Hello

[4consideration]

Also, I believe that if you are religious, there can be only two reasons for that: 1) lack of information or knowledge about science, or 2) not seeing the value of facts.

I agree that the belief i expressed contains an absolute.
However, this is not the same as saying my belief is absolute.

I disagree. But, OK, I can see why you would say that.

Of course it includes an assumption of my ability to determine their reasons for believing.
Key word being 'assumption'.

So, are you maintaining that you have the ability to know the all of the reasons why a group of people would do the same one thing?

Now, you go on to say my reasons are the same as 'ignorance and stupidity'. This is not the case. Ignorance; yes. Stupidity; no. My second reason is not saying people are stupid, just that they do not see the value of facts.

Value is a judgement call. There are valid reasons for assigning value. But, value is still a subjective term. What is considered a "fact" contains subjective informations as well. I contend that in order for any human-being to collect data, analyze data, or draw conclusions from information -- including establishing what one considers to be pertient information -- that process will to some degree, involve the use of human perception, instrumentation and judgment. What we call "facts" is practical and useful for purposes of comparision and learning about the world, but I think that it is pretty well recognized that what we call "facts" necessarily includes some degree of subjectivity. So, two people may agree or disagree on the absolute, objective existence of particular "facts" or the meaning or conclusions that may be drawn from those "facts" -- but that does not equate with a necessity that either party does not value facts, in general.

You ask me to consider that people have reasons for believing what they believe. I do. Just not reasons that are based on facts.

What specific facts are all religious people ignorant of, in denial of, or not recognizing the value of? Or, what are the reasons that they all use that are reasons not based upon facts?

And you go on to say that my statement is very unscientific. I completely and utterly disagree with you.

I still think that your original statement (the quote at the top of this post) is unscientific, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

I think i have to phrase my statement a bit more carefully from now on.

if
my experiences [about individuals from a population]
are
giving (accurate) information [about the population as a whole]
then
there are only 2 reasons for being religious.

This is not unscientific.

This statement I would call scientific. This is not what you originally said.

I make two assumptions, and use these to give one explanation.
This is the basis of logic and the scientific process.

No. You assert a premise (if one is religious), then draw a conclusion that at least one of two statements must be true -- without presenting evidence. I disagree with that statement, and would like to see you support it. I'm not trying to put you on the spot about an opinion. I just didn't really think you were presenting it like an opinion, but as an assertion of fact.

As you could read in the very last sentence of my first post, i said: "who knows, maybe you guys can prove me wrong".

I saw that. I was not concluding that you were trying to be obstinate, or anything like that.

Indicating that, based on my experiences so far, i assume my hypothesis to be true. Again; this is what they do in science as well.

It is fine for you to assume that your hypothesis is true and to proceed from there. I think we all probably do that. I'm sure I do. I was responding to what you said. In your opening you expressed that you thought everything could be proven scientifically, so I was hoping you would prove what you were saying about other "religious" people -- that came across as insulting them or their intelligence. That's all.

However; you can prove me (my hypothesis) wrong. This means it is falsifiable, which again is scientific. It is proven false, when:

1. A person gives a reasoning for being religious
2. This reasoning does not show a lack of knowledge about science
3. This reasoning does see the value of facts; and is therefore based on them.

Nope. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that your hypothesis is correct.

In fact, this is exactly how science works. You collect data [experiences] from a sample [the people i have spoken to about this subject] to make inferences about the population [religious people as a whole].

I get your point, but you were not talking about tendencies or observations, you were saying there were only two reasons and those reasons were very limited.

Now when they get data that disproves these inferences, you give a new hypothesis, allowing for both the 'old' data, as well as the new data.

Regarding the subject of belief, I suggest you read the following link:
Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am familiar with various approaches to the subject of belief.

The point I am really trying to make here is that, even though there may be some evidence (even if there is a lot of evidence) that some people tend to be a certain way, once you decide that they are all that way, it can easily become a filter that automatically disregards information that might show you other possibilities. Because you do not know every person's reasons, you cannot, with certainty say they cannot be based upon facts.

As you can see, there are valid reasons for me using this definition when i talk about knowledge and religion.

And finally; please do prove me wrong then, and show me at least one person that has a reasoning for being religious, that uses facts for this.

One person.

I am not interested in proving you wrong. I just don't see that you have yet proven what you said to be right.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

kukuku

so much argument within an introduction thread - the world has ended with the entrey of yet another James into the forum

 

[Iti oj]

who is james?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

He says his name is James in the OP

 

[Iti oj]

but i thought the world ended with me? thats what my video game The world ends with you suggested

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That was a different world.

Wubs is responsible for destroying this one.

 

[Iti oj]

That was a different world.

Wubs is responsible for destroying this one.

you have played the game?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I have no $$$

Y_Y

lol

 

[Iti oj]

I have no $$$

Y_Y

lol

but but but...wana borrow my copy? have a gameboy ds? also i thought i was the end of this world...see look at my title im the anti prophet.

 

[Student of X]

Hello,

My name is James and I am new to this forum (obviously).

Hello! Welcome.

What does the number 23 mean to you? And wut does wubs mean?

My view is that everything can be proven by science.

My view is that science is a neat toy and it is limited and clumsy and rigid.

 

[Iti oj]

23 was his age err i thought he was 23 we have a new user who is 23 who is that?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Sure, send me a copy, oh and your DS, and some cash would be nice too

I'm still not sure if by anti prophet you are attempting to deny the message of individual(s) either you or others think was a prophet, or whether or not you are saying you are a prophet of one who opposes the one who inspired the other prophet(s)

 

[Iti oj]

Sure, send me a copy, oh and your DS, and some cash would be nice too

I'm still not sure if by anti prophet you are attempting to deny the message of individual(s) either you or others think was a prophet, or whether or not you are saying you are a prophet of one who opposes the one who inspired the other prophet(s)

ahah nice try friend....so you have noticed and contemplated my user title before? hmm i think if anything i mean to so i speak in a way against an established message of hate behind love ...if the true message were to be lost and i would speak the true message people today would see me as an anti prophet yes? but over all im nothing but a man. just a man.

 

[garrydons]

Hello,

My name is James and I am new to this forum (obviously).
My view is that everyting can be proven by science.

Also, I believe that if you are religious, there can be only two reasons for that: 1) lack of information or knowledge about science, or 2) not seeing the value of facts.

Im looking forward to some interesting discussions.
Who knows; maybe some of you prove me wrong ^^

Welcome to RF!!! I am both religious and accept what has been discrovered by science. In fact even long before science discovered that the earth is round, it was already been revealed in the bible that the earth is round. (Isa. 40:22)

 

[wubs23]

So, are you maintaining that you have the ability to know the all of the reasons why a group of people would do the same one thing?

No. What I am saying is that I assume I can, until I find evidence that I can't.
(for clarity: I am talking about this specific case, not about groups in general)

What specific facts are all religious people ignorant of, in denial of, or not recognizing the value of? Or, what are the reasons that they all use that are reasons not based upon facts?

Well, these are only examples, and not every religious person uses or believes these to be correct, but i'll bite and name a few:
The belief that the earth is 6000 years old.
The belief that Jesus performed miracles, God was his father, and that he resurrected.
The belief that Noah was able to put 2 of every species of the world in the arc.

What i meant by "don't recognize the value of facts", is that there are no facts that provide evidence for God. Yet they believe in God.

I still think that your original statement (the quote at the top of this post) is unscientific, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

No, I agree with you on this part. Which is why I worded it differently the second time. Although both sentences are different; I meant the same.
The first sentence was poorly phrased, which is a mistake on my part.
(and I admit; partly put there to elicit responses)

This statement I would call scientific. This is not what you originally said.

I agree. It is what I meant to say, but you could not know that.

No. You assert a premise (if one is religious), then draw a conclusion that at least one of two statements must be true -- without presenting evidence. I disagree with that statement, and would like to see you support it. I'm not trying to put you on the spot about an opinion. I just didn't really think you were presenting it like an opinion, but as an assertion of fact.

I did not present evidence; that i'll admit.
However; in my life I have never met a religious person that provided any evidence against my hypothesis.

I saw that. I was not concluding that you were trying to be obstinate, or anything like that.

Thank you. Simple miscommunication then.

It is fine for you to assume that your hypothesis is true and to proceed from there. I think we all probably do that. I'm sure I do. I was responding to what you said. In your opening you expressed that you thought everything could be proven scientifically, so I was hoping you would prove what you were saying about other "religious" people -- that came across as insulting them or their intelligence. That's all.

And I stand by that claim. Everything can be proven by science - eventually.
About proving my hypothesis - i'll get back to that later in this post.

Nope. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that your hypothesis is correct.

Only if i would force other people to accept this as the only truth.
Since it is a personal opinion, the burden is on you to provide evidence as to why I am wrong.
When I say: "I believe girls are prettier than boys", it is not on me to prove that. It is on you to prove i'm wrong.
Now if I would say: "I know girls are prettier than boys and if you think otherwise you are retarded, since this is absolute truth", then it would be on me to prove it.

I get your point, but you were not talking about tendencies or observations, you were saying there were only two reasons and those reasons were very limited.

Actually, they are only limited in number. They encompass actually everything. If there is no evidence for event x, but you say event x is definitely true, then there are only two possibilities: 1. you misinterpreted the evidence, or did not have all the facts, or 2. you say evidence is unnecessary.

The point I am really trying to make here is that, even though there may be some evidence (even if there is a lot of evidence) that some people tend to be a certain way, once you decide that they are all that way, it can easily become a filter that automatically disregards information that might show you other possibilities. Because you do not know every person's reasons, you cannot, with certainty say they cannot be based upon facts.

I agree. It can easily become that. However; I truly can assure you, that for me this is not the case. If there is any person that shows a rational, fact-based reasoning for the believe in God, I am more than willing to accept this belief. That is not to say I agree with him, but I do accept that he has valid reasons for his belief. Also; I would then immediately aknowledge that my initial thoughts were incorrect.

Now; I cannot with certainty say their reasons aren't based on facts. I agree. In the same way, I cannot say that all swans are white.
What I can say, however, is that based on my observations so far, it is reasonable for me to assume all swans are white. Every observation of a swan that is white, confirms the likelihood of my hypothesis being correct.

However; it would require only 1 observation of a swan that is not white, to prove that my hypothesis is incorrect.

As long as you allow these observations to falsify your hypothesis; there is nothing wrong with assuming your theory to be correct.

If we couldn't do that, there would be no hope science. (except for math)

I am not interested in proving you wrong. I just don't see that you have yet proven what you said to be right.

Because I can't, unless I speak to every single religious person in the world. Same thing as I said in the section above this.

 

[wubs23]

That was a different world.

Wubs is responsible for destroying this one.

No, I'm not. -_-

Hello! Welcome.

What does the number 23 mean to you? And wut does wubs mean?

My view is that science is a neat toy and it is limited and clumsy and rigid.

23 is my birthday, wubs is just a word I frequently saw on the internet, but have never seen a definition for. Thought it sounded funny.

I agree that science is limited. That's exactly it's strength
Clumsy? Perhaps.
Rigid? Not at all. In fact; it is the most flexible way of thinking there is.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

wubs is just a word I frequently saw on the internet, but have never seen a definition for. Thought it sounded funny.

It's a cutesy way of saying the word "loves"

 

[wubs23]

THANK YOU!

seriously; you have no idea how long i've been looking to find the 'meaning' of that word.

Thank god. (pun intended ^^)

 

[4consideration]

No. What I am saying is that I assume I can, until I find evidence that I can't.
(for clarity: I am talking about this specific case, not about groups in general)

OK, I think we are now at the point of agreeing that we are talking about opinion.

Well, these are only examples, and not every religious person uses or believes these to be correct, but i'll bite and name a few:
The belief that the earth is 6000 years old.
The belief that Jesus performed miracles, God was his father, and that he resurrected.
The belief that Noah was able to put 2 of every species of the world in the arc.

What i meant by "don't recognize the value of facts", is that there are no facts that provide evidence for God. Yet they believe in God.

I understand that you recognize that not all "relgious" people believe what you indicated above. In my experience, many "religious" people do not take the bible literally, nor do all relgious people even refer to the bible within their belief systems.

I asked you this: "What specific facts are all religious people ignorant of, in denial of, or not recognizing the value of? Or, what are the reasons that they all use that are reasons not based upon facts?"

Your examples were specific beliefs, specifically geared toward a particular group of religious Christians. I think it would be distracting at this moment, to expand this conversation into a discussion about a variety of particular beliefs that various religious groups may or may not hold. You were making a general statement about an entire (religious) group of people. I was asking for your specific reasons for applying it across the board.

Perhaps a better way for me to have stated it would have been, "What is the common denominator fact(s) that is either unknown, held, or denied, by all religous people -- regardless of which religion they adhere to?"

I think that you would agree with me that the one common denominator would be a belief in God, and the issue of "facts" as it relates to holding a belief in God, or not. (If you do not agree, please correct me.)

It seems that you are making the point that in the absence of hard facts that proves something to be so, the only reasonable assumption would be to assume that it is not so. I think that is often a valid assumption, but I do not think that it applies to all issues -- across the board.

Can you prove with facts that Love exists? Do you believe that Love exists? Are there any "facts" that a person can present that unequivocably verify that it is Love and not simply an action presented or interpretted as an expression of Love?

If one cannot present such facts, does that really require in all cases, that one ought to presume Love does not exist until it can be empirically verified that it does? I do not think so. That is, of course, simply my opinion.

Only if i would force other people to accept this as the only truth.
Since it is a personal opinion, the burden is on you to provide evidence as to why I am wrong.
When I say: "I believe girls are prettier than boys", it is not on me to prove that. It is on you to prove i'm wrong.
Now if I would say: "I know girls are prettier than boys and if you think otherwise you are retarded, since this is absolute truth", then it would be on me to prove it.)

I agree that you are free to have your opinion. What I have on this matter is only my opinion, too. It is really only the absolute nature of the opinion that you presented that I was objecting to. Actually, though, your second sentence about girls is how I interpretted your introductory post about "religious" people, and really was what I was taking issue with. If you say that was not your intended communication, then I will accept that.

Actually, they are only limited in number. They encompass actually everything. If there is no evidence for event x, but you say event x is definitely true, then there are only two possibilities: 1. you misinterpreted the evidence, or did not have all the facts, or 2. you say evidence is unnecessary..)

Here you seem to be equating evidence with facts. I see a distinction needed, and I see it as a possible sticking point. A person may not have "facts" (something tangible that they can present to you) and still have evidence (personal experience, perhaps a lifetime of personal experiences) that they cannot present to you in tangible form -- because they are experiences. Simply because they cannot present them to you in tangible form does not mean they do not exist for the person, and also does not mean that they are invalid bits of information (for that person) from which to formulate, or support, a belief.

I agree. It can easily become that. However; I truly can assure you, that for me this is not the case. If there is any person that shows a rational, fact-based reasoning for the believe in God, I am more than willing to accept this belief. That is not to say I agree with him, but I do accept that he has valid reasons for his belief. Also; I would then immediately aknowledge that my initial thoughts were incorrect.

I agree that I am not aware of anyone that has "facts" that prove or disprove the existence of God, nor do I know anyone that claims to have them. And here is where I see that another sticking point on the matter often resides. If facts about the existence of God do not exist at this time, in either direction, then either side is equally dependent upon "evidence" for determining what perspective to take. Many choose the perspective in favor of an assumption of God, many choose an assumption there is not a God, and many choose to reserve formulating an opinion either way (and there are probably many other perspectives I haven't thought of just now.)

I, personally, see either of those perspectives to be just fine. Since there are no hard "facts" specifically about God, a person is likely to do just like you did (or I do in many issues of life) and that is to formulate a belief based upon the evidence (which includes personal experience) that they do see. That evidence will not necessarily be something that the person will fully expose in a conversation with another person, for reasons of time, privacy, assuming that other people aren't interested in hearing all about one's life experiences/personal story, etc. It does not necessarily mean that the person is not basing their beliefs on personally held evidence.

Now; I cannot with certainty say their reasons aren't based on facts. I agree. In the same way, I cannot say that all swans are white.
What I can say, however, is that based on my observations so far, it is reasonable for me to assume all swans are white. Every observation of a swan that is white, confirms the likelihood of my hypothesis being correct.

I get what you are saying, it just looks to me like you are taking a position of assuming the worst about someone else (regarding reason) unless shown otherwise.

As I see it, you seem to be holding a "religious" person to a standard for formulating a belief that you do not hold yourself to in this situation. If it is reasonable and appropriate for you to hold a belief about "religious" people based upon your own personal experiences with some of them, then why is not reasonable and appropriate for a "religious" person to formulate a belief about God based upon their own personal life experiences?

However; it would require only 1 observation of a swan that is not white, to prove that my hypothesis is incorrect.

I cannot provide you with empirical evidence, either way, on the subject.

 

[Telling The Truth]

Welcome James !