NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe in my house, in my car, and in everything else I'm in. I don't believe in Jesus, though I'm fairly confident he existed. I don't believe in aliens, though again I'm confident they exist.

Sorry, that's just one of my little pet peeves...

I believe in my house, in my car, and in everything else I'm in. I don't believe in Jesus, though I'm fairly confident he existed. I don't believe in aliens, though again I'm confident they exist.

Sorry, that's just one of my little pet peeves...

I think what people mean by "believe in" is "do you have faith in", " do you place your trust in", atleast thats what some people mean.

I believe in my house, in my car, and in everything else I'm in. I don't believe in Jesus, though I'm fairly confident he existed. I don't believe in aliens, though again I'm confident they exist.

Sorry, that's just one of my little pet peeves...

Depends on context... Most people, even ones who claim such, don't know what "believe" actually means in context to Christian religion...

Believe, as used in the biblical sense, is closely connected to faith as well...

Unlike the conotations of modern language, these two words still exist in the context of their original usage in english, in the english versions... In Koine Greek, the original language of the writtings of most of the New Testament, the words were conjugation of the same Greek root word, pistis, pisteu, pisteuo... The words denote "trust in" something... Not mere adherance, or affirmation...

A biblical exposousing to "believe in Jesus" means that one trusts Jesus Christ and His message.

Maybe you should give an alternate word Mr. Thesaurus :)

I think what people mean by "believe in" is "do you have faith in", " do you place your trust in", atleast thats what some people mean.

I'm sure they mean it that way, but it still bothers me. It really shouldn't, but it does. I just think that too often people ask questions that doen't really reflect the information they're trying to get. When people ask "Do you believe in Jesus?" they want to know if people have a specific set of beliefs about Jesus, not if people believe that he existed. They want to know if people believe in his divinity, or in his death as atonment for the sins of the world, but they don't ask they. Words are all we've got to communicate with and people use them so poorly sometimes it's no wonder there are wars over what people believe so often.

If people could just learn to say what they mean and do it in a way that others could understand I think the world would be a better place.

Maybe you should give an alternate word Mr. Thesaurus :)

A set of words is needed to properly explain one's meaning, and if you don't know the language well enough to come up with those words yourself there is nothing I can do to help you except to suggest that you either learn the language better or speak some other language you're more familiar with.

I'm sure they mean it that way, but it still bothers me. It really shouldn't, but it does. I just think that too often people ask questions that doen't really reflect the information they're trying to get. When people ask "Do you believe in Jesus?" they want to know if people have a specific set of beliefs about Jesus, not if people believe that he existed. They want to know if people believe in his divinity, or in his death as atonment for the sins of the world, but they don't ask they. Words are all we've got to communicate with and people use them so poorly sometimes it's no wonder there are wars over what people believe so often.

If people could just learn to say what they mean and do it in a way that others could understand I think the world would be a better place.

I know its absurd. I can't imagine asking people if they believe in the dhamma. Think about it.

Depends on context... Most people, even ones who claim such, don't know what "believe" actually means in context to Christian religion...

Believe, as used in the biblical sense, is closely connected to faith as well...

Unlike the conotations of modern language, these two words still exist in the context of their original usage in english, in the english versions... In Koine Greek, the original language of the writtings of most of the New Testament, the words were conjugation of the same Greek root word, pistis, pisteu, pisteuo... The words denote "trust in" something... Not mere adherance, or affirmation...

A biblical exposousing to "believe in Jesus" means that one trusts Jesus Christ and His message.

While that is very interesting, it's mostly irrelevent to my point, since no one here is speaking in ancient Greek. Since we're speaking English I think it appropriate that we use words based on their English meanings, not based our understanding of their roots or the usage of equivilents hundreds of years ago.

I know its absurd. I can't imagine asking people if they believe in the dhamma. Think about it.

This whole damn place is absurd, and it feels sometimes like no one else realizes it.

A set of words is needed to properly explain one's meaning, and if you don't know the language well enough to come up with those words yourself there is nothing I can do to help you except to suggest that you either learn the language better or speak some other language you're more familiar with.
:D Just stirring you up, I got the answer I was after but obviously your not in the mood so ill cease.

This whole damn place is absurd, and it feels sometimes like no one else realizes it.

Do you mean this place, this virtual environment or the whole place, this world?

:D Just stirring you up, I got the answer I was after but obviously your not in the mood so ill cease.

Nah man, don't worry, I'm always laid back, I just get into the role of "annoyed guy" sometimes for fun.

Do you mean this place, this virtual environment or the whole place, this world?

The whole world, but digital communities doubly so.

The whole world, but digital communities doubly so.

Its absurd because reality is arbitrary. Believe in that.

Its absurd because reality is arbitrary. Believe in that.

Seems like a pretty solid philosophy, but I just don't like it. I seek to overcome my own absurdity through sillyness and never letting anything get to me. At the very least it's a lot of fun, plus I can play any role I like without the slightest hint of lasting ill effects.

While that is very interesting, it's mostly irrelevent to my point, since no one here is speaking in ancient Greek. Since we're speaking English I think it appropriate that we use words based on their English meanings, not based our understanding of their roots or the usage of equivilents hundreds of years ago.

It is relative, because even amongst the people using the term, are not using it in its proper meaning relation to the context of the message.

They err in that they apply a modern meaning, to a word used in archaic context, and thus alter the actual original message and meaning of the phrase from which they got it.

As for "we're speaking English"... what this is called is etymological analysis.

The context of "believe" in the biblical sense relies on a archaic form of believe, which is not used except in rare metaphores (sic. "Believe one's eyes").

The term believe has not been modified from the english renditions of the Bible, since the Authorized Version... at the time, "believe" and "faith" were synonyms of trust, only... Other "definitions" having been invented since then and applied to language in general... But the word used in the context of the religion has not... But been maintained... Therefore application of the modern definition of modern usage of "believe" to religious verbage in archaic form biblically, is etymologically invalid per the language rules...

As such, you are correct; under present language, people should not be asking you if you "believe in Jesus"; because in the modern sense of "believe", such belief is not biblical within the rules of the particular religion... Since mere affirmation is not enough in context to root language usage in its orignal form.

You should turn around and ask them, if they "believe in" Jesus, or if they "trust in" Jesus...

Seems like a pretty solid philosophy, but I just don't like it. I seek to overcome my own absurdity through sillyness and never letting anything get to me. At the very least it's a lot of fun, plus I can play any role I like without the slightest hint of lasting ill effects.

You might as well have fun while you are here. Thats good kamma.

I believe in Boony, he's a man in whom you can truly place your trust.

It is relative, because even amongst the people using the term, are not using it in its proper meaning relation to the context of the message.

They err in that they apply a modern meaning, to a word used in archaic context, and thus alter the actual original message and meaning of the phrase from which they got it.

As for "we're speaking English"... what this is called is etymological analysis.

The context of "believe" in the biblical sense relies on a archaic form of believe, which is not used except in rare metaphores (sic. "Believe one's eyes").

The term believe has not been modified from the english renditions of the Bible, since the Authorized Version... at the time, "believe" and "faith" were synonyms of trust, only... Other "definitions" having been invented since then and applied to language in general... But the word used in the context of the religion has not... But been maintained... Therefore application of the modern definition of modern usage of "believe" to religious verbage in archaic form biblically, is etymologically invalid per the language rules...

As such, you are correct; under present language, people should not be asking you if you "believe in Jesus"; because in the modern sense of "believe", such belief is not biblical within the rules of the particular religion... Since mere affirmation is not enough in context to root language usage in its orignal form.

You should turn around and ask them, if they "believe in" Jesus, or if they "trust in" Jesus...

I think their error lies in apply a modern word to an archaic concept, rather than in applying a modern meaning in archaic context. In other words, they should use the archaic word if that is the meaning they wish to convey, or they should translate that word into modern English and use other words which by context take on the appropriate meaning, even if they were not originally used to describe that concept.

I think we're basically just agreeing and using different words (:)) so I'm just going to cut myself short here.

You might as well have fun while you are here. Thats good kamma.

Damn straight.

Nah man, don't worry, I'm always laid back, I just get into the role of "annoyed guy" sometimes for fun.
I believe in that because I believe in you, hence I believe I should continue believing, that using believe will continue to make you feel that using "believe in" is annoying or something.

I believe in that because I believe in you, hence I believe I should continue believing, that using believe will continue to make you feel that using "believe in" is annoying or something.

Any serious or semiserious post that ends in "or something" is cool in my book.

I believe in Boony, he's a man in whom you can truly place your trust.
He was the man when we needed a few boundries :) too bad he used to get ran out

I think their error lies in apply a modern word to an archaic concept, rather than in applying a modern meaning in archaic context. In other words, they should use the archaic word if that is the meaning they wish to convey, or they should translate that word into modern English and use other words which by context take on the appropriate meaning, even if they were not originally used to describe that concept.

I think we're basically just agreeing and using different words (:)) so I'm just going to cut myself short here.

Yep, I find it a failing that while more modern versions have been printed than the Authorized Version (sic. New King James, New International Version, etc.) that the archaic has been left untouched like some icon...

Though I've seen far worse etymological errors than this in my time...

The worse such error is by a sect which refuses the name Jesus, because they believe it is an idol of Zeus.... Their logical etymologically traces "Jesus" to the Classical Latin Iesvs, and then into Greek 'Ιησούς... The Greek pronuncuation would be He-yay-zoos... Which they read as similarly sounding as "Hail Zeus" in english... This of course discounts the 1000 year gap between English and Koine Greek in history... And so they adopt Yeshua, in the insistance that the name should never be transliterated (of course, for the Greek New Testament, it had to be, since Greek lacks "Y" and "SH" sounds)... And they fail to understand that historically, the idea of not transliterating names is relatively recent (since the last 400 years).

Some other classically known Christians of the past are only known by their Tranliterated names:
1. Jean Chauvin aka John Calvin
2. Jacob Harmenszoon aka Jacobus Arminius
3. Martin Luder aka Martin Luther

So I've seen far worse cases of this than you have...

He was the man when we needed a few boundries :) too bad he used to get ran out

Yeah, short & round. Not exactly the type you would call a natural athlete.

Yeah, short & round. Not exactly the type you would call a natural athlete.
He was Short Round? in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

He was Short Round? in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

Haha, not quite. He's slightly taller. David Boon AKA the Keg on Legs.

Wait a second. I don't really understand the complaint here.

Are you claiming that the phrase "believe in" to indicate faith in is somehow grammatically incorrect? Cause I hate to burst that bubble, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with saying "I believe in America" or "I believe in Pedro Martinez."

Hit your Webster's. Definition 1b. "to accept as true, genuine, or real <~s in ghosts>" or 2. "To have a firm conviction to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <~ in Pedro Martinez>."

Alright, so it doesn't say Pedro Martinez, but the rest is a direct quote.

Am I missing the complaint? Is it because you think the use of "in" confuses? That's not just a locating word, it also limits and qualifies, indicating where your beliefs lie.

Compare "I believe Pedro Martinez" to "I believe in Pedro Martinez." The former means you trust the man, the latter means you "have firm conviction to his abilities."

There's nothing wrong with "believe in."

I believe in my house, in my car, and in everything else I'm in. I don't believe in Jesus, though I'm fairly confident he existed. I don't believe in aliens, though again I'm confident they exist.

Sorry, that's just one of my little pet peeves...

So let's get this straight.....

Belief is being fairly confident that something exists. You KNOW your house exists (hopefully). You have FAITH in Jesus. Which can also be called 'belief'. OK?

Wait a second. I don't really understand the complaint here.

Are you claiming that the phrase "believe in" to indicate faith in is somehow grammatically incorrect? Cause I hate to burst that bubble, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with saying "I believe in America" or "I believe in Pedro Martinez."

Hit your Webster's. Definition 1b. "to accept as true, genuine, or real <~s in ghosts>" or 2. "To have a firm conviction to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <~ in Pedro Martinez>."

Alright, so it doesn't say Pedro Martinez, but the rest is a direct quote.

Am I missing the complaint? Is it because you think the use of "in" confuses? That's not just a locating word, it also limits and qualifies, indicating where your beliefs lie.

Compare "I believe Pedro Martinez" to "I believe in Pedro Martinez." The former means you trust the man, the latter means you "have firm conviction to his abilities."

There's nothing wrong with "believe in."

No, mostly I'm just bitching because it's fun, but you've got the basic idea. Even by the second Webster's definition people are still using it incorrectly, "Do you believe in Jesus?" is not a question about goodness, efficacy, or ability, it's about divinity and dogma. As for "Do you believe in aliens?" well I think it's pretty obvious that the question should be "Do you believe that aliens exist?" again, nothing to do with goodness, efficacy, or ability (and the poll question from that thread has the same problem, UFOs are a fact of life, alien spacecraft probably aren't, but in either case our confidence in their goodness really doesn't mean much).

And what's all this static about Greek? "Believe" has old english roots.

No, mostly I'm just bitching because it's fun, but you've got the basic idea. Even by the second Webster's definition people are still using it incorrectly, "Do you believe in Jesus?" is not a question about goodness, efficacy, or ability, it's about divinity and dogma. As for "Do you believe in aliens?" well I think it's pretty obvious that the question should be "Do you believe that aliens exist?" again, nothing to do with goodness, efficacy, or ability (and the poll question from that thread has the same problem, UFOs are a fact of life, alien spacecraft probably aren't, but in either case our confidence in their goodness really doesn't mean much).

See definition 1b. "Do you believe in aliens?" does mean "Do you believe that aliens exist?"

If the complaint is about the multiple meanings of "believe in," then I gotta ask, why do you select it out of all the hundreds of thousands of english words and phrases that have multiple meanings?

So let's get this straight.....

Belief is being fairly confident that something exists. You KNOW your house exists (hopefully). You have FAITH in Jesus. Which can also be called 'belief'. OK?

No no no, I do believe that my house exists, but more importantly, I believe while in my house.

I have faith that my car will start, and that the sun will rise, and that if I eat too much my stomach will hurt. People who say they have faith in Jesus need to be more specific. They trust Jesus' claims to divinity, and have faith that their judgments are correct (or that the judgments of their parents, and their parents' parents are correct, since that's usually how people come to religion). You cannot have faith in a person, you can have faith that a person is good, that a person is capable, that a person is truthful, but not simply in a person, it just doesn't work.

See definition 1b. "Do you believe in aliens?" does mean "Do you believe that aliens exist?"

If the complaint is about the multiple meanings of "believe in," then I gotta ask, why do you select it out of all the hundreds of thousands of english words and phrases that have multiple meanings?

Well let's look at this for a moment...

Do you believe that aliens are true?
Well, that doesn't really make sense.

Do you believe that aliens are genuine?
Well, I suppose those alien autopsy videos could warrant this question, but not "real" aliens, and not the abstract concept of aliens.

Do you believe that aliens are real?
Not exactly the same as "Do you believe that aliens exist?" though similar. I believe that there are many things which we call aliens which are real as well as believing that the concept of an alien is real, reality being fairly difficult to validate however, I am forced to conceed that I cannot answer the question without conditioning it at least somewhat. We can make claims as to the nature of existance and the nature of reality, but in the end we always end up stuck where we started because existance is not the same as reality and neither is so easily understood that we can express it in absolutes.

In short, whether aliens exist or not, they are real because we have created them, so the answer to the question "Do you believe in aliens?" is not the same necessary as the answer to the question "Do you believe aliens exist?" because the first asks whether you believe that people have created aliens, even if only in their minds, while the second is a question about the existential universe which is impossible to answer with perfect certainty, and difficult to answer at all.

Odd how people get pet peeves like this. I used to, but I've slowly become convinced by certain people that the point of language is to communicate meaning and so long as I understand (for a given value of understand ;) ) what they mean, what's the big deal? We know what people mean by 'I believe in aliens'; it's no big deal to leave pedantry behind. And getting hung up little details like that probably hinders communication and discussion of ideas.

Odd how people get pet peeves like this. I used to, but I've slowly become convinced by certain people that the point of language is to communicate meaning and so long as I understand (for a given value of understand ;) ) what they mean, what's the big deal? We know what people mean by 'I believe in aliens'; it's no big deal to leave pedantry behind. And getting hung up little details like that probably hinders communication and discussion of ideas.

I'm the same way, but it's tons more fun to act like I care than to sit back and be bored all the time because nothing really bothers me. There really is almost nothing in the world that gets under my skin, so I just pretend things do to keep myself on my toes.

Plus, this particular peeve helps me work on my useless logic and semantics, which makes it a double win for me.

Look, we can do this all day.

It was thoughtful of you to list the three possible implications of "true, genuine, or real" and then bat down the first two. I don't really feel I need to point out that when we use any word, we are not necessarily using it to mean all of its possible meanings at once, but I'll point it out anyway. This is why there's an "or" between those three things.

Now if you look up "exist" and "real" you'll find the following:

"exist": to have real being whether material or spiritual.
"real": existing as a physical entity . . . [there's more here, you can look it up if you feel it's pertinent.]

Now, when we're talking about aliens, as physical animals, the two words are interchangeable. You're picking nits here to support your peeve. There is nothing incorrect with saying "I believe in aliens" and there is no meaning lost when compared to "I have faith that aliens exist."

To take it a step further, if you look up "faith," which you suggest in the superior phrase, it's defined as a synonym of belief and "believe" is used in the definitions.

Anyway, one of my pet peeves is folks who complain about proper useage as being incorrect.

Look, we can do this all day.

It was thoughtful of you to list the three possible implications of "true, genuine, or real" and then bat down the first two. I don't really feel I need to point out that when we use any word, we are not necessarily using it to mean all of its possible meanings at once, but I'll point it out anyway. This is why there's an "or" between those three things.

Now if you look up "exist" and "real" you'll find the following:

"exist": to have real being whether material or spiritual.
"real": existing as a physical entity . . . [there's more here, you can look it up if you feel it's pertinent.]

Now, when we're talking about aliens, as physical animals, the two words are interchangeable. You're picking nits here to support your peeve. There is nothing incorrect with saying "I believe in aliens" and there is no meaning lost when compared to "I have faith that aliens exist."

To take it a step further, if you look up "faith," which you suggest in the superior phrase, it's defined as a synonym of belief and "believe" is used in the definitions.

Anyway, one of my pet peeves is folks who complain about proper useage as being incorrect.

The only reason I had to answer all three pieces of the definition is because they are seperated by "or" rather than "and." If all three definitions had to be met I would only need to discredit one to prove my point, but because only one has to be met I have to discredit all three.

Interesting... whatever dictionary you used defines "real" and "exist" in the reverse of the way I understand them. I don't think that any level of arbitration can resolve that particular issue, but I hope you will notice the difference between the two (even though one uses the other in it's definition). That is to say, one is "material or spiritual" while the other is only "physical" (material).

The words are interchangable when refering to the physical aspect of aliens, but not when refering to the concept of aliens (this section could go on ad infinitum, but the definitions we are using presuppose that there is a difference between the material and the spiritual, so we can't really argue about whether a concept is material or not). There is a certain amount of information loss when using words that can be interpreted more than one way. When you say "I believe in aliens" the vast majority of people understand exactly what you mean, but a computer would likely be confused because it is not logically impervious. Now it is unreasonable, I think, to expect people to speak with perfect clarity at all times, but that doesn't mean I can't have a little fun pointing out where things might get confused, even if they never actually do.

Just to be clear, I made no judgment about the worth of "faith" over "belief," either is acceptable, it is the other words that I object to. And of course I'm nit picking, that's the whole reason I'm here, it's tons of fun.

Quite frankly, that's one of my pet peeves as well, since language is for communication the only judge of the "correctness" of the usage of a word should be the understand it creates in the listener. By that standard I can find no significant fault with "I believe in aliens" except to say that it can be misinterpreted and that that misinterpretation could be avoided by a little careful rewording. There's a whole book called Junk English where the author basically rants about how people use words incorrectly, and it's hilarious, because in every case the intended meaning is clear, but the author (who takes himself very seriously) takes every "mis"-use of a word as a personal insult. I heard the guy speak on the radio, man it was worth a few good laughs.

Just briefly falling back into my role, the U.S. Supreme Court (not the ultimate arbitor, but they're pretty good with language) ruled that for purposes of contracts the burden of proper communication falls on the writer, not on the reader. This applies here because it is up to the writer to create a set of words which can be interpreted only one way, rather than up to the reader to determine, by some sort of magic, which way the writer intended his ambiguous message. In other words, don't blame me because I misread what you wrote, blame yourself for miswriting it. Put one final way, there is no escape from my semantics and word games, so give up and have some fun doing it to others.

Stanley Fish should be horsewhipped, tarred, feathered, and run outta town on a rail for injecting that legal construction noise into academic and, by trickle-down, everyday use.

That stuff's pure poison and it's conditioned a buncha buncha people to discard the concepts of common sense, context, and occam's razor. If you really buy into that stuff, you read to obfuscate instead of to understand. Nits get picked for the purpose of losing meaning, which makes his line of thought directly opposed to communication.

There's no such thing as a document that cannot be misinterpreted because the whole system is founded on an agreement over meaning. If someone refuses to "believe in" the meaning of a word (like that? Let me say "put stock in the meaning of a word"), the word's instantly misinterpreted.

I'm not saying that ambiguous phrases don't exist, just that the majority of these problems, like your beef with "believe in," do not stem from a lack of accuracy or understanding, but in selecting less common uses for the sake of argument or for getting out of a contract.

"Yer honor, my client is obviously not 'teh undersigned,' she's never been on the Web in her life."

Stanley Fish should be horsewhipped, tarred, feathered, and run outta town on a rail for injecting that legal construction noise into academic and, by trickle-down, everyday use.

That stuff's pure poison and it's conditioned a buncha buncha people to discard the concepts of common sense, context, and occam's razor. If you really buy into that stuff, you read to obfuscate instead of to understand. Nits get picked for the purpose of losing meaning, which makes his line of thought directly opposed to communication.

There's no such thing as a document that cannot be misinterpreted because the whole system is founded on an agreement over meaning. If someone refuses to "believe in" the meaning of a word (like that? Let me say "put stock in the meaning of a word"), the word's instantly misinterpreted.

I'm not saying that ambiguous phrases don't exist, just that the majority of these problems, like your beef with "believe in," do not stem from a lack of accuracy or understanding, but in selecting less common uses for the sake of argument or for getting out of a contract.

"Yer honor, my client is obviously not 'teh undersigned,' she's never been on the Web in her life."

Oh how I wish you could see the grin on my face right now. Thank you for that, and I hope you appreciate how funny this all is. I agree with you wholeheartedly on everything you've said. Denotations are basically bullshit, the only true meaning of a word is what people understand it to mean, so finding every little semantic loop hole is meaningless unless a person really does say something that makes no sense. I can seriously hardly contain my laughter right now.

:p :D :cool:

There was a point in time when I was really pissed about these issues, because frankly the Humanities can be ridiculous enough without legal help.

But then I realized that the fact that people understood enough of the Fish argument to either support him or detest him demonstrated that, like it or not, he was successfully communicating his screed. So I'm back on the funny page.

Not that I won't scrap over use and definition now and again.

Here's a noggin'-scratcher:

So we know the rules for using "less" and "fewer." How does this fit in with a percentage?

Is it "less than fifty percent" or "fewer than fifty percent"? Real sticky wicket.

There was a point in time when I was really pissed about these issues, because frankly the Humanities can be ridiculous enough without legal help.

But then I realized that the fact that people understood enough of the Fish argument to either support him or detest him demonstrated that, like it or not, he was successfully communicating his screed. So I'm back on the funny page.

Not that I won't scrap over use and definition now and again.

Here's a noggin'-scratcher:

So we know the rules for using "less" and "fewer." How does this fit in with a percentage?

Is it "less than fifty percent" or "fewer than fifty percent"? Real sticky wicket.

I say "less than fifty percent" but I think "smaller than fifty percent" probably works better, it just doesn't sound as nice.

Why don't people just ask if someone else worships something?

That's exactly what they mean.