I have heard on here people talking about 'crazy belief systems' at even a very slight mention of any other religion. It is like Religiophobia going on. People talk about any idea outside their own as how it is a cult type of thing. To mention an idea is not to be in a cult or to be trying to convert someone. It is to bring up a perception.

Leaving Mormonism does not mean that one leaves behind beliefs from Mormonism. Many of them are deeply ingrained. Many of them are unconscious. The external religion is gone, but the internal religion may pull on a person for decades or longer. If one thinks that Mormonism is bad, that is a belief system. If one thinks Mormonism is all worthless, that is a belief system. If one thinks that there is no value to religion, that is a belief system.

The concept of 'team' that is discussed on so many shows is a human construct that some are inspired by and some are repelled by. Valuing a team is a belief system. Putting family first is a belief system. Putting self first is a belief system. Modern ideas are better than ancient, is a belief system. (Even though modern science, history, philosophy, etc... all have roots in other belief systems).

Mormonism is a deeply communal religion. It values the community above the self. So often people react to that having been oppressed and then have a 'reacive' belief system. It is still a belief system.

The belief that religion should control the world is one belief system. The belief that one is free when one is fighting religion is suspect to me.

People talk about converts to Mormonism and how they are different from people who are multigenerational in the LDS religion. Atheists can be the same, especially new atheists. They may start out parroting ideas of Dawkins and Hitchens and then deepen and evolve in their explorations. One does not have to be a theist to intelligently and openly explore the concepts offered by religions.

Of course some form of religion is not desired by everyone nor is some form of conscious philosophy.

Plenty of people go 'cheer on a team' or work for 'school spirit' who are atheists. These are part of cultural belief systems. Can one ever be truly free of belief systems? If you think pop music is great and heavy metal sucks, and you like 80's music, that is a system of belief about music. Some of that may be personal, but otherwise, it is part of a system. 80's music is part of a system. New Wave music is part of a system. Rock and Roll is part of a system.

None of us can escape systems of belief. If we shop for toothpaste, we operate under a belief system that it helps. Some people don't believe flouride is good for the teeth and they buy something else. They are part of another belief system.

To fixate on science is a belief system. Some people do things that science says should not be possible. Modern Medicine cannot prove everything. There are plenty of doctors who have become open to alternatives because of things they have seen in their patients which were not scientifically proven. The whole field of complimentary medicine deals with this gray area between science and other things.

For example science can tell us that 'stress' is bad for us and 'stress relief' is good, and religion or spiritual views sometimes helps with 'stress relief'. So then in that way spirituality and religion may serve a function that is scientifically useful. Obviously for some the reverse is true, spiritual views can be stressful for some. Religious views as well clearly can be stressful and miserable. For me I left Mormonism because I did not feel well in the psychological paradigm.

For some people, to believe in 'nothing' is stressful or produces anxiety. One can call them weak, but for them, belief may be comforting. For someone else who is traumatized by the concept of an afterlife or anything supernatural, this may be 'stressful'.

If one has not seriously looked into metaphysical concepts and just parrots Dawkins or Hitchens, then that is a 'belief system' based on someone else's ideas. If someone has never read anything from Islam and says 'there is nothing valuable in the religion', is that based on science in any way shape or form?

Is someone free who says nothing supernatural exists because I have never seen it and I must fight any possible conversation of how it may exist?

There are scientists who believe in all sorts of things as I have mentioned intensively. There is a Harvard Scientist who is working with a system of energy work. Mind Body healing is a pretty mainstream approach at this point with plenty of scientists believing in it and testing it.

One may not be attracted to exploring alternative views on things, but that does not make them unscientific, in cases that science is studying them or has studied them. It is more likely a phobic response or aversion. But it is not a scientific view if one has not even looked at the science or considered it. It is a bigoted reactive view no better than religious people saying that there is no value to science.

It seems regardless of what one views something as, if one is interested in being truly open, then one has to be willing to look at something as an option.

In regards to this board and the stated intent of the board, people are in various stages of recovery. Some are in early recovery and want nothing to do with anything of any other sort of philosophy other than atheism. But atheism is a system based on others as mentioned. It is still one taking someone else's ideas and putting them into their head for psychological safety.

There are others who have perhaps been through their anger phases and are looking for something. Like a bad breakup, they thought they never would love again, but then they long for someone to be close to, or they want a close friend. You see people repeatedly say they will never work in an industry again and then miss it and come back to it in some way shape or form.

Someone talks about me thinking atheists feel threatened and yes I do believe many atheists on the board are threatened. If a concept is mentioned that comes from a religion they panic. Mention the same concept without reference to the sort, and they would not be panicking and so disturbed.

That said, I will be more thoughtful about what I mention as far as sources of thought on the board because I am clear that it is threatening to people who are rightfully so threatened by the idea of organized thought beyond what is currently scientifically mainstream (notice not just scientific, because there is a lot that is not mainstream that is coming more and more to the mainstream, but slowly).

To summarize: People believe different things.

UD - I appreciate your thoughts. I specifically was addressing Timothy with this post based on something he said in another thread. I am getting a better sense of his personal style, which is mostly to engage the other person, but disengage when challenged.

Indeed not collecting stamps requires no stamp collecting system, but if one believes anything, then they collects beliefs. If one is an atheist based on Dawkins or Hitchens, then they collect beliefs in relationship to the system.

"if one believes anything"
- Here's your problem... An atheist doesn't believe in a higher power, they have no belief in that regard, there is no system.

"atheist based on Dawkins or Hitchens"
- There is no such thing. Dawkins and Hitchens would be the first to tell you that, in fact if you read their works, that's kind of the point.

"then they collect beliefs in relationship to the system."
- How do you collect "beliefs" about non-belief in a system that doesn't exist.

You don't seem to be getting the concept of what Atheism is. Imagine a lot of glasses of water, some are full, some have different levels, some are colored, some aren't even water, some have milk, soda, etc. The liquid is religion or a belief system. An atheist's glass is empty, and usually not looking to be filled.

I'm currently engaged in work, making travel arrangements and planning a huge party in honor of a recently deceased friend.

Don't have time to sit on my "brains" all day like some folks.

By the way, its your other thread that addresses what I said in another thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,501637,501637#msg-501637

How passive/aggressive of you!

Timothy



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2012 04:54PM by Timothy.

Yes, many scientists have other belief systems differing from science. Some don't.

But all scientists (good ones) conform to the philsophy and method of science. Science is a system of philosophy and relies on the scientific method. The key principles of the philsophy are:

1. follow the evidence wherever it leads
2. if one has a hypothesis/theory, one needs to be willing (and able) to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove it right.
3. the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment (not the comfort of pre-conceived, a-priori beliefs, nor the elegance of theoretical models).

Generally, the method is:

0. observation (optional at this point)
1. hypothesis
2. experimentation (observation, not optional)
3. analysis (measure the fit of data to hypothesis)
3.5 reject or accept hypothesis
4. modify hypothesis if needed
5. goto #2 (experimentation) and continue until modification unneeded.

Other belief systems want to claim that science tells us what is possible not what is moral. However, Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape makes a very compelling case that science should and already is doing exactly that--telling us what is moral. If he's right, and I think generally he is, science can and will replace ethics based belief systems with a systematic method of defining what we should do as humans.

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape makes a
> very compelling case that science should and
> already is doing exactly that--telling us what is
> moral. If he's right, and I think generally he
> is, science can and will replace ethics based
> belief systems with a systematic method of
> defining what we should do as humans.


Patricia Churchland on Sam Harris's *The Moral Landscape* is interesting:


***We cleared up these misconceptions later, but given how widespread they are, you can understand the trepidation felt by many at the thought of Patricia tackling the issue of morality head-on. But her recent book, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality defies such expectations, due largely to the fact that the answer to the question implied by the subtitle is very far from everything. This contrasts starkly with what many see as the scientific hubris of Sam Harris in his recent The Moral Landscape.

“Sam Harris has this vision that once neuroscience is much more developed then neuroscientists will be able to tell us what things are right or wrong, or at least what things are conducive to well-being and not. But even if you cast it in that way, that’s pretty optimistic – or pessimistic, depending on your point of view. Different people even within a culture, even within a family, have different views about what constitutes their own well-being. Some people like to live out in the bush like hermits and dig in the ground and shoot deer for resources, and other people can’t countenance a life that isn’t in the city, in the mix of cultural wonderfulness. So people have fundamentally different ideas about what constitutes well-being.

“I think Sam is just a child when it comes addressing morality. I think he hasn’t got a clue. And I think part of the reason that he kind of ran amuck on all this is that, as you and I well know, trashing religion is like shooting fish in a barrel. If Chris Hitchens can just sort of slap it off in an afternoon then any moderately sensible person can do the same. He wrote that book in a very clear way although there were lots of very disturbing things in it. I think he thought that, heck, it’s not that hard to figure these things out. Morality: how hard can that be? Religion was dead easy. And it’s just many orders of magnitude more difficult.”

What Churchland believes science can do is describe the “neural platform” for ethics. What does she mean by this? It’s perhaps made clearest by looking first at what sits on top of that platform. Moral problems, says Churchland, are essentially “constraint satisfaction problems”.

“For many of the social problems that people have to address, problems of scarcity of resources or what have you, they have to come together, and negotiate, and figure out an amicable solution so that they can carry on. And sometimes those solutions work out fairly well in the short run, and then they have to modify them so they can work out in the longer run. I conceive of that as problem-solving, aka reasoning. And >>>I don’t think neuroscience has anything to say about those things.<<<”*** [emphasis mine]

http://www.thephilosophersmagazine.com/TPM/article/viewFile/Churchland/11706

Patricia Churchland is of course not alone in finding Sam Harris on Morality rather childish.

(Actually, the really interesting thing in the article is an account of how the Churchlands came to choose "eliminative materialism" over "revisionary materialism" to describe their point of view.)

I understand that you do not like neuroscientist Harris' materialist view and prefer to side with philosopher Churchland. There are ample people that see and agree with Harris' argument, usually scientists. The dividing lines are drawn between philosophy and science.

As I have stated in response to you in my thread: Western, Eastern and other philosophical traditions have many disagreements and do not merge well. There is no unified philosophical tradition. Science has a unified front. There are not Eastern biology and Western biology. There is biology. There is physics. Classes in Asia teach chemistry principles the same as do Western chemistry. Science has universality. Science produces.

To say that science has nothing of value to give to the understanding and production of morals & ethics belies this fundamental universality. If philosophical traditions are so arguable as to produce major rifts, then how can it possibly produce a coherent relative set of morals let alone an absolute sense of morality?

The scientific method is a codification of a specific technique of handling and processing information. Morality is also about information.

Science is also an integrity of process that we as a society hold sacrosanct. It produces understanding of our world, and remains consistent from one experimenter to another.

We don’t end up with five different interpretations on the basic principles of physics. We have a universal set. The disagreements in secular and religious philosophy are fragmented camps, which no one sees as unifying anytime soon. Why not? Because, unlike science where disagreements only exist until the final evidence is in, philosophy is always beholden to individual views of non-reality within reality.

Philosophers are venerated in camps, per individual taste for their logic and dialogue. In science, however, we expect scientists to earn respect. Philosophers from what I can tell have no expectation of accountability. Scientists subject themselves and their work to repeated scrutiny. And only after their observations, analysis and conclusions have been repeatedly tested by others, can any scientist expect to be taken seriously.

Imagine if we what we do for physics, we did for moral information. Imagine if we could have a moral theory that is not based upon the opinion and camp of a given philosopher.

The scientific method gives us the hope of something we have never had. It gives us the hope of someday finding a moral theory that is the same for all of humanity, rather than a fragmented set of morals varying from civilization to civilization.

You may wish to taunt Harris and belittle him, but I think he's onto something far better than the tradition of philosophy has failed to yield.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2012 09:53PM by Jesus Smith.

wonderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Mormonism is a deeply communal religion. It values
> the community above the self.
...

No doubt individual converts, as well as many b.i.c. members
experience it that way. Some of the professed doctrines work
in that direction, as does teaching from the Book of Mormon,
early LDS communitarianism, etc.

But, I'd say that stuff is mostly for "the sheep," and that
many of the "sheep-fleecers" are highly self-centered people.
I see little or no evidence for the notion that Mormons
become more selfless, as they progress into higher callings
and come to possess more authority and more control over
others. I'd say Mormonism values greed and self-advancement
above the community, and that the community stands ready
to be sacrificed at the whim of the topmost leaders, as
we see in several examples from 19th century LDS history.

On another subject -- I do not see why atheists showing signs
of being "threatened" should concern you much.

Rather, I get the impression that you are projecting your
discomfort back upon them and trying (with little success)
to view yourself through their eyes.

As has been endlessly pointed out here -- the participants
do not constitute a homogeneous group. One atheist who
directs a bit of criticism your way may be a PhD expert in
some field aligned with secularism; while another poster
may be a punk kid who barely knows the meaning of the words
he directs your way.

As I've said about a dozen times now -- you would experience
less combative responses to your posts if you concentrated
upon the experiences you had while an active or observant
Mormon, and what changes, insights, etc. have come your way.

Within THAT CONTEXT, some of us could possibly relate to
what you are offering as such "insights."

Lacking that basic context, I can forecast only frustration.

Mormons are big on "beliefs;" probably because, in order to
be part of their community, you have to propel yourself
forward based upon the testimony of "beliefs," whether
they serve any useful purpose or not. Whether true or not.

I believe that two plus two equals four. My belief system
follows from that sort of beginning. I'm sure that many
"secularists" would overlap me in that kind of system.
But a good deal of the included beliefs are also subject
to change -- based upon new discoveries.

I guess the scientific method is not a belief system, but
its continual implementation helps me firm up my beliefs
(such as 2+2=4) to the end that I rely upon them as facts.

Are you OK with that sort of process?

UD

Re: You seem very concerned about what other people think.

I think we are all concerned with what others think to some degree.

I suspect wonderer is on the cusp.

No one wants the fantasy to be untrue. looking back, I have no idea what I was afraid of.

Timothy

Timothy...

If I am on the cusp of some big atheist enlightenment because of you... Thank you :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2012 04:37PM by wonderer.

Death?

Timothy

Timothy...

Am I afraid of death?

Nah, I spent some years meditating on death. You seem to think I am holding onto some big concept of theology. I am not.

I don't even know that I am 'holding onto' things so much as they are just not resolved for me based on certain experiences and things I have seen and heard from others.

I have been around intuitive people and seen some pretty interesting things occur.

There are other things that I have seen that make me 'wonder' but I don't know that I have resolved. Simple things like numerology or astrology that seem more than 'coincidental'.

I have had dramatic premonitions about events personal and larger, which I don't have all the time and at one point I was overly trying to focus on such things which I don't focus on at this point.

I like the idea of some things, but I honestly don't spend much time like some 'chasing psychic super powers'. I like ideas. I like concepts.

For example I don't necessarily view tarot cards as working in any absolute way, but I like them for contemplation. I like the symbols. I like the art. I like the explorations of the human condition. I enjoy pulling a tarot card here or there and I don't base everything on it, but if I do a card reading and it is a freaky reading, then I may think twice.

I have fun with it. I like the concept of 'divination' which is in many cultures like the concept of the 'I Ching' which some folks have used on wall street with supposedly good results, but I have not confirmed that.

I have had tarot readers say things that were accurate enough, although often they have just been used in more of a counseling way and I liked what the person had to say as a 'counselor' and the cards were part of the ambiance for me. I like a bit of theater.

I think for me some things are sorta like literature or art as much/more than they are actually 'religious' or even 'spiritual' for me in terms of asserting that spirits are guiding this or that.

As I say some of this, you may be right about some element of me being on the 'cusp' of something just in seeing how I think and work with some of this and it is not really in the context of spirituality even. Although with some of it I like the idea of there being some sort of 'there are no coincidences' ideas, but I don't really believe that there are no coincidences. I believe there are many, but I believe that there could be something else.

I don't know that I am 'afraid' of something perhaps anymore than just a life without magic on some level, and that magic may be as simple as the magic of friendship, or the magic of human compassion, or the magic of art to inspire the unconscious. I guess in that way I may be afraid of life looking and feeling like a sterile Doctor's office without much heart or soul.

And perhaps I am afraid of a life without metaphors that I enjoy. Part of my point though has long been that metaphors and myths are not dependent on absolute belief. I like metaphors. I like reference points whether it be the Matrix, Star Trek, Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, or some random TV show. For me I like it all pretty much the same. I like stories fictional or literal.

I think too because I grew up religious, then the stories are in my mind anyhow, my unconscious references them. I don't believe them literally in most cases. Some I wonder if they could be true somehow.

For example I don't believe Jesus walked on water. I don't even know if Jesus existed honestly. I figure plenty of stories from Buddhism are probably made up.

I don't personally mind being challenged. I think the process can have a lot of value and i appreciate your presence for the conversation and the nuances of it, because I think there is a lot of value to the exploration for me personally that is very much related to my process around Mormonism.

I think for me it has helped me relate to Mormons too at times in a way that I would not have otherwise. So in that way perhaps I am afraid of not being able to relate to the people who I have related to. And I need to spend some time contemplating that further perhaps.

That is all separate from what I do or do not believe, but perhaps in that way I do feel threatened in a way I have been unconscious of. So I offer appreciation for that as I continue to examine my own reactiveness around the subject.

I may add more thoughts, but for the moment I think I am digesting the ramifications of where I have just been led through that question.

Cheers.

Just shut the fuck up already...shit

But keep telling yourself you are not.

Someday, you'll believe yourself.

Timothy

Sure it is a belief system so are thousands of others. And we are free to create our own belief systems.

If I need a label for myself I usually say I'm an Eccentric Eclectic! :-) I like a little agnostic/atheist/ ideas mostly.... today! :-) I also like a lot of the teachings from religious sources. What's not to like about: Love One Another!

There is nothing religion teaches that can't be found elsewhere.

There are many things religion doesn't teach that can be found elsewhere.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Timothy

I think you are confusing "belief" with "perception".

We all have systems in place for perceiving and interacting with the universe around us.

But those systems of perception are not limited to "belief".

Wherever I can I try to make the best decisions based on the available evidence. I know I am human and beliefs slip in there but I try to avoid that.

I would say that is more a system for dealing with my beliefs rather than a belief system.

quinlansolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

Perhaps because it would be a belief system comprised of
a single belief -- that the best course is to believe in
nothing else.

However, if the subject in question only adopted that
decision out of compulsion, or ignorance, or total
confusion -- then perhaps it would be a course of
discrimination based upon no personal belief whatever.

I'm amazed that no cult leader has yet stumbled upon
such an idea for controlling others. A Zen-like development
of Vodun (sans spirits), perhaps. Would make for a great movie.

UD

As far as believing in nothing...

Yes, if you believe in nothing sure I guess that is just one belief, but the fact is religions and atheism are both systems of belief far beyond just theological belief.

Partly the fact is that if you believe in nothing theologically you still have a value system, conscious or unconscious. You may value family very highly or health very highly. Different social groups have different belief systems.

Some may have the belief that western medicine is the only valid course of medicine. Some others have a belief that alternatives are the only way. Some others may believe that the two combined are ideal.

Some may believe that health is all about what you do with the body, like working out. Others may have the idea that it is all about what you feed it. Others a combination of both. Each element is held unconsciously in the person. Each is part of a personal 'belief system'.

So then, someone can flippantly say "I believe in nothing" which atheists often say "I believe in science" vs. "I believe in nothing." That then is a belief that science is reliable and religion is not. that is a belief system then, a simple headline of one, but then it carries through in a variety of intricate ways.

That same person has a series of conscious and unconscious beliefs about relationships, career, community, culture, etc...

The way the person cuts, combs, or styles their hair may reflect that they believe 'fun' is a priority or being 'young', or 'sophistication' or 'hair that is simple is best so you can wash or wear it'. All that is part of a hair and general style belief system.

The clothes a person buys are part of a belief system. Then they have beliefs about the clothing they have. "These clothes make me look fat." "These clothes are styling." "These clothes are boring." "These clothes say I am a society person." etc... Nudists often gravitate to nudism because they 'believe' it has an equalizing influence on people. Yet another belief system about clothing.

The way you design your house has a belief system incorporated to it. If you don't consciously design anything, then that is part of a belief system. "Design doesn't matter. What you think matters." or "Design is really important and to stay in fashion is important."

Even if you leave a theological belief system and don't believe in an afterlife, you still almost inevitably have some belief about 'service' or 'family' or 'community' or 'leadership'. All those are things that are conditioned by religion over years of growing up in the system of a particular religion and by living in a culture that has the system in place.

You may not have a conscious Biblical belief "Honor thy father and mother', but you likely have some version of that or a reaction to it, or some version of belief about parents and their role and relationship in life. Those are beliefs that religions often have in their 'belief systems'.

So people don't believe in nothing when they leave a religion. They believe in something. They often just don't know what it is and often don't know how heavily they still fit the culture that they think they left when they left the religion. Hence some people talk about being 'cultural Mormons' even after leaving the religious community formally and the beliefs. It gets in you and stays in you in so many ways hence the 'recovery' conversations.

There is 'believing in nothing' if that is possible and then there is 'believing that you believe in nothing'. Some transfer their beliefs to science at least conceptually, but don't realize what science has proven, so what they believe is not even consistent with science.

In some ways beliefs are irrelevant in that the truth is often beyond what any of us can consciously conceive. I don't know what physics shows is possible/ A car seemed impossible not so long ago and yet is scientifically possible now.

If you are typing on this computer you have a belief system that says you can type on something and it goes out into the world and you believe someone responds to you. In this case that seems very accurate. Your system though relies on elements of faith based on experiences, observations, and what others have told you.

If you call a friend that is a belief system that it is them answering based on their voice and phone number, etc... You believe something. Atheism is often really 'sciencism' as much or more than just the lack of belief in a deity. It says 'unless you can prove something specific to me, then I will not believe.'

The system then is something like, I believe in only what a scientist says if it makes sense to me and feels comfortable psychologically. If enough people tell me that a scientists tests confirms my belief and others will validate me in believing it, then I will believe.

Then, I also believe in only what can be clearly proven through scientific methods and/or what I can see with my eyes, hear with my ears, and touch with my hands, except I don't believe in what I see on tv in some cases and in 'magic shows' because I know from experience and/or being told that that is not what it appears.

That is all a belief system and it is the belief system of many who believe that they believe nothing about religion. Yet, they have political beliefs about social services, and believe that gov't should serve what religion has served, which is then a belief system as well that is a supplementary system for religion.

Religions have organized all sorts of things for generations about thought and action and secularism basically has Newsweek, Time Magazine and online Newsources and Newspapers as their Ensign, New Era, etc... which can certainly be better and more accurate clearly. Those same people watch inspirational shows on tv or film. That then serves as part of their unconscious and conscious belief system, as does all the sports watching. (sports is good, religion is bad is a belief system).

I got hung up on the same thing when I was first talking to atheists here. I asked a lot of questions to understand their perspective. But you keep telling them what they think. You're not listening to the answers.

Atheism is ONLY the lack of belief in a god. For an atheist, NO BELIEFS ARE CONTINGENT ON ATHEISM.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2012 11:48PM by MJ.

wonderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as believing in nothing...
>
> Yes, if you believe in nothing sure I guess that
> is just one belief, but the fact is religions and
> atheism are both systems of belief far beyond just
> theological belief.
>
> Partly the fact is that if you believe in nothing
> theologically you still have a value system,
> conscious or unconscious. You may value family
> very highly or health very highly. Different
> social groups have different belief systems.
>
...

I've had this conversation, or similar ones, elsewhere through
the years. I've come to the conclusion that folks who say they
BELIEVE in nothing, are defining their situation in life
differently than most of the rest of us.

In one exchange with such a person, I asked what he thought
his chances were, betting on red or black at the roulette
table. He replied by citing me the odds, including the
effect of the presence of zero and double zero on the wheel.

I then asked if he KNEW those were his chances and if he KNEW
he would win at least once in 30 spins, if he always bet on
red. He again cited me the odds per individual spin of the
wheel, and then admitted that there was a slight possibility,
that in 30 spins of the wheel he would always lose. There
were no precise odds, since those numbers apply to individual
wheel spins, and not to an aggregate of several sequential spins.

At that point I asked if he THOUGHT he might generally win
at least once, out of every 30 such wheel spins?

He admitted he THOUGHT that was very very probable.

I then asked if he BELIEVED that were true.
And he answered "No!"

Knowing
Thinking
Assuming
Predicting
Believing

Some folks may define these words differently, and thus
convince themselves that they have no BELIEFS about how
they would fare at the gaming table -- even though they
THINK they would occasionally win.

Strange...

UD

He didn't believe in God, but he had a lot of influence. Also, his communist ideas have to be taken on faith, because they can't be scientifically proven.