How do you decide what is fact and what is fiction?

[Desert Snake]

Depends on how much you equate Woden with Gandalf, which I personally don't. They're certainly similar, but Woden isn't that nice.

How about Woden and Santa Claus?

 

[Nahwns Reefglin]

How about Woden and Santa Claus?

What about Jesus and Horus?

 

[psychoslice]

The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow, fiction is that an elephant will rise tomorrow.

 

[Acim]

The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.

This, to me, would be fictitious, but also widely accepted as 'fact.' Arguably one of those type of things most connected to fact (perhaps death and taxes being more connected).

But we kind of understand the sun won't do anything different in and of itself, so the 'rising' part is fictitious (even while it is technically 'observable') and seeing that tomorrow never actually comes, I think of that as a fictitious concept, but use it often enough to see its value, for me. Still haven't observed it though.

 

[psychoslice]

This, to me, would be fictitious, but also widely accepted as 'fact.' Arguably one of those type of things most connected to fact (perhaps death and taxes being more connected).

But we kind of understand the sun won't do anything different in and of itself, so the 'rising' part is fictitious (even while it is technically 'observable') and seeing that tomorrow never actually comes, I think of that as a fictitious concept, but use it often enough to see its value, for me. Still haven't observed it though.

Yes on that level you are right.

 

[Acim]

I think of "now, exists" as fact. And then would like to argue that "now is eternal" but do realize how that could be doubted/questioned. Still, not sure if we'd ever be able to find contrary evidence. At least now 'now.' Tee hee hee.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Depends on how much you equate Woden with Gandalf, which I personally don't. They're certainly similar, but Woden isn't that nice.

How do you determine that Woden is real; and that Gandalf is not real and is not Woden?

 

[Riverwolf]

How about Woden and Santa Claus?

What about Jesus and Horus?

Woden and Santa Clause are FAR more related to each other than Jesus and Horus. The former two are actually part of the same cultural continuum; the latter mostly related by geographic proximity and some thematic similarities.

That said, I actually consider Santa to be a figure distinct from Woden, given that they both oversee very different domains. (And Santa still has both his eyes. ) But I suppose that's the whole Frigga-Freya issue all over again.

It was a jest.

Ah, I did not notice. Apologies.

How do you determine that Woden is real;

I don't. My theism is agnostic.

and that Gandalf is not real

We know that Gandalf was created by a very specific person for a work intended to be fictional. The image is loosely based on the Wanderer archetype, and the name taken from the Calalogue of Dwarves from certain editions of Voluspa.

and is not Woden?

The name "Gandalf" actually translates from Old Norse into "Wand Elf." As far as I know, Woden traditionally has nothing to do with Elves, being of the Esan.

 

[Desert Snake]

Woden and Santa Clause are FAR more related to each other than Jesus and Horus. The former two are actually part of the same cultural continuum; the latter mostly related by geographic proximity and some thematic similarities.

Ok, just something that came up in another discussion.

 

[HonestJoe]

If I were to say to you any given number of things; whatever that may be; how do you decide if I am truthful or if what I'm saying is a possibility, etc?

I’m not convinced we actually need to make that specific distinction very often, if at all. In practice, we work on balance of probability, risk and practicality.

For example, if someone says “Don’t open that door, there’s a tiger in there!” you wouldn’t simply seek to determine the definitive truth of whether there is really a tiger behind the door. You’d consider the likelihood of the statement being true based on all sorts of factors such as the situation and the speaker but you’d also determine whether you needed to know for certain (if at all). If you have no need to go through the door in the first place, it doesn’t really matter. If you’re wearing your tiger-proof suit, you don’t care if there is a tiger in there or not.

In other cases, we accept something as truth without definitive proof. If we’re being taught by a trusted teacher or instructor, we’ll generally take their statements at face value (unless their specifically unbelievable). We don’t specifically check that WW2 started in 1939, we trust our history teacher is telling us the truth. If a bottle in the supermarket has “gluten free” written on it, we accept that it doesn’t contain any gluten. We don’t know for sure but we know the regulatory environment and companies self-interest makes it most likely. If we’re allergic to gluten, we might take a little more consideration, if we just don’t want to eat too much of it, we may well settle for that.

Actually, I can’t think of any examples where an individual would directly and specifically seek the definitive truth of a situation other than possible some very basic formal scientific procedures.

 

[Windwalker]

It seems we are operating under different definitions of the word fiction.

I don't really care to see who is "right" because words are subjective anyways.

That's interesting. Then how can we truly speak of what constitutes reality, fact versus fiction and the like, since all of it is modeled off how we understand words? The really interesting part is to understand the relationship between truth and fact. That really depends on the understanding of the words and the state of consciousness of the person understanding them, doesn't it?

 

[Kueid]

Fiction is the word used to describe "things" "invented" by people and therefore are "unreal". Fact is the word used to describe an event that the people who are using it believe it is "real".

 

[Windwalker]

Fiction is the word used to describe "things" "invented" by people and therefore are "unreal". Fact is the word used to describe an event that the people who are using it believe it is "real".

This is awesome.

 

[Kueid]

This is awesome.

Thanks dude! I'll use this opportunity to say to you that I'm grateful for your debate at the other thread, it was a REAL eye opening for me, I mean it. Thanks! I'm learning and see a figure like yourself acknowledging what I have to say it is rewarding I appreciate it.

 

[BSM1]

Fiction is the word used to describe "things" "invented" by people and therefore are "unreal". Fact is the word used to describe an event that the people who are using it believe it is "real".

Lots of "things" are invented by people daily, and they are not fictitious. It might be more correct to say that ideas and concepts invented by people are fictitious, unless they are proven true.

 

[Kueid]

Lots of "things" are invented by people daily, and they are not fictitious. It might be more correct to say that ideas and concepts invented by people are fictitious, unless they are proven true.

Yes. A lot of "things" are invented by people.. but not "invented". The quote has a meaning of its own.

 

[Demonslayer]

We know that Gandalf was created by a very specific person for a work intended to be fictional. The image is loosely based on the Wanderer archetype, and the name taken from the Calalogue of Dwarves from certain editions of Voluspa.

What about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? There are clearly fictional tales about them, but many people say he may have been a real person.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

’m not convinced we actually need to make that specific distinction very often, if at all. In practice, we work on balance of probability, risk and practicality.

I think we make this dinstinction on a daily basis; at least in determining which course of action is probably the most practical with the minimum risk. Here in RF, we have many people of many different worldviews and beliefs. And for many, these beliefs aren't just some club; it is a philosophy and/or a religion by which they make their daily decisions, formulate opinions about the world around them, and invest everything they have into a given notion of what they hold the "truth" to be.

Now; in just signing a lease, I certainly would read through the fineprint, conduct research on the leasing company, etc. I wouldn't just "sign my life away". And there, all I'm risking is money. On the other hand, I risk my "immortal soul" that I don't have an "immortal soul" with a bold proclamation, "there is no God". I can go into great detail on how I have attained that conclusion.

So the cruxt of my question has more to do with basal beliefs we hold to be true about the nature of divinity, good and evil, and the world around us upon which we build a foundation for our lives; and how we came to beleive that given claims of given theologies are true. I would throw in there other things upon which people become fanatical and pursue their entire ives: 911 conspiracy theories, hunting Bigfoot, living in fear of the Illuminati ... When we hold such things to be true that have such profound impacts on our live and choices, I think it behooves us to ask ourselves how we came to believe that the given claim is true and if we still hold that given claim to be true,

We don’t specifically check that WW2 started in 1939, we trust our history teacher is telling us the truth.

But maybe we should fact check and correct our history teacher; because they often "teach" us that Columbus sailed the world to prove it was round and the Pilgrims and Native Americans sat down around a table for a festive, happy meal on the 1st Thanksgiving. Even holding these "minor" claims to be true, it does have an effect on how we view or world.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As one who subscribes and values science (as little as I understand it), verifiable evidence, logic (as little as I understand it), fact checking, etc; I find it perplexing how many who do not hold to such ideals decide what is real and what is not real.

If I were to say to you any given number of things; whatever that may be; how do you decide if I am truthful or if what I'm saying is a possibility, etc?

science, evidence, fact checking, few things are so subjective and unreliable!

As long as we recognize our faith, in whatever it is we believe, we cannot stray nearly as far wrong, as we do when we accept someone else's subjective opinion as 'scientific fact'

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

science, evidence, fact checking, few things are so subjective and unreliable!

As long as we recognize our faith, in whatever it is we believe, we cannot stray nearly as far wrong, as we do when we accept someone else's subjective opinion as 'scientific fact'

Fact checking, science, evidence are things that are subjective an unreliable?

Then how do you decide what is true? You are an enigma to me; your facts, to me, are so eschew, devoid of logic, unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever, subjective or otherwise. Most of what you claim is, anyway.

So let's start with you, I guess:

You believe in a creator; that our existence was intelligently designed by some creator deity.

By what process did you come to this conclusion? If "science, evidence, fact checking" are subjective and unreliable, then by what means do you determine that there is, indeed, a creator deity?

I am not wishing to argue the merits of such a claim; I simply want to try to understand how you, and others like you, reach that conclusion!