Differences in Different Religions?

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

There is no such thing as a fact which is "50% true 50% false". It is either true or false. It's only our degree of confidence in our understanding of whether it is true or false that varies.

If we're only 50% confident of a fact we are much more circumspect in taking action based on the assumption that it is true than we are when we are 99% confident. As our confidence that our understanding is correct grows our willingness to take action based on that understanding also grows.



No, why would I use such an entirely inappropriate word?


There are plenty of things we are sure enough about that we don't need to do any further research. Homeopathy and astrology, for example.

Ok, as you say.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Yes, medicines that have been shown to be to effective sometimes turn out to have unexpected and previously undetected side-effects. If this happens, they can be abandoned. That is a strength of science, not a weakness. Insisting on things being considered "A&F" will result in the continued use of ineffective and harmful medicines. Still, as long as it makes a profit, eh?




Yes, because it necessarily involves ignoring any evidence that doesn't agree with it. This results in people holding beliefs that are not only wrong, but demonstrably so.




It isn't achieved. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that we know are wrong.

Try to understand this.

If all the evidence supports a theory, we can't say that we absolutely know that the theory is correct because it is possible that some new evidence contradicting it might turn up. And even if we don't know something with absolute certainty, that doesn't mean that there aren't things that we know with enough certainty to rely on.

If the evidence contradicts a theory, we know that the theory is wrong.

Ok as you say, somewhat we are just experimenting.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Nope, the evidence contradict that: you are the one who keeps starting threads and posting nonsense in them; I am one of many people who subsequently tries to correct you.

Okay, as you say. Thanks for it.

[Mojo]

By the way, pretending to agree with people when you are actually ignoring what they have told you is neither honest nor polite.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Mojo

By the way, pretending to agree with people when you are actually ignoring what they have told you is neither honest nor polite.

Whatever, one has to surrender after a limit. Agree or not is a different matter. This is compromising. Good quality.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Whatever, one has to surrender after a limit. Agree or not is a different matter. This is compromising. Good quality.

You do realize, of course, that statement is self-cancelling.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Under above consideration, no one can be taken as wrong.
.

^Wrong.^

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by John Jones

^Wrong.^

Okay as you say.
.

[Toontown]

All religions are essentially the same.

They all allege the existence of something that requires some form of worship and/or homage and/or obedience and/or monetary compensation.

Heavy emphasis is often placed on the necessary monetary compensation, which may equal or exceed 10% of GNP.

The alleged something is always invisible except when it chooses to reveal itself to a chosen few. It is then seen quite plainly by the chosen few, who then relate their alleged observation to the gullible many. This often results in the chosen few being compensated monetarily, except in instances in which a chosen one runs afoul of some governmental and/or religious authority, in which case a hideous fate typically befalls the chosen one.

Occasionally, the hideously befallen chosen one has attracted a following, who then rationalize the chosen one's hideous fate as a matter of incomprehensible godly necessity.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Are you suggesting, all scientific understandings are hypothetical and provisional and always open to additions v& deletitions. If so, how these can be applied?

They can be applied (logically) even after being found not to be absolute as long as there is proof supporting the change. The scientific method assumes nothing is A&F as new developments are considered possible (NOT EXPECTED, simply possible) in any rule/law that is determined by experimentation. Further experimentation MAY expand or retract the rule/law/finding!!

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Do you mean half-truths like cherry-picking the bits of religion you consider "natural", ignoring the rest, and saying that this shows that "true religion" has a natural basis?

That and more re: K.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Toontown

All religions are essentially the same.

They all allege the existence of something that requires some form of worship and/or homage and/or obedience and/or monetary compensation.

Heavy emphasis is often placed on the necessary monetary compensation, which may equal or exceed 10% of GNP.

The alleged something is always invisible except when it chooses to reveal itself to a chosen few. It is then seen quite plainly by the chosen few, who then relate their alleged observation to the gullible many. This often results in the chosen few being compensated monetarily, except in instances in which a chosen one runs afoul of some governmental and/or religious authority, in which case a hideous fate typically befalls the chosen one.

Occasionally, the hideously befallen chosen one has attracted a following, who then rationalize the chosen one's hideous fate as a matter of incomprehensible godly necessity.

Yes but pollution created by few in vested selfish interests or in greed, should not be taken as pollution to real sense of true religion.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Yes but pollution created by few in vested selfish interests or in greed, should not be taken as pollution to real sense of true religion.

Pollution is pollution. Economic, political or theological "senses" have no alterable effects; pollution is pollution regardless of source. I'm being, I think, charitable here. But "pollution to real sense of true religion" is gibberish, nonsense, faulty reasoning at best and generally *********.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Pollution is pollution. Economic, political or theological "senses" have no alterable effects; pollution is pollution regardless of source. I'm being, I think, charitable here. But "pollution to real sense of true religion" is gibberish, nonsense, faulty reasoning at best and generally *********.

Simple, we/nothing should not be polluted at basic level but can be at gross/current level.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Should be all.

However, it is to be assessed which is half/partial truth and which is full truth.

How to assess: refer Mango tree example provided by me.

Nothing provided by you here has been useful for assessing anything - though equally, statements /descriptions meant for assessment/assessing are useless if they make no sense as written here. And they, so far, never have been so in your writings here. We do English here for very rational reasons.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by fuelair

They can be applied (logically) even after being found not to be absolute as long as there is proof supporting the change. The scientific method assumes nothing is A&F as new developments are considered possible (NOT EXPECTED, simply possible) in any rule/law that is determined by experimentation. Further experimentation MAY expand or retract the rule/law/finding!!

Probably above thinking may just be gibberish. Either fact/truth should be A&F otherwise it should be given some other vague term. Why not say, " Yet observed in science but unknown finally" or "just consistent". Otherwise, people can be misguided and suffer havily, taking those as fact or truth.(We personally suffered).

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Nothing provided by you here has been useful for assessing anything - though equally, statements /descriptions meant for assessment/assessing are useless if they make no sense as written here. And they, so far, never have been so in your writings here. We do English here for very rational reasons.

Many sidedness: You do not understand real sense(since dynamic) or I could not properly interpret it(language) or you didn't cared to understand(due to perception) or neither of these.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Sorry. Tell me, who from other side than science routine side(one Jebba), could satisfy you?

Explaining what you mean instead of changing the topic and derailing your own responses would be nice

[Peregrinus]

Kumar,

What's with the never-ending obsession with so-called A&F? You can't explain it, it's not helping you in the least, and nobody else here is buying even a little of it. Perpetually pursuing a pseudo-goal is simply delusional. You'd be much better served by trying to get a grasp on reality.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Kumar,

What's with the never-ending obsession with so-called A&F? You can't explain it, it's not helping you in the least, and nobody else here is buying even a little of it. Perpetually pursuing a pseudo-goal is simply delusional. You'd be much better served by trying to get a grasp on reality.

No.Either all should be entitled to non-A&F or all subject to A&F. Bothsidedness & justification.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Probably above thinking may just be gibberish. Either fact/truth should be A&F otherwise it should be given some other vague term. Why not say, " Yet observed in science but unknown finally" or "just consistent". Otherwise, people can be misguided and suffer havily, taking those as fact or truth.(We personally suffered).

Weirdly, scientists and related could not possibly care less (nor could I to be honest) how you wish/think science should be done. You clearly know nothing about it and nothing about how it is actually done and the great amount of evidence needed to get science to accept research - for which there is none at all for homeopathy!!!

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Weirdly, scientists and related could not possibly care less (nor could I to be honest) how you wish/think science should be done. You clearly know nothing about it and nothing about how it is actually done and the great amount of evidence needed to get science to accept research - for which there is none at all for homeopathy!!!

Monopoly.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Either fact/truth should be A&F otherwise it should be given some other vague term. Why not say, " Yet observed in science but unknown finally" or "just consistent". Otherwise, people can be misguided and suffer havily, taking those as fact or truth.(We personally suffered).

It is not the job of scientists to educate the wilfully ignorant. Anyone who is silly enough to assume that a diagnosis or recommendation by a medical professional, for example, is "A&F", and acts on that ridiculous assumption, only has themselves to blame.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

It is not the job of scientists to educate the wilfully ignorant. Anyone who is silly enough to assume that a diagnosis or recommendation by a medical professional, for example, is "A&F", and acts on that ridiculous assumption, only has themselves to blame.

True, Simple logic is justification that all should support either A&F universally or non-A&F universally. Otherwise, monopoly of anyone will be anticipated.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Monopoly.

Perhaps you should get Cluedo instead.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Kumar

True, Simple logic is justification that all should support either A&F universally or non-A&F universally. Otherwise, monopoly of anyone will be anticipated.

Kumar now seems to be complaining that reality has a monopoly on facts.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Kumar

True, Simple logic is justification that all should support either A&F universally or non-A&F universally. Otherwise, monopoly of anyone will be anticipated.

And yet, every time we tell you that it is competely Absolute and Final that homeopathy doesn't work, you reject that.

You aren't looking for 'A&F', that's a lie. You are looking for a cheap excuse to make any claim you want without taking any responsibility.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Kumar now seems to be complaining that reality has a monopoly on facts.

Yes but my sense was monopoly inspite non-A&F.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

And yet, every time we tell you that it is competely Absolute and Final that homeopathy doesn't work, you reject that.

You aren't looking for 'A&F', that's a lie. You are looking for a cheap excuse to make any claim you want without taking any responsibility.

I accepted words of some boss here. Now, it does not work in A&F, here. Since I respect A&F, no more discussion on it.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Kumar

I accepted words of some boss here. Now, it does not work in A&F, here. Since I respect A&F, no more discussion on it.

See, that's exactly what I mean... You use A&F to shut down discussions when you're wrong. It's a silly trick.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

See, that's exactly what I mean... You use A&F to shut down discussions when you're wrong. It's a silly trick.

No I use it, when somewhat A&F is demanded from other side. I read "Anekantvad, non-absolutism, multi-sidedness in POVs" theory.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Kumar

No I use it, when somewhat A&F is demanded from other side. I read "Anekantvad, non-absolutism, multi-sidedness in POVs" theory.

Not true. When someone says something you don't like, or when you make a claim you refuse to support, you'll claim that, since science is not A&F, you can ignore anything it says and substitute whatever.

It's a very stupid and transparent ploy to avoid responsibility for what you say, along the lines of sticking your fingers in your ears and going nananananana.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Not true. When someone says something you don't like, or when you make a claim you refuse to support, you'll claim that, since science is not A&F, you can ignore anything it says and substitute whatever.

It's a very stupid and transparent ploy to avoid responsibility for what you say, along the lines of sticking your fingers in your ears and going nananananana.

No, it looks stupidity and illogical for someone who is non-A&F but demand for such evidences.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Kumar

No, it looks stupidity and illogical for someone who is non-A&F but demand for such evidences.

You're doing it again, while you are denying it... You're saying that you don't have to argue with me because I'm not A&F...

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

You're doing it again, while you are denying it... You're saying that you don't have to argue with me because I'm not A&F...

We should argue with each other accordingly by considering, either both are A&F or both are not.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Kumar

We should argue with each other accordingly by considering, either both are A&F or both are not.

Indeed, so by your own admission, whether A&F is even possible, is completely irrelevant.
So kindly stop using it as an excuse to avoid arguments.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Indeed, so by your own admission, whether A&F is even possible, is completely irrelevant.
So kindly stop using it as an excuse to avoid arguments.

I shall do so depending on other's attitude.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Since I respect A&F . . . .

Respect it? You can't even explain it. You're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a horse that never existed.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kumar

True, Simple logic is justification that all should support either A&F universally or non-A&F universally. Otherwise, monopoly of anyone will be anticipated.

Simple logic does not work if there is nothing to provide as proofs. None of your examples have ever had any kind of proofs. And unless you switch fields to something that is real, you will never have any examples that do have proofs.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Respect it? You can't even explain it. You're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a horse that never existed.

Oh so very true!!!