# "Truth is relative..."



## Bananalyze (Jun 27, 2010)

So I'll start off by saying that I'm a Christian and I'm firm in my beliefs. And I've been wondering what you guys believe. So here's a little rant I thought about at work a couple days ago.

I was thinking of the thought that "truth is relative." I can immediately discount that idea with biblical thinking ("Jesus is _the _way, _the _truth and _the _life), but that doesn't work for everyone since not everyone believes the bible is true. And I thought, and bear with me....

If truth is all perspective, and it's relative to each person... what if you don't believe that truth is relative? Does that mean it's not? It's a paradox.

And I hear this saying all the time as a reason not to believe in Jesus. Because it would be 'wrong' to say there's only one truth. But if your 'truth' is that there is no truth.... then what is there to believe?

(By the way, I'm not trying to start a flame thread.... I won't get mad at you for telling me exactly how you see things. )


----------



## ittoa666 (Jun 27, 2010)

I'm stroking my epic beard thinking about this.

I personally don't belive in any gods or religion, because in my mind, it doesn't simple enough to just say "A higher power created me and I have no place to question that." Then we have the issue of space. The bible, as far as I know with my little knowledge of it, does not state anything about what space is, nor does it give enough of an answer as to why it's their, other than saying that god created it on a whim. 

And then we move onto the brain. The organ that we store so much knowledge in is still not completely known, containing a few puzzles yet to be solved. I think that if we can unlock those secrets, we have a chance to see why we believe what we do. 

/rant

Hope I didn't come off as hairbrained.


----------



## DevinShidaker (Jun 27, 2010)

well, something becomes "true" when it can be proven without a reasonable doubt with evidence and facts. So truth can't be relative. Truth itself is not relative, but the way we perceive it can be... For example, say you walk into your house to see your wife hugging another man, you may storm out of the house in anger thinking that she's having an affair, but the truth may be that he's her long lost brother or something. Dumb example, but it explains the point pretty well. You may believe something because of what you perceived, but that may or may not be the truth. The truth is, well, the truth. 

As far as religion is concerned, it's all perception. You believe that the bible is true, and you say that you are firm with your beliefs. So that is what you believe is true. That doesn't mean it IS true.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jun 27, 2010)

its late but i just saw this thread so im gonna chime in and pick back up tomorrow...

space - the bible does speak of it and alot of "scientific" truths are revealed in it. i read a few books & mags about scientist who studied the bible to disprove it and ended up being converted to christianity because they found it to be true.

one of the things that stuck out in my mind (i'll get a verse to you later) is that the bible says the earth was round way before anyone really knew it was. pretty cool 

there are alot of other things i will go into later...but i gotta go to bed now


----------



## thesimo (Jun 27, 2010)

OP - your whole premise is broken, truth is absolute, as proven by fact.

Anything short of that is just misinterpretation of what truth means, or your imagination/wishful thinking (religion).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> If truth is all perspective, and it's relative to each person... what if you don't believe that truth is relative? Does that mean it's not? It's a paradox.



I for one believe that truth is all perspective, and pertains only to the individual that believes it. Billions of different people have billions of different truths, none of which that necessarily apply to anyone else. 

To me the word 'Truth' is just a word that labels absolution to any one individual. People can believe there is an absolute truth in any one field if they so wish, and it may make life easier for them, but for me I find it very, very difficult to believe in an absolute truth unless something is a fact.

When it comes to anything that isn't a fact, then as far as I'm concerned, it can't be proven as truth.

Truth is personal.



envenomedcky said:


> well, something becomes "true" when it can be proven without a reasonable doubt with evidence and facts. So truth can't be relative. Truth itself is not relative, but the way we perceive it can be... For example, say you walk into your house to see your wife hugging another man, you may storm out of the house in anger thinking that she's having an affair, but the truth may be that he's her long lost brother or something. Dumb example, but it explains the point pretty well. You may believe something because of what you perceived, but that may or may not be the truth. The truth is, well, the truth.
> 
> As far as religion is concerned, it's all perception. You believe that the bible is true, and you say that you are firm with your beliefs. So that is what you believe is true. That doesn't mean it IS true.



Great post


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

thesimo said:


> OP - your whole premise is broken, truth is absolute, as proven by fact.
> 
> Anything short of that is just misinterpretation of what truth means, or your imagination/wishful thinking (religion).



Pretty much this, truth cannot be relative or subjective. Belief (which is pretty much what your talking about) is subjective, but anything that a person believes is not necessarily objective fact and cannot be considered true.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Pretty much this, truth cannot be relative or subjective. Belief (which is pretty much what your talking about) is subjective, but anything that a person believes is not necessarily objective fact and cannot be considered true.



Absolutely false. If someone believes in something 100%, to them that is a truth. Truth cannot only be considered absolute, as truth can be either subjective, relative, objective or absolute.


----------



## Daggorath (Jun 27, 2010)

As people have said, truth isn't relative. Saying this, at this current time we do not know a lot of things and I'm sure what many of us consider truths currently will turn out to be little more than over-active minds following the wrong thread. I.E. perceived truths. And the disgressional contrasts in these truths is what "opinion" is.

However, I will always follow and "believe" a conjecture/theory that I can read up on for myself and see the logic in. The fact that the logic is there doesn't necessarily mean that it's true however. I just believe something open to free enquiry will always have more chance of being "correct" than a dogma/religious belief, regardless of what it is. I wont burn in hell for the rest of time for disbelieving Niels Bohr or for questioning the meanings of Descartes. =]




Scar Symmetry said:


> Absolutely false. If someone believes in something 100%, to them that is a truth. Truth cannot only be considered absolute, as truth can be either subjective, relative, objective or absolute.



It all depends on your definition of the word. 2+2 is always 4, no matter how much you believe it's 3.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Absolutely false. If someone believes in something 100%, to them that is a truth. Truth cannot only be considered absolute, as truth can be either subjective, relative, objective or absolute.



Isn't there an obvious contradiction in this statment though? If I 'believe 100%' as you put it that truth is absolute, then it can't be relative. The first two words of your post then are contradicted by those that proceed them. If truth is relative as you think, then my statement cannot be 'absolutely false'.

Furthermore, this argument doesn't even survive scrutiny. Take for example somebody who is blind and has no knowledge of the world outside their own experience. They may very well 'believe 100%' that the sky is black, but that does no constitute any form of truth.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 27, 2010)

The word "truth" has all kinds of meaning, depending on which domain one is using as a frame of reference, including spiritual truth, empirical/observable truth, and so on. Often there is a claim of truth in one domain which is then extended to other domains... but without adequate evidence.

*Here are two statements:

The Bible is literally true and infallible.

OR

The Bible is true to the extent of the understanding of those who put it to the page, and therefore has limitations on its literal truth. 

Which statement is true... assuming that either one of them is?*

If someone believes the first statement, but is then confronted with an example of an untrue statement in the Bible, then that person often turns in a different direction to explain the untrue statement, not realising that the path taken leads to the rejected statement.

Here's an example: Jesus stated that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. Is this literally true? No, it is not. Often the tack taken now is to claim that Jesus was really saying, "It's the smallest seed you know about"... but he didn't literally say that. 

Did Jesus make an untrue statement in Scripture? 

If Scripture is willing to state something which isn't literally true in order to get across the message, how can one assert that the Bible is literally true? 

----

I've heard the assertion of people being unable to disprove something in the Bible and therefore converting. I went the other way: I believed in the literal truth of the Bible until I was confronted with something which couldn't be literally true.

There are two stories of the Nativity in the Bible. One takes place under Herod the Great, King of all Judea, Slaughterer of the Innocents. The other takes place under Quirinius, Roman governor, and has, as ruler of a quarter of Judea, Herod Antipas, Tetrarch (which means, not surprisingly, "Ruler of a Fourth"). The two stories are separated, using real people mentioned in real-time documented history, by at least a few years. 

Scripture recognises Herod the Great and Herod Antipas as two different people.

Herod Antipas didn't become Tetrarch until after the death of his father, Herod the Great.

For both stories to be literally true, Jesus would have had to be born first during the reign of Herod the Great, and then again after Herod's death. How to make this work?

Most Christians start arguing that there is a misunderstanding about which Herod is which, but Scripture is very clear, and the authors know the difference.

Using outside sources doesn't help, because outside sources show how the Romans ran things, and Quirinius, the Governor over Herod Antipas, would never have been Governor while Herod the Great was King over a client kingdom of Rome, as Judea was while Herod the Great was still alive. 

Outside research, used for all kinds of writings, indicates that the parts of the Bible dealing with the Nativities was not written by those familiar with the facts, but only put down much later. Those later writings tried to prop up claims of Jesus' divinity by showing how he fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, and therefore added all kinds of invented detail to support such. 

(Incidentally, if you consult the actual Jewish Scriptures, instead of the revisionist versions of the Christians, Jesus didn't actually fulfill the conditions by which one knows the Jewish Messiah. It's interesting that a bunch of Gentiles would assert with a straight face that they know more about Jewish Scripture than the Jews, and it's even weirder when you realise they're undermining the very Scripture which supposedly gives Jesus his divinity. No harm done, though, because without undermining the Jews, Jesus would just be another false Messiah, something the Jews have seen arise on many occasions.)

----

Here's what it comes down to.

If you believe that there is one literal truth, and that truth is supposed to override all other definitions of truth, then you can expect problems when that literal truth requires all kinds of explanations to get around simple, and *provable*, observations. That's why, when Scriptures states clearly that someone praying sincerely will get what is requested, and when no amputees ever get healed in this modern day and age due to such prayer, it's hard to view any fancy arguments as anything other than a rationalisation for the inaccuracy of the Scriptural assertions of prayer fulfillment....


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

Daggorath said:


> It all depends on your definition of the word. 2+2 is always 4, no matter how much you believe it's 3.



See my first post 

However, as has been documented in many ways, if someone truly believes that 2 + 2 = 5 then to them that is the truth. You cannot change truth within an individual, as it is their choice (or perhaps not) to believe whatever they see fit.



Spondus said:


> Isn't there an obvious contradiction in this statment though? If I 'believe 100%' as you put it that truth is absolute, then it can't be relative. The first two words of your post then are contradicted by those that proceed them. If truth is relative as you think, then my statement cannot be 'absolutely false'.
> 
> Furthermore, this argument doesn't even survive scrutiny. Take for example somebody who is blind and has no knowledge of the world outside their own experience. They may very well 'believe 100%' that the sky is black, but that does no constitute any form of truth.



Yes, there is. The whole post is a paradox which I used to display that while your truth is that truth cannot be relative, my truth is that it can be. Thus, neither are truth, as truth is entirely personal.

Props for picking up on the first two words 

Though as I said, if the person believes the sky is black, within themselves that truth is concrete and cannot be changed if the individual does not wish to change it.

Truth isn't the same thing as fact.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> See my first post
> 
> However, as has been documented in many ways, if someone truly believes that 2 + 2 = 5 then to them that is the truth. You cannot change truth within an individual, as it is their choice (or perhaps not) to believe whatever they see fit.



See my post

That again is belief not truth.


----------



## thesimo (Jun 27, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Absolutely false. If someone believes in something 100%, to them that is a truth. Truth cannot only be considered absolute, as truth can be either subjective, relative, objective or absolute.



If I believe the sky is made of marshmallows, u wouldn't say it is true would you? because you know it has been verified as false. 

Sure, It's my right to believe such stupidity...
I can say its true until the day I die, and you have the right to protect my stupidity, and allow me to continue believing it. But its not a truth unless independently verified.

So the problem is that people who think that truth is relative, already have a misunderstanding of what truth is, so arguing about it is really quite pointless.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

I quote myself:



Scar Symmetry said:


> *Truth isn't the same thing as fact.*


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

However, by your reasoning asking a true or false question becomes ridiculous. As has been stated before, a statement cannot be true if it is verifiably false. Take my last example but with someone who can see. The belief that the sky is black/made of marshmallows/any untrue statement can be verified as false by the person holding the belief. How can this belief in that case be truth?

Answer this question, in that case:

The sky is made of astroturf. True or false?

From your point of view this question has no answer, despite the sky observably not being made of astroturf.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

I still think you are confusing truth with fact.

Fact is the only type of fact, there can only be proven, undeniable facts.

Truth however, can come in different forms. There can be truth as fact, though if any one individual chooses not to believe that truth, then it stops being truth as fact and becomes personal truth, which is still a truth as to the individual concerned it is absolute.

The disagreements in this thread prove my point. To X, Y is wrong and X is right. But to Y, X is wrong and Y is right. This means that while both are truths to the individuals concerned, there can be multiple truths, either of which can be changed at any time should the individual choose to concede.

The truth is different to different people. Otherwise we would all believe in deity, or all be atheists.


----------



## thesimo (Jun 27, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The disagreements in this thread prove my point. To X, Y is wrong and X is right. But to Y, X is wrong and Y is right. This means that while both are truths to the individuals concerned, there can be multiple truths, either of which can be changed at any time should the individual choose to concede.
> 
> The truth is different to different people. Otherwise we would all believe in deity, or all be atheists.



That's why I choose to be the guy that believes what science has told us, versus stories about a big man in the sky watching us.

Which I think gives me more clout.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

thesimo said:


> That's why *I choose* to be the guy that believes what science has told us, versus stories about a big man in the sky watching us.
> 
> Which *I think* gives me more clout.


----------



## thesimo (Jun 27, 2010)

a thought which has independently been verified as truth 

see:history of science

btw fuck the guy who neg repped my comments


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

You still fail to address the logical flaws in your argument, and continue to post your opinion as fact. 

In order for your argument to be reasonable, it must stand up to scrutiny and must be universally applicable. As per my above post, does your line of reasoning still make sense given that case?

Or if that doesn't satisfy you, take this as an example.

I am sitting at my computer having a discussion about the nature of truth on the internet. Yet I believe absolutely that the internet does not exist. 

Can the non existance of the internet be considered truth?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

Spondus said:


> You still fail to address the logical flaws in your argument, and continue to post your opinion as fact.
> 
> In order for your argument to be reasonable, it must stand up to scrutiny and must be universally applicable. As per my above post, does your line of reasoning still make sense given that case?
> 
> ...



The same could be said of you, but I haven't felt the need to point that out yet, which leads me to think that you are feeling threatened by my argument and yet choosing to ignore it.

You are dealing in absolute right and wrong. Things are never that simple.

The non existence of the internet can be considered *truth* yes, absolutely. While not a *fact*, if you choose to believe it then it becomes your *truth*.

As I said before, truth is personal, not universal. Certain types of truth can be universal, but there is not only one type of truth.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The same could be said of you, but I haven't felt the need to point that out yet, which leads me to think that you are feeling threatened by my argument and yet choosing to ignore it.
> 
> You are dealing in absolute right and wrong. Things are never that simple.
> 
> ...



No, it becomes my opinion, or belief. The word truth is not applicable in this case as the statement is observably false (the inverse of true).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

Then that is your truth, and what I have said in my posts is my truth.

Does that not explain my reasoning?

If you 100% believe something, that becomes your truth. Again, as I said before, religion is a prime example.

An individual can choose to believe something as truth if they so wish, and that cannot be taken away from them.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

I'd like to use the World Cup as an example.

Many people in my country truly believe that England will win the World Cup. This is highly unlikely, but they choose to believe it as it's what suits them and what they want to believe.

This will be the same of the rest of the countries left in the World Cup.

Although their reasoning is flawed, you cannot blame for believing something that suits them, as that is what most people do. It is your right as a human being to be able to believe anything you wish to believe.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

I think the misunderstanding here is that truth is being used where belief or opinion is more appropriate. Belief that something is true doesn't constitute objective truth, even in cases where it can't be observably disproven.

Take the two statements:

God is not real.

God is real.

Only one of these statements can be true, but both can be believed (so from your point of view that statement becomes true for that person but is not truth per se).

This is analogous to the following statements

1+1=2

1+1=1

Only one of these is true and this does not change if the value of 1+1 is known or not. However it is possible to believe that the solution is 1, but this does not make the statement true.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

In that case, both of our arguments are based entirely on semantics and neither are worth persuing.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

perfectly true. Pretty much, but the original post is equally trying to manipulate semantics to justify stating the existence of god as an objective truth, which is why use of truth in this way is pretty dangerous.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 27, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> So I'll start off by saying that I'm a Christian and I'm firm in my beliefs. And I've been wondering what you guys believe. So here's a little rant I thought about at work a couple days ago.
> 
> I was thinking of the thought that "truth is relative." I can immediately discount that idea with biblical thinking ("Jesus is _the _way, _the _truth and _the _life), but that doesn't work for everyone since not everyone believes the bible is true. And I thought, and bear with me....
> 
> ...



You created your own version of the liar's paradox. If a person is a dyed-in-the-wool relativist, then it's possible for them to concede that the truth value of what they believe may be limited to their own perspective. So if that dyed-in-the-wool relativist utters "truth is relative" then they're making a statement that's more descriptive about their beliefs than anything else.

Of course, such relativist does not exist- it's a straw man and a bratty epistemology student's parlor trick. Nobody is a total relativist. It's possible to believe that our own personalities color how we see the world and may assemble personal truths from information around them (i.e. political, religious, and aesthetic notions), but the fact that you converse and interact with other people shows that there is at the very least a common ground that society exists on so that not everything is entirely native to the individual's consciousness.

This isn't the first time that an argument against relativism is used to prop-up religion. You can hear preachers all the time bemoan a sinful society where there are "no absolutes," and that, oh, but "there is an absolute- Juh-esus!"

The promise of an absolute may serve as a comfort in a progressively-diverse society that seldom finds things to agree on, but that doesn't mean that the claimed absolute has an immediately-greater truth value to it. What is most likely the case is that we make eligible way more things than we should for the "true or false" dichotomy. Maybe more things need to fall under the "value judgment" label.

Regarding religion, List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - all of these religions claim to be true. What do you do with that?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

Demiurge said:


> You created your own version of the liar's paradox. If a person is a dyed-in-the-wool relativist, then it's possible for them to concede that the truth value of what they believe may be limited to their own perspective. So if that dyed-in-the-wool relativist utters "truth is relative" then they're making a statement that's more descriptive about their beliefs than anything else.
> 
> Of course, such relativist does not exist- it's a straw man and a bratty epistemology student's parlor trick. Nobody is a total relativist. It's possible to believe that our own personalities color how we see the world and may assemble personal truths from information around them (i.e. political, religious, and aesthetic notions), but the fact that you converse and interact with other people shows that there is at the very least a common ground that society exists on so that not everything is entirely native to the individual's consciousness.
> 
> ...



Great post. You have rep.


----------



## Daggorath (Jun 27, 2010)

It's all just a question of how you define the word "truth". Is it something perceived by our limited mammalian cognitive facilities, either individually or as a society, or is it something infallible and inherently present in the nature of our universe. To me, "truth" is not subjective; there is a right and a wrong and there is little interpretation given ALL of the details/evidence/facts.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 27, 2010)

Opinion =/= truth


We all have our view of why things happen etc, but to think its truth jus because we blieve in it is false, and that applies to everything, including science. I believe that science is the bringer of true facts, but I do not discount there being a higher power. I know I could be wrong on both accounts. Personal truth is your absolute belief, absolute truth is irrelevent to both.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 27, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> Opinion =/= truth



Externally, yes, but internally it often is one and the same.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 27, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Externally, yes, but internally it often is one and the same.


 
True, thats one of the fundamental flaws of some religious people.


----------



## Swippity Swappity (Jun 27, 2010)

Truth is absolute. What is, is and that is that. Humans don't have the capacity to understand all of the "truth" but we perceive enough of it for our uses.

Belief is subjective. Everything you sense is a belief. You believe that you are reading this because you are sensing it, but can't be sure that, truthfully, this is being beamed into your eyes. For all you know, this whole thing is a sensory hallucination or some Matrix style bullshit. Now, you know you are reading this somehow (Hallucination or not.) and that is at least part of the truth (With some other portions being the nature of your existance and your location(s).). You can, also, confirm that some sort of "you," whatever that may be, is reading this. Like I said, however, our sense are good enough to get us by while we do things that are actually realistic for humans to do. We get enough of the universe's (_God's_) truths.

Now, as far as believing that "murder is wrong," or whatever is even more subjective than the pseudoscience garbage that I just spouted. Murder isn't wrong or right universally, and what you think doesn't really matter (To the Truth, that is.) because it only affects your actions as a conscious being. We make those rules ourselves to keep ourselves happy, no super being made them for us it. That doesn't make those things true, merely a feeble human belief. The only truths that "you" might "have" are the things that you have done and the states that "you" are in ("You" is in quotes, because, in this conversation, existence states are relevant. For example, are do you define yourself as your body, your conscientiousness and it's multiple states, or something else entirely?). Only if _God_ (Ultimate being style.) exists and actually has a "moral" preference himself (I use "himself" lightly.) does that change.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 27, 2010)

SOD_Nightmare said:


> Truth is absolute. What is, is and that is that. Humans don't have the capacity to understand all of the "truth" but we perceive enough of it for our uses.
> 
> Belief is subjective. Everything you sense is a belief. You believe that you are reading this because you are sensing it, but can't be sure that, truthfully, this is being beamed into your eyes. For all you know, this whole thing is a sensory hallucination or some Matrix style bullshit. Now, you know you are reading this somehow (Hallucination or not.) and that is at least part of the truth (With some other portions being the nature of your existance and your location(s).). You can, also, confirm that some sort of "you," whatever that may be, is reading this. Like I said, however, our sense are good enough to get us by while we do things that are actually realistic for humans to do. We get enough of the universe's (_God's_) truths.
> 
> Now, as far as believing that "murder is wrong," or whatever is even more subjective than the pseudoscience garbage that I just spouted. Murder isn't wrong or right universally, and what you think doesn't really matter (To the Truth, that is.) because it only affects your actions as a conscious being. We make those rules ourselves to keep ourselves happy, no super being made them for us it. That doesn't make those things true, merely a feeble human belief. The only truths that "you" might "have" are the things that you have done and the states that "you" are in ("You" is in quotes, because, in this conversation, existence states are relevant. For example, are do you define yourself as your body, your conscientiousness and it's multiple states, or something else entirely?). Only if _God_ (Ultimate being style.) exists and actually has a "moral" preference himself (I use "himself" lightly.) does that change.



If there were a nail present, it would have been hit on the head


----------



## auxioluck (Jun 28, 2010)

I have nothing to contribute that hasn't already been said, but this thread is why I wish we all lived close enough to meet at the same pub.


----------



## IDLE (Jun 28, 2010)

There is only one true, but there are many interpretations of it. Choose to believe whatever you want, it really doesn't matter. Just don't let it to hurt others or yourself.

I will say this though, organized religions are set up to evolve and preserve themselves. I almost look at them like a living entity and they behave as such. If you look at them in a Darwinian sense their actions make a lot more sense.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jun 28, 2010)

i believe in thousands of truths, but not one is jesus.
i beleive that although truth may be relative to some people, evidence is not


----------



## Zugster (Jun 28, 2010)

What I like about this thread is that the OP is a christian who is at least willing to question the basis of religious truth and belief.

IMO far too many religious people (not just christians of course) are totally set in the idea that their way is the only way ...or the best way ...or the right way or ...the true way. Others will suffer, or at least not obtain some ultimation salvation, spiritual reward etc.

This certainty of belief is the source of a sickening amount of suffering and conflict. But that's another topic.

The vast majority of people who believe in a religion come to it through the circumstances of (read: accident of) their birth.

A smaller number come to it through conversion - which is basically through the circumstances of what influential people they happen to meet.

That accounst for almost everyone. (Extremely rare is the person who makes a thourough survey of all religions and picks what seems best to them).

To those who would say that what one believe is what is true... or at least true to that person, I say the consequence of that statement is that "Birth = Truth" and "Influence = Truth." Seems silly doesn't it?


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jun 28, 2010)

I'm an atheist (since you asked). Pretty much everything I could have said has been said, but I'd also add this.

The premises of atheism and religion are so different from each other that there's not even common ground for proper discussion. Atheism is based on reason, which instigates debates. Religion is based on faith and dogmas, which inhibit them. The only way for a religious person to discuss religion is to let go of their dogmas, which would require them to drift away from religion a little in the first place.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

I believe that in time all things will be revealed and that I'll know the "truth" when the time comes. 

Until then I strive to do the best I can for myself, help who I can along the way (w/o jeopardizing my own well-being) and not step on any toes along the way (unless it's absolutely unavoidable)...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 28, 2010)

Sang-Drax said:


> I'm an atheist (since you asked). Pretty much everything I could have said has been said, but I'd also add this.
> 
> The premises of atheism and religion are so different from each other that there's not even common ground for proper discussion. Atheism is based on reason, which instigates debates. Religion is based on faith and dogmas, which inhibit them. The only way for a religious person to discuss religion is to let go of their dogmas, which would require them to drift away from religion a little in the first place.


 
Some atheists confuse me, as they are so desperate to disprove God. You'd think if you find an idea so outrageous and unreal, why spend so much effort trying to tear it down? It seems that many atheists nowadays (I'm not including you here, just you brought up atheism) are taking on the negative aspects of Christianity or other extreme religions, becoming obnoxious and unwilling to even accept the idea they might be wrong. In their desperation to prove religion wrong, they've become what they hate most. As I said not including anyone here in that, but it seems that way for a lot of athiests. I'm an agnostic so I basically have no idea what comes next and don't really mind.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> Some atheists confuse me, as they are so desperate to disprove God. You'd think if you find an idea so outrageous and unreal, why spend so much effort trying to tear it down? It seems that many atheists nowadays (I'm not including you here, just you brought up atheism) are taking on the negative aspects of Christianity or other extreme religions, becoming obnoxious and unwilling to even accept the idea they might be wrong. In their desperation to prove religion wrong, they've become what they hate most. As I said not including anyone here in that, but it seems that way for a lot of athiests. I'm an agnostic so I basically have no idea what comes next and don't really mind.


 
I tend to view myself as more agnostic, but I think that a lot of Christians probably view me the way you just described. I like to "challenge" beliefs sometimes as a means of picking someone's brain. Perhaps there IS something I've missed, ya know? 

Often I get someone who just wants to quote Bible passages to you. That's not an explanation... It's a cop out. "Tell it to me in your own words. What does that mean to YOU and why? Would you believe what you believe if someone didn't write it down in a book for you to follow?" If I see a hole in someone's logic I feel the need to probe. Some ppl see that as an attack. This to me makes it seem like the person I'm talking to is just blindly following something which may or may not be the case but it's the source of much confrontation between me and most "religious" folks.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 28, 2010)

Konfyouzd said:


> I tend to view myself as more agnostic, but I think that a lot of Christians probably view me the way you just described. I like to "challenge" beliefs sometimes as a means of picking someone's brain. Perhaps there IS something I've missed, ya know?
> 
> Often I get someone who just wants to quote Bible passages to you. That's not an explanation... It's a cop out. "Tell it to me in your own words. What does that mean to YOU and why? Would you believe what you believe if someone didn't write it down in a book for you to follow?" If I see a hole in someone's logic I feel the need to probe. Some ppl see that as an attack. This to me makes it seem like the person I'm talking to is just blindly following something which may or may not be the case but it's the source of much confrontation between me and most "religious" folks.


 
Yeah Literalist Christians who think the Bible is all true and whatnot kinda miss the point, its a book of moral-based stories meant to teach us how to live our lives in the best way. Thats the kind of religious person I have a problem with, because they generally believe it to the point of mindless preaching with no substance. 

Theres nothing wrong with debating the points of a religion, hell if people want to openly tell me they question points about my beliefs they're free to as long as its in a respectful way.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> Theres nothing wrong with debating the points of a religion, hell if people want to openly tell me they question points about my beliefs they're free to as long as its in a respectful way.


 


I can dig this.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jun 28, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> Theres nothing wrong with debating the points of a religion, hell if people want to openly tell me they question points about my beliefs they're free to as long as its in a respectful way.



True, many religious people share the same views as you. But that itself goes against the Christian dogma of "don't ask, just believe". My point was more directed at the OP actually... if his premise is that Jesus is the absolute truth, there's no room for debate.

My bad; I really suck at debating subjects of a serious nature in English. I feel like an 8-year old trying to prove a point 



vampiregenocide said:


> Some atheists confuse me, as they are so desperate to disprove God. You'd think if you find an idea so outrageous and unreal, why spend so much effort trying to tear it down? It seems that many atheists nowadays (I'm not including you here, just you brought up atheism) are taking on the negative aspects of Christianity or other extreme religions, becoming obnoxious and unwilling to even accept the idea they might be wrong. In their desperation to prove religion wrong, they've become what they hate most. As I said not including anyone here in that, but it seems that way for a lot of athiests. I'm an agnostic so I basically have no idea what comes next and don't really mind.



That often happens when religion begins to interfere with their lives for a reason or another. The advent of George W. Bush based on religious morals, for instance, explains why so many American atheist authors (like Richard Dawkins, but there are more) gained evidence in the last few years. Same goes with Italy... my sister has always been a quiet atheist, but now that she lives there she's an activist, if only for the fact that the Catholic Church often interferes with politics in there. I can totally understand her new posture, and I'd probably do the same.

Fortunately, in here, religion doesn't really get in my way. In fact, I studied at a catholic college and never had issues in there. Politics rarely get mixed up with religion as well. While there are plenty of evangelist fanatics, I rarely ever come across such people.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 28, 2010)

Sang-Drax said:


> True, many religious people share the same views as you. But that itself goes against the Christian dogma of "don't ask, just believe". My point was more directed at the OP actually... if his premise is that Jesus is the absolute truth, there's no room for debate.
> 
> My bad; I really suck at debating subjects of a serious nature in English. I feel like an 8-year old trying to prove a point
> 
> ...


 
Yeah I see what you mean man don't worry. 

Politics and religion should never mix. Luckily that doesn't reappy happen in the UK, as Christianity is often seen as the senile old grandpa, people just shush him whenever he pipes up. Middle Eastern religions however are treated with upmost care, no one wants to upset them.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 28, 2010)

Truth is an absolute that nobody knows.

The human experience is one of perception, and truth is dependent on neither humans or perceptions. 2 + 2 = 4, even if one has no concept of the number 2.

Moreso, perception is part of truth. A hallucination is both part of and not a part of reality.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

pink freud said:


> Moreso, perception is part of truth. A hallucination is both part of and not a part of reality.


 
Good call. 

Since hallucinations are generally based on something that we perceive (believe... whatever...) to be real.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

Spondus said:


> I think the misunderstanding here is that truth is being used where belief or opinion is more appropriate. Belief that something is true doesn't constitute objective truth, even in cases where it can't be observably disproven.
> 
> Take the two statements:
> 
> ...


 
I call foul. You brought logic into a religious discussion...  

I'm joking... Don't hurt me.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 28, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> Some atheists confuse me, as they are so desperate to disprove God. You'd think if you find an idea so outrageous and unreal, why spend so much effort trying to tear it down? It seems that many atheists nowadays (I'm not including you here, just you brought up atheism) are taking on the negative aspects of Christianity or other extreme religions, becoming obnoxious and unwilling to even accept the idea they might be wrong. In their desperation to prove religion wrong, they've become what they hate most. As I said not including anyone here in that, but it seems that way for a lot of athiests. I'm an agnostic so I basically have no idea what comes next and don't really mind.



I understand your confusion, I'm one of those passive atheists myself. However, I do sympathise with the intellectual that wants to tear apart religion as in a purely logical mind it could be seen as having little to no place in modern society.

Then there's the fact that pretty much every war in history has had a religious agenda behind it's fruition, you can't blame people like Richard Dawkins for doing what they do, especially when provoked by such people as Ray Comfort.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 28, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I understand your confusion, I'm one of those passive atheists myself. However, I do sympathise with the intellectual that wants to tear apart religion as in a purely logical mind it could be seen as having little to no place in modern society.
> 
> Then there's the fact that pretty much every war in history has had a religious agenda behind it's fruition, you can't blame people like Richard Dawkins for doing what they do, especially when provoked by such people as Ray Comfort.


 
But then surely picking apart and tearing down another persons belief system is one of the negative aspects of religion that makes someone an athiest in the first place? By picking holes in something you're forcing your own opinion, something which is the very cause of all those wars you speak of. In essence, its perpetuating the behaviour most athiests stand against.

I mean if you're picking apart extremists like the Phelps family, or just people who use religion to justify bad behaviour then thats fine, but some athiests just like causing conflict and showing how smart they are by picking a other peoples religions. 

Theres a place for religion in society if both sides loosen up. Agressive athiests need to realise that if they're right, nothing happens, and if they're wrong, they they had better have been a nice person, and religious folks need to be respectful and logical in how they learn from their respective religions (e.g. the bible is not gospel, don't take every word of it literally). The logical mindwho truely wants to progress and become a better person must realise he is subject to being wrong. If you believe that you are unconditionally correct about something, what happens when the facts come out and your are wrong?


----------



## Daggorath (Jun 28, 2010)

I used to be one of these passive atheists, thinking trying to "preach" non-belief was somewhat of a hypocrisy and rather arrogant; simple people need something to clutch at at times of turmoil.

However, having recently read several Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris books, I can see that just keeping your mouth shut is not the right attitude either. Religion has caused a tremendous amount of suffering to many people, and bad things have happened throughout history because of people accepting dangerous dogmas into their public discource because they are trying to be "respectful" or whatnot.

Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place. I also think a lot of atheists these days are rather ignorant of religions; I like to learn about it for what it is, a phenomena of the human brain - used to explain things we didn't understand. Some of the most beautiful art and architecture would not exist if it weren't for religion. No doubt it has played an important part in the development of society, but it just not needed any-more. We will outgrow our myths and legends like the Greeks outgrew theirs.


----------



## Zugster (Jun 28, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> ...Agressive athiests need to realise that if they're right, nothing happens, and if they're wrong, they they had better have been a nice person, and religious folks need to be respectful and logical in how they learn from their respective religions (e.g. the bible is not gospel, don't take every word of it literally). The logical mindwho truely wants to progress and become a better person must realise he is subject to being wrong. If you believe that you are unconditionally correct about something, what happens when the facts come out and your are wrong?


 
Problem is, in the dogma of christianity for example, it doesn't matter at all whether you've "been a nice person," but only if you've accepted jesus christ as your personal savior. You can be a total raging asshole for 75 years, and then as you draw your last miserable breath, sincerely utter those words and you're good for all eternity.

The reason for this dogma has nothing to do with what's right, and everything to do with enhancing the power and influence of the church.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 28, 2010)

Daggorath said:


> I used to be one of these passive atheists, thinking trying to "preach" non-belief was somewhat of a hypocrisy and rather arrogant; simple people need something to clutch at at times of turmoil.
> 
> However, having recently read several Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris books, I can see that just keeping your mouth shut is not the right attitude either. Religion has caused a tremendous amount of suffering to many people, and bad things have happened throughout history because of people accepting dangerous dogmas into their public discource because they are trying to be "respectful" or whatnot.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place. I also think a lot of atheists these days are rather ignorant of religions; I like to learn about it for what it is, a phenomena of the human brain - used to explain things we didn't understand. Some of the most beautiful art and architecture would not exist if it weren't for religion. No doubt it has played an important part in the development of society, but it just not needed any-more. We will outgrow our myths and legends like the Greeks outgrew theirs.



Well said


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Well said


 
I concur


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 28, 2010)

Daggorath said:


> I used to be one of these passive atheists, thinking trying to "preach" non-belief was somewhat of a hypocrisy and rather arrogant; simple people need something to clutch at at times of turmoil.
> 
> However, having recently read several Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris books, I can see that just keeping your mouth shut is not the right attitude either. Religion has caused a tremendous amount of suffering to many people, and bad things have happened throughout history because of people accepting dangerous dogmas into their public discource because they are trying to be "respectful" or whatnot.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place. I also think a lot of atheists these days are rather ignorant of religions; I like to learn about it for what it is, a phenomena of the human brain - used to explain things we didn't understand. Some of the most beautiful art and architecture would not exist if it weren't for religion. No doubt it has played an important part in the development of society, but it just not needed any-more. We will outgrow our myths and legends like the Greeks outgrew theirs.


 
As I said man, say what you ant about peoples religions as long as its in a respectful way. Showing films of Mohammed in gay porn is not respectful, and something I can't agree with. That causes as much conflict as religion itself does.



Zugster said:


> Problem is, in the dogma of christianity for example, it doesn't matter at all whether you've "been a nice person," but only if you've accepted jesus christ as your personal savior. You can be a total raging asshole for 75 years, and then as you draw your last miserable breath, sincerely utter those words and you're good for all eternity.
> 
> The reason for this dogma has nothing to do with what's right, and everything to do with enhancing the power and influence of the church.


 
This is true, and goes with my point of how people are learning from their religions, whether it is really helping them or whether its just an abstract equivalent of a safety blanket. I mean nowadays the church doesn't have as much influence as it did, so I'd like to think that on the whole its a bit more civilised than it used to be. The vast majority of Christians I've met are nice, non-preachy people. Its all part of the necessary moving forward that needs to happen.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 28, 2010)

Zugster said:


> The reason for this dogma has nothing to do with what's right, and everything to do with enhancing the power and influence of the church.


 
It's things like this that make me 

And the fact that there are so many Christians who will actually speak to you in a condescending manner for not believing what they believe. -- "Judge not lest ye be judged"

Alot of "Christians" completely ignore the dieting outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy...

A lot don't fast as I understand they should (or are *supposed to*).

But like you said... Saying that you accept Jesus as your personal savior and "sincerely" asking for forgiveness is all you have to do? Sounds too easy... 

Basically what I'm getting at is that they'll only adhere to select parts of the religion and then walk around with their nose in the air because of a title they gave themselves.

I mentioned Christians only because this is the religion with which I come into contact most often. And I don't mean to say that ALL Christians are this way, but I meet A LOT.

I honestly don't care what religion anyone is because I can see parallels between them all which leads me to believe that in some roundabout way we're all working for the same damn thing anyway. 

We all have the same destination but we're all driving our own cars. Don't bug me about the route I take and I won't bug you about yours. See ya when we get there.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jun 28, 2010)

Daggorath said:


> I used to be one of these passive atheists, thinking trying to "preach" non-belief was somewhat of a hypocrisy and rather arrogant; *simple people* need something to clutch at at times of turmoil.



Talk about condescending 


Yet I do understand active atheism. Atheists have remained silent for millenia; now that we're beginning to raise our voices we're already being compared to the worst fanatical possible. I don't think that's fair. I've heard stuff like "atheists have no character" countless times in occasions where I couldn't reply. And I'm not even that old... my father, who's in his 60's, has felt discriminated in the past. And now there are some people that become all touchy when it's suggested to bury the Christian God along with Poseidon.

Of course, Ross/vampiregenocide is talking about extremes. Offending others' religions is a crime in most countries (I suppose). But I know quite a few people who get offended when I point out how many flaws there are on their religion (and these days I only do so if the other person really insistis on talking about religion )


----------



## Antimatter (Jun 28, 2010)

I am agnostic, and I believe that the Bible should not be taken literally, as not only is there certain eloquence lost in the translation from Hebrew, but it is a work of literature and as such is subject to personal artistic touches. Even though I don't believe in Christianity, I still think the Bible is a great thing to read for motivation or help with your problems.


----------



## ilikes2shred (Jun 29, 2010)

Whether or not truth is relative depends completely upon how one defines truth. 

The matter of defining truth becomes a philosophical question; depending upon your own unique philosophy, truth can have an entirely different definition. Take, for example, the wikipedia enty on truth: Truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia describes a number of different theories of truth. Here are some short summaries in case you don't feel like reading the whole article.

1. Correspondence theory: For a statement to be true, it must accurately describe something in an objective reality. 

2. Coherence theory: A statement is true when it properly fits ("coheres") within a set of propositions. This system of thought should also support itself. (a little difficult to explain, here's a great article: The Coherence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ). 

3. Constructivist: "Truth is constructed" by an individual or social construction. There is not necessarily an objective reality, just a viewpoint which is agreed to be true.

4. Consensus theory: The truth is what a group of people or all people agree upon to be true.

5. Pragmatic theory: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." (Peirce). Kind of inductive reasoning; in practice, the statement is continually proved to be correct. Therefore, it is true.

6. Minimalist theories: "[t]he predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis." 

7. Performative theory: "When one says 'It's true that it's raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of [the statement] 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the statement that 'it's raining.'" " 

And then theres more. I warn you that I am no expert (I really knew nothing about these theories of truth before today) so my summaries may be wrong. They are simply how I understood them from what I read. 

Most of these theories concern reality and existence, as well as what we truly "know." I personally find these topics extremely thought provoking. I essentially agree with the view put forth in _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence_. I found an excerpt on this website : Eternal Perspectives Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: Fun with Scientific Ghosts.

It brings up another interesting point: the cyclical natural of logic and existence. 

If we say that we know something to be true because we can sense and perceive it, mustn't we use logic to make such an assumption? Our logic tells us, if we perceive it, it must be true. But what is the basis of logic? Logic must be based on something we know to be true, a premise. But this premise can only be known by sensing it, perceiving it. So we are brought back to the beginning of the circle. To know something, we must use logic. To use logic, we must know something.

And so the narrator uses this same thinking to decide the gravity never existed. That nothing can truly exist. Everything we know to be true is just a "ghost" in our mind.

I don't really know where I'm going with this; I'm not sure I actually understand what I just said


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Well, I actually define truth by, ya know, the actual definition 

Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: \&#712;trüth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths \&#712;trüthz, &#712;trüths\
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English tr&#275;owth fidelity; akin to Old English tr&#275;owe faithful &#8212; more at true
Date: before 12th century

1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
*2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality *(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
*3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality *b chiefly British : true 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
*
&#8212; in truth : in accordance with fact : actually*


Truth = facts. Facts are provable. So in no way at all is truth relative. Beliefs surely are, but the next time we have this issue on a words meaning, lets just webster it, ok guys?


----------



## Makelele (Jun 29, 2010)

The truth is out there.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Well, I actually define truth by, ya know, the actual definition
> 
> Main Entry: truth
> Pronunciation: \&#712;trüth\
> ...



Depends where you get your definition 



> *There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth*; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; *how to define and identify truth*; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; *and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.*


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

I'm pretty sure websters dictionary IS the definition of what a word is. I guess you can disagree and fight the dictionary, but your wrong. 

Despite what people try to convince themselves, truth has a standard definition. Its not open to interpretation. I think your just being difficult and arguing for the sake of arguing this time.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

The irony is unbelievable...


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The irony is unbelievable...



Guy, your fighting the litteral definition of a word in the dictionary. I guess you can try to justify that, but i'm not sure why. 

You can live in fairy land and make whatever words you want to mean whatever you want, but in reality, most words have a hard definition, and truth is one of them. So i'm not sure why your still even posting in this thread. Its done, its finished. The op asked if truth is relative? Well, we looked in the websters dictionary and it has a hard definition and it is indeed NOT relative.

The reason we bump heads is because you wont let shit go and cant admit(or just not comment) whenever your not making sense. Well, your not making sense when your trying to say a word with a hard definition doesnt mean what the damn english dictionary says it means.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

If you have a problem with that post, dont take it up with me, take it up with websters dictionary. Good luck!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

I'm ever so sorry Chris, I forgot that philosophy (and the English language) are your strong suit.

I shall continue to let you dominate this thread in a bullish and childish manner, do as you please


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm ever so sorry Chris, I forgot that philosophy is your strong suit.
> 
> I shall continue to let you dominate this thread in a bullish and childish manner, do as you please



I'm in no way doing that. Your being a drama queen. Let me ask you how i'm "dominating this thread in a bullish and childish manner"?
Because i looked up the word in questions definition? I'm pretty sure that is standard when you dont know the definition of a word.

Or perhapse, your just a guy who likes to argue for the sake of arguing, i brought up a definition to this word and it wasnt what you wanted to hear, so you start acting like a baby and blaming be for YOU not makeing sense. 

Nothing i did was childish, if looking up a definition and posting it was childish, then sure.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I'm in no way doing that. Your being a drama queen. Let me ask you how i'm "dominating this thread in a bullish and childish manner"?
> Because i looked up the word in questions definition? I'm pretty sure that is standard when you dont know the definition of a word.
> 
> Or perhapse, your just a guy who likes to argue for the sake of arguing, i brought up a definition to this word and it wasnt what you wanted to hear, so you start acting like a baby and blaming be for YOU not makeing sense.
> ...



Denial, it's a killer


----------



## Zugster (Jun 29, 2010)

OK, I think we can stick a fork in this thread.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

Yes Dad.

I would like the people who are willing to DISCUSS and not DICTATE to return to this thread. 

I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## liamh (Jun 29, 2010)

Truth = To be true = Black metal.

Stop arguing and listen to some Bathory


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

liamh said:


> Truth = To be true = Black metal.
> 
> Stop arguing and listen to some Bathory



The best post on page 3 by a large margin.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Tell ya what, i'l be the bigger man and quit posting in this thread. But your acting like i came in here slinging mud.
Nope, I read the thread. It was basically a discussion as to the meaning of the word "truth".
So i figured i would look it up. I didnt come in with opinion, i came in with a definition of the word from the standard dictionary for the english speaking world.

Then you still try to say it depends where you get your definition from. Well, i got it from the websters english dictionary. Ya know, the fucking standard in defining what an english word means.

So point being is, people are going to come in here, read the post that i put the definition in, then keep reading and will probably think "man, a guy posts a definition of the word, and this scar symmetry guy STILL is arguing."

It pretty much shows how childish you act, then start acusing other people of childish behavior.

I didnt come into this thread to argue, i came in to lay down the definition. I came in with a provable fact.
If you dont like it, write webster and debate the definition with them, but untill then, i'm not sure how you have a leg to stand on in defending your point that truth doesnt have a definate meaning


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

I'll take my definition from ENGLISH sources thanks.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but since it matters so much to you, here is another definition, also from the English Dictionary:



> 2. A statement proven to be *or accepted as true.*



So yes, while you are right, you are also wrong.

I'm fed up of having to justify this because of your mental short-sightedness, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Depends where you get your definition



You quoted wikipedia, your argument is invalid.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

Very funny.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'll take my definition from ENGLISH sources thanks.
> 
> I hate to beat a dead horse, but since it matters so much to you, here is another definition, also from the English Dictionary:
> 
> ...



This also nulifies your argument, if something is accepted as true, then things that are observably false cannot be accepted as true.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'll take my definition from ENGLISH sources thanks.
> 
> I hate to beat a dead horse, but since it matters so much to you, here is another definition, also from the English Dictionary:
> 
> ...



Oh, so i get it. The dictionary wasnt good enough for you huh?  OK, my mental short-sightedness of trusting the evil dictionary that is tryin to trick us all is done.
Oh, and that quote you have furthers my point and worsens yours 

But i'l quit bullying you with proper logic and backed up sources.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Spondus said:


> This also nulifies your argument, if something is accepted as true, then things that are observably false cannot be accepted as true.



Frickin THANK YOU!! 


Peace, i'm out


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

Spondus said:


> This also nulifies your argument, if something is accepted as true, then things that are observably false cannot be accepted as true.



You can continue to beat the same old horse, but I draw the line here.

If you've been reading my posts in this thread, you've either not understood them or completely ignored what I've said.

I think it's a shame, as there is a lot of narrowmindedness in this thread.

Go ahead and tell me I'm the one in the wrong and I'm on my own on this, I have rep that says otherwise.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> You can continue to beat the same old horse, but I draw the line here.
> 
> If you've been reading my posts in this thread, you've either not understood them or completely ignored what I've said.
> 
> ...



sorry, 1 final thing.

I guess everyone is wrong and your the only one right, AGAIN
And your positive rep was for a post much earlier in the thread, not in the last few posts since i made mine where you've pretty much made yourself look like an ass.

(oh, and before you point out that I"M an ass, thats already a given )


----------



## Spondus (Jun 29, 2010)

You're in the wrong.

I fail to see what having rep has to do with this issue, I guess I forgot the correlation between time spent on forums and credibility.

I understood your arguments perfectly, I gave you examples where your arguments were insufficient and you failed to address them.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 29, 2010)

Spondus said:


> You're in the wrong.
> 
> I fail to see what having rep has to do with this issue, I guess I forgot the correlation between time spent on forums and credibility.
> 
> I understood your arguments perfectly, I gave you examples where your arguments were insufficient and you failed to address them.



No, you put ultimatums on things that cannot just be judged by the absolute.

I'm open-minded thanks 

Fuck this shit, I'm going to bed. I'll pick up the discussion tomorrow with someone that doesn't have the arguing style of Hitler.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No, you put ultimatums on things that cannot just be judged by the absolute.
> 
> I'm open-minded thanks
> 
> Fuck this shit, I'm going to bed. I'll pick up the discussion tomorrow with someone that doesn't have the arguing style of Hitler.



Can we atleast agree that Hitler was wrong? Or are the history books lying to us too?  Sorry, i had to.


----------



## Daggorath (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No, you put ultimatums on things that cannot just be judged by the absolute.
> 
> I'm open-minded thanks
> 
> Fuck this shit, I'm going to bed. I'll pick up the discussion tomorrow with someone that doesn't have the arguing style of Hitler.



You mentioned Hitler so you lose. According to Stephen Fry/QI that is.

This argument is silly, it clearly depends how you define truth. Truth is used in either instance so therefore it means both. This has gone on too far with no new points being raised.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No, you put ultimatums on things that cannot just be judged by the absolute.
> 
> I'm open-minded thanks
> 
> Fuck this shit, I'm going to bed. I'll pick up the discussion tomorrow with someone that doesn't have the arguing style of Hitler.



An ultimatum is a request that has to be completed within a limited time frame, and 'absolute' is an adjective, and the notion of an adjective being capable of judgement is hilarious. 

Being open minded to arguments that are phallacious and don't stand up to scrutiny doesn't make them any less wrong.

The irony of quoting the wikipedia definition of truth isn't lost on me either.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 29, 2010)

Spondus said:


> An ultimatum is a request that has to be completed within a limited time frame, and 'absolute' is an adjective, and the notion of an adjective being capable of judgement is hilarious.
> 
> Being open minded to arguments that are phallacious and don't stand up to scrutiny doesn't make them any less wrong.
> 
> The irony of quoting the wikipedia definition of truth isn't lost on me either.



Not to split hairs, but I think you mean fallacious. Unless there's a clever pun hidden in there about dick-worthy arguments 

Either way, as far as this thread is concerned, what the fuck ever. 7 Strings is right, the definition of Truth is pretty clear and well accepted. Not that it can't be challenged, but that's the *baseline* that everyone *typically* measures when considering whether something is true, or not true.

On the other hand, it seems Scar was trying to say that Truth is relative and subjective, left to the observer which in a *philosophical* sense and not *text book definition* sense, makes sense, or at least could be discussed and argued about.

But as I said, what the fuck ever. And yeah, Scar/Dave, don't invoke Godwin's Law. It's wrong.  

But in the end, I think this sums it up best:


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> But in the end, I think this sums it up best:



Your god damn right about that


----------



## Spondus (Jun 29, 2010)

Yes I did mean fallacious 

And I'd forgotten about Godwin's law, good spot

My main problem with any argument for the relativity of truth is that it must take into account the acceptance of views that are observably false by the view holder.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 29, 2010)

I think this is a philosophical discussion, so while I agree that there are limitations on Truth, and it's definition, some folks will argue that *everything* is subject to interpretation. I wouldn't argue the definition of Truth though, not the strict, in-the-sense-of-the-word Truth anyway...

Obi-Wan Kenobi said it better than I ever could about the philosophy angle though:

"...I think you'll find that a great many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view..."

Again, it's philosophy. But I totally get where you three (Spondus, Scar & 7SoH) are coming from and how you'll probably never all agree because the foundation of the discussion can't be agreed upon or agreeably defined.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 29, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Yes I did mean fallacious
> 
> And I'd forgotten about Godwin's law, good spot
> 
> My main problem with any argument for the relativity of truth is that it must take into account the acceptance of views that are observably false by the view holder.



Quiet hitler!


And scar, did you neg rep me?  jesus, really? Its not enough i'm getting pm's from you calling me hitler Gotta love this place


----------



## Spondus (Jun 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I think this is a philosophical discussion, so while I agree that there are limitations on Truth, and it's definition, some folks will argue that *everything* is subject to interpretation. I wouldn't argue the definition of Truth though, not the strict, in-the-sense-of-the-word Truth anyway...
> 
> Obi-Wan Kenobi said it better than I ever could about the philosophy angle though:
> 
> ...



While I agree that the foundation of the discussion is difficult to define and appreciate the star wars analogy, I think you've unearthed a decent ground for reasoning on this topic.

In the Empire Strikes Back, Luke learns that his father is not in fact dead but has been changed in a way that he no longer resembles his father. 

Luke believed prior to this discovery that his father was dead but this statement clearly is not true, as Luke only reached this conclusion as the result of ignorance and the statement that 'Anakin Skywalker is dead' can be verified as false even when Luke believes him dead.

In this instance you would say that Luke believed his father dead, not that for the time he was ignorant of his father still being alive Luke stating 'my father is dead' is a true statement.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 29, 2010)

Spondus said:


> While I agree that the foundation of the discussion is difficult to define and appreciate the star wars analogy, I think you've unearthed a decent ground for reasoning on this topic.
> 
> In the Empire Strikes Back, Luke learns that his father is not in fact dead but has been changed in a way that he no longer resembles his father.
> 
> ...



Wow! Very good indeed sir! That is the *essence* of this whole debacle!  +repped for that!

EDIT: Leave it to the Star Wars Trilogy to solve some of life's mysteries and unanswered questions.


----------



## liamh (Jun 29, 2010)

Hitler has no place in a forum full of Mexicans.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 29, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I think this is a philosophical discussion, so while I agree that there are limitations on Truth, and it's definition, some folks will argue that *everything* is subject to interpretation. I wouldn't argue the definition of Truth though, not the strict, in-the-sense-of-the-word Truth anyway...
> 
> Obi-Wan Kenobi said it better than I ever could about the philosophy angle though:
> 
> ...



I think this is when we get into the territory of Stephen Colbert's "truthiness." 

Indeed, we have fairly agreed-upon standards for the definition of truth; however, I think it's fair to acknowledge efforts by some (probably what Obi-Wan is describing) to kind of tweak certain combination of facts and opinion to form utterances that are in some cases passed-off as truth. It seems that most social discourse these days has some sort of spin on it. Maybe the existence of the "spin" factor gives people less confidence in there being any identifiable absolutes.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 30, 2010)

There is indeed "Relevant Truth" and "True Enough."

If one were to give the full truth to every question one was ever asked, one would quickly go into material that was simply not pertinent to the query. Also, given that we are extremely colloquial, we most often will accept something as truth knowing full well that it is inaccurate at minute detail, simply for the sake of convenience. The whole concept of knowledge itself is an example of that. Naturally, if one's awareness of the outside world is made possible only through perception, one has to put varying degrees of faith in what one considers knowledge. We must have faith in our own perceptions and even moreso in those whom we consider an authority on a matter. I do not _know_ that China exists, as I have never seen it first hand, but I put faith in the vast amount of evidence of it's existence. Often the difference between what we call faith and what we call knowledge is only a matter of consensus.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 30, 2010)

pink freud said:


> There is indeed "Relevant Truth" and "True Enough."
> 
> If one were to give the full truth to every question one was ever asked, one would quickly go into material that was simply not pertinent to the query. Also, given that we are extremely colloquial, we most often will accept something as truth knowing full well that it is inaccurate at minute detail, simply for the sake of convenience. The whole concept of knowledge itself is an example of that. Naturally, if one's awareness of the outside world is made possible only through perception, one has to put varying degrees of faith in what one considers knowledge. We must have faith in our own perceptions and even moreso in those whom we consider an authority on a matter. I do not _know_ that China exists, as I have never seen it first hand, but I put faith in the vast amount of evidence of it's existence. Often the difference between what we call faith and what we call knowledge is only a matter of consensus.



A very good post sir 

By the way, for anyone actually interested in what I was talking about before, here are some sources where you can read more:

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A quote from the above link:



> Truth is not, to this view, a fully objective matter, independent of us or our thoughts. Instead, truth is constrained by our abilities to verify, and is thus constrained by our epistemic situation. Truth is to a significant degree an epistemic matter, which is typical of many anti-realist positions.



Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is Truth?

What is Truth? - Is there any?

A quote from the above link:



> This kind of humanistic reasoning of truth is defined by the individual person - the truth that is 'right for you'. The beliefs, practices, and concept of right and wrong of a person are all valid in that person's setting. *Truth is relative to that person - and there becomes no absolute right and no absolute wrong.*





Spondus said:


> You quoted wikipedia, your argument is invalid.



No, I did not. I quoted here:

Truth encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

A quote from the above link:



> The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philsophers and scholars agree, and various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.



All of these quotes support, in full, _exactly_ what I was talking about before. 

So... what was that about Truth being one 'standard' definition?

Please remind me.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 30, 2010)

Oh for christ's sake. You're having two different arguments about two different things.

There's the text-book definition and colloquially accepted definition of Truth that 7SoH and Spondus pointed out. It's what we *generally* consider Truth. The things that are provably True or observably True.

Then there's your argument that Truth is relative, subjective and changes with one's own point of view and one's own perception. That is a philosophical argument.

See the difference?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 30, 2010)

I was always talking about the philosophical argument, so your post is a straw man I'm afraid.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 30, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I was always talking about the philosophical argument, so your post is a straw man I'm afraid.



You'd possibly be right if I were arguing with you. However, I am not. I am just stating that in my opinion, you and the rest are arguing about two different things. But, there is *some* overlay between the two discussions. That's all.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 30, 2010)

orb451 said:


> You'd possibly be right if I were arguing with you. However, I am not. I am just stating that in my opinion, you and the rest are arguing about two different things. But, there is *some* overlay between the two discussions. That's all.



My bad dude, I read it as you were saying I was fighting a war on two fronts. I see what you mean now though so sorry, no harm done 

You're absolutely right though, Spondus and 7SOH are saying there is no merit in my argument because of their point about their being only *ONE* definition of truth, which is false, so their arguments are actually straw men.

They will now be able to read for themselves that my point cannot be proved wrong by their point as it is not the same argument at all.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 30, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> My bad dude, I read it as you were saying I was fighting a war on two fronts. I see what you mean now though so sorry, no harm done



No problemo  I get where you're coming from AND I get where they're coming from too.


----------



## wlfers (Jun 30, 2010)

If the truth is relative, then isn't the truth being relative relative, and can possibly not be relative in relation to something else?



Bananalyze said:


> And I hear this saying all the time as a reason not to believe in Jesus. Because it would be 'wrong' to say there's only one truth. But if your 'truth' is that there is no truth.... then what is there to believe?



I'm not christian in any way but if you honestly take a look out there, there are reasons for believing in a creative force out there that extend beyond blind faith. In terms of it extending to christian doctrine/mythology I don't know how far that connection goes.

Rep for having this discussion with a bunch of metalheads =D


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 30, 2010)

I dont know, but jesus scar, quit messaging me crying dude. I'm not wrong in any way, so no, i'm not ready to admit it. What did i do, post a definition?? Boy oh boy am i wrong!! Trusting the dictionary!! Bringing logic to the discussion!! Let it fucking go kiddo, or are you gonna do a fucking disertation on this? jeeeze.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 30, 2010)

Oh, i forgot, i'm hitler.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 30, 2010)

athawulf said:


> If the truth is relative, then isn't the truth being relative relative, and can possibly not be relative in relation to something else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only argument I've ever heard was essentially "It's too complicated to have been left to chance."


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 30, 2010)

pink freud said:


> The only argument I've ever heard was essentially "It's too complicated to have been left to chance."



Thats true, but to counter that idea, say we ARE the only beings in the universe, there has been a googleplex(10 to the power of 100) of googleplex's of planets and stars, making an uncountable amount of chances for life to form.
So from my opinion, the odds undoubtly are infavor that there are so many opurtunities in the universe for life to form, that it was inevitable.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 30, 2010)

Zugster said:


> OK, I think we can stick a fork in this thread.


 


I'm sure no one was surprised.


----------



## Cancer (Jun 30, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> I've been wondering what you guys believe.




Since you asked, The Truth According to Cancer (can be summed as thus):

1: Jesus existed
2: God does not (or at least not in the way that is traditionally seen).
3: I do believe there is a creator, or as some like to call it/him/her, an intelligent designer.
4: the Ten Commandments were invented by man and clearly shows the limits of our mentality at the time it was written (for instance: "thou shall not kill" yet animal sacrifices (or merely to eat) is ok?)
5: Once upon a time, I believe the Creator/intelligent designer DID have a hand in events on Earth.
6: I also believe that this time is quickly coming to a close as humanity acquires the knowledge to successfully guide their own evolution.
7: The pattern that makes up our lifeform is imprisoned here on Earth, and we will be "released" when we acquire the knowledge and maturity to be trusted along with the other galactic citizens.
8: Humans have gone through cycles of birth and annihilation before, and the cycles have gotten progressively longer as we acquire (and are able to sustain) the knowledge to avoid certain solar systemic threats (like the asteroid coming to kill us in 2036. If we lose our technology before then we will have to start the cycle over).


----------



## groph (Jun 30, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> So I'll start off by saying that I'm a Christian and I'm firm in my beliefs. And I've been wondering what you guys believe. So here's a little rant I thought about at work a couple days ago.
> 
> I was thinking of the thought that "truth is relative." I can immediately discount that idea with biblical thinking ("Jesus is _the _way, _the _truth and _the _life), but that doesn't work for everyone since not everyone believes the bible is true. And I thought, and bear with me....
> 
> ...


 
DISCLAIMER: I did not read this whole thread, my entire post may have already been said.

I currently see no reason to believe in a God or a higher power or anything that we cannot prove exists.

I do not know what truth is, I do not know what the criteria for existence are. I feel that no matter what we as a human race achieves, it will be somehow "biased" due to the limitations of our brains and the fact that we think in a certain way and therefore can't (maybe we can but who knows) understand anything that is thought of in another (non human) way.

Knowing what we do now, neither science nor religion can explain anything. Sure, you believe in God so you have your beliefs and need not worry about this stuff. That's cool.

I am an advocate of science since I think it's the best way we currently have to eliminate our "humanness" from everything. Truth should remain what it is regardless of what we think. Example. It used to be cold, hard fact that the Earth was flat, and people believed and thought it was. They were proven plain wrong once and for all when we took to space and obtained indisputable evidence that the Earth is a sphere. Even if everybody on this planet swore on their lives that the Earth is flat, the truth is that it's a sphere.

I'm saying that truth should be objective, but I'm bothered that our concept of "objective" is not really objective, since we as humans came up with the concept of objectivity. Still, what's the point? Why should we worry about "universal objectivity" since what we have now is suiting us just fine.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that we and any other intelligent life that may or may not exist should band together and strip away inherent biases from anything and everything so all that remains are "ideal types" (in quotations as an effort to illustrate that I am referring to an idea that is separated from the thoughts of any life form and does not change in any way concievable because of such thoughts) of everything. I don't care to explain what an ideal type is (I forgot), so look it up. It's a sociological term.

But yeah, if the whole idea of "truth" is to reveal what actually is, it seems counter intuitive to have what is "true" be subject to personal interpretation of any kind. It should be the same across the board, no matter what is interpreting it.


EDIT: I left out the "since you asked" part, so I'll fill you in on what I believe as of now.

God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. Then again, neither can the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally anything else of a similar concept, since they just represent omniscient, omnipotent, invisible beings. Unless there exists some other dimension in which time just doesn't exist, the whole idea of a "creator" or "higher power" just seems to have no relevance to a system driven by probabilities and random events (I guess which is our current understanding of the Universe). Basically, why does there need to be a God? If God does exist and he is all we crack him up to be, then that explains everything. He can do anything, be everywhere at once, and know what is going to happen, simply because He intended it that way. We can effectively stop wondering and live our lives in service to Him, which would be fine by me if the clouds were to open up and God himself stepped down onto the Earth and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the Christian God, or Thor or whatever.

Every argument involving God and the origin of everything has a step which involves a miracle happening which really doesn't fly in empirical science. It's totally anti-empirical. If the intelligent design argument is true, then perhaps God knows that we will be skeptical of His existence because He gave us the ability of critical thought, so it's no small wonder a bunch of us deny His existence. So, knowing that we can think critically, He just sits by waiting for us to discover him through science. And by "discover" I mean literally open up the space-time continuum and warp straight into Heaven so that some robot probe is staring Him directly in the face, beaming information back to Earth or wherever the laboratory is as the human race drops to it's knees. If there is some kind of divine order to the Universe and we were meant to discover its workings through scientific means, then that's what will happen. Until then, we don't know if God exists or not.


----------



## groph (Jun 30, 2010)

Daggorath said:


> It's all just a question of how you define the word "truth". Is it something perceived by our limited mammalian cognitive facilities, either individually or as a society, or is it something infallible and inherently present in the nature of our universe. To me, "truth" is not subjective; there is a right and a wrong and there is little interpretation given ALL of the details/evidence/facts.


 
YES YES YES YES. 



SOD_Nightmare said:


> *Truth is absolute*. What is, is and that is that. Humans don't have the capacity to understand all of the "truth" but we perceive enough of it for our uses.
> 
> Belief is subjective. Everything you sense is a belief. You believe that you are reading this because you are sensing it, but can't be sure that, truthfully, this is being beamed into your eyes. For all you know, this whole thing is a sensory hallucination or some Matrix style bullshit. Now, you know you are reading this somehow (Hallucination or not.) and that is at least part of the truth (With some other portions being the nature of your existance and your location(s).). You can, also, confirm that some sort of "you," whatever that may be, is reading this. Like I said, however, our sense are good enough to get us by while we do things that are actually realistic for humans to do. We get enough of the universe's (_God's_) truths.


 
The absolutely literal form of what you're saying I agree with, but then it stumbles into this other problem: The whole concept of "absolute" and every other word and every other concept, including the concept of a concept is the product of a bunch of smart monkeys who sat around a campfire and decided things are the way they are.

It SEEMS to be a self-evident truth we must strip away any and every form of bias possible, only then would something be "true" and everybody (every sentient being in the entire Universe or Universes who gives a damn) can agree upon it being so.

But again, what's a self-evident truth? Some idea that we came up with. Everything that we do is bound by our inherent human lens.

KNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE NOTHING EXISTS IM A NIHILIST LOLOL


YET ANOTHER EDIT: And about the "true" and "true enough" Yeah, there's no point in trying to get into absolute truth for the reasons already said, it'd just take too long to do anything. The practical form of "truth" is what we go on in everyday life, it's "truth as far as we're concerned." Still, it's based off of our lens.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 30, 2010)

I know karate!!!


----------



## budda (Jun 30, 2010)

I believe there is a higher power, that's as far as I've gotten.


----------



## Bananalyze (Jul 6, 2010)

Dang this thread is huge. I didn't think it would get this big.... I was only gone for a week!  I won't even try to reply to everything, but I will read it and reply to some stuff that jumps out at me.



thesimo said:


> OP - your whole premise is broken, truth is absolute, as proven by fact.
> 
> Anything short of that is just misinterpretation of what truth means, or your imagination/wishful thinking (religion).



Actually that was my premise, I guess I communicated it poorly. My aim was to say that "truth is perspective" is false because there is an absolute truth.

To tie that to me being a Christian, I believe in the truth of the bible because of the facts behind it (the historical evidence).

Plus, personal experience doesn't hurt. 


> I currently see no reason to believe in a God or a higher power or anything that we cannot prove exists.
> 
> I do not know what truth is, I do not know what the criteria for existence are. I feel that no matter what we as a human race achieves, it will be somehow "biased" due to the limitations of our brains and the fact that we think in a certain way and therefore can't (maybe we can but who knows) understand anything that is thought of in another (non human) way.


The bible says that God is clearly not interested in what we are able to understand and what we're able to do (Isaiah 64:6). And it is true that God does things that we couldn't understand, us being bound by limitations like time (Job 36:26).

That leaves us pretty hopeless to understand Him. I can't claim to understand God on my own, but Psalm 119:130 says that "the unfolding of (His) word gives light; it gives understanding to the simple." While that gives me hope to begin understanding God right now on earth, I know we'll never fully understand Him in this life (1 Corinthians 13).

I hope that makes some sense. Or any sense at all. 

That's all for me for now. I'm pretty tired.


----------



## Zugster (Jul 6, 2010)

We have about as much chance of understanding the workings of the universe as an ant in your kitchen does of learning how the refrigerator and microwave work.

People who think they have the answers because of the tradition they were born into, because of what a wise man says on TV, or because of what's written in a book which has been poorly translated and retranslated over the years are kidding themselves.

Have the humility to admit you just don't know.

If you choose to believe in the unprovable teachings of a religion, at least have the humility to allow for the possibility that others beliefs may be equally valid.

God does not love an arrogant ant who fights with other ants about how the microwave works.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 6, 2010)

Zugster said:


> We have about as much chance of understanding the workings of the universe as an ant in your kitchen does of learning how the refrigerator and microwave work.
> 
> People who think they have the answers because of the tradition they were born into, because of what a wise man says on TV, or because of what's written in a book which has been poorly translated and retranslated over the years are kidding themselves.
> 
> ...


----------



## Evil7 (Jul 6, 2010)

Zugster... Your post should be translated in every language, and every human should be forced to read it. 
+1

EDIT - "Beliefs are nice. Cherish them. Don't spread them like they're the truth" - Bill Hicks


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 6, 2010)

No shit, good post


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 6, 2010)




----------



## Zugster (Jul 6, 2010)

Evil7 said:


> Zugster... Your post should be translated in every language, and every human should be forced to read it.


 
Sounds a tad extreme.  I'd settle for a thanked post!


----------



## Ckackley (Jul 6, 2010)

Wow. What a thread... 

Anyways, since the OP asked.. I'm Pagan. I believe that there is a creative intent in nature and a universal bond between all things that keeps us all conected. I show my respect to aspects of this creative force by giving the aspects human personification (gods, We relate better to things that resemble us) and corresponding my appreciation with times of the year that reflect my intent. I take a look at nature and try to find my place as a creature on this planet, while also trying to survive in the world that man has forcefully created. It's doable , but there's a lot to think about. 

As far as truth?? Truth and provable fact are the same to me. If we don't breath we die. That's a truth. It's provable. Try it. 
Every unprovable "truth" isn't a truth but a belief or a theory, which are subjective, not proven, and therfore unreliable. I believe that dog won't bite me , but until I stick my hand out for it I don't know for sure. 
To end- Truth and religion can not occupy the same space. We all have beliefs, but there is NO WAY to prove any of them.


----------



## Bananalyze (Jul 6, 2010)

7 Strings of Hate said:


>




I like that you're honest and say exactly what you think. So here's what I think.

He is pathetic. I realize he's a comedian and he's joking around, but obviously he's also serious. It sounds like he doesn't even want to try to challenge himself to think. So he believed in church for a while. And the wrong church, at that. That's not the same as knowing God. And he traded not thinking for himself about religion to not thinking for himself about being an atheist. Some people seem to forget there's "robots" on both sides of the fence.



> To end- Truth and religion can not occupy the same space. We all have beliefs, but there is NO WAY to prove any of them.


I don't want to get snippy with you, but..... the bible is proven to be true by historical manuscripts and archaeology. So if any religion could be proven to be true, I think it's christianity.


----------



## Zugster (Jul 6, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> I like that you're honest and say exactly what you think. So here's what I think.
> 
> He is pathetic. I realize he's a comedian and he's joking around, but obviously he's also serious. It sounds like he doesn't even want to try to challenge himself to think. So he believed in church for a while. And *the wrong church*, at that. That's *not the same as knowing God*. And he traded not thinking for himself about religion to not thinking for himself about being an atheist. Some people seem to forget there's "robots" on both sides of the fence.
> 
> *I don't want to get snippy* with you, but..... *the bible is proven to be true* by historical manuscripts and archaeology. So *if any religion could be proven to be true, I think it's christianity.*


 
Emphasis added (in devil red, lol) to show the irony.

The point of my previous posts was that one of the main failings of most religions is the insistance that only a particular religion (in this case christianity) is right and that all others are false and will not lead you to God, heaven, spiritual rewards, dozens of horny virgins, etc.


----------



## Ckackley (Jul 6, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> I don't want to get snippy with you, but..... the bible is proven to be true by historical manuscripts and archaeology. So if any religion could be proven to be true, I think it's christianity.



I've seen this archeological evidence. I've studied it. I was a Social Studies major back in the day and was still Christian at the time. This "evidence" was one of the main reasons I no longer am. The bible is a collection of folk stories and myth selected by the Council of Nicaea in 325. We KNOW that . That's a truth. Where these stories come from, we don't know. That's faith. The stories do however follow the same rough framework of most other major religions. Nothing special and nothing different. If not for Constantine converting to Christianity on his death bed it may have never made it further west than Italy. 
I applaud your devotion , but find your reasoning flawed.


----------



## Moro (Jul 6, 2010)

I'd like to point out that Christianity is one of the least likely religions to be true. The bible allegedly tells the entire history of the world, from creation until the apocalypse (the revelations thingy). I went to a catholic school, was raised a catholic, but discovered Carl Sagan and chose that path, so I know the bible. Let me tell ya... Not ONE reference to a dinosaur in the old testament. It sounds silly, but don't you think someone should have pointed out the giant lizards running around?

The situations described in the new testament may or may not have happened, no way to know. I for one, don't believe a word there. And here's why. The history of Horus, the Egyptian god, is exactly the same as the Jesus. Horus was son of a god, born of a virgin mother, baptized, tempted in the desert, healed the sick, brought a guy back from the dead, walked on water, had 12 followers, was killed and resurrected 3 days later. Also, Isis (the mother of Horus) had to flee after she got pregnant because she and her baby would have been killed by Set. Horus was also depicted as a naked boy with his mother. I don't mean to offend anybody here, but I think you see the conflict, as the history of Horus was created 3000 years before Jesus. Feel free to look it up.

We think of any mythology (Greek, Egyptian, Roman, what have you) with a "cool story, bro" mentality. And when somebody challenges the "modern" religions, it's an outrage. Why is this? They sound suspiciously similar to me.

I think the facts we already know for sure about life, about this planet, and about the universe are far much more poetic and beautiful than the tales we can read in any holy book. To me, there's so much to learn that believing all the answers are in a little 600 page book not only seems unlikely, but also incredibly dull and boring.


----------



## Brendan G (Jul 6, 2010)

My response will almost certainly be lost in the sea of responses but I thought I'll throw my two cents in anyway.
I think it's as easy as some truths are not relative but some are. For example, it's a well established fact that the Earth goes around the sun (as long as one accepts that the universe exists as we perceive it, of course) but some things like art and to a very loose extent morals, relative.
Allow me to elaborate on the last bit. Some people may find paintings like this http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/7-abstract-art-hema-rana.jpg as the pinnacle of artistic achievement whilst others call that something that resembles nothing more than a two year old throwing paint around. Some people may enjoy Cannibal Corpse whilst others may absolutely detest it. As far as I know, there is no independent way to judge how one painting or composition is better than the other.
As far as morals go, some can be fairly well established by putting it in the context of evolution. For example, if in a primitive society people killed each other indiscriminately then of course the society would fail to survive. Same with excessive stealing, if everyone stole from everyone else then only a select few would have food for example and the rest would die and could leave a very unstable society. However some moral questions may be outside of that thinking.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 7, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> I like that you're honest and say exactly what you think. So here's what I think.
> 
> He is pathetic. I realize he's a comedian and he's joking around, but obviously he's also serious. It sounds like he doesn't even want to try to challenge himself to think. So he believed in church for a while. And the wrong church, at that. That's not the same as knowing God. And he traded not thinking for himself about religion to not thinking for himself about being an atheist. Some people seem to forget there's "robots" on both sides of the fence.
> 
> I don't want to get snippy with you, but..... the bible is proven to be true by historical manuscripts and archaeology. So if any religion could be proven to be true, I think it's christianity.



 I really am not trying to be offensive, but he is one of the few people who DID think for himself. In no way what so ever is the bible true  Your so brainwashed by that stuff its not even funny. I can understand believing in a higher power or a god, but the bible being true?? Thats obviously brainwashing if you believe that.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I really am not trying to be offensive, but he is one of the few people who DID think for himself. In no way what so ever is the bible true  Your so brainwashed by that stuff its not even funny. I can understand believing in a higher power or a god, but the bible being true?? Thats obviously brainwashing if you believe that.


 


But things in the bible have become to be know true. For example, remember in Old Testament? 

Genesis 9: 8 - 17 

8. Then God said to Noah and to his songs with him, 9. "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10. and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12. And God Said, "This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13. I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15. I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and ever living creature of all flesh. 16. When the bows is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17. God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth. 

Realize that I'm not trying to convert you. Because you can believe what you want to believe, but I'm backing his post.


----------



## Brendan G (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> But things in the bible have become to be know true. For example, remember in Old Testament?
> 
> Genesis 9: 8 - 17
> 
> ...


What was the point that you were trying to make? The only thing I can pick out is that the Bible says that "Rainbows happen after it rains." which is hardly divine knowledge. 
EDIT: If you were in fact trying to make that point there are many other verses that would have served your purpose much better such as Job 26:7 where he loosely said that the Earth hangs upon nothing. Although that is directly contradicted by 1 Samuel 2:8 which says "He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. *For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.* and if you were to use Job 26:7 whilst tossing aside 1 Samuel 2:8 it would just be a matter of "Counting the hits and ignoring the misses" and saying "Whatever is correct is the literal word of God and whatever's wrong is just interpretation".


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

Brendan G said:


> What was the point that you were trying to make? The only thing I can pick out is that the Bible says that "Rainbows happen after it rains." which is hardly divine knowledge.



The point I was making is that God has proven himself through signs. If you see what I mean. Like the rainbow being a sign from God himself and as we see it today for "future generations." We know his covenant still exists. Also, he never flooded the whole world again either. The only thing that has happened is floods around the world but not the whole world.


----------



## Brendan G (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> The point I was making is that God has proven himself through signs. If you see what I mean. Like the rainbow being a sign from God himself and as we see it today for "future generations." We know his covenant still exists. Also, he never flooded the whole world again either. The only thing that has happened is floods around the world not the whole world.


"God is real because it says so in the Bible!" "How do we know the Bible is true?" "Because God said so!" "How do we know God is real?" repeat as necessary. How do we know there was a global flood that killed humanity in the first place anyway? Using the Bible to prove itself isn't the best route to take.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

Brendan G said:


> "God is real because it says so in the Bible!" "How do we know the Bible is true?" "Because God said so!" "How do we know God is real?" repeat as necessary. How do we know there was a global flood that killed humanity in the first place anyway? Using the Bible to prove itself isn't the best route to take.



Didn't I just say you can believe what you want to believe? 
I was backing historical parts of Gods word and promises.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> The point I was making is that God has proven himself through signs. If you see what I mean. Like the rainbow being a sign from God himself and as we see it today for "future generations." We know his covenant still exists. Also, he never flooded the whole world again either. The only thing that has happened is floods around the world not the whole world.



You know how a while back one of the iranian clerics said that women that wear revealing clothing make more earthquakes happen? Doesnt that sound crazy? 

Well thats the same way i look at alot of this stuff. I think you guys are crazy, litterally You didnt prove anything, you just slapped on a bunch of pretty preaching to divert the fact that there isnt an ounce of proof of a god.

a rainbow can be proven as to how it exists. its not god, its frickin light shining through water. science 101 here bud.


I'm not saying there isnt anything like that(god), but show me one shred of PROOF. not faith, PROOF. You gotta admit, carlin was making ALOT of sense. But instead of addressing the complete contradictions that he pointed out, you just turn head and ignore it(because it shoots a ton of holes through the bs of christianity)



You also realize that there are dozens of legitimate religions, and thousands that have come and gone, even if 1 IS right, that means all these other people, people who died or would have died because they believed they were right would be totally wrong. So your amount of faith means nothing.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> You know how a while back one of the iranian clerics said that women that wear revealing clothing make more earthquakes happen? Doesnt that sound crazy?
> 
> Well thats the same way i look at alot of this stuff. I think you guys are crazy, litterally You didnt prove anything, you just slapped on a bunch of pretty preaching to divert the fact that there isnt an ounce of proof of a god.
> 
> ...



I gave the word of God which is the only thing I have. I understand science, I do. Which I figured someone would bring that up. If you want proof the only proof is what scripture says. I have this verse here. I will share if you want to read it otherwise I'll just refrain from posting it.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 7, 2010)

I think its comical how ready people are to believe something that they have never seen, touched, heard, taste, smelled......all the things that we need for something to be considered real.

But they have such a HARD time believing in something that can be proven right infront of them, such as science.


I wonder how many people would believe me if i started telling everyone i spoke to god and was serious. I'm sure even the hardest core believers would think i was crazy, but at the same time, thats excatly what christianity has told us. That a person rose from the dead. Its funny how when its convienent, people can believe in something, but when its not, they cant.


----------



## Brendan G (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> Didn't I just say you can believe what you want to believe?
> I was backing historical parts of Gods word and promises.
> 
> How is not the best route to take, if that's the only route I have?


I'm not saying you can't believe in the Bible. I'm just asking why you do. My point is that I want you to examine what you believe and leave no stone unturned. If it turns you into a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, I have no problem with that, I want you to know why you believe it and it is not necessarily my goal to turn you into a militant atheist. The reasons you gave were quite honestly very poor. 

Why using the Bible to prove itself is not the best route to take. Let's take a mathematical theorem for example (I'll use Fermat's last theorem because it's simple and I'm a math nerd so I like it. linky Fermat's Last Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or if you don't want to click it for whatever reason. [Everything I call a number is actually an integer]. Suppose you have three numbers a, b, and n. There can be no number c such that a^(n)+b^(n) = c^(n). And one more note, this theorem was first written in the 1600's and not proved until the 1990's) Okay, so you look at this theorem, and you say "Why should I believe this theorem?" the person you're talking to says "Because it says so in the theorem!" and you say "But why should I believe this to be true?" and the person says "Because it's Fermat! He's a great mathematician and couldn't do wrong!".
I used this example for two reasons:
1. It was unproven for centuries but I bet some mathematicians took it at face value.
2. In order for it to not be demeaning to you or your beliefs (because I'm a respectful cat like that) it was proven to be true while it still pointed out a flaw in your thinking.

If the Bible was truly the inspired word of the creator of the universe then surely it could be confirmed by outside sources. I don't mean in vague terms but in terms that are actually helpful to ignorant humans.
Furthermore if using the Bible to prove itself is the only route to take, you should SERIOUSLY examine your current position.


----------



## K-Roll (Jul 7, 2010)

people will always be fighting about this topic.  

to me, religion is here to describe all the things that science still cannot.. i'd like to underline the word 'still'.. 
i dont believe in a bearded guy in white, the highest entity i believe in is Megan Fox.. thats pretty much it.. 

bible itself had been rewritten so many times that is is not actual at all, it had been fitted to suite, something like a custom made guitar, the content itslef had been distorted so many times since the first century, that it cant really be a reliable source of information rather then a nice sci fi novel. i'd say, bible is a good reader's manual on how to live a good life, so that once you look back at all the things you did you would not puke.. 

I personally hate religion in terms of a society, but am in favor of faith itself. I do not like the roman catholic church in terms of the institution itself. And the faith of course cannot be blind. I used to attend a religious high school where i'd meet these people who'd voluntarily love to chichat about how God is so cool cause he definitely makes the world better.. And once i asked - why do you believe, why is he such a cool guy, why doyou think there has to be a supreme entity that actually drives your life and wants you to be a good person.. the answer was always - because he loves you and because it is written so... i hate such pussies  really.. 

but what i have observed in the last years is that it were people who do not trust themsleves, do not believe into their own power and abilities and they need to look up to a 'higher being' in order to stay calm and satisified that, even though they are totally out of this world, there is still someone to whom they may talk to.


----------



## Zugster (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos is an ant in your kitchen who thinks he knows how the microwave works.


----------



## K-Roll (Jul 7, 2010)

nevertheless.. bible is full of metaphors and stuff.. so, to actually tell that god has proven himself in a series of text that was put together into its actual form some time around 9th century is quite weird.. from that time it was adjusted so that in the times of the 'dark middleages' (or how you call it, i dunno i am not a native) it would fit those who wanted to hold power in their hands.. fear god, read about his brutality in the old testament and on the other hand read the new testament, believe in jesus, do not rob, murder, ass-rape (cause for all these things there are still catholic priests willing to undergo this deeds of evil so that we remain clear).. 

religion is a wonderful tool for making the crowd go the way you want them to.
Xiphos- lets think about it the other way around, what if you go to a distant village in africa where they swear that god is omnipresent in cat's shit and by eating it, you will receive god's vitality and soul. Would you eat cat's shit? If no, then why? cause it does not make any sense? And if so, how come you are sure about the way you are practicing your religion that this is the correct way? is it because we are the clever guys and they are too easy in that village? but if so,how come their religion is older then our which is supposed to be the right one with the best description of god as a rainbow?

a friend of mine studies arameic and actually said that -arameic (that was the language old testament was writen in originally) changed so many times over the decades that you cant really understand the old version of it, so i would definitely consider bible as a good source of information.. 

the funny part about faith itself is that- even if you do not believe in God, you still have enough time cause at the end, you will believe because you have nothing to loose. the whole faith and religion stuff is here only because each of us is afraid to die and we cant cope with that and we cannot realize in our selfish heads a picture of this world without being alive


----------



## Prydogga (Jul 7, 2010)

Rainbows make me think of god. Pictures of them will make me believe in him.

Also K Roll. Could you please use paragraphs? It's impossible to read stuff with no spaces  Just asking, no hate behind those words. This thread should be a good long read for me tonight.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jul 7, 2010)

oh look, another lounge thread turned into religious arguments


----------



## K-Roll (Jul 7, 2010)

Prydogga said:


> Rainbows make me think of god. Pictures of them will make me believe in him.
> 
> Also K Roll. Could you please use paragraphs? It's impossible to read stuff with no spaces  Just asking, no hate behind those words. This thread should be a good long read for me tonight.



sure mate no probs


----------



## pink freud (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> The point I was making is that God has proven himself through signs. If you see what I mean. Like the rainbow being a sign from God himself and as we see it today for "future generations." We know his covenant still exists. Also, he never flooded the whole world again either. The only thing that has happened is floods around the world but not the whole world.



Sorry to tell you this, but if you think God can be proven you're doing this whole "faith" thing wrong.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

pink freud said:


> Sorry to tell you this, but if you think God can be proven you're doing this whole "faith" thing wrong.


No I'm not. I do have faith. I didn't surrender to God because of proven ideas but because, he's my savior and I love him.


----------



## Zugster (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> No I'm not. I do have faith. I didn't surrender to God because of proven ideas but because, he's my savior and I love him.


 
That's fine.

So, stop telling everyone that god offers proof of existence to us. Anyway, doesn't this run counter to the idea that faith is required, not proof?


----------



## Ckackley (Jul 7, 2010)

A young boy and his grandfather are walking across a field after a rain. There's a rainbow. The young boy gasps, as he's never seen such a thing. 
"Grandpa ! What's that !?!??" 
Grandpa never gave rainbows much thought. They were always kinda "there". BUT, he adored his grandson and didn't want to seem a fool in front of the boy. 
"Well my boy," Grandpa started "there was this guy named Noah.................."

The story is passed down for generations and the early Christians snagged it and added it as a lesson to fear God's wrath and show God's love. I don't KNOW this happened but it seems the most likely . 

You believe Rainbows are a sign from God ? Yet if someone said that lightning was the result of Zeus hurling bolts at unbelievers you would think that was crazy ...


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

Ckackley said:


> A young boy and his grandfather are walking across a field after a rain. There's a rainbow. The young boy gasps, as he's never seen such a thing.
> "Grandpa ! What's that !?!??"
> Grandpa never gave rainbows much thought. They were always kinda "there". BUT, he adored his grandson and didn't want to seem a fool in front of the boy.
> "Well my boy," Grandpa started "there was this guy named Noah.................."
> ...


 I believe what it says in the verse I posted. 

BTW I'm not posting anymore in this thread. I didn't want to start an argument. Obviously it didn't work. I thought this could be a good discussion but none the less it didn't work. So I'm done trying to discuss.

Have a nice day, Xiphos68


----------



## Evil7 (Jul 7, 2010)

I firmly believe that the rules were made up as time carried on. This is why kings revised these books.
Early days.... Church and state were one. What a genius idea to make people fear for their soul so there would be less rebellion on government. A way of "civilizing" the masses. It was even forced on the masses. You did not comply, you die. Religion was enforced as a way to control people. Faith .....wow..... that was genius as well.... "um there are questions.... What do we tell them?.. They want proof.... Kill the ones who will not have faith." Take my words as my personal opinion.... but understand there is PROOF behind what I say. here is a small example..... lol Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People were tortured, killed, and their belongings were stolen by the church to fund more spread of Christianity.
I think there may be a chance there is a higher power / designer to this world.. But its no story ever told in a book written by man.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 7, 2010)

Organized religion is, at it's heart, simply a way to control people using their innate fear of the unknown. 

Why do you think religion has been waging a war against real science since day one?

Now, _personal_ religion is something totally different.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 7, 2010)

...and to make money, don't forget that part.

Religion has been a device for the rich to steal from the poor for centuries and centuries.


----------



## Ckackley (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> I believe what it says in the verse I posted.
> 
> BTW I'm not posting anymore in this thread. I didn't want to start an argument. Obviously it didn't work. I thought this could be a good discussion but none the less it didn't work. So I'm done trying to discuss.
> 
> Have a nice day, Xiphos68



I wasn't trying to argue at all. Part of a discusion is bringing out both sides of an issue. It seems the only discussion some people understand is one were everyone agrees. I personally don't see why we can't all believe what we want .. Calling what we believe an absolute truth with no evidence is a fail in my opinion.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 7, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Organized religion is, at it's heart, simply a way to control people using their innate fear of the unknown.


 
This has always been my thinking. And I may not know what governs the universe or its intentions, but I don't claim to either. That's just down right arrogant when you think about it.


----------



## Bananalyze (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm a little overwhelmed right now. 

I already responded to everyone in the ways I know how, but this isn't a discussion if I'm just getting yelled at. I'm gonna go ahead and stop posting here. I've already said what I wanted to say-- I believe God is real, and I believe that because I _know _my life has changed for the better because of it.

Lastly..... no hard feelings. I didn't get pissed (I laughed a few times, actually) and if you got pissed at me, well.... bummer.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

Ckackley said:


> I wasn't trying to argue at all. Part of a discusion is bringing out both sides of an issue. It seems the only discussion some people understand is one were everyone agrees. I personally don't see why we can't all believe what we want .. Calling what we believe an absolute truth with no evidence is a fail in my opinion.



That's fine I thought you were or that's what it seemed like. People can believe what they want. It's just to me Christianity is the absolute truth, I've experienced it. What the bible says I've experienced and know what it's talking about, not everything but a little. Where is some people would disagree on that matter. I'm not going to hate them or shun them because they don't, that's there choice. 


I understand at one point and still, religion was used to control people. The Catholic Church tried to control and say things that weren't true in the bible and would kill people because they didn't confess Christ or wouldn't repent. Whats even worse is when they did repent they were still killed. Which is not right. Even Jim Jones had a group of 600 or 700 believers drink poison and die. 

Everybody has the choice to believe what they want and I shouldn't criticize someone for that it's not my place. Only God can judge your heart I can't. But I'm called to witness to everyone about Christ and that's what I want to do. Not to control people or judge them. They don't bow before my commands but Gods. I have no reason to control people when I can enjoy them, we share things as humans music for example this forum shares which is great to have.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 7, 2010)

Bananalyze said:


> I'm a little overwhelmed right now.
> 
> I already responded to everyone in the ways I know how, but this isn't a discussion if I'm just getting yelled at. I'm gonna go ahead and stop posting here. I've already said what I wanted to say-- I believe God is real, and I believe that because I _know _my life has changed for the better because of it.
> 
> Lastly..... no hard feelings. I didn't get pissed (I laughed a few times, actually) and if you got pissed at me, well.... bummer.


 
The group here can get a little intense, man. It's cool you took it lightly. Hopefully this won't keep you from hangin' out and contributing. Btw... These threads always go this way... 

I've sometimes been arguing w/ a member in one thread (generally a feeling vs technicality, religion, or political thread) and completely agreeing with them in another at the same time. It's weird...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> Everybody has the choice to believe what they want and I shouldn't criticize someone for that it's not my place.
> 
> I have no reason to control people when I can enjoy them, we share things as humans music for example this forum shares which is great to have.



This, absolutely this


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 7, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> This, absolutely this


See what I mean. Me and Dave may not share the same beliefs but that doesn't mean we have to hate each other or fight, when we can enjoy each others in company of music or any other matter.

Thanks Dave.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 7, 2010)

Xiphos68 said:


> See what I mean. Me and Dave may not share the same beliefs but that doesn't mean we have to hate each other or fight, when we can enjoy each others in company of music or any other matter.
> 
> Thanks Dave.


 
Yes... Yes it does... *throws rock*


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 7, 2010)

I agree that you can believe what you want and you shouldnt critize them for it, but do you realize how hypocritical that is comming from religious people?
That suits your needs in this case, but do you realize how many times people have asked "what church do you go to?", then i tell them i dont believe in that stuff, the i get "i'l pray for you, i dont want you to go to hell."

That has happened to me tons and tons of times. The reason i'm so adament about being hostile with religious types is because of the hypocracy. When it suits your purposes, you want to be left in peace ect...., but at the same time PRACTICALLY every religious person i know tryes to shove jesus down my throat and tells me e'm going to hell for not being a frikkin sheep.


I'm 100% secure in my believes without anyone else confirming me. I dont need a bunch of people to support my beliefs because i'm insecure and need a group to support me so i feel like i'm right. And if the religions of the world did the same and quit trying to convert people and convince us that unscientific evidence is evidence of a creator, then i'm all good.


----------



## K-Roll (Jul 7, 2010)

the other question is - there are religions that were here long before christianity (actually christianity itself and especially bible is a rip out of a very old, maybe the first monoteistic religion that was formed around Iran and these parts called mithraism you definitely go check that out ) and actually jesus is believed to to be a guy who was a part of a group called zealots (not the ones from starcraft) a social group in jerusalem, which was something like anarchists today.

so my question then is- how can we be sure that our christian god (i am writing it on purpose with non capital) is the one who is correct and true.. how can we be sure that e.g. hindus are not right about their multiple entities (or higher beings) and about the whole circle of life and nirvana..

how arrogant are we to think that we are right in that? taoism was not right in its very depth? or islam, which, actually is to me more reliable and non fake as they take jesus just as a normal guy - prophet.. its actually not religion that makes me sick of it, but people who are trying to 'spread the word' and do not have arguments once they get into a discussion.. 

i do not really mean to hurt anyone, but if someone creates a thread like this in order to 'spread the word' or share his belief (which is actually a quite personal thing) he/she must be ready to take some burden of this topic and not just wine somewhere in the corner that god is real because.. because.. you..you are bad and it was written! thats the only thing. 

i believe in nature, that you get one chance to live your life the best you can, and then you die. and there is nothing. only the memories of your beloved and you get forgotten over the time (unless you are not michael jackson of course).. when you will be sitting around the christmas table, remember that this was a pagan holiday that was raped by christians, that Jesus was not born 24th od December, but around summer .. that easter was a pagan feast too.. so, what is the truth about our religion? isnt it just a piece of robbery?

and last- i hope to be false in terms of god. If I am false, then i will be salvated as it was said everyone will be. If i am right, then i am fine with it and nothing changes for me. how about you?  if your faith makes you a better person, then i am fine with that


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 7, 2010)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I agree that you can believe what you want and you shouldnt critize them for it, but do you realize how hypocritical that is comming from religious people?
> That suits your needs in this case, but do you realize how many times people have asked "what church do you go to?", then i tell them i dont believe in that stuff, the i get "i'l pray for you, i dont want you to go to hell."
> 
> That has happened to me tons and tons of times. The reason i'm so adament about being hostile with religious types is because of the hypocracy. When it suits your purposes, you want to be left in peace ect...., but at the same time PRACTICALLY every religious person i know tryes to shove jesus down my throat and tells me e'm going to hell for not being a frikkin sheep.
> ...


 
i get this a lot. a lot of my relatives will do things like that. i got the opportunity to learn about a lot of other religions when i was in school and if i'd discuss it w/ anyone in my family the response was always "boy, ya better know jesus..."

frankly, i felt like half of them that would say that didn't even know the bible very well. and the fact that they print that prodigious life manual and some ppl only choose to believe half of it makes me a little uneasy as well. my mom tried to explain to me that once jesus came, the old testament was more or less "voided". so why not save a tree? 

my dad is constantly saying... "i think you should join a church and become active in the church and blah blah blah..."

after that my father even went so far as to try to explain to me how the church they go to is a "cool" church and they have a band and whatever and that there are ppl at Bible study that would be more than happy to entertain all questions i have and explain things to me. this sounds cool in theory, however, how am i supposed to receive objective answers in a Christian house of worship? all answers will be voiced in a manner that preserves the Christian truth and not a "universal" truth, per se.

i, like you, believe what i believe and i don't need a room full of ppl that agree w/ me to do so, but i don't like your implication that those who feel the need for such a condition are "insecure". ppl are free to do what makes them happy and if that's what makes some ppl happy then who am i (or anyone else) to take that from them?

i'm pretty sure many of the members here probably had imaginary friends as children. did your parents point fingers at you and tell you that you were crazy for believing in something they couldn't perceive/comprehend? no... they simply allowed you to be happy in your own beliefs.

i'm not implying that "God" is an imaginary friend, only that there are parallels in terms of the perceived physical presence of either entity.

i think that everyone... Christian, Muslim, Jew, Rasta, Buddhist, Whatever-the-fuck... should just shut the hell up about their life philosophy unless asked... 

this thread has already shown how in some cases just mentioning that you belong to a certain group puts a fowl taste in the mouths of many ppl you might otherwise get along w/ amicably...


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 7, 2010)

Konfyouzd said:


> i, like you, believe what i believe and i don't need a room full of ppl that agree w/ me to do so, but i don't like your implication that those who feel the need for such a condition are "insecure". ppl are free to do what makes them happy and if that's what makes some ppl happy then who am i (or anyone else) to take that from them?
> 
> i'm pretty sure many of the members here probably had imaginary friends as children. did your parents point fingers at you and tell you that you were crazy for believing in something they couldn't perceive/comprehend? no... they simply allowed you to be happy in your own beliefs.
> 
> ...



To the first paragraph, i dont necesarilly think that all people that try to do that are insecure,but i think that is where it stems from. The way the christian churches are designed is to recruit as many people as possible. Kinda like.....a cult.

as for the rest of your post, bingo!
I couldnt give a shit what others believe, but it always comes into play because religious people seem to want to shove it in your face or at the very least focus on it and involve others instead of just quietly believing what they believe and living how they want to live


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 7, 2010)

Fair enough, sir


----------



## Evil7 (Jul 12, 2010)

here is one way of looking at it..


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 11, 2011)

I'm kick-starting this thread purely for the fact that I think it's the most interesting thread on this board.

The sentence "There is no truth, only a perspective" - (Coldy Calculated Design - Planetary Duality - The Faceless) is one I live by and since I came up on it's realisation (I came to the conclusion independently of external sources) I have not looked at life the same way since.

On my internet travels I found these and wish to share them with you:



> Truth is relative to viewpoint, perception, and perspective.
> 
> It is relative to the progressive ranges of society and values. Truth is relative to one's perspective as:
> 1. an individual
> ...





> This is something I've come to learn and profoundly understand over the past few years. I was raised believing that there was such a thing as truth. I have a pen, I know it's a pen, therefore the truth is: it's a pen. I'm doing well in school, my report card says I've earned an A or B, my teachers say that I'm excelling, so, the truth is: I'm smart. I could go on and on here, there are an endless number of examples. I've come to learn, though, that that's wrong. The truth is: there's no such thing as truth.
> 
> What on earth do I mean, there's no truth? Well, there is perspective. Everyone sees things slightly differently. They see an item, witness an event, hear words, see body language, and interpret those for themselves. People weigh everything against their own history and personal experiences. We all view everything through our own filters. When we view something as true, we're actually thinking that what we perceive is what everyone should perceive. Yes, many times those around us view things similarly, or even the same. Back to my pen example, virtually everyone will look at my pen and agree that it's a pen. Though one person may view it as a "weapon", which could be used to harm someone. Is she wrong? Is she right? Is it a weapon or not? Well, the truth is, we're all right, just voicing our own perspective.
> 
> ...


----------



## Randy (Jan 11, 2011)

You ever contemplate drilling a hole in a cantaloupe and having sex with it?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 11, 2011)

Since you're necrobumping, I'll quote my original (and I believe only) post in this thread.



Explorer said:


> The word "truth" has all kinds of meaning, depending on which domain one is using as a frame of reference, including spiritual truth, empirical/observable truth, and so on. Often there is a claim of truth in one domain which is then extended to other domains... but without adequate evidence.
> 
> *Here are two statements:
> 
> ...



And, on top of that...



Randy said:


> You ever contemplate drilling a hole in a cantaloupe and having sex with it?



...I'm feeling uncomfortable with what Randy has referred to as his "precious donut thread....

*laugh*


----------



## jeremyb (Jan 11, 2011)

Preaching atheists are just as annoying as preaching Christians!!


----------



## Explorer (Jan 12, 2011)

Although everyone else is being civil, you have to start shouting. Why the need to do that, friend?


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2011)

jeremyb said:


> Preaching atheists are just as annoying as preaching Christians!!



I believe this is less like preaching and more like using Christianity to make a point about "truth". 

I don't like this whole perspective slant when talking about truth. Truth, in it's unsullied definition, means the actual state of a matter, or conformity with fact or reality.

I think I must've gotten the retard box of crayons when I was younger. For some reason, I'm always arguing with people over whether a car or something is red or orange, and vice versa. Now, this is an example of two people perceiving something differently. My "truth" is not the truth, and neither is theirs. The car has a color that reflects a certain frequency of light wave. That is the truth. It exists with or without me to observe and name it. Wrongly, apparently.

I must therefore disagree with anyone having "personal truths". If it's true, it must necessarily be true for everyone, or else it isn't a truth. A person has convictions, or beliefs, but not truths, no matter how strongly they think they do. 

Truth is a concrete thing. We have such a humanistic view of the world that we often forget that it would keep existing without us. The sky would still be the same color, gravity would still pull down at 9.8 m/s, and the Sun would still be at the same distance from Earth. These things exist on their own, and are true in the sense that they are real. I can profess to believe whatever I want about how the stars are on a dome around the Earth, but the fact of the matter is quite the opposite.

I used to think about buying a midget child and teaching them that white is black. To my Mini-Me, white _would_ be black. Other children would laugh and make fun of it, at which point it would morph to Beast-Form and beat them, but the point is, a discrepancy in the _labels_ we use does not alter the underlying fact of something.

So yeah. That's what I think.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> The car has a color that reflects a certain frequency of light wave. That is the truth. It exists with or without me to observe and name it.


 
Does it?


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Does it?



I hope you're being sarcastic.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I hope you're being sarcastic.


 
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.

It's just one of the dumb things I can't help but think about. I can't technically know that anything i'm not currently looking it exists, or that anything I'm not currently touching is tangible. It makes sense to live my life _assuming_ as much, but for all I know the whole world disappears when I close my eyes and then reappears when I open them again.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
> 
> It's just one of the dumb things I can't help but think about. I can't technically know that anything i'm not currently looking it exists, or that anything I'm not currently touching is tactile. It makes sense to live my life _assuming_ as much, but for all I know the whole world disappears when I close my eyes and then reappears when I open them again.



The shirt on your back existed before you bought it, and since you didn't oversee everything involved in its' manufacture, you can infer that there is some objective reality.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> The shirt on your back existed before you bought it, and since you didn't oversee everything involved in its' manufacture, you can infer that there is some objective reality.


 
But I _don't_ know that it existed before I bought it, or even that it exists when I'm not wearing it. I just assume it did/does.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2011)

Ah, I see what you're driving at. You posit that reality depends on perception? Or hypothetically could, I guess.

Again, perception is half the equation. You don't _know_ that you have a brain, intestines, bone marrow, kidneys, etc etc. But they have observable functions. You can't really be said to perceive microwaves, but they still exist. Things you don't know and can't see affect you, so unless there's arbitrary fluxes in your perception, there has to be some outside influence at play.

Our models of the world are certainly subjective in the way we perceive them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. You're kinda broaching the topic of knowledge and all that jazz.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I must therefore disagree with anyone having "personal truths". If it's true, it must necessarily be true for everyone, or else it isn't a truth. A person has convictions, or beliefs, but not truths, no matter how strongly they think they do.
> 
> Truth is a concrete thing. We have such a humanistic view of the world that we often forget that it would keep existing without us. The sky would still be the same color, gravity would still pull down at 9.8 m/s, and the Sun would still be at the same distance from Earth. These things exist on their own, and are true in the sense that they are real. I can profess to believe whatever I want about how the stars are on a dome around the Earth, but the fact of the matter is quite the opposite.



Personal truth is everywhere you go, you're talking about truth as an ideal. Truth as an ideal is absolute, irrefutable. However, many people have their own truths which are usually just advanced beliefs, without any concrete evidence. The mind can become sure of something quite easily if it wishes to think a certain way (especially if it protects the ego). So, if you were to ask someone a question and they answered with what they perceive to be the truth, they are not lying, they are speaking honestly; to them it _is_ true.

I have often said that without humans the universe wouldn't exist - due to the fact that the words 'exist' and 'universe' are man-made words, but that's another kettle of fish.

As for astrology, I've never trusted it much. I know I'm putting my neck on the block by saying that, but I just don't trust humans enough to believe what they say about what's outside of our atmosphere. Remember when the world was flat? That was _inside_ our atmosphere.

My question is: what's wrong with not knowing?


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Personal truth is everywhere you go, you're talking about truth as an ideal. Truth as an ideal is absolute, irrefutable. However, many people have their own truths which are usually just advanced beliefs, without any concrete evidence. The mind can become sure of something quite easily if it wishes to think a certain way (especially if it protects the ego). So, if you were to ask someone a question and they answered with what they perceive to be the truth, they are not lying, they are speaking honestly; to them it _is_ true.
> 
> I have often said that without humans the universe wouldn't exist - due to the fact that the words 'exist' and 'universe' are man-made words, but that's another kettle of fish.
> 
> ...



Truth equals the actual state of the matter, the reality of it. So I'll say existing equals true, anything other than existing equals false. By this rule, if my perception of something is not the actual state of the object, i.e. I'm looking at a colorless object, yet I see red, either I'm wrong, or it doesn't exist. It cannot be both, which is why I refute personal truths, and would have to relegate them to personal beliefs or convictions.

For example, you ask me if England exists. I say no, because I have no first-hand, direct knowledge of it. I am telling what I see as the truth. A statement cannot be true if it's not true. My personal 'truth' is not true, so why call it as such? 

As for the universe existing, it's hard for me to argue against that kind of statement. I lack the intellect to explain my point, since I barely even understand it . I'll try though, . 

I believe that falls in the same category as the tree falling in the woods. It doesn't create a 'sound' because sound is vibrating waves of energy interpreted by our ears. It does create a sound, because it causes the air to ripple, which could be said to cause sound if someone happened to pop into reality right after it happened. Perception does not define the basic truth of reality, only the way we experience it.

Trees fall all the time, with no one around to hear it. The universe exists, regardless of what we choose to call it, and has for some time, even before the concept of it was created.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 12, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Does it?



Yes, things retain permanence. That's what enables empirical science to work.

Even at quantum levels, permanence works. That's how they manage to push forward in physics, by prediction and confirmation, as opposed to someone just thinking something is valid because it is some sort of talking point.

There are profound misunderstandings/misinterpretations of physics by those who want to validate their own religious/philosophical views. Many new age believers have bought into the repurposing of scientific terms as religious jargon which mean nothing.

I'm sure physicists, engineers and others would be happy to consider any repeatable, objective studies which would disprove the naturalistic order of physical reality, as opposed to philosophical points which could be just as effectively used to argue for other phenomena like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. "Just because some parents give up the cash doesn't mean it's *always" them putting it under the pillow!" 

----

I believe this thread will continue going around the main point evaded by the initial poster who argued for relativism, that "truth" can have many meanings, and that using it for something vague (a "philosophical" truth which is open to argument) cannot be extended to something physical. However, I'd love to be around for this experiment, based on a similar argument here on SS.org...

"If I disbelieve an object, its existence is in question. Here, push this button, which will drop an unobserved brick on my face. I'm going to be lying underneath it, blindfolded with my ears plugged, and unlike all those people who get hit with unobserved bullets fired from miles away, my complete and utter faith will dissolve its existence. Plus, my guitar will turn into a unicorn, and Alyson Hannigan will appear naked before me!"

"Dude, you had me at dropping a brick on your face, but if your idiocy has a chance of making Alyson Hannigan appear naked, I'm beyond ready."







Yeah!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 12, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Truth equals the actual state of the matter, the reality of it. So I'll say existing equals true, anything other than existing equals false. By this rule, if my perception of something is not the actual state of the object, i.e. I'm looking at a colorless object, yet I see red, either I'm wrong, or it doesn't exist. It cannot be both, which is why I refute personal truths, and would have to relegate them to personal beliefs or convictions.
> 
> For example, you ask me if England exists. I say no, because I have no first-hand, direct knowledge of it. I am telling what I see as the truth. A statement cannot be true if it's not true. My personal 'truth' is not true, so why call it as such?
> 
> ...



I appreciate your point and see the value in it, but would you not at least entertain the notion that multiple truths exist? I'm not talking about what the word is in it's purest sense, but rather what humans understand as truth. No one dictionary entry lists one meaning for truth, nor should it as truth can have a variety of meanings, depending on who you ask and what they define it as. I think that saying 'truth = fact' or 'truth = matter' is a very, very restricted view on the matter, despite my agreeing with you on some level.

As for the tree falling - you're right it is exactly the same thing. My argument is that 'exist', 'happen' and 'reality' are all points of reference for humans. Take away the value assigned by mankind and you take away the event, regardless of what we would call it. If we're talking from a human point of reference, yes the tree would fall and the 'event' would 'happen', but if we had no need to communicate the matter, no language, no understanding of anything or even no existence at all, there is no need to bring human reference or values into the equasion anymore.

Obviously once mankind has seen his last day on Earth, the planet will continue, but our values die with us.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 12, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Yes, things retain permanence. That's what enables empirical science to work.
> 
> Even at quantum levels, permanence works. That's how they manage to push forward in physics, by prediction and confirmation, as opposed to someone just thinking something is valid because it is some sort of talking point.


 
I don't really see any of that and the concepts of Idealism or Anti-realism as being mutually exclusive, but I'm far from an authority on either and I don't suppose it's really here nor there. At any rate, the discussion would probably severely derail the thread.


----------



## Encephalon5 (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm an atheist. It works for me. It may not work for you, but it works for me. It really amounts to whatever works for the individual. I do not like organized religion but, I do respect the religious unless I'm disrespected. Live and let live. the truth is completely relative. You believe whatever you want to believe. 



I will say that my way is best though. 

Edit: I'll jump in after school and post something a bit more extensive.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 12, 2011)

Again, there is several different things being defined by the word "Truth." Please be sure to state which kind you're taking about: physical world/objective, religion/philosophy.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I appreciate your point and see the value in it, but would you not at least entertain the notion that multiple truths exist? I'm not talking about what the word is in it's purest sense, but rather what humans understand as truth. No one dictionary entry lists one meaning for truth, nor should it as truth can have a variety of meanings, depending on who you ask and what they define it as. I think that saying 'truth = fact' or 'truth = matter' is a very, very restricted view on the matter, despite my agreeing with you on some level.
> 
> As for the tree falling - you're right it is exactly the same thing. My argument is that 'exist', 'happen' and 'reality' are all points of reference for humans. Take away the value assigned by mankind and you take away the event, regardless of what we would call it. If we're talking from a human point of reference, yes the tree would fall and the 'event' would 'happen', but if we had no need to communicate the matter, no language, no understanding of anything or even no existence at all, there is no need to bring human reference or values into the equasion anymore.
> 
> Obviously once mankind has seen his last day on Earth, the planet will continue, but our values die with us.



I can dig it . 

For the sake of keeping myself from being confused, I will now refer to perceived truths as just truth. 

The thing I don't like when dealing with abstract truths is that they defy logic. What is true for me isn't true for you, thus clashing with the most-widely held notions of truth. I think in order to discuss this kind of truth, we have to put ourselves in the mind-set of an objective non-observer, meaning we take away our frame of reference, and our perspectives.

Enter...the amoeba. Do we exist to an amoeba? Would anything? They lack the ability to impose any filters onto their environment, i.e. senses interpreting reality. They simply are there, doing whatever it is amoebas do. If we were amoebas, without even self-perception, could anything be said to exist? In the case of the amoeba, the answer is no.



Encephalon5 said:


> I'm an atheist. It works for me. It may not work for you, but it works for me. It really amounts to whatever works for the individual. I do not like organized religion but, I do respect the religious unless I'm disrespected. Live and let live. the truth is completely relative. You believe whatever you want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that religious beliefs and/or worldviews have a place in this discussion outside of being convenient ways to describe personal truths. While I love debating religion and everything belief structures- related, I don't think this thread is the place. Using worldviews as analogies works just as well as saying "I see white as black, and you vice versa." I like this thread too much to see it get derailed


----------

