Religion versus Fiction

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No team here. 

Just using the English language to dismantle your precarious arguments for why anyone should actually accept some nonsensical anecdotage.

Never asked you to accept any "anecdotage", old mate, ever.

[danydandan]

14 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Never asked you to accept any "anecdotage", old mate, ever.

So you are not arguing for the acceptance of anecdotal evidence? 

You do seem to get quite a bit upset when people question this. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by danydandan

[Habitat]

14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So you are not arguing for the acceptance of anecdotal evidence? 

You do seem to get quite a bit upset when people question this. 

No, not asking for acceptance but not accepting that it can be disregarded.

[+Pettytalk]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Anecdotal claims are not facts. 

The spiritually blind cannot see any anecdotal "spirits" either..And let me tell you how I see facts. Facts are what dreams are made of.

[+Pettytalk]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

They are not demonstrated facts. I've seen some very strange things all my life. I have opinions as to what they signify, but I can't prove any of them. I have no evidence save for that of my senses to which only I am privy. I choose to believe what I have concluded, but expect no one else to. In fact, I don't even talk about them, not wishing to subject myself to ridicule. I'm content to keep my own council and spare the world yet more unprovable tales of the fantastical. It would be to no purpose and I'm prone to get angry when laughed at. 

 

[XenoFish]

There is no "team". Never has been, never will be. I figure using "the team" is just a scapegoat tactic.

[danydandan]

21 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There is no "team". Never has been, never will be. I figure using "the team" is just a scapegoat tactic.

I suppose it makes people feel relevant if they are three underdog or something?

 

[Rlyeh]

46 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

The spiritually blind cannot see any anecdotal "spirits" either..And let me tell you how I see facts. Facts are what dreams are made of.

Known as confirmation bias.

[XenoFish]

46 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I suppose it makes people feel relevant if they are three underdog or something?

 

Pretty sure it does. 

"Boo hoo. I'm oppressed by The Team"

All because we don't agree.

Edited June 2, 2019 by XenoFish

[+Pettytalk]

Here is something anecdotal that is a fact. The physical universe is fiction, pure and simple. Regarding the facts that are seen as facts, well, that's induced false perception. Taking "scientific" facts in hand, the universe is a playful creature, and it likes to play hide and seek. And when one thinks it has found facts, guess what? Go back to seek once again, as there are still facts to be found for those already found. You have found another one, again? Hidden deep? Guess what? Go deeper still! There will be no end to digging scientific facts, as the facts of today are tomorrow's fiction......the facts are endless fiction, unless they reach to God.

God, the first and the last fact. For any scientific, anecdotal fictional facts, please see me after class!. Or rather, see me after Final Judgement Day, when grades will be posted..

Who really knows if life is fiction, and fiction life?

Has anyone ever considered that we have been misled since birth? Not just us, but our parents, and our parent's parents........and so on down the genealogical chain to the very beginning of this physical game of life.

We have all been chained since birth, and forced to gaze at the cave wall to see shadows move and talk. This we take as reality, while reality really is outside the cave. The scientists, priding themselves as best at determining the shadows' habits, and able to predict their movements (scientific facts) are the prisoners most unwilling to be released, and they will fight you tooth and nail, if you dare.

Here is one big, fat, anecdotal fact. Just a part of it, though. But enough to tickle the curiosity of those with a small opening in their mind's eye. Those that keep their mind's eye forcibly, and completely shut, scientifically negating physical sensations are mere shadow, will never, without external strong force, consider that God and reality can only be found and seen outside the cave.

AND now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened
or unenlightened:–Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which
has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they
have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that
they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains
from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at
a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and
you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which
marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of
vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various
materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows
of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were
never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only
see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose
that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other
side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the
voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the
images.

For those with an eye to see, and are not into Socrates, the rest is in Plato's Republic, Book VII. 

But for the well learned academics, it's just another of Plato's allegory, And they have no need to look it up, because they think they know reality better. In fact, they will fight you to the death, if they feel you are wanting to loosen their chains allow them to see the true light....the light of God.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows
with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still
weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be
needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he
not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came
without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if
any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch
the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.

[+Pettytalk]

57 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I suppose it makes people feel relevant if they are three underdog or something?

 

 

59 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I suppose it makes people feel relevant if they are three underdog or something?

 

 

[+Pettytalk]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

There is no "team". Never has been, never will be. I figure using "the team" is just a scapegoat tactic.

Maybe not a team, as a team is well coordinated, usually. But i would say there is a fraternity and a sorority, more than likely, judging by the many initiations on behalf of the other members. But clubs, or teams, are not bad, per sey. it's only a matter of the caliber of the members, as some shoot off some serious and heavy ammunition.

[danydandan]

5 hours ago, danydandan said:

Can you prove that? 

Maybe this link might help you in understanding the matter.

Does anyone else see that picture of the girl in that Link?

Where did she come from? How does she appear? Who is she? Where is she? Is she a ghost in the machine?

[XenoFish]

17 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Does anyone else see that picture of the girl in that Link?

Where did she come from? How does she appear? Who is she? Where is she? Is she a ghost in the machine?

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Evidently there are way more eyewitness accounts of having spotted God and His agents than Nessie.

We have pictures of Nessie's humps, fin, head, and I think there's a full body-shot lurking somewhere.  More than I've seen of God.

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

And God has been spotted the world over, rather than just in a tiny, murky, little lake in Scotland.

Not 'God', gods; don't cheat and pretend they're all the same one. There's an inconsistency there, some gods exclude the possibility of others.

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

And as far as you not seeing it, I ask, how can the spiritually blind see?

I haven't been diagnosed as spiritually blind and you are definitely not a doctor.  I ask, how can the spiritually certain be so ignorant of rather basic psychological science that provides more mundane and likely answers for their experiences?

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Regarding the facts that are seen as facts, well, that's induced false perception.

Including this 'fact' also I presume.  

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Here is something anecdotal that is a fact.

No, not in your long winded non-sequitur argument were you even close to factual.

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Seriously though.

 

Who the **** is she? I certainly didn't use her imagine when I posted my op. 

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Seriously though.

 

Who the **** is she? I certainly didn't use her imagine when I posted my op. 

Don't worry about it. It's a random pop-up. My magical placebo effect thread had a brain for an image. 

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by XenoFish

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Don't worry about it. It's a random pop-up. My magical placebo effect thread had a brain for an image. 

 

@Saru can you explain, I'm at a loss as to why these images are appearing. Please and thank you.

[Saru]

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

@Saru can you explain, I'm at a loss as to why these images are appearing. Please and thank you.

The forum is auto-generating a formatted preview of the thread being linked to.

The image is probably the first user-uploaded image in the thread.

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Saru said:

The forum is auto-generating a formatted preview of the thread being linked to.

The image is probably the first user-uploaded image in the thread.

Ah ok. Coolio. Thanks.

I still want that game of chess. When ever you feel like playing.

Edited June 2, 2019 by danydandan

[Carlos Allende]

19 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Otherwise, you two are very interesting to follow, and it seems that no one is really winning at this point. And it's refreshing to see new material, and new presenters, brought in for the discussion. A very interesting one, at that. Because it's not just about the old argument for the existence of God, but delves into the personalities and characteristics of those that engage in such discussions, and the pros and cons resulting from the two opposing views, one of believers and the other of atheists, or as suggested, non-theist seeming atheists..

Thanks for the kind words about my post. And I think Godzilla came up just as an incidental subject. I mean, if I _had_ to compare my personal conception of God with a fictional character, I'd choose either the 'writer' God from Dennis Potter's Hide and Seek, or maybe ...what's that Philip K Dick novel where loads of souls get mashed up in a Hadron Collider-like device, but the dominant one is just really unsympathetic? Which is not to decry your experience, @Pettytalk - I'm glad someone's had a better soul-searching experience than me.

[Carlos Allende]

16 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Because they think that god has negative moral characteristics and god belief has a negative societal impact, ideas that there is some evidence for.  You keep trying to cast aspersions as to the psychological motivations and attitudes that atheists have or should have.  You seem to keep trying to take, 'they don't believe in god' and add 'and therefore...''; there is no 'therefore' from the mere act of disagreeing with a proposition that something does or doesn't exist.

Liquid, I greatly appreciate your keeping me in check proposition-by-proposition. In your above parrying, however, we seem to have regressed to collective personal opinions --which is fine, because we've previously done so much heavy lifting. For instance,

16 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There are people who don't believe in god who think religion is a force for good and there are people who don't believe in god who think religion is not a force for good. All those people are atheists, but there's big differences. 

Why would anyone _ever_ put their name to being a disbeliever in God if they think religion is a force for good, considering that -- the highest religion that disbelieves in God per se is Buddhism, right? Well that's fine, but the person discussing their disbelief in God would, at that time, be _conscious_ and _incarnate,_ and that leans more towards the irreducible Saint Anselm-style version of God, and is completely separate from the type of transcendentalism which is espoused by Eastern types.  And I know, there I go with my 'Therefores', and yet -- of all possible subjects, isn't God and religion the only legitimate one where we can expect the arguer to have cross-referenced _everything?_ Not just relevant stuff like cosmology and quantum physics, but _everything. You mention punk rock, they've already related it to God. You mention chips, they've already related them to God. Bouncey Castles. Breakdancing. Jackson Pollock paintings. Spitting. Just _anything._ That's what God necessarily is.  

 

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't understand at all why you're mentioning airing opinions in public again, you seem to be implying some impropriety or rudeness in atheists mentioning their beliefs.  What should we conclude about your motivations and responsibilities for airing your opinions in public?  The particular 'public' we are referring to is a discussion forum for disputing and debating spirituality topics, I air my opinions in public for entertainment.  Since there are endless ways that people find entertainment and you can't read people's minds, you shouldn't infer specific motivations from the mere fact that someone posted something.

...and yet, we do seem to have upset the sensibilities of @Pettytalk, haven't we? Y'know, not very classy to use a fellow UM user as a token, but my heart's in the right place.

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The motivation that prompts an atheist to think about god in the first place is the enormous number of theists in the world; irreduciibility of consciousness is needlessly complicated.  Why does the argument for atheism need to be an emotional one when there are scientific/philosophical arguments supporting it?

<--- I'll have to flat-out disagree with you. At a risk of keeping this thread going forever, I've said it before and I'll say it again: you hear atheists (quite reasonably) give the scientific, philosophical reasons for the non-existence of God, but you never hear them say, "First things first, when I was a kid, my dog / cat / relative died and there was no intervention". If God exists, he wouldn't immediately have birthed us into a world of atheistic / theist arguments, but we're all eligible for sorrow and bereavement, and (I would suggest) that's what needs to be addressed as the core of the human relationship with a possible God (be he a real thing or just a legitimate psychological coping mechanism).

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'll take a cheezy episode of CSI or an average Star Trek episode over any sappy religious story any day.

Well, for a start, CSI is formulaic, cheap and rubbishy, and Star Trek is (mostly) ace. But the most obvious answer to your question is, what piece of fiction has the sheer balls to use _actual miracles_ as plot devices? I can think of ...maybe when the bullet passes through Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction? So why hasn't anyone started using Pulp Fiction as the basis of a religion? Some might say that religion has survived so long because it has an unquantifiable 'X' factor that marks it out as significant in the human mind. 

 

[Carlos Allende]

3 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

5 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Here is something anecdotal that is a fact. The physical universe is fiction, pure and simple.

No it's not. Hard to view anything else you write with a serious eye after this poppycock of a statement. 

@Pettytalk's statement does have an _element_ of truth in it, given our limited senses, and the inherent biological lag in the ones we do have. Also, think on the consensus-based elements of quantum physics. These things might not be fiction, but there's a crazy amount of abstraction.