What is Belief?

[Age]

You need to believe on something in order to get somewhere.

If you changed just one letter bahman, then that IS the absolute Truth.

How about this: One needs to believe on something in order to get somewhere.

The word 'you' need not have been changed and could have been kept. I wrote one 'letter', not word.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..
You are trying to get me to say that I believe some thing.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Whether you say it or not, deny it, express it otherwise, you cannot run away from a state of belief [defined in the OP] representing what is going inside your brain resulting in the statements you posted above.

The inference that you are believing and have beliefs are inferred from in the statements you posted above.

Note these statements of beliefs;

viewtopic.php?p=388561#p388561

You are NOT now understanding at all, AND, you, obviously, are NOT even TRYING TO understand.

But what you are TRYING to do, IS obvious.

Re the above statements you made to Logik, there is no way you KNOW precisely what is going on in Logik's mind until he confirms the points.
Thus the above statements are merely your beliefs [as defined] regardless what name or expression you want to describe them.

[Logik]

veritas you can BELIEVE all you want that I have a BELIEF. I really do NOT care. I have just asked you to provide any example of what you say I BELIEVE, You have yet to provide any example, proof, nor evidence for what YOU BELIEVE is the truth.

But your words provide the evidence.

You keep making claims about other peoples' state of mind. You are either a mind reader or you are making inferences based on the content of their sentences.

Any positive claims about reality is what we colloquially call belief. You have reached a conclusion about my state of mind. This is evidence for belief.

How is it possible that you neither believe nor disbelieve any thing yet you say that I don't understand. Who/what thinks that I don't understand?

[Age]

..
You are trying to get me to say that I believe some thing.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Whether you say it or not, deny it, express it otherwise, you cannot run away from a state of belief [defined in the OP] representing what is going inside your brain resulting in the statements you posted above.

That is YOUR 'definition' of BELIEF, which comes from that BRAIN, within that head. That brain only INTERPRETS. The interpretations AND definitions from that brain are NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct. Unless of course you think you are 100% SURE you KNOW it ALL.

OBVIOUSLY, the one named veritas will MAKE UP definitions of words and phrases that TRY TO fit in with the BELIEFS that are already held and stored within that brain.

The definition in the opening post is NOT necessarily CORRECT.

The TITLE of this thread IS: What is Belief? (with a question mark). Only a closed person would ask a question, then TELL "others" what the answer IS.

Do you KNOW what the difference could be between A VIEW and A BELIEF?

Work that out and then you might understand HOW I do NOT have a BELIEF, but rather I have a VIEW.

The difference between A VIEW and A BELIEF is one is NOT open to any thing opposing, whereas, one can be Truly OPEN and ANY and EVERY thing. I will let you imagine which one is which.

The inference that you are believing and have beliefs are inferred from in the statements you posted above.

You CAN infer any thing you like, veritas, from absolutely any thing you like. This is what is called and KNOWN as INTERPRETING.

Are you aware that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS could be WRONG?

Note these statements of beliefs;

When will LEARN to STOP assuming you KNOW what is happening within "ANOTHER" brain?

You can NOT successfully KNOW nor TELL what is actually happening in another brain. In fact the TRUTH is you can NOT successfully KNOW, for SURE, nor TELL, 100%, what is happening outside of that brain.

viewtopic.php?p=388561#p388561

You are NOT now understanding at all, AND, you, obviously, are NOT even TRYING TO understand.

But what you are TRYING to do, IS obvious.

Re the above statements you made to Logik, there is no way you KNOW precisely what is going on in Logik's mind until he confirms the points.

1. logik does NOT have a mind.
2. I NEVER even suggested that I KNOW precisely what is going on in that brain, known as logik.
3. I have even stipulated what you are saying here. So, you are, once again, LATE. I have already made this point clear.

By the way, you state: that I can NOT KNOW precisely what is going on in another's brain, until they confirm it. YET, you, veritas, are the ONE who is INSISTING that you KNOW that I am BELIEVING, even AFTER I CONFIRM that I am NOT.

The ABSOLUTE and TOTAL contradictory nature of YOU, VERITAS, is partly because of your ASSUMPTIONS but mostly because of those BELIEFS that you so DEARLY love and can NOT let go of.

You may NOT be aware of what you are doing, which is will be becoming more and more clearly obvious to others. But telling me that I can NOT KNOW what others are doing until they confirm but insisting you can KNOW what I am doing even when I am continually telling you otherwise, is beyond reprehension.

Thus the above statements are merely your beliefs [as defined] regardless what name or expression you want to describe them.

So, in your little "world', veritas, different words can have the exact same meaning and as long as they all fit in with your OWN BELIEFS, then you will NOT even look at nor consider any thing else at all.

As I suggest earlier: you, veritas, can BELIEVE whatever you like. I really do NOT care.

[Logik]

1. logik does NOT have a mind.

What now?

[Logik]

That is YOUR 'definition' of BELIEF, which comes from that BRAIN, within that head. That brain only INTERPRETS. The interpretations AND definitions from that brain are NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct. Unless of course you think you are 100% SURE you KNOW it ALL.

That is the human definition of belief. Since we all experience the world in the same manner, and we all have incomplete knowledge we probably interpret things similarly.

To say that anyone's interpretation is "true, right and correct" is to claim you have superpowers that the rest of us don't.

We don't believe you

[bahman]

If you changed just one letter bahman, then that IS the absolute Truth.

How about this: One needs to believe on something in order to get somewhere.

The word 'you' need not have been changed and could have been kept. I wrote one 'letter', not word.

LoL. Stupid of of me. You need to believe in something in order to get somewhere.

[Age]

1. logik does NOT have a mind.

What now?

Neither does anyone else.

[Age]

That is YOUR 'definition' of BELIEF, which comes from that BRAIN, within that head. That brain only INTERPRETS. The interpretations AND definitions from that brain are NOT necessarily true, right, nor correct. Unless of course you think you are 100% SURE you KNOW it ALL.

That is the human definition of belief.

What is the human definition of 'belief'?

Are you suggesting that the multiple definitions of 'belief' in the opening post is THE human definition, then what are ALL of the many other definitions, which are devised up by human beings also?

Are these other ones redundant because they do NOT fit to your and/or veritas's BELIEFS?

Since we all experience the world in the same manner,

Do we???

Are you absolutely sure of this?

Have you never considered that some people may love and enjoy some experiences while others may hate and detest the EXACT SAME experience?

Or, do you just BELIEVE that ALL human beings experience the world in the same manner, and therefore that IS the way it is?

and we all have incomplete knowledge we probably interpret things similarly.

You are right in that human beings individually have incomplete knowledge. BUT you just have to look in two different dictionaries to KNOW that human beings do NOT always interpret things similarly. Also, if I asked, "Do you really want to 'argue' this point with Me?" Just two people can have two completely opposing interpretations, which obviously is nowhere even being close to being similar. And, therefore just a "Yes" and "No" answer can be interpreted in four different ways and two very opposing ways.

If anything can be interpreted differently, then clarification is NEEDED.

How many words can NOT be interpreted differently.

To say that anyone's interpretation is "true, right and correct" is to claim you have superpowers that the rest of us don't.

What???

We don't believe you

What do you THINK I said that you/'we' , whoever that is, do NOT believe?

When, and IF, you answer my question for clarification, then what might be discovered is that you/they just MISINTERPRETED what I actually did say/mean

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. logik does NOT have a mind.
2. I NEVER even suggested that I KNOW precisely what is going on in that brain, known as logik.
3. I have even stipulated what you are saying here. So, you are, once again, LATE. I have already made this point clear.

By the way, you state: that I can NOT KNOW precisely what is going on in another's brain, until they confirm it. YET, you, veritas, are the ONE who is INSISTING that you KNOW that I am BELIEVING, even AFTER I CONFIRM that I am NOT.

The ABSOLUTE and TOTAL contradictory nature of YOU, VERITAS, is partly because of your ASSUMPTIONS but mostly because of those BELIEFS that you so DEARLY love and can NOT let go of.

You may NOT be aware of what you are doing, which is will be becoming more and more clearly obvious to others. But telling me that I can NOT KNOW what others are doing until they confirm but insisting you can KNOW what I am doing even when I am continually telling you otherwise, is beyond reprehension.

Thus the above statements are merely your beliefs [as defined] regardless what name or expression you want to describe them.

So, in your little "world', veritas, different words can have the exact same meaning and as long as they all fit in with your OWN BELIEFS, then you will NOT even look at nor consider any thing else at all.

As I suggest earlier: you, veritas, can BELIEVE whatever you like. I really do NOT care.

I know that you are believing as follows'

• All human beings are evolved with the faculty to believe.
  Age is a human being
  Therefore Age has a faculty to believe, i.e. has beliefs

Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs. Exception is for those who has damage to their faculty of believing in the brain.

I noted you imply you are not a human being, therefore the above syllogism do not apply to you. This belief that you are not a human being is false and delusional.

Btw, can you confirm you are not a human being?

Re your use of 'view' instead of 'belief' that is just being shifty.
'View' is related more significantly to sight and visual matters but the point is, the basis of a view nevertheless is still belief [the specific mental activity].

Analogy: You may like to use the term 'hard-on' 'boner' and the likes, but the proper term for human beings is basically an "erection" that is represented by empirical evidence of physical and mental activity.

You are crazy and delusional in trying to out-define the conventional and philosophical definition of 'what is belief' e.g

Dictionaries:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Notable Philosophical Encyclopedia;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/beli-aim/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/belief

[Age]

1. logik does NOT have a mind.
2. I NEVER even suggested that I KNOW precisely what is going on in that brain, known as logik.
3. I have even stipulated what you are saying here. So, you are, once again, LATE. I have already made this point clear.

By the way, you state: that I can NOT KNOW precisely what is going on in another's brain, until they confirm it. YET, you, veritas, are the ONE who is INSISTING that you KNOW that I am BELIEVING, even AFTER I CONFIRM that I am NOT.

The ABSOLUTE and TOTAL contradictory nature of YOU, VERITAS, is partly because of your ASSUMPTIONS but mostly because of those BELIEFS that you so DEARLY love and can NOT let go of.

You may NOT be aware of what you are doing, which is will be becoming more and more clearly obvious to others. But telling me that I can NOT KNOW what others are doing until they confirm but insisting you can KNOW what I am doing even when I am continually telling you otherwise, is beyond reprehension.

Thus the above statements are merely your beliefs [as defined] regardless what name or expression you want to describe them.

So, in your little "world', veritas, different words can have the exact same meaning and as long as they all fit in with your OWN BELIEFS, then you will NOT even look at nor consider any thing else at all.

As I suggest earlier: you, veritas, can BELIEVE whatever you like. I really do NOT care.

I know that you are believing as follows'

So, do you still insist that I can NOT know what others think, know, nor believe, but you, veritas, on the other hand, CAN KNOW what I am, SUPPOSEDLY, believing?

I await your answer.

• All human beings are evolved with the faculty to believe.
  Age is a human being
  Therefore Age has a faculty to believe, i.e. has beliefs

You, veritas, are WRONG. Full stop.

Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs. Exception is for those who has damage to their faculty of believing in the brain.

At what age does a human being start believing and having beliefs?

I noted you imply you are not a human being,

WHERE and WHEN did you "note" this?

WHAT gave you this "idea"?

IF I implied that I am not a human being, then what did I, supposedly, imply I was. At once stage throughout our discussions, if I recall correctly, you had me as an alien, as God, and maybe something else also. At the moment, what do you ASSUME that I am implying I am now?

therefore the above syllogism do not apply to you.

If that is what you have concluded and now BELIEVE, then I will totally disregard the above syllogism.

This belief that you are not a human being is false and delusional.

Is it?

Btw, can you confirm you are not a human being?

Obviously I could NOT confirm THAT what you say is FALSE and DELUSIONAL, for two reasons:
1. It is, supposedly, FALSE and DELUSIONAL, therefore NOT able to be confirmed.
2. It is just YOUR ASSUMPTION, therefore NOT necessarily correct anyway.

Re your use of 'view' instead of 'belief' that is just being shifty.

Are they two different words, with two different definitions? Or, does the exact same definition apply for both words?

'View' is related more significantly to sight and visual matters but the point is, the basis of a view nevertheless is still belief [the specific mental activity].

You really do write very contradictory. The first half of your sentence you are strongly suggesting and fighting that 'view' is related to the physical eyes, then, in the exact same sentence, you strongly suggest and are fighting that the basis of this 'thing' that was second ago related to sight and vision is, nevertheless, a belief.

You really would be better off just choosing one position and fighting solely for that, instead of trying to look for absolutely any thing that you can try to use to back and support your BELIEFS. You really are do not doing yourself any favors here.

Analogy: You may like to use the term 'hard-on' 'boner' and the likes, but the proper term for human beings is basically an "erection" that is represented by empirical evidence of physical and mental activity.

'Proper' relative to who/what?

What does, "the proper term for human beings is BASICALLY an "erection", actually mean?

What an actual 'term' is has NO real being on; empirical evidence of physical and mental activity, so using the latter part of the sentence was completely unnecessary, and, obviously, just another attempt of yours to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Besides that, talking about 'hard-ons', 'boners', 'erections', and the likes has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in relation to one having a 'view' of some thing and another one having a 'belief' of the same thing or of some thing else.

You are crazy and delusional in trying to out-define the conventional and philosophical definition of 'what is belief' e.g

I know, you have told me countless times that it is I who is crazy and delusional. I accept, and agree with you, that you BELIEVE that I am crazy and delusional. And, as I stated previously; it is of NO real concern to me.

Also, if you have a view, think, and/or believe that I am trying to "out-define" any thing, then just how crazy and delusional you might actually be, we will just have to wait and see.

How is it even possible to ' "out"-define ' some thing?

Dictionaries:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Notable Philosophical Encyclopedia;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/beli-aim/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/belief

None of this has any thing to do with what I am talking about in relation to WHY I neither believe nor disbelieve some thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs. Exception is for those who has damage to their faculty of believing in the brain.

At what age does a human being start believing and having beliefs?

Besides that, talking about 'hard-ons', 'boners', 'erections', and the likes has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in relation to one having a 'view' of some thing and another one having a 'belief' of the same thing or of some thing else.

Dictionaries:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Notable Philosophical Encyclopedia;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/beli-aim/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/belief

None of this has any thing to do with what I am talking about in relation to WHY I neither believe nor disbelieve some thing.

I had stated,

• Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs.

It is the same as the general statement, "all humans are sexual beings."
Relatedly, it would be stupid if one were to ask,

"At what age does a human being start to be sexual [believing] and having sexual thoughts/impulses [beliefs]?"

The fact is the sexual potential is inherent within all human DNA. An abnormal person may have damaged sexual neural circuits or one may be able to suppress his sexual urges but no human can escape from this sexual potential embedded within the DNA and expressed within the body and mind.

I have asked you for references to any others who support your beliefs, i.e. that you [or anyone who] do not have any beliefs. You have not given any supporting evidences.
I BELIEVE you are talking nonsense. Thus I don't want to waste my time on this thread of discussion.

I suspect you are like those in the neo-advaita camp who believed there is no-I. Since no-I thus no I-who-believe thus no-beliefs for you. Such dogmatic beliefs are delusional.

[Age]

Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs. Exception is for those who has damage to their faculty of believing in the brain.

At what age does a human being start believing and having beliefs?

Besides that, talking about 'hard-ons', 'boners', 'erections', and the likes has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in relation to one having a 'view' of some thing and another one having a 'belief' of the same thing or of some thing else.

Dictionaries:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Notable Philosophical Encyclopedia;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/beli-aim/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/belief

None of this has any thing to do with what I am talking about in relation to WHY I neither believe nor disbelieve some thing.

I had stated,

• Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs.

Does having the faculty of some thing MEAN that one HAS TO do that thing?

It is the same as the general statement, "all humans are sexual beings."
Relatedly, it would be stupid if one were to ask,

"At what age does a human being start to be sexual [believing] and having sexual thoughts/impulses [beliefs]?"

WHY, do you presume it would be stupid to ask this question?

If you answered that question, honestly, then you would have realized that just because a human being might be born with the inherent ability/faculty of some thing does NOT necessarily mean that they HAVE TO do that thing.

You, however, are completely UNABLE to answer the question, therefore you are completely unable to become any wiser, regarding this issue.

The fact is the sexual potential is inherent within all human DNA.

What does the 'sexual potential' actually mean?

Are you talking about the 'sexual potential' of being male/female? Are you talking about the 'sexual potential' to reproduce? Are you talking about the 'sexual potential' to be homosexual, heterosexual, or some other 'sexual potential' thing?

An abnormal person may have damaged sexual neural circuits or one may be able to suppress his sexual urges but no human can escape from this sexual potential embedded within the DNA and expressed within the body and mind.

WHAT???

In just one sentence you say that one may be able to suppress their sexual urges but they can NOT escape their 'sexual potential'. You really do have explain what 'sexual potential' IS. And, HOW would you KNOW what the 'sexual potential' IS of another person if they CAN suppress their sexual urges?

Also, if you are TRYING TO argue that the 'sexual potential' is inherent in ALL human beings like the 'faculty of believing' IS inherent, and if one can suppress their sexual urges, then you would also have to admit that one can suppress their, supposed, "urge" to believe also.

Just having the faculty, or ability, to BELIEVE does NOT mean that one must then BELIEVE.

I have asked you for references to any others who support your beliefs, i.e. that you [or anyone who] do not have any beliefs. You have not given any supporting evidences.

If this is WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, then provide a link to WHERE you have, supposedly, done this. WHERE did you ask for these type of references?

I wonder how long we will have to wait for this?

Also, HOW many times do I have to tell you that I DO NOT HAVE BELIEFS, therefore WHY would you even ask for references to "any others" who support my "beliefs"? You, veritas, really do say the most stupid of things. I say I do NOT have beliefs, therefore it would be totally absurd to ask Me for references for my beliefs.

You also asked for references to "others" who support Me that I do NOT have beliefs. I do NOT need support from so called "others". My words speak for themselves. And, if you remember correctly it is YOU who said that I do have beliefs, and it was 'I' who asked YOU to prove this. You have NOT, yet, been able to support what you claim, and BELIEVE.

I BELIEVE you are talking nonsense.

Of course you would BELIEVE I am talking nonsense. This is OBVIOUS. That is because you BELIEVE that it is impossible NOT to believe.

Thus I don't want to waste my time on this thread of discussion.

That is it, just give up.

I suspect you are like those in the neo-advaita camp who believed there is no-I. Since no-I thus no I-who-believe thus no-beliefs for you. Such dogmatic beliefs are delusional.

You have used this 'delusional' word many times already in reference to Me. I accept and agree that this is YOUR BELIEF.

You are FREE to suspect and BELIEVE absolutely any thing you like.

As I have suggested earlier the MORE you BELIEVE the BETTER it is for Me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had stated,

• Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs.

Does having the faculty of some thing MEAN that one HAS TO do that thing?

Can you stop having to breathe?
Whilst believing is not part of the autonomic system we share with primates and most animals, believing is an imperative impulse for being human.

The faculty of believing comes in a range from basic subliminal believing to deliberate believing.

You may be able to disbelieve in Satanism [& other propositions within your discretion], but you cannot avoid having the subliminal belief 'you will wake up tomorrow' when challenged except when you are asleep, in a coma, etc.
The basic point is whatever 'truth' you hold, they are at fundamentally 'beliefs', i.e. assumed truths. Such beliefs will become knowledge if they are justified and agreed with consensus by a group of people.

Thus ..
Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs.

[Age]

I had stated,

• Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs.

Does having the faculty of some thing MEAN that one HAS TO do that thing?

Can you stop having to breathe?

Not if I want this body to keep pumping blood.

But I CAN very easily stop breathing, if I so choose to do so.

This body might also have the faculty to produce babies, but does that necessitate that I HAVE TO produce babies? For a body to have the faculty of some thing does NOT necessarily mean that the person HAS TO DO that thing. I can very easily choose to stop HAVING TO produce babies as easily as I can choose to stop HAVING TO breathe, which is just as easily as choosing to stop HAVING TO believe.

Whilst believing is not part of the autonomic system we share with primates and most animals, believing is an imperative impulse for being human.

'I' do NOT believe any thing, therefore what does that make 'Me'?

'you' can take that any way you like.

Also, HOW is BELIEVING, supposedly, imperative? I am living and I do NOT believe any thing. Human babies are also born AND LIVE do they BELIEVE any thing? When you, human beings, first came into existence did you BELIEVE things? If yes, then what did they BELIEVE?

The faculty of believing comes in a range from basic subliminal believing to deliberate believing.

Way to go, captain obvious.

But HOW does this SHOW that believing is imperative for human beings, ONLY?

You may be able to disbelieve in Satanism [& other propositions within your discretion], but you cannot avoid having the subliminal belief 'you will wake up tomorrow' when challenged except when you are asleep, in a coma, etc.

What??? I have absolutely NO IDEA if i will wake up "tomorrow", or not. Even if i was pretty sure that i would, i would still NOT believe it. For if i did, then i would NOT be OPEN to any thing contrary.

I much prefer to be OPEN to ALL things, then to believe or disbelieve ANY thing.

The basic point is whatever 'truth' you hold, they are at fundamentally 'beliefs', i.e. assumed truths.

But do i hold any 'truth' or any 'assumed truth'? If you say I do, then write them down here for ALL to see.

I, for One, would be very much interested in SEEING what I, supposedly, hold as 'truth' or 'assumed truth'.

Such beliefs will become knowledge if they are justified and agreed with consensus by a group of people.

Will they?

Is this what WILL happen for CERTAIN?

And what is the, apparent, consensus size of a group of people, BEFORE "beliefs" WILL become 'knowledge'?

Do you have any examples of WHEN 'beliefs' became knowledge AFTER the 'beliefs' are "justified" and agreed with?

Surely there would be millions of examples that you could provide, considering just how much knowledge human beings have and hold.

Maybe if you provide some examples then we could LOOK AT them for what they really ARE, and discuss this, so called, "basic point" here.

Thus ..
Whether you like it or not, you are a human being and thus has a 'faculty of believing' and has beliefs.

If that is what you choose to BELIEVE, then you are free to do so.

And, since it is YOUR BELIEF, it could NOT possibly be any thing other than being ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, am I Right?

To you, YOUR "argument" is absolutely sound and valid, with the conclusion being the one and only ABSOLUTE Truth, am I also RIGHT?