I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Belief in the existence of God is derived on a wholly different (and far inferior) basis to belief in the existence of Coca Cola or aerodynamic principles. So - Yes.But one doesn't need to invent private definitions of "belief" or "accept" to make that point.

Again it is noted that you feel the need to remove the "likely to be true" stipulation.Which again makes the point that the key difference between belief in gravity and belief in God is the application methods that seek to meet the stipulation.I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity because I seek to believe things that are likely to be correct rather than wrong...

Well your contribution to this thread amounts to an idiotic and patently false claim that you are as ignorant as Moses regarding gravitational effects and some semantic nit picking in order to make a "distinction".And you had the temerity to call me a troll....

AZPaul's Angel theory of gravity would be sufficient for many practical purposes too....

Hey I'm just making a distinction between your understanding of gravity and that of Moses.....I thought you liked distinctions. Now do calm down.

Given that we are considering why people might believe in gravity but not in God that is an incredibly strange reply.

I can run about as fast as Usain Bolt compared to the speed of a bullet. But if I were to simply say "I can run about as fast as Usain Bolt" people would quite reasonably point out that this isn't the case unless there is some serious misuse of the word "about" going on. Well you've made your distinction and we all seem to agree (even jar eventually) that the reasons people adopt a belief in gravity aren't the same as the reasons people adopt a belief in God.

You have taken the same route as jar and abandoned the "likely to be true" stipulation. Belief in biblical stories may well be "helpful" in the sense it invokes feelings of comfort or whatever. But so what? Nobody believes in gravity because it gives them a warm fuzzy glow. Well I certainly think looking for empirical evidence of British Imperial influence on Aboriginal art would have to be starting point for even considering such a question. Far more helpful than seeking divine revelation for example.Don't forget it is jar's contention such methods are "totally useless and worthless". Frankly I am bewildered how one would go about answering your question without using empirical methods to discern whether or not there had been any effect at all.

I still think you still underestimate just how much an understanding of gravity permeates modern thinking in ways that were completely unavailable to Moses. I'd put you somewhere midway between Moses and Hawking.(I did a search for posts by you including 'gravity' and found you asking intelligent questions about the inverse square law - Questions that Moses wouldn't understand but which Hawking could presumably answer) If it makes you happy I'll do it now.

Anything else except conclusions about gravity, apparently....You may not have noticed but the bible contains quite a lot of parts about God. I have about as much honesty and morality as you do. (See Ringo's use of "about" for further clarification)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As I think I have stipulated a number of times - The aim is to believe things that are likely to be true.Is this not an aim you also share? Well I have repeatedly asked you about some of the non-scientifc tools and methods that might be applied to assess the veracity of theological claims (e.g. the very obvious theological claim that God exists). But you have yet to reveal any of these mysterious methods or tools.The closest you got to an answer related to how people's and cultures are formed and youir advice on that was to dismiss the methods of psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology etc. as "totally useless and worthless" and to instead ask a Rabbi. Was that what the Rabbi said?

You seem to be suggesting that theological claims can be assessed empirically much like theories of gravity can.

Wiki on Epistemology

quote:

---

In common speech, a "statement of belief" is typically an expression of faith and/or trust in a person, power or other entity a paradigmatic example of such a statement of belief would be a declaration or affirmation of religious faith (as in, e.g., the Nicene Creed). While it addresses belief of this kind, epistemology is also concerned with belief in a very much broader sense of the word. In this broader sense "belief" simply means the acceptance as true of any cognitive content. To believe is to accept as true.

---

Given the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" it seems obvious to me that the term "believe" is being used in the second sense.

If you say so....If we want to test the veracity of a theistic claim using these non-empirical methods you allude to how do we do that?Can you give an example of such a theistic claim and the non-empirical method(s) by which you assess it's veracity?AZPaul has provided a baseline example if that helps.

Well of course you do. Because any assessment of theistic positions which involves determining their veracity causes them to unravel or retreat into ambiguity.Hence the whole "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" thing that is the subject here.