• 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 you want Real Truth or convenient Truth?

Choose the responses that apply to you now (multiple allowed, change choice any time)

  • 01: I dare to reject the verse from my own Scripture (if my conscience tells me)

  • 02: I dare to reject the verse from other's Scripture (if my conscience tells me)

  • 03: I have rejected 1 or more verses from my own Scripture

  • 04: I have rejected 1 or more verses from other's Scripture

  • 05: I would not dare to say NO to God, if He told me something personally

  • 06: I would say NO to God, if what He tells me goes against my Conscience

  • 07) I never go against my Conscience

  • 08) I do go against my Conscience sometimes

  • 09) I do go against my Conscience, and feel not bad about it

  • 10) For me it's a challenge in life to purify and follow my Conscience


Results are only viewable after voting.

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Of course both of them were at best self deluded and more in the vein of con artist than actually wise. Their real widsom was nothing more than banality and their pretention well beyond their reach.
I have to trust you on your word on this, because I have not enough information to check it myself:D
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I have to trust you on your word on this, because I have not enough information to check it myself:D

Contacless martial arts and Ki striking went up in flame a couple of years ago after several of their "grandmasters" were challenged by skeptic organisation like the one I worked for (and some much more famous), even more effectively, by amateur MMA practionner, experienced karateka and boxers all with the same result: the grandmaster get's his *** kicked. They have largely fell out of fashion. I don't think I've seen anybody talk about ki striking except as a total joke in 5 or 6 years.

The other guy was embroilled in a trial after one of his disciple died of cancer after abandoning treatment and relying only on himself and his teaching to find a cure. His "temple" closed down and two women have accused him of sexual assault in the wake of the #metoo movement, but I do not what happened to him or the accusations.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Did I meet some of these guru, yes, I personnaly met two. Did I follow their teachings as a devotee? No, I'm not an idiot. ............
Oh dear........
Your system might be more distorted than those you review. :)
At present your view seems to be:- All Devotees are idiots.

I can't trust that.
Hey! I found another thing to distrust....... :D
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Oh dear........
Your system might be more distorted than those you review. :)
At present your view seems to be:- All Devotees are idiots.

Indeed, if you strongly believe in complete idiocy that makes you an idiot in that specific circumstances. If you believe someone has magical power to cure people by the power of touch and faith, you are an idiot. If you think you can knock out someone in fight by shouting at them and without touching them, you are an idiot. The only way people fall for those things is because they are taken by those excellent liars (who don't always know they are liars) at a moment of vulnerability, with the help of peer pressure and are kept in the dark by their guru who will discourage all form of skeptical inquiries. Some people are devious enough to make a fool out of others around them. That's what those guru did.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
* What is the Real Truth?
* How do we know if something is the real truth?
* Do you have the guts to reject verses from your Master/Scriptures if they feels wrong?
* Can we rely on our Conscience to know if something is true, and is Conscience sufficient to know The Truth?

...

Okay, I will try to answer from within the tradition I am a part of, skepticism. Now in modern terms most skeptics are scientific skeptics, but I am old school. Skepticism is a negative, as there is no knowledge with reasoned justifications. There are beliefs, which appear to work.
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As for your 2 first ones, the answer is that as a relative conditional truth there is no Real Truth. It means that in principle you can know Real Truth, but then you are God. If you are not God, you have no access to Real Truth.
In practice seems I don't know Real Truth in my belief system, so when I come across a person, who claims Real Truth, I just check, if I can do it differently. If I can, I accept that the person might know Real Truth, but it doesn't apply to me, because I can do it different and thus I have arrived at relative truth.

As for the 3rd one I don't accept appeals to authority, because I always check for myself. Not that it makes me authoritative for other humans, because I accept that they can do it differently. So in practice I don't believe in right and wrong as most people do.

As for the last one, I try to figure out what matters to me. Truth always end up being what matters to someone including me.

Regards and love
Mikkel
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It seems your master has interest in carving himself a niche where his beliefs are considered as expertise without having to provide any form of tangible results in any other field. If your "spirituality" has no outside use beside itself, it's just another name for fancy bull****.

Hi my fellow skeptic. Now I am going to be skeptical about your skepticism.
The problem is that you in effect apply a duality of objectivity versus subjectivity.

So what is it, that you do for which you can't use your version of skepticism? You demand in effect that something must be tested using science and an utility of usefulness based on that.
That is not possible. What is useful can never be tested based solely on science, because usefulness is not tangible.

In other words:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
We always end here. You can't use science on morality, ethics, aesthetics, utility and what reality really is(metaphysics).
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Hi my fellow skeptic. Now I am going to be skeptical about your skepticism.
The problem is that you in effect apply a duality of objectivity versus subjectivity.

So what is it, that you do for which you can't use your version of skepticism? You demand in effect that something must be tested using science and an utility of usefulness based on that.
That is not possible. What is useful can never be tested based solely on science, because usefulness is not tangible.

In other words:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
We always end here. You can't use science on morality, ethics, aesthetics, utility and what reality really is(metaphysics).

That's not at all what usefulness means in that context, we talked three times already about it together. It doesn't need to scientifically testable to be useful. It simply needs to be useful in other spheres of inquiry than itself. For example, mathematics is useful for in a plethora of domains that go from engineering, mechanics, physics, sociology. history, accounting, cooking, philosophy, etc. Not all of these domains are scientific and you don't need to "scientifically test" mathematics themselves nor could you really since mathematics is a model of reality and, frame of analysis and a conceptual language. The greater the wisdom, the more profound a revelation, the more use it has and the more impact it creates.

What I demand is for guru to show the worth of their philosophical teachings by demonstrating its usefulness thus it's wisdom. Also, many guru make causal claims for example that their teachings can produce certain extraordinary results which are quite tangible and thus can be studied and analysed in a scientific manner. That's the case of the two I have helped expose as charlatan. One claimed he could fight off people without touching them and harming them with the strength of his spiritual energy. Another claimed he could heal various hailment up to and including deadly disease and otherwise uncurable ones. Both those claims can be debunked.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That's not at all what usefulness means in that context, we talked three times already about it together. It doesn't need to scientifically testable to be useful. It simply needs to be useful in other spheres of inquiry than itself. For example, mathematics is useful for in a plethora of domains that go from engineering, mechanics, physics, sociology. history, accounting, cooking, philosophy, etc. Not all of these domains are scientific and you don't need to "scientifically test" mathematics themselves nor could you really since mathematics is a model of reality and, frame of analysis and a conceptual language. The greater the wisdom, the more profound a revelation, the more use it has and the more impact it creates.

What I demand is for guru to show the worth of their philosophical teachings by demonstrating its usefulness thus it's wisdom. Also, many guru make causal claims for example that their teachings can produce certain extraordinary results which are quite tangible and thus can be studied and analysed in a scientific manner. That's the case of the two I have helped expose as charlatan. One claimed he could fight off people without touching them and harming them with the strength of his spiritual energy. Another claimed he could heal various hailment up to and including deadly disease and otherwise uncurable ones. Both those claims can be debunked.

That is the key sentence. The problem is that you can't show or demonstrate usefulness, because it is not tangible, i.e. objective. And what subjectively might be useful to you, might not be that to me and so in reverse.

In the end your standard of useful is subjective and so is mine.
Now if you analyze useful, is always useful to somebody, but necessarily not useful to others. So if I am an idiot, but it works for me to be an idiot and I have figured out to make that useful for me, I can't show you the worth or demonstrate its usefulness to you, because being an idiot is not useful to you.
Your measurement standard of useful has no strong universal objective referent and neither have mine. But you seem to project your usefulness on to other humans and call them idiots. That might be useful to you, but you can't show or demonstrate its worth, unless the person, you do that to, thinks and feels like you.

So here it is. I am an idiot to some people, but I am proud of it, because I have made it work for me as me. Is that useful and worth it? Well, what is your measurement standard?

Mikkel
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
That is the key sentence. The problem is that you can't show or demonstrate usefulness, because it is not tangible, i.e. objective. And what subjectively might be useful to you, might not be that to me and so in reverse.

Yes it's as objective as can be because it doesn't rely on a personal assesment of worth it relies on its applicability and its results. It's not about usefulness in reference to people it's usefulness in reference to fields of inquiry and knowledge. Mathematics aren't useful because I like them and they aren't useless because I don't. They aren't useful because I can make them work or not. You, me, others personnal views are completely ot of the equation. Mathematics are useful to other fields of inquiry than mathematics itself and it's usefulness can be demonstrated by observable results.

Can the doctrine of a guru, his or her wisdom, have use in other fields of inquiry and does it produce what it claims it can produce. If guru tells you his wisdom transcends everything and can only be understood and applied in its own bubble so to speak, you have a big red flag. There are many other red flags to spot a charlatan from an actual wiseman, but this is definitely one of them.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yes it's as objective as can be because it doesn't rely on a personal assesment of worth it relies on its applicability and its results. It's not about usefulness in reference to people it's usefulness in reference to fields of inquiry and knowledge.

So you don't understand that you have a subjective standard of usefulness, for which you claim, it is objective.

So let us test that.
If I were to ask of you to objectively as observable for all humans asses, it's usefulness, you couldn't, because you can't observe its usefulness.
So if I then asked of you without personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations to do an analysis of usefulness in reference to fields of inquiry and knowledge, it turns out that you have personally chosen what is relevant as for fields of inquiry and knowledge.

You don't seem to be able to understand, what is behind your words. Behind the words are your personal feelings and interpretations for what is useful for you to use as standards for assessing usefulness.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
So let us test that.
If I were to ask of you to objectively as observable for all humans asses, it's usefulness, you couldn't, because you can't observe its usefulness.

Yeah, you can absolutely observe the usefulness of this methodology and the value of skeptical inquiries. For **** sake you are using it right now to try to undermine it for some reason that eludes me. You can observe it's usefulness in prety much all fields of inquiry from the scientific method, police investigation, critical history methodology, systemic logic, formal logic, journalism, you can use it to write suspence stories, etc.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
* What is the Real Truth?
Truth is a quality of statements. In my view a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (ie nature, the world external to the self).
How do we know if something is the real truth?
We use the test above.
Do you have the guts to reject verses from your Master/Scriptures if they feels wrong?
I don't have a master, or, I have many masters, in that sense.
Can we rely on our Conscience to know if something is true, and is Conscience sufficient to know The Truth?
Truth is not a matter of conscience (though telling the truth may be). Truth answers to the objective test above.
Some Truth can be easily proven by Science. When it comes to Spirituality, Science is not always the way to find the answers.
I agree. That's because 'spiritual', 'supernatural', 'immaterial', 'divine' and so on aren't qualities of reality, and exist only as concepts, things imagined, in individual brains.

If they existed in reality, we could look at reality for the answer and you wouldn't need to ask these questions.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yeah, you can absolutely observe the usefulness of this methodology and the value of skeptical inquiries. For **** sake you are using right now to try to undermine it for some reason that eludes me. You can observe it's usefulness in pretty much all fields of inquiry from the scientific method, police investigation, critical history methodology, systemic logic, formal logic, journalism, you can use it to write suspense stories.

Useful as observe! What is its color, taste, sound, texture, dimensions and so on? Can you hold useful? What do you measure it in as per international scientific measurement standards? What instrument do you objectively calibrate to measure it? Can you refer me to the scientific theory of useful as say e.g. gravity?

Now here is how I know that you are subjective. I can subjectively use another form of useful and then I can compare them cognitively and using feelings. I can't use observation, because I can't see useful.
We are playing a game of first person cognitive psychology.

So in short, you can't see as see or otherwise as through external sensation or use of instruments observe usefulness.
See, I am a skeptic and I tried to replicate your claim and I have falsified it. You are wrong for your claim of observation.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
I agree. That's because 'spiritual', 'supernatural', 'immaterial', 'divine' and so on aren't qualities of reality, and exist only as concepts, things imagined, in individual brains.
...

So if they don't exist in reality, where do they then exist?
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Useful as observe! What is its color, taste, sound, texture, dimensions and so on? Can you hold useful? What do you measure it in as per international scientific measurement standards? What instrument do you objectively calibrate to measure it? Can you refer me to the scientific theory of useful as say e.g. gravity?

You should ask better question since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about.


Now here is how I know that you are subjective. I can subjectively use another form of useful and then I can compare them cognitively and using feelings. I can't use observation, because I can't see useful.
We are playing a game of first person cognitive psychology.

Actually no. What you did is take my usage of a term and replaced with another usage and try to pretend that both usage are one and the same. I have defined what usefulness and useful means in that specific context, that you can have another usage for those terms or create a new one doesn't in any adress way or even concerns my specific usage of terms. It's the equivalent of you telling me that I can't say a dialogue is fluid because dialogues aren't liquids. In that second example, obviously I'm using fluid as metaphore to describe the quality of a dialogue. In that context, useful and usefulness is a measure for a methodology or model of reality based on its capacity to be used to produce effects as predicted in a consistent fashion, effects which can be measured.

For example, what's better to knock out an adversary in a boxing ring? Is it a solid hook punch or shouting at someone with the intent to harm with a strong visualisation of the energy flow of the enemy? These are two methods based on two different sets of beliefs. We can judge and compare the value of the beliefs by their capacity to produce a method (or several methods) that will yield the desired result, in that case knocking out someone (in other word their usefulness). That's objective because the result can be observed independantly and be replicated if need be.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You should ask better question since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about.




Actually no. What you did is take my usage of a term and replaced with another usage and try to pretend that both usage are one and the same. I have defined what usefulness and useful means in that specific context, that you can have another usage for those terms or create a new one doesn't in any adress way or even concerns my specific usage of terms. It's the equivalent of you telling me that I can't say a dialogue is fluid because dialogues aren't liquids.

Now I am going to show you something, you can't see. Do you understand that? So now you see it, yet you don't. You are doing the fallacy of treating one word with 2 meanings as one meaning.
There is not objective about usefulness, because it is always a subjective POW.
 
Top