noax improbable. I find it improbable that I'm him. See the difference? Its a difference in reference class I think, and the solution to the problem lies there. This is where basic mathematics (not science) comes to bear.

If you do not even know the biases, then how can you be so sure that they even exist?

I see contradictions. They indicate a problem to be solved, and the solution usually involves identification of biases.

I am still curios to know the biases you say YOU have, are false, and that you do not want to get rid of.

You say this about a dozen times but you don't see my examples. Stop asking and read.

[ken]

Can you right now deny your belief in God

But I do NOT believe in God NEVER have and NEVER will

The God that is taught through ALL religions is so fanciful that it is laughable to Me

HOW could you have even jumped to that conclusion from everything I have written

You claimed that you had never been a believer in God till you started your journey

This suggests that after you started your journey you were a believer in God

But now you are claiming you are not a believer in God and never were

I am now confused and none the wiser so can you please explain

If I stated i was not a believer in something [a God], before i started anything [a journey], then that in of itself does not mean nor suggest that i became a believer in something [a God], after i started something [a journey].

I only try to mean and suggest EXACTLY what I say, write, claim, or state.

I will reiterate I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) anything, whatsoever.

A very common thing human beings do is to presume or assume and jump to conclusions when reading the written word or when listening to the spoken word. This is very a natural thing that happens from and with all the preconceived ideas and beliefs already gathered, stored, or held within the reader/listener. This is why I try to write as literally as possible and just hope that what I have written is read completely literally, without any presumptions, assuming, nor conclusions being formed BEFORE any clarifying questions are asked, like you have done here. From your questioning, then hopefully I am able to clear up much better, what was not understood, about Me.

In the beginning when i was born i never believed in God nor anything else, neither did i disbelieve (in) anything. As a new born i was open to any and all things. From very roughly about the age of 10 I believed that God did not exist. I disbelieved in a God. What was being taught to me did not make any sort of real sense, plus i hated being alive, i just wished i was dead around that age, so anything that was to have supposedly created this life, and/or everything, including me, which all of it i was hating so much, led me to disbelieve such a thing as God could not exist. I disbelieved in a God. I NEVER believed (in) God.

Then a few decades later after i just started seeking how to become a better father, (it was, by the way, not a conscious journey that i started) i started stumbling across knowledge, or starting to come to realizations of things, or things were being revealed to me, that on reflection at the time, were the answers to those "unanswered" questions that human beings were and have been looking for, for centuries. Examples such as what is the meaning of life?, what is our purpose for being here?, who am i?, et cetera.

Another thing that was coming to light was a definition of God that seemed to be fitting in with all religions that i was aware of, which by the way was very, very little, and i guess still is very little. Obviously because of a blatant disbelief in any God i had no interest at all in any religion so i never really learned nor new much at all about any one of them. But on nearly every occasion i now started talking to different people, who followed different religions, i was frequently told things like "That is what it says in the koran, or in the bible, or in buddha teachings, et cetera and that i should read such and such, of such and such a book. When I did read differing parts of differing religious texts i seemed to be able to see them from a completely different light or perspective, which was NOT was being taught by people, but was in fact pieces of a puzzle that was continually fitting together perfectly, until a true and big picture of life was formed, which to me appeared as though this is what all people seem to be looking for.

The picture, certainly to me anyway, fitted perfectly together and formed a whole or big picture of Life, and seems to be becoming more solid as each day passes. To Me this picture is without any ambiguity, without any contradiction, nor being able to be disputed. However, I was fully aware that human beings, by their very nature, with their ability to believe and disbelieve anything, will try to dispute what I had learned and discovered. Human beings will not easily let go of their beliefs nor will they let their beliefs be shown to be not true. Human beings, seemingly, will defend their own beliefs till the death, which by the way is another way of looking at what "God and the devil" actually mean, which can be proven by how the Mind and the brain actually works. I understand this because i to used to be the exact same from about the age of 10 up to a couple of decades later. I would NOT listen to any person trying to tell me about God because to me I BELIEVED God did NOT exist. NO one could have shown me otherwise. I used to be just like all adult human beings are, in that i to used to believe and disbelieve (in) things and I could not be told otherwise, even with evidence or proof. Even sound and valid arguments would not have been enough to show me any other than what i believed or disbelieved was true, right, and/or correct.

That was until I learned how to listen properly, and after my children taught me what was right in life, by me truly listening to them and seeing them for who they really are. From that, and from the above, I gained a view of 'God', which appeared to fit perfectly with what all religions were trying to teach, and what those who were seeking God were wanting to find. This view of 'God', that i obtained and still have now is certainly NOT a belief (in) God. I still am NOT a believer in God but neither am I disbeliever or God. Rather, I just have a view of God, which may or may not be right, or be partly right. This view is just what i want to be able to express correctly, fully and succinctly so that others will then be able to have a chance to inform me where i am wrong, and most importantly WHY that, or those, parts of this view are wrong.

Hopefully that clears up this a bit more for you surreptitious57.

[surreptitious57]

What is the perspective you obtained from different religions that no one was teaching you? Is it unique to you or do others
also have it? Do you think that the true picture of life that religion provides for you could also be found outside of religion?

[ken]

How can a person not have beliefs? It's impossible not to hold any.

Does a new born baby have beliefs?

If a new born baby is a person, and they do not have beliefs, then that means it is possible to not hold beliefs.

If however you say a new born baby can have beliefs, then what are they exactly? You are not a newborn. I was talking about you. Don't change the argument on me.

I am NOT changing the argument. You asked, "How can a 'person' not have beliefs?" Then you wrote, "It's impossible not to hold any [beliefs]". That was your argument using a question. I answered the exact question that YOU asked.

You were NOT talking about 'Me'. What you were actually talking about was a 'person'. So, I suggested that if a new born human baby is a person and it does not have beliefs, THEN it actually IS possible to not hold any beliefs.

If you do NOT want to answer My clarifying questions, then do not try to change the perspective of what is actually happening here.

Also, provide some of the beliefs you have and I will show you how exactly you CAN not hold them. I believe I am aware, because I am. And I wouldn't be aware, save for this temporal consciousness, which is my essence, allowed by my physicality. But let's keep it simple; I am aware.

Thanks for providing that one belief.

Let us start with who or what is the 'I' you are referring to here?

If you are not able to provide a sufficient answer, then how much of the statement "'I' am aware" is actually true. If you are not aware of who or what the 'I' actually is, then how much actual truth is in the statement "I am aware" really?

To Me Consciousness or Awareness is reached when all the meaningful or metaphysical questions can be answered, this happens when ALL the answers are agreeing, supporting, or fitting together, with each other, perfectly. So, if Awareness has been reached, then the "I am aware" could be expressed with more truth than it is when expressed when the 'I' is not even aware of who or what it actually is yet. If, however, you can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then you would be one of very few who can.

Also, if you could express "I am aware" with more truth behind it because you have gained more awareness than you had before, then would you have more belief in the statement "I am aware"?

I can know some thing but still neither believe nor disbelieve in it. The reason I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing is because then I am not open to any thing else. So, if you believe 'I am aware', then you are not open to any thing else. You are choosing to have a belief in some thing. But choosing to have a belief in some thing, in of itself, does NOT mean that it is impossible to not hold a or any belief. If you believe you are NOT just choosing to have a belief, then you will need to explain how beliefs actually form, how they remain, and why they stay. You will also have to explain WHY it is impossible to not hold any belief? And, tell us at what age does this HAVING TO have and hold beliefs starts appearing within human beings.

You also wrote, "I am aware, because I am". Now as far as I know that is true, I would agree 'I am aware'. (But what I am actually aware of, is another matter). But, anyway, like everything else I agree with I then do NOT HAVE TO believe (in) it. If a thing 'just is', then it 'just is'. By just looking at 'what is' then I, for One, do NOT have to hold a belief in it. It is just 'what is'. So, by just knowing 'what is' and not HAVING TO hold a belief in it, then there is one possible way to not hold that, or thus any, belief. As far as I know there is NO law nor any other rule of life that stipulates within the thinking of a human being THEY HAVE TO have and hold onto a belief.

The way it is possible, and the way I do, NOT hold a belief in the "I am aware" statement is the way I have already done it and which I have shown in this forum already. That way is I say, "Know" instead of "belief" or "believe". By just saying, 'I know ..." instead of "I believe ...", even if it is for some thing as known, for sure and as surely, as "I am aware", means it is possible to not hold that, thus any, belief.

If the truth be known the ONLY thing we can know, for sure, as I have explained already is the thoughts within the head that we reside in. Everything else could just be an illusion, as far as we know.

1. You are not a fully aware being, yet, so I would ask why have or hold a belief in a being that is not yet fully known?
2. A belief is some thing that by definition, and through self-talk, is NOT some thing that could be disputed, so I would ask why have or hold a belief in some thing that one day may be able to be disputed, and thus is actually not true?
3. Just because I know some thing, even if I know it, for sure, then that still is no reason to have nor hold a belief in it. 'What is' IS just 'what is'. I do NOT have to hold a belief in it or in anything, so again I would ask why have or hold a belief in some thing when you know, for sure, it exists anyway?

If the answer is there is no real valid nor sound reason to hold a belief any of these three questions, then there is no real reason to do so at all. If holding a belief is just a choice and there is no real reason to do so, then it is possible to not hold any belief. I, personally, do not hold any belief, so to Me it is very possible. But, i guess to a person who believes that it is impossible to not hold any belief, then i guess, to them, then it is impossible to not hold any belief. Obviously, no person would do any thing, including listening to or looking for any thing that would be in contradiction to what they already believe is true, right, and/or correct, especially if they hold or maintain a belief in it. If a person does have and hold a belief, then they are not open. Therefore, I guess to the truly open it is very possible to not hold any belief, but to the believer it would obviously be impossible to not hold any belief. One can NOT hold and maintain a belief, and thus be a believer, and also be OPEN at the same time, to the fact that it is possible to not hold any belief. The contradiction in the two would, i imagine, be unbearable.

How (and why) a person (does) not have beliefs is by choice. It is possible to choose to not hold any beliefs because i choose not to hold any. If i can not hold any beliefs, then any person CAN also. However, how (and why) a person believes that is impossible to not hold any beliefs is because they choose to have and hold beliefs. You may propose that this is impossible to do, but you are not aware of what I am capable of doing nor of what 'I am aware' of. Just like I am not aware of that, that you are aware of. That is of course we share that what 'I am aware' of to each other. I have shared that I do not have nor hold any beliefs and how and why I do this, but you could NEVER believe Me while you maintain and hold beliefs, and thus believe that it is impossible to not hold any beliefs.

While you have and hold beliefs you are a believer, and a believer can not ever be open to absolute facts such as It may just be possible to not hold any beliefs.

[surreptitious57]

I make a distinction between knowledge and belief : between knowing something and believing something. Knowledge pertains
to objective truth that can be verified and shown to be true whereas belief pertains to subjective truth that cannot be verified
and shown to be true. Knowledge is not an article of faith but belief is. This is why I do not do belief. There is nothing I believe
in according to the definitions that I have given here. The reason for this is because any thing I did believe in might not be true
It could of course be true. However without any evidence to actually substantiate it there would be no reason to accept it as so

[Hobbes' Choice]

I make a distinction between knowledge and belief : between knowing something and believing something. Knowledge pertains
to objective truth that can be verified and shown to be true whereas belief pertains to subjective truth that cannot be verified
and shown to be true. Knowledge is not an article of faith but belief is. This is why I do not do belief. There is nothing I believe
in according to the definitions that I have given here. The reason for this is because any thing I did believe in might not be true
It could of course be true. However without any evidence to actually substantiate it there would be no reason to accept it as so

Oddly ken seems to have this completely backwards.

For myself I have a similar way of thinking but the divide is not between objective and subjective.,
For example. I KNOW how i feel about moral issues, my friends, and other things in my experience. Only I can know that my leg hurts or that I am hungry. Others have to believe me, or not.
The problem is other people's subjectivity.
On issues of objectivity. These can be obscured by lack of evidence and thus with new evidence knowledge has to change. This has to be in the nature of knowledge - a body of things taken as true which match or "save" the appearances best. Thus knowledge is a process of uncovering and developing; always contingent on the evidence.

I believe nothing, because belief is a thing taken as true regardless of evidence. There are things that are loosely called "beliefs" such as equality, fairness, rights - which are not true in any sense but are aspirations - a wish that in a perfect world they ought to be true, and are worth promoting. Aside from that I believe nothing, in any sense.

Sapere aude!

[ken]

What is the perspective you obtained from different religions that no one was teaching you?

I NEVER obtained anything from different religions.

Is it unique to you or do others
also have it?

I am not sure why you think I obtained anything from any religion, so there is no way I can answer this question properly.

Do you think that the true picture of life that religion provides for you could also be found outside of religion?

I think your preconceptions might be influencing how you are reading what I write sometimes. I NEVER mentioned anywhere, that I recall and hope I did not anyway, about religion providing Me with anything.

The exact opposite is true; religion, through the way it is taught by people NEVER taught Me anything really. I did NOT obtain any thing from any religion.

Whatever I stumbled upon, learned, discovered, and/or that was revealed to Me, was NOT taught by religion. While I was and still am stumbling upon, learning, et cetera, answers I am also seeing how they fit in with what is in ALL religious texts. The way I now read these texts, which is NOT how people try to teach those texts, helped to form and provide more proof of the true picture of Life. The exact same thing as scientific texts provide also. The way I read both these type of texts and ALL texts on a whole provides the actual and real true picture of Life.

It is not a matter of IF the true picture of Life could also be found outside of religion. I BEGAN TO FIND a true picture completely outside of religion. I had NO belief in anything religious when I began seeking to change, for the better. I still do NOT have a belief in any thing religious, nor in any thing else whatsoever by the way. So, the opposite could actually be argued I find a true picture of Life because of NO religion.

Just out of curiosity do you think i follow a religion or that i am religious in any way?

[ken]

I make a distinction between knowledge and belief : between knowing something and believing something. Knowledge pertains
to objective truth that can be verified and shown to be true whereas belief pertains to subjective truth that cannot be verified
and shown to be true. Knowledge is not an article of faith but belief is. This is why I do not do belief. There is nothing I believe
in according to the definitions that I have given here. The reason for this is because any thing I did believe in might not be true
It could of course be true. However without any evidence to actually substantiate it there would be no reason to accept it as so

Oddly ken seems to have this completely backwards.

AGAIN, an attempt at ridicule and of trying to belittle Me, with still absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim.

Sapere aude!

If only you knew how how this relates to me.

I had never read this before so looked it up. I was AGAIN satisfactorily surprised with what was written.

[ken]

I make a distinction between knowledge and belief : between knowing something and believing something. Knowledge pertains
to objective truth that can be verified and shown to be true whereas belief pertains to subjective truth that cannot be verified
and shown to be true. Knowledge is not an article of faith but belief is. This is why I do not do belief. There is nothing I believe
in according to the definitions that I have given here. The reason for this is because any thing I did believe in might not be true
It could of course be true. However without any evidence to actually substantiate it there would be no reason to accept it as so

I wish I could succinctly express like you do. Anyway,

But you have belief in some things, right?

For example, you believe in the knowledge that can be verified and shown to be true, am I right?

If not, then great we both do not do belief, nor do disbelief ever.

But if I am right, then that is just what you do. I do not do that.

To Me, there is 'thinking' some thing, 'knowing' some thing, and then there is 'belief'. The distinctions are:

To think some thing, (is how it literally sounds and what it literally means). To 'think' that some thing is true, right, and/or correct is to NOT know, for sure, if it is true, right, and/or correct. To admit that 'I only think some thing is true', is to be open to what could possibly be true, right, and/or correct. For example, a thing we all think is all right to do is to eat the type of meat that we eat, that is if we do that. What one person thinks is perfectly all right to eat, for example, pig, cow, lamb, or dog, is totally NOT all right to another person. This 'thinking' what is true, right, and/or correct comes from a very subjective viewpoint. To have a belief here would be totally stupid. 'Stupid', being just the opposite of being intelligent. Another example here would be to think that God exists, or think that God does not exist, without ever even stipulating what God means before expressing one's views.

To know some thing, (is how it literally sounds and what it literally means). To 'know' that some thing is true, right, and/or correct can only be done with evidence and proof. To know some thing is true, right, and/or correct is to know, 'for sure', that everyone else could be in agreement with it. Otherwise it would just be what is 'thought' to be true, right, and/or correct. Like you said, it could of course be true, but without proof nor evidence, then how do you 'know' and how could you show others. For example, a thing we all know everyone could agree with is, 'We human beings do NOT need money to live'. This can be shown with proof and evidence. But only if and when everything is in agreement with some thing, then, and only then, it is thee one and only Truth. Being able to see from Everything's perspective allows, this objective, Truth to found, seen and understood. To have a belief here would be totally stupid. For example, ALL the evidence and proof might lead everyone to the same conclusion, but if any one is believing this, at that moment seen and even understood to be thee Truth, then that person would NOT be open to any further, more, or new truth that may well come along. To have a belief in what is a known truth, or knowledge that can and has even be verified, then that is just as stupid as having a belief in what is only thought to be true. The reason it would be a stupid thing to do is because as soon as you believe it or have a belief in it, then you are not open. And, being open is necessary to learning more and becoming wiser. The obvious case scenario of this is in how long it took the people's who believed the sun revolved the earth to actually become that the opposite was the actual truth. If these people did NOT believe (in) some thing, then galileo might not have been under house arrest for so many years, for just trying to say and express what was and is the truth. Another case scenario of why it is not a good idea to believe in some thing is known to be the truth is when everyone was believing that the earth was flat. Later on the newer or further truth, that the earth was almost round, became known. But to now believe that this nearly round earth is the truth or absolute truth would be a foolish thing to do because in the future some thing newer or more truer truth may come to light. So, even IF everyone is in agreement on a truth, and thus it is thee Truth, it is still a stupid thing to go and believe in it. No one knows the future, so to have a belief in any thing NOW is foolhardy because no knows, for sure, what could possibly happen or come to light in the future.

To Me there can be belief in both objective truth and subjective truth. To 'believe' (in) any thing is stupid because if you believe, then you lose the ability to learn, understand, and reason, any thing more or anew.

'Intelligence' means the ability to learn, understand, and reason. This ability can only come from being open. Being open can only come from not having a belief. If you are closed, which comes from belief, itself, then you lose that ability to learn, understand, and reason.

'Intellect', on the other hand, is just the knowledge, thoughts, preconceptions, et cetera that has already been gained and stored within the brain.

By the way some of this intellect, (knowledge, thoughts, preconceptions, et cetera) can become subjective biases, this combined with emotions can become subjective and emotional biases that most human beings tend to have. These biases influence the way that they then look at and see things, like the written word for example. The biases can be so strong that what is actually being written can be completely misunderstood and/or completely misinterpreted.

The way, however, to rid one's self of ALL of these biases, so that they can then become a completely open being, is to do like with beliefs, that is to just NEVER do beliefs. If absolutely every view what NOT seen as being true, right, and/or correct, as was seen for what it really is, and that is it could of course be true, right, and/or correct, or partly true, right, and/or correct but not necessarily it is true, right, and/or correct, then they would remain completely open always. It is generally KNOWN anyway that being closed (minded) is not the best way to learn some thing new.

Also, just to clarify what can actually be known, for sure, and be expressed as being known, for sure, are the actual thoughts and emotions that happen within a body. Everything else could just be an illusion. The Truth of everything else is depended upon agreement, with the likely hood that the more that are in agreement, then the more truth can be discovered or known.

[surreptitious57]

You have said you gained a view of God which fitted perfectly in with what all religions were teaching
This suggests that the religions had an influence on how your view of God came about or is that wrong

[Dalek Prime]

Does a new born baby have beliefs?

If a new born baby is a person, and they do not have beliefs, then that means it is possible to not hold beliefs.

If however you say a new born baby can have beliefs, then what are they exactly? You are not a newborn. I was talking about you. Don't change the argument on me.

I am NOT changing the argument. You asked, "How can a 'person' not have beliefs?" Then you wrote, "It's impossible not to hold any [beliefs]". That was your argument using a question. I answered the exact question that YOU asked.

You were NOT talking about 'Me'. What you were actually talking about was a 'person'. So, I suggested that if a new born human baby is a person and it does not have beliefs, THEN it actually IS possible to not hold any beliefs.

If you do NOT want to answer My clarifying questions, then do not try to change the perspective of what is actually happening here.

Also, provide some of the beliefs you have and I will show you how exactly you CAN not hold them. I believe I am aware, because I am. And I wouldn't be aware, save for this temporal consciousness, which is my essence, allowed by my physicality. But let's keep it simple; I am aware.

Thanks for providing that one belief.

Let us start with who or what is the 'I' you are referring to here?

If you are not able to provide a sufficient answer, then how much of the statement "'I' am aware" is actually true. If you are not aware of who or what the 'I' actually is, then how much actual truth is in the statement "I am aware" really?

To Me Consciousness or Awareness is reached when all the meaningful or metaphysical questions can be answered, this happens when ALL the answers are agreeing, supporting, or fitting together, with each other, perfectly. So, if Awareness has been reached, then the "I am aware" could be expressed with more truth than it is when expressed when the 'I' is not even aware of who or what it actually is yet. If, however, you can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then you would be one of very few who can.

Also, if you could express "I am aware" with more truth behind it because you have gained more awareness than you had before, then would you have more belief in the statement "I am aware"?

I can know some thing but still neither believe nor disbelieve in it. The reason I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing is because then I am not open to any thing else. So, if you believe 'I am aware', then you are not open to any thing else. You are choosing to have a belief in some thing. But choosing to have a belief in some thing, in of itself, does NOT mean that it is impossible to not hold a or any belief. If you believe you are NOT just choosing to have a belief, then you will need to explain how beliefs actually form, how they remain, and why they stay. You will also have to explain WHY it is impossible to not hold any belief? And, tell us at what age does this HAVING TO have and hold beliefs starts appearing within human beings.

You also wrote, "I am aware, because I am". Now as far as I know that is true, I would agree 'I am aware'. (But what I am actually aware of, is another matter). But, anyway, like everything else I agree with I then do NOT HAVE TO believe (in) it. If a thing 'just is', then it 'just is'. By just looking at 'what is' then I, for One, do NOT have to hold a belief in it. It is just 'what is'. So, by just knowing 'what is' and not HAVING TO hold a belief in it, then there is one possible way to not hold that, or thus any, belief. As far as I know there is NO law nor any other rule of life that stipulates within the thinking of a human being THEY HAVE TO have and hold onto a belief.

The way it is possible, and the way I do, NOT hold a belief in the "I am aware" statement is the way I have already done it and which I have shown in this forum already. That way is I say, "Know" instead of "belief" or "believe". By just saying, 'I know ..." instead of "I believe ...", even if it is for some thing as known, for sure and as surely, as "I am aware", means it is possible to not hold that, thus any, belief.

If the truth be known the ONLY thing we can know, for sure, as I have explained already is the thoughts within the head that we reside in. Everything else could just be an illusion, as far as we know.

1. You are not a fully aware being, yet, so I would ask why have or hold a belief in a being that is not yet fully known?
2. A belief is some thing that by definition, and through self-talk, is NOT some thing that could be disputed, so I would ask why have or hold a belief in some thing that one day may be able to be disputed, and thus is actually not true?
3. Just because I know some thing, even if I know it, for sure, then that still is no reason to have nor hold a belief in it. 'What is' IS just 'what is'. I do NOT have to hold a belief in it or in anything, so again I would ask why have or hold a belief in some thing when you know, for sure, it exists anyway?

If the answer is there is no real valid nor sound reason to hold a belief any of these three questions, then there is no real reason to do so at all. If holding a belief is just a choice and there is no real reason to do so, then it is possible to not hold any belief. I, personally, do not hold any belief, so to Me it is very possible. But, i guess to a person who believes that it is impossible to not hold any belief, then i guess, to them, then it is impossible to not hold any belief. Obviously, no person would do any thing, including listening to or looking for any thing that would be in contradiction to what they already believe is true, right, and/or correct, especially if they hold or maintain a belief in it. If a person does have and hold a belief, then they are not open. Therefore, I guess to the truly open it is very possible to not hold any belief, but to the believer it would obviously be impossible to not hold any belief. One can NOT hold and maintain a belief, and thus be a believer, and also be OPEN at the same time, to the fact that it is possible to not hold any belief. The contradiction in the two would, i imagine, be unbearable.

How (and why) a person (does) not have beliefs is by choice. It is possible to choose to not hold any beliefs because i choose not to hold any. If i can not hold any beliefs, then any person CAN also. However, how (and why) a person believes that is impossible to not hold any beliefs is because they choose to have and hold beliefs. You may propose that this is impossible to do, but you are not aware of what I am capable of doing nor of what 'I am aware' of. Just like I am not aware of that, that you are aware of. That is of course we share that what 'I am aware' of to each other. I have shared that I do not have nor hold any beliefs and how and why I do this, but you could NEVER believe Me while you maintain and hold beliefs, and thus believe that it is impossible to not hold any beliefs.

While you have and hold beliefs you are a believer, and a believer can not ever be open to absolute facts such as It may just be possible to not hold any beliefs.

Consciousness is the alpha and omega of philosophy. It is the sine qua non of everything we are, and philosophy would not exist at all without it. So you can play at being the smartest man in the room all you wish, and talk circles out of squares, but that means nothing to me. Two starting points I accept entirely are; there is thought, and there are things, external to my mind, as they persist whether I am aware of them or not. If you do not hold to this, there is nothing we will or can agree on.

[Noax]

I'm picking quotes from multiple places and posts here.

To Me Consciousness or Awareness is reached when all the meaningful or metaphysical questions can be answered, this happens when ALL the answers are agreeing, supporting, or fitting together, with each other, perfectly.

Do you have a self-consistent answer, or do you not consider yourself conscious? What if this grand answer is perfectly self-consistent, but is still in fact entirely wrong?

But only if and when everything is in agreement with some thing, then, and only then, it is thee one and only Truth.

Same question, except that there might be a completely different answer that is also self-consistent and is in fact the actual correct answer. So self-consistency does not imply one-and-only.

So, even IF everyone is in agreement on a truth, and thus it is thee Truth, it is still a stupid thing to go and believe in it.

What is this 'thee Truth' of which you speak if it might in fact not be true?

To Me, there is 'thinking' some thing, 'knowing' some thing, and then there is 'belief'. The distinctions are:

To think some thing, (is how it literally sounds and what it literally means). To 'think' that some thing is true, right, and/or correct is to NOT know, for sure, if it is true, right, and/or correct.
...
To know some thing, (is how it literally sounds and what it literally means). To 'know' that some thing is true, right, and/or correct can only be done with evidence and proof. ...
For example, a thing we all know everyone could agree with is, 'We human beings do NOT need money to live'. This can be shown with proof and evidence.

Oh can it now? All the charity money that goes to prevent starvation of poor folks is unnecessary? Nobody has ever died from having insufficient resources which money would have obtained? I'm sure I'm misrepresenting this truth of yours, so clarify for me please.
Concerning evidence and proof, can anything at all actually be proven? Science is no help here. They're in the business of making useful inductive predictions, not in the proving of anything. Your whole assertion about not needing money rests on unproven assumptions about what we all agree upon constitutes money, 'we human beings', and 'live'. Mostly those assumptions are not even questioned since everybody knows what you're talking about, but the biases I'm talking about (ones deeper than rationality) are discovered by questioning those very things.
I'm labeling your need-money statement a belief of yours since you claim to 'know' this. It is also a weak declaration since it is a negative. X is not factual, which is weak knowledge. Stating that Y is factual is stronger. Humans need air to live. Not true, but a stronger statement than one involving what is not needed.

Perhaps you mean that without money, at least one human is likely to survive for at least such and such time. That seems more true, but is also a weak statement because of that word 'likely'. If I let go of this rock, it is likely to fall to the ground. Is that sufficiently questionable that I should withhold a belief in that statement?

[Hobbes' Choice]

For example, you believe in the knowledge that can be verified and shown to be true, am I right?
.

Having knowledge is not having to believe.