Here's an odd, theological sort of question for debate

[Fart]

aliens, b

[oats]

Originally Posted by Witty

The difference is that it simply isn't belief if you have evidence and reasoning behind it, believing something is to admit you have nothing to support it. Waking in the morning is supported by the fact you have woken every morning, based on that evidence you get the conclusion you are likely to wake, it is not evidence you will definitely wake up, it is evidence that you probably will, if you believe you will definitely wake, you are wrong in believing that because you may not.

again, it is a belief - it doesn't matter how probable something is, if it's uncertain and you perceive it as certain, then there is an element of belief involved. it goes without saying that the amount of belief involved with waking up in the morning is much smaller than the amount of belief required for a god, but belief is still there. don't be afraid, witty. embrace your non-believing beliefs!

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

but there are plenty of scientists who are stubborn to change their ideas, even in the face of evidence. especially if it's ideas/theories they developed themselves.

This is ego, nothing more and nothing less, and they don't deserve to call themselves scientists if they do this. I'm not saying scientists are perfect, I'm just saying their profession dictates they must not deal in belief, and if some of them do, they are being unscientific. If a scientist is saying he believes aliens are definitely real, he is a fraud because it has never been observed. I think, as I've said, hypotheses and beliefs get confused very often, a scientist pursues something he does not know to be true because evidence has shown it is likely to be true, that is an hypothesis. A belief by definition is the acceptance of something that has absolutely no evidence to suggest it is true.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Answer

You focusing too much on semantics and the word belief. I could say "I believe that if I leave a full bottle of water in the freezer, the liquid will eventually expand, causing the bottle (or at least part of it) to "explode" and that would have a scientific basis.

You're correct - no real scientist would EVER state that life on another planet is a certainty, but they CAN say that based on observational data in regards to the Earth's conception and organism evolution on this planet, respective to the similar conditions appearing in millions of other pockets of the universe, that they *believe* that life on other planets is *probable*

In that case they would be using the word belief incorrectly.

[Witty]

Anyways, it's 7am and I believe I should start getting ready for work.

[Fig]

Alright faggot see ya later

[oats]

right - just like the idea that you'll wake up tomorrow has no observable evidence. until you wake up. in the same way, christians have no observable evidence that Jesus is their savior and will return to rapture them. until it happens.

to be clear, I don't believe it will happen, but I don't know. and if it did happen, their belief would be just as valid as a hypothesis as anything.

some footnotes: belief is the acceptance of something that has less than 100% evidence. also, religious people pursue their beliefs just as much as scientists do, just in a very different way.

[Fig]

I take it back immediately

[Objective]

Originally Posted by oats

@Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

[Fig]

Originally Posted by Objective

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

Cynical

[oats]

Originally Posted by Objective

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

a scientist? naturally, any religious affiliation is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn't group the two categories.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Objective

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

I don't think anybody denies anything that isn't scientifically proven, I just think they refuse to accept that it is DEFINITELY true until it is proven, as I think everyone should do.

Which is why I don't believe in belief, it seems unnecessary.

I still think there's a difference in saying 'there is a good chance that will turn out to be true' and saying 'I believe that is true'

[oats]

Originally Posted by Witty

I don't think anybody denies anything that isn't scientifically proven, I just think they refuse to accept that it is DEFINITELY true until it is proven, as I think everyone should do.

Which is why I don't believe in belief, it seems unnecessary.

I still think there's a difference in saying 'there is a good chance that will turn out to be true' and saying 'I believe that is true'

there is a difference, it's in the amount of belief required. if statistics could be applied to things like belief in god and belief in waking up tomorrow, perhaps that spectrum of belief would range from 0.1% and 99.9%, but as long as it's not a statistical certainty (like death, for example), belief is present.

[Witty]

I think we are defining belief differently.

[oats]

so you believe in a different definition, then?

and we really aren't defining them differently, I'm just being more specific in its boundaries. you say anything greater than 0% certainty does not count as a belief, I'm saying anything less than 100% certain involves belief. There is a greater rationale for my boundaries, but you're free to believe what you want ;)

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

so you believe in a different definition, then?

and we really aren't defining them differently, I'm just being more specific in its boundaries. you say anything greater than 0% certainty does not count as a belief, I'm saying anything less than 100% certain involves belief. There is a greater rationale for my boundaries, but you're free to believe what you want ;)

That's not really what I'm saying tho, what I'm saying is that belief is for things for which we have no evidence, anyone saying they believe aliens exist is wrong, they should be saying it is extremely likely that aliens exist, belief is an acceptance of something that can not be proven, I don't accept anything that can not be proven, I don't believe I will wake in the morning, I think it is likely I will wake in the morning, but if I said I believed it I would be saying that in my mind it is true, which would be incorrect. Anybody saying they believe in God is saying that his existence is definitely true, which again is incorrect. If you believe anything you can not see, you are wrong in having that belief, even if it turns out to be true, you shouldn't believe it if you can't see it. Once you see it, it becomes knowledge and you don't need belief anymore. That's what I meant when I said about people who talk about their belief that god exists, they shouldn't believe god exists they should either know he exists or think it is likely he exists, belief is the acceptance of something as truth without any reason or evidence behind it.

[Witty]

but yo - i gotta go to work, I am probably wrong as you are much more intelligent, but I did my best to get my point of view across lol 'twas a pleasure.

[oats]

Originally Posted by oats

you say anything greater than 0% certainty does not count as a belief

Originally Posted by Witty

belief is for things for which we have no evidence

Originally Posted by Witty

A belief by definition is the acceptance of something that has absolutely no evidence to suggest it is true.

Originally Posted by Witty

people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Witty

believing something is to admit you have nothing to support it.

it kinda seems like that's exactly what you're saying lol. and yes, beliefs can be proven. it rained for the past three days. I believe it will rain tomorrow. I have a good amount of evidence to suggest that this belief (or hypothesis - you can use them interchangeable in this instance) is correct. But the only time I will KNOW it is correct is when it starts raining. think of it like this and tell me where you disagree:

belief and knowledge are opposites.

to know something means that you have 100% statistical certainty IE I know I'm going to die since 100% of humans so far have died, I know the sun exists because we would not be alive without it, I know I woke up this morning because it was experienced and observed (it happened).

if there is no statistical certainty, you cannot know something IE there is a 60% chance it will rain tomorrow based off of previous experience and meteorological data, there is a 99% chance I will wake up tomorrow because I am sheltered from all but the most unlikely causes of death tonight, etc.

BUT - is there any chance, even .00000001% that I could die tonight? Sure - it's bound to happen one day, and until something happens (is experienced and observed), there is not 100% certainty.

Therefore, nothing in the future can be known (with the exception of death). The future is not knowledge.

belief=certainty minus statistical probability.

therefore, belief pervades all things that aren't known with statistical certainty, in varying degrees.

[oats]

Originally Posted by Witty

but yo - i gotta go to work, I am probably wrong as you are much more intelligent, but I did my best to get my point of view across lol 'twas a pleasure.

hey I'm stoned and getting ready for bed lol, I enjoyed the discussion.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

it kinda seems like that's exactly what you're saying lol. and yes, beliefs can be proven. it rained for the past three days. I believe it will rain tomorrow. I have a good amount of evidence to suggest that this belief (or hypothesis - you can use them interchangeable in this instance) is correct. But the only time I will KNOW it is correct is when it starts raining. think of it like this and tell me where you disagree:

belief and knowledge are opposites.

to know something means that you have 100% statistical certainty IE I know I'm going to die since 100% of humans so far have died, I know the sun exists because we would not be alive without it, I know I woke up this morning because it was experienced and observed (it happened).

if there is no statistical certainty, you cannot know something IE there is a 60% chance it will rain tomorrow based off of previous experience and meteorological data, there is a 99% chance I will wake up tomorrow because I am sheltered from all but the most unlikely causes of death tonight, etc.

BUT - is there any chance, even .00000001% that I could die tonight? Sure - it's bound to happen one day, and until something happens (is experienced and observed), there is not 100% certainty.

Therefore, nothing in the future can be known. The future is not knowledge.

belief=certainty minus statistical probability.

therefore, belief pervades all things that aren't known with statistical certainty, in varying degrees.

Surely by definition belief is saying something is true when you can not prove it though, that is different than making a prediction, that's what I don't get with what ur saying....it has rained the last 3 days, so I can say it is likely to rain tomorrow, but if I said I believe it will rain tomorrow I am saying it is definitely true, that is the definition of belief, an acceptance of truth, rather than an acceptance of likelihood. Belief and hypothesis can not be used interchangeably because they mean two completely different things, an hypothesis is based on likelihood and belief is based on a perceived truth.