disillusioned Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 What is truth? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 Oh my god that's just someone's list of opinions about books. That's how Goodreads works. So do you believe the Bible is the 7th most disturbing book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 What is truth? That's an excellent question for an entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightcore Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 This is getting stupid. @OrdinaryClay of course people lie online but people posting their opinions is NOT a lie. People speaking their mind is not a lie either. If it's filled with more lies than anything else it's because it's the biggest information source on earth and encompasses almost everything because you can access almost everything online. So if you really want to frame things that way sure you're totally right and you win. The internet is full of lies and nothing is valid because someone put the Bible at number seven on a bad book list. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 That's an excellent question for an entire thread. Like this one? Your question requires that "truth" be clearly understood. Unless it is, your question can't be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 You think so? The same effort as always? The Internet opened up the world to self publishing with little or no vetting. ... Yes, the same effort, same tools and same vetting process. Yes, the quantity of information that may be involved in that task can vary. With few exceptions, the world was already open to little or no vetting prior to the internet. ... So we agree the Internet is not a reliable source of truth. Wrong. I do not agree. As stated before, the internet is a mechanism...a method for delivering information. The content transmitted can be true, false, somewhere in between or contain no truth value at all. I suspect that you are realizing that your decades of religious indoctrination, which is in essence a "vetted" set of truth claims, differ from contradictory information you have found via internet access. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 This is getting stupid. @OrdinaryClay of course people lie online but people posting their opinions is NOT a lie. People speaking their mind is not a lie either. If it's filled with more lies than anything else it's because it's the biggest information source on earth and encompasses almost everything because you can access almost everything online. So if you really want to frame things that way sure you're totally right and you win. The internet is full of lies and nothing is valid because someone put the Bible at number seven on a bad book list. Do you accept that site as a source which will influence your thoughts on whether the the Bible is the 7th most disturbing book? The question and the site are germane to the thread subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 Like this one? Your question requires that "truth" be clearly understood. Unless it is, your question can't be answered. First, truth is clearly understood. Two, if it were not your statement would be incoherently neither true nor false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightcore Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Do you accept that site as a source which will influence your thoughts on whether the the Bible is the 7th most disturbing book? The question and the site are germane to the thread subject. No I don't. I don't care about the Bible one way or the other. I also think you're really stretching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 My college days are long past so I honestly don't know what is allowable in today's schools. Are you saying web sites are never allowed as sources in term papers? Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Individual websites are sources, but individual websites are not the internet any more than individual books are a library. You can't cite "the internet" as a source any more than you can cite "the library" as a source. The library is a resource for finding sources, and in the same way the internet is a resource for finding sources. The internet itself is not a source. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 4, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 4, 2017 Again, what is the point? We should stop using the Internet? I really don't get it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Who here relies on the internet as a source of truth? I do, I do! Who wants gum? I do, I do! I can't remember what commercial that was a line from. Oh, just googled it. And here's this You Tube. Truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Again, what is the point? We should stop using the Internet? I really don't get it. The point is obviously something like, the standard for all Truth is the Bible. Or something like that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 This post here is a good example. https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2455.The_Most_Disturbing_Book_Ever_Written On what authority was the Bible judged the 7th most disturbing? You do not seem to be able to distinguish opinions from fact claims. I suspect that is yet another consequence of your decades of religious indoctrination. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 Yes, the same effort, same tools and same vetting process. Yes, the quantity of information that may be involved in that task can vary. With few exceptions, the world was already open to little or no vetting prior to the internet. Wrong. I do not agree. As stated before, the internet is a mechanism...a method for delivering information. The content transmitted can be true, false, somewhere in between or contain no truth value at all. I suspect that you are realizing that your decades of religious indoctrination, which is in essence a "vetted" set of truth claims, differ from contradictory information you have found via internet access. Clearly the world before the Internet did not have anywhere near the volume or freedom of information dumping as today. If you disagree then I suspect you have come to rely on the Internet as your source of truth and it's painful to have it questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 First, truth is clearly understood. Two, if it were not your statement would be incoherently neither true nor false. I'm not sure that either of these statements is correct. Then again, I'm reading this on the internet, so who knows? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 I'm not sure that either of these statements is correct. Then again, I'm reading this on the internet, so who knows? Ergo in your world view there is no bases for your atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightcore Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Clearly the world before the Internet did not have anywhere near the volume or freedom of information dumping as today. If you disagree then I suspect you have come to rely on the Internet as your source of truth and it's painful to have it questioned. The only thing painful here is how obtuse you're being about all this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Clearly the world before the Internet did not have anywhere near the volume or freedom of information dumping as today. If you disagree then I suspect you have come to rely on the Internet as your source of truth and it's painful to have it questioned. You also seem to be unable to distinguish a quantitative statement from a qualitative statement. Shall we chalk that up to religious indoctrination too? Hey, just get to your point that you pretend to know the truth and anyone that disagrees with you is going to burn in your imaginary hell. Then you can disappear again for a few months. ... If you disagree then I suspect you have come to rely on the Internet as your source of truth and it's painful to have it questioned. That's the OC we all have come to know...full of yourself and full of shit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Ergo in your world view there is no bases for your atheism. Who said anything about my world view? Who said I'm an atheist? You seem to like jumping to conclusions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Ordinary Clay was a troll when he hung around here some years ago. Now after all this time, he's back. Still trolling. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightcore Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Imagine being so upset by a book list you question the validity of the entire internet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Imagine being so upset by a book list you question the validity of the entire internet. And he doesn't even seem to understand what the internet actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 I sourced this from the internet. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/about-fallen-angels-6035839.msg1275575446.html#msg1275575446 . . . OrdinaryClay Posts: 4604 Re: About "Fallen Angels" « Reply #8 on: October 31, 2016, 08:34:08 AM » I'm convinced the UFO phenomenon is real. I in now way believe they are biological aliens from another planet. There is good evidence that the UFO phenomenon is demonic. It is absurd to think real aliens would make the monumental effort to travel interstellar distance to come to earth and play hide and seek. Here is an actual paper Jacques Valle published on the subject.http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_flyingobjects116.htm Here is a tie in to Aleister Crowley. Notice how incredibly similar Crowley's pictures (drawn long before the UFO craze) are to "greys".There is also a strong tie-in with L Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons, which ties the occult strongly to UFOshttp://www.boudillion.com/lam/lam.htm This link is one of the most telling, especially if you know who Alister Crowley was.http://www.excludedmiddle.com/LAMstatement.html Nick Redfern researched the Collins Elite(a government organisation tasked with studying the UFO phenomenon), which concluded a demonic source to UFOs.http://futurequake.com/Audio/FQShow231.mp3http://www.amazon.com/EVENTS-Government-Demonic-Afterlife-ebook/dp/B004URRYPS/ref=pd_sim_kstore_33 John Keel, Jacques Vallee and Nick Redfern are all non-Christians and all have written books making the case for UFOs as demonic manifestations. This is a very good book on UFO evidence in general.http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360392051&sr=8-1&keywords=leslie+kean The best explanation for the evidence we have is that these entities are demonic. 1) Actual biological aliens would be detectable through science and not simply through witness accounts. We would detect their communications and their propulsion. 2) The likelihood of true interstellar travel for biological entities is extremely remote and is simply science fiction. Interstellar space is extremely hostile to biology. The belief that technology can overcome this is fantasy. 3) It is absurd to think real aliens would make the monumental effort to travel interstellar distance sot come to earth and play hide and seek. Make no mistake. The UFO manifestation is a demonic deception. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 So we should rely on the internet as truth - at least, when it's about demons? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now