Religion — Page 98

Possessed said:

chyron8472 said:

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

Lol

Which also suggests that relying solely on fact to debate philosophical or religious truths kind of misses the point of their being philosophical. Not all truths are verifiable through fact.

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

chyron8472 said:

Which also suggests that relying solely on fact to debate philosophical or religious truths kind of misses the point of their being philosophical. Not all truths are verifiable through fact.

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders. And I should note at least some of his students aren’t interested in fact or truth, but the more pressing matter of how to get into Dr. Jones’ pants. The kids are all right.

Oh, and I also agree with Chyron. Even as an atheist, I feel fiction often more accurately expresses the truth than nonfiction.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders.

😉

ZigZig said:

I think everybody agrees that truth and facts are not the same thing.
But IMHO, talking about “evidences” refers to facts, not to truth. So if there is confusion, it comes mainly from all this discussion about “evidences”. Which was not initiated by Possessed or me…

It’s still an argument of semantics. There can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact. To say something is not evidence because it is not scientific fact speaks more to the credibility one finds for said evidence, not whether it is actually evidence.

You can have further evidence that supports an opposing view. You can also have evidence that conflicts with other evidence, and you have to decide how much weight to give to either. Conflicting evidences might both be true but only in part. But although one evidence does not have scientific fact to support it, or another evidence opposes it, that still doesn’t make it not evidence.

ZigZig said:

BTW, about this argument of semantics thing: when you say that truth and facts are not the same thing, or when you say that some evidences are reproducible and some are not, or when you say that testimony is an evidence in a legal meaning, or when you say that there can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact, it is ALSO an argument of semantics.

Well, to give context, I work for a law firm. So my understanding of “evidence” and “testimony” includes the legal meaning. If I do, and someone else does not, then I imagine the issue is not who is wrong or right, but how we collectively define terms here.

ZigZig said:

presenting certainties lends itself to endless discussions.

Unless one desires to have deeper discussions that posit things as a given. If one is never certain about anything, one can never have progressively deeper, meaningful discussions about what they and their following certainties mean. Otherwise it’s just a house of cards that will fall once the foundation is touched.

See also, the parable of the wise and foolish builders:
The wise man built his house upon the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. The foolish man built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders.

😉

I don’t know how he could get those confused. The Raiders scene starts with Indy figuring out how to spell neolithic.

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders.

😉

I don’t know how he could get those confused. The Raiders scene starts with Indy figuring out how to spell neolithic.

Cause I’m a big doodoohead! Stop looking at me!

CatBus said:

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders.

😉

I don’t know how he could get those confused. The Raiders scene starts with Indy figuring out how to spell neolithic.

Cause I’m a big doodoohead! Stop looking at me!

I’m still looking at you, and I see some kids that didn’t get off at their stop pulling on your levers up front there. Make sure you’re not trying to drive in park.

😛

ZigZig said:

Mrebo said:

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!

Mrebo, thank you for being so smart. I am sure that the foresight of your interventions will eventually make this thread more clever.

Can’t dispute that.

It is so typical, an ad hominem attack when you have no other argument.

My characterization of your argument (your argument, not you) is not an ad hominem attack. And certainly no different than your characterization of chyron’s views in this thread.

At least, Chyron defended his thought and position without attacking his interlocutors. Which makes him quite respectable. Not you.

See above.

Perhaps if I had merely said your approach was “clumsy, immature or disrespectful” (as you called chyron’s words) you wouldn’t have though it ad hominem.

The rest of your post is so ridiculous that I will not answer it better than Possessed already did.

You seem to have responded to my post anyhow.

Godspeed.

As embarrassing as this is, I used to be a biblical literalist.

moviefreakedmind said:

As embarrassing as this is, I used to be a biblical literalist.

Woah… tragic origin revealed!

moviefreakedmind said:

As embarrassing as this is, I used to be a biblical literalist.

Why? And what changed your view?