RE: Is Unbelief Possible?
March 23, 2014 at 7:12 am
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2014 at 7:24 am by Belev2Know.)
HEZ: "However in the case of ignorance- like if someone has zero knowledge that the experience exists, and then suddenly the experience happens (for example: a surprise party, an unexpected gift, etc.), belief
Wiki: ]
never existed, and in that case true unbelief has taken place because no aspect of the surprise event was concieved on any level."
Because you based your belief in a concept or idea, it was more likely Wiki: to fail Wiki: you."
tor: I think you will still find, as "scientists" technically argued Java ape man and Piltdown hoaxes spewed as 'FACT' in grade school for me...
and argue Neanderthal is a diseased bone possibility in curvature findings still to date...
"black hole" detailed existence as 'fact' would not hold up in any legal venue , yet, however one BELIEVES it it's 'un-ness'...
As far as my writing and grammar , which I addressed in introductory post:
it will only improve as I read others' semantics; but i know for a fact the eloquence of another grammatically working 'properly' the writ -is not always about any wisdom of the 'claimed-knowledge', necessarily; and enough times not the knowledge of anything surely, too.
It is why I await real questions about OP and OP reply's sticking to a thread, and not adjectival judgements nor cliche phrase-generality, - such as seeing belief exists in all 'unbelief' or one is not communicating on any bloggable level.
Wiki: ]
never existed, and in that case true unbelief has taken place because no aspect of the surprise event was concieved on any level."
Because you based your belief in a concept or idea, it was more likely Wiki: to fail Wiki: you."
tor: I think you will still find, as "scientists" technically argued Java ape man and Piltdown hoaxes spewed as 'FACT' in grade school for me...
and argue Neanderthal is a diseased bone possibility in curvature findings still to date...
"black hole" detailed existence as 'fact' would not hold up in any legal venue , yet, however one BELIEVES it it's 'un-ness'...
As far as my writing and grammar , which I addressed in introductory post:
it will only improve as I read others' semantics; but i know for a fact the eloquence of another grammatically working 'properly' the writ -is not always about any wisdom of the 'claimed-knowledge', necessarily; and enough times not the knowledge of anything surely, too.
It is why I await real questions about OP and OP reply's sticking to a thread, and not adjectival judgements nor cliche phrase-generality, - such as seeing belief exists in all 'unbelief' or one is not communicating on any bloggable level.
