Fact vs Belief? [Archive]

9th July 2004, 09:13 AM

Question - could it be that one of the problems with those who have such powerful faith in things like religion be that they regard fact as another form of belief, rather than as fact?

I know, for example, that I don't have to believe in a fact for the fact to be true; and therefore, if I'm shown wrong about a fact, I concede myself to be wrong.

Yet it often feels to me like those who argue for their beliefs tend to ignore or downplay fact as if it were merely a conflicting belief.

I'm sorry if I'm not clear - the thought only just occured to me, and is still sitting in a hypothetical pool of essential amniotic fluid...

daenku32

9th July 2004, 11:05 AM

I think they consider their belief to be a fact; any questioning of their 'facts' causes them to doubt all facts. Because they can't accept that non-religious fact would be more certain than their own religion.

Skeptical Greg

9th July 2004, 11:40 AM

It has been demonstrated many times, here and elswhere, that a condition of faith, is a lack of knowledge.

Believers have to reject knowledge ( facts ) in order to preserve their faith; their faith being the basis of their beliefs, rather than facts..

However, they might consider certain facts, i.e.... " Millions of people believe just as I do.." Just as valid as genuine evidence, as a basis for their faith..

Iacchus

9th July 2004, 11:55 AM

I've always found that it's much easier to cultivate the obvious. However, the problem with that is we that tend to lose sight of any genuine meaning there might be.

Gulliamo

9th July 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
could it be that one of the problems with those who have such powerful faith in things like religion be that they regard fact as another form of belief, rather than as fact?Again- this seems to be one of two basic problems.

The first -

The same faith = trust problem that I (we) have encountered a hundred times here.

Faith = belief without evidence
Trust= belief with evidence

We I say belief I am referring to the latter, with evidence, version.

The second-

Many people are simply unwilling to change their beliefs despite mountains of evidence presented against them. Most of these people feel it is somehow a personal slight or somehow makes them less of a person if their beliefs are "proved" to be wrong. And by "proved" I mean that a reasonably amount of verifiable evidence has been provided.

Even a supposedly rational top scientist will fight to the death to defend a theory if he or she "believes" in it too hard.

Thus my signature...

9th July 2004, 02:02 PM

You know, I'm rather amazed that none of our resident theologians has invoked the old 'proof denies faith' clause...

Gulliamo

9th July 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You know, I'm rather amazed that none of our resident theologians has invoked the old 'proof denies faith' clause... I am not familiar... please elaborate.

Iacchus

9th July 2004, 04:12 PM

So how do you know what you know? Where does the ulitmate recognition come in? Does it come in your mind or, in some Scientific journal? If it comes from a Scientific journal I would say you're out of luck. If however it comes in the mind, why can't the mind be used for other useful things, such as speculating on the nature of God? If, in fact the mind is capable of recognizing truth, why not? Truth is truth isn't it?

daenku32

9th July 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So how do you know what you know? Where does the ulitmate recognition come in? Does it come in your mind or, in some Scientific journal? If it comes from a Scientific journal I would say you're out of luck. If however it comes in the mind, why can't the mind be used for other useful things, such as speculating on the nature of God? If the mind is capable of recognizing truth, why not? Truth is truth isn't it?

If you have a million different minds thinking about it for their lifetime you'll probably end up with close to million different 'truths'.

Why are you afraid to question your beliefs?

Iacchus

9th July 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by daenku32

If you have a million different minds thinking about it for their lifetime you'll probably end up with close to million different 'truths'.So?

Why are you afraid to question your beliefs? What do you mean?

9th July 2004, 04:45 PM

I'd much rather trust validated knowledge presented in a scientific journal than my own mind - I know I am ignorant, and in so knowing, know that I must rely on research and science, on the learning of others, to know the truth, and that I must deny the knowledge of my mind to know the truth.

This only goes to show the fundamental error in your thinking, Iacchus - you trust your 'mind' over what has been objectively proven. This indicates idiocy.

As for the 'proof denies faith' thing - a Christian society relies on faith. Proof denies faith but is required for truth. Therefore to a religious society truth is irrelevant. The actual quote, I think I may have taken from Hitchhiker's Guide (Douglas Adams), but is supposedly based on info from the Bible (currently seeking this one).

It's a dogma I've heard quite often elsewhere, though - anywhere where the truth starts eroding at their tenants of faith.

RabbiSatan

9th July 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So?
Here's a hint: They all can't be the "Truth(tm)", now can they? :rolleyes:

What do you mean?
He means your reluctance to engage in discussion and answer questions.

Iacchus

9th July 2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I'd much rather trust validated knowledge presented in a scientific journal than my own mind - I know I am ignorant, and in so knowing, know that I must rely on research and science, on the learning of others, to know the truth, and that I must deny the knowledge of my mind to know the truth.Perhaps this is why you can't recognize anything original?

RabbiSatan

9th July 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps this is why you can't recognize anything original?

Recognizing originality has nothing to do with relying on scientific research, fool. Congratulations are in order for using nonsense to answer one part of his post while ignoring the other 2/3s.

9th July 2004, 05:09 PM

I can recognize anything original... assuming there is such a thing.

However, after about the age of 2, you quicky realize that all things are similar to all other things, in some form. The moment you see something new, you start classifying it to compare it to things you know. Sometimes you need to make a new classification, but in most cases, you rely on pre-existing classifications.

At any rate, upon coming across something unclassified, the most logical thought would be to ask around and learn what this new thing is; if no one can answer you, and further research proves fruitless, you start analyzing its properties. Eventually, you will either gather enough properties to compare it to a pre-existing thing, or you will have added to the knowledge pool by determining the properties of a new thing.

In either case, you are working with the knowledge of an external reality as perceived by the internal self. You are not relying on what your mind 'knows', but on what you can learn through your senses or through contact with other people. Otherwise, you just lable a new thing blindly and move on, ignorant of the truth.

I somehow suspect the latter is your pattern, btw...

As for Swedenborg, some lengthy internet research (not overly reliable, but suitable for the most part) reveals that there are no confirmations of his beliefs; that is, absolutely no independant persons reporting other significant aspects of the Second Coming. So, what's the deal? Was Swede the 'new Prophet'? The Chosen One?? Is he perhaps Jesus reborn?

I'd be tempted to say that Swede's unique perspective is indicative of it being either a) a scam, b) a fantasy, or c) an isolated case of religious fanaticism.

Even the Bible had multiple authors.

9th July 2004, 05:15 PM

Duplicate post deleted - something weird's going on here...

9th July 2004, 05:22 PM

Make that a triple - sorry guys

Iacchus

9th July 2004, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I can recognize anything original... assuming there is such a thing.In other words there's nothing original about your post here and why should I bother, right?

Iacchus

9th July 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Recognizing originality has nothing to do with relying on scientific research, fool. Wow! Then there must be a lot of other fools on this board too if, they strictly rely on Science for an answer. Of course I realize I can't speak for everybody here but, I'm sure there are more than I can shake a stick at!

By the way, I'm just an unoriginal old fool for showing up here too now aren't I? ;)

Congratulations are in order for using nonsense to answer one part of his post while ignoring the other 2/3s. His posts are too long and they typically don't say anything. So why bother?

RabbiSatan

9th July 2004, 06:01 PM

In other words there's nothing original about your post here and why should I bother, right?

I don't know - why do you bother? You're a complete fool who doesn't bother to read anyone elses' post, and spouts complete nonsense.

Wow! Then there must be a lot of other fools on this board too if, they strictly rely on Science for an answer. Of course I realize I can't speak for everybody here but, I'm sure there are more than I can shake a stick at!

We rely on science for an answer, yes, whereas you?

You rely on circular logic, knowing absolutely true that you are right, so that, therefore, you are right :rolleyes:

I think I'll stick to verifiable science rather than whacked logic.

By the way, I'm just an unoriginal old fool for showing up here too now aren't I? ;)

Not to mention insane.

His posts are too long and they typically don't say anything. So why bother?

Right :rolleyes:

Since you cannot argue back with someone's points, you say that their posts don't contain anything - Not to mention even comparing me to a rapist when you were cornered.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

I don't know - why do you bother? You're a complete fool who doesn't bother to read anyone elses' post, and spouts complete nonsense.He said it. Not me. I was just agreeing with him there.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Not to mention insane.In the original sense or the unoriginal sense? Certainly if it's in the unoriginal sense then we can't expect Science to prove this now can we? However, if it's in the original sense, am I to take this to be your own opinion then? If so, then why should I believe you? You certainly don't have the evidence to back it up then do you? If you base everything on the empirical method, then you have no leg to stand on.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" ~ Matthew 7:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+7)

RabbiSatan

10th July 2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
In the original sense or the unoriginal sense? Certainly if it's in the unoriginal sense then we can't expect Science to prove this now can we? However, if it's in the original sense, am I to take this to be your own opinion then? If so, then why should I believe you?

More mindless drivel.

You certainly don't have the evidence to back it up then do you?

There's plenty - all of the threads you've participated in, where you refuse to address the issues and constantly babble nonsense in an effort to throw off people.

If you base everything on the empirical method, then you have no leg to stand on.

I'm convinced beyond doubt now that you truely are insane.

Gulliamo

10th July 2004, 07:45 AM

Now that this thread has, again, been thoroughly disrailed...

10th July 2004, 07:59 AM

I'm beginning to think that derailment is a last-ditch effort of the ignorant, when their ignorance has been illuminated to others.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

More mindless drivel.

There's plenty - all of the threads you've participated in, where you refuse to address the issues and constantly babble nonsense in an effort to throw off people.

I'm convinced beyond doubt now that you truely are insane. Why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)

Kitty Chan

10th July 2004, 09:00 AM

10th July 2004, 09:09 AM

It goes to prove that knowledge of a fact might be limited or wrong, but the fact remains.

This is where science is superior - it's always adjusting its claims based on new evidence. Every axiom, theory, or hypothesis remains as such until it can be irrefutably proven - then it's called a law. If, later, something defies said law, the law returns to theorem status until it can be adjusted accordingly.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

It goes to prove that knowledge of a fact might be limited or wrong, but the fact remains.How do you know, without believing it?

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I'm beginning to think that derailment is a last-ditch effort of the ignorant, when their ignorance has been illuminated to others. That must apply to me then because I'm the only one here (up to this point) that doesn't agree with what's generally being maintained. However, I'm not the one resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

Radrook

10th July 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
He said it. Not me. I was just agreeing with him there.

Are you posting and answering yourself?
Rabbi Satan and Iacchus when the profiles are clicked come out as the same person.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Are you posting and answering yourself?
Rabbi Satan and Iacchus when the profiles are clicked come out as the same person. The empirical evidence on my computer screen says no.

What the heck are you talking about? :D

10th July 2004, 10:10 AM

What ARE you talking about, Rad?

Oh, wait, never mind - probably mis-reading your Bible again.

Iacchus, fact is immune to belief or dis-belief. I can know a fact is true, without a need to believe it to be true. That which is true no longer requires belief or disbelief. Only when I am uncertain of a fact can I mention belief or disbelief.

For example, I could claim that I believe Radrook has a mental illness, though I do not know if the fact would support that belief. But there is a fact involved - either he is mentally ill, or he is not; and that fact will NOT change, whether I believe it or not.

The world is round, Iacchus - get over it.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 11:14 AM

The fact is just more immediate, because it's closest to the membrane, but it still requires you to believe it's there. Just like the fact of the apple which is staring me in the face will disappear if I look away. In other words how will I know I was just looking at it if I didn't believe I just did?

BillHoyt

10th July 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The fact is just more immediate, because it's closest to the membrane, but it still requires you to believe it's there. Just like the fact of the apple which is staring me in the face will disappear if I look away. In other words how will I know I was just looking at it if I didn't believe I just did?
Balderdash, brainlacchus,

this kind of pap is so mindnumbingly stupid. You have never been surprised by anything, brainlacchus? Never hit from behind by a snowball you didn't know existed until the moment it struck? Never stumbled over a rock you didn't see? How you nitwits talk yourselves into this crap should be the subject of an abnormal psychology study.

Brainwashing isn't the problem with you types. The problem is that high dryer setting causing all the shrinkage.

Iacchus

10th July 2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Balderdash, brainlacchus,

this kind of pap is so mindnumbingly stupid. You have never been surprised by anything, brainlacchus? Never hit from behind by a snowball you didn't know existed until the moment it struck? Never stumbled over a rock you didn't see? How you nitwits talk yourselves into this crap should be the subject of an abnormal psychology study.

Brainwashing isn't the problem with you types. The problem is that high dryer setting causing all the shrinkage. Ah, creative writing at its best. But what's it got to do with the evidence?

And what have you got your brain stuck in a vice or something? Want to make sure nothing gets escapes you? :D

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what's it got to do with the evidence?
It has everything to do with the evidence. This is the drivel you wrote:
The fact is just more immediate, because it's closest to the membrane, but it still requires you to believe it's there. Just like the fact of the apple which is staring me in the face will disappear if I look away. In other words how will I know I was just looking at it if I didn't believe I just did?
I responded to your points, a courtesy you never display here. Your drivel claim is this: The existence of things requires belief. I pointed out to you that you have tripped over holes and rocks in the past. That you suddenlly found snowballs flung at you. That you have been surprised by things in the past, clearly refuting this nonsense that you must believe in them before they exist.

11th July 2004, 06:34 AM

Off-topic - what's all this percent thing in people's sigs about, anyway?

On-topic - There is a phase in child development in which a child cannot understand that when he no longer sees an object that the object still exists. If Mommy walks out of the room, she has vanished entirely. Luckily for most of us, we outgrow this phase before we start talking.

Sadly for a few, they re-enter that phase when the get exposed to philosophy.

The alleged apple in front of you continues to exist, irrelevant of your belief of said apple. If you walk away, assuming no other intervention, the apple will slowly rot, attract a variety of insects, and start smelling bad. These are things you may detect later; yet if you didn't believe in the reality of the apple, you would still detect their effects. Your belief in said apple is utterly irrelevant.

Likewise, how many people believed for how long that the earth was flat? That the stars were tiny lights hung in the sky? That the sun circled the earth? That witches could fly on brooms and devils made people ill?

Their belief didn't alter reality one whit; this is what makes reality so obviously real. Your solipsist commentary just goes to show how truly juvenile you are.

It's another observation I'm starting to notice: stubbornly faithful yet ignorant Christians also tend to be solipsist. Perhaps, if they can cast enough doubt on the nature of reality, then their own warped views of reality might seem less ridiculous to others?

I suspect there is something to this...

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It has everything to do with the evidence. This is the drivel you wrote:

I responded to your points, a courtesy you never display here. Your drivel claim is this: The existence of things requires belief. I pointed out to you that you have tripped over holes and rocks in the past. That you suddenlly found snowballs flung at you. That you have been surprised by things in the past, clearly refuting this nonsense that you must believe in them before they exist. Don't you have any comprehension about what I'm saying at all?

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

The alleged apple in front of you continues to exist, irrelevant of your belief of said apple.I couldn't care less. The thing I want to know, is how do you know that the apple is there? In other words it can't be proven, based upon our senses that is. It's just like lifegazer says, the apple exists (for us anyway) only inside of our awareness of the apple. So whether it exists or not is besides the point.

By the way, I'm reasonably certain the apple does exist (due to my interacting with it), however, I could be entirely wrong. So, if you're going to call me the fool for saying so, you could stand to take a look in the mirror yourself.

So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?

Exactly!

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:39 AM

Man is a creature of belief ... No ifs ands or buts about it. You got that?

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

The alleged apple in front of you continues to exist, irrelevant of your belief of said apple.Originally posted by Iacchus

I couldn't care less. The thing I want to know, is how do you know that the apple is there? In other words it can't be proven, based upon our senses that is. It's just like lifegazer says, the apple exists (for us anyway) only inside of our awareness of the apple. So whether it exists or not is besides the point.

By the way, I'm reasonably certain the apple does exist (due to my interacting with it), however, I could be entirely wrong. So, if you're going to call me the fool for saying so, you could stand to take a look in the mirror yourself.

So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?

Exactly! Am only repeating this for those who start on this page without understanding why I made the statement at the top. No sense in re-hashing it if at all possible, right? ;)

Kitty Chan

11th July 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
It goes to prove that knowledge of a fact might be limited or wrong, but the fact remains.

This is where science is superior - it's always adjusting its claims based on new evidence. Every axiom, theory, or hypothesis remains as such until it can be irrefutably proven - then it's called a law. If, later, something defies said law, the law returns to theorem status until it can be adjusted accordingly.

If I say that they keep changing the "facts" on freon, and each time they say its fact and then it changes yet again. Then it never was or is "fact" Maybe current theory would be more accurate but No they always state it is a fact.

So how could that fact it remain if it always changes there is nothing to remain??

As for science being superior by what you stated I understand;

Science can say whatever it wants. Science can change the theory any time by adding or subtracting information. It can also make a law but if something is added or subtracted the law can be adjusted. So making a adjusted law.

So science just changes to suit the situations? by adding or subtracting different information? That would mean there is no such thing as a science fact then . . . which would make it more convient than superior.

This is a interesting observation.

12th July 2004, 05:15 PM

Iacchus - you are an idiot. The apple exists.

In this and at least another thread, you said "So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?"

When are we supposed to find out we're wrong?

It has nothing to do with belief - if one is presented with something that appears to be an apple, and meets other criterion relevant to applehood, then one may reasonably accept that it is, in fact, an apple; however, if we then discover it to be scented wax, then we know it to be a scented wax apple. Nonetheless, the apple still exists, but our understanding of what it was was incorrect. This has nothing to do with faith.

Faith would be if someone held out an empty hand and said, "Behold, I have here an apple." If you then claim there is an apple there, you are exercising faith.

But, obviously, you and Rad are so brain-dead, so indoctrinated in your faith, that simple facts are beyond you.

It's a wonder you can operate the alleged computer in front of you!

:D

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Man is a creature of belief ... No ifs ands or buts about it. You got that?

You are incorrect sir- and don't shout. It's not civil.

12th July 2004, 06:17 PM

If man were a creature of belief... wouldn't atheism be impossible?

Or are you implying that even an atheist believes?

Of course, since you assert that there are no such things as 'facts', then, by your warped view of things, we have no choice but to be 'believers'. However, creating a such a determination essentially 'factors out' the determination - if EVERYTHING is belief, then we can dispense with belief entirely; in other words, assuming everything is belief, then we can dispense with ideas of belief entirely. We can then look at belief in the real, vs. belief in the unreal.

If we then assert everything to be unreal (as you so did earlier), then we can again dispense with this factor; and we can then look at belief in the unreal things that we can perceive, vs. belief in unreal things that we cannot perceive.

This process can continue ad infinitum, of course, but it still classifies a notable difference between 'fact' and 'fantasy' - and still places religion nicely outside the realm of 'fact'.

However, since I think your idea that everything is a belief in unreal things is utter and complete nonsense, I don't have this problem - I can clearly see real vs. unreal and know which one is true.

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Iacchus - you are an idiot. The apple exists.As I have already stated, this is not what's in dispute.

In this and at least another thread, you said "So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?"And what if we were actually inside the holodeck on Star Trek, would you be able to dispute whether any apples in there were real or not?

When are we supposed to find out we're wrong?And how long did it take them to figure out the world wasn't flat? :D :D :D

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

If man were a creature of belief... wouldn't atheism be impossible?Yes, exactly! And, whether this is something which is done deliberately or not, it would seem to explain why Atheists are so adamant about not acknowledging it exists or, addressing it at all. So, if man were religious like I say, then it's certainly not hard to imagine how any notion of a god(s) might come into being.

Or are you implying that even an atheist believes?How ironic huh? :D

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 10:24 PM

And who knows, maybe this is what the original dispute in the Garden of Eden was all about? The fact that you have knowledge of something (i.e., knowledge of good and evil) does not make it real? But, that it's the tangibilty of the experience (within our awareness) that makes it real. In other words by placing emphasis on the external facts (knowledge), you lose sight of your original or true self which, is within you. The temptation you see, being to reach outside of one's self, to the illusion that external reality represents.

Of course does that mean we should blame Atheists for all of this? No. Because they are merely dramatizing the original choice (or, lack thereof) which was made in the first place.

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And who knows, maybe this is what the original dispute in the Garden of Eden was all about? The fact that you have knowledge of something (i.e., knowledge of good and evil) does not make it real? But, that it's the tangibilty of the experience (within our awareness) that makes it real. In other words by placing emphasis on the external facts (knowledge), you lose sight of your original or true self which, is within you. The temptation you see, being to reach outside of one's self, to the illusion that external reality represents.

Of course does that mean we should blame Atheists for all of this? No. Because they are merely dramatizing the original choice (or, lack thereof) which was made in the first place.

Bloody hell, now your fantasies aren't even internally consistent.

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 11:17 PM

Hate to tell you this but all we have is our internal being. And, to the extent that we are not true to this (ourselves), we are not real. You see it's not the fact that the apple exists that makes it real (otherwise it's just a fact you see), it's what you do with the apple that makes it real. In which case it becomes a matter of intent which, is what the true self entails, and, has nothing to do with external reality.

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hate to tell you this but all we have is our internal being. And, to the extent that we are not true to this (ourselves), we are not real. You see it's not the fact that the apple exists that makes it real (otherwise it's just a fact you see), it's what you do with the apple that makes it real. In which case it becomes a matter of intent which, is what the true self entails, and, has nothing to do with external reality.

Doot-doot doodle-oodle doot-doot do-do... :crazy:

RabbiSatan

12th July 2004, 11:36 PM

dmarker

12th July 2004, 11:42 PM

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 12:41 AM

From the thread, Limits of Science (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42820&perpage=40&pagenumber=7) ...

Originally posted by dmarker

I discern that my coffee table exists when I stub my toe on it. But, if there was no you internally to experience it, what difference does it make? Does a dead body experience pain? So what is it about the body that's missing that allows it to do so? In religious terms, this would be called a soul.

13th July 2004, 06:53 AM

Well, Iacchus, you are entitled to your opinion on the subject. As are we all.

I'm quite comfortable where I am. I believe in God and soul, but also in a solid reality which we perceive. I believe God and soul are outside of perceptable reality - possibly even outside reality as a whole - but firmly believe that facts remain true, regardless of our perception - that facts remain 'outside' us and remain true.

Of course, I also believe in intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities that lead me on vision quests - but that's another argument altogether.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, Iacchus, you are entitled to your opinion on the subject. As are we all.

I'm quite comfortable where I am. I believe in God and soul, but also in a solid reality which we perceive. I believe God and soul are outside of perceptable reality - possibly even outside reality as a whole - but firmly believe that facts remain true, regardless of our perception - that facts remain 'outside' us and remain true.While we're here, yes.

Of course, I also believe in intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities that lead me on vision quests - but that's another argument altogether. Collective unconscious. And yes, when you become a part of their realm, anything's possible.

Piscivore

13th July 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Collective unconscious.[/B]

Explain to the nice people how "collective unconsious" relates to "intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities" for the nice people, and show just how profoundly ignorant and deluded you are about Jung.

If you'd be so kind.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

Explain to the nice people how "collective unconsious" relates to "intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities" for the nice people, and show just how profoundly ignorant and deluded you are about Jung.

If you'd be so kind. The realm of dreams, myth and magic. Which, is the realm of the spirit or, soul.

By the way, if Jung didn't believe in the soul, he should have. ;)

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

Explain to the nice people how "collective unconsious" relates to "intangible dragons, faeries that drink wine eat candy and hide my keys, and dream entities" for the nice people, and show just how profoundly ignorant and deluded you are about Jung.

If you'd be so kind. While I just noticed you took what I said out of context which, is why my post (above) doesn't quite line up with yours. ;) I never mentioned anything about our friendly "little entities" existing in our realm.

13th July 2004, 08:01 PM

Interesting... According to a 'friend', Jung only had it half-right... but won't explain it to me unless I buy some licquor for him and leave it out back (in a wide dish, of course) overnight.

(sigh)

Dragons are such a hassle...

At any rate, it seems I need to read some Jung. Luckily, between our housemate and her dad, I think every important book of the last two centuries is within reach. Unluckily, half of them came straight from Poland, and I'm terrible with reading Slavic tongues.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Interesting... According to a 'friend', Jung only had it half-right... but won't explain it to me unless I buy some licquor for him and leave it out back (in a wide dish, of course) overnight.

(sigh)

Dragons are such a hassle...

At any rate, it seems I need to read some Jung. Luckily, between our housemate and her dad, I think every important book of the last two centuries is within reach. Unluckily, half of them came straight from Poland, and I'm terrible with reading Slavic tongues. I know enough about Jung to suggest his theories were much closer to the nature of mythology and myth, and does little to discount their meaning, much unlike the way modern psychology does today. And, while Jung brings up the notion of the collective unconscious (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97), and how these myths crop up time after time throughout the world, with no apparent connection except their striking similarities, I'm not sure that he makes a connection with the spiritual world. This is what Piscivore sites me for having said (no doubt I did) and wishes to take issue with me on. However, if a spiritual reality does exist, as I suggest, then the whole thing becomes moot, because the two must be one and the same.

Radrook

14th July 2004, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus

And how long did it take them to figure out the world wasn't flat? :D :D :D

Very good point!
Yesterday's facts are today's inanities.

Unfortunately, blind believers in science are oblivious to the constant changing nature of what they feel is absolute certainty.

True scientists don't think that way.
A true scientist knows and admits that today's theories might very well turn out to be tomorrow's absurdities.

So a true scientist keeps an open mind.
So do the nonscientists who have sufficient scientific knowledge to realize on what unsure shifting grounds the present scientific knowledge is based.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the sufficient understanding of science to realize this basic fact. Especially the frustrated or wannabe scientist or scientist admirers and scientist sycophants. These are the ones who are notorious for blindly believing in the inviolable permanence of present scientific theories.

Of course such a belief flies in the face of scientific history which is replete with theories discarded and now considered completely inane. But what is history to those that hoist with their own petard have an emotional necessity to believe such things?

It is a confirmation of what a certain philosopher said.
That man is not truly a creature of reason but merely a creature of irrationality buttressed by reason to justify it.

scribble

14th July 2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Unfortunately, blind believers in science are oblivious to the constant changing nature of what they feel is absolute certainty.

True scientists don't think that way.
A true scientist knows and admits that today's theories might very well turn out to be tomorrow's absurdities.

So a true scientist keeps an open mind.

EVERYONE STAND BACK! That strawman is on FIRE!

Burn, baby BURN!!

Marquis de Carabas

14th July 2004, 04:29 AM

I'm making s'mores.

14th July 2004, 07:08 AM

Even an 'open-minded' scientist wouldn't point at one book as truth, and all others as the 'work of Satan'.

Hot dogs are good on an open fire like this one...

Radrook

14th July 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I'm making s'mores.

Great stuff those smores Marquis de Carabas.
Great name they gave em too.
Try this:

Mash up some cornflakes with marshmallows and chocolate chips.
Role them up into balls. Man that there is good stuff!

BillHoyt

14th July 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Radrook

Very good point!
Yesterday's facts are today's inanities.

Unfortunately, blind believers in science are oblivious to the constant changing nature of what they feel is absolute certainty.

True scientists don't think that way.
A true scientist knows and admits that today's theories might very well turn out to be tomorrow's absurdities.

So a true scientist keeps an open mind.
So do the nonscientists who have sufficient scientific knowledge to realize on what unsure shifting grounds the present scientific knowledge is based.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the sufficient understanding of science to realize this basic fact. Especially the frustrated or wannabe scientist or scientist admirers and scientist sycophants. These are the ones who are notorious for blindly believing in the inviolable permanence of present scientific theories.

Of course such a belief flies in the face of scientific history which is replete with theories discarded and now considered completely inane. But what is history to those that hoist with their own petard have an emotional necessity to believe such things?

It is a confirmation of what a certain philosopher said.
That man is not truly a creature of reason but merely a creature of irrationality buttressed by reason to justify it.

Radrook to the front desk please. Your hay wagon is on fire.

Radrook

14th July 2004, 07:30 AM

Bad appetite again--huh? :D

BillHoyt

14th July 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Bad appetite again--huh? :D
Its your hay wagon. It has nothing to do with the people you are actually conversing with here. I just did a JREF forum search on myself as author using the term "provisional", and found 16 posts in which I discussed the provisional nature of science.

We recognize the provisional nature of science. But we also recognize your charicature of this as "unsure shifting grounds" is absurd. More importantly, however, you wish to construct a ridiculous argument from ignorance here. "Scientists don't know with certainty, therefore this Holy Book is TRUE!"

No sale. Science offers us the best available knowledge of the universe. When that knowledge has been amended, it has always been done through science, and not the silly argument from ignorance you try to construct.

It is your haywagon, having nothing to do with what we are writing here. It is on fire.

Leroy

14th July 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Question - could it be that one of the problems with those who have such powerful faith in things like religion be that they regard fact as another form of belief, rather than as fact?

I know, for example, that I don't have to believe in a fact for the fact to be true; and therefore, if I'm shown wrong about a fact, I concede myself to be wrong.

Yet it often feels to me like those who argue for their beliefs tend to ignore or downplay fact as if it were merely a conflicting belief.

I'm sorry if I'm not clear - the thought only just occured to me, and is still sitting in a hypothetical pool of essential amniotic fluid...

I could be wrong but I think they regard religion, god, moses, abraham, etc, as fact. I believe that people are programmed at a young age to accept religion as fact.

Mom and dad believe, grammy and grampy believe, aunt joan and uncle frank believe, my neighbors are in church every sunday, my school teacher and classmates believe, my friends parents believe, mr jones, who runs the local store believes, so why should I question it? It has to be fact if so many people believe, right? Nobody say's "We believe that God created the world." They say "God created the world and all living things in it." That's a fact statement programmed into the brain.

When you start questioning their fact you'd best duck! When you make them question it, duck again!

I do not mean any disrespect to anybody but how many of you believe in God because you had proof of his existance?

How many of you believe in God because it is what you have been taught since birth?

I believed because I had been taught since birth. I accepted God as fact because I was taught that way. When I was made to question my beliefs I was first angry, then curious. Then I went on a soul searching quest for truth.

I've discovered that God, religion the whole kit and kaboodle is not a scientific proven fact.

Does this cause me to dis-believe it now? Guess that is not important for ya'll to know.

Yep, it was a big shock when I discovered that all the religious facts about god, moses, jesus, and noah's ark, could not be proven. Finding that there was no santa or tooth fairy wasn't that devasting because I didn't hear about them that often, but God, Noah's Ark, the burning bush, Abraham and Isaac! They were in my home on a daily basis so that was a little more devastating.

I've always been one to question everything, but with religion the number one thing pounded into my head was "Don't question it."

Honestly, how many others who are firm believers in God, have been taught since infancy to believe?

Radrook

14th July 2004, 08:24 AM

Evolutionists are not programmed?

Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaahhahahahaha!

Tell me another joke cause that one was pretty good.

Leroy

14th July 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Radrook
Evolutionists are not programmed?

Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaahhahahahaha!

Tell me another joke cause that one was pretty good.

I can't speak for evolutionists I was not programmed to be one ;)

BillHoyt

14th July 2004, 10:11 AM

Here we go again, folks, we're about to be regaled with more "Tales from the Closed-Minded Skeptiscientist Crypt." Might even have time for "randibot" aspersions.

You make a claim, we ask for evidence. You cough and shuffle your feet. Then come back with this pap. Excelllent reasoning and debating skills.

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Here we go again, folks, we're about to be regaled with more "Tales from the Closed-Minded Skeptiscientist Crypt." Might even have time for "randibot" aspersions.

You make a claim, we ask for evidence. You cough and shuffle your feet. Then come back with this pap. Excelllent reasoning and debating skills. Yes, but in all seriousness (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43260) ... :D

BillHoyt

15th July 2004, 05:49 AM

Iacchus,

Please stop spamming this board. Please get serious yourself. Until you do, I am joining others in the call for you to stop this nonsense and for us to stop responding to your nonsense.

If you wish to seriously discuss any of your claims, there are plenty here willing to engage in that dialogue. Until you change your posting behavior here, however, you are merely sophomorically irksome.

Ratman_tf

15th July 2004, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Man is a creature of belief ... No ifs ands or buts about it. You got that?

I believe you're wrong.

And I believe I'll go have a beer now.

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Iacchus,

Please stop spamming this board. Please get serious yourself. Until you do, I am joining others in the call for you to stop this nonsense and for us to stop responding to your nonsense.

If you wish to seriously discuss any of your claims, there are plenty here willing to engage in that dialogue. Until you change your posting behavior here, however, you are merely sophomorically irksome. Yes, but why take yourself so seriously, when in fact meaning doesn't exist? Do you know what I think? You're full of baloney! :p

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

I believe you're wrong.

And I believe I'll go have a beer now. Hey, works for me. :D

15th July 2004, 08:29 AM

IN the spirit of such things - I hereby believe that Iacchus no longer exists.

And that Nelson is probably in a mental ward somewhere by now... :)

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 09:33 AM

Nelson Diez? Was that Radrook's name? I heard something as if he had posted here before. What's the deal?

15th July 2004, 09:42 AM

Well, admittedly, it's a bit of a stretch, perhaps... but a poster by the name of Radrook, on Radrooks own variety website, mentioned his name was Nelson. Further Googling popped up some hispanic forums whereby Radrook is shown to be Nelson Diaz.

About 3 minutes of Googling reveals that Nelson posts to roughly 40-50 forums, covering philosophy, astronomy, biblical studies, martial arts, English literature, poetry, religion, and science fiction. Based on a 4 minute analysis of his posting patterns, he spends roughly 7-8 hours per day posting to forums. Based on information in his posts, he is a Martial Arts instructor, English teacher, practicing amateur astronomer, and Expert in Bible studies for at least one Jehova's Witness group. As well as a webmaster.

One wonders where he finds the time to take part in all of his varied interests!

Of course, since one site mentioned an age range between 40-50, it may be that these are his PAST endeavors, and that his current, more sedentary life is led posting to forums and pushing his views on others.

dmarker

15th July 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, admittedly, it's a bit of a stretch, perhaps... but a poster by the name of Radrook, on Radrooks own variety website, mentioned his name was Nelson. Further Googling popped up some hispanic forums whereby Radrook is shown to be Nelson Diaz.

About 3 minutes of Googling reveals that Nelson posts to roughly 40-50 forums, covering philosophy, astronomy, biblical studies, martial arts, English literature, poetry, religion, and science fiction. Based on a 4 minute analysis of his posting patterns, he spends roughly 7-8 hours per day posting to forums. Based on information in his posts, he is a Martial Arts instructor, English teacher, practicing amateur astronomer, and Expert in Bible studies for at least one Jehova's Witness group. As well as a webmaster.

One wonders where he finds the time to take part in all of his varied interests!

Of course, since one site mentioned an age range between 40-50, it may be that these are his PAST endeavors, and that his current, more sedentary life is led posting to forums and pushing his views on others.

Don't forget insulting those who use the bible to contradict him. Yes, I know I shouldn't take joy in watching his meltdown, but I don't wish him any real harm.