Religion — Page 97

Possessed said:

Chyron hasn’t even GAVE his reasons. That’s what most are curious about.

I acknowledged that in my post above and he has explained at least a couple of times why he isn’t giving reasons for his certainty. I don’t think he should be made to cobble something together when he doesn’t feel competent to express himself on the matter. Does anyone doubt chyron’s sincerity on the certainty of his belief? Is any reason for his certainty going to satisfy anyone?

Mrebo said:

Does anyone doubt chyron’s sincerity on the certainty of his belief?

I don’t feel any doubt.

Thank you, thank you. Enjoy the veal.

Mrebo said:

Possessed said:

Chyron hasn’t even GAVE his reasons. That’s what most are curious about.

Is any reason for his certainty going to satisfy anyone?

It will not. It has already been established that it will not by the words and attitudes of others here and at length.
I can be 100% certain of my position if I so choose. You guys can call that ridiculous, but you’re going to anyway whether I explain why or not.

Besides, any evidence I give will, by definition, be anecdotal evidence given that I’m saying it, or hearsay because I’m repeating to you guys what someone else said to me. So either you guys can say I likely have no evidence because I do not give it, or you guys can say my evidence is not “fact”, or that my evidence is [insert fallacy]. Or whatever else. Either way, I lose the argument.

I don’t need to be picked apart like that. And I don’t see why you guys insist on me elaborating when the reality is you’ll take it with an enormous grain of salt, and it won’t change your mind anyway. And ZigZig is right that relying on hard evidence is the wrong way to go about it.

So I do not want to explain myself because 1) it is very personal; 2) I will clearly not be taken seriously; and 3) it won’t matter because it’s still not verifiable fact. I hold to my belief as truth, but that is my choice.

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

Trident said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)

True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.

When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.

It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉

Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.

But there are evidences. They just aren’t reproducible in a controlled environment. The fact that you dispute the credibility of those evidences doesn’t make them not evidences.

Anecdotal evidences, sure. The thing is, anecdotal evidence is wrong all the time. Someone can be absolutely certain that they saw Neralt Braum murder his wife, but that’s not enough evidence to prosecute. Maybe the witness doesn’t have the best eyesight, or maybe they did see something but misremembered it, maybe they saw Neralt Braum doing something and they filled in the details later when they saw that Neralt Braum was suspected of murdering his wife. Human perception isn’t always accurate, it’s not even usually accurate. Don’t expect others to put any value in your personal experience; because, even though it is technically evidence, it’s the least reliable evidence there is. I’d personally argue that even if we were just looking at anecdotal evidence, evidence like “I saw this,” or “I felt this,” is the least reliable type of anecdotal evidence. Like, if evidence were a scale, it would look like this.

This is a great way of looking at anecdotal evidence. It’s the easiest form of evidence to use but the hardest for us as humans to admit is pretty weak.

It happens to me all the time and I hope I can improve.

ZigZig said:

Mrebo said:

Then there is a post like Zig with his spaghetti monster sarcasm.

It is everything but a sarcasm (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything but mine):

"Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell’s teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them. "
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

This movement tries to illustrate the nonsense of treating religious beliefs and rational facts on the same level. That is why it seemed relevant to me in this particular discussion.

And your answer shows how much the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an appropriate parable in the present case…

I’m well aware what it is. And your post was clearly sarcastic (thus why I referred to your sarcasm). If you/those who purport to believe in the fsm were actually sincere, then the comparison would make sense. That of course would undermine your intended point.

As for debating religion as if it were scientific fact, I think it is conceded early and often by religious folk that that is wrongheaded. So at the end of the day, the fsm proves nothing.

ZigZig said:

Obviously, you are right, there is no risk :

• http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/opinion/james_gill/article_7818a4a0-38fd-11e8-aa1b-7b76a60d8193.html

Thank you for your foresight on that matter (THAT is sarcasm).

What does right-wing politics have to do with the idea, that basing one’s relationship with or belief in God primarily on scientific fact, is wrongheaded?

I do not believe that the universe was created in seven (or rather six) 24-hour time periods. I believe that the people to whom the creation story was told would not have understood Big Bang Theory, or gravitational waves, or the movement of the Laniakea Supercluster. Nor do I think it relevant to them at the time. I understand that Jesus himself taught truths in the form of parables, in a way that would be easier for people of his day to comprehend.

One does not need one’s relationship with God to have a foundation in scientific research in order to still respect science as a method of learning about God. Science does not have to contradict faith. But relationship with or belief in God does not have to be founded on science.

ZigZig said:

Dear Chyron,

You won’t believe me but I fully agree with you.

My previous post has nothing to do with relationship with God (and none of my posts has something to do with relationship with God). I was just answering to Mrebo, because he said that religious folk conceded for a long time that debating religion as scientific facts was wrongheaded, making the Flying Spaghetti Monster pointless.

My feeling when people refer to worshiping or believing in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is that the fsm is a mockery of faith in God, as though relationship with God is akin to a child having an imaginary friend. And therefore the fsm is a ridiculous farcical creation to point and laugh at the absudity of faith in God. Maybe that’s because I don’t know the origins of FSM or whatever, and so my feelings are uninformed, but I imagine many people who haven’t researched FSM gather, from the implication of the name itself, a similar feeling to mine. Perhaps that includes mrebo.

BTW, I am quite intrigued : why are you answering when I talk to Mrebo, and why is Mrebo answering when I talk to you?

I imagine that it’s because of the idea that this is an open discussion, like a room in real life in which many people are privy to the conversation. Some people will jump in and out as the conversation progresses, not necessarily talking one-on-one to the same person the whole time, but to whomever is listening.

chyron8472 said:

I don’t know the origins of FSM or whatever

FWIW, I never really cared one way or the other for FSM, but it was created as a rhetorical device, designed not to counter belief in God, but to counter the trend of people enforcing their religious beliefs on others through the law. i.e. “if you’re going to legislate that my kids have to learn religious creation myths in a public school’s science classroom as if they were fact, then please allow me to demonstrate what a bad idea that is using the FSM, since we cannot Constitutionally favor one religion over another”.

The trick is, there are plenty of real religions with alternate creation stories that most people would not want taught in a science classroom. I think that’s an area where the Satanists, for example, have done better work keeping the argument civil than the FSM people IMO. You don’t always have to jump straight to an extreme to get your point across.

ChainsawAsh said:

chyron8472 said:

[having a] relationship with God is akin to a child having an imaginary friend.

I mean…that is pretty much exactly how I see it…

It’s actually a pretty perfect analogy in my opinion.

Zig, what is clear is that your approach does more to obfuscate and impede discussion than chyron’s expression of his certainty. You now seem perhaps somewhat less confused about chyron’s statements so that is progress!

The article you link isn’t terribly responsive. Here, we are discussing matters of faith. Certainly there are claims in the Bible that can/should be analyzed in a factual/scientific way. Did Jesus exist? Did the Jews flee Egypt? Was the Earth created in 6 days? Was there a world flood?

After scrutiny one may conclude there is not evidence or even contradicting evidence, but only after such scrutiny can it be discounted. But in this discussion, I thought we were discussing a elements that are not falsifiable.

Biblical literalism is something we might discuss though I don’t know if anyone here subscribes to it.

Possessed said:

Yes, how DARE he suggest that belief in things that can’t be proven be treated as that, beliefs, and not “the truth”. That’s just crazy talk.

It’s a rhetorical hangup I see no value in.

Possessed said:

Yes, how DARE he suggest that belief in things that can’t be proven be treated as that, beliefs, and not “the truth”. That’s just crazy talk.

You seem to be confusing the word truth with the word fact. They are not synonymous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRyoe2cgCYs