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

• 

  Tater-T

  have you seen the PBS series "Closer to Truth".. it explores cosmos consciousness god... this episode cover this topic

  "How belief systems work" basicly we all have a core deep belief... and we will make everything else fit that... no matter what the facts are..

  http://www.closertotruth.com/topic/How-Belief-Systems-Work/176

  I've been DVRing this show for over a year ... it has been a real eye opener.. especially about Freewill .. which if you really exam it isn't true..

  We do what we do because of who we are.. we are who we are because of circumstances beyond our control.. since we can't control that .. we don't have freewill..

  thats not exactly how it was stated on the show, I'm still trying to find that episode.. anyway I should start my own freewill topic..

  since you don't have freewill Facts are meaningless .. to a persons belief system..
• 

  Tater-T

  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 ... you pretty much nailed it on belief systems and freewill... WOW!
• 

  Terry

  I like the "Reasonable average person test".

  Instead of torturing the "meaning" of such and such "fact" you simply ask:

  "What would a reasonable average person say this means"?

  For example:

  The Watchtower's ever creative writers are bullwhipped into torturing the meaning of the word "generation."

  For decades it was stretched and nuanced and finessed as time ran out on the JW premise of early definitions.

  But--today's gerrymandered GENERATION doctrine is a Jabberwocky and not a FACT.

  What would an average reasonable person say is the definition of the word "generation"?

  You see?

  I'd say a generation is the interval between birth and child-bearing.

  My Grandmother gave birth to my mother who gave birth to me and my wife gave birth to my daughter. Commonly that is

  regarded as 4 generations.

  Why mutilate a fact with over-thinking and exaggeration?

  The average reasonable person can solve your problem easily.

  (The problem is that people who indulge in religious and political arguments are seldom reasonable or average!)
• 

  minimus

  I enjoy reasonableness.
• 

  AGuest

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

  What is incorrect is disputing the issue of whether he wrote it, when that issue was never asserted. He did say it, though. To me. And apparently... to some others. Including perhaps some who wrote of it... and created a record by doing so. Some years ago I tried to get my doctor to see that I was diabetic. He, with all of his years of "experience"... AND based on test results... said I was not a diabetic. And so, my medical record stated... as a matter of FACT... that I am "Not a diabetic." "Not" was even underlined. Later, I tried to convince another doctor that I was not a Type 2 but a Type 1 diabetic. He denied that... based on when I was actually diagnosed as a diabetic (although I had complained of my symptoms for a few years prior). My record THEN said, as a matter of FACT... "Not a Type 1 diabetic. Patient is a Type 2 diabetic." Both the "Not" and "Type 2" were underlines.

  Of course, all of the insulin I've taken over the years... and what I take now... as well as the results of the RIGHT tests... disputes those "facts". Now. Was I not a diabetic back then? The "facts" said I wasn't. What does this say to ME? That I know me... and what's happened/happening to me, although others might dispute/disagree. So what? They don't have to BE me.

  Bingo. Even when the Bible or religion says something untrue, the truth remains.

  Indeed. For example, when the first says that my Lord SAID (versus wrote) that he is the Truth. Which is the truth... and remains. As for the comment, the same would apply to science... even when it says something is true/untrue. Maybe science is right... maybe science is wrong. 'S'all I'm sayin'... nohmsayin'?

  The truth that none of those things is or evidence-based remains true.

  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". Hence, the truth YOU speak of is based on what you know NOW... pursuant to what science knows NOW... which, as you and others often admit... is subject to change. Personally, I don't care if others agree/disagree (which is apparently a difficult thing for many if not most people - they base their faith... and, for some, their LACK of faith... NOT on what they know... but on what others SAY they should/should not know.

  I don't roll that way, though - what I know as a result of my faith is not based on whether others agree or disagree as to its truth. If I did... it would not be FAITH... but consensus. It is based on evidence given ME, things that have occurred with ME... that I have heard and/or seen... and that's all I can share with others. Now, if they can't receive that... no worries on MY part - I don't share to MAKE anyone else believe anything. I share it just in case there are others who (1) might be having similar experiences; (2) believe such experiences can occur; and/or (3) want such to occur for them. If they don't... hoo-rah - no skin off my teeth, loss of sleep, or worries. That someone doesn't believe I've had such experience(s)... is their problem, not mine.

  If they say they DON'T believe it... but can't seem to stop thinking, talking, disputing, asking, or arguing about it... MY rational and logical mind says they're lying, that their lack of belief is NOT true... no matter how loudly they protest that it is. Because it is not RATIONAL... or even logical... that someone who DOESN'T believe something would expend SO much time and effort THINKING, let along talking, disputing, asking, or arguin about something they don't believe in.

  I can't imagine Richard Dawkins and I having more than a 5-10 minute interchange, if that, and then completely leaving one another to our respective faiths/paradigms. I can see spending a LOT more time with Stephen Hawking, though. A LOT more time, actually...

  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.

  I don't think ALL believers do this; however, I find it curious that you don't mention non-believers doing pretty much the same thing when asked to prove that God does NOT exist.

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

  I don't think this is entirely true. I mean, I agree that SOME believers don't examine "the said facts or science." But you and others tend to think that examining such facts/science... and still not agreeing with the hypotheses... is not an examination of said facts or science. For me, it's the same fallacy used by the WTBTS: if you don't agree with us it's because you didn't examine the evidence/facts/theology/science. Many have done that, in detail... and still just simply don't AGREE. Your position is that "IF you examined... you can't BUT agree." Isn't that what they (the WTBTS) say? Hence, again, why I could never ascribe to either camp: I see absolutely NO difference in the "doctrine" of both, which is "Believe as we do based on what WE say is fact/truth/evidence... or there's something wrong with YOU mentally." NEITHER camp will say, "Okay, so you don't come to the same conclusion(s) as we do. No worries - our beliefs are not based on whether you do or don't."

  I've never really been a "Go along with the herd because there's truth in NUMBERS... particularly as to those things many believe..." kind of girl. I am more of a "few are the ones finding it", chick, myself...

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

  Au contrare... as the comment above regarding atheism being the minority view, dear one. Religion wants... NEEDS... to grow its supporters and adherents. And it's been doing that from Day One. And so, they are more than doing their cause good; the numbers show that and have for some time. Science has jumped on that same bandwagon, where the position is that "almost everyone accepts that...". And I'm okay with that... because I understand the "broad and spacious road"... and that it isn't necessarily limited to "religion", as we usually mean that word.

  Faith, however, isn't about religion any more than it's about science (although it gives much more credence to science because of its motive: to TRY and find truth, as it relates to the physical world... in contrast to religion that, for the most part, purposes to lead people AWAY from truth... and the Truth... as that relates to the spirit world). And it (faith) isn't dependent upon the beliefs of others. It is based on evidence... that demonstrates the REALITY... even if such is not beheld (seen) with the physical eyes.

  Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish to, IMHO. They are not entitled to tell me what I canNOT believe, though. Such is not only a global, national, and state HUMAN right... but the ONLY right that is FULLY free-willed.

  Peace!

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA, who really, truly... really... doesn't care if someone doesn't agree with me or believe as I do as that is not the basis on which I rate them as loved ones... or friends... except when they infringe upon MY freedom in that regard. Then, well... it might get dicey. I'd have to do a lot of praying...
• 

  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.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  2+2=5. If you've ever read 1984, you'll realize that while there are objective facts, independent of our observations or beliefs, there are socially created facts. Socially created facts sounds oxymoronic, because it is. The point is, as your OP mentions, if a person is obstinate in their POV, they will refuse to change their mind to any new information, or at least attempt to justify the new information that contradicts their belief.

  Societal norms/ideas/culture/religion are very powerful constrictions upon the human mind, yet ironically, where would we be without them?
• 

  AGuest

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

  Oh, c'mon... admit it: you were the one lacking clarity. But I understand: that can happen when one reads while... nevermind.

  He is dead, rotted and dried up.

  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."

  It appears you are simply hearing voices.

  One voice, for the most part, just so we don't confuse folks. Even so, that concerns/bothers/intrigues/gets under your skin/is on your mind... why?

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

  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. And, according to you, facts are not errors. Right? And if someone is talking to a dead person... they might wanna check the "source" of that. My gift does not permit it, so... this particular error which is based on an erroneous assumption (wow, twice in one thread now, eh?) ... is yours alone.

  Of course you do. However, like your doctor was in error, attempting to re-define evidence is also an error.

  And yet, you refer to the modern interpretation/definition of words all the time, in spite of the FACT that such definitions are a departure (sometimes far) from the original usage/meaning/definition of such word... which is what I most often refer to.

  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.

  Regarding the first part of your statement, please see above. Regarding the latter, that is merely your opinion... and while I disagree with it, you are certainly entitled to it.

  It a common problem amongst people that routinely misunderstand science through lack of education or purposefully misrepresent it in order to further an agenda.

  (Smile) I don't misunderstand science, chile'. Indeed, "you" have explained it to death on here. I get what you mean... and wish me to 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. Because no book, treatise, report, or scientific thesis can or will explain it to you.

  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.

  But really, don't take it SO hard. You're not alone.

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Fernando

  Very few people even know they have a worldview, let alone what their worldview is, how small it is, how addicted they are to it, or how it controls them.

  In this respect, and to varying degrees, we are much like the Watchtower we dislike so much.

  ---

  (Why do followers of the Watchtower religion call themselves “publishers of the Good News” whilst unfamiliar with the “Good News” according to Paul, Moses, Isaiah and Psalms?)
• 

  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.