(April 20, 2009 at 8:34 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I think this is just a bit of wordplay. We need a definition.

Quote:belief - any cognitive content held as true
source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=belief

If we take the above definition as true, then every single thing that we understand and recognize as true, is counted as a belief. So everyone is a believer in something, but being a believer does not mean you have faith.

IE: Every 'faith' is a belief but not every 'belief' is a faith.

Agreed.

Similar, I think, to how everything 'known' is a belief but not every belief is known (because not every belief is true. To truly 'KNOW' something it must be true. But anything 'known' must also be believed - not simply be a fact that no one knows about - that would be an UNknown fact.

EvF

Now if you look closely at the title is says believe.

Is 'believe' the same as 'belief'?

When you believe something then that very thing that you believe is a belief.

Pretty much discussing the same thing right? (for practical purposes I mean, I know that they are two different words, yes).

I'd be interested to know of the differences between a discussion on the matter of 'belief' and a discussion on the matter of 'believe'.

belief -
be⋅lief
   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leef] Show IPA
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Origin:
1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (n. use of v.); r. ME bileave, equiv. to bi- be- + leave; cf. OE gelēafa (c. D geloof, G Glaube; akin to Goth galaubeins)

Quote:If we take the above definition as true, then every single thing that we understand and recognize as true, is counted as a belief. So everyone is a believer in something, but being a believer does not mean you have faith.

Is something that is not true a belief? Even though we 'believe' it is true?


believe -
be⋅lieve
   /bɪˈliv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leev] Show IPA verb, -lieved, -liev⋅ing.
–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
—Verb phrase
6. believe in,
a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.
—Idiom
7. make believe. make (def. 46).
Origin:
1150–1200; ME bileven, equiv. to bi- be- + leven, OE (Anglian) gelēfan (c. D gelooven, G glauben, Goth galaubjan)

(April 22, 2009 at 11:53 am)g-mark Wrote: Is something that is not true a belief? Even though we 'believe' it is true?

I'm guessing you mean "believe it is not true"?

Probably not, though in the strictest sense of the word, you could argue it was a belief. However, I'd be more likely to label it as a negative belief or non-belief. Which is the opposite of belief. You can "believe" in something such as god or the tooth fairy, but it's incorrect grammar to say you "don't believe" in god or the tooth fairy. Non-belief is the more accurate term.

As for believe and belief. They are one and the same. Remember learning grammar in school?

A "belief" is a noun, and "believe" is the active verb of "believe". They mean exactly the same thing; they just have different uses.

Hey all,

If I may inject my own opinion, for what little it is worth. I can't differentiate 'evidence' from 'non-evidence'. I see repetition of the concept that atheism is based on evidence, and theism is based on a distortion, misunderstanding or lack of evidence. But please explain, what is evidence?

I see that our whole reality is very personal. Our minds and senses and cognition cannot be fully trusted to show us things as they really and truly are, in an absolute sense. So all of the evidence that the fundy holds true literally is 'true' in their personal reality. And the evidence that an atheist holds to be 'true' could also be considered to be only really true in their reality. But the actual truth, call it the 3rd reality in this though-experiment, is separate from the other two personal realities. Disconnected at best, and unknowable at worst. I call it factual exactitude. What really happened/is happening. But I don't fool myself into thinking I am very close to understanding this real world. My mind and body can or will not do such.

We are all doing our best to conform to or at least acknowledge reality, but we over-extend ourselves in saying we know truth, one way or the other.

I think to say "I know there is no God" is as foolish as "I know there is God". In fact, they are much the same thought. So only to add my log on the fire, I see atheism as a disbelief in gods, or a believing that there is no gods. To make a claim to any fundamental truth outside of your own reality is disingenuous.

This is only what I think, and I might well be wrong.
Thank you for your time,
"Do you believe in rock and roll, can music save your mortal soul?"
-Pip

Hi Pippy, Welcome to the forums!

You've raised some interesting points. Let me see if I can help.

(April 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm)Pippy Wrote: please explain, what is evidence?

Evidence, as I understand, is anything that can be demonstrated over and over again by persons. It is observable and demonstrable. It is anything we can see, and in some cases it is things we cannot see but detect by other means.

Every person alive takes on a few pieces of evidence, namely, the earth is round, gravity exists, you need to breathe oxygen to survive. What an atheist does is tries to have the most reliable view of the world, which consequently means discarding things which cannot be proven.

When you talk about each person having their own reality, I think you're getting a bit lost. If everyone's reality is true to them, then we might as well cease all enquiries into the natural world. That would mean not learning anymore about disease, natural disasters and so on and how to prevent them because each reality is different to each person. The idea of reality being relative is idiotic (I believe), because it leaves us with nothing, and it takes us no where.

(April 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm)Pippy Wrote: I think to say "I know there is no God" is as foolish as "I know there is God". In fact, they are much the same thought. So only to add my log on the fire, I see atheism as a disbelief in gods, or a believing that there is no gods. To make a claim to any fundamental truth outside of your own reality is disingenuous.

You misunderstand atheism. Atheism is simply non-belief. Many atheists are what you would
agnostic atheists, which means they don't believe in god, but they do not assert that they are 100% sure. Of course there are still atheists around who belief, without any shred of doubt that god does not exist. But most atheists simply believe that it is more reasonable to not believe in god than to believe in him, as there is more scientific evidence in favour of god not existing.

A definition might say:
Atheism - non-belief in any god or gods.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Have a look at Kyuu's thread for more info: Myths & Truths About Atheism

Quote:A "belief" is a noun, and "believe" is the active verb of "believe". They mean exactly the same thing; they just have different uses.

That is what the dictionary definition states as true.

So, I can't say:

'don't believe' him, it is untrue? or

You 'shouldn't beleive him'?

Should I say:

'non-believe' him? or

'un-believe' him?, or

negative beleive him.

I shall rephrase my statement for political correctness:

If something is untrue, is it a belief? Even though we 'believe' it is true?

Can you explain please teacher. Because you stated:

Quote:belief - any cognitive content held as true
source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=belief

If we take the above definition as true, then every single thing that we understand and recognize as true, is counted as a belief. So everyone is a believer in something, but being a believer does not mean you have faith.

Or is this just your opinion. Who is to say your opinion is correct?

(April 24, 2009 at 1:35 am)g-mark Wrote: If something is untrue, is it a belief? Even though we 'believe' it is true?

If something isn't true, then I would hold that it is non-belief, not a negative belief.

(April 24, 2009 at 1:35 am)g-mark Wrote: Can you explain please teacher. Because you stated:

Quote:belief - any cognitive content held as true
source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=belief

If we take the above definition as true, then every single thing that we understand and recognize as true, is counted as a belief. So everyone is a believer in something, but being a believer does not mean you have faith.

Or is this just your opinion. Who is to say your opinion is correct?

It's not an opinion, I am quoting the dictionary. Read the definition - belief - any cognitive content held as true. If you want to dispute the truth of the dictionary, take it up with them. I am merely using it because you asked.

And the definition of cognitive content is - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned

If we accept the above definitions, then anything that has been perceived, discovered, or learned is a belief, which means that anything we hold as true is a belief. As for what is not true, the correct way to describe it would be non-belief.

(April 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm)Pippy Wrote: If I may inject my own opinion, for what little it is worth. I can't differentiate 'evidence' from 'non-evidence'. I see repetition of the concept that atheism is based on evidence, and theism is based on a distortion, misunderstanding or lack of evidence. But please explain, what is evidence?

Hi Pippy,

I will be debating that with Frodo in a couple of weeks ... it isn't an easy subject to deal with.

Kyu