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

• 

  Gopher

  "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".

  As an atheist who (I think) doesn't rudely dismiss people who disagree, I see what you're trying to say. As for the atheist / believer divide, there are certain memes that insensitive / ignorant people on both sides try to advance. I dislike it when atheists say believers don't or won't use their brains, and I also dislike it when believers say atheists cannot be moral people and try to make it appear that atheists are some kind of organized religion. (Atheists can be moral people - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are wonderfully charitable billionaires who are definitely nonreligious and possibly atheist.)

  Atheists are still a picked-on minority. The zeal of a vocal segment of believers to try to demonize/discredit them show the worst side of religious belief. That treatment and that kind of marginalization (sometimes enforced by law) leads a few atheists to seem quite militant - an attempt to match the intensity of the other side.

  Personally my secular humanism is more of a live-and-let-live type of approach. There are good, thinking, caring people on both sides of the believer / skeptic divide. Goodness or thinking ability is not the sole possession of one or the other side.
• 

  tec

  There are good, thinking, caring people on both sides of the believer / skeptic divide. Goodness or thinking ability is not the sole possession of one or the other side.

  Agreed.

  Which is why although a dictionary is a great resource, etymology can be just as, if not more... mmmm... revealing.

  Also agreed.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Apognophos (4) "We should respect the fact that other people will not accept what we consider to be facts no matter how hard we try."

  This is also true. Respecting other peoples right to illusion is a noble thing. I deliberately allow certain illusions to exist in my life because it is in my interest to do so. However I know they are illusions and do not seek to convince others that they are facts. I would do that only if thought sharing would help others and if I could prove my assertions. Otherwise I keep my illusions to myself.

  I have some sympathy with your explanation of individuals right to interpret life according to their own needs and wishes. I can see that you are keen to keep things friendly on the forum and probably in real life. (It tend to be that way myself, though I do have a cut off point if pushed too far)

  What I have tried to offer is the value of separating fact from fiction. There is some benefit to our subjective inner world, and to personal interpretation of facts, though out there in our fast moving and dangerous world, objective facts are an essential survival tool and need to be kept in a separate tool box.
• 

  minimus

  All these comments mean nothing if the other party is not on the same page. It becomes an exercise in futility.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  minimus Which page is the party on - I wanna join in!
• 

  BluesBrother

  Without getting into any crossfire of dispute.... The principle behind Min's O/P is very true.

  An ancient Greek wrote "The easiest thing of all is to DECEIVE one's self; for what a man wishes he generally believes to be TRUE." - Demosthenes...
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Demosthenes... yes, as a matter of fact I knew him well. He was a friend of mine.
• 

  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.
• 

  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.
• 

  Phizzy

  Axioms and then Theorems come to mind, and may have been mentioned, I haven't time to read all the thread at present, a cool beer is shouting to get out of the fridge.

  I find it strange the "fall back" response of believers, challenge the existence of god and they fall back on Abiogenesis or the "where did the Universe come from" question, ignoring the challenge to prove god's existence.

  Speak of Facts and proven science and they start to question the meaning of the word truth, not examine the said facts or science.

  Strange, they do not do their cause a lot of good that way.