You claim that God does not exist.

No! I am saying that the evidence (the belief) resides in each individual and that each individual will construct his/her reality based upon those beliefs. If they conflict, then such is the nature of 'belief'. What might appear as a conflict might more probably be a shortcoming on one side or the other with drawing a really clear picture of his/her belief while using the most problematic of tools ... which is 'words'.

 

A belief may be evidence, in a manner of speaking, for the person who holds it. They may say something like "I believe it because I just know it." However, belief, as such, cannot be shared. Your certainty, by itself, can do nothing for me. People believe many different things, and for bad reasons, oftentimes. I can't take the bare fact that someone believes something to mean a whole lot, unless I have other reasons to think the person reliable in the particular matter.

 

All the way up to the last statement above, you were correct. Now, as to sharing. Certainly that person may share the belief with another person. However, that other person will determine within his/her own self as to whether or not the belief will be accepted. Note the definition of belief and believe:
"be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real:"

and

"3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

Why would anyone expect you to depend on another persons certainty by itself?

What sort of "bad reasons" and what sort of things ?

There you have it. You have established your own barrier. "I can't" Self defeating attitude. I have a similar attitude about so called 'doctors'. I have very little confidence or reliance in their capabilities.

 

What evidence do you see in the OP when there's already a falsehood in the first two word?.

 

What falsehood?

 

Sorry, my post didn't reference the OP, it referenced the post immediately preceding my post, post 701.

 

I don't know, but claiming 'I believe and that's evidence' seemed to me to be suggesting that.

Believing things to please others, to belong to a group that expects it, to gain social advantage, or to avoid the opposite of all these, would be examples of 'bad reasons.'

As a Christian, you must think all other religions to be 'bad things,' believed for the above or other 'bad reasons.' Don't you?

It's a 'self-defeat' only if I'm wrong. If you don't assume I'm wrong, this argument falls apart. You have to show I'm wrong, not just skip that part and assert that since I am, I'm 'self-defeating.'

There's no easy way to be sure about Doctors. Assuming they are mostly right, and assuming they are mostly wrong, can both lead to big trouble.

 

The rest of your post is irrelevant. How is this sentence of yours not just a reiteration of my question? I asked if every religious belief is evidence that the belief itself is true, to which you replied "No!" for some reason, and then turned around and said that the belief is evidence (once again omitting how this is not circular logic and therefore not fallacious) and that an individual will construct his/her reality from those beliefs (meaning the belief is true to that person).

 

no, i didnt think it was about the op, just tossing in a comment on what one might see in evidence and belief.

 

Do you enjoy watching bullfighting?

Thats kind of what this is like to observe, Not, of course, to imply that the 'bull' has any strength.

 

In the things that you quoted from me, I don't see the language you used "I believe and that's evidence". Where specifically was that found?

Are you suggesting that my reasons are bad per the examples you presented? Can you prove any of those things are applicable to me?

Are you asking me or are you telling me? After all, you use a directive type statement "you must think" because I am associated with that group known as Christian.

Well, I do BELIEVE that you are wrong, but I cannot prove that you are wrong, because all you would have to do if I were to say emphatically that "you are wrong" is to challenge me to prove that you are wrong. However, my belief that you are wrong is a subjective thing, and a subjective thing which is already stated as not being provable. So now what?

Assuming anything about anyone especially that they are 'wrong' can lead to big trouble.

 

Well, let me ask you.... do you have any belief? If "yes" then is that belief held by you as being true? As an example.... do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? If "yes" then do you consider that belief as an evidence within your own being that the theory of evolution is true? If "no" then why do you believe that it is true?

 

Yes.

No, because that is circular logic! Why would anybody believe that their belief is true simply because they hold it? That's such an irrational position that I'm appalled you even have to ask me this. Why do I believe the theory of evolution to be true? Because of the tangible evidence for the theory.

 

Well, all other knowledge that is "within your being" would also be categorized as "circular logic" if you rely upon that knowledge. Am I now supposed to believe that you really don't believe that the theory of evolution is real because it is knowledge within your own being and is therefore circular logic? Show irrefutable proof that the knowledge you possess is not the equivalent of 'belief'. Do you trust the knowledge you possess? Then you have faith in that knowledge. Show us how strong your faith is (with regard to your knowledge) by showing irrefutable proof that your belief that the theory of evolution is real. Remember, Any of the so-called 'tangible evidence' you think you possess is really nothing more than the belief that you place upon that alleged tangible evidence. In other words, it (the tangible items) is acceptable to you because you want to believe that it is true or real. You already stated that you believe it to be true. Subsequently you build your reality around that belief.

 

Hey GfP.... I did a little more research and went past the allowable 'edit' time, so I am including here some more information of interest on the subject of 'belief'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief
At the bottom of the page:
Synonyms and antonyms for the word "belief":

"belief
noun
1. trust, confidence, faith, conviction, reliance, hopefulness a belief in personal liberty
trust doubt, disbelief, scepticism, distrust, mistrust, incredulity, dubiety
2. faith, principles, doctrine, ideology, creed, dogma, tenet, credence, credo He refuses to compete on Sundays because of his religious beliefs.
3. opinion, feeling, idea, view, theory, impression, assessment, notion, judgment, point of view, sentiment, persuasion, presumption It is my belief that a common ground can be found.

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002"

Red letter is antonyms and green letter is synonyms.

 

Uhh, what? It would only be circular logic if my knowledge was self-referencing, which is what circular logic is.

Is REAL? When did we begin talking about the realness of it? You asked me about why I consider it TRUE, not real. Edit - Unless you're just using the two as a synonym, then just ignore this part.

My "knowledge" IS made up of beliefs, but I do not hold them to be true simply because I have those beliefs, which is what the question to me was.

It depends on what knowledge you're talking about. I trust my beliefs proportionately to the evidence I have for those beliefs.

That depends entirely on how you're defining faith.

Once again, where did this "realness" come into the picture?

Based on the argumentation for said evidence. It isn't like I randomly see a fossil and conclude in my head, "Aha, evolution!".

That is just a flat out false statement. It has nothing to do with what I want.

 

Duh! Did I not say "if you rely upon that knowledge." If you rely upon that knowledge then you are referencing that knowledge.

 

Maybe you didn't understand my meaning when I said "It would only be circular logic if my knowledge was self-referencing". Knowledge would only be circular if it solely relied upon itself as evidence that the knowledge was true.

Did you somehow miss the bolded edit? I don't see how you could have missed it since it was part of the quoted material of mine.

"...but I do not hold them to be true simply because I have those beliefs..."

Either you aren't reading my posts or you're trolling. I never said that I didn't consider my beliefs to be true, only that they weren't true because I was holding them. I consider them true based on the evidence I have for them.

What do you mean by, "you believe that the evidence is true."? In what sense am I believing that the evidence is true?

I usually use definition #2 for faith. If we are using that definition, then no I don't have faith.

Do you not believe my words to be my actual thoughts? Do you believe I am lying to you?

That isn't what you stated. You stated I wanted the tangible evidence to be true. That isn't true. I accept the tangible evidence as true based on the argumentation for said evidence.

Psst- still waiting for a response to this:

You know, a response that isn't a misdirect to some other topic.

 

That is my whole point. Once an alleged 'evidence' enters your mind, it becomes a piece of the knowledge you possess. Therefore, when you reference that piece of knowledge, you are depending on that knowledge as the evidence. Example: Many people on this forum present all sorts of writings, claiming that those writings are the evidence. They are not the evidence, but merely dissertations about the evidence (in legal terms it would be referred to as prima facie evidence.... something that represents the evidence.) Earlier, you mentioned 'fossils' and stated that the thought of those fossils were not evidence. Do you hold those fossils in your hands? If not, then you referenced some subjective thing, a thing called knowledge. Without the knowledge, you would not have thought about 'fossils'.

Well of course I noticed it. So what? What is your point in suggesting that I might have missed it?

A mere rationalization (excuse for your behavior). I have no justifiable reason to place any level of trust in your declarations.

Well, it is obvious that I am reading those posts as I am also responding to those posts. As for the trolling issue. That is not in your authority to label me as a troll. That is a privilege given to the Moderators and is solely at their discretion. Therefore, your comment above is totally irrelevant.

Declaring that they are not true is denying them their due consideration as a belief. Do you not recognize/acknowledge the definitions of 'belief'? Are you attempting to escape the reality of those definitions?

The evidence you have for those beliefs is more of that subjective stuff called knowledge. You keep saying that you "have" the evidence. That would imply that the 'evidence' is in your possession. The evidence is not some other persons writing about the 'evidence' but rather the actual evidence. How did you obtain possession of the evidence?

Well maybe I was wrong... Do you believe that the evidence is 'false'? Perhaps you should elaborate on "what sense" the evidence is 'true' if in fact you are saying the evidence is true.

Why would you use the #2 definition if you don't believe that you have faith and the conversation is talking about something that exists in this empirical world? Your thoughts and your knowledge are a part of that empirical substance called a brain, are you now going to deny that you have thoughts that are related to a set of principles or beliefs?

No! On the first question. Should I believe you are lying to me?

And I still say, that the cognition you have of any supposed evidence is a matter of you wanting it to be true. You "accept" that supposed evidence to be true, therefore it is true. Accepting something is a voluntary act. That voluntary act does not have to be based on reason, logic, principle or any other cause other than desirability. You even admit that the 'argumentation for the said evidence' is the compelling reason for the acceptance. Is that argumentation the evidence? No? It is the cause of your acceptance... Did the argumentation grab hold of you and force you to accept it? Did the argumentation have some controlling force that it used to cause you to submit to the will of the argumentation? If you answer yes, then you are admitting that there are forces in this universe (subjective forces, possibly paranormal forces) that sometimes grabs hold of your mental functions and forces you to do things.

Gee, did I miss one of your postings? Sorry about that... I will get back to you on that one.

You force those misdirects upon yourself by submitting questions that are seemingly irrelevant at the time.

 

Real simple. The information you provided proved itself to be 'false information'.

 

Uh, that isn't what 'prima facie' means.

Since I know definitions are very important to you, allow me:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prima facie

 

Then allow me to show you from Florida Statutes, what the legislative body recognizes as "prima facie evidence":
http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Laws/Statutes/Links/StatutesPreface2012.pdf

Scroll down the page to that section labeled as "Consequences".

Interesting, that the legislature recognizes that the statutes of Florida are only a prima facie evidence of the law, but are not in fact the law but still recognized as law.

 

On perusal of the technical legal matter to which you reference, I find it basically is saying that until a yearly edition of the published Florida statues is formally 'adopted' by act of the legislature, matter representing changes from the previous Adopted Edition is termed 'prima face' evidence of the law. This use of the term seems to me to meet definition 3, above: "legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved." Should such matter be found to vary from the corresponding 'enrolled act,' the later prevails, which would be an example of 'disproving' prima face evidence.

All this seems compatible with the sense of the term as I understand it, in all its uses. Prima face basically and literally means "at first view, on first appearance." As a legal term it means basically evidence that immediately and completely makes it's case. Unless it is successfully disproved, it is conclusive. You seem to me to be focusing not on this meaning, but on one possible opening for disproving documentary evidence--the existence of a differing and more authoritative source, from which the challenged evidence was derived.

 

At the highlighted text:

Such is the point with regard to beliefs. You seem to be focusing on physical evidence as opposed to 'belief'.

 

Right, we've been over that. Belief may be prima face evidence for the owner of the head in which the belief exists.

I will take the point about the proper use of the term as settled.