Dualism

[LEDO]

[quote='LEDO' pid='20682' dateline='1245530746']
[quote='josef rosenkranz' pid='20650' dateline='1245514494']
[quote][quote='obsessed_philosopher' pid='20134' dateline='1244943468']
"The belief that there is a "physical world" and a "spiritual world"."



You sound like a spiritual humanist. You might try the magazine "Human Quest" (if it still exists)/ Steve Allen was associated with it as well as John Shelby Spong.

Hi Ledo
You're not yourself a convinced nor a less convinced atheist.Are you?
Let me tell you this.If you have an argument with an opponent of you and you try to understand his point of view or even to recognize that his philosophy speaks to a certain category of people,then it proves not of a weakness of your position but quite contrary a strength of your conviction.
Religion is a fact of life for billions of people,nothing doing.
We as atheists, whith our activities ,even within the frame of this forum,do not only convince each other of the rightness of our philosophy (call it only belief if it pleases you) but we also try to convince
non-atheists.That's the right thing to do.
We are not playing ping-pong with ideas,as elated as they might be,but we are happy to think at least that we are convincing other people to join atheism.
Recognizing the fact that religion ,besides its negative deeds in the past and to day, has in the same time also positive influences on the minds of people does not disminish out atheist convincing whatsoever.
So, by puting me in a certain category as a spiritual humanist is nothing but totaly wrong indicating that you have not understood my opinion.
If you have other opinions you could come out with contra-arguments but categorizing me and recommending material for study means little to me.
[/quote]

Don't get your panties in a wad, I only made a suugestion, I didn't pigeon hole anyone.
There are meatheads out there I wouldn't want calling themselves atheist, especially the Irish.
AND DON"T CALL ME LIZ!!!!

(Damn, my blood sugar is running high again.)

[fr0d0]

Dagda - Whether there can be evidence for the 'spiritual realm'...or not - What?.. - should you just go ahead and believe without evidence??? I myself need evidence to believe--rationally anyway--whether there can be evidence or not.

EvF

Excuse me for cross posting, but I think it's relevant to this thread (possibly more so).

It's impossible to have evidence to believe. You said elsewhere that you believe you have an arm. That would mean you aren't sure that your arm exists. You can be sure because you can sense that it's there. You can feel temperature, pain. You can pick things up.... Unless it's a clever hologram and there's something that moves objects controlled by your mind and transmits pain etc. But then that would be supernatural. If your arm isn't actually real and you're correct in believing in it as a supernatural phenomenon.

I don't have to believe that the Sun will come up because it's an observable fact. I can be pretty sure.

"Often, people confuse belief with fact. Both involve some concept of the Truth, but belief does not really hint at whether something has been proven or not (or whether it even is provable)."
http://faculty.valenciacc.edu/drogers/fa...fact3.html

"A mental perception of the world might not have adequate proof to define something as fact, and is therefore belief or theory."
http://www.innerself.com/Essays/belief.htm

"One is present, provable, undeniable and concrete, the other, howsoever fervently believed, is not"
"The only way belief can be experienced is in the mind. Facts can be experienced both in the mind and by the senses"
"This means that all beliefs have as part of them an implied doubt. Facts cannot be doubted, they are observably real."
http://transsexual.org/belief.html

[Edwardo Piet]

I do believe I have an arm. Because I don't disbelieve it, fr0d0. And no, I'm not gnostic about it - I could just be a brain in a jar and the whole rest of my body could be a simulated illusion. Not that it's at all likely of course!

EvF

[fr0d0]

You can't believe it Evie, if it's at all provable. And I assume you can prove that you have an arm!

[Edwardo Piet]

Who says that if it's provable it means I can't believe it??? I would think, that things that are proved, would be easier to believe!

Like I said - I repeat: I certainly don't disbelieve the fact I have an arm. I obviously do believe it (and with good bloody reason!!) - but could I be wrong? It's perhaps possible, because as I said; I could be a brain in a jar that is made to think I have an arm, when I don't really - and this could all just be an illusion!! I can't disprove that possibility. So in that sense I cannot absolutely prove the existence of my arm (because of a possibility that I am wrong such as the 'brain in a jar' example right there). I, basically, 'just' have - utterly undeniable evidence that I have an arm.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Go read the transexual link above Evie. It explains it very clearly. It isn't a matter of your opinion vs mine - this is a fact.

To have 'good reason' as you define it.. ie it's provable in the slightest degree beyond doubt, then you don't believe ot, you know it.

FACT

---

PLus: we have to separate bullshit from reason here. Yeah you could cloud reason with any amount of existentialist bullshit.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok, but the thing is though: knowledge and belief are separate fr0d0. You can believe something without knowing it. But you can't know something without believing it.

I can believe something and be wrong about it. But I can't know something and dis[i]believe the fact [i]I know it- If I know it I have to believe it.

The problem is here that I define the world "Belief" differently to this. Now, how I see it is that - "Faith" is belief without evidence, Faith is irrational belief. You cannot believe in a fact 'on faith' because facts have strong support of the truth of the matter and faith does not. So - beliefs can be rational or... irrational. You cannot believe in a fact 'on faith'. You can believe in facts however; if it's not on faith but on evidence. If if you actually have logic to your belief.

So you can believe in facts or myths, but you can't "have faith" in facts. Since if they were facts it couldn't be faith.

Belief I do not define the same as faith then, you see. Beliefs can be rational or irrational. Since faith is always irrational IMO...I mean when defined as nothing more and nothing less...than simply:"Belief without evidence".

EvF

[fr0d0]

Your logic isn't working Evie. Faith isn't "irrational belief" because it has no evidence. That's absurd. Belief can have no evidence either! You're not allowed to define belief differently from the rest of us. You don't make the rules. We use a common language which we have to agree on, or we can get no-where.

No, you can't believe in a 'fact' on faith. That's another oxymoron. If it were a fact, you wouldn't need faith to believe in it. You wouldn't need to 'believe' it... because you'd know.

A rational belief can never have fact or certainty. You want fact or certainty for belief! Like I said, you're going to have to dismiss belief as well as not meeting your requirements for understanding this. Although this is precisely the subject you're addressing. You want to talk about God and religion but you can't accept belief or faith. Religion, being about belief in God, is beyond what you're prepared to think about.

"belief without evidence" another oxymoron. belief HAS TO BE without evidence. You can't dismiss something from it's definition.

Your whole anti religion stance is totally unsupportable and illogical.

[Edwardo Piet]

Your logic isn't working Evie. Faith isn't "irrational belief" because it has no evidence.

Well I dealt with that in my why I think the term "Rational faith" is an oxymoron thread.

Belief can have no evidence either!

Faith is belief without evidence. Belief can have or be without it, without it it's faith, so with it it's belief based on evidence of course. That's what evidence is for - it's what gives credence to the truth of a belief.

You're not allowed to define belief differently from the rest of us.

I don't believe I am? I believe gravity is true. It is also a fact; so I know it, but I do personally believe it too because I do not deny it, I don't disbelieve it. There's an example of how I quite obviously believe in the fact of gravity. Cos I don't not believe it!!

Like I said, if you believe something you don't have to "know" it because you could be wrong. But if you do know it because it's indeed, a fact then you cannot know it and not believe it. You have to also believe it to know it.

If you disbelieve and reject something that is a fact, then you specifically don't subjectively know it, do you? Because you deny it. It is known, but not by you because you disbelieve it.

You don't make the rules. We use a common language which we have to agree on, or we can get no-where.

Yes. But I disagree that the normal definition of belief is that all beliefs are false and you cannot believe a fact.

No, you can't believe in a 'fact' on faith.

I agree.

That's another oxymoron.

Yes.

Because faith is without logical support, it is merely belief without evidence as we have said in our other conversations here. Now you seem to be saying that all belief is without evidence. But what I understand is that specifically "Faith" is belief without evidence. Belief itself doesn't have to be without evidence, it is just "Faith"...that is, indeed, specifically without evidence.

If it were a fact, you wouldn't need faith to believe in it.

Agreed.

You wouldn't need to 'believe' it... because you'd know.

If you know it then it would have to be 'known' by you. Which means the fact that it is known (because it's a fact) - means you'd have to believe it to be a fact. Otherwise you disbelieve the fact!! When you apparently know it. It makes no sense to say "I know gravity is true but I don't believe it is."

You can believe with evidence too!! If you believe in something that has evidence to support it basically!

Evidence is what gives credence to a belief!. It's a reason to believe! You believe on evidence! or 'on faith' (without evidence).

You want to talk about God and religion but you can't accept belief or faith.

I obviously except belief. There are many things I believe and many I disbelieve (don't believe).

What I don't accept is the idea that it is ever logical to believe things without evidence, believing 'on faith'. How is it? Until I know of a reason to believe it is, I won't. And I'm not going to accept 'on faith' that believing anything (Or anything in particular! - Cherry picked out!!) 'on faith' itself is a rational thing to do! So I cannot accept faith unless it gets shown to somehow be a genuine logical alternative to evidence. But by definition I don't see how it can be exactly! Evidence specifically means logical indication that something actually exists! How could the absence of evidence be logical in the matter of believing something then??

Religion, being about belief in God, is beyond what you're prepared to think about.

Why would or should I, is my question? Where exactly is any rational reason to believe in such? Why would I just let go of my brain and believe in God? I'm going to need logical reasons to believe such a God exists first of course. That's why believing "On Faith" is always irrational IMO - because it's delusional to believe something for no reason whatsoever. Because if there was reason to believe in the actual existence of "God" (or whatever) then that would be evidence of his existing! So it wouldn't be faith! (I don't understand how many times I have to explain this before I will finally get a response to this point. This point being a question of "how exactly, can believing in the existence of something, without evidence - ever be rational?".

"belief without evidence" another oxymoron. belief HAS TO BE without evidence.

As we have said before in our conversations. Faith is belief without evidence! Evidence is what you base belief on! So of course belief without evidence is not an oxymoron! Faith without evidence does not make sense on the other hand; because Faith is belief without evidence, so faith without evidence would="Belief without evidence without Evidence" - doesn't make any sense.

You can't dismiss something from it's definition.

I'm not. How exactly can someone 'know' and fact to be true and at the same time, not believe in the fact? So you can only disbelieve facts then???? But that would mean that everyone denies the facts! Not true of course!!

Evidence= what gives credence to a belief. So of course belief can be based on evidence. Faith on the other hand cannot tho, when it is defined simply as "belief without evidence" of course.

Your whole anti religion stance is totally unsupportable and illogical.

I have no idea where you got that idea from!!

There is no evidence that any "God" exists so to believe anyway is illogical because there's no indication that it actually exists (if there was it would be evidence by definition)

I'm against that because it's irrational and there's no reason to believe such thinking has any bearing on the truth. And I have no idea how being against that is illogical!!

EvF

[fr0d0]

You're not listening to me at all Evie.

I disagree that the normal definition of belief is that you cannot believe a fact.

I've shown you dictionary definitions of belief. I've shown you very well/ clearly written explanations of what belief means. Yet still you're arguing that belief means what you say it does.. knowledge of fact! Please provide proof that belief doesn't need the slightest proof. I've proved to you the opposite. Unless you can provide evidence you have to retract. You can't just go on blindly asserting something that there's strong evidence against.

I disagree that the normal definition of belief is that all beliefs are false

What??? Beliefs can't be provable is what the dictionaries say. You're making wild conclusions.

You wouldn't need to 'believe' it... because you'd know.

If you know it then it would have to be 'known' by you. Which means the fact that it is known (because it's a fact)

No it doesn't. Belief MEANS not knowing. people use the word 'know' very loosely to try to add gravity. What they're really saying is that they're convinced beyond the balance of reason. They have no proof.

Evidence = proof
Belief = no proof

Evidence specifically means logical indication that something actually exists! How could the absence of evidence be logical in the matter of believing something then??

"logical indication" does not require evidence. Logic isn't evidence. Fact is evidence. Logic is a thought process, nothing more.

You and I could draw our own different logical conclusions. How could either EVER be considered as fact???



Faith, is more the reason people can attribute more certainty to belief. I have faith that God Exists. I believe God exists through faith. Faith is the trust.

So you can only disbelieve facts then?

Precisely - yes you can disbelieve facts. Which demonstrates clearly that belief doesn't need facts. Belief is independent of facts. I can believe that I'm a great footballer. I'd be wrong but that doesn't stop me believing it.

Your whole anti religion stance is totally unsupportable and illogical.

I have no idea where you got that idea from!!

Maybe here:

There is no evidence that any "God" exists so to believe anyway is illogical because there's no indication that it actually exists (if there was it would be evidence by definition)

I'm against that because it's irrational and there's no reason to believe such thinking has any bearing on the truth. And I have no idea how being against that is illogical!!

You contradict yourself in every sentence.
You say it's illogical that God (who can't logically be proven to exist) exists!!!

I'm astounded by your lack of reasoning.