What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?

[Skepdick]

Most human beings I know know what they think/believe, but you, for reasons only you could possibly explain do not have the capability to know what you believe in. Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

I don't believe you! Lets do an experiment.

You know what an elephant is.
I know what an elephant is.

These things

Do you believe in elephants?

Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

False dichotomy. There is a 3rd option: I don't know if I believe in some thing.

I don't know if I believe in elephants. And you can't tell me how to find out, so I guess I'll just have to accept I may never know.

[Age]

Most human beings I know know what they think/believe, but you, for reasons only you could possibly explain do not have the capability to know what you believe in. Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

I don't believe you! Lets do an experiment.

You know what an elephant is.
I know what an elephant is.

These things

Do you believe in elephants?

As I have said previously a series of clarifying questions are sometimes needed to find out what thee actual Truth of things is.

What do you mean by 'believe in'?

Also, if you have read my previous writings, then you would already KNOW my answer to your question here.

Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

False dichotomy. There is a 3rd option: I don't know if I believe in some thing.[/quote]

Oh yeah I forgot about 'you'. So, if you absolutely Truly Honest, then I was absolutely Truly WRONG here.

I don't know if I believe in elephants.

Do you know what 'believe in' means?

And you can't tell me how to find out, so I guess I'll just have to accept I may never know.

If you believe that I can not tell you how to find out, then that is what it IS, to you.

[Age]

That IS my point. I am simply stating that the 'divine' God pre-formulated this evidence - that we WOULD (atheists included) comprehend HOW an ALL knowing being could exist - via technology.

I have also alluded to this previously, but you have sometimes misconstrued my words and perceived that I was saying and meaning other things, which I was not.

[Skepdick]

What do you mean by 'believe in'?

Are you even hearing a word of what I am saying?

That's literally the question I am asking you!

What does it mean to "believe in" something?

Do you "believe in" elephants, because I don't know if I do!

Also, if you have read my previous writings, then you would already KNOW my answer to your question here.

I don't know the answer! That's why I am asking you what it means "to believe" in something.

Oh yeah I forgot about 'you'. So, if you absolutely Truly Honest, then I was absolutely Truly WRONG here.

Yes, you are WRONG here. But your error isn't important, and we don't have to correct this error right now, because it's getting us further away from the actual point.

I don't know if I believe in elephants. How do I find out?

Do you know what 'believe in' means?

I don't! That's EXACTLY why I am asking!

If you believe that I can not tell you how to find out, then that is what it IS, to you.

How can I "believe" that if I don't know what it means "to believe" ?!?!

[Age]

What do you mean by 'believe in'?

Are you even hearing a word of what I am saying?

That's literally the question I am asking you!

LOL SHOW where you have supposedly "literally" asked me this question.

Let us SEE if you can actually back up and support your claim here.

What does it mean to "believe in" something?

So, what I hear here now is you are not even capable of answering and knowing what you mean when you ask someone else if they 'believe in' some thing.

Do you "believe in" elephants, because I don't know if I do!

If you do not even know what you mean when you ask me this question, and you are totally incapable of clarifying what you mean, then do not expect me to answer it.

Also, have you ever read what I have previously said in relation to what I believe?

Also, if you have read my previous writings, then you would already KNOW my answer to your question here.

I don't know the answer! That's why I am asking you what it means "to believe" in something.

You are way off track now.

If you have read my previous writings, then you would ALREADY KNOW I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

Also, you are not even asked me what it means "to believe" in something.

Oh yeah I forgot about 'you'. So, if you absolutely Truly Honest, then I was absolutely Truly WRONG here.

Yes, you are WRONG here. But your error isn't important, and we don't have to correct this error right now, because it's getting us further away from the actual point.

But I have ALREADY correct MY ERROR.

I don't know if I believe in elephants. How do I find out?

I have already told you, but you do not accept this. So, at the moment, you can NOT find out.

Do you know what 'believe in' means?

I don't! That's EXACTLY why I am asking!

But you NEVER asked this actual question previously, to me.

If you believe that I can not tell you how to find out, then that is what it IS, to you.

How can I "believe" that if I don't know what it means "to believe" ?!?!

So, you do not even know what 'to believe' means as well.

There appears to be quite a lot of things that you do not yet know here, on top of the fact that you do not even know if you believe in some thing or not.

If I was you I would just refrain from ever using the word 'believe' ever again, with anyone. Obviously you using that word is not working for you at all.

[Skepdick]

LOL SHOW where you have supposedly "literally" asked me this question.

Let us SEE if you can actually back up and support your claim here.

It's a figurative use of the word "literally". Try to keep up!

So, what I hear here now is you are not even capable of answering and knowing what you mean when you ask someone else if they 'believe in' some thing.

No! What I mean is that I don't know what YOU are asking of me when you ask if I "believe in" things.

If you do not even know what you mean when you ask me this question, and you are totally incapable of clarifying what you mean, then do not expect me to answer it.

I don't know what the question means! I keep telling you that.
That's why I keep asking you the questions that I am asking you.
So you can teach me what it means to "believe in" things.

Also, have you ever read what I have previously said in relation to what I believe?

I have read it. It doesn't make any sense to me, because I don't know what the word "believe" means.

If you have read my previous writings, then you would ALREADY KNOW I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I have read your previous writing, but your previous writing contradict what you said here:

Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

Oh yeah I forgot about 'you'. So, if you absolutely Truly Honest, then I was absolutely Truly WRONG here.

If you neither believe nor disbelieve in elephants, then you didn't just forget about me, you forgot about you too.

But I have ALREADY correct MY ERROR.

OK, but why are you telling me that?

I have already told you, but you do not accept this. So, at the moment, you can NOT find out.

You told me to ask the question "Do I believe in elephants?" but I can't answer the question. if I don't know what it means "to believe" in things.

And you haven't told me yet.

But you NEVER asked this actual question previously, to me.

I didn't know you wanted me to ask you that EXACT question.

If that's the exact question you wanted me to ask you, why didn't you say so?

So, you do not even know what 'to believe' means as well.

Exactly.

If I was you I would just refrain from ever using the word 'believe' ever again, with anyone. Obviously you using that word is not working for you at all.

I am not using the word. Other people are. They keep asking me if I "believe in" stuff. I don't know what to tell them.

[Age]

LOL SHOW where you have supposedly "literally" asked me this question.

Let us SEE if you can actually back up and support your claim here.

It's a figurative use of the word "literally". Try to keep up!

We are in a philosophy forum. Either speak thee Truth, or shut up. Try this!

So, what I hear here now is you are not even capable of answering and knowing what you mean when you ask someone else if they 'believe in' some thing.

No! What I mean is that I don't know what YOU are asking of me when you ask if I "believe in" things.

But you just asked me if I believe in some things, and yet when I asked you to clarify what you actually mean when you say 'believe in', you were not even capable of answering and clarifying this. You even announced that you do not even know what it means. So, why did you say, "No" here now?

It was ALREADY OBVIOUSLY CLEAR that you do NOT know what I am asking of you when I asked you, a relatively long time ago now, if you 'believe in' some things, like God. You have made it absolutely crystal CLEAR that you do NOT know what it means. So, you did NOT have to re-repeat this again now, and you do NOT have to re-repeat this again another time.

If you do not even know what you mean when you ask me this question, and you are totally incapable of clarifying what you mean, then do not expect me to answer it.

I don't know what the question means! I keep telling you that.

I KNEW this a few posts back ALREADY.

That's why I keep asking you the questions that I am asking you.

But you are not really asking me questions, well not from a completely OPEN perspective anyway. You are just posing your statements as questions.

So you can teach me what it means to "believe in" things.

But you have already informed us that you are NOT even capable of learning this.

Also, have you ever read what I have previously said in relation to what I believe?

I have read it. It doesn't make any sense to me, because I don't know what the word "believe" means.

Have you heard of a dictionary?

If you have read my previous writings, then you would ALREADY KNOW I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I have read your previous writing, but your previous writing contradict what you said here:

Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

Why does this supposedly contradict what I have previous written?

Oh yeah I forgot about 'you'. So, if you absolutely Truly Honest, then I was absolutely Truly WRONG here.

If you neither believe nor disbelieve in elephants, then you didn't just forget about me, you forgot about you too.

This does not contradict what I have previous written and said at all.

And, I did not forget about me either.

I do not believe in elephants, so saying; either you believe in some thing or you do not does not forget about me at all. That only forgot about you.

Unless you are seeing something that I am not, and if you are, then would you like to explain what that is?

See, I am on the I do not believe in elephants side, of the saying; either you believe in some thing or you do not. Are you able to see and understand this?

Also, to me, the saying; Do you "believe in elephants" does not actually mean anything at all. So, I wondered why you would ask such a question. And, considering you are not capable of clarifying what that would actually mean, then you asking that still remains meaning nothing at all.

But I have ALREADY correct MY ERROR.

OK, but why are you telling me that?

Because you said; "we don't have to correct this error right now".

Seeing that I had ALREADY corrected my ERROR there was no use in you saying what you had here.

I was just pointing out that my error had already been corrected, that is all.

I have already told you, but you do not accept this. So, at the moment, you can NOT find out.

You told me to ask the question "Do I believe in elephants?" but I can't answer the question if I don't know what it means "to believe" in things.

I NEVER said nor asked any such thing at all. It was you who asked such a question.

I told you to ask in relation to God?

And you haven't told me yet.

And I am not going to tell you.

But you NEVER asked this actual question previously, to me.

I didn't know you wanted me to ask you that EXACT question.

But I NEVER wanted you to ask me that exact actual question. You were the one who said you did ask me that exact actual question, when thee actual Truth IS you NEVER did.

If that's the exact question you wanted me to ask you, why didn't you say so?

You are going WAY OFF TRACK now.

So, you do not even know what 'to believe' means as well.

Exactly.

If I was you I would just refrain from ever using the word 'believe' ever again, with anyone. Obviously you using that word is not working for you at all.

I am not using the word. Other people are. They keep asking me if I "believe in" stuff. I don't know what to tell them.

Okay.

But I just started to reply to you here after you wrote; Neither my belief nor my change in belief is testable, let alone falsifiable. I hope we are finished in this regard now.

If other people keep asking you if you "believe in" stuff, and you have absolutely NO knowledge whatsoever of what to tell them, then so be it.

[Skepdick]

We are in a philosophy forum. Either speak thee Truth, or shut up. Try this!

Why didn't you "shut up" when you weren't speaking the Truth?

But you just asked me if I believe in some things, and yet when I asked you to clarify what you actually mean when you say 'believe in', you were not even capable of answering and clarifying this. You even announced that you do not even know what it means. So, why did you say, "No" here now?

It seems you are misunderstanding me.

I gave you a particular example of a thing that we both know about (an elephant).
Then I asked you whether you believe in elephants.

You keep saying that you "neither believe nor disbelieve" in things, so I figured you know what it means "to believe"; as well as "to disbelieve" in an elephant.

Do you know what it means "to believe" in things or not?

It was ALREADY OBVIOUSLY CLEAR that you do NOT know what I am asking of you when I asked you, a relatively long time ago now, if you 'believe in' some things, like God. You have made it absolutely crystal CLEAR that you do NOT know what it means. So, you did NOT have to re-repeat this again now, and you do NOT have to re-repeat this again another time.

Then I don't understand what is unclear to you when I ask you the question: "How do I find out whether I believe in elephants?"

But you are not really asking me questions, well not from a completely OPEN perspective anyway. You are just posing your statements as questions.

OK. That's probably my mistake.

Here is the question: Do you know what it means "to believe" in things or not?

But you have already informed us that you are NOT even capable of learning this.

Obviously I am incapable of learning. That's why I am asking you to teach me what it means "to believe".

Once I know what it means "to believe", then I can determine whether I believe in things or not.

Have you heard of a dictionary?

Yes, I have. It's not useful at all.

A dictionary can't even tell me what "meaning" means. How is it going to tell me what it means "to believe"?

Why does this supposedly contradict what I have previous written?

Because you said there are two options, but you have produced a third.

You either believe in elephants or you don't believe in elephants.
But neither believing nor disbelieving in elephants is a 3rd option - your option.
And not even knowing whether I believe in elephants is the 4th option - my option.

This does not contradict what I have previous written and said at all.

It does. Either Age believes in elephants or Age doesn't believe in elephants.

But neither of those are true.

The truth is that Age neither believes in elephants nor disbelieves in Elephants.

I do not believe in elephants, so saying; either you believe in some thing or you do not does not forget about me at all. That only forgot about you.

That's also a contradiction. You said you neither believe nor disbelieve in things.

Why are you now saying that you don't believe in the thing called an elephant?

Unless you are seeing something that I am not, and if you are, then would you like to explain what that is?

I explained it. There is more choice than the false dichotomy you offered.

See, I am on the I do not believe in elephants side, of the saying; either you believe in some thing or you do not. Are you able to see and understand this?

So you are no longer on the "neither believing nor disbelieving in elephants" side?

You are the one who told me not to use words I don't know the meaning of.
What does "believing" and "disbelieving" mean then?

I was just pointing out that my error had already been corrected, that is all.

There was no need to point it out. It wasn't the end-goal of the discussion.

I told you to ask in relation to God?

I can't even answer the question about a concrete thing like an elephant.
How would I answer the question for an abstract idea such as God?

And I am not going to tell you.

Why not?

But I NEVER wanted you to ask me that exact actual question. You were the one who said you did ask me that exact actual question, when thee actual Truth IS you NEVER did.

But I did ask you that exact question. I just used different words.

Exactly.

Then how do you know that you neither believe nor disbelieve in things?

If other people keep asking you if you "believe in" stuff, and you have absolutely NO knowledge whatsoever of what to tell them, then so be it.

OK, but you must have the knowledge. Surely?

You are using the words "believe and disbelieve" - so you must know what they mean.

[attofishpi]

Does this sway you greater than zero?

Mount SIN_AI

Is a picture. It doesn't sway me in either direction.

It's more than a picture! It's the Red Sea to scale. It's Mount Sinai smack between the two fingers of a 'peace'\victory symbol.
SINAI - where the commandments apparently came from - breaks down to SIN
AI could one day be comprehended as ALL KNOWING intelligence.

Still no sway?

Natal - (South America to scale)


Still no sway?

[Age]

We are in a philosophy forum. Either speak thee Truth, or shut up. Try this!

Why didn't you "shut up" when you weren't speaking the Truth?

If you want to accuse me of not speaking the Truth here, then surely you must have some sort of evidence for this, so provide that evidence for your claim here. Otherwise, you are just laying completely false accusations.

But you just asked me if I believe in some things, and yet when I asked you to clarify what you actually mean when you say 'believe in', you were not even capable of answering and clarifying this. You even announced that you do not even know what it means. So, why did you say, "No" here now?

It seems you are misunderstanding me.

I gave you a particular example of a thing that we both know about (an elephant).
Then I asked you whether you believe in elephants.

You keep saying that you "neither believe nor disbelieve" in things, so I figured you know what it means "to believe"; as well as "to disbelieve" in an elephant.

Do you know what it means "to believe" in things or not?

Yes, I do. But obviously it all depends on the 'thing' of course.

But this has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I just said and pointed out here in what you just quoted me. So, as for misunderstanding another. This could be going both ways.

It was ALREADY OBVIOUSLY CLEAR that you do NOT know what I am asking of you when I asked you, a relatively long time ago now, if you 'believe in' some things, like God. You have made it absolutely crystal CLEAR that you do NOT know what it means. So, you did NOT have to re-repeat this again now, and you do NOT have to re-repeat this again another time.

Then I don't understand what is unclear to you when I ask you the question: "How do I find out whether I believe in elephants?"

From my perspective "believing in elephants" is a nonsensical concept. So, are you clear about what is unclear to me now when you you ask me such a non sensible question.

But you are not really asking me questions, well not from a completely OPEN perspective anyway. You are just posing your statements as questions.

OK. That's probably my mistake.

Here is the question: Do you know what it means "to believe" in things or not?

I have a concept, which makes perfect sense to me. But, as I said earlier, it all depends on what things you are actually talking about. Also, this time you quoted the two words 'to believe', while previously you have quoted the two words 'believe in'. So, to me, there would be two different concepts, thus two different explanations.

If, and when, you are absolutely clear about what exactly it is that you are asking me, then I am able to provide answers/clarifications clearly and accurately. But, as what happened last time when you asked me whether I 'believe in' elephants and I asked you what does 'believe in' mean to you, and you could not clarify, then because you are not absolutely clear, yourself, about what exactly it is that you are asking me, I am then also not able to answer/clarify clearly and accurately, for you.

Besides all of this you still do not even know what just the word 'believe' means, so this will make it much harder for you to understand what either 'to believe' means and what 'believe in' means.

But you have already informed us that you are NOT even capable of learning this.

Obviously I am incapable of learning. That's why I am asking you to teach me what it means "to believe".

Did you mean to say 'incapable' here, or 'capable?

Once I know what it means "to believe", then I can determine whether I believe in things or not.

Start by discovering and/or learning what the word 'believe' means first, then it will help you to progress to discovering and/or learning what 'to believe' means, and then you might be able to move up to discovering and/or learning what 'believe in' means as well.

By the way what 'to believe' means differently than 'believe in'. So, even if you ever do discover or learn what it means 'to believe' this does not then necessarily correlate to you being able to determine whether you 'believe in' things, or not.

Have you heard of a dictionary?

Yes, I have. It's not useful at all.

Okay. If you do not find a dictionary to be useful at all in finding what the definitions and/or meanings of words are, then so be it. Other people do find dictionaries very useful for this purpose.

A dictionary can't even tell me what "meaning" means. How is it going to tell me what it means "to believe"?

But the dictionaries I look in tell me what the word 'meaning' means. So, we must be looking in different dictionaries.

Why does this supposedly contradict what I have previous written?

Because you said there are two options, but you have produced a third.

You either believe in elephants or you don't believe in elephants.
But neither believing nor disbelieving in elephants is a 3rd option - your option.

But this supposed "3rd option" is still one of the two options I put forward.

And not even knowing whether I believe in elephants is the 4th option - my option.

But not even knowing whether you believe in any thing is not really another option also.

You do not 'have to' know any thing to know whether you 'believe in' any thing or not. So, either you 'believe in' some thing, or you do not.

This does not contradict what I have previous written and said at all.

It does. Either Age believes in elephants or Age doesn't believe in elephants.

Therefore, I do not believe in elephants.

How could you not see this?

But neither of those are true.

But one is true. The one I just informed you of.

The truth is that Age neither believes in elephants nor disbelieves in Elephants.

Therefore, I do not believe in elephants, which is one of the two options I provided.

Why are you convoluting what is essentially extremely simple and easy?

As I explained in a previous post of the two options I am in the 'I do not believe in elephants' option.

I do not believe in elephants, so saying; either you believe in some thing or you do not does not forget about me at all. That only forgot about you.

That's also a contradiction. You said you neither believe nor disbelieve in things.

So, that means I NEVER 'believe in' in any thing. Therefore, of the two options I am on the 'I do not 'believe in' option.

Why are you now saying that you don't believe in the thing called an elephant?

OBVIOUSLY I have NEVER even remotely suggested ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING like this at all. Let alone said ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING like this at all.

So, why did you detract so far from what I have actually said, and meant, to bring in this ABSOLUTELY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS conclusion?

You can keep 'trying', like you have been, to twist things around to fit in with and suit your absolutely absurd notion that you do not know whether you believe in things or not, but you are NOT going to succeed with me. But, please keep 'trying'. It is fun to watch, and exhilarating to shine a light on.

Unless you are seeing something that I am not, and if you are, then would you like to explain what that is?

I explained it. There is more choice than the false dichotomy you offered.

But I have now already explained who there is no real other options.

See, I am on the I do not believe in elephants side, of the saying; either you believe in some thing or you do not. Are you able to see and understand this?

So you are no longer on the "neither believing nor disbelieving in elephants" side?

Once again you can keep 'trying' to twist and distort what I am saying, and meaning, but, again, it does not work on me.

You are the one who told me not to use words I don't know the meaning of.

I NEVER said any such thing. What I actually said, and meant was:
If I was you I would just refrain from ever using the word 'believe' ever again, with anyone. Obviously you using that word is not working for you at all.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN what I actually said and how you misinterpreted that are two completely different things. I suggest just literally taking what I say literally.

If you do not know what a word means, then I suggest it best to not use that word ,until you do discover and/or learn what it means.

What does "believing" and "disbelieving" mean then?

If you do not find dictionaries useful in gaining what words mean, then I would suggest not go trusting and accepting what people tell you on the internet. So, I will refrain from answering this question, other than I suggest you look in a dictionary or two, and then deciding for your own self.

I was just pointing out that my error had already been corrected, that is all.

There was no need to point it out. It wasn't the end-goal of the discussion.

But when you write things like; "we don't have to correct this error right now", then I feel it necessary to point out to you that the error had ALREADY been corrected anyway. Therefore, what you are saying is TO LATE, ANYWAY.

I told you to ask in relation to God?

I can't even answer the question about a concrete thing like an elephant.
How would I answer the question for an abstract idea such as God?

Are you seriously NOT AWARE that that is all over and done with now? I am just correcting the errors in what you are saying. I am NOT re-repeating it to go over it again.

And I am not going to tell you.

Why not?

Because you have already made it CLEAR that you are incapable of fathoming it. The last time I told you, you inferred that you could not comprehend nor understand. So, there is no use in me telling you.

Just be contend that you, supposedly, have no way of knowing if you believe in things or not.

But I NEVER wanted you to ask me that exact actual question. You were the one who said you did ask me that exact actual question, when thee actual Truth IS you NEVER did.

But I did ask you that exact question. I just used different words.

Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, it was NOT the exact same actual question.

Using different words OBVIOUSLY means that a different question was asked.

Exactly.

Then how do you know that you neither believe nor disbelieve in things?

Through the words I use, which is how I told you that you can test, and verify, if you believe in things or not.

It appears that you are not yet AWARE of the strength of words themselves, nor of how much actual power they have over us?

If other people keep asking you if you "believe in" stuff, and you have absolutely NO knowledge whatsoever of what to tell them, then so be it.

OK, but you must have the knowledge. Surely?

Yes, but you have surely shown that you unable to grasp this knowledge.

You are using the words "believe and disbelieve" - so you must know what they mean.

Yes I do.

[Skepdick]

If you want to accuse me of not speaking the Truth here, then surely you must have some sort of evidence for this, so provide that evidence for your claim here. Otherwise, you are just laying completely false accusations.

The accusations are not false, but this error is not worth correcting.

Yes, I do. But obviously it all depends on the 'thing' of course.

Obviously it depends. Which is why I didn't ask you a general question about 'things' - I asked you a particular question about a particular thing. An elephant.

From my perspective "believing in elephants" is a nonsensical concept.

Believing in elephants is a nonsensical concept in my perspective too!
But then again, not believing in elephants is also a non-sensical concept in my perspective!

The whole notion of "belief" is a non-sensical concept in my perspective.

I have a concept, which makes perfect sense to me. But, as I said earlier, it all depends on what things you are actually talking about. Also, this time you quoted the two words 'to believe', while previously you have quoted the two words 'believe in'. So, to me, there would be two different concepts, thus two different explanations.

There may be nuance between the two concepts, but there surely is a great overlap, since they both share a common root?

If, and when, you are absolutely clear about what exactly it is that you are asking me, then I am able to provide answers/clarifications clearly and accurately. But, as what happened last time when you asked me whether I 'believe in' elephants and I asked you what does 'believe in' mean to you, and you could not clarify, then because you are not absolutely clear, yourself, about what exactly it is that you are asking me, I am then also not able to answer/clarify clearly and accurately, for you.

Well, no wonder you misunderstand!

Me asking you about elephants was tactic towards me figuring out what "believing" and "not believing" means to you.

By now, most people would've understood what it is being asked of them, but maybe you aren't most people, so let me be explicit.

I want you to tell me what you mean when you say that you do not believe in elephants.

Besides all of this you still do not even know what just the word 'believe' means, so this will make it much harder for you to understand what either 'to believe' means and what 'believe in' means.

Not "besides". The purpose of ALL of this (us talking) is for me to figure out what "believing" and "belief" means to you.

I know I that I don't know what it means. I told you that!
You know what it means - that's why I am asking you all of these questions.

Obviously I am incapable of learning. That's why I am asking you to teach me what it means "to believe".

Did you mean to say 'incapable' here, or 'capable?

I actually meant two different things.

1. Presently, I am incapable of learning whether I believe in elephants, because I don't know what it means "to believe" in elephants.
2. In future, I will be capable of learning whether I believe in elephants or not once you teach me what it means "to believe" in things.

Start by discovering and/or learning what the word 'believe' means first

This is not very useful, since I am doing that already! I am talking to somebody who knows what the word 'believe' means. You!

, then it will help you to progress to discovering and/or learning what 'to believe' means, and then you might be able to move up to discovering and/or learning what 'believe in' means as well.

I know all of that!

By the way what 'to believe' means differently than 'believe in'. So, even if you ever do discover or learn what it means 'to believe' this does not then necessarily correlate to you being able to determine whether you 'believe in' things, or not.

We will see.

Okay. If you do not find a dictionary to be useful at all in finding what the definitions and/or meanings of words are, then so be it. Other people do find dictionaries very useful for this purpose.

The dictionary gives me the definition of a word. The dictionary doesn't give me the meaning of a word. It would be ludicrous if it did!

How could the dictionary possibly know what words mean to Age?

But the dictionaries I look in tell me what the word 'meaning' means. So, we must be looking in different dictionaries.

I have another explanation: maybe we mean different things by "meaning"?

But this supposed "3rd option" is still one of the two options I put forward.

That's not how I see it.

But not even knowing whether you believe in any thing is not really another option also.

Of course it is!

You know that you don't believe in elephants.
I know that I don't know if I believe in elephants.

See the difference? I do!

Therefore, I do not believe in elephants.

How could you not see this?

Obviously I see it!

It doesn't explain why you said that you neither believe nor disbelieve in anything, when you clearly don't believe in elephants.

Therefore, I do not believe in elephants, which is one of the two options I provided.

Which one?

Why are you convoluting what is essentially extremely simple and easy?

If it was "simple and easy" we would've figured it out by now. Neither of us is stupid.

As I explained in a previous post of the two options I am in the 'I do not believe in elephants' option.

I heard you. Loud and clear.

So, why did you detract so far from what I have actually said, and meant, to bring in this ABSOLUTELY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS conclusion?

Indeed. We are getting too far away from the point.

The point is this:

You don't believe in elephants.
I don't know whether I believe in elephants or not.

You can keep 'trying', like you have been, to twist things around to fit in with and suit your absolutely absurd notion that you do not know whether you believe in things or not, but you are NOT going to succeed with me. But, please keep 'trying'. It is fun to watch, and exhilarating to shine a light on.

You seem like a very paranoid person. I am giving you way more of my time than necessary to trying to understand what the word "believing" means to you, but you are insinuating that I am being "absurd". It's not very polite.

Once again you can keep 'trying' to twist and distort what I am saying, and meaning, but, again, it does not work on me.

More of your paranoia.

If I was you I would just refrain from ever using the word 'believe' ever again, with anyone. Obviously you using that word is not working for you at all.

Age, you learned the meaning of the word "believe". Obviously you have, because you are using it.
There is no reason why I can't learn the meaning of that word also.

Why can't you teach me the meaning of that word?

If you do not know what a word means, then I suggest it best to not use that word ,until you do discover and/or learn what it means.

Age! Your suggestion is fucking idiotic and condescending. I am NOT using the word. As you can bloody see! I am only mentioning the word.

It's your word. I am trying to learn how to use it.

If you do not find dictionaries useful in gaining what words mean, then I would suggest not go trusting and accepting what people tell you on the internet. So, I will refrain from answering this question, other than I suggest you look in a dictionary or two, and then deciding for your own self.

This is silly. How could the dictionary possibly know what the word "believe" means to you, Age ?!?!

Will the dictionary tell me your birthday too?
How about your favourite food? Is that in the dictionary too?

The dictionary told me that the word "belief" is an intransitive verb. To accept as true or real.

So am I to understand that elephants are neither real nor true to you?

But when you write things like; "we don't have to correct this error right now", then I feel it necessary to point out to you that the error had ALREADY been corrected anyway. Therefore, what you are saying is TO LATE, ANYWAY.

But THERE WAS NO NEED. If there was no need to correct it, there was also no need to inform me that it was corrected.

That you CHOSE to correct it was your business, not mine.

Are you seriously NOT AWARE that that is all over and done with now? I am just correcting the errors in what you are saying. I am NOT re-repeating it to go over it again.

Age, you can't correct my errors - it's not your job. It's my job to correct my errors. Your job is to point out what you think is an error.
If I happen to recognise the error, and if I happen to think the error is important enough to correct, then I will correct it.

Most of the errors you are pointing out are so bloody trivial that I am not even wasting my time/energy correcting them.

Because you have already made it CLEAR that you are incapable of fathoming it.

I have done no such thing.

The last time I told you, you inferred that you could not comprehend nor understand. So, there is no use in me telling you.

Just be contend that you, supposedly, have no way of knowing if you believe in things or not.

You have a way of knowing, so you must have learned it.

If you teach me the meaning of that word, I will have a way of knowing too.

Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, it was NOT the exact same actual question.

The words may have been different, but the meaning was EXACTLY the same.

Using different words OBVIOUSLY means that a different question was asked.

No, it doesn't. It means that the same question is being asked using different words.

it's called "paraphrasing". Do you know what this word means?

Through the words I use, which is how I told you that you can test, and verify, if you believe in things or not.

Age, you haven't told me no such thing. If you had told me, I should bloody well know what the word "believe" means.
And if you had taught me the meaning of that word, I should bloody well hope that I can determine whether I do or don't believe in elephants.

You haven't taught me the meaning of that word, so I don't know if I believe in elephants or not!

It appears that you are not yet AWARE of the strength of words themselves, nor of how much actual power they have over us?

Words do not have any power over me. I have power over words. Words used to have power over me. No longer.

Yes, but you have surely shown that you unable to grasp this knowledge.

This is nonsense. You haven't even attempted to pass your knowledge to me!

Yes I do.

Exactly! I knew that all along!

So why can't you teach me what the word means?

[Age]

If you want to accuse me of not speaking the Truth here, then surely you must have some sort of evidence for this, so provide that evidence for your claim here. Otherwise, you are just laying completely false accusations.

The accusations are not false, but this error is not worth correcting.

If the accusations are not false, then why will you not provide the evidence?

What have you got to hide here?

Considering that this is a philosophy forum, making claims, and then not substantiating those claims at all seems very unreasonable. Really, what have you to lose?

I suggest if you want to make a claim, then you have at least some thing to back up and support this claim. Otherwise you will look very foolish.

Now, you want to accuse me of not speaking the Truth here. So, either you have some evidence of this, which if you did, then you would put forward very quickly. Or, you have no evidence at all. And, considering you do not consider providing any thing at all, then most people will decide what your accusation really IS.

Yes, I do. But obviously it all depends on the 'thing' of course.

Obviously it depends. Which is why I didn't ask you a general question about 'things' - I asked you a particular question about a particular thing. An elephant.

And how nonsensical it is to ask such a thing speaks for itself.

From my perspective "believing in elephants" is a nonsensical concept.

Believing in elephants is a nonsensical concept in my perspective too!

But then again, not believing in elephants is also a non-sensical concept in my perspective!

So, why is it you who brings up these nonsensical concepts?

I have a concept, which makes perfect sense to me. But, as I said earlier, it all depends on what things you are actually talking about. Also, this time you quoted the two words 'to believe', while previously you have quoted the two words 'believe in'. So, to me, there would be two different concepts, thus two different explanations.

There may be nuance between the two concepts, but there surely is a great overlap, since they both share a common root?

And what is that "common root" that the word 'to' and the word 'in' share?

'To swim' and 'swim in' both share a common word, that word being 'swim'. But, 'to swim' and 'swim in' mean two different things. This is because they are two different concepts.

If, and when, you are absolutely clear about what exactly it is that you are asking me, then I am able to provide answers/clarifications clearly and accurately. But, as what happened last time when you asked me whether I 'believe in' elephants and I asked you what does 'believe in' mean to you, and you could not clarify, then because you are not absolutely clear, yourself, about what exactly it is that you are asking me, I am then also not able to answer/clarify clearly and accurately, for you.

Well, no wonder you misunderstand!

Me asking you about elephants was tactic towards me figuring out what "believing" and "not believing" means to you.

A so called "tactic" for what?

Also, if you just want to know what 'believing' and 'not believing' means to me, just ask me. Asking me whether I believe in elephants, will NEVER provide you with the answer to what 'believing' and 'not believing' means to me. So, that so called "tactic" will not work.

By now, most people would've understood what it is being asked of them, but maybe you aren't most people, so let me be explicit.

And, as I said earlier, most people know if they believe in some thing or not. But you have informed us here that you are incapable of doing this. In fact you are the only human being that I know of that does not know whether they believe in some thing or not.

I want you to tell me what it means to "not believe" in elephants.

You can want me to do things for as long as you like. I have already told you that believing in, or not believing in, elephants is a nonsensical concept to me.

You cannot make the question/statement sensible, thus meaningful. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean any thing at all.

Besides all of this you still do not even know what just the word 'believe' means, so this will make it much harder for you to understand what either 'to believe' means and what 'believe in' means.

Not "besides". The purpose of ALL of this (us talking) is for me to figure out what "believing" and "belief" means to you.

But that was not the purpose of ALL of this at all, to me.

Why gave you the idea that the purpose of ALL of this is what you said here?

I know I don't know it means. I told you that!

I KNOW you do not know what it means. That is WHY I told you to look in a dictionary. You say they are not useful at all.

You know what it means - that's why I am asking you all of these questions.

But some of your questions are completely nonsensical questions.

Also, what a word means to me has no actual bearing on whether you believe in some thing or not. There is also the fact that what a word means in one context does not mean the same thing in or from another context.

Obviously I am incapable of learning. That's why I am asking you to teach me what it means "to believe".

Did you mean to say 'incapable' here, or 'capable?

I actually meant two different things.

1. Presently, I am incapable of learning whether I believe in elephants, because I don't know what it means "to believe" in elephants.[/quote]

Why are you focusing on elephants now? This discussion started off in relation to some thing else before.

2. In future, I will be capable of learning whether I believe in elephants or not once you teach me what it means "to believe" in things.

But if you do not know what the word 'believe' means, nor what 'believe in' means, then I can not even begin to teach you what it means 'to believe'.

Start by discovering and/or learning what the word 'believe' means first

This is not very useful, since I am doing that already! I am talking to somebody who knows what the word 'believe' means. You![/quote]

But what a word means to me, does not necessarily mean the same to "another".

In what context are you using the word 'believe' here? See, I have to understand and know exactly what you are referring to for me to explain to you accurately what it means.

, then it will help you to progress to discovering and/or learning what 'to believe' means, and then you might be able to move up to discovering and/or learning what 'believe in' means as well.

I know all of that!

Okay. So, what is it exactly that you are having issues with here now?

By the way what 'to believe' means differently than 'believe in'. So, even if you ever do discover or learn what it means 'to believe' this does not then necessarily correlate to you being able to determine whether you 'believe in' things, or not.

We will see.

Okay. We will have to wait and see.

Okay. If you do not find a dictionary to be useful at all in finding what the definitions and/or meanings of words are, then so be it. Other people do find dictionaries very useful for this purpose.

The dictionary gives me the definition of a word. The dictionary doesn't give me the meaning of a word. It would be ludicrous if it did!

Would it?

How do you differentiate between the definition of a word and the meaning of a word?

How could the dictionary possibly know what words mean to Age?

Once again, you are 'trying' so hard to twist and distort what I say, and mean, around to some convoluted and distorted view that you have here.

Where and when have I ever said absolutely any thing, which even remotely suggests that the definitions/meanings given in a dictionary have absolutely any thing at all to what words means to me?

Why would you even 'try' to go down some absurd path as you are here now?

But the dictionaries I look in tell me what the word 'meaning' means. So, we must be looking in different dictionaries.

I have another explanation: maybe we mean different things by "meaning"?

But you said you do not know what 'meaning' means. So, how could you even mean any thing when you use the word 'meaning'?

But this supposed "3rd option" is still one of the two options I put forward.

That's not how I see it.

Okay, fair enough.

But not even knowing whether you believe in any thing is not really another option also.

Of course it is!

You know that you don't believe in elephants.
I know that I don't know if I believe in elephants.

See the difference? I do!

Of course there is a difference, which I have acknowledged already enough times now.

But this comes back to you NOT knowing thy 'self' and you NOT being totally OPEN and Honest with thy 'Self'.

Are you aware of the phenomenon where human beings do not even know when they are lying?

Therefore, I do not believe in elephants.

How could you not see this?

Obviously I see it!

It doesn't explain why you said that you neither believe nor disbelieve in anything, when you clearly don't believe in elephants.

Because if I do not believe in any thing, then I OBVIOUSLY do not believe in elephants, ALSO.

Therefore, I do not believe in elephants, which is one of the two options I provided.

Which one?

OBVIOUSLY the one that states I do not believe in any thing.

There are obviously two options; believing some thing or disbelieving some thing. The option of 'believing some thing' is some thing I NEVER do.
This is made absolutely obviously clear by my statement; I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. Obviously if I do not believe any thing, then I can NOT believe in elephants.

Why are you convoluting what is essentially extremely simple and easy?

If it was "simple and easy" we would've figured it out by now. Neither of us is stupid.

But there was NOTHING to "figure" out.

If you have not figured 'it' out by now, then you are on your own here.

If I do not believe any thing, then obviously I would not believe in elephants. I do not believe any thing. Therefore, this was and is extremely simple and easy to understand, and there is and was absolutely nothing to "figure out".

As I explained in a previous post of the two options I am in the 'I do not believe in elephants' option.

I heard you. Loud and clear.

So what is 'it' that you are not understanding and/or have not yet figured out?

So, why did you detract so far from what I have actually said, and meant, to bring in this ABSOLUTELY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS conclusion?

Indeed. We are getting too far away from the point.

The point is this:

You don't believe in elephants.
I don't know whether I believe in elephants or not.

The second point about you not knowing whether you believe in some thing or not was known by the second or third reply in our discussion. There is nothing else to really talk about is there?

You can keep 'trying', like you have been, to twist things around to fit in with and suit your absolutely absurd notion that you do not know whether you believe in things or not, but you are NOT going to succeed with me. But, please keep 'trying'. It is fun to watch, and exhilarating to shine a light on.

You seem like a very paranoid person. [/quote]

Okay, and what have I said exactly, which made this seem like it is the case to you?

I am giving you way more of my time than necessary to trying to understand what the word "believing" means to you, but you are insinuating that I am being "absurd". It's not very polite.

But I NEVER said absolutely any thing that even remotely suggests/insinuates that you are being absurd. An absurd notion in no way infers/insinuates that you are being absurd. On the contrary, unless of course you are implying that you are being the notions that you express here?

If, to me, seemingly absurd notions are being proposed, then I will just make that known.

Also, instead of assuming that I am insinuating that you are being some thing, any thing, I recommend you first clarify what I am actually saying, and meaning, before stating a claim.

Are you aware that explaining that a notion itself appears absurd in no way at all has to insinuate that the person expressing the notion is being absurd at all?

Also, and by the way, if you just want to KNOW what the word 'believing' means to me, then just me ask a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective. In fact if you just want to KNOW what any thing means to me, then just ask me a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective. But just be forewarned that I might have to ask you some clarifying question first, before I answer, just to gain a perspective of what it is that you are actually really asking me for. Does this seem at all unreasonable, to you?

Once again you can keep 'trying' to twist and distort what I am saying, and meaning, but, again, it does not work on me.

More of your paranoia.

What paranoia are you talking about and referring to here?

If you are misunderstanding me and consequently twisting and/or distorting what I am actually saying, and meaning, then that is what is happening, and so not necessarily paranoia at all.

Remember if you want to claim some thing, then it is best to have at least some thing to substantiate and support your claim. Do you have any thing in regards to your claim; More of your paranoia?

If I was you I would just refrain from ever using the word 'believe' ever again, with anyone. Obviously you using that word is not working for you at all.

Age, you learned the meaning of the word "believe". Obviously you have, because you are using it.
There is no reason why I can't learn the meaning of that word also.

Why can't you teach me the meaning of that word?

Because you believe that it is not possible to learn the meaning of words, correct? And, you would not believe some thing if it was not true nor correct, right?

If you do not know what a word means, then I suggest it best to not use that word ,until you do discover and/or learn what it means.

Age! Your suggestion is fucking idiotic and condescending. I am NOT using the word. As you can bloody see![/quote]

Not using what word?

If you are not using a word, then I would not know what you are talking about and what you appear so desperate to learn about.

Also, did you not read and/or not understand what I said, and meant?

Nothing I said in that quote of mine was in relation to any one word. I just said; If you do not know what a word means, then I suggest it best to not use that word, until you do discover and/or learn what it means. This is in relation to absolutely ANY word, as is clearly evidenced in the words I used.

By the way, there was absolutely NO condescending whatsoever intended at all.

It's your word. I am trying to learn how to use it.

I have absolutely NO idea what word you are referring to here, and because I do NOT like to assume absolutely any thing at all, I will NOT.

If you do not find dictionaries useful in gaining what words mean, then I would suggest not go trusting and accepting what people tell you on the internet. So, I will refrain from answering this question, other than I suggest you look in a dictionary or two, and then deciding for your own self.

This is silly. How could the dictionary possibly know what the word "believe" means to Age ?!?!

One way is if I wrote that dictionary.

Will the dictionary tell me your birthday too?

If I or it was put it in the dictionary.

How about your favourite food?

Again that would obviously depend if it was added or not.

Is that in the dictionary too?

Which dictionary are you referring to here?

Also, if you want to KNOW what a word means, TO ME, then you will have to add that to the clarifying question, posed TO ME.

If any one is interested whenever I ask a person to clarify what a word means to them, or how they define a word, I make it clear in the clarifying question that I want their definition or meaning, and NOT thee definition or meaning. See, these can be two wholly completely separate different things.

But when you write things like; "we don't have to correct this error right now", then I feel it necessary to point out to you that the error had ALREADY been corrected anyway. Therefore, what you are saying is TO LATE, ANYWAY.

But THERE WAS NO NEED. If there was no need to correct it, there was also no need to inform me that it was corrected.

But no one suggested there was no need to correct it. In fact it appears you had a very strong need to point out that I made an error.

That you CHOSE to correct it was your business, not mine.

Well I can only CHOOSE to correct the errors of my ways, when they are pointed out to me, like you did. Or, when I notice them. Also, remember you added the words 'right now' on the end of your sentence, and that was the only part that I felt was necessary to point out and make that my ERROR had ALREADY been corrected. If you did not add those two words on, then I would not have felt the need to say any thing at all. I was just expressing what I saw as being thee actual Truth of things here. In philosophy forums I do not like seeing things that not being expressed in an absolutely accurate and True way.

Are you seriously NOT AWARE that that is all over and done with now? I am just correcting the errors in what you are saying. I am NOT re-repeating it to go over it again.

Age, you can't correct my errors - it's not your job.

But I ALREADY DID IT.

It's my job to correct my errors. Your job is to point out what you think is an error.

Which is just what I HAVE ALREADY DONE.

If I happen to recognise the error, and if I happen to think the error is important enough to correct, then I will correct it.

Okay. I find ALL errors, especially in a philosophy forum, need to be corrected.

Most of the errors you are pointing out are so bloody trivial that I am not even wasting my time/energy correcting them.

I have noticed this. From my perspective, you prefer to spend far more time and effort detracting away from your errors. But then again so do most people do this same thing.

Because you have already made it CLEAR that you are incapable of fathoming it.

I have done no such thing.

Okay, if you say so. So, are you now saying that you can fathom that you can know whether you believe in things like God and/or elephants?

The last time I told you, you inferred that you could not comprehend nor understand. So, there is no use in me telling you.

Just be contend that you, supposedly, have no way of knowing if you believe in things or not.

You have a way of knowing, so you must have learned it.

If you teach me the meaning of that word, I will have a way of knowing too.

I suggested earlier if you want to find the definition or meaning of a word, then look it up in a dictionary. You did not like this suggestion. So, what is it exactly you want me to teach you?

The way of knowing if you believe in some thing or not does not necessarily have absolutely any thing at all to do with discovering and/or learning any meaning of any word here. That just involves listening to your answer when you ask yourself the clarifying question.

Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, it was NOT the exact same actual question.

The words may have been different, but the meaning was EXACTLY the same.

But you just got through explaining to us that you do not yet know what the word 'meaning' means.

If you do not yet know what the meaning of 'meaning' is, then how would you know if the meaning was EXACTLY the same or not?

Using different words OBVIOUSLY means that a different question was asked.

No, it doesn't. It means that the same question is being asked using different words.

Are you absolutely SURE of this?

If yes, then will you provide some examples of asking the same question using different words?

When, and if, you do this, then we will see if the EXACT same question is being asked or if there is actually any difference in the question being asked.

it's called "paraphrasing". Do you know what this word means?

From who's perspective?

If I go to a dictionary and look up the word 'paraphrasing', then I will obtain a definition of that word, and thus also gain a concept of what that word could mean.

Through the words I use, which is how I told you that you can test, and verify, if you believe in things or not.

Age, you haven't told me no such thing. If you had told me, I should bloody well know what the word "believe" means.

But knowing what the word believe means has nothing to do with what I was talking about in what you quoted me as saying.

And if you had taught me the meaning of that word, I should bloody well hope that I can determine whether I do or don't believe in elephants.

But I can not teach you what the meaning of a word.

You would have to understand what the definition of the word 'the' means first, before you could fully comprehend and understand that I can not teach you 'the' meaning of a word.

You haven't taught me the meaning of that word, so I don't know if I believe in elephants or not!

Okay. You have re-repeated this enough times now already.

It appears that you are not yet AWARE of the strength of words themselves, nor of how much actual power they have over us?

Words do not have any power over me.

Okay, if you 'say' so.

I have power over words. Words used to have power over me. No longer.

Okay, when did this change happen?

How did this change happen?

And, why did this change happen?

By the way, who and/or what is that 'I' that has power over words now, and not the other way any longer?

Yes, but you have surely shown that you unable to grasp this knowledge.

This is nonsense. You haven't even attempted to pass your knowledge to me!

I would not be so absolutely sure of yourself here.

Yes I do.

Exactly! I knew that all along!

So why can't you teach me what the word means?

Because of all of the differing factors involved.

Are you under some sort of illusion here that there is ONLY One factor involved?

Also, some people are just not ready and thus not yet able to learn some things.

[Skepdick]

If the accusations are not false, then why will you not provide the evidence?

I already told you why. This error is not worth correcting.

Considering that this is a philosophy forum, making claims, and then not substantiating those claims at all seems very unreasonable.

it's not as unreasonable as pedantry.

Really, what have you to lose?

Time and energy.

I suggest if you want to make a claim, then you have at least some thing to back up and support this claim. Otherwise you will look very foolish.

I have already made the claim. The price of foolishness is paid.

Now, you want to accuse me of not speaking the Truth here. So, either you have some evidence of this, which if you did, then you would put forward very quickly. Or, you have no evidence at all. And, considering you do not consider providing any thing at all, then most people will decide what your accusation really IS.

Or...the evidence is recorded in this very thread and in this very forum for everybody else to see, so I don't have to collate it.

I have no intention to produce any evidence. But you are welcome to go looking for it - it's there.

And how nonsensical it is to ask such a thing speaks for itself.

If the question was nonsensical, then how did you answer it?

It's nonsensical to think that asking nonsensical questions is nonsensical.
In doing so I learned that the question is not nonsensical to you!

So, why is it you who brings up these nonsensical concepts?

I told you why. So that I can verify whether they are nonsensical to you.

And what is that "common root" that the word 'to' and the word 'in' share?

Belief?

'To swim' and 'swim in' both share a common word, that word being 'swim'. But, 'to swim' and 'swim in' mean two different things. This is because they are two different concepts.

The two different concepts both exemplify the general notion of swimming, so your distinction is only between the general and the particular - it's not even relevant.

I have neither a general nor particular conception of "beliefs", "believing", "to believe" or "believing in".

A so called "tactic" for what?

I said what for. I am trying to understand what the concept of "belief" means to you.

Also, if you just want to know what 'believing' and 'not believing' means to me, just ask me. Asking me whether I believe in elephants, will NEVER provide you with the answer to what 'believing' and 'not believing' means to me. So, that so called "tactic" will not work.

I don't know if it will work or it won't work. But it probably will work.

And, as I said earlier, most people know if they believe in some thing or not. But you have informed us here that you are incapable of doing this. In fact you are the only human being that I know of that does not know whether they believe in some thing or not.

Sure. And as soon as you tell me what it means to believe in something, I'll let you know if I do.

To be honest, you are also the only human being I know of who doesn't believe in elephants.
I asked all my other friends - they said they believe in elephants.

You can want me to do things for as long as you like. I have already told you that believing in, or not believing in, elephants is a nonsensical concept to me.

Yeah, but you also told me that you don't believe in elephants. So I am wondering how you know that.

You cannot make the question/statement sensible, thus meaningful. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean any thing at all.

Well, you answered the question, so it must have meant something to you.

But that was not the purpose of ALL of this at all, to me.

So what?

Why gave you the idea that the purpose of ALL of this is what you said here?

Because that's the purpose of ALL that I am saying here?

I KNOW you do not know what it means. That is WHY I told you to look in a dictionary. You say they are not useful at all.

Indeed. A dictionary can never tell me what the word "belief" means to you!

But some of your questions are completely nonsensical questions.

Then how are you determining the answers to non-sensical questions?

Also, what a word means to me has no actual bearing on whether you believe in some thing or not.

Of course it does! Until I know what it means "to believe" I can't possibly determine whether I do or don't believe in a thing.

Do you know if you woogyboogy in wafflespocks?

There is also the fact that what a word means in one context does not mean the same thing in or from another context.

Lets not worry about the different contexts, when you can't even tell me what the word means in the context of elephants.

Why are you focusing on elephants now? This discussion started off in relation to some thing else before.

Pay attention!

I am not focusing on the elephants. I am focusing on your belief (or lack thereof) in elephants.

But if you do not know what the word 'believe' means, nor what 'believe in' means, then I can not even begin to teach you what it means 'to believe'.

That's not true. You have knowledge. I don't.

Communicate it to me. Teach me - I am willing to learn.

But what a word means to me, does not necessarily mean the same to "another".

Look! I don't even have a meaning for this word - so as far as I am concerned, something is better than nothing.

I'll gladly learn our meaning if you will teach it.

In what context are you using the word 'believe' here?

In whatever context you determined that you don't believe in elephants.

See, I have to understand and know exactly what you are referring to for me to explain to you accurately what it means.

I am referring to whatever made you say that you don't believe in elephants when I asked you the question.

Okay. So, what is it exactly that you are having issues with here now?

The same thing I keep telling you. Your meaning of "belief".

Would it?

How do you differentiate between the definition of a word and the meaning of a word?

Trivially.

One word can have more meanings than definitions.

Once again, you are 'trying' so hard to twist and distort what I say, and mean, around to some convoluted and distorted view that you have here.

I am not doing that. You must be paranoid.

Where and when have I ever said absolutely any thing, which even remotely suggests that the definitions/meanings given in a dictionary have absolutely any thing at all to what words means to me?

I asked you what the word "belief" mean (who else would I be asking when I am talking to you?). You told me to look it up in a dictionary.

Why would you defer the answer to the question to a dictionary?

Why would you even 'try' to go down some absurd path as you are here now?

What seems absurd to me is the idea that you can't tell me what your words mean, but a dictionary can.

But you said you do not know what 'meaning' means. So, how could you even mean any thing when you use the word 'meaning'?

I don't know what it means. I just know how to use it.

Because if I do not believe in any thing, then I OBVIOUSLY do not believe in elephants, ALSO.

Age, focus! You have wasted so many words misunderstanding.

All this time I have been talking about the knowledge of belief, and I told you that I don't know whether I believe or not because I don't know what belief is.

How do you know that you don't believe in anything if you don't know what "belief" is ?

OBVIOUSLY the one that states I do not believe in any thing.

Obviously. I am asking you how you know that!

There are obviously two options; believing some thing or disbelieving some thing.

How could you possibly determine the true option if you the notion of "belief" is nonsensical to you?

The notion of "belief" is nonsensical to me, therefore I don't know if I do or don't believe in elephants.
The notion of "belief" is (apparently) nonsensical to you also, BUT you somehow know that you don't believe in elephants.

What?!??

This is made absolutely obviously clear by my statement; I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. Obviously if I do not believe any thing, then I can NOT believe in elephants.

You can't possibly determine that without knowing what "belief" means!

But there was NOTHING to "figure" out.

I am literally trying to figure out how you determined that you don't believe in elephants if the notion of "belief" is nonsensical to you!

If you have not figured 'it' out by now, then you are on your own here.

It turns out that way. I thought you had an answer for me, turns out you are even more confused than me.

If I do not believe any thing, then obviously I would not believe in elephants. I do not believe any thing. Therefore, this was and is extremely simple and easy to understand, and there is and was absolutely nothing to "figure out".

Stop lying. How did you determine that you don't believe in anything if the notion of "belief" is nonsensical to you?

So what is 'it' that you are not understanding and/or have not yet figured out?

How did you determine that you don't believe in anything if the notion of "belief" is nonsensical to you?

How did you arrive at the knowledge about your lack of belief in anything?

The second point about you not knowing whether you believe in some thing or not was known by the second or third reply in our discussion. There is nothing else to really talk about is there?

There is something to talk about: How do you know that you don't believe in anything if the notion of "belief" is nonsensical to you?

Also, and by the way, if you just want to KNOW what the word 'believing' means to me, then just me ask a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective. In fact if you just want to KNOW what any thing means to me, then just ask me a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective.

My perspective is "Truly OPEN", Age! I have told you now, many times, over and over, and in different words, but you are failing to hear me.

You have knowledge.
I don't.

Teach me what you know.

But just be forewarned that I might have to ask you some clarifying question first, before I answer, just to gain a perspective of what it is that you are actually really asking me for. Does this seem at all unreasonable, to you?

It's not at all unreasonable.

What paranoia are you talking about and referring to here?

The paranoia which causes you to accuse me of not having an OPEN perspective.

If you are misunderstanding me and consequently twisting and/or distorting what I am actually saying, and meaning, then that is what is happening, and so not necessarily paranoia at all.

But if I am not misunderstanding you, and I am not twisting or distorting what you are saying, then you may be paranoid.

Remember if you want to claim some thing, then it is best to have at least some thing to substantiate and support your claim. Do you have any thing in regards to your claim; More of your paranoia?

Yes. You are obsessing over it.

Because you believe that it is not possible to learn the meaning of words, correct?

I don't know if I believe that. I don't know what it means "to believe".

And, you would not believe some thing if it was not true nor correct, right?

I don't know that either. Because you still haven't told me how to determine whether I do or don't believe in anything.

If you are not using a word, then I would not know what you are talking about and what you appear so desperate to learn about.

I am mentioning the word "belief", I am not using it. I don't know how to use it - that's what you are trying to teach me.

Nothing I said in that quote of mine was in relation to any one word. I just said; If you do not know what a word means, then I suggest it best to not use that word, until you do discover and/or learn what it means. This is in relation to absolutely ANY word, as is clearly evidenced in the words I used.

I know that. Which is why I am not using the word. I am only mentioning it.

I have absolutely NO idea what word you are referring to here, and because I do NOT like to assume absolutely any thing at all, I will NOT.

The word "belief".

One way is if I wrote that dictionary.

Did you?

Also, if you want to KNOW what a word means, TO ME, then you will have to add that to the clarifying question, posed TO ME.

I don't know how to clarify any further. You are using a word I don't understand. Explain its meaning.

But I ALREADY DID IT.

Without me knowing? Doubtful.

Okay. I find ALL errors, especially in a philosophy forum, need to be corrected.

I find that way of thinking erroneous. You should probably correct it.

I have noticed this. From my perspective, you prefer to spend far more time and effort detracting away from your errors. But then again so do most people do this same thing.

That's not true at all. Most people don't have enough time to correct all errors, so they choose which errors are important and which errors aren't.

Okay, if you say so. So, are you now saying that you can fathom that you can know whether you believe in things like God and/or elephants?

I don't know if I can. When you teach me what it means "to believe in things" then I will tell you.

I suggested earlier if you want to find the definition or meaning of a word, then look it up in a dictionary. You did not like this suggestion. So, what is it exactly you want me to teach you?

The dictionary says that the the transitive verb "believing" means accepting something as true or real.

You don't believe in elephants, therefore you don't think elephants are real.

Is that what you really mean, Age? Is that what you are trying to say to me?

The way of knowing if you believe in some thing or not does not necessarily have absolutely any thing at all to do with discovering and/or learning any meaning of any word here. That just involves listening to your answer when you ask yourself the clarifying question.

OK, why do you think that elephants aren't real, Age?

But you just got through explaining to us that you do not yet know what the word 'meaning' means.

Sure, but I don't know what any word means. I just know how to use them.

If you do not yet know what the meaning of 'meaning' is, then how would you know if the meaning was EXACTLY the same or not?

Because I intend them to mean different things?

Are you absolutely SURE of this?

Obviously! I am asking the one phrasing the questions.

If yes, then will you provide some examples of asking the same question using different words?
When, and if, you do this, then we will see if the EXACT same question is being asked or if there is actually any difference in the question being asked.

All of my questions in this interaction are in servitude of my single purpose: What does it mean "to believe" in things?

It has been my (repeatedly) stated intention. I am Open and Honest about it.

From who's perspective?

Yours.

If I go to a dictionary and look up the word 'paraphrasing', then I will obtain a definition of that word, and thus also gain a concept of what that word could mean.

If you are looking in the dictionary, then you don't know what it means?

But I can not teach you what the meaning of a word.

Why not?

You would have to understand what the definition of the word 'the' means first, before you could fully comprehend and understand that I can not teach you 'the' meaning of a word.

But you aren't using the word "believe" in the way the dictionary defines it.

If that were true, then it's also true that you think elephants aren't real. Do you really think that, Age?

Okay. You have re-repeated this enough times now already.

I have, and you keep forgetting - you keep asking me if I believe in things...

Okay, when did this change happen?

About 10 years ago.

How did this change happen?

And, why did this change happen?

I understood how language/communication/thinking works.

By the way, who and/or what is that 'I' that has power over words now, and not the other way any longer?

Whatever "I" am - I don't know. I have many labels.

I would not be so absolutely sure of yourself here.

Well, rather than explaining how you use the word "belief" - you have spent many keyboard strokes diverting us from the point.

Good thing I don't lose track of my objectives.

Because of all of the differing factors involved.

Are you under some sort of illusion here that there is ONLY One factor involved?

I have no such illusion, Age. You are the one who insists it's "trivial and simple".

"All the factors involved" is what I call complexity.

Also, some people are just not ready and thus not yet able to learn some things.

I am not one of those people.

[uwot]

Argument from authority. If Socrates, Dostoevsky, Einstein, among others, believed in divinity, doesn’t that lend some credibility to the idea?

Well no; that's why arguments from authority are generally dismissed as informal fallacies.

[Lacewing]

…

You deserve some kind of award!