Some Facts of Religion

[BeHereNow]

Not one of these fits your declared intention:

They are stated to be "the actual state of affairs" but cannot be shown to be so.
Therefore these fall under your heading of ‘statements about facts’.
For someone was careful to "note that there is a difference between ‘facts’, and ‘statements about facts’" you've missed the mark. Badly.

It certainly can be shown to be true, by the belief system rules of Religionists.

For some of us, experience is the truth teller.
Experiences can provide verification of many things, and God is one of them.

Some of us do not share your belief system.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It certainly can be shown to be true, by the belief system rules of Religionists.

Are you getting it yet?

Actual state of affairs != "only discernible under a given belief system".

 

[BeHereNow]

Are you getting it yet?

Actual state of affairs != "only discernible under a given belief system".

What you say is true, is only discernable under belief systems such as your own.
"Actual state of affairs."

Show that the actual state of affairs contains no god, using your belief system.
Use your truth telling methods, in this religion forum, to show there is no god in the actual state of affairs.

Your house, your rules.
Our house, our rules.
I'll even play the game with your rules.
Some of us have experienced the truth of god, as being the actual state of affairs.
Show us there is no god.
Even with your own rules, you cannot do it.

I do not ask you to say there is a god, until you declare there is no god, which you have done, in the religion section of this forum.

Even using your belief sytem, the possibility of god exists.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Show that the actual state of affairs contains no god, using your belief system.

Oops, fail.
I haven't claimed there is no god. I simply pointed that claiming "god exists" is a true statement is false. God may or may not exist. And until we know for sure (e.g. discern that that is the actual state of affairs) then a declaration either way is belief/ supposition and not fact.

Some of us have experienced the truth of god, as being the actual state of affairs.

No. You believe you have experienced "the truth of god".

 

[BeHereNow]

Oops, fail.
I haven't claimed there is no god. I simply pointed that claiming "god exists" is a true statement is false. God may or may not exist. And until we know for sure (e.g. discern that that is the actual state of affairs) then a declaration either way is belief/ supposition and not fact.


No. You believe you have experienced "the truth of god".

It is not a false statement.
It is a true statement.

You keep expecting all of us to accept your belief system.
Sorry. Doesn't interest me.
I cannot think of a reason why it should. I have examined it, and find it lacking.

Things that we experience, are not beliefs.
We gain knowledge by experience.
Do you not recognize this in your belief system?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is a true statement.

Except that you cannot show it to be so until someone has already accepted as true.

You keep expecting all of us to accept your belief system.

Nope, I'm pointing out that you are incorrect.

Things that we experience, are not beliefs.

The "meaning" of the experience is subject to belief. The personal interpretation of the experience is subject to belief....

We gain knowledge by experience.

Providing that experience is assessed correctly.

 

[BeHereNow]

Except that you cannot show it to be so until someone has already accepted as true.

Rubbish.
I was an agnostic, and I intuited the existence of God.
Some of my friends were unbelievers, and took a leap of faith, and became believers.

The "meaning" of the experience is subject to belief. The personal interpretation of the experience is subject to belief....

it is more than a 'personal' experience.
Millions of people have had similar experiences.
So this is what your scientist friend say about experiments.
Simply because they have experienced something, does not make it true.
Simply because milllions of other people experience the same thing, ir is not knowledge, but beliefs?

And I am getting tired of pointing out that you want me, to use your rules, and I do not see the need.

For me, truth is experienced on the personal level.
Absolutely, no doubt.

Providing that experience is assessed correctly.

Here you go again.
You think you get to decide the rules.
You want to tell me my expierences have to meet your criterea, or they are not valid.
Hogwash.
My experiences, my determinations.
I have my own criterea, and use them.
You have your own criterea, use them if you choose.

 

[ULTRA]

I'm not interested in belief systems of any kind. These do not alter the facts. The fact is there is no direct evidence that God does, or does not exist. Beliefs are not facts. Beliefs have nothing to do with facts. Someone can totally believe something and yet still be 100% wrong.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Rubbish.
I was an agnostic, and I intuited the existence of God.

Intuited, eh? How does that work exactly?

Some of my friends were unbelievers, and took a leap of faith, and became believers.

You mean they talked themselves into believing?

it is more than a 'personal' experience.
Millions of people have had similar experiences.

Yup.
And?

For me, truth is experienced on the personal level.
Absolutely, no doubt.

On other words the OP was already twisted to suit your defintions. Fine.

 

[BeHereNow]

I'm not interested in belief systems of any kind. These do not alter the facts. The fact is there is no direct evidence that God does, or does not exist. Beliefs are not facts. Beliefs have nothing to do with facts. Someone can totally believe something and yet still be 100% wrong.

Are you not interested in your own belief sytem?
Strange.

You did use my link in the OP, I assume.
Oops, big assumption.

 

[spidergoat]

The original post is a fine example of bias in the western conception of what constitutes religion. It's a rather shaky edifice on which to start a conversion about the fundamentals of fact or religion.

 

[ULTRA]

No, I keep an open mind and assess the evidence that is presented. It doesn't matter what I believe, the evidence does not lie. People have mistaken beliefs all the time, it's called making a mistake. You have provided nothing so far that can be called a fact. Only a belief.

 

[BeHereNow]

Intuited, eh? How does that work exactly?

If you are not framiliar with the term, I do not have the time to explain it here.
I'll give you a hint, it is non-rational.

You mean they talked themselves into believing?

And obviously you are not framiliar with the term 'Leap of Faith'.
I studied it on and off for years, so I hardly think ther is space here to discuss it.
Regardless, I found it lacking, and rejected it for myself.

Yup.
And?

Just trying to point out that in your belief system if millions of people have a similar experience, it is not belief, but knowledge.
We are free to disagree about such things, but it not considered belief in your system, why the change when you don't like the results?

On other words the OP was already twisted to suit your defintions. Fine.

You still do not get it.
There are other belief systems besides your own.
You believe they are not valid. I believe yours is not valid.

 

[spidergoat]

Just trying to point out that in your belief system if millions of people have a similar experience, it is not belief, but knowledge.

Knowledge about a delusional belief system isn't quite the same as scientific knowledge about the world.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If you are not framiliar with the term, I do not have the time to explain it here.

Oh I'm familiar with the term. I'm asking how it works with regard to your experience.

I'll give you a hint, it is non-rational.

And you don't think there's a hint there?

And obviously you are not framiliar with the term 'Leap of Faith'.

Another assumption.

Just trying to point out that in your belief system if millions of people have a similar experience, it is not belief, but knowledge.

Also wrong. Millions of people have had an experience of some sort. How much of that experience was interpreted along pre-existing (either personal or societal) lines?

You still do not get it.
There are other belief systems besides your own.
You believe they are not valid. I believe yours is not valid.

Unfortunately it's you that doesn't get it. Still. A belief system (a term you keep using) is a belief system. Not a fact system.

 

[BeHereNow]

No, I keep an open mind and assess the evidence that is presented. It doesn't matter what I believe, the evidence does not lie. People have mistaken beliefs all the time, it's called making a mistake. You have provided nothing so far that can be called a fact. Only a belief.

If you have an open mind, consider the evidence presented by religionists.
It is called personal experience.
Do you put any stock in personal experience, or does it have to meet you criterea?
Let me guess.
If it is outside your belief system, it does not count.
Evidence is what you say it is.

Evidence is that which convinces the mind of a truth.
Your 'open mind' refuses to accept some evidence, because you claim it is not evidence.
No doubt your belief system will support this.
That belief system that is not important to you, but can't do without.

 

[BeHereNow]

Oh I'm familiar with the term. I'm asking how it works with regard to your experience.


And you don't think there's a hint there?


Another assumption.


Also wrong. Millions of people have had an experience of some sort. How much of that experience was interpreted along pre-existing (either personal or societal) lines?


Unfortunately it's you that doesn't get. Still. A belief system (a term you keep using) is a belief system. Not a fact system.

Well, if you realize you have a belief system, and not a fact system, it is a start

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well, if you realize you have a belief system, and not a fact system, it is a start

Deflection.
The topic under discussion your misuse and misapplication of the word "fact".
My belief system is neither here nor there with regard to that.

 

[ULTRA]

If you have an open mind, consider the evidence presented by religionists.
It is called personal experience.
Do you put any stock in personal experience, or does it have to meet you criterea?
Let me guess.
If it is outside your belief system, it does not count.
Evidence is what you say it is.

Evidence is that which convinces the mind of a truth.
Your 'open mind' refuses to accept some evidence, because you claim it is not evidence.
No doubt your belief system will support this.
That belief system that is not important to you, but can't do without.

You obviously have no experience of standard scientific method or analysis. How about I told a judge I believed you were guilty of murder. Wouldn't you expect me to supply any facts before they electrocute you?

 

[BeHereNow]

Deflection.
The topic under discussion your misuse and misapplication of the word "fact".
My belief system is neither here nor there with regard to that.

Of course it is.
You will find no objections from those who have belief systems similar to mine.