How Do Theists Separate Fact from Fiction?

[lightgigantic]

I guess so. Now if we don't even have an agreed upon definition of what a spiritual experience is, then how can we go about determining the validity of any such experience as fact or fiction?

hence

geez ...... It's not rocket science.

(although maybe it is .....)

Suppose we take rocket science and we assume it is a field of discipline you are thoroughly unfamiliar with, How would you propose to distinguish fact from fiction?

Or by the same token, taking rocket science once again ... suppose you were reasonably familiar with it. How would you propose to distinguish fact from fiction.

Similarly there are two general categories of theists -

1 - those who take belief in the facts by dint of authority ... much like (almost) any layman could say it is not a fact that we can teleport humans and travel faster than the speed of light.

2 - those who by dint of investigation, discipline snd action have a familiarity with the foundation of the issue and thus have a reservoir of knowledge drawn from experience


If you want to further investigate the nature of the #2's experience, it requires a bit of groundwork in theory, terminology and the relationship between the terms.

For instance if one couldn't get one's head around atoms and the nature of their spinning, a discussion on laser cooling atoms would appear rooted in text, custom and ritual.

 

[spidergoat]

Perhaps you can tell me

Whats the (apparently) entirely subjective connection between measurements in brain activity and spiritual practices like meditation?

/grabs popcorn

That's a strawman, I never said the benefits of meditation were entirely subjective. In fact there are measurable changes in brain activity.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's a strawman, I never said the benefits of meditation were entirely subjective. In fact there are measurable changes in brain activity.

You said it establishes how the metaphysical premises of theists are entirely subjective.



/grabs second hand of popcorn

 

[spidergoat]

No, I said it as an aside. The benefits of religion or spiritual practice do not seem to depend on any grand metaphysical ideas. The objective benefits can be separated from the subjective and frankly absurd premises of theism.

 

[Bishadi]

No, I said it as an aside. The benefits of religion or spiritual practice do not seem to depend on any grand metaphysical ideas.

nicely put

simply, that no god is doing it, each can have peace of mind (that is the same as giving hope to a person, it has proven to extend lives)

The objective benefits can be separated from the subjective and frankly absurd premises of theism.

nice

 

[scifes]

:roflmao:
how do atheists separate fact from fiction?

 

[earth]

how do atheists separate fact from fiction?

Intelligently

 

[Lori_7]

Reading the Virgin Mary thread has inspired me to create this new thread. Hopefully when all is said and done our theists friends can provide the skeptics out there the necessary information that will finally show the difference between what is fact and what is fiction.

So without wasting any time.....

Can a believer please tell us how they know what is factual as it pertains to their belief system. A system includes but is not limited to text, custom & ritual.

Is belief facts an oxymoron? If believers insist on reminding us of how their facts are gospel then I think everyone should know how this distinction is arrived upon.

Do believers base their facts on the most recent data culled from the sciences arena?

If knowing is 'you gotta have faith' then is it even worth discussing?

I separate it by living. I don't really care about speculating or being right. I just know what I know. You know? Isn't that the best anyone can do?

 

[wynn]

No, I said it as an aside. The benefits of religion or spiritual practice do not seem to depend on any grand metaphysical ideas. The objective benefits can be separated from the subjective and frankly absurd premises of theism.

So basically, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the beneficial effects of traditional spiritual practices - which are based on "grand metaphysical ideas" -

can be achieved also otherwise, without those "grand metaphysical ideas" - ?

If this is what you think, then how do you suggest that this be done?

 

[wynn]

I separate it by living. I don't really care about speculating or being right. I just know what I know. You know? Isn't that the best anyone can do?

You are either very advanced (and beyond any epistemological or ontological issues related to theistic beliefs and practices), or you are just simple.


I am not saying this to be condescending. I think your approach to theism (although I have no doubt it suffices for you to happily live your life) does not render itself well to discussion or to teaching others about theism.

 

[S.A.M.]

What facts are we talking about?

 

[scifes]

Intelligently

if so they should be theists then.

 

[earth]

if so they should be theists then.

That wasn't your question was it?

No to your assumption.

 

[swarm]

how do atheists separate fact from fiction?

Generally by the correspondence of the fact in question with its physical referent.

In cases like formal systems where there isn't a physical referent, its done via consistency and coherence within the system.

Anything not known to be factual is considered fictional until evidence supporting it is presented. Generally this evidence should be equal to and of the same "kind" as the claim being made. For example, rainbows are evidence of rainbows, but not evidence of unicorns.

Secondary evidence or worse can be considered if the claims made follow logically from the evidence, but direct evidence has primacy if there is a discrepency.

Your turn, how do theists do it?

 

[swarm]

Suppose we take rocket science ... How would you propose to distinguish fact from fiction?

The same way I did. Research it. Work with actual materials. for a more general treatment see my post above. The fact is people can learn about rockets, make them, launch them. I don't ever see any theist producing any god.

1 - those who take belief in the facts by dint of authority

You theists and your love of authority. In rocket science the rocket is the final authority. When I read a serious paper I make a point of avoiding the author's credits as much as possible. I want to know what was said, not who said it.

2 - those who by dint of investigation, discipline snd action have a familiarity with the foundation of the issue and thus have a reservoir of knowledge drawn from experience

Science is public knowledge. You can always access some equipment and reproduce an experiment. In fact it is encouraged. Its how interesting new information is found, like that gravity is not entirely uniform. Your "knowledge" seems completely frozen.

Do you ever do anything but impede a conversation? Here was a simple question. Can you not answer it?

How do you, as a theist, seperate fact from fiction?

 

[earth]

Generally by the correspondence of the fact in question with its physical referent.

In cases like formal systems where there isn't a physical referent, its done via consistency and coherence within the system.

Anything not known to be factual is considered fictional until evidence supporting it is presented. Generally this evidence should be equal to and of the same "kind" as the claim being made. For example, rainbows are evidence of rainbows, but not evidence of unicorns.

Secondary evidence or worse can be considered if the claims made follow logically from the evidence, but direct evidence has primacy if there is a discrepency.

Your turn, how do theists do it?

Intelligent answer swarm

I think the bible can answer your question "how do theists do it"?

1 Timothy 4:2
by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron

 

[lightgigantic]

The same way I did. Research it. Work with actual materials. for a more general treatment see my post above. The fact is people can learn about rockets, make them, launch them. I don't ever see any theist producing any god.

If you think that application can result in "god production" it probably explains why you haven't turned up anything. Classic case of screwing up at the point of theory

You theists and your love of authority. In rocket science the rocket is the final authority. When I read a serious paper I make a point of avoiding the author's credits as much as possible. I want to know what was said, not who said it.

and that's the point

the authority is what is said

Its not so much an aspect of theism but an intrinsic element to any pedagogical model. For some reason, atheists tend to overlook this necessity in their caricatures of religion.

Science is public knowledge. You can always access some equipment and reproduce an experiment. In fact it is encouraged. Its how interesting new information is found, like that gravity is not entirely uniform. Your "knowledge" seems completely frozen.

Science is not public knowledge. It is fully dependent on a person properly applying themselves. I don't know what you are drawing on to suggest the knowledge is frozen, but I suspect it is yet another atheistic caricature of theism ...
:shrug:

Do you ever do anything but impede a conversation? Here was a simple question. Can you not answer it?

How do you, as a theist, seperate fact from fiction?

Already mentioned several times - the same way as any other discipline of knowledge - application

:shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

What facts? Anyone?

 

[lightgigantic]

No, I said it as an aside. The benefits of religion or spiritual practice do not seem to depend on any grand metaphysical ideas. The objective benefits can be separated from the subjective and frankly absurd premises of theism.

Then its clear you are simply focusing on secondary benefits of spiritual practice (since the primary ones deal with release from the illusory attachment to the temporary)

 

[lightgigantic]

What facts? Anyone?

determining the validity of a claim about god/potency of god I guess.