Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

[paarsurrey]

Yes. Since your are a Muslim, everyone can reliably say that you see that Islam is the right path to heaven. i do not even need to be a Muslim scholar to infer that.
Ciao
- viole

If you trust a Muslim scholar then why don't you believe that "Islam is the right path to heaven"?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

It is the religious-forums, religion, every one of them has experts of religion, they do qualify from their institutions; why the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists don't believe them? If they think following of the academia or the accredited scholars is a must; they should be the first to follow them. Yet they don't. Why? Please
Regards

I think it's mainly because, with religious beliefs and theology, there is a lack of verifiable, demonstrable evidence. Much is based on revelation which, to those who were not raised religious, seems a bit far-fetched. This is opposed to academia, where authorities are only as good as the evidence they use to back up their beliefs.

 

[paarsurrey]

Prayer and medicine? Better safe then sorry, I guess
Ciao
- viole

I couldn't make out as to what one wanted to say. Please express yourself fully.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

How many bridges have you built? How many heart surgeries have you performed? How many diseases have you eliminated from the Earth? How many computers have you built and taken apart? How many farms have you operated? How many times have you had to control air traffic? How many people's lives were you able to save successfully predicting a natural disaster? How many books have you translated? Etc....
Ah, what's even the point of education if everyone already agrees about everything?

Now, please put all these question to yourself and answer them for our benefit.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Please let us know as to what one understands from the words "evidence", "verifiable" and "repeatable". One's own understanding not of the lexicon, please.
Regards

Evidence that is not only documented, but also is within reach of the common person. Verifiable just means that we don't have to take anyone's word for subjective experiences or anything. We can look at the evidence and verify the theory presented by an acedemic. Repeatable means that you can conduct a controlled experiment yourself and see the same results.

 

[paarsurrey]

If I did, I would flip my religion all the time depending on the professional I am talking to.
If I ask different physicists about gravity, it is plausible I would get the same explanations. Explanations that do not depend on where they were born or what their parents know about physics.
Can you say the same about religion?
Ciao
- viole

Don't you already believe in gravity?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Don't you already believe in gravity?
Regards

Why would that matter?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
It is the religious-forums, religion, every one of them has experts of religion, they do qualify from their institutions; why the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists don't believe them? If they think following of the academia or the accredited scholars is a must; they should be the first to follow them. Yet they don't. Why? Please
Regards

I think it's mainly because, with religious beliefs and theology, there is a lack of verifiable, demonstrable evidence. Much is based on revelation which, to those who were not raised religious, seems a bit far-fetched. This is opposed to academia, where authorities are only as good as the evidence they use to back up their beliefs.

The religions also have academies and hence academia. They also have accredited scholars and experts in religion. Why not believe in them?
Is one biased? Please
Regards

 

[dust1n]

Now, please put all these question to yourself and answer them for our benefit.
Regards

No problem. The answer is 0. I'm not an academic, and I never listened to or attended classes taught by academics. Therefore, I lack the knowledge even necessary to build a bridge, perform surgery, fight disease, build computers, operate farms, or predict weather. I could possibly do your taxes though, but even then, I'd probably have to take a class pertaining to taxes in your country. I guess I could not believe any of them, but then I suppose I could give up hope on accomplishing any of those things too.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence that is not only documented, but also is within reach of the common person. Verifiable just means that we don't have to take anyone's word for subjective experiences or anything. We can look at the evidence and verify the theory presented by an acedemic. Repeatable means that you can conduct a controlled experiment yourself and see the same results.

Does you understanding of these words fit on all the aspects of life and all the knowledges equally?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

paarsurrey said: ↑
It is the religious-forums, religion, every one of them has experts of religion, they do qualify from their institutions; why the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists don't believe them? If they think following of the academia or the accredited scholars is a must; they should be the first to follow them. Yet they don't. Why? Please
Regards

The religions also have academies and hence academia. They also have accredited scholars and experts in religion. Why not believe in them?
Is one biased? Please
Regards

You are confusing trusting their knowledge of specific theologies of specific religions, which is fine, with trusting their belief that those things are true. There is evidence for the former, but there is not verifiable evidence for the latter, as you have to trust them about their own subjective experience.

 

[leibowde84]

Does you understanding of these words fit on all the aspects of life and all the knowledges equally?
Regards

Yes.

 

[viole]

Don't you already believe in gravity?
Regards

I do not believe in gravity. I accept the evidence thereof everytme I weight myself in the morning. Different thing.

But my point relates to the fact that most scientists agree on the same epistemology when it comes to scientific issues. Independently from their culture and upbringing, in general. Belief in God, on the other hand, is fragmented in clusters. If you are born in Saudi Arabia you will probably become a Muslm. If you are born in Alabama, probably not. But if both individuals study physics, they will both agree on the qualities of gravity.

Why do all believers in gravity, as you would call them, agree on what gravity is, while believers in God do not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

No problem. The answer is 0. I'm not an academic, and I never listened to or attended classes taught by academics. Therefore, I lack the knowledge even necessary to build a bridge, perform surgery, fight disease, build computers, operate farms, or predict weather. I could possibly do your taxes though, but even then, I'd probably have to take a class pertaining to taxes in your country. I guess I could not believe any of them, but then I suppose I could give up hope on accomplishing any of those things too.

Well, even then you are living your life a fine way. Right?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes.

Now please fit them on history. Right?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Now please fit them on history. Right?
Regards

Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you are asking here.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not believe in gravity. I accept the evidence thereof everytme I weight myself in the morning. Different thing.
But my point relates to the fact that most scientists agree on the same epistemology when it comes to scientific issues. Independently from their culture and upbringing, in general. Belief in God, on the other hand, is fragmented in clusters. If you are born in Saudi Arabia you will probably become a Muslm. If you are born in Alabama, probably not. But if both individuals study physics, they will both agree on the qualities of gravity.
Why do all believers in gravity, as you would call them, agree on what gravity is, while believers in God do not?
Ciao
- viole

You don't believe in gravity? You don't believe that Earth is round? Do you?
Do you think that science is the only knowledge that exists in the world, except it there is no other knowledge? Do you, please?
Your generalization about the truthful religion is wrong. In almost all parts of the world it is spreading and people convert to it. Even yesterday I was introduced to two persons, on got converted to Islam from Christianity belonged to Canada and the other was a Hindu who got converted to Islam he belonged to Trinidad.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

You don't believe in gravity? You don't believe that Earth is round? Do you?
Do you think that science is the only knowledge that exists in the world, except it there is no other knowledge? Do you, please?
Your generalization about the truthful religion is wrong. In almost all parts of the world it is spreading and people convert to it. Even yesterday I was introduced to two persons, on got converted to Islam from Christianity belonged to Canada and the other was a Hindu who got converted to Islam he belonged to Trinidad.
Regards

There are of course other sources of knowledge, but they aren't as reliable as the scientific method. And, when speaking of experts, we should be skeptical until they support their expertise with evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

icehorse said: ↑
I'll quickly reiterate what jonathan said so eloquently a few posts back:
It all boils down to verifiable, repeatable evidence.
Yes, I agree that there are fakers in the world. Fakers can't produce verifiable, repeatable evidence.
paarsurrey said: ↑
Please let us know as to what one understands from the words "evidence", "verifiable" and "repeatable". One's own understanding not of the lexicon, please.
Regards
leibowde84 said: ↑
Evidence that is not only documented, but also is within reach of the common person. Verifiable just means that we don't have to take anyone's word for subjective experiences or anything. We can look at the evidence and verify the theory presented by an acedemic. Repeatable means that you can conduct a controlled experiment yourself and see the same results.
paarsurrey said: ↑
Now please fit them on history. Right?
Regards

Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you are asking here.

Can one go back in time and verify the history of Greece say in the time of Socrates as it happened and repeat the events of his life? Please
Regards

 

[viole]

You don't believe in gravity? You don't believe that Earth is round? Do you?

No, I do not. But I believe there are other life forms in the universe. i need belief only in things that do not have evidence.

I think people would look funny at me if I solemnly state that I believe that the earth is not flat. Don't you think? If you do not believe me, try it at next cocktail party.

Do you think that science is the only knowledge that exists in the world, except it there is no other knowledge? Do you, please?

Yes, I think so. That does not entail that things inaccessible to science, if any, cannot be true. It just entails you cannot possibly acquire knowledge of them.

Your generalization about the truthful religion is wrong. In almost all parts of the world it is spreading and people convert to it. Even yesterday I was introduced to two persons, on got converted to Islam from Christianity belonged to Canada and the other was a Hindu who got converted to Islam he belonged to Trinidad.
Regards

Yes, and I met four people who turned Christians from being Jewish.

Come back to me when the whole world is Muslim. I will settle for full conversion of something as tiny as Switzerland. Good luck, lol.

Ciao

- viole