Guys, after reading almost all the notes, here is what i would suggest, start with simply putting one sentence or idea forward at a time, there is too much confusion in all your thoughts, this not called philosophy or thats what i know of philosophy.

To me it should be understanding of an idea that one does understand or not understand by him/herself. Rather you guys are targeting each other simply if he or she cannot understand what he/she wrote, maybe he/she cannot explain properly and thats why academics suggest using shorter sentences.

One's belief and understanding are two different things. Beliefs are pure subjective and needs of objective principles to make it stronger or at least stand at first place. If none here are able to provide those then you all should stop and discuss other topic. The longer you guys go forward with this the more you will get gibberish instead of philosophy...

— RBS

Screw the "belief" stuff. If a person is going to make an assertion about whether gods exist or not...the person should have the spine to acknowledge that the assertion is a guess...and "the guess" should not be disguised using the word "belief."

Anyway...your suggestion is reasonable and makes sense.

SO...here is a single comment all by itself"

I do not "believe" there are no gods.

That is a simple sentence...and says a specific thing. It says that I do not hold a "belief" that no gods exist. It does not say anything about any other "beliefs" I might have or not have.

Go with it.

I appreciate your straight forwardness and I am with you on your "belief" that the existence of a god (s) cannot be thrown away, meaning there is something (s) or someone (s) that is in control of what is out of the human control and reach? agree??

RBS
16
↪Frank Apisa
I appreciate your straight forwardness and I am with you on your "belief" that the existence of a god (s) cannot be thrown away, meaning there is something (s) or someone (s) that is in control of what is out of the human control and reach? agree?? — RBS

Disagree.

Obviously I do not know if any gods exist or not.

I prefer not to guess one way or the other.

I see no reason to suppose the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible...

...and I see no reason to suppose the existence of a GOD or gods is necessary.

There may be at least one god...there may be none.

If forced to make a guess (which for me would be a blind guess)...I would toss Mr. Coin...the coin my wife and I use to make decisions in our football pools when we are undecided.

Ok, that is understandable, now if I may ask,

Obviously not guessing....

I prefer not to guess one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

Why do you think there is a need of God?

I see no reason to suppose the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible... — Frank Apisa

And why do you think there is no need for a God?

...and I see no reason to suppose the existence of a GOD or gods is necessary. — Frank Apisa

Any am curious about the following idea?? How did you end up with this thought when you do not know if there is any God at all?

There may be at least one god...there may be none. — Frank Apisa

And I wouldnt suggest tossing a coin on any thought no matter who and where they generate them from>>>>>

If forced to make a guess (which for me would be a blind guess)...I would toss Mr. Coin...the coin my wife and I use to make decisions in our football pools when we are undecided. — Frank Apisa

But the statement "I do not believe any gods exist" IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa

That is not the statement I said was ambiguous. The statement in question is: "I do not "believe" there are no gods". That statement is entirely consistent with your believing that there are gods. That is the point you avoid addressing. Since it is also entirely consistent with your not having any beliefs about gods, the statement is ambiguous with regard to your beliefs concerning gods.

Do you really think that using ALL CAPS makes it less AMBIGUOUS? Have you forgotten the context or do you think context does not matter? We were talking about belief in gods. One cannot tell from the statement what you believe, only what you do not believe. That makes it ambiguous.

When you provided further context, namely that you hold no beliefs about gods, then and only then was your statement no longer ambiguous as to what you meant.
— Fool

Bullshit. — Frank Apisa

If I say: "I do not believe it is not going to rain" do I mean it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether or not it will rain? If you cannot give me a definitive answer then the statement is ambiguous. In the same way your statement is ambiguous. So, tell me: do I believe it is going to rain? How do you know?

YOU were mistaking the comment "I do not believe X"...to mean "I believe not-X" — Frank Apisa

No, that is the mistake you were fishing for. You were so intent on setting the hook that you disregarded what I actually said and substituted the assumptions that you hoped for.

But, you apparently are not very bright. You thought they were contradictory. — Frank Apisa

Where did I say they were contradictory? What I said is that you are free to hold contradictory beliefs. And you are, plenty of people do. You apparently are not very bright. YOU were mistaking the comment "You are free to hold contradictory beliefs" to mean "You hold contradictory beliefs".

There is NO WAY they are contradictory. — Frank Apisa

Of course there is a way in which the statements can be contradictory. Again, the second statement is entirely consistent with believing that there are gods. There is NO WAY that "I do not "believe" there are no gods" entails "I have no beliefs regarding gods". But you are unwilling to admit that either. Instead you use all caps and insult me.

If you see my statements as contradictory...which you said you did...your "educational level or training" is inadequate. — Frank Apisa

But I did not say they were. That was your assumption. You are so intent on setting the hook that you missed what I actually said and substituted statements of your own making. "You are free to hold contradictory beliefs" does not mean "You hold contradictory beliefs".

Fooloso4
365

But the statement "I do not believe any gods exist" IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa


That is not the statement I said was ambiguous. The statement in question is: "I do not "believe" there are no gods". That statement is entirely consistent with your believing that there are gods. — Fooloso4

That is absolute bullshit.

Here is what I actually said:

I disagree with lots of what you said here, but I am going to attack our disagreement in a different way.

I am going to agree with something you said; add something to it; and then ask if you are of the same mind on what I added.

Regarding gods, you wrote: "But I do not believe they do exist."

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa

NOW...how the hell do you get to any ambiguity considering the entire of that commentary?

YOU DON'T!

You are playing a game. I was absolutely clear that I do not hold a "belief" that any gods exist...AND that I do not hold a "belief" that no gods exist.

You screwed up...because YOUR response was:

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

You just didn't get it...although I spelled it out clearly enough for a grammar school kid to get it.

Why do you think there is a need of God? — RBS

The weak.

And why do you think there is no need for a God? — RBS

The strong.

The weak. — S

Why do you think the weak needs a savoir? And by the way how do you come to the understanding that God is there only for weak and poor, if that is the case then do you think are all weak, just and rich are unjust?

The strong. — S

If the strong is not in need of one, then where did they get the idea of the God being powerful? Why do think at all that there is something powerful beyond their reach? Which is called God?

You seem to have misunderstood. The only need there is for a god is psychological. This psychological need is symptomatic of the weak, and is absent in the strong. The weak feel the need for a mythical saviour because they struggle with life and cave in to their desire for an easy way out.

Thanks for the clarification,

You misunderstand. — S

That's how much my mind's processor can work with only two words :)

psychological — S

I do understand the need of psychology for a superior being or thing or whatever you call it, when you are lacking it or in need for it.....

I would ask for better health when I am in pain and for a good meal when I am hungry.... then why should I be asking for something when can not guarantee me anything.....the question is why should a weak be asking for God and not for being rich or being powerful?

The question is, why should the weak be asking for God, and not for being rich or powerful? — RBS

There could be a number of possible factors, such as upbringing, and such as indoctrination. But also, Nietzsche had an interesting answer relating to this. It has to do with his theory of master-slave morality and ressentiment.

Bye bye Frankie. Some day you may grow up and realize that you are only playing at doing philosophy, but given your age, I doubt it. I think you are probably capable of stating things in a clear and simple way, but you prefer to deal in ambiguities. When I asked you what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding? Your answer was:

Because that was the point I was making. — Frank Apisa

The point you were making is that you can phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding?

One thing that is of value in Plato's dialogues is what it reveals about the character of Socrates' interlocutors. Other noted philosophers have also pointed to the importance of character. Wittgenstein said that working in philosophy is working on one's self. You have a lot of work to do, but I suspect you will only continue to play games intended to mislead and think that your playing at philosophy is doing philosophy.

I am not going to guess at your motivation, but you will find that the more you play games, the less interested people will be in having a conversation with you. Your loss. There are some members here who know quite a bit about philosophy, but given your behavior I doubt that any of them will bother with you for long.

Thank you

when we are talking about upbringings and the way we are thought in our life then we are totally overthrowing the idea of subjectivity and ones own mind and actions.... then that human being have no right to decide for himself or that's what you are telling me??, or yet let the weak to decide and express the idea for being a God there or not??? does it make any sense?

such as upbringing, and such as indoctrination — S

Now here we are drifting away...... or that's what it looks like to me, Nietzsche's idea doesn't provide an answer but rather his speculations and theory, I wouldn't call an answer to anything other than what we all believe to be the truth....... now what is the truth that has been discussed so many times....

His ideas about strong and weak are understandable but not fully acceptable...and that they can be well adapted in the current society, on the other hand being poor and weak can also be very dangerous in itself which can then generate negative power,,,,but in itself it is power......

He is talking more of a dimension that is of grasp to the human world and not about God, which is good but my questions is still pending in the air ???..... We cannot compare the actions of human vs God....God's action are based on the understanding of past, present and future where human cannot..... Does it make any sense at all???

The reason for me going this deep is to understand the real need of a God from your perspective,,,do we look for a God when we are in need for something and weak and forget it when we are in power ??? Don't powerful need God as well when they have all the time and money in the world and when they cannot solve a problem???

I am not going to guess at your motivation, but you will find that the more you play games, the less interested people will be in having a conversation with you. Your loss. There are some members here who know quite a bit about philosophy, but given your behavior I doubt that any of them will bother with you for long. — Fooloso4

This is a very good example of an attempt at psychological manipulation. I've been on the brunt end of it myself. You're sending out signals. "I'm not going to guess at your motivation", denying your subtle attack before you make it: the insinuation that he is playing games, doing exactly what you said you weren't going to do by guessing at his motivation. And then you try to get people on your side, signalling that they ought not to bother with one such as him, and trying to use this as some sort of threat.

Fooloso4
367
Bye bye Frankie. Some day you may grow up and realize that you are only playing at doing philosophy, but given your age, I doubt it. I think you are probably capable of stating things in a clear and simple way, but you prefer to deal in ambiguities. When I asked you what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding? Your answer was:

Because that was the point I was making. — Frank Apisa


The point you were making is that you can phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding?

One thing that is of value in Plato's dialogues is what it reveals about the character of Socrates' interlocutors. Other noted philosophers have also pointed to the importance of character. Wittgenstein said that working in philosophy is working on one's self. You have a lot of work to do, but I suspect you will only continue to play games intended to mislead and think that your playing at philosophy is doing philosophy.

I am not going to guess at your motivation, but you will find that the more you play games, the less interested people will be in having a conversation with you. Your loss. There are some members here who know quite a bit about philosophy, but given your behavior I doubt that any of them will bother with you for long. — Fooloso4

I was completely clear...you missed it. Now...you are unable to acknowledge you did.

So be it.

Much of your contribution here helps understand what Maureen was asking with her OP.

What do you have in mind in how you are using “weak” and “strong”? What attributes define those words?

What do you have in mind in how you are using “weak” and “strong”? What attributes define those words? — DingoJones

The strong are brave, resilient and self-sufficient, and the weak are cowardly, fragile and reliant.

So there are no people who believe in god that are brave, resilient and self - sufficient?

So there are no people who believe in god that are brave, resilient and self - sufficient? — DingoJones

No, there can be and probably are. It depends on the context. But not in respect to their psychological need for a god.

So your really just talking about weakness/strength concerning a few specific traits, the god belief traits such as fear of death?
Is it that they are weak, or possess certain traits such as a need for spiritual meaning?

So your really just talking about weakness/strength concerning a few specific traits, the god belief traits such as fear of death? — DingoJones

Yes, amongst others. Fear or unwillingness to confront harsh reality. Escapism. Infantilism.

Is it that they are weak, or possess certain traits such as a need for spiritual meaning? — DingoJones

It is that they are weak. There is no need for meaning which can't be fulfilled without religious mumbo-jumbo. If I do not need a pacifier, then why do they? If I do not need faux-meaning, then why do they? It is a difference in strength of character.

You might be weaker or stronger in other ways, and vice versa. Why does it have to be a broad stroke of “they are weak, I am strong”?

I am not talking about beliefs. You and anyone else can believe whatever the hell you want. I can believe that there is an island full of pink unicorns in the middle of the south pacific, but I do not know if there is an island like this. I have read what you said about not seeing any evidence that there needs to be a God(s) or that the presence of a God(s) would necessarily make a difference, but none of that changes the fact that nobody knows if God(s) exist, nor does the fact that you do not accept or deny God(s) existence. To not accept or deny that God(s) exist based on the reasons that you gave is to say that you are using those reasons as the basis for your stance, rather than admitting that you don't know if God(s) exists, plain and simple. You can obviously give reasons for why you don't know if God(s) exist, but this will not change the concept.

Maureen
22
↪Frank Apisa
I am not talking about beliefs. You and anyone else can believe whatever the hell you want. I can believe that there is an island full of pink unicorns in the middle of the south pacific, but I do not know if there is an island like this. I have read what you said about not seeing any evidence that there needs to be a God(s) or that the presence of a God(s) would necessarily make a difference, but none of that changes the fact that nobody knows if God(s) exist, nor does the fact that you do not accept or deny God(s) existence. To not accept or deny that God(s) exist based on the reasons that you gave is to say that you are using those reasons as the basis for your stance, rather than admitting that you don't know if God(s) exists, plain and simple. You can obviously give reasons for why you don't know if God(s) exist, but this will not change the concept. — Maureen

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

Those are the first words of my position on the issue. I have no idea of what you are talking about, Maureen.

HERE IS MY POSITION:

I do not know if gods exist or not;


I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You might be weaker or stronger in other ways, and vice versa. Why does it have to be a broad stroke of “they are weak, I am strong”? — DingoJones

I was only talking in respect to the psychological need for a god, or the lack thereof, and I think that that's clear from the context.

Weaker or stronger in other ways is beside the point.

Dude,,,,,,there is nothing in your writings or ideas that makes sense, you are not standing on your own theories, do you think with your broken and unfinished theories you can think of what is philosophy or do you think you are actually doing philosophy.....

You are just rephrasing your one word over and over and that's what is happening with most of the "..k" comments people. I thought you guys will be smart but in reality you guys are just a memory drive of unmeaning-full sentences....

I was thinking and hoping that this forum will be somewhat useful, but now am seeing that most of us here are just doing gibberish and doesn't make any sense.

Good luck with what you are after and what you will learn, for me its enough....

Dude,,,,,,there is nothing in your writings or ideas that makes sense, you are not standing on your own theories, do you think with your broken and unfinished theories you can think of what is philosophy or do you think you are actually doing philosophy.....

You are just rephrasing your one word over and over and that's what is happening with most of the "..k" comments people. I thought you guys will be smart but in reality you guys are just a memory drive of unmeaning-full sentences....

I was thinking and hoping that this forum will be somewhat useful, but now am seeing that most of us here are just doing gibberish and doesn't make any sense.

Good luck with what you are after and what you will learn, for me its enough....

Well then you arent really saying anything interesting. They are weak on the god issue and you are strong on the god issue, or they are “cowardly, fragile, reliant” on the god issue and you “brave, resilient, self seficient” on the god issue. Alright then, I understand.
Also, you were not being very clear or I wouldnt have to clarify what you meant. It started with you dropping one word answers, following up on how you meant them doesnt seem out of line.
Anyway, I got it now.

Okie dokie! Bye byes. I'll miss you, whoever you are.