Posts by EntirelyPossible

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

Well, at least you're willing to admit he existed. That's a start. Who knows... the next step might not be long after all. I will admit, I was encouraged when you went from "not very likely" to "entirely possible." Keep this up and before you know it, you'll be at "certainly is."

This isn't about me or the historocity of Jesus or the various messiah figures that existed during the same time period or the many other before and after.

Oh, but wait... my doctors certainly "believed" what THEY wrote... which was supported by science (blood tests) was indeed fact. Wanted me to believe it, too.

Irrelevant. The false equivalency is still false.

I don't misunderstand science, chile'. Indeed, "you" have explained it to death on here.

Chile? I have no idea why you think calling me "chile" is appropriate in any way. The large age gap between us does not entitle you to attempt to talk down on me in any way. Please show the proper respect during a discussion.

Since you claim to understand science, I am left with the conclusion that you are puposefully misrepresenting it to further some agenda you have.

I get what you mean... and wish me to believe.

I couldn't care less what you believe.

YOU, though, misunderstand faith... and no matter how much I or anyone else attempts to explain the TRUTH of it to you... you won't get it.

I get it. I just reject the attempt at a false equivalency between hearing voices with unproveable assertions and reality-based, testable, proveable, observational, objective science.

Now, I realize that that tends to stick in your craw, even tick you off to the point of... well, anyway... is a difficult thing for you to handle... that there is actually something in existence that exceeds your vast cache of knowledge, understanding, and intelligence... but there it is. Something... and someone... does.

Once again, this is not about me. As usual, you try to make claims about me that you are, yet again wrong about. Please do not attempt to make this conversation about me or try to state what you incorrectly think my motives are. Any further attempts will simply met with a rejection of your incorrect assertion and then I'll move on.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

What is incorrect is disputing the issue of whether he wrote it, when that issue was never asserted.

If that's not what you meant then it would be extremely helpful you would exercise clarity in your writing in the future.

He did say it, though. To me. And apparently... to some others.

He is dead, rotted and dried up. It appears you are simply hearing voices.

And so, my medical record stated... as a matter of FACT

False equivalency. Stating something in error (like a dead person talks to you) does not make it fact. It simply makes it an error.

I would disagree... based on what constitutes "evidence" (faith is not blind, but based on evidence - indeed, it is the EVIDENT demonstration of reality... and just because there is a modern definition does not mean it is the only definition)... as well as science's own tenet that, "based on what we know NOW".

Of course you do. However, like your doctor was in error, attempting to re-define evidence is also an error. Also, you are attempting to create a false equivalency between evidence, fact and objectively observationaly based science and auditory hallucinations about a long dead person that never said anythign uniquely useful. It a common problem amongst people that routinely misunderstand science through lack of education or purposefully misrepresent it in order to further an agenda.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

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.

Yes, we can be 100% sure of things. You are creating a false equivalency in your "rising sun" example.

We should respect the fact that other people will not accept what we consider to be facts no matter how hard we try.

There are circumstances where that is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

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.

No one on this thread said that. You butted in to be arrogant and ignorant, it seems.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

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:

That is incorrect, he himself never wrote that. Otherwise, interesting myth, though.

Unlike words and [their] definitions... and "facts"... which sometimes do... truth does not change.

Bingo. Even when the Bible or religion says something untrue, the truth remains. PSac's example of geo vs. helio centricity is a great example. Adam and Eve, another great example, a global flood is another, prophecy in the Bible, another. The truth that none of those things is or evidence-based remains true.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

Irrefutable facts are subject to interpretation?

That's a great question. I didn't say they were so I am not sure why you are asking me, but the reality of the matter is "Yes, they are". For instance, that evolution happened is a fact. Exactly how or when is subject to interpretation, more data, more facts, but THE fact that evolution happened is 100% true.

Again, it's a false equivalency to try to give unproveable, unverifiable, conflicting things heard from a voice or invisible spirit the same level of nuanced understanding of reality.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

Again, this is not the case with irrefutable facts.

Yes, it is.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

It never ceases to amaze me what positions people will take to defend the notion that their invisible, unproveable notions should carry as much (or any, really) weight as testable, functional reality.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

So to expect everyone living today to re-define "fact" to mean something abstract like 'objectively verifiable tenets, propositions or statements that are internally inconsistent' is not reasonable in light of the fact that we're all just hairless apes trying to make sense of the world around us.

Many people don't believe that fact ;)

In any event, if every person had their own definition of a word, communication would be impossible. The very notion that people can each define words as they please undermines the foundation of language that we use every day.

An olive branch is simply an agreement to disagree and an affirmation of mutual respect, two concepts which I have not seen you demonstrate an understanding of.

No, it isn't. Perhaps you haven't seen me demonstrate an understanding of that because that's not actually what I wrote about what I was trying to accomplish.

But at the same time, one lesson I learned from being a Witness is that I should never be arrogantly confident that now I have the truth, that now I know all the facts. It was a very humbling experience to learn how ignorant I truly was, and that I had allowed others to tell me what the facts were.

No one is claiming to know all the facts, and when you were a JW they weren't telling you facts.

You can make whatever subjective point you want. However it won’t make words mean what you want them to. The fact is that dictionaries are right and people who apply their own meaning to words are wrong. They may be happy in their ignorance but they remain ignorant. Facts are rather inflexible things. That is why they can be relied upon.

Bingo!

At one point geocentricity had more facts on it's side even.

Geocentricity had a LACK of data on it's side, not a plethora of facts.

160

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

by minimus in

jw
friends

...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.

people will believe what they want to believe..

EntirelyPossible

So when you made 'acceptance of fact' a condition on your olive branch, it was clear to those like AGuest that you meant your own definition of "fact", not theirs. Hence the accusation of your peace offering being false. Thus, the offer was doomed as soon as it was made!

This isn't the least about Aguest, nor was my other thread.

I don't have my own definition of the word "fact" and neither does anyone else. It is what it is and what some people don't like is having it called out that what they are saying doesn't meet any definition of the word and what they say has no objectively verifiable tenets, propositions or statements and is internally inconsistent when subjected to scrutiny. As I said before, extending an olive branch doesn't mean acceptance of beliefs or agreement that something is what it isn't.

17

Bigfoot Update: New Paper On Friday

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2013/02/dna-report-proves-bigfoot-is-real-say-11-scientists-of-5-year-study-2440878.html.

much more than blurry photos and casts of footprints - this one has a long list of experts and lots of dna.. weirdness prevails.

suck it, creationistas.

EntirelyPossible

Thank you for your post that highlights the ad hominem problem in 'science' today.

Yes, the problem is calling what they are doing "science". It's shameful to smear real scientists that way by elevating these people like that by creating the impression of a false equivalency.