Ask an atheist...? (miracle, historical, resurrection, crucifixion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well okay. We can just declare that every post of Tzap's is nothing more than hearsay.
That should make things a lot easier.
She went to a lot of trouble to very specifically present the issue devoid of interpretations and confusion and deserved more than your offhand dismissal with prejudice, Phet!!!
Yes, definitions vary, but a fact is not subjective. In your woo-ness you have a weakness discerning that some things are factual, while others are not factual.
Right now it's 83.5 degrees on my calibrated weather station in my back yard. I can look at other facts in our area right now -- cloud cover, other networked weather stations in my immediate area, weather maps, etc. I can see those facts. And THEN, I can interpret those facts. It's interpretation that varies, not the facts.
Works the same with spiritual things. I had a day long even in Lopburi, Thailand. Visited something like 8 temples, a summer palace, and several other historic sites...without a map, without signs (they were in Thai), without asking directions...all in a city of 60,000. Those are facts. I interpret it as evidence of a past life there. Others who have heard my story interpret it differently. Can't say who is right...but the facts didn't change.
bold above, yes i am following what the post is saying, calling the bare bones description of physical events to be "facts."
But then the bold below is confusing for me. is the description of events that day a fact or not a fact? maybe someone could clarify that please. thank you.
Quote:
Evidence has a degree of factuality to it. A fingerprint on a gun or knife is just that -- a fact. Apprehending a suspect who has that gun or knife on him is a fact. Then the interpretations of those and other facts begin. But the facts do not change. A witness report is -- like my day in Lopburi -- not a fact. The witness tells what he sees, and interpretation sneaks in. While a security video provides facts.
You clearly have trouble determining the difference between fact and interpretation, and you always assume that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation.
Because the moderator has reminded everyone to stick to the topic, Ask an Atheist. And i think that is why Tzap framed her question that way.
But i think it is an interesting subject in and of itself, not just how atheists see it.
What are facts? Here is a definition.
"Facts are constructed. They are not objective. And there is no clear test for what is a fact. Thus, when Albert Einstein was asked, how science can separate fact from fiction, brilliant hypotheses from nutty quackery, he answered: ‘There is no objective test.” Unlike rational truths that are true outside of experience and absolute, all factual truths are contingent. They might have been otherwise. That is one reason it is so hard to pin them down."
Trump is the best President ever. Is this a fact? Could there be an objective test to prove this true or false?
To keep to the topic, I will address this question to an atheist if they would like to answer.
very interesting. post above brings an added dimension, and enriches the discussion with this perspective. This invites readers to reflect and consider. I look forward to hearing responses. thank you cb for this contribution. The Einstein quote is fascinating, i had never considered facts in that way, that they could be malleable and contingent.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-18-2022 at 11:26 PM..
this article addresses "Key Differences Between Fact and Opinion."
"The fact can be verified or proved to be true. Opinion is an expression of judgment or belief about something.
The fact is an objective reality whereas opinion is a subjective statement. One important feature of the fact is that it is universal and does not differ from person to person. As against this, every human being has a different opinion on a particular subject and so, it varies from one person to another. Facts are shown with unbiased words, however, opinion is expressed with biased words."
I’m saying it is illogical to think all that we observe just happened.
Logically it is one of only two possibilities. Either something always existed, with no god required to explain this; or once absolutely nothing existed, including gods and rules determining how absolute non-existence should behave. So you can not argue one can not get something from absolutely nothing, because there would be no rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
A creator/mover/god is logical.
A complex intelligent being just existing is not logical, it is an assertion.
I would like to ask any atheists interested in responding, how they differentiate between facts and their beliefs, between facts and their own personal subjective opinions.
Because most beliefs are based on what we know, and many of my beliefs I post here are based on what we verifiably know, or logic and mathematics.
It is then up to the religious person to show the flaw in my logic or mathematics, or where my knowledge is wrong, or where my knowledge is lacking. And in most cases they refuse, evade, simply deny, or the usual, they resort to ad hominems.
When what I post here is not based on what I know, that then is an opinion, and I will say it is my opinion, or that it is my personal view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Because I notice on CD how common it is in posts for people to call something a fact, when it is not a fact, but is instead their subjective opinion, their personal view, their belief.
Except you do not notice this, you simply claim this to dismiss facts you do not like.
"Non-belief" is a very narrow and limited category that applies ONLY to those who have NO awareness or knowledge whatsoever about the question. Once they are aware they either have a positive or a negative belief about it based on THEIR existing level of knowledge and awareness. Pretending that you have non-belief once you have the knowledge or awareness and identify as an atheist is just bogus.
No one is doing that. No one is saying they have non-beliefs about gods, they are saying they have non-beliefs in gods.
It is this misrepresentation about what we mean by 'non-belief' that is bogus, a tactic Goldie uses to fish for responses, and a difference a PhD should understand.
She went to a lot of trouble to very specifically present the issue devoid of interpretations and confusion and deserved more than your offhand dismissal with prejudice, Phet!!!
She wrote a lot. That's about all I can say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
