We're all (mostly) dogmatic... Only few admit it while others call it faith or science.

[Subhankar Zac]

Dogma is for the spiritual truths religions can't agree upon, that comes from authorities not to be questioned. Truths that are pretty much agreed upon yet can change, like the majority of science would not be considered dogma. The term is really for matters of opinion not testable things.

Science is an ally for LGBT fighting a world of superstition.

The west considers religion synonymous with Abrahamic religions.
No religion outside those three.... Ever exists for the west.
So, why not stick to those religions that tge west thinks are religions?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes my opinion does seem to be a fact, but there is no proof of a god, so why isn't it a fact at this moment in life, when a god can be proven, then my fact is no longer a fact, can you see that ?.

How is your opinion a fact? Who said so?

 

[psychoslice]

How is your opinion a fact? Who said so?

My opinion that there is no god at this stage in life is a fact, you prove to me there is a god and I will change my opinion, the ball is in your court.

 

[dianaiad]

My opinion that there is no god at this stage in life is a fact, you prove to me there is a god and I will change my opinion, the ball is in your court.

Sorry, but that's not how it works, psychoslice.

YOU made the claim that it is a fact that there is 'no god at this stage in life." It's your claim, and your responsibility to prove it.

After all, I made no claim that there is one...and certainly didn't have the chutzpah to claim that His existence is a FACT.

According to the dictionaries, "fact" is defined as "something that truly exists, or happens. Something that has actual existence."

Not 'belief or opinion about the existence of something." My own personal opinion that there is a God, no matter how deep and sincerely held--and I do deeply believe that He does exist, btw-- does not make God a 'fact.' He either is, or He is not, whatever I think. Indeed, any fact is a fact no matter what people think, it's true, unless you start messing with the folks who like to do thought experiments with imaginary cats in imaginary boxes.

Your problem, though, is that you are not only claiming that your opinion that God does not exist means that God's non-existence is indeed a FACT, (which puts you in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative), you are also committing the logical fallacy of reversing the burden of proof, as well as setting up a false dichotomy. It IS your job to prove your own claim, and if I cannot prove that my beliefs about God are true (and y'know what? I can't), that doesn't automatically mean that there is no God at all. It's not an 'either/or' thing here, sir.

If MY beliefs in God aren't true, why...someone else's ideas about God could be. Or God could exist in a manner no human has thought up yet.

.......................or not at all.

(shrug)

The point is, sir, your claim, your responsibility to prove it, and you need to be a bit more careful about how you throw words like 'fact' around.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes there is truth in what you said, but when it comes to religion, then there is no truth, no facts. nothing.

Religion is mostly belief PRESENTED as truth.

 

[psychoslice]

Sorry, but that's not how it works, psychoslice.

YOU made the claim that it is a fact that there is 'no god at this stage in life." It's your claim, and your responsibility to prove it.

After all, I made no claim that there is one...and certainly didn't have the chutzpah to claim that His existence is a FACT.

According to the dictionaries, "fact" is defined as "something that truly exists, or happens. Something that has actual existence."

Not 'belief or opinion about the existence of something." My own personal opinion that there is a God, no matter how deep and sincerely held--and I do deeply believe that He does exist, btw-- does not make God a 'fact.' He either is, or He is not, whatever I think. Indeed, any fact is a fact no matter what people think, it's true, unless you start messing with the folks who like to do thought experiments with imaginary cats in imaginary boxes.

Your problem, though, is that you are not only claiming that your opinion that God does not exist means that God's non-existence is indeed a FACT, (which puts you in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative), you are also committing the logical fallacy of reversing the burden of proof, as well as setting up a false dichotomy. It IS your job to prove your own claim, and if I cannot prove that my beliefs about God are true (and y'know what? I can't), that doesn't automatically mean that there is no God at all. It's not an 'either/or' thing here, sir.

If MY beliefs in God aren't true, why...someone else's ideas about God could be. Or God could exist in a manner no human has thought up yet.

.......................or not at all.

(shrug)

The point is, sir, your claim, your responsibility to prove it, and you need to be a bit more careful about how you throw words like 'fact' around.

So you made no claim, so there isn't a god, or are you making a claim there is a god.........make up your mind.

 

[psychoslice]

Religion is mostly belief PRESENTED as truth.

Yes you and I know that, but sadly most just cannot get it...........why ???.,

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes you and I know that, but sadly most just cannot get it...........why ???.,

It seems that some people need to cling to comforting fictions like "God", "Heaven", "Cosmic Consciousness" and "Ultimate Reality".

 

[psychoslice]

It seems that some people need to cling to comforting fictions like "God", "Heaven", "Cosmic Consciousness" and "Ultimate Reality".

Yes I certainly can agree with that, well, at least this time of my life.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes I certainly can agree with that, well, at least this time of my life.

The give-away is when people start using PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ). People think that starting words with a capital letter somehow gives them more credibility, however this is just smoke and mirrors, an attempt to present a belief as a truth. These PPNs are invariably ill-defined, and often meaningless when you examine them closely. Some people make up a personal PPN language and expect everyone else to understand their obscure jargon and word salad. Words to hide behind.

So "Truth" is supposed to be more true than "truth", and "Ultimate Reality" more real than "reality". Yeah, whatever.

 

[psychoslice]

The give-away is when people start using PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ). People think that starting words with a capital letter somehow gives them more credibility, however this is just smoke and mirrors, an attempt to present a belief as a truth. These PPNs are invariably ill-defined, and often meaningless when you examine them closely. Some people make up a personal PPN language and expect everyone else to understand their obscure jargon and word salad. Words to hide behind.

So "Truth" is supposed to be more true than "truth", and "Ultimate Reality" more real than "reality". Yeah, whatever.

Yes I can agree with some of that, but myself I do use capital letters myself, but who cares about stupid language and how its used,k I certainly don't !!.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes I can agree with some of that, but myself I do use capital letters myself, but who cares about stupid language and how its used,k I certainly don't !!.

Yes, you and your "Source", which always makes me think of "sauce".

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, you and your "Source", which always makes me think of "sauce".

Ha, yes, my Source.

 

[dianaiad]

So you made no claim, so there isn't a god, or are you making a claim there is a god.........make up your mind.

I'm not making any claim at all here. You are.

However, if I WERE going to make a claim, it would be 'I believe that there is a God and that He is as I think He is." What is the claim there, psychoslice? It is "I believe" something. It's easy to prove that one. I believe. There you go. I have just proven that I believe, at least enough to say so.

YOU, on the other hand, have claimed that it is a fact that there is no god 'at this stage of life." I'll have to admit, that claim is a bit squishy. Perhaps you could begin by explaining exactly what you mean by that?

.............and then YOU get to prove that it's a fact. Stop attempting to reverse the burden of proof here. It's not my job to prove that there is a god when YOU have categorically claimed that it 'is a fact' that there isn't. It is now your problem, your burden, and your job. I can't even say that the ball is now in your court, because saying so is acknowledging that it was ever in mine. You have missed the serve every time, psychoslice, and have yet to get the ball over the net.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems that some people need to cling to comforting fictions like "God", "Heaven", "Cosmic Consciousness" and "Ultimate Reality".

They do not believe such things are fiction, and if such things are comforting, what's your problem with it?

Because they don't subscribe to YOUR particular comforting fiction?

 

[viole]

Science demands evidence and is only based on solid evidences (not theories).
The 5 physical senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.
Hence in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.
Though these senses are always susceptible to illusion, still they are the closest to receiving factual evidences.

We come across a million things when we take a drive for 10 mins from home to college and we ASSUME all of them to be real. The hills, the water tanks, the cars, the cows on the roads, etc. All of them are real to our eyes.
We do not need to go and feel their presence, we know 'for a fact' that they are real.
Note: only the senses of eyes are at play here.

At the same time, the eyes also sees a mirror as a smooth surface and solid objects as solid, while in this case we believe that this is actually not the case.
Nothing is exactly "smooth" and nothing is solid.
Yet none of us have actually seen the atoms and the infinitely fast moving electrons with the use of powerful microscopes. But we believe it, because someone with qualified education says so.

Moving on, many with prestigious degrees in India, China, Iran and even the US have views that according to us are more suited to the 12th century along with religious fanaticism, homophobia and anti atheistic rants.

But in this case, the degrees do not give them the same respect as others who accept LGBT, atheists and other minorities.

So, how does it work?
On one hand, blind faith is wrong, but it's okay if the person has years of experience in the field of science.
Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.
And we put our faith in the same science that once said that gay men could be "cured" by electrocution.

Actually science or whims of majority?

If you were right, then the theory that the sun orbits the earth would still be orthodoxy, among many examples of scientific theories that have been overruled.

On the other hand, sacred Books do not get any update for millenia. Which should make it clear that your association does not hold water.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

They do not believe such things are fiction, and if such things are comforting, what's your problem with it?

I value truth over comfort. Do you?

The truth is often uncomfortable but it seems a lot of people can't cope with that.

 

[dianaiad]

I value truth over comfort. Do you?

The truth is often uncomfortable but it seems a lot of people can't cope with that.

That's fine. For you. You like what you consider to be truth. I like what I consider to be truth. Why should I come over to your view of things just because you are disdainful?

 

[dianaiad]

Religion is mostly belief PRESENTED as truth.

Well, yeah.

However, so is a great deal of science. The difference is in what evidence is accepted, and by whom.

As for me, I understand completely the difference between science and religion, and understand well that neither system can be examined properly by the rules of the other.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As for me, I understand completely the difference between science and religion, and understand well that neither system can be examined properly by the rules of the other.

The rule in religion is you can make up whatever you like.