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.
I see. I think I misunderstood what you were saying (which is why I wanted a few examples). People are asserting things as facts when they are obviously not facts - which, I suspect, has been a rampant problem throughout human history ever since the invention of language. So I think we are actually in agreement here. I think these people basically understand what the word 'fact' is supposed to mean (which is exactly why they are using it - they want to emphasize the supposed universal truth of their belief/opinion and, by implication, the ignorance of anyone who disagrees with them), but by using the word 'fact' they are overstating their case to laughably absurd degrees. This sort of thing irritates me as well...
yes. yes. and yes again. to all of the above, with the section in bold posted on the marquee in giant letters and flashing bright lights. I am in 100% agreement with everything stated above.
questions for anyone:
In what way is the statement (see bold below) NOT a fact?
How can this statement be edited or changed so that it is a fact?
This is not a fact. This is a claim which needs to be supported by any of these: facts, warrants, personal testimony, anecdotes, definitions, and examples. The type of dialogue that one should engage in is a persuasive sort of dialogue where one side makes a case for their claim. The receiver, if persuaded, can then include the first claim into their argument.
The dialogue that mostly takes place in city-data is debate where one side is trying to win or at least look like a winner.
I see. I think I misunderstood what you were saying (which is why I wanted a few examples). People are asserting things as facts when they are obviously not facts - which, I suspect, has been a rampant problem throughout human history ever since the invention of language. So I think we are actually in agreement here. I think these people basically understand what the word 'fact' is supposed to mean (which is exactly why they are using it - they want to emphasize the supposed universal truth of their belief/opinion and, by implication, the ignorance of anyone who disagrees with them), but by using the word 'fact' they are overstating their case to laughably absurd degrees. This sort of thing irritates me as well.
I see this as all the more reason why I think we need to advocate for the value of the scientific method, and the value of peer-reviewed evidence in science. Unfortunately, a lot of people have lost sight of these values. Nowadays people who obviously have little or no education in science (or, in some cases, not much education of any sort) feel emboldened to denounce well-supported scientific evidence as "fake news" or "conspiracy" etc., without having any understanding of the evidence, or how it was gathered, or how it was evaluated. They just know that they don't like it, and they can find a self-proclaimed "expert" who doesn't like it either, and suddenly actual science becomes irrelevant and we end up with "alternative facts"...
its a fact that literal religion stunts many a growth. you can laugh at it, it doesn't make it any less true. literal religious wiggles around "nobody knows for sure" and "no real facts" to push "a body died, woke up, and flew away".
I don't have to accept that claim as fact. Nor do I have to pretend that "I know it didn't happen" isn't more valid than claiming it did happen all in the name of "nobody knows anything for sure". its a false equivalency.
its a fact that literal religion stunts many a growth. you can laugh at it, it doesn't make it any less true. literal religious wiggles around "nobody knows for sure" and "no real facts" to push "a body died, woke up, and flew away".
I don't have to accept that claim as fact. Nor do I have to pretend that "I know it didn't happen" isn't more valid than claiming it did happen all in the name of "nobody knows anything for sure". its a false equivalency.
this statement of yours is not a fact.
"it is a fact that religion stunts personal growth"
we are asking anyone to respond and tell us
1. WHY the statement is not a fact, and
2. How to change the statement so that it is a fact.
We are doing this as part of a larger discussion, asking for samples and examples of how people on these threads claim something is a fact, when it is not a fact.
questions for anyone:
In what way is the statement (see bold below) NOT a fact?
How can this statement be edited or changed so that it is a fact?
The word "can." I should have used the word "can".
religion can stunt a person growth when the religions statement of belief becomes more important than how the universe works. Whether that statement is "my god only" or "deny anything (anti-god) deemed 'I don't approve of".
"it is a fact that religion stunts personal growth"
we are asking anyone to respond and tell us
1. WHY the statement is not a fact, and
2. How to change the statement so that it is a fact.
We are doing this as part of a larger discussion, asking for samples and examples of how people on these threads claim something is a fact, when it is not a fact.
yes it is ... with the word "can" in it.
what you do is throw people off balance with unknowns to insert a statement of belief like "a body died, rose, and flew away." I tell people to use what they know to describe the events around them. Use common sense to find their own way.
What you do is knock people off balance then pretend to offer a helping hand with "religion is it." You are doing it here. You are claiming something that is as close to a fact that we have isn't a good baseline. You cloud the discussion so that "how the universe works" can't be seen.
do you want to reword your position to make it more valid?
The word "can." I should have used the word "can".
religion can stunt a person growth when the religions statement of belief becomes more important than how the universe works. Whether that statement is "my god only" or "deny anything (anti-god) deemed 'I don't approve of".
statement in bold above is still a "belief" statement. it is a view/opinion/belief.
the statement above is not a fact.
possible edits to make it a fact:
let's go with the first few words only and edit it so that it is a fact:
"religion can stunt a person's spiritual growth" (is this statement a fact or belief/view/opinion? )
"lack of religion can stunt a person's spiritual growth" (is this statement a fact or belief/view/opinion? )
if one of these statements is a fact, then they both are. That is a fact.
With "can" statements, all one has to show is one instance of it being true. Show just one instance of religion stunting spiritual growth, and the statement becomes true. Show just one instance of atheism stunting spiritual growth and the statement becomes true. Of course words like 'religion' and 'spiritual' allow some ambiguity, so there will be arguments over whether or not the examples offered are true.
what you do is throw people off balance with unknowns to insert a statement of belief like "a body died, rose, and flew away." I tell people to use what they know to describe the events around them. Use common sense to find their own way.
What you do is knock people off balance then pretend to offer a helping hand with "religion is it." You are doing it here. You are claiming something that is as close to a fact that we have isn't a good baseline. You cloud the discussion so that"how the universe works" can't be seen.
do you want to reword your position to make it more valid?
the discussion is "clouded" and confusing and inaccurate when people state things are facts that are not facts. The discussion becomes more clear, more accurate, and displays greater intellectual aptitude when people are able to distinguish between "fact" and "view opinion belief."
"science provides information on how the universe works" That is a fact.
"religion provides information on how the universe works" That is a fact.
"there are topics and information that religion addresses, which science does not" That is a fact.
Question for anyone:
regarding "how the universe works"... is that at a fact? or is it an "opinion /view/ belief"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-29-2018 at 09:13 PM..
With "can" statements, all one has to show is one instance of it being true. Show just one instance of religion stunting spiritual growth, and the statement becomes true. Show just one instance of atheism stunting spiritual growth and the statement becomes true. Of course words like 'religion' and 'spiritual' allow some ambiguity, so there will be arguments over whether or not the examples offered are true.
yup! yes indeed. words like "can" and "some" and "may" do just that. also "at times" or "my experience has been" or "there are instances when"
also when a person makes a statement about "one group" (i.e. a group they don't like) just for fun, try it on for size by inserting a "different group" (i.e. a group you do like) and see how it sounds. because that is one way to see (a) how it sounds when it is applied to you, and (b) how sound or flawed the logic is and (c) is it still something you want to even say.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-29-2018 at 09:19 PM..
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.
