To be wrong.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hi.
I am a skeptic in part and it will show as I explain my faith.
I have been doing this for 25+ years, searching for the Truth. All along I have be told be many different people of many different and contradicting world views, that how ever indirect they put it, that either my thoughts and feelings are wrong and/or that I am wrong.
But I am a skeptic, so I don't mind being wrong. Here is how, that works. It is according to all these humans over time established as the Truth, that I am wrong. Yet as far as I can tell, I am still here.

So what have I learned from that? That in the eyes of some humans, I am wrong. So what about God? Am I wrong in the eyes of God? Well, I don't know. That I leave to God.

So here is my God. I accept, that there are many Gods to humans, yet there is only one God to me. That God has created me with my free will and consciousness and I obey God, not because I am God's slave or that I must obey God. I obey God in that, I take responsibility for, that I have free will and I can in practice only follow my own consciousness. My way to God is my way and I accept if you do it differently and if I am wrong, I leave that to God.

So according to man's Truth as explained above, I am wrong and thus my religion is The Wrong One and my God is The Wrong One. I am a skeptic after all and I am good at reductio ad absurdum.

So what does it mean to you to be wrong and how do you know that? Is that different from your faith or is it the same? Is wrong to you the same with faith and knowledge or even Truth?

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[Nimos]

So what does it mean to you to be wrong and how do you know that? Is that different from your faith or is it the same? Is wrong to you the same with faith and knowledge or even Truth?

To be wrong is like being right, you will not be able to tell the difference. I don't think any person would hold on to something, that they knew for certain were wrong. At least to me that would seem strange.

So being wrong and having faith is not the same. Imagine you had faith in the God Zeus, but then at some point you become convinced that he doesn't exists. At that exact moment you will or at least ought to loose faith in him and therefore, it should natural follow that, having faith is Zeus is wrong.

Having faith in something, is simply to hope for something without evidence or having no specific reasons for doing so. Which is not a bad thing, as we all have faith in each other. A child have faith in their parents to take care of them, or at least they should be able to, but we also know that not all are treated well. You can have faith in an old wooden bridge not collapsing while crossing a river. And obviously you can have faith in a God. So at least to me, if one should compare it to anything, it should be compared to "chance" or "hope".

 

[Native]

So here is my God. I accept, that there are many Gods to humans, yet there is only one God to me. That God has created me with my free will and consciousness and I obey God, not because I am God's slave or that I must obey God. I obey God in that, I take responsibility for, that I have free will and I can in practice only follow my own consciousness. My way to God is my way and I accept if you do it differently and if I am wrong, I leave that to God.

So according to man's Truth as explained above, I am wrong and thus my religion is The Wrong One and my God is The Wrong One. I am a skeptic after all and I am good at reductio ad absurdum.

If one take the collective approach to these questions, one can deduce that everything is created by the same force of creation, no matter what is said in different cultures throughout all times.

This is also what can be concluded when studying Comparative Religion and Mythology and then, both the "individual and cultural truth" is the very same, although there can be some local cultural and moral differences.

This should do your existential skepticism a bit lesser, I think

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
This should do your existential skepticism a bit lesser, I think

Maybe, I don't doubt you there, but because I am skeptic, I can come of as weird.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...And obviously you can have faith in a God. So at least to me, if one should compare it to anything, it should be compared to "chance" or "hope".

To me it is hope.

 

[Quintessence]

I think approaching religion from a black-and-white, right-versus-wrong perspective is on the whole not the way to be going about it. Religion is about articulating your deeply-held values through story, celebrating that through ritual, and sharing that with community. Those things are not right or wrong, they simply are. It is your identity and way of life.

A while back, I wrote a thread about what it means to follow the "wrong" religion that reflects this. You're only doing the wrong religion if, for example, your religion has nothing to do with your way of life. Or if the stories told by your religion don't interest you and are "just stories" to you. If your religion doesn't inspire any actual work or practices, it's the wrong one for you too. If it isn't a positive inspiration in your life, that's also a bad sign. And so on....

 

[dfnj]

Hi.
So what does it mean to you to be wrong and how do you know that? Is that different from your faith or is it the same? Is wrong to you the same with faith and knowledge or even Truth?

All religions are true. All dogmas are true. Each of us has our own personal dogma. This is how human language works. For human language to have any meaning at all, you first have to start with a set of assumptions or axioms. Axioms are considered to be true as a given and do not require any proof. People choose the axioms they have. It is a choice. There is no objective way to prove one set of axioms are better or more "right" than any other.

There is a difference between a "choice" and a "decision". A decision is based on reasons. As far as I can tell people "choose" axioms. There are no objective reasons to support a "decision" on which axioms to have.

Once you are aware of a set of axioms, then statements and assertions are considered to be "Truth" or false in relation to the axioms. It's just the way language works. Although as much as it seems obvious to me this is how language works, sometimes I feel like it's considered an axiom! This is because when people do not share the same set of axioms, statements made by one person will seem "insane" and "crazy" by the other. This is how human language works.

Now you could argue there is some kind of ultimate truth. The thing is as far as I know there is no one objective truth. There is no one dogma we can all agree on objectively. There's no way to prove one dogma is better than another. There's no way to prove one dogma is the absolute truth of reality. All objectivity is considered "good" or "bad" based on a subjective opinion.

We are all right and we are all wrong at the same time. The difference is we just have a different set of axioms. People with the same set of axioms become thought clones. Sometimes people will choose a different set of axioms based on the context of a conversation or who is involved in the conversation.

 

[Howard Is]

So what does it mean to you to be wrong and how do you know that? Is that different from your faith or is it the same? Is wrong to you the same with faith and knowledge or even Truth?

Whatever ‘faith’ I may have had long ago evaporated.
I’m cool with that.

I know nothing, apart from a collection of facts, and how I feel. And that is sufficient.

As for Truth, what exactly does that capital T signify ?

Consider that rhetorical. I’ve heard the relative vs absolute truth stuff for half a century, but still no sign of need for a capital T.

Make your choices, learn from the results. Don’t take it all too personally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi.
I am a skeptic in part and it will show as I explain my faith.
I have been doing this for 25+ years, searching for the Truth. All along I have be told be many different people of many different and contradicting world views, that how ever indirect they put it, that either my thoughts and feelings are wrong and/or that I am wrong.
But I am a skeptic, so I don't mind being wrong. Here is how, that works. It is according to all these humans over time established as the Truth, that I am wrong. Yet as far as I can tell, I am still here.

So what have I learned from that? That in the eyes of some humans, I am wrong. So what about God? Am I wrong in the eyes of God? Well, I don't know. That I leave to God.

So here is my God. I accept, that there are many Gods to humans, yet there is only one God to me. That God has created me with my free will and consciousness and I obey God, not because I am God's slave or that I must obey God. I obey God in that, I take responsibility for, that I have free will and I can in practice only follow my own consciousness. My way to God is my way and I accept if you do it differently and if I am wrong, I leave that to God.

So according to man's Truth as explained above, I am wrong and thus my religion is The Wrong One and my God is The Wrong One. I am a skeptic after all and I am good at reductio ad absurdum.

So what does it mean to you to be wrong and how do you know that? Is that different from your faith or is it the same? Is wrong to you the same with faith and knowledge or even Truth?

Regards and love
Mikkel

I'ld call "true beliefs" to be those beliefs that are an accurate representation of external reality.
While "false beliefs" are those beliefs that are inaccurate representations of external reality.

The way to find out if a statement / claim / belief is "true" or "false" is thus to verify / test it against external reality.


Statements / claims / beliefs concerning the external world, which are unfalsifiable (and thus untestable / unverifiable) are potentially infinite in number and thus rather useless and meaningless.

Such statements / claims / beliefs can not be evaluated in terms of accuracy. So they have no practical impact, they are irrelevant as they make no difference whatsoever. Except off course, such beliefs / statements / claims trigger certain behaviours. Then they are potentially pretty problematic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'ld call "true beliefs" to be those beliefs that are an accurate representation of external reality.
While "false beliefs" are those beliefs that are inaccurate representations of external reality.

The way to find out if a statement / claim / belief is "true" or "false" is thus to verify / test it against external reality.


Statements / claims / beliefs concerning the external world, which are unfalsifiable (and thus untestable / unverifiable) are potentially infinite in number and thus rather useless and meaningless.

Such statements / claims / beliefs can not be evaluated in terms of accuracy. So they have no practical impact, they are irrelevant as they make no difference whatsoever. Except off course, such beliefs / statements / claims trigger certain behaviours. Then they are potentially pretty problematic.

So when somebody that set of beliefs as internal and don't claim, that they are external.
E.g. I believe as an internal guide, that all humans are sacred and with worth and dignity, then what? I.e. how do you view that?

 

[Heyo]

Hi,
I'm an Agnostic. I.e. I don't view things only in right or wrong. Some things I simply don't know. And I can live with the uncertainty.
There may be things I think I know that really I don't. And if they are shown to be not true I will put those into the "unknown" category. I.e. it has to be shown that the opposite is right for me to accept it to be wrong.
"I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible." - Matt Dillahunty
By not believing thing that are not shown to be true, I avoid the second part. By only believing things that are shown to be true, I fulfill the first part.

By trying to force thing into the "true" or "false" category you unnecessarily risk to be false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So when somebody that set of beliefs as internal and don't claim, that they are external.
E.g. I believe as an internal guide, that all humans are sacred and with worth and dignity, then what? I.e. how do you view that?

That's just an opinion and thus not a matter of "true" and "false".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's just an opinion.

So how do I do an opinion using science? I know that I have an opinion and I how how to do an opinion. I am subjective.
So how do I do an opinion using science? Nothing explain how opinions work? I know that. I need to know how to do an opinion using science? Can you do that and explain how you do it and how you know that for all 3 using only science?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how do I do an opinion using science? I know that I have an opinion and I how how to do an opinion. I am subjective.
So how do I do an opinion using science? Nothing explain how opinions work? I know that. I need to know how to do an opinion using science? Can you do that and explain how you do it and how you know that for all 3 using only science?

Regards
Mikkel

Science doesn't care about opinions.

What part of "opinions aren't a matter of true or false" didn't you comprehend?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science doesn't care about opinions.

What part of "opinions aren't a matter of true or false" didn't you comprehend?

But my opinions are true to me!!! Are you claim my opinions as mine are false to me?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But my opinions are true to me!!! Are you claim my opinions as mine are false to me?

I can only repeat myself:

What part of "opinions aren't a matter of true or false" didn't you comprehend?

Your opinions are "true" to you by definition of what an "opinion" is.
And science isn't concerned with opinions. Science, instead, is concerned with truth claims about the world. Opinions aren't truth claims.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can only repeat myself:

What part of "opinions aren't a matter of true or false" didn't you comprehend?

Your opinions are "true" to you by definition of what an "opinion" is.
And science isn't concerned with opinions. Science, instead, is concerned with truth claims about the world. Opinions aren't truth claims.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend this.

There are different kinds of truth.