• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do religious people get it backwards?

Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
thomas t said:
please provide evidence for the assertion highlighted in red. Present a scientific study that shows that, for pretty much all people, yours is the method used when they arrive at a belief.
Thomas
Click to expand...
Well if it weren't the case, I think we would see a lot more people jumping off buildings yelling "I believe, I can fly", before smashing into the ground.

So I don't think it is a wrong assertion, how often do you hear a person saying "I believe in ghosts" or something similar, and when asked why... they answer "Why not?". Normally people do not take on believes like that. How many Christians do you think there would be had the bible never been written?

The question is, when a person say that they believe in ghosts, do they actually do this, because the evidence that lead them to such belief, could be verified or not? Or did they simply hear strange noise and unable to explain it, they jump to the conclusion that it must have been a ghost, and from that point on, what they are actively trying to do is find evidence to support the idea of ghosts, rather than holding off their believe in ghosts, until actually evidence for such things can be verified as being true.
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
wellwisher said:
Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion hoax, where the Democrat party, the deep state intelligence agencies and fake news, presented misinformation about President Trump, as evidence of his involvement with the Russians? This turned out to be a coverup of their own crimes. This repetitive brain wash scheme led to most atheists becoming believers in faux evidence. They showed a lot of faith in the wrong things. Many became self proclaimed experts in false things.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about this?

 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Nimos said:
Well if it weren't the case, I think we would see a lot more people jumping off buildings yelling "I believe, I can fly", before smashing into the ground.

So I don't think it is a wrong assertion, how often do you hear a person saying "I believe in ghosts" or something similar, and when asked why... they answer "Why not?". Normally people do not take on believes like that. How many Christians do you think there would be had the bible never been written?

The question is, when a person say that they believe in ghosts, do they actually do this, because the evidence that lead them to such belief, could be verified or not? Or did they simply hear strange noise and unable to explain it, they jump to the conclusion that it must have been a ghost, and from that point on, what they are actively trying to do is find evidence to support the idea of ghosts, rather than holding off their believe in ghosts, until actually evidence for such things can be verified as being true.
Click to expand...

Can everything be verified using evidence? Are the any limits to evidence/verification?

Is it a fact, that I can believe in God without any positive evidence/verification?
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
Let me speak from the Islamic point of view. There are two angles of approach to theology in traditional Islamic philosophy. Why Islam? 1. Akal or "Reason". 2. Thakleedh or "conformity/compliance". One side have always approached theology with reason which means they do not believe for the sake of belief like you have asserted. Some others do.

So you are right partially. But not quite right.
Click to expand...
But can the teachings in the Quran and what is going on there, be verified as being true?
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
No, that is a belief, that apparently works. It would be the same, if you were a Boltzmann Brain.
Click to expand...
The Boltzmann brain is a flawed argument. Do you have any good reason to believe that you are not living amongst fellow human entities?

mikkel_the_dane said:
So you don't doubt your beliefs and question what knowledge is?
Click to expand...
Sure I do, that is the reason, I do not believe everyone around me are projections or smurfs in disguise. Neither of these idea have any evidence to support them.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Gargovic Malkav said:
Only God can give such glasses. And I am reminded of that in the discussion I'm having. You apparently see it as "cheating" for wearing them, so you have no reason to acquire them, because that would be "unfair". This is an example of my experiences with God. If you don't get this then I can't do anything about it.

I might not reply in this thread anymore because I don't think there's anything left for me to talk about. It is clear how we see things differently.
Click to expand...

I think you read this wrong and kind of taking it a bit more personal than what it is.

Default glasses means we were not born with any religious and spiritual experiences and knowledge. Your (people's) world is based on sensory data and things we are taught and learned from our actions. It's purely objective until we grow older and start using more abstract concepts and words to explain what we experience, belief, and things of that nature. Evidence is objective. Some people don't have other glasses to put on (and where not given any). They go through life with default-and, of course, there's nothing wrong with that.

The "right" glasses (from how I'm reading) is when someone is old enough to put together abstract concepts and all I mentioned above. They have full language and can interpret most things they experience and try to whether analogy or not things that they say are beyond their experiences. When someone wears these glasses, they see evidence from a subjective (even analogical) standpoint. Their foundation of evidence (for god) is totally different than it would be if they kept with their default glasses.

So, when speaking of evidence of god, it depends on what glasses a person wears. Since evidence can either be subjective or objective, neither glasses default or other are right or wrong (that's an abrahamic thing-splitting hairs), just different perspectives.

The problem is spiritual ego: saying one person has it right and the other person has it wrong because of their spiritual experience and awakening. Another is that when they say evidence, they should specific the type of evidence they are talking about. If it's experiential, that's what needs to be said. Many people who don't believe in god will see evidence from an objective view-where it can be tested by all people all around the world without religious biases.

Clarification is needed with the term evidence.

As for cheating: We are born with one set of glasses, so it would be "cheating" for someone to "try" to take off their default glasses to another and assume the evidence they get from their new set is the same interpretation as they have with their default.

We are born with default glasses, so it would be cheating to assume that evidence one sees for default view is the same one would have for what you call the "right" view. Two separate criteria. It would be off to say evidence for the right view should be for the default view.

I think you misinterpret what I wrote. It's not an attack or anything from another perspective. Also conversations don't need to be with people who always agree with you, I'm sure?
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Can everything be verified using evidence? Are the any limits to evidence/verification?
Click to expand...
Its not about whether or not everything can be verified by evidence or not, its about whether or not it is rational to believe something to be true, if you have no evidence, which can be verified.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Nimos said:
Its not about whether or not everything can be verified by evidence or not, its about whether or not it is rational to believe something to be true, if you have no evidence, which can be verified.
Click to expand...

Rational is subjective and in your mind. Rational is a belief.
 
Gargovic Malkav

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
Unveiled Artist said:
I think you read this wrong and kind of taking it a bit more personal than what it is.

Default glasses means we were not born with any religious and spiritual experiences and knowledge. Your (people's) world is based on sensory data and things we are taught and learned from our actions. It's purely objective until we grow older and start using more abstract concepts and words to explain what we experience, belief, and things of that nature. Evidence is objective. Some people don't have other glasses to put on (and where not given any). They go through life with default-and, of course, there's nothing wrong with that.

The "right" glasses (from how I'm reading) is when someone is old enough to put together abstract concepts and all I mentioned above. They have full language and can interpret most things they experience and try to whether analogy or not things that they say are beyond their experiences. When someone wears these glasses, they see evidence from a subjective (even analogical) standpoint. Their foundation of evidence (for god) is totally different than it would be if they kept with their default glasses.

So, when speaking of evidence of god, it depends on what glasses a person wears. Since evidence can either be subjective or objective, neither glasses default or other are right or wrong (that's an abrahamic thing-splitting hairs), just different perspectives.

The problem is spiritual ego: saying one person has it right and the other person has it wrong because of their spiritual experience and awakening. Another is that when they say evidence, they should specific the type of evidence they are talking about. If it's experiential, that's what needs to be said. Many people who don't believe in god will see evidence from an objective view-where it can be tested by all people all around the world without religious biases.

Clarification is needed with the term evidence.

As for cheating: We are born with one set of glasses, so it would be "cheating" for someone to "try" to take off their default glasses to another and assume the evidence they get from their new set is the same interpretation as they have with their default.

We are born with default glasses, so it would be cheating to assume that evidence one sees for default view is the same one would have for what you call the "right" view. Two separate criteria. It would be off to say evidence for the right view should be for the default view.

I think you misinterpret what I wrote. It's not an attack or anything from another perspective. Also conversations don't need to be with people who always agree with you, I'm sure?
Click to expand...

I perfectly understood what you meant. But I can't explain myself apparently...
Sometimes comments may seem a bit snappy, but I meant no hostility. It's hard to read peoples emotions and intentions sometimes when not in person.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Nimos said:
Its not about whether or not everything can be verified by evidence or not, its about whether or not it is rational to believe something to be true, if you have no evidence, which can be verified.
Click to expand...

Is there validity or credit given to those whose evidence is not based on objective support? Are there other reasons or evidences in which we can believe something and be rational about it without needing solely objective evidence to validate whether or not it should be believed?
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Rational is subjective and in your mind. Rational is a belief.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree with that. Because rationality is connected to reason and logic. And in order to be logic, I fail to see how you could do this purely by being subjective... how would you make a logic assessment, if you are simply guessing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top