I've Come To Realize That "Facts" Don't Mean Much If A Person Refuses To Accept Them

by minimus 160 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Satanus

  The mind has a life of its own, heh. The mind is like an engine, it keeps on ticking over, never shutting off. It even keeps going when we are asleep. Do you know what YOUR mind is doing while you sleep?? (Joke) It's been doing that since we were born (or before). It has developed its own habits, habitual ways of thinking and its own thoughts. If we have developed bad thinking habits, they are hard to break. We are always talking to ourselves. Many of us manage to change the contents of that self talk. How many can shut it off, for a while? Shutting thought down for a bit is like a reboot. Its a chance to look at facts in a new way, without the yrs of preconditioning that we all have developed.

  S
• 

  Satanus

  I'm not suggesting that everyone has bad thinking habbits. I don't think that eveyone does. But, i know that some people do.

  S
• 

  Berengaria

  Oh praise the Lord!! Have you finally decided to pay attention to facts Min??
• 

  kurtbethel

  Facts are overrated, and can actually get in the way of running a good con on people.
• 

  AGuest

  sooo, what is truth?.....

  In it's simplest form, dearest Miniman (peace to you!).. truth is not a what but a Whom. As he himself and others are recorded to have said/written:

  "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life."

  "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Therefore, if the Son sets you free you will truly BE free."

  "Sanctify them by means of your truth."

  "Hence [Jesus] also, that HE might sanctify the people with HIS own blood..."

  "Your Word is truth."

  "And the Word became flesh."

  "And he has a name... and the name he is called is 'The Word of God'."

  Some dictionary definitions change as more is learned... or as public opinion changes.

  So, true, dear tec (peace to you!). Which is why although a dictionary is a great resource, etymology can be just as, if not more... mmmm... revealing. For example:

  TRUTH - (n.) Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) "faithfulness, quality of being true," from triewe, treowe "faithful" (see true). Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1560s. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in English or most other IE languages for "speak the truth." Noun sense of "something that is true" is first recorded mid-14c. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=truth&searchmode=none&p=0&allowed_in_frame=0

  From the Greek word ?λ?θεια (al?theia) which means "truth, but not merely truth as spoken; truth of idea, reality, sincerity, truth in the moral sphere, divine truth revealed to man, straightforwardness." http://greeklexicon.org/lexicon/strongs/225/

  From the root Greek word ?ληθ?ς (aleth?s), which means "unconcealed, true, true in fact, worthy of credit, truthful." http://greeklexicon.org/lexicon/strongs/227/

  FACT - fact (n.) 1530s, "action," especially "evil deed," from Latin factum "event, occurrence," literally "thing done," neuter pp. of facere "to do" (see factitious). Usual modern sense of "thing known to be true" appeared 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred." Facts of life "harsh realities" is from 1854; specific sense of "human sexual functions" first recorded 1913." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fact&allowed_in_frame=0

  FACTICIOUS (adj.) - 640s, from Latin factitius "artificial," from factus , pp. of facere "do" (source of French faire , Spanish hacer ), from PIE root *dhe- "to put, to do" (cf. Sanskrit dadhati "puts, places;" Avestan dadaiti "he puts;" Old Persian ada "he made;" Hittite dai- "to place;" Greek tithenai "to put, set, place;" Lithuanian deti "to put;" Polish dziac sie "to be happening;" Russian delat' "to do;" Old High German tuon , German tun , Old Saxon, Old English don "to do;" Old Frisian dua , Old Swedish duon , Gothic gadeths "a doing;" Old Norse dalidun "they did")."

  Unlike words and [their] definitions... and "facts"... which sometimes do... truth does not change. Ever. This is a point I have brought out here many, many... many... times. "Facts" are what "we" understand at any given point in time. For example, it is a FACT that... well, what? Apparently, even science doesn't really deal in facts... but simply what is understood given the current information at any time. And so, as it proponents admit, they (facts) are subject to change... as additional "facts" become known (hey, if that's inaccurate/a lie, don't look at me - isn't MY explanation).

  Truth, however, doesn't change. Ever. Wait, let me say that again, definitively: truth... does not change... ever. More importantly, it isn't dependent upon our understanding. Ever. Former, current, or future. As you have often stated, it is simply our understanding (sometimes OF truth... but for most, of "facts") that changes. Truth... is what it is... and is WHO it is... regardless of our understanding and/or acceptance of it... and/or him.

  Truth, whatever its form... is the same... yesterday... today... and tomorrow.

  Again, peace to you, both!

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA, who understands that there are those who would cannot/will not... accept that fact (meant in the "modern sense" )... due to their [current] understanding... but won't lose one wink of sleep worrying about it...
• 

  erbie

  You are quite correct.

  I read both Franz books, Gentile Times Reconsidered and some other books which I can't remember the name of.

  The trouble is, people believe what they want to believe irrespective of the facts and I quickly realized this. Many people have been blindly following the 'truth' for so long that, when faced with a challenge, instead of questioning their beliefs cognitive dissonance will cut in like the governor on an engine to compensate for the lack of 'proof'.

  You just have to let them be as it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

  To spend your time trying to prove them wrong actually in some way qualifies or dignifies the false message that they preach.

  If I told you that I was from the future would you waste your time tracing my lineage and my history to prove that I was in fact born and raised over the last few decades???

  Of course not. And in time I realized that arguing with an active Witness about their false take on the Bible was doing my own intellect an injustice.

  Apathy is the best medicine for them for if you don't take them seriously they will find it increasingly more difficult to take their own message seriously.

  Persecution only serves to reinforce their own preconcieved notion in line with what the WT has them believe.

  That said, an acurate and well documented history of the WTS is of course neccessary for those wishing to gain an objective view of the movement so I do not critisize anyone for that but you do reach a point when you have to let people believe what they will.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Re: I've Come To Realize That "Facts" Don't Mean Much If A Person Refuses To Accept Them.

  Sometimes there is benefit in delusion. My father spent most of his life believing he would never grow old and die. Because I refused to accept his belief he stopped speaking to me many years ago.

  A few years ago, he was 80. While dying in hospital it was reported to me that he was still talking about what he would do as soon as he was well again. While heavily medicated he died in his sleep. He died still believing that he would never grow old and die.

  I envy him his delusion because although he had to die like any other living creature, his faith enabled him to believe that he never would. I don’t miss him. I spent many years trying to delude myself but my rational brain refused to buy it.

  Even becoming a gladiator or adopting some of the 3,000 gods on offer, will not help me escape death. Joining one of the many religions on offer will not change reality but just provide comfort for those able believe that the script they write will alter reality.

  Memento mori

  ( Remember your mortality - Remember you must die)
• 

  Apognophos

  I ran out of time to continue posting on this thread back on page 1, so I'm just throwing in a little postscript to explain where I was headed with my earlier posts.

  (1) We can't be 100% sure of anything. Did evolution happen? Almost certainly. But nothing's 100%. To dispute the uncertainty of our knowledge is ridiculous. Are you even 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow? Then you are arrogant or ignorant.

  (2) All of us nevertheless make certain assumptions in order to live our lives. We are free to make these "100%" assumptions in our own mind, but we have to acknowledge that we are doing this, and that everyone else does this too, when the subject of "facts" comes up.

  (3) Some evidence that people find convincing is something that only they have experienced. We are not in a position to disprove their personal experiences. To mock someone for hearing a voice or seeing a vision, or simply having a feeling in their heart that God definitely exists, is also arrogant. We're free to doubt them, and to politely express our doubt, but mocking them indicates 100% certainty about something we cannot disprove.

  (4) We should respect the fact that other people will not accept what we consider to be facts no matter how hard we try. Moreover, asserting that we're the only ones accepting the "facts" does nothing to facilitate intelligent conversation. While it may make us feel better to ridicule someone for not trusting science above personal experience, it only makes us look bad on a personal level, and, more importantly, our beliefs will become less appealing to that person.

  So the choice is simple: (a) you can make yourself feel good by publicly announcing that only your side knows and lives by the "facts", or (b) you can acknowledge uncertainty and individuality, be humble (or at least fake it) about your own position, and either politely try to win someone over, or just agree to disagree with such ones. From the standpoint of human relations, what is and is not a "fact" is partially irrelevant. None of us are robots, and all of us have feelings.

  The only reason I butted into this discussion was to express my annoyance at the threads I see where atheists are sniping at religious people and saying, "I'm just sticking up for the facts and fighting ignorance", when all you're doing is harm to your position in the eyes of the people you're supposedly trying to convince. I don't participate in any of those threads, and I probably won't discuss this topic again. I just had to get this off my chest.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  "(1) We can't be 100% sure of anything. Did evolution happen? Almost certainly. But nothing's 100%. To dispute the uncertainty of our knowledge is ridiculous. Are you even 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow? Then you are arrogant or ignorant."

  This is an accurate statement because the sun will not rise tomorrow. That is just a subjective way of stating how our position on earth appears in relation to the sun from our point of view. It is acceptable for everyday speech, but if we are to use this as an example of the unreliability of fact, it is important to accurately describe what we are saying.

  The fact is the sun does not rise. The earth, which we now know to be spherical, will continue to turn until the bit we live on faces the sun again. I am 99.9999999999 certain that the earth will complete its rotation every 24 hour for many years to come.

  I realize that being so pedantic makes me sound like a smart-ass but it illustrates the need to be precise in matters of science. The USA was able to land Neil Armstrong on the moon because they accurately understood the precise mathematics of the task they attempted. On occasion they have got their sums wrong, with tragic consequences. Science and engineering nowadays is a very precise business. Guesswork is not acceptable.
• 

  minimus

  What is "is"?