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

Coca-Cola is much more available to me than it was to Moses. That doesn't mean I drink more of it than he did. My point was not about comparable/relative understanding. It was about belief versus acceptance. Care to address that?

You're avoiding the point of the post. You're asking me to repeat ad nauseam what I have already clarified. If you don't like my answer boo hoo but you're not going to get a different answer to the same question.

You have to consider that question in the context of this discussion - i.e. in comparison with the belief in God.I accept Coca-Cola in the same way I accept aerodynamics. I can observe the effects and I can recognize that somebody else understands those effects better than I do. Belief in God is quite different. There are no effects to observe.Ergo, acceptance of Coca-Cola and aerodynamics are different from belief in God.

Where does it do that? Chapter and verse, please.

They are accurate enough for the problem at hand, just like the Biblical understanding of gravity is accurate enough for deciding whether or not to sleep under apple trees.

They aren't "private definitions". They're distinctions - like making a distinction between dogs and cats instead of just calling them "pets".

You missing the word "about" makes me an idiot? I have ABOUT the same understandimg of gravity as Moses did - despite the availability of additional opportunities. I have ABOUT the same consumption of Coca-Cola as Moses did, despite the increased availability. The semantic nitpicking would be pretending there isn't a distinction when there is. If you don't make a distinction between dogs and cats, that's fine, but don't pretend that nobody can make a distinction. Yup. I did and I do. About half the time you have something intelligent to say. I think I've even cheered you a couple of times. The other half, you're a troll, trying to get the answer you want instead of the answer you get.

I didn't say there was no possible distinction. Did you miss the word "about" again? Dogs are about as popular as cats - maybe within ten or twenty per cent, who knows. Maybe I do know ten or twenty per cent more about our concept of gravity than Moses did. Most likely he knew twenty to forty per cent more about their concept of gravity than I do.I'm making a distinction between concepts. You're making a distinction between numbers. Do you see the difference?

You and Usain Bolt are a lot closer together than Usain Bolt and a bullet. Moses and I are a lot closer together than I and Stephen Hawking. You could have saved us all a lot of time by just cheering me in the first place.

Belief is for the things whose truth value we can not assess.

Yes, "to believe is to accept as true." However, it is important to make a distinction between whether we accept something because of the evidence or we believe it despite the lack of any evidence.

It should be possible to compare one's own mind with somebody else's mind to some extent. It should be possible to discuss concepts like "I like ice cream" in an almost objective way without being able to empirically test the "liking" of ice cream.

And yet you wasted oh so many posts saying I was wrong.

Subjective empirical experiences can be compared. When we have similar ice-cream-tasting observations, the "liking" of ice cream moves into a grayish area between subjective and objective. The same would apply to religious experiences.

I didn't misuse the word "about". You ignored it until I discovered the caps-lock key.