Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[1213]

So you are claiming that simply saying an event happened is evidence that the event actually happened?

It is evidence for that it may have happened. If it would no have, we would not have the story. But, obviously, evidence does not mean that the claim is necessary true, not in any case of evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Those who told the stories have not claimed them to be true stories.

Well that was not what you claimed though was it?

If person tells a story, it indicates that the proposition is true,

By that rationale both Harry Potter and Lord of the rings would be true.

 

[KWED]

It is evidence for that it may have happened. If it would no have, we would not have the story. But, obviously, evidence does not mean that the claim is necessary true, not in any case of evidence.

So if I say I had sex with your mum, it is evidence that it may have happened. If it hadn't happened, we wouldn't have the story (I won't go into the details).
I think you need to start calling me "dad".

 

[KWED]

Man is a spiritual being, the facts do not lie, case closed.

What "facts" would they be?

 

[KWED]

No facetiousness here, ....so, you've seen a Christian mongoose or whale?

The Church seems to think it's a possibility.
Church of England to consider 'animal baptism'

But as you are well aware (hopefully!) I wasn't referring to animals following a specific human religion. The point was about some animals showing a "spiritual" side. Maybe try dealing with that rather than failed attempts at deflection through humour. Leave that to the experts.

 

[KWED]

If man is the most intelligent creature on the planet, why does his social behaviour tend to indicate otherwise?

It doesn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What "facts" would they be?

Well, there are no facts of the spiritual. But there are facts of the subjective and to me, that is what allows for religion and in general first person claims of what makes sense.
I have tried hard to do only reason, logic and objective evidence and I have been unable to replicate those who claim they can in effect do it for all of the everyday world.
I am still an atheist, but as a global skeptic I only have beliefs and faith in regards to objective reality in itself other then it being independent of the mind.
So if a person claims something I check for similarities or difference in beliefs. That is all. For some everyday contexts I use science. For other philosophy or religion.

 

[KWED]

Why is there so much inexplicable, gratuitous, and ruthless evil in the world?

How is that a response to the several specific points I raise in reply to your post?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is that a response to the several specific points I raise in reply to your post?

As long as however you consider a behaviour "wrong", it doesn't matter if in practice the other human can do it.

 

[KWED]

Why is there so much inexplicable, gratuitous, and ruthless evil in the world?

There is no single, universal answer.
However, one major element would be supremacist ideological intolerance and dehumanisation*.
People are inherently empathetic and altruistic. They generally don't feel it is ok to kill simply in order to get what they want. To override this, ideologies use the dehumanisation of outgroups. If people are convinced that others are somehow not really the same, then all sorts of appalling behaviour can be justified in the greater good.
Societies where such ideologies are absent tend to rank higher in safety, security, welfare, health, etc.

* This includes things like organised crime, not just religious and political.

 

[KWED]

There is no laws of science for human society as such. Or in other words you got laws of science for the physical, but not for the social.

Correct.

 

[KWED]

But there are facts of the subjective and to me,

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

 

[KWED]

As long as however you consider a behaviour "wrong", it doesn't matter if in practice the other human can do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no single, universal answer.
However, one major element would be supremacist ideological intolerance and dehumanisation*.
People are inherently empathetic and altruistic. They generally don't feel it is ok to kill simply in order to get what they want. To override this, ideologies use the dehumanisation of outgroups. If people are convinced that others are somehow not really the same, then all sorts of appalling behaviour can be justified in the greater good.
Societies where such ideologies are absent tend to rank higher in safety, security, welfare, health, etc.

* This includes things like organised crime, not just religious and political.

Yeah, Denmark is such a case. Yet my wife in her bookshelf have an university level book about the "everyday little evil". In a sense this low level form of yet systemic evil pops up in even welfare states in some cases.
And yes, it is in effect a side effect of how absurd it might be the idea of a "good life".

 

[Sheldon]

Man is a spiritual being, the facts do not lie, case closed.

A single sentence devoid of facts, you're priceless, and "case closed"? I don't think you have a very good grasp of how public debate works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

Yeah, but as long as I am subjective and know how to do that, your universal facts don't apply.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, that was apparently a feeling or if you like an opinion. How about something more that just that. How come you are confused that if religion is subjective, another human can do something subjectively different than you?
And no, don't give me the cases where objective reality kills someone. That is not all of the everyday world.

 

[KWED]

Okay, that was apparently a feeling or if you like an opinion. How about something more that just that. How come you are confused that if religion is subjective, another human can do something subjectively different than you?
And no, don't give me the cases where objective reality kills someone. That is not all of the everyday world.

Still not following you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still not following you.

Let us say that I claim I know that there is a God. You then check and determine that I am subjective. I.e. I believe I know that there is a God, but I don't know.
Can I do that? Have I done so? Well, yes, I have subjectively claimed an objective fact. Is it then a fact, that I have subjectively claimed an objective fact?
Well, that depends on how you view facts. One version of fact is this: an actual occurrence. Is it an actual occurrence, that some people subjectively claim something as objective, when it is subjective? Well, yes to me it is.

So when I done something subjectively, I am doing an actual occurrence. Now if you only view facts as being objective, then you run into the fact, that you only view facts as being objective, is an actual subjective occurrence, because it is a cognitive process in you.

So every time we play this game of objective, it is pointless, if what is going on, is subjective in part.

 

[KWED]

Let us say that I claim I know that there is a God. You then check and determine that I am subjective. I.e. I believe I know that there is a God, but I don't know.
Can I do that? Have I done so? Well, yes, I have subjectively claimed an objective fact. Is it then a fact, that I have subjectively claimed an objective fact?
Well, that depends on how you view facts. One version of fact is this: an actual occurrence. Is it an actual occurrence, that some people subjectively claim something as objective, when it is subjective? Well, yes to me it is.

So when I done something subjectively, I am doing an actual occurrence. Now if you only view facts as being objective, then you run into the fact, that you only view facts as being objective, is an actual subjective occurrence, because it is a cognitive process in you.

So every time we play this game of objective, it is pointless, if what is going on, is subjective in part.

Yeah, that actually made it worse.