Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Carlos Allende

Poll: choose your religious experience...

Poll: choose your religious experience...  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll: choose your religious experience...

    • Meeting with Jesus / Messiah
    • Joan of Arc style visitation
    • Tunnel of Light Near Death Experience
    • Philip K Dick style freakout
    • Transcendence through meditation
    • Other (specify)


393 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
18 hours ago, danydandan said:

That's isn't from OED it's from Wikipedia. Provide the actual link please. Not a copy and paste.

I assume Wikipedia citess the OED? Can you find the actual definitions from OED? Like everything else words evolve and change (unlike your opinions, old age?) the very vast majority of English speaking people go by what is defined in the dictionary now not 200-300 years ago.

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/

Here a good link. But anyway I strongly disagree with you. But arguing with you is pointless.

It is not about what has changed  A fact is a statement capable of being proven true or false Has ALWAYS been the definition of a fact during the last 300 years  That INCLUDES those proven true and those proven false.  As stated, I have never encountered the belief that facts can only be true, anywhere in the modern Australian curriculum (although science has a specific definition a scientific fact)  Yup araguing wit me is pointless unless you can find evidences to prove me wrong.

I have provided adequate sources to prove that while it is not the predominant definition, especially in America, my definition is more inclusive and also accepted 

If you read my links through i think you would find I had posted where the quote came from,

As it turns out, though, the definition of fact as "a statement that can be proven true or false" has been active for four centuries. On the other hand, it has been criticized and contested for at least the last two centuries.

The earliest attestation for fact in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1545. The word is a borrowing from Latin, deriving from the past participle of the verb facere meaning "make" or "do." The spelling shows that it came straight from Latin, not via Old French, and its original meaning was the one from Latin: "something made or done." The meaning of "something that is known to be true" came during the following century. The closest OED definition to "a statement that can be proven true or false" is its fifth one: "Something that is alleged to be, or conceivably might be, a ‘fact'." This one dates from around 1730. The OED even has an attestation of false fact from 1824.

Google Books allows a much earlier attestation of false fact, from 1688 in the Journals of the House of Commons. A passage reads:

Or, suppose the Judges were corrupt; and directed false Law, or false Fact, or overawed the Jury; or admitted a Party to be a Witness, or Juror (as in Effect it was); That was enough to render the Verdict corrupt….

Here's another one, from 1738, with a bonus true facts in the same sentence:

They will be of opinion that it is the duty of every corrector of a book to take from it all the false facts and to substitute true facts in their room ….

 

Aside from the fact (the true fact, in fact) that fact has been able to denote something either false or true for most of the time it has been in the English language, 

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, danydandan said:

None of these present false facts. Do any of them state or say something untrue? No they do not.

First one means that information presented at the time is deemed to be a fact. Like I said if later on it's confirmed not to be true it's no longer a fact. It's your definition of personal evidence of your experiences. Is it not?

Second one says true or suppose to have happened. Both mean true and not false. Again when presented at the time it's a fact considered true. This again if later on it's deemed untrue it's no longer a fact.

Third one, says the same thing. Basically evidence isn't always a fact. But presented as fact in law. But something can't be a fact if it's untrue.

Let'selaborate a bit in something from my field. Have you ever heard of Weins law? It was considered a fact or law of nature. Until experiments at longer wavelengths showed otherwise. It wasn't until Planck came up with his equation and science explaining the equation that we actually got a law or fact of nature about a blackbody. Would you consider Weins Law as a fact? I'd hope not. Placks equation is a fact. He also kinda backed up the existence of atom's and introduced people to the quantum physics with his explaination. Connsider people who used to say atom's don't exist, would you consider their statements as fact?

Those two examples are not false facts they are just untrue. Neither of the above examples can or are considered false facts, they were facts at the time until such time they were proven incorrect. Now they are just wrong hypotheses.

I explained that fact is something withiin a statement  which has objective reality as opposed to only subjective reality  Thus it can be objectively measured to be true or false  The definition I gave says EXACTLY that 

 

: a piece of information presented as having objective reality 

Ie presented as.

"The sky is green."

is a statement presented as having objective (ie measurable)  reality . Thus it fits the definition of fact. It is false, thus it is a false fact.

"The sky is beautiful"  can never be a statement of fact, because beauty is a subjective quality incapable of  objective measurement  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
7 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

Hopefully I'm not lifting this partial quote out of context. If I may ask, how are these gods helping humanity to evolve? It seems to me a practical matter. I personally have not noticed any improvement in humanity due to the influence of these gods. So, what's going on? Why aren't they helping us as a civilization?

Actually if you study human society, we are progressing.  If you look at the statistical indicators of global human well being, even in recent decades, most have shown significant improvement

To answer your question 

First, through general revealed knowledge and wisdom. While one can argue how much of any religion is wise  there is a lot of wisdom in all of them.

Some parts of all religions become socially and economically dated, but many do not. I can live by the  wisdoms of the bible in the 21st century quite comfortably and successfully,  as long as i adapt to the changing nature of our society. I could do the same with any religion I basically live at and behave as the bible instructs a man to do aalloing for the act ta t i live now and not 2000 yeras ago  

Second, through individual revealed wisdom and knowldge 

God reveals things to millions of people helping them become stronger, wiser, better adjusted, more productive,  and more empowered 

Third, through the power god gives to people to effect change 

No matter what people say, all western society and hence most of the world, through colonialism lives by Judaeo christian values  That has crested a good place to live in 

Think of the Christians and other religious people who have changed the world for the better  because they had the energy drive motivation etc of their faith to push them on through danger and hard times Look t the billions of dollars raised by believers for many religions to help the poorest and most needy  Believers give much more in time and money than non believers, to all forms of aid and charity Thts true across all mainstream religions (I dont know about the much smaller ones but i would think the same would be true )       

Not least is its emphasis on the spiritual and non material, which helps balance humanities destructive love of the material and our greed  

The bible, for example, shows that contentment and happiness come from within, and from our character/spirit,  not from  our wealth or possessions

This means we can reduce resource use to a sustainable level and only live on what we need for safety and comfort, IF we follow that wisdom 

it teaches the importance of family and says that  families should not be broken by desire or other worldly things, and that love and  respect  are important qualities in a relationship . It even gives a brilliant piece of advice on marriage  'ie  "do not be unequally yoked" In other  words do not marry /make a commitment to, a person who is too different from  yourself or pulling in a different direction because it just won't work out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 24/08/2018 at 11:39 PM, Scudbuster said:

*Snip*

Clearly you did not bother reading my post or you just made an assumption based on what you think, I think.  :) 

I said i was an evolutionist. 

 I agree absolutely.

God has nothing to do with creating the universe.

  God is just like us ie . An evolved product of the universe. It is just that it  is  a lot older and wiser than us;  and thus,  also, more technologically advanced

My point was that EVEN WITHIN CHRISTIANITY the idea that god created the universe is a minority view. Most believers are not creationists.  They believe in god, but not in creationism  America might be a special case, but i am talking world wide 

Ps call me a nazi again, and i will report you, even though i don't report insults  normally.   A number of my family fought, and some died, fighting Nazis (and the Japanese)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Clearly you did not bother reading my post or you just made an assumption based on what you think, I think.  :) 

I said i was an evolutionist. 

 I agree absolutely.

God has nothing to do with creating the universe.

  God is just like us ie . An evolved product of the universe. It is just that it  is  a lot older and wiser than us;  and thus,  also, more technologically advanced

My point was that EVEN WITHIN CHRISTIANITY the idea that god created the universe is a minority view. Most believers are not creationists.  They believe in god, but not in creationism  America might be a special case, but i am talking world wide 

Ps call me a nazi again, and i will report you, even though i don't report insults  normally.   A number of my family fought, and some died, fighting Nazis (and the Japanese)  

You should report every insult and calling someone Herr isn't an insult. Every distinguished male German citzen, including Jews and the like are addressed as Herr. It literally means Mr. Albert Einstein was addressed as Herr.

It's kind of a good example of how the definition of word changes over time doesn't it?

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I explained that fact is something withiin a statement  which has objective reality as opposed to only subjective reality  Thus it can be objectively measured to be true or false  The definition I gave says EXACTLY that 

 

: a piece of information presented as having objective reality 

Ie presented as.

"The sky is green."

is a statement presented as having objective (ie measurable)  reality . Thus it fits the definition of fact. It is false, thus it is a false fact.

"The sky is beautiful"  can never be a statement of fact, because beauty is a subjective quality incapable of  objective measurement  

Neither of those are facts they just untrue. However subjectively speaking both can be true, as in you could be colour blind and thing the sky is beautiful.

Put it this way, Australia is the same size as Ireland. Is that a fact, no it's not. Is it a false fact ? No. It's simply an untrue statement.

False facts do not exist because a fact is true and false is the opposite of true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is not about what has changed  A fact is a statement capable of being proven true or false Has ALWAYS been the definition of a fact during the last 300 years  That INCLUDES those proven true and those proven false.  As stated, I have never encountered the belief that facts can only be true, anywhere in the modern Australian curriculum (although science has a specific definition a scientific fact)  Yup araguing wit me is pointless unless you can find evidences to prove me wrong.

I have provided adequate sources to prove that while it is not the predominant definition, especially in America, my definition is more inclusive and also accepted 

If you read my links through i think you would find I had posted where the quote came from,

As it turns out, though, the definition of fact as "a statement that can be proven true or false" has been active for four centuries. On the other hand, it has been criticized and contested for at least the last two centuries.

The earliest attestation for fact in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1545. The word is a borrowing from Latin, deriving from the past participle of the verb facere meaning "make" or "do." The spelling shows that it came straight from Latin, not via Old French, and its original meaning was the one from Latin: "something made or done." The meaning of "something that is known to be true" came during the following century. The closest OED definition to "a statement that can be proven true or false" is its fifth one: "Something that is alleged to be, or conceivably might be, a ‘fact'." This one dates from around 1730. The OED even has an attestation of false fact from 1824.

Google Books allows a much earlier attestation of false fact, from 1688 in the Journals of the House of Commons. A passage reads:

Or, suppose the Judges were corrupt; and directed false Law, or false Fact, or overawed the Jury; or admitted a Party to be a Witness, or Juror (as in Effect it was); That was enough to render the Verdict corrupt….

Here's another one, from 1738, with a bonus true facts in the same sentence:

They will be of opinion that it is the duty of every corrector of a book to take from it all the false facts and to substitute true facts in their room ….

 

Aside from the fact (the true fact, in fact) that fact has been able to denote something either false or true for most of the time it has been in the English language, 

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/

  

I have provided multiple links that disagree with your opinion, if your not willing to accept it then your just stubborn and unwilling to change. All the links I provided do not state your definition except Wikipedia all my links are from the predominant dictionaries and I have two dictionaries at home one Collins and one OED that do not state your ascribed definition.

You simply can't accept that the current definition of the word. Your just in your ways man.

I have also send an email to Oxford English Dictionary requesting a definitive definition. If they reply I'll post it up. If they state facts are just true are you willing to accept it?

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
On 8/23/2018 at 6:32 AM, freetoroam said:

Thoing, as in thong. It was a business idea third_eye and i took on last year, it failed miserably. :lol:

 

You owe me fifty ... quid , by the way

:D

~

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
4 hours ago, third_eye said:

You owe me fifty ... quid , by the way

:D

~

Pheww  is that all, i had down i owed you £2,423.87p. 

£50 is on its way.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
39 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Pheww  is that all, i had down i owed you £2,423.87p. 

£50 is on its way.

Oh if you want you can donate the remaining 2,373.87 pound to the danydandan charity fund.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
10 hours ago, danydandan said:

Oh if you want you can donate the remaining 2,373.87 pound to the danydandan charity fund.

You have a charity fund, wow.

I will donate, £3 a month, as that is what the others are asking for.

Do you want it in cheques or coins? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 hours ago, danydandan said:

I have provided multiple links that disagree with your opinion, if your not willing to accept it then your just stubborn and unwilling to change. All the links I provided do not state your definition except Wikipedia all my links are from the predominant dictionaries and I have two dictionaries at home one Collins and one OED that do not state your ascribed definition.

You simply can't accept that the current definition of the word. Your just in your ways man.

I have also send an email to Oxford English Dictionary requesting a definitive definition. If they reply I'll post it up. If they state facts are just true are you willing to accept it?

Nup Im too stubborn :)

Historically a fact has always been a statement capable of being verified making a fact capable of being true or false  Your version is the predominate one ( Although not in Australia or the Australian education system for  the60 years I was involved in it ) but not the full one    I will be interested to see what the OED says, but other references and dictionaries and teaching practices all support an alternative and wider definition 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
18 hours ago, danydandan said:

You should report every insult and calling someone Herr isn't an insult. Every distinguished male German citzen, including Jews and the like are addressed as Herr. It literally means Mr. Albert Einstein was addressed as Herr.

It's kind of a good example of how the definition of word changes over time doesn't it?

OH come off it. You and i both know the intent of the word in this instance , and it is an excuse to try and justify it

I am not an German, and neither  was the poster,  (unless i am mistaken) and the contextual inference was unmistakable  

The one saving grace is that my avatar is MR walker and herr is German for mr.,  but it goes to the mindset of the poster .

It would be like calling me comrade walker. but the reverse.  It implies a lot because of the historical context.

If i complained about personal attacks and insults, every  thread i entered into would be closed down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, danydandan said:

Neither of those are facts they just untrue. However subjectively speaking both can be true, as in you could be colour blind and thing the sky is beautiful.

Put it this way, Australia is the same size as Ireland. Is that a fact, no it's not. Is it a false fact ? No. It's simply an untrue statement.

False facts do not exist because a fact is true and false is the opposite of true.

Your last statement is a false fact :) 

Facts can be both true and false and the thing which distinguishes them from non facts  is their abilty to be objectively measured (even if we do not have the  data to measure them in the present moment  

eg "There is life on mars."  Is a statement of fact but, as yet, we have not proven if it is a true statement of fact, or a false statement of fact.

  One day it will be proven true or false, but either way this is a statement of fact.  Encyclopedias and dictionaries are "full of " facts which are incorrect  even though we don't realise it at the time  As we gain more knowldge we improve or correct those statements of facts . but they are ALWAYS facts  

eg  "The speed of light  can not be exceeded."  Is a statement of a fact. It will remain a fact even if we find it to be untrue. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
8 hours ago, freetoroam said:

You have a charity fund, wow.

I will donate, £3 a month, as that is what the others are asking for.

Do you want it in cheques or coins? 

Bags of cheese and onion crisps to the value of 3 quid a month.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your last statement is a false fact :) 

Facts can be both true and false and the thing which distinguishes them from non facts  is their abilty to be objectively measured (even if we do not have the  data to measure them in the present moment  

eg "There is life on mars."  Is a statement of fact but, as yet, we have not proven if it is a true statement of fact, or a false statement of fact.

  One day it will be proven true or false, but either way this is a statement of fact.  Encyclopedias and dictionaries are "full of " facts which are incorrect  even though we don't realise it at the time  As we gain more knowldge we improve or correct those statements of facts . but they are ALWAYS facts  

eg  "The speed of light  can not be exceeded."  Is a statement of a fact. It will remain a fact even if we find it to be untrue. 

 

Yes it is a statement of fact, if you believe it's true. If you believe it's not and your stating it, it's lies. Not a false fact. Facts can't be true or false just true. A statement can be both but a fact can't.

 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Nup Im too stubborn :)

Historically a fact has always been a statement capable of being verified making a fact capable of being true or false  Your version is the predominate one ( Although not in Australia or the Australian education system for  the60 years I was involved in it ) but not the full one    I will be interested to see what the OED says, but other references and dictionaries and teaching practices all support an alternative and wider definition 

That speaks volumes.

I'll either agree with you or disagree depending on what the OED say the accepted definition of fact is. It was an Irish man who started all this shyt. The Great Liberator Daniel O'Connell epic man of history and robber of the poor. If your interested in History I'd advise you read up on him he started the whole suffrage movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

OH come off it. You and i both know the intent of the word in this instance , and it is an excuse to try and justify it

I am not an German, and neither  was the poster,  (unless i am mistaken) and the contextual inference was unmistakable  

The one saving grace is that my avatar is MR walker and herr is German for mr.,  but it goes to the mindset of the poster .

It would be like calling me comrade walker. but the reverse.  It implies a lot because of the historical context.

If i complained about personal attacks and insults, every  thread i entered into would be closed down. 

You should report every insult it will stop people from doing it, as it annoys me. If I see an insult I report it.

I don't think the poster implied your a Nazi. If they did they are an ***hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Davros Kitty

I had my experiences already.

It's not what some people make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.