5 ms·

See, you are entitled to your beliefs as well, but let us agree the answer to your original question depends on more fundamental beliefs about self, life and ou

See, you are entitled to your beliefs as well, but let us agree the answer to your original question depends on more fundamental beliefs about self, life and our place in reality. I don't think this is the thread for discussing about God,heaven,hell,religion(or lack of it). But in journalism multiple independently verifiable sources count as a reputable source that backs a truthful story. In law, the testimony of two or more people is sufficient even without evidence (not just in the west but in almost every legal system). I and most of humanity disagree with your views of creation/origin, purpose of life and consequences of our actions beyond our lives. If you consider that irrelevant opinion, millions offer you testimonies of first hand experiences regarding these matters. I believe you can independently verify the testimonies of these unrelated individuals with everything to lose and nothing to gain (some get persecuted,tortured and killed for this belief!) should at least make you question the absolute and immovable nature of your conviction. I hope you are open to critical thinking, not emotions or wishy washy buzzwords meant to make you feel good. I can only encourage you to seek truth,however convenient or inconvenient it maybe, as I do the same with myself. May the truth set us free from falsehoods and folly.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> But in journalism multiple independently verifiable sources count as a reputable source that backs a truthful story. In law, the testimony of two or more people is sufficient even without evidence (not just in the west but in almost every legal system). I and most of humanity disagree with your views of creation/origin Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate. Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose. No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge. Whatever the truth it's best to hold ones views loosely. Then when a more fitting explanation appears one can accept it.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  > Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate. Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose. I said first hand, to all of that and more. > No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge. I am well aware of cognitive biases. You as well should beware just because modern intellectuals hold a certain view as popular,you should take it as fact. It was the intellectuals of the time that burned galileo. You're right, popularity does not serve as evidence. However, popularity should drive you to critically analyze your beliefs and the popular belief while being aware of your own biases. You're not enlightened just because you believe what modern science says. Whatever the truth is, you should not hold on to it very strongly not giving room for lies.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    > I said first hand, to all of that and more. After thirty years hearing people say "I saw/heard/felt it. It's real." I call bullshit. Bring tangible evidence. (Decades of earnest investigation left me empty handed.) People with suicidal tendencies don't need conditioning, judgment, "salvation", or imaginary love. They're more likely to benefit from human attention, communication, and understanding; ideally not motivated by some salvation quota.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> But in journalism multiple independently verifiable sources count as a reputable source that backs a truthful story. In law, the testimony of two or more people is sufficient even without evidence (not just in the west but in almost every legal system). I and most of humanity disagree with your views of creation/origin Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate. Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose. No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge. Whatever the truth it's best to hold ones views loosely. Then when a more fitting explanation appears one can accept it.

badrabbit 6y ago
> Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate. Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose. I said first hand, to all of that and more. > No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge. I am well aware of cognitive biases. You as well should beware just because modern intellectuals hold a certain view as popular,you should take it as fact. It was the intellectuals of the time that burned galileo. You're right, popularity does not serve as evidence. However, popularity should drive you to critically analyze your beliefs and the popular belief while being aware of your own biases. You're not enlightened just because you believe what modern science says. Whatever the truth is, you should not hold on to it very strongly not giving room for lies.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  > I said first hand, to all of that and more. After thirty years hearing people say "I saw/heard/felt it. It's real." I call bullshit. Bring tangible evidence. (Decades of earnest investigation left me empty handed.) People with suicidal tendencies don't need conditioning, judgment, "salvation", or imaginary love. They're more likely to benefit from human attention, communication, and understanding; ideally not motivated by some salvation quota.