Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 08:51 AM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 05:18 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  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?

I think you definition is probably correct. I'd imagine if I looked it up in the dictionary it would read much like this.
The problem I have is that I don't think people use the word this way (especially theists).
I believe that your definition is correct but I don't know if it is. If I consult the dictionary I will know the definition.
I think when when people say "I believe in..." They are actually saying "I have faith in..."
It's kind of like the difference between the actual definition of "theory" and "theory" in the colloquial sense.
Edited..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 09:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because it's at THE most basic level that the things religionists assert are meaningless.
Your thread title for example. Ontology is the study of being. Beliefs are not beings. Your thread is therefore meaningless.

This is dead on.

When I first read the title it was confusing. Perhaps Jeremy you meant the etymology of the word belief?

on·tol·o·gy (n.)
metaphysical science or study of being
vs
et·y·mol·o·gy (n.)
the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.

But you see what is happening already? We are having to assume what you mean because as Bucky says, the OP title is meaningless as beliefs or words cannot be studied as "being". Huh From the get-go you already created a word salad..

To the Mods: Can we get an emoticon that represents "word salad", it would save a lot of time!

“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
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
01-05-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 08:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 05:18 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  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?

I think you definition is probably correct. I'd imagine if I looked it up in the dictionary it would read much like this.
The problem I have is that I don't think people use the word this way (especially theists).
I believe that your definition is correct but I don't know if it is. If I consult the dictionary I will know the definition.
I think when when people say "I believe in..." They are actually saying "I have faith in..."
It's kind of like the difference between the actual definition of "theory" and "theory" in the colloquial sense.
Edited..

Of course with all that nonsense said I'm sure we can accept your definition.
I that case the answer to the original question "from where do we get our beliefs?" Is
.. It depends on how rational minded one is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 03:46 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I want to see Jeremy and TrainWreck go at it! ... Best fight EVER! Smile
(30-04-2014 02:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To what do we owe our beliefs?
Authority - the guardians of the areas of information.

And I make the point that atheists blindly give dictionary editors the same authority that they accuse theists of giving to the editors of their religious doctrinaires.

I am right, and they are wrong.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 12:11 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 09:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because it's at THE most basic level that the things religionists assert are meaningless. Your thread title for example. Ontology is the study of being. Beliefs are not beings. Your thread is therefore meaningless.
There is a good chance that only beings can have beliefs. None the less, maybe you can direct us to the disciplined field that does study the existence of beliefs???

(01-05-2014 09:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  This is dead on. When I first read the title it was confusing. Perhaps Jeremy you meant the etymology of the word belief?
No, Jeremy, was probably not mistaken. Chances are you are mistaken, and just do not understand ontology beyond the discussion of god - the existence of god. None the less, maybe you can direct us to the disciplined field that does study the existence of beliefs???

(01-05-2014 09:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  But you see what is happening already? We are having to assume what you mean because as Bucky says, the OP title is meaningless as beliefs or words cannot be studied as "being". Huh From the get-go you already created a word salad..
You see, dear sir, you do not understand that ontology covers the concept of existence.

Quote:From WordNet 3.0 (En-En)
ontology
noun
1. (computer science) a rigorous and exhaustive organization of some knowledge domain that is usually hierarchical and contains all the relevant entities and their relations
• Topics: computer science, computing
• Hypernyms: arrangement, organization, organisation, system
2. the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence
• Derivationally related forms: ontological
• Hypernyms: metaphysics
Quote:From English Wikipedia
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

These same general descriptions have been around for the past several years that I have been researching the subject.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 12:35 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 fucktards (like you) have a history of attempting to equivocate the 'common' usage of words in place of specific meanings and contexts. See: creationists and the word 'theory'.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-05-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 11:56 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  And I make the point that atheists blindly give dictionary editors the same authority that they accuse theists of giving to the editors of their religious doctrinaires.

I am right, and they are wrong.

So that means if the dictionary says "STONE GAYS! THEY ARE A ABOMINATION! THE WORLD IS CREATED BY AN HATING, BUT LOVING GOD!!!!!"
we'll do it?
Also, somehow this only applies to atheists?
It's a fallacy and a strawman at the same time..
LOOK IT'S THE STRAWFALLACYMAN!

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
01-05-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 01:35 PM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  So that means if the dictionary says "STONE GAYS! THEY ARE A ABOMINATION! THE WORLD IS CREATED BY AN HATING, BUT LOVING GOD!!!!!"
we'll do it?
It's a fallacy and a strawman at the same time..
LOOK IT'S THE STRAWFALLACYMAN!

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 01:55 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 02:22 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 11:56 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 03:46 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I want to see Jeremy and TrainWreck go at it! ... Best fight EVER! Smile
(30-04-2014 02:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To what do we owe our beliefs?
Authority - the guardians of the areas of information.

And I make the point that atheists blindly give dictionary editors the same authority that they accuse theists of giving to the editors of their religious doctrinaires.

I am right, and they are wrong.

So without the dictionary definitions, who defines the words you used to compose this?

For the purpose of this post, the definition of "right" now includes "a habitual inhalant abuser," and the definition of "wrong" now includes "does not abuse inhalants."

Even though these definitions are not found in the dictionary, they're still valid, according to you.

So, as someone who concentrates and huffs propellant (as admitted above) what now defines someone with a grade school education and potential brain damage more of an authority than those of us who do not partake, or people who are authorities because they are degreed in and study languages?

Quote:To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm

Or did you actually believe one guy per dictionary company sits around and makes up definitions of words?

Definitions confabulated for commonly used words are not decided by each individual user of the word.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
01-05-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 11:56 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  And I make the point that atheists blindly give dictionary editors the same authority that they accuse theists of giving to the editors of their religious doctrinaires.

I am right, and they are wrong.

Still pissy about everyone kind of just refusing to let you redefine words whichever way you prefer?

Let me put it this way; even if we did, stupidly, accept that atheism by definition means you absolutely have to be opposed to any sort of perceived authority, and therefore also did, idiotically, accept that we must reject the definitions found in all accepted dictionaries, why the flying fuck would we automatically accept YOUR definition instead?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elcarch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: