Facing facts

Spirituality Religion
#1

To what extent does religious/media/political/philosophical bias interfere in the process of examining facts and examining sound arguments based on facts?

I believe there is a tendency amongst those with implicit and explit biasses to distort facts and deny facts. I have seen this especially with so-called skeptics who deny parapsychological research into such things like paranormal abilities, OBES, NDE’s, reincarnation, and materialists who deny quantum mechanics and idealism, and Christians who deny any wrong things in their religion, even something as blatant as inquisitions, witch-trials and the injunctions for genocide, murder and rape in the OT.

If we lived in a perfect world where everything was driven by facts I don’t think we would be even in half of the problems we are in today.

Is the truth a choice?

#2

…and people should really stop ascribing the role of the antagonist to the first guy opposing them in a debate. Seriously, I have browsed through these forums for a couple of months now and I believe this is a serious problem bringing almost all threads in the “Religion”-forum to a standstill.

I know that SD and Nietzsche seemingly ascribe the “antagonist-role” to Yulaw, Indra Deva, Flex Penguin and The Scales - but at least they (for the most of the time at least) try to back it up with reason or fact. Looking at this relationship from the opposite side, these folks are seemingly only striving for one thing: opposing SD and Nietzsche no matter what they say - without - and here is the relevant difference folks - reason or facts (and no, I do not include random Wiki-links into the category of “facts”).

To sum it up: I would not be surprised if SD would be opposed if he stated that 1 + 1 = 2.

Before posting. Please ask yourself if you are really contributing to the debate. And please ask yourself the reason why you are arguing in a particular way.

Thxbye.

#3

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47439]To what extent does religious/media/political/philosophical bias interfere in the process of examining facts and examining sound arguments based on facts?

I believe there is a tendency amongst those with implicit and explit biasses to distort facts and deny facts. I have seen this especially with so-called skeptics who deny parapsychological research into such things like paranormal abilities, OBES, NDE’s, reincarnation, and materialists who deny quantum mechanics and idealism, and Christians who deny any wrong things in their religion, even something as blatant as inquisitions, witch-trials and the injunctions for genocide, murder and rape in the OT.

If we lived in a perfect world where everything was driven by facts I don’t think we would be even in half of the problems we are in today.

Is the truth a choice?[/QUOTE]

I would say - there’s always a choice.

#4

Ok, I am doing as you have asked…am I really contributing to the debate and the reason I’m arguing in a particular way will be considered…

But SD, you cant except some facts when they are laid before you. You judge the validity of something based on whether you have heard about it , experienced it, whether it fits comfortably with you, whether the is Scientific evidence to back it up, this is how you determine what a fact is…but there is another kind of fact, one that exists in the experiencer, the individual, for them what has happened is a fact., This is the kind of fact you have trouble with.

Historical facts are just that, historical…of course a peaceful practicing Christian today does not want to have to defend themselves against Historical facts. The Christian is defending what they know today, what they have experienced.

Thinking your way, we can say that ALL religious practices are non fruitful for the individual except if they are a Hindu…this of course is utter nonsense.

So the facts for you have to add up in a certain way or you discard them. The divine is not exclusive so every notion that just Hinduism is the way, is immediately wrong, this is a fact, I can say.

#5

Every Christian knows that some Christians have done bad things.

The dispute I have and what I deny is that Christianity makes them do bad things.

#6

[QUOTE=thomas;47468]Every Christian knows that some Christians have done bad things.

The dispute I have and what I deny is that Christianity makes them do bad things.[/QUOTE]

The decision to do the right thing or the wrong thing rests with the individual.

#7

Spamming spree aside, the truth seems to be a matter of choice. Some just doesn’t want to hear - imagine a professor who established his career on something that has been falsified. Now, do you think he would come forth and accept the coming of truth? No, probably he wouldn’t, and he’ll be right to do so if it threatens his career, family and all other sorts of attachments.

Quantum Physics cannot yet establish itself in society, because it falsifies many things that lie on the foundation of capitalism. The natural world is dying, its fate now stands upon the edge of a knife, yet there is a lot of phony environmentalism going out there, claiming that we could be sustainable. Do you think there are enough people to face the the facts and take up the courage and fall upon their own swords? No, there aren’t.

So, the truth has been made a matter of choice. Who made it? A lot of philosopher out there, cracking on postmodern deconstructionism and pragmatic truth creation, perhaps?

Our failure is complete <.<

#8

[QUOTE=kareng;47465]

Thinking your way, we can say that ALL religious practices are non fruitful for the individual except if they are a Hindu…this of course is utter nonsense.

So the facts for you have to add up in a certain way or you discard them. The divine is not exclusive so every notion that just Hinduism is the way, is immediately wrong, this is a fact, I can say.[/QUOTE]

This essentially sums up the debating style exhibited by SD and his supporters. They also have a tremendous grasp on language and often use that ability to bully debaters who present opposing views. I am drawn in and will ridicule at that point, because the debate has become ridiculous. The topics often take on a trollish character and threads started to provoke members. So, it is tough to take them seriously, and I don’t. I now understand that these guys are really kids, and not fair for adults to make fun of children so I won’t participate in mocking them any longer.

#9

[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;47488]This essentially sums up the debating style exhibited by SD and his supporters. They also have a tremendous grasp on language and often use that ability to bully debaters who present opposing views. I am drawn in and will ridicule at that point, because the debate has become ridiculous. The topics often take on a trollish character and threads started to provoke members. So, it is tough to take them seriously, and I don’t. I now understand that these guys are really kids, and not fair for adults to make fun of children so I won’t participate in mocking them any longer.[/QUOTE]

oh go on…go on, go on, go on, go on, go on…(excerpt from Father Ted, a comedy show here)

#10

[QUOTE=High Wolf;47484]Spamming spree aside, the truth seems to be a matter of choice. Some just doesn’t want to hear - imagine a professor who established his career on something that has been falsified. Now, do you think he would come forth and accept the coming of truth? No, probably he wouldn’t, and he’ll be right to do so if it threatens his career, family and all other sorts of attachments.

Quantum Physics cannot yet establish itself in society, because it falsifies many things that lie on the foundation of capitalism. The natural world is dying, its fate now stands upon the edge of a knife, yet there is a lot of phony environmentalism going out there, claiming that we could be sustainable. Do you think there are enough people to face the the facts and take up the courage and fall upon their own swords? No, there aren’t.

So, the truth has been made a matter of choice. Who made it? A lot of philosopher out there, cracking on postmodern deconstructionism and pragmatic truth creation, perhaps?

Our failure is complete <.<[/QUOTE]

The voice of reason…akin to the sound of Jascha Heifetz playing Vitali Chaconne…so beautiful.

#11

This ability you talk about is called being educated. I am sure you went to school like we did, and if you remember back to your school days in the humanities you had to write formally, clearly and concisely, your points had to be coherent and based on sound evidence and demonstrated with plenty of examples.

We obviously paid attention at school and did well at school. We were the guys getting A’s, distinctions and first class honours.

If you enter into the academic world everybody there talks like us and expects the same standards of research and evidence. In the academic world critical and free thought is a virtue. In the UK, the academic world is to tolerant, it even allows Islamic scholars to write hate-material against the West(This is why UK is also sometimes called Londonistan by critics of this tolerance of free thought)

If you knew any better you would find Christian theologians in the academic world criticising Christianity as much as I am.

I am drawn in and will ridicule at that point, because the debate has become ridiculous. The topics often take on a trollish character and threads started to provoke members. So, it is tough to take them seriously, and I don’t. I now understand that these guys are really kids, and not fair for adults to make fun of children so I won’t participate in mocking them any longer.

You are basically admitting to being a troll, but are justifying your trolling activity by saying you have a licence to do it. Well, I hope you stick to your words that you will not troll any longer, and finally allow critical and free thinking and debate to take place in the religion forum.

I think the Yoga forum is quite lucky it has so many intellectuals that have joined this forum(each of which with grounding in philosophy, sociology, literature, history and religion) and contributing to discussions. It has significantly raised the bar of the caliber of discussion above the previous new-age and PC environment. This forum is going to go places thanks to the educated members here.

#12

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47585]This ability you talk about is called being educated. I am sure you went to school like we did, and if you remember back to your school days in the humanities you had to write formally, clearly and concisely, your points had to be coherent and based on sound evidence and demonstrated with plenty of examples.

We obviously paid attention at school and did well at school. We were the guys getting A’s, distinctions and first class honours.

If you enter into the academic world everybody there talks like us and expects the same standards of research and evidence. In the academic world critical and free thought is a virtue. In the UK, the academic world is to tolerant, it even allows Islamic scholars to write hate-material against the West(This is why UK is also sometimes called Londonistan by critics of this tolerance of free thought)

If you knew any better you would find Christian theologians in the academic world criticising Christianity as much as I am.

You are basically admitting to being a troll, but are justifying your trolling activity by saying you have a licence to do it. Well, I hope you stick to your words that you will not troll any longer, and finally allow critical and free thinking and debate to take place in the religion forum.

I think the Yoga forum is quite lucky it has so many intellectuals that have joined this forum(each of which with grounding in philosophy, sociology, literature, history and religion) and contributing to discussions. It has significantly raised the bar of the caliber of discussion above the previous new-age and PC environment. This forum is going to go places thanks to the educated members here.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of us being the people who are getting A’s, distinctions, and first class honors, the last time a dogmatic Christian or non-critical thinker (meaning critical of every religion, critical of the West, etc) was in the top 10 in our school was…oh yeah, 1 time. And guess what? The girl was an Indian Christian. And guess what? She didn’t take her religion seriously.

Thank you Surya Deva for pointing out how Flex Penguin just incriminated himself. How clever of him. I wouldn’t except much from an “adult” who calls Bollywood actors homosexual because they dance, makes fun of our skin color, and regurgitates other Indian stereotypes. As they say, “Age is not a measure of ability.”

#13

Free and critical thinking and debate is not just limited to myself and my so-called supporters, it is also the right of those who disagree with us.

My position is very clear: I want to establish the superiority of Vedic Hinduism over every other religion on the planet and want this religion to become the religion of the 21st century world and onwards. In order to do this the old religion of this world needs to go: Abrahamic religions. Every vestige of these religions need to eradicated of this planet and all we should remember them for, is for our primitive past. We are now in the scientific age and the scientific age has falsified the Abrahmic religion and its related ideologies, philosophies and culture. Alternatively, it has verified the dharmic religions and its related ideologies, philosophies and culture. Therefore, the science has already given the green light to the dharmic religions. Now it is only a case of allowing the dharmic religions to take over to foster a new prosperous future for humanity.

What is preventing this from happening? Politics and nothing more. It is people who cannot part with the old and embrace the new. They are the equivalent of flat-earthers of religion. They want to hold onto tightly to these falsified and obsolete paradigms and give hell to those brave and honest souls that want humanity to progress further.

I do not have any problem with those who disagree with my views and fully support their right to have their own viewpoints. But what I do have a problem with is that the people who disagree with my views, rather than arguing for their own and supporting it with evidence and research, think it is OK to personally attack, ridicule, mock and write hate messages to me for having my views. This is the virtual equivalent of inqusitions. Censoring, silencing and condemning the right of people to think freely.

Such injustice does not go unnoticed. By engaging in this destructive and immature behaviour they are going to lose credibility with objective and honest readers and make them sympathetic to me and my “supporters”. So I will ask again politely, by all means state your viewpoint with as much intensity as we state ours, but stop the personal attacks and start to focus on the discussion itself. Contribute. Your viewpoint has as much right to be heard as ours.

#14

You guys are too goofy. A real comedy team. Our next Hollywood project for sure.

#15

[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;47591]You guys are too goofy. A real comedy team. Our next Hollywood project for sure.[/QUOTE]

It is amazing that you are in your 50’s. I am 30, Nietzsche is in his teens and the others seem to be mid to late 20’s.

I guess it is true that age does not equal maturity.

#16

At the same time, I regret have those dim-witted trolls on my ignore list. There remains no one to trash in a debate, no one to give me the emotion of pure and unmitigated happiness when my crushed opponents begin to expose their true Western/Christianized selves…then again, such fodder satisfies my soul superficially. This forum needs to be cleaned up and reinstated and repopulated with those who have shown evolutionary development beyond the typical Australopithecine.

#17

My grandfather died at 97 with a sly glimmer in his eye and a smirk on his lips. My wish is to follow his example :wink:

#18

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47592]It is amazing that you are in your 50’s. I am 30, Nietzsche is in his teens and the others seem to be mid to late 20’s.

I guess it is true that age does not equal maturity.[/QUOTE]

I haven’t even reached the age when one is legally considered an adult.

#19

But SD, you cant except some facts when they are laid before you. You judge the validity of something based on whether you have heard about it , experienced it, whether it fits comfortably with you, whether the is Scientific evidence to back it up, this is how you determine what a fact is…but there is another kind of fact, one that exists in the experiencer, the individual, for them what has happened is a fact., This is the kind of fact you have trouble with.

Nope, I consider as facts the following in order of priority:

  1. Empirical evidence
  2. Sound inferences based on empirical evidence(smoke - fire)
  3. Reliable peer reviewed testimony(Eiffel tower is in Paris)

Personal experiences is only reliable evidence if it is peer reviewed and comes from reliable sources. I am sorry some Christian claiming they talk to god is not reliable evidence. On the other hand, states of consciousness which have been studied by psychologists and mapped out using phenomological methods is reliable evidence.

Historical facts are just that, historical…of course a peaceful practicing Christian today does not want to have to defend themselves against Historical facts. The Christian is defending what they know today, what they have experienced.

History cannot be denied because it is based on the structure of history that the present has come into being. History has to be acknowledged and any flaws have to be corrected in the present, so the future is without those flaws.
As it stands the flaws in Christianity are still there. It still includes the OT as a part of its bible(which even in modern times has been used to justify violence such as Vietnam) There is little to no apology for the inquisitions, crusades, colonialism and the major Christian denominations stiill adhere to exclusivist doctrines that condemn the followers of other religions and engage in missionary and conversion activity, which now takes place in third world countries.

In addition to that almost all of the beliefs of Christianity have been disproven by science: flat earth, genocentric model, creationism, judgement day.

Christianity is a falsified religion.

Thinking your way, we can say that ALL religious practices are non fruitful for the individual except if they are a Hindu…this of course is utter nonsense.

An individual that is following these religions loyally will not bear any fruit. They will hold onto false views of reality, believe themselves to be sinners or slaves of god that must atone for their sins and hate everybody that is not a part of their religion and destroy their idols and temples.

So the facts for you have to add up in a certain way or you discard them. The divine is not exclusive so every notion that just Hinduism is the way, is immediately wrong, this is a fact, I can say.

There is only one truth in the end, not several. The earth is either flat or a sphere; the sun either goes around the earth or vis versa; the battle hasting took place in 1066 or it did not. The observer is collapsing the wavefunction or it is not. One dies and faces judgement and eternal damnation or salvation, or they die forever, or they reincarnate. The divine is within or it is not. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water or they do not.

Truth is not plural.

#20

“Peaceful practicing Christian.” The best example of an oxymoron I have ever seen. No Christian these days is truly a Christian. No Christian, provided that you accept the definition of a Christian being one who derives his teachings from the Bible, is devoid of supremacist and ignorant notions. The only true Christian died about 2000 years ago.