RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
January 10, 2017 at 10:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2017 at 10:24 pm by ProgrammingGodJordan.)
(January 10, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(January 10, 2017 at 9:26 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: It appears you have failed to reduce the initial passage.
International belief definition:
To accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.
Simply, we aren't omniscient of any event, thusly we can't regard any event as TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE.
In other words, it is possible to have beliefs held at various degrees of certainty.
![[Image: P9OKdTN.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FP9OKdTN.jpg)
It appears you failed to reduce the initial passage.
In addition to google's initial result (to accept as true), I extracted that of the definitions from 38 definition websites, (including standford).
A largely frequent paradigm, 'truth' | true, is compounded in non-beliefism premise-1.
This had long been mentioned amidst the initial passage's sources.
![[Image: vDbc7PW.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FvDbc7PW.png)
![[Image: vb9mHtR.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2Fvb9mHtR.png)
Thusly, it is clear? that belief need not constitute certainty.
HOWEVER, belief is primarily truth bound, on the horizon of truth's PROFOUND presence betwixt belief, and it's synonyms.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Perhaps it is pertinent that you approach premise-ii.
There have been frequent failed attempts to disregard premise-i, however narrow attempts betwixt premise-ii: