-"I would only accept claims of others, if I was looking for some confirmation on something. I would also consider accepting the claims only after considerable debates and discussions, and if the claim based on the conclusion of the debates or discussions were reasonable to accept."
-Ok we have established that your use of the word "accept" is not in agreement with most common usages of the term.

-"So, it is a very special case, when claims and acceptances are relevant to beliefs, faiths or knowledge."
-Every online dictionary disagrees with your claim...so I don't accept your claim.

-"Differences between faiths and beliefs, it is mainly a semantic difference. When you say your faith to a religion, that means that you are following the religion. "
- Well wrong. To have faith to a religion means to accept its dogma even if it isn't based on knowledge or evidence. By "following" we identify "Active members". I know Christians who don't follow their churches or even their official dogma by letter.


-" It has nothing to do with belief. "
-Again words have common usages..... the word "faith" is used to define the nature of a belief: "Fact based vs Faith based belief".

-" You are a faithful religious man. Your faith to your religion, faith here means simply you are a follower of the religion. It doesn't tell us if you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, it doesn't tell us if you believed in the creation of the world in 7 days. It doesn't say anything in details of what you believe or not."
-Of course it does....lol If you say that you are a faithful christian you know that you are have faith to the christian dogma.


Why don't you use your internet connection to check the common usages of word?

-"But when you say, you have faith in God's benevolence to humans. The faith here is similar to belief. You believe in God that he is benevolent to humans."
-Nice so you see that the word faith has more than one common usage.


-"So, you see, faith in some contexts has nothing to do with belief, but in some other contexts it is very similar to belief. They are not simply all the same thing, or totally different things. "
-Sure but the usage of the word faith is IRRELEVANT to my position.(btw your
So lets return back to my main claim!
Belief can either be justified (knowledge evidence facts) or unjustified (faith, intuition) .
So focus on the role "faith" has a qualifier to a belief...not what people "try" claim their faith to be (trust-confidence etc). In any case to trust and have confidence to the doctrine of your religions, means that you believe in it and you accept it as true.
You just CAN'T go around the act of "believing" no matter how much you try to distort the meaning of faith sir.

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning.

My reply presents facts on common usage of words. I don't need a philosophical argument to show that you are ignoring these common usages.
So since you can not provide evidence against my statement, we have concluded
that Believing is the act of accepting a claim either on blind faith (without evidence) or based on knowledge(facts and evidence).

What usage of words are you talking about? Please read your own writings. It just keeps denying others points. You don't even provide any examples of words usage, if that was what you were trying to point out. There is no explanation why and how. You just say that it is not right usages of words, and therefore they are wrong.

If you are genuine philosophical poster, you don't say the other poster is wrong. You just explain in rational way with real life examples. It itself often tells who is right and who is wrong tacitly with the power of reason. Physically saying the other poster is "wrong", is not philosophical argument.

You keep denying a specific usage of the word accept in relation of a belief...while I am keep posting common usages of the word by many online dictionaries.
I quote.
Google
Accept
1.consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
"he accepted a pen as a present"
2.believe or come to recognize (a proposition) as valid or correct.
"this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the men"

Merriam Webster
Definition of accept
1a : to receive (something offered) willingly
b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added)

2: to give admittance or approval to accept her as one of the group
to recognize as true : believe or refused to accept the explanation

collinsdictionary
1.If you accept something that you have been offered, you say yes to it or agree to take it.
2.If you accept an idea, statement, or fact, you believe that it is true or valid.

macmillandictionary
1 take something offered
2 agree to a suggestion
3 believe something is true/right
4 recognize a bad situation
5 let someone join/be part of something
6 consider good enough
7 take a form of payment

So your insistence of rejecting this common usage is a factually wrong act.

-"Physically saying the other poster is "wrong", is not philosophical argument. "
-Its not a philosophical argument. Its an acknowledgement based on objective facts. Objective facts can be used directly to refute a claim....No philosophical argument is needed.

Sorry, all I can see is meaningless accusations keep insisting saying "you are wrong" " you are wrong".
I doubt if you have read a single philosophical books. Philosophy is not about blindly following what Google and those common dictionaries say.

I don't have to accept or deny anything you are claiming, to believe that your statements are non philosophical devoid of any reason or logic. I just know and believe that they are.

If Google and those commoners' dictionaries are your bible, so be it. I don't see a point to continue any philosophical argument against the pseudo religious chantings.

-"Sorry, all I can see is meaningless accusations keep insisting saying "you are wrong" " you are wrong"."
-Cognitive dissonance is known for "selective blindness".
You stated that you BELIEVE that "acceptance" is a forceful act while all those dictionary inputs show you that you are not using a common usage of that word. So you are factually wrong on how this word is used. That aside, I have already explained to you how I use the word "accept" in relation to belief so I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept.

-"I doubt if you have read a single philosophical books. Philosophy is not about blindly following what Google and those common dictionaries say."
-Let me help you a bit with this misconception of yours. In order to be a good philosopher you need to study Logic and the available epistemology...Being good in Chronicling only makes you propose other people's metaphysical beliefs and that is an argument from false authority fallacy. You need to be able to define your terms and to use definitions that are commonly accepted. Making up your own subjective definitions will never help you communicate your ideas.


-"Philosophy is not about blindly following what Google and those common dictionaries say."
-Sure philosophy is all about using logic on our current epistemology and science in order to understand what the available knowledge means about our understanding of the world.
Knowing how a word is used will help your statements carry some meaning.
Unfortunately you are bending and stretching words to mean something that isn't commonly accepted.
You render words meaningless...

-"If Google and those commoners' dictionaries are your bible, so be it. I don't see a point to continue any philosophical argument against the pseudo religious chantings. "
-You sound confused. I only point out that those dictionaries record HOW words are used by people.
Your definition of accept and belief is a subjective, isolated and useless without attaching your definition. A word's job is to communicate an agreed meaning so it can render our communication more easy. When a personal definition ads conflicting elements to an accepted common usage..then that definition is "wrong" or at best useless!

You are committing a classic trickery that many "pseudo" philosophers do and it has being highlighted by Mario Bunge in his book "Philosophy in Crisis".
Mario in his ten criticisms on bad philosophy identifies the Insular Obscurity as the main problem of the disconnection between ideas and real world facts. The main cause of it is his 10th point that he identifies it as the "Ivory Tower Syndrome". This can be seen in your writings by insisting in rejecting the importance of dictionaries and agreed common usages, by promoting unknown subjective definitions and by implying that a good philosopher is one who knows his "Chronicling" well (reads philosophical books) not the one who knows his epistemology,the rules of logic and shows respect to the common tools of language.

Logic and language have value only when we as users follow their "rules".
You are demanding to play tennis without the net...so I don't find any real value in this.
Thanks for your time. Cheers.

I think your problem seems that you somehow think whatever is in the Google and the commoners' dictionaries, must be abided and followed as some divine code. To me that is anti philosophical. All definitions are open to rational critique. It is a methodical principle in philosophy. Your denial on that principle is aphilosphical, and can be described as pseudo religious.

And your insistence on claim / accept must be some universal usage in belief and knowledge is very peculiar view. I tried to bring some cases that claim / accept is relevant in real life cases, but they are very unusual cases, which is not universal.

I never denied that they are possible in some cases, as you tried to portray and distort. I simply said it is unusual case that claim / accept applies in forming belief or knowledge.

nice talking to you Corvus....

I guess people accept their wives ....by force these days....

Sometimes it seems as if the notion of individual perspectives and views is becoming lost. Of course, it is important to get accurate knowledge but, even then, each person has to think about it on a personal level. Even though there is so much information about everything, it is likely that each person thinks a little bit differently, putting ideas together, interpreting and forming conclusions. Also, the basis of beliefs and understanding is likely to be connected with personal experiences and life experiences play an important role in the modification of beliefs. I am sure that this includes attitudes and the whole mindset from which our ideas evolve.

Sometimes it seems as if the notion of individual perspectives and views is becoming lost. Of course, it is important to get accurate knowledge but, even then, each person has to think about it on a personal level. Even though there is so much information about everything, it is likely that each person thinks a little bit differently, putting ideas together, interpreting and forming conclusions. Also, the basis of beliefs and understanding is likely to be connected with personal experiences and life experiences play an important role in the modification of beliefs. I am sure that this includes attitudes and the whole mindset from which our ideas evolve. — Jack Cummins

It is not just our beliefs that matter, but also how we conduct ourselves and manage our arguments.

I always enjoy your threads and I don't think you have ever turned an argument into a personal attack.

Some interesting things have been said here but I am totally distracted by the personal attacks.

I come to the forum to have the pleasure of questioning our notions of truth, including my own, but when people are attacking each other and being defensive, it is not pleasant. They are not creating space for "individual perspectives and views" and I love the way you always do that! :heart:

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning. — Corvus

What we see depends on our ability to see. In your gut, what is guiding what you can see and what you can not see?

Why did you take out your sword to cut someone to ribbons? In the long run, such behavior can lead to wars. This is really crazy when it is holy wars fought over something many of us do not believe is true because we think the god stories they believe are more fiction than truth. Sometimes the behavior is even more important than what people are fighting over.

"You must follow as told by Google, or the dictionaries says such as such, so it must be universal law and usage. Not accepting them is wrong. You are not following, and not accepting as told by Google or written in the dictionaries, therefore you are wrong."

I don't see any rational or logical argument from those statements.

I can't make any sense of your reply to Athena. I have no idea of where you quote about Google comes from. it certainly doesn't come from her post, and I don't see what relevance it has to what she has said at all. Are you criticising Google? I simply don't know what you are trying to say in connection with belief in the post above.

If you read Athena quote of my previous post, it is about my comment on "not able to see anything logical and rational" from @nickolasgaspar posts insisting on to accept Google and the dictionaries' definition on "claim/accept" in belief and knowledge.

I quite couldn't understand why @athena has quoted my post in her post. But I was replying on the quote. I hope it is clear. If not, let me know.

It's a little confusing, because it all ties up with your reply to someone else. Perhaps all this shows how convoluted philosophical arguments can become. Such is the nature of belief and our personal entanglements in its web.

Sure. I was confused why I was quoted in @athena's post yet again for something which sounds totally different from the nature of Belief.

I just tried to clarify what my post was about on the quote.

I would never criticise Google or anyone for whatever matter in public. All I was saying to @nicholasgasper was that blindly insisting others to follow Google or what is written in the dictionaries, and claiming others as wrong for not following, are not rational or logical argument, and it is not philosophical.

I agree with you against 'blindly insisting others to follow'. I could gladly criticise Google as I am sure that 's/he' could not be distraught through personal attacks. I use Google, as a basic guide but I do think people are beginning to look to this resource engine almost as an 'expert'. Some of the information put on the web is so much better than other bits. I am not referring to people on this site particularly, but I think that there is some danger of people looking for information on Google and seeing it as a reliable because it is on the internet. I 'believe' in the importance of critical thinking as a stepping stone for belief, rather than the fuzziness of bombardment of information and the loss of personal voice amidst it all.

I would criticise Google, if there were any point for doing so, but they are just too big to be worried about my criticism :D so I feel it wouldn't be much of a point.

I too, use Google a lot for quick search of information, and it is handy.  Who wouldn't use Google these days?  It is massive, and sure it has most of the information people are after.  But as you say, there are good and accurate information, but also poor / wrong information too. So one has to be selective for the information that comes up there.

But in Philosophical discussion, we want to debate with our own reason, knowledge and beliefs on the topics.  It is perfectly good and useful to quote Google or Wiki if they are relevant in the flow of the discussions. No problem with that.

What we don't want is, getting told that Google said this, and the dictionary said that, so there you are, the answers are there.  Accept it or you are wrong. 

"You must follow as told by Google, or the dictionaries says such as such, so it must be universal law and usage. Not accepting them is wrong. You are not following, and not accepting as told by Google or written in the dictionaries, therefore you are wrong."

I don't see any rational or logical argument from those statements. — Corvus

Well, that quote is not from me. This is what you said:

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning. — Corvus

That appears to be your judgment, and it is not arguing a point made in the former argument. However, based on what you said an argument may be futile? Google for sure is not the word of God. However, google is common knowledge and that means are there legitimate reasons for working with that information.

Democracy is rule by reason and a search for truth. When we are not in agreement with common knowledge it is our duty to argue why we do not agree with the common knowledge and do our best to persuade others to accept our better reasoning.

Stating that you quickly scanned something before making your judgment, destroys your credibility because that means you did think about what was said. You merely reacted. 90% of the time we are reacting to each other without making the effort of truly thinking about something. I think it is important we know the difference.

The post I was reading was not much different from the previous post to that, to me, so there was no point reading and rereading with attentive focus.   If you are a philosopher, then you not only have a rational mind of course, but also sharp intuition which you can use for fast scanning meaningless text for quick rejection, so that you are not wasting your valuable time.

The post I was reading was not much different from the previous post to that, to me, so there was no point reading and rereading with attentive focus.   If you are a philosopher, then you not only have a rational mind of course, but also sharp intuition which you can use for fast scanning meaningless text for quick rejection, so that you are not wasting your valuable time. — Corvus

The point of reading with attentive focus is constructing the argument, which is totally different from telling someone his/her faults.

Sharp intuition? I don't think we should confuse a reaction with reasoning. They are not the same and Trump is not a God. Look we have a problem with what we believe about thinking. A reaction is not thinking. An intuitive thought should not be trusted until it is tested. What I am saying has serious political ramifications and this is essential to understanding democracy. If we are not pondering the thoughts of others and our own, we are not thinking. Here is an explanation of the difference between reacting and thinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

Whatever content your post was, I feel that you were trying to offer me some advice.  I am not going to try to argue with it.  Whatever advice it was, I think it was out of care and good will, so I will say Thank you for that.

But for your comment on Trump, politics and democracy, I honestly have no knowledge at all on these matters, I am afraid.  So from your comment on these matters, I only notice that you are in the USA somewhere, and your interest in Philosophy is Politics and Democracy matters.

I have been to the USA a few times in the past about 20 year ago, and it was only for vacations to Florida state, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Key West. I liked it at the time.

But I do believe that the USA has gone through many changes since then, it is now in a totally different situation from that time.  All I can say is, that I hope all goes well, and things will get better for you and your country.

Whatever content your post was, I feel that you were trying to offer me some advice.  I am not going to try to argue with it.  Whatever advice it was, I think it was out of care and good will, so I will say Thank you for that.

But for your comment on Trump, politics and democracy, I honestly have no knowledge at all on these matters, I am afraid.  So from your comment on these matters, I only notice that you are in the USA somewhere, and your interest in Philosophy is Politics and Democracy matters.

I have been to the USA a few times in the past about 20 year ago, and it was only for vacations to Florida state, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Key West. I liked it at the time.

But I do believe that the USA has gone through many changes since then, it is now in a totally different situation from that time.  All I can say is, that I hope all goes well, and things will get better for you and your country. — Corvus

I am on kind of a campaign to spread Daniel Kahneman's explanation of thinking, but you appear to be Asian? Through this forum, I came across information about a fundamental difference in languages and how we process information. Perhaps Daniel Kahneman's research does not apply equally to all cultures. This would make a great research project for someone interested in such things.

You are lucky to not be as affected by Trump worshipping as we are in the US. Daniel Kahneman gives a good explanation of this phenomenon. What is happening in the US has everything to do with belief and blindly following the leaders to this belief system or that belief system. This was not always so and I think the education change in 1958 has social, economic, and political ramifications. We stopped educating for independent thinking and democratic principles. But there are also other serious changes! The common person is losing hope of owning a home and having the standard of living we all assumed was our right. We have become much more dependent on the government, and have diminished the importance of family. We have water shortages, and wildfires, and destructive weather events and it is impossible to deny things are not as we believed them to be 50 years ago. Our faith has been shattered and we are scared.

I watched an explanation of why alternative energy is not going to save us. I was horrified to learn that some places in the US are burning trees to produce electricity. That is insane! Such grossly stupid decisions made by people at the top of industry and government have destroyed our faith in government and our leaders. I don't think this is what Jack had in mind when he opened this thread, but it is urgent that we question our immediate reality and if we are doomed to destroy life as we have known it in our modern civilizations? I don't think we can continue to believe future generations will have a good life.

I think that your point about destroying life is important and I could be tempted to start a thread about destruction, but won't do so for now, as there are several addressing the climate and environmental concerns.

So, I am thinking of how it connects to the nature of belief. What may be important is how there is often a consensus of belief maintained by those in power. Many people do not question authority and may be lulled into a security that the leaders know what they are doing. So, the issue may be about blind belief.

"Belief" is said to be the Key in affecting change. Epistemology is essential. U ask about belief, so I encourage one to take some time to look at "believe".... to "be alive", is just one take on it, but explains the Force of that which is non-forceful.

I think that your reply captures the way in which sentience is an essential part of belief. It is not as if knowledge is some abstract aspect 'out there', because as human beings the way people search for meaning in the form of belief is an essential part of living existentially.