Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[SkepticThinker]

The real healers are not showing off their ability in public, nor as in a business an other thing is, if you want to be healed because of wanting to end disability, or because of ego, the healing wont work.
A true healer does not heal our of ego, but from unconditional love.

Weird how we don't see all these "healers" camped out in children's hospitals or something useful like that. Weird how we just never see that.

It's always "not showing off their ability in public," which translates to me as "I don't actually have any demonstrable abilities."

 

[shunyadragon]

Apparently you don't understand what a fact is, either. Scientific theories are generally facts and theories.

I prefer theories and hypothesis in science as 'fact' based, and not 'facts' as such.

The definition of 'fact' is best understood in the layman's definition perspective where individual 'facts' are considered more fixed and true. Objective verifiable evidence may be considered 'facts.' Theories and hypothesis are always subject to change, found false, or modified with new knowledge, What is often called the Theory of Evolution is best considered the Science of Evolution, because there are many theories and hypothesis involved with the science of evolution.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your blind faith is based on blind faith. It is based on a faith that you are indoctrinated to believe others are by default "projecting", inferior, unscientific, illogical, unreasonable, but by making a bigoted decision like that it is you who is being unscientific, illogical and unreasonable.

Except that he is correct. You are projecting. He doesn't need to read your mind to know that you believe by faith and eschew reason. He know from your words, as do I.

He's not indoctrinated. You are.

And there is nothing bigoted about pointing out that faith is unreasonable. It is the faith based thinker who is unscientific, illogical and unreasonable, not the critical thinker. And when the faith-based thinker falsely accuses others of those qualities he possesses, it's projecting.

You dont even know what science is all about. I mean its so bad, you dont even know your dogma properly.

You're projecting again. It's YOU who has the dogma, and who has shown no proficiency in science or the philosophy of science. Your treatment of the word fact confirmed that.

Maybe you love your superiority complex to feel good

You're still projecting. @Valjean doesn't have a superiority complex. He has the ethos to take a position of superiority, but he doesn't

Ethos is the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

@Valjean is clearly a knowledgeable, sincere, ethical, constructive, and trustworthy person. He can assume the posture of being somebody authoritative, but he doesn't. He is also humble.

 

[Valjean]

Ok. I think that means they are then beliefs.

Every belief is belief. The reason or evidence supporting the belief don't change it from being a belief. Pure faith, eyewitness observation, conjecture, whim or tested, scientific conclusions. All are beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

Lol. See, accusing others of "projecting", telling me what my religion or faith or beliefs are based on reading my brain like God, it is you who is "projecting".

It's projecting when qualities you, yourself embrace are attributed to someone who rejects them.
When one whose beliefs are faith based accuses another who rejects belief without empirical evidence of faith based beliefs, that's projecting.

Mate. Let me tell you. Your blind faith is based on blind faith. It is based on a faith that you are indoctrinated to believe others are by default "projecting", inferior, unscientific, illogical, unreasonable, but by making a bigoted decision like that it is you who is being unscientific, illogical and unreasonable.

What blind faith? My beliefs are fact-based, hence, not faith. I believe what is evidenced, not what I've been indoctrinated to believe. The facts you think I'm parroting are backed by sound, factual evidence, testing, and careful analysis. Faith is not.

How is my decision bigoted? How are my indoctrinators' beliefs unscientific, illogical or unreasonable? Examples, please.

If you educated yourself a little about other people and their so called "faiths" maybe you will find yourself a little better as a person.

How do you know me as a person? How is my knowledge of other faiths faulty, and how does this affect faith vs fact-based belief?

You dont even know what science is all about. I mean its so bad, you dont even know your dogma properly. Maybe you love your superiority complex to feel good, but why dont you find knowledge or learning to feel good instead? Or maybe humility and wisdom to feel good? Do you really need to make others inferior to feel good in life?

Your statements about science is so sad, you dont even know your own faith. Just like an evangelical hyper dogmatic priest.

Apologies for debating in a debate thread, citing facts, and making reasonable assessments. If you find specific errors in my posts please cite them.

See. Thats your own medicine.[/QUOTE]OK, cite some of my faulty reasoning or incorrect facts. I'm fine with discussing them.

 

[Valjean]

Jesus proved life after death.

?????????? --How so?
How are you defining "proof?"

 

[Sheldon]

How are you defining 'valid'? Evidence-based beliefs are, in my opinion, more valid than faith based-beliefs.

We can easily test this as well.

During a global pandemic we could utilise massive test groups, and vaccinate some, and pray for others, then when people become critically ill, we could give the best scientific treatment for some, and just pray for others.

I think ethically, only consenting adults should be allowed to participate as test subjects.

 

[Valjean]

I prefer theories and hypothesis in science as 'fact' based, and not 'facts' as such.

The definition of 'fact' is best understood in the layman's definition perspective where individual 'facts' are considered more fixed and true. Objective verifiable evidence may be considered 'facts.' Theories and hypothesis are always subject to change, found false, or modified with new knowledge, What is often called the Theory of Evolution is best considered the Science of Evolution, because there are many theories and hypothesis involved with the science of evolution.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"

https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Sheldon]

Weird how we don't see all these "healers" camped out in children's hospitals or something useful like that. Weird how we just never see that.

It's always "not showing off their ability in public," which translates to me as "I don't actually have any demonstrable abilities."

These "gifts" disappear pretty smartly when they are held up to anything approaching objective scrutiny.

 

[firedragon]

It's projecting when qualities you, yourself embrace are attributed to someone who rejects them.

What qualities. You are projecting your qualities to others. You are acting God.

 

[firedragon]

Except that he is correct

Fellow cultist to aid.

 

[danieldemol]

Fellow cultist to aid.

I'm not a member of secular humanism, but I think that given the definition of fact explained in @Valjean 's link post#308;
'"fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."...
... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

I think Valjean's definition of fact makes him semantically correct.

Evolution is not raw data, and defined as data the Theory of Evolution does not qualify as fact according to my understanding, but defined as being confirmed to such a degree it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent, under this different definition the ToE qualifies as fact.

So as long as you view Valjean's post with an inside understanding of what he is actually saying he is correct on that, no need to be a co-religionist necessary.

By the way, how would you feel if instead of addressing your arguments one or all of the rest of us were to dismissively call Islam a cult?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not a member of secular humanism, but I think that given the definition of fact explained in @Valjean 's link post#308;
'"fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."...
... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

I think Valjean's definition of fact makes him semantically correct.

Science does not deal prove facts. You are absolutely wrong. I know that we as laymen use words arbitrarily but this is how science works.

By the way, how would you feel if instead of addressing your arguments one or all of the rest of us were to dismissively call Islam a cult?

Lol. I dont see any muslims in this thread grouping up. But you are right, no one should be called a cult. But you can call Islam a cult if you wish. Doesnt hurt me at all. Please go ahead.

Anyway, what is the argument Val is making? Can you explain his argument?

 

[danieldemol]

Anyway, what is the argument Val is making? Can you explain his argument?

His argument according to my understanding is that the Theory of Evolution is so well evidenced that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

@Valjean is that a reasonable approximation of your thoughts?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

His argument according to my understanding is that the Theory of Evolution is so well evidenced that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

@Valjean is that a reasonable approximation of your thoughts?

In my opinion.

Which post of his are you referring?

 

[firedragon]

Apparently you don't understand what a fact is, either. Scientific theories are generally facts and theories.

This is his argument @danieldemol

Since you agree with him based on some link so passionately, can you quote me a philosophy of science book where the educated philosopher of science agrees with this argument? Not some anti religious, apologetic somewhere. Be a bit better than that.

 

[danieldemol]

Which post of his are you referring?

post #305 where Valjean refers to "facts" coupled with the insights gained from the link he provided in post #308 as to what he means when he says "facts".
In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

This is his argument @danieldemol

Since you agree with him based on some link so passionately, can you quote me a philosophy of science book where the educated philosopher of science agrees with this argument? Not some anti religious, apologetic somewhere. Be a bit better than that.

I'm personally unfamiliar with whether the philosphers of science agree with his semantic definition of fact, but that seems to me to be besides the point, which is that it *is* perverse to withold provisional assent from a scientific theory as well evidenced as the ToE. You may quibble about the word "fact", but do you disagree with the underlying point he appears to be trying to get across as understood by me?

In my opinion

 

[firedragon]

post #305 where Valjean refers to "facts" coupled with the insights gained from the link he provided in post #308 as to what he means when he says "facts".
In my opinion

I cant see anything about evolution in that post.

I'm personally unfamiliar with whether the philosphers of science agree with his semantic definition of fact,

Right. So please read up.

 

[firedragon]

which is that it *is* perverse to withold provisional assent from a scientific theory as well evidenced as the ToE.

This is irrelevant. A strawman.