Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 03:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is is that when asking a question here, I am frequently countered with requests to define my terms, most of which are terms found in common usage and are relatively unambiguous?

Because in the past you have shown a tendency to define words diferently than what would be considered the norm. If you stick to definitions found in the dictionary we can have a conversation, if not then a "word salad" ensues and everyone wastes their time. Drinking Beverage

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
30-04-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 03:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is is that when asking a question here, I am frequently countered with requests to define my terms, most of which are terms found in common usage and are relatively unambiguous?
I think the requests for you to define "beliefs" and even "our" were perfectly legitimate. The others I think were intended as humor. "Beliefs" is not an unambiguous term. And "our", put together with "beliefs" can mean one of countless groupings of people. So, before we all go down a road of discussing a potential straw man, it's a good idea to make sure we're all discussing the same thing, don't you think? Consider And the answer to you question "To what do we owe our beliefs" will differ considerably depending on how those terms are defined.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Impulse's post
30-04-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
We gotta get us one of them sarcasm fonts. Dodgy

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
30-04-2014, 05:18 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
How about we agree on the definition of belief put forth by modern epistemologists?

Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as true.

So, claiming that belief is tantamount to gullibility is incorrect. A belief is simply holding a premise to be true.

Beliefs can be held for good reasons, ie; demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.

Or they can be held for bad reasons, ie; faith.

And to add, the strength of a belief should be proportional to the strength of the evidence.

Is the above definition agreeable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Simon Moon's post
30-04-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 04:07 PM)Anjele Wrote:  We gotta get us one of them sarcasm fonts. Dodgy

No! I am strictly against sarcasm fonts. As a native speaker of the language of Sarcasm, I find sarcasm fonts to be insulting. No speaker of Sarcasm should have to resort to fonts for those that are not able to understand it. We are not helping these people, we are hurting them. Sarcasm, like any other language, should not have to make special concessions for anybody who does not take the time to learn it. That is why we have institutions like the National Sarcasm Society. If creationists can take time to figure out what excuses to use to move the goal posts, or create a giant word salad, then they can jolly well take the time to learn and understand Sarcasm!

The National Sarcasm Society even has helpful sections on their website for those struggling with the language: http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasm.html

If we make special concessions for these people on internet sites with sarcasm fonts everywhere, we could be setting ourselves up for disaster. It could have a snowball effect, and pretty soon everything with sarcasm (movies, t.v. shows, books, etc) will require a sarcasm label, all because we have to make sure that those who do not understand sarcasm will not get offended. Before you know it, satires will be illegal and Sarcasm will have to be spoken only in private among friends, due to the fact that somebody who does not understand Sarcasm will get offended and report them.

We must not open Pandora's box...No

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
30-04-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
I think you are asking "Where do our beliefs come from" ?

Beliefs come from our assumptions about the world in an attempt to understand the world. Alternatively instead of assuming something about the world we can form beliefs based on evidence gathered about the world.

When we assume something to be true without justifying our belief with evidence, we call that belief irrational.

When we can justify our beliefs with evidence then the belief becomes rational.

We owe our beliefs to our mind trying to make sense of the world and hopefully our mind does so in a rational way that provides justification for that belief.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
30-04-2014, 06:17 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 06:02 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 04:07 PM)Anjele Wrote:  We gotta get us one of them sarcasm fonts. Dodgy

No! I am strictly against sarcasm fonts. As a native speaker of the language of Sarcasm, I find sarcasm fonts to be insulting. No speaker of Sarcasm should have to resort to fonts for those that are not able to understand it. We are not helping these people, we are hurting them. Sarcasm, like any other language, should not have to make special concessions for anybody who does not take the time to learn it. That is why we have institutions like the National Sarcasm Society. If creationists can take time to figure out what excuses to use to move the goal posts, or create a giant word salad, then they can jolly well take the time to learn and understand Sarcasm!

The National Sarcasm Society even has helpful sections on their website for those struggling with the language: http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasm.html

If we make special concessions for these people on internet sites with sarcasm fonts everywhere, we could be setting ourselves up for disaster. It could have a snowball effect, and pretty soon everything with sarcasm (movies, t.v. shows, books, etc) will require a sarcasm label, all because we have to make sure that those who do not understand sarcasm will not get offended. Before you know it, satires will be illegal and Sarcasm will have to be spoken only in private among friends, due to the fact that somebody who does not understand Sarcasm will get offended and report them.

We must not open Pandora's box...No

Ya mean there's a club....where do I sign up?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
Define: "we".

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
30-04-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 06:17 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 06:02 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  No! I am strictly against sarcasm fonts. As a native speaker of the language of Sarcasm, I find sarcasm fonts to be insulting. No speaker of Sarcasm should have to resort to fonts for those that are not able to understand it. We are not helping these people, we are hurting them. Sarcasm, like any other language, should not have to make special concessions for anybody who does not take the time to learn it. That is why we have institutions like the National Sarcasm Society. If creationists can take time to figure out what excuses to use to move the goal posts, or create a giant word salad, then they can jolly well take the time to learn and understand Sarcasm!

The National Sarcasm Society even has helpful sections on their website for those struggling with the language: http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasm.html

If we make special concessions for these people on internet sites with sarcasm fonts everywhere, we could be setting ourselves up for disaster. It could have a snowball effect, and pretty soon everything with sarcasm (movies, t.v. shows, books, etc) will require a sarcasm label, all because we have to make sure that those who do not understand sarcasm will not get offended. Before you know it, satires will be illegal and Sarcasm will have to be spoken only in private among friends, due to the fact that somebody who does not understand Sarcasm will get offended and report them.

We must not open Pandora's box...No

Ya mean there's a club....where do I sign up?

You can get a free Wordpress account, which allows you to comment on the blog.

There are other ways to show you are a member. I have this sign hung up at home: http://www.amazon.com/National-Sarcasm-S...B005OYHK5U Big Grin

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WindyCityJazz's post
30-04-2014, 06:53 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
I gotta get me one of those. Big Grin

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: