Back to the Start

[Mike D]

Can there be absolute truth or is everything relative?

Does truth have to be either one or the other? Also, isn't asking if everything is relative the same as asking if there is absolute relativity?

 

Why can't some truths be absolute and some truths be relative, or even a combination of both? For example if you say the glass as half full and I say the glass as half empty, which is the absolute truth? Aren't they both true yet relative based on our perspective?

[Guest MacGyver]

Wow.... This is the first time someone has well-defined Evil.

 

Well, since that is what evil is, then I claim that Judge in Indiana is evil since he is attempting to destroy those parents' religous freedoms that they desire to protect.

 

Jerry Falwell is evil because he wants to destroy my right to atheism.

So is Pat Robertson.

So is Fred Phelps. Heck, Fred Phelps wants to destroy MANY things that others desire to protect.

Pretty much any Christian who feels they must destroy anything that isn't Christian (think: gay rights and freedom from religion, plus more) is then evil.

 

Is that what evil really is? Something or someone that wishes to destroy what others wish to protect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I claim that evil is someone who hates good. The church is not good because i protect it. I protect it because it is good. I am of course claiming absolutes. The church, as described in the Bible anyway, is absolutely good and anyone seeking to destroy that is absolutely evil.

[Caretaker]

I claim that evil is someone who hates good.  The church is not good because i protect it.  I protect it because it is good.  I am of course claiming absolutes.  The church, as described in the Bible anyway, is absolutely good and anyone seeking to destroy that is absolutely evil.

What is good?

 

No, seriously... What is "good"? It isn't well-defined

[Ouroboros]

McGyver,

 

I’m talking your question seriously, and I made a decision yesterday to not rant or resort to name-calling in the discussions, so I'm serious about trying to have a discussion with you, so could you please answer me this...

 

What is truth?

When you say truth, what do you mean with truth?

How do you define truth?

 

Are you talking about absolute vs. relative truth in the Correspondence Theory, Coherence Theory or the Pragmatic Theory?

 

Do you reference the Independent, Immutable or Public Condition to be absolute or relative?

 

Do you suggest that the Independent Condition can be fulfilled with a belief, without being victim of a “wishful thinking fallacy”?

 

I would appreciate your response.

[NimbusBirdMgp]

MacGyver?

 

... You believe the Bible is Absolute and Truth. I don't. This is where my difference comes from. Far from that, in which that what protects Nature? It in itself to me is more Absolute and Truth. And I find Evil Religions being that which works against it.

 

... 'Prick' = (From this Dictonary) = * Any painful or stinging feeling or reflection. * = * An obnoxious person *

 

I Define it = As any person or that which we are expecting to be of another entity as a Deity or God, having a good reputation and doesn't actually work it out, but in the contrary ways at being an obnoxious Bully and a Coward. And in which results with us is this at being painful and \ or stinging at us. And this is what I see all the time.

[Mythra]

There's no relative truth in the Bible? What about the commandment of Sonny J

that says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

 

That's not a relative statement?

 

I've been thinking lately that I'd like to be raped....

[crazy-tiger]

I claim that evil is someone who hates good.  The church is not good because i protect it.  I protect it because it is good.  I am of course claiming absolutes.  The church, as described in the Bible anyway, is absolutely good and anyone seeking to destroy that is absolutely evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you heard of Pious Fraud?

 

It's an interesting subject, since it's all about the FAKED STUFF that got put in the Bible...

 

Of course, since there's a whole load of lies in the Bible, and nothing that is "absolutely" good could come from lies, that leaves you with the problem of an "absolutely" good church being "absolutely" impossible.

 

Now, since your "absolutely" good church doesn't exist, it's also impossible for anyone to be seeking to destroy it. (goodbye any "absolute" evil)

 

So, no "absolute" good, no "absolute" evil... What does that do to your claim of absolutes? Well, it leaves you defining good and evil on RELATIVE terms... What you, and any others, desire to protect is good, while anyone who want's to destroy it is evil...

 

This is what you said before, and you managed to get it right that time...

I call someone evil who desires to destroy what I desire to protect.

Good definition... It's the definition that everyone would agree with. (unless they have some really weird issues...)

 

Shame it means that, in the eyes of many, Christianity is evil. (it desires to destroy any other belief, and a lot of people will desire to protect those beliefs)

Now, you want to avoid any possibility of Christianity being "evil" so you will, once more, try to use absolutes despite the fact that they don't work.

 

 

Enjoy your "evil" religion...

[chefranden]

I claim that evil is someone who hates good.  The church is not good because i protect it.  I protect it because it is good.  I am of course claiming absolutes.  The church, as described in the Bible anyway, is absolutely good and anyone seeking to destroy that is absolutely evil.

 

I'm wondering why an organization that belongs to an all-powerful being needs protection.

[NimbusBirdMgp]

There's no relative truth in the Bible?  What about the commandment of Sonny J

that says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

 

That's not a relative statement?

 

I've been thinking lately that I'd like to be raped....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Everyone already knows this without the Bible. This is an instinct pretty much inall of us if we get the right orinentation with parents and other humans in this world and with ourselves. Man put this in the Bible, because it is those things that we all share. It doesn't come from a God or is special for being in the Bible. These rules are about us outside of it. The Bible only makes it more chauvinistic about directing it to and credited by the supposed xian God idea as if it was specially insprited by the 'God'. Which doesn't really exist. It is associated with ancient myths.

[chefranden]

There is so much that needs correction here and I know it is my duty to warn the evil people that are constantly blaspheming on this site that their words will condemn them.  But that won't convince anybody.  So let's start at the presuppositional level. 

 

Why do you need to warn us of blaspheming? God has made us as we are vessels of dishonnor bound for destruction. God has made birds for flying; do you need to warn them not to fly? If we were not reprobates we would be denying God's will. In fact we probably obey God's will better than you do, if only because it is easier to be a sinner than a saint. We don't have a choice. God has made us this way.

 

In addition, what would it gain us if we didn't piss on God? We have already been chosen for destruction. If that is not the case, then God will make us be christians sometime in the future and our present blasphemy will give us something to be ashamed about so that we may strike a proper pose before the Lord.

 

If you are going to be a Calvinist, at least be consistent.

[Guest MacGyver]

MacGyver,

 

I’m talking your question seriously, and I made a decision yesterday to not rant or resort to name-calling in the discussions, so I'm serious about trying to have a discussion with you, so could you please answer me this...

 

What is truth?

When you say truth, what do you mean with truth?

How do you define truth?

 

Are you talking about absolute vs. relative truth in the Correspondence Theory, Coherence Theory or the Pragmatic Theory?

 

Do you reference the Independent, Immutable or Public Condition to be absolute or relative?

 

Do you suggest that the Independent Condition can be fulfilled with a belief, without being victim of a “wishful thinking fallacy”?

 

I would appreciate your response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am having a hard time generally defining truth. I personally define truth as what God says and have faith that the Bible accurately represents that. I think the best way that I can explain the difference between absolute and relative truth would be this: Relative truth is right because one believes it. One believes in an Absolute truth because it is right. That reasoning is pretty circular but an Absolute truth has something to do with an extrapersonal standard. I am really having a hard time defining truth outside of citing the Bible. The presuppositional difference is really that I would cite truth as something outside of myself and the pagan would define it as something that is personally believed. I am going to post this and might have to come back and change it because I am having a hard time formulating my thoughts. Please point out any inconsistencies.

 

As to which theory of truth: I would put relative truth in the realm of pragmatic theory. Absolute truth would probably fit into the correspondence theory: x is true iff x corresponds to some fact; x is false iff x does not correspond to any fact. I would define the fact or facts as what is contained in the Word of God. I would most definitely reference the Independent condition for truth: truth is something independent of action or feeling or even presuppositions.

 

Again I am having a hard time generally defining truth. For the sake of argument I will just say that truth is the correct reference frame; there are many different reference frames but truth is the one closest to reality. This definitely can be picked apart, but citing that definition of truth: can there be a "right" way to view life? Is there a "right" set of moral standards?

 

Please tear apart my arguments. This is so much more fruitful than having to defend myself so thank you for actually engaging me. Please answer your own questions and let me know what you think about my responses. Know that I am just going as it comes to me and am still formulating my own views on these matters.

[Onyx]

In response to Mac,

Groanbark is a word that I coined. It means: people barking or hating things that are natural.

It's a insult word.

[spamandham]

I am having a hard time generally defining truth.  I personally define truth as what God says and have faith that the Bible accurately represents that.

 

So for you, truth is relative to your understanding of god's will. If god changes his mind, your truth changes. If your understanding of his will matures or changes for some other reason, your truth changes. That doesn't sound absolute to me.

 

It's funny how your "absolute" ethics mostly just happen to match those of the society you find yourself living in. (note that western ethics predate Christianity) To the extent they are different, it's because the apologists haven't had enough time to catch up with the sexual revolution.

 

You realize that Exodus 21, which is really just a continuation of god's direct commands to Moses presented in Exodus 20 (aka the 10 commandments), codifies the morailty of slavery? Isn't it convenient that god's absolute and unchanging will no longer promotes such an institution? The interpretation du jour now says slavery is evil, even though the book you claim as the messenger of his will says otherwise, and was always interpreted that way until the age of reason revealed humanism. Slavery is not merely permitted, it is depicted as "good" in your books. Do you agree that slavery is moral?

 

There is only one absolutly true statement (outside of definitions and pure mathematics) I am aware of that can not be proven false: "Something exists".

 

But morality and ethics are not statements that can be true or false, they are codes of conduct. You can argue whether a particular code is "good" or not, but it's nonsensicle to claim that "do not murder" is a true statement.

[BlueGiant]

<snip>

 

Blue Giant:

 

How is what I stand for blasphemous?  What is Team Awesome?  I don't know how a presupposition can be "one hell".  I have been looking around (shutting my mouth and listening won't really help me do anything on the internet) and I still don't understand what you, mean about me seeing the "truth value" of my statement.  I see where you're going with the relativity argument but I too do not know what "truth space" would be.  If I were to subscribe to your argument, I would say that God has a certain point of view, and that is the absolute.  You can look from wherever you want, but there is one right reference frame.  Spiritual law would be the correct reference frame: that you can see things in different ways, but there is a morally correct way to view things.  I am not sure how general understanding effects the cohesiveness of my statement, but please help me to find this general understanding.  I was just writing things off the top of my head.  I don't know how you knew that all I spend my time "listening to your average Sunday preacher, and "Christian" talk radio shows" and not "actually read for yourself." but you're looking from the wrong frame of reference.  I listen to my Pastor but formulate my own views and do my own reading and studying of the bible and works other than the Bible and I hate christian talk radio.  I am pretty sure that I am not a kid, but I don't mind being called it either and I would really have to know you to want to earn your respect.  Again, I am not attacking anyone, just stating fact as I see it.  I would also like to apologize that my lack of general understanding has again caused my post to be incohesive but I am just answering your post as I read it.

 

<more snippage>

 

 

Hoo-boy. Lot of stuff to answer, so please pardon me if I miss some questions. This is also a fairly quick, off the cuff reply, so bear with if explanation is a bit thin, an honor student like you shouldn't have a problem, though.

 

To me, what you stand for is a blasphemy, or could be construed as such at least, most of which would be traced to your rejection of the archetypes that I use (for convienence's sake, lets call them gods, though "abstraction layer" would be a better term), and thus would constitute a blasphemy, and who is the arbiter of whose blasphemy is bigger? (In other words, this is a rather trivial matter to argue about at the moment)

 

Some fight for good, some fight for evil, I fight for awesome. Any more and I'll have to teach you a secret handshake.

 

"...one hell of a..." as in "That roller-coaster is one hell of a ride!"

 

Start thinking a bit more in mathematical terms, number spaces and the like. Something similar. For truth value, look up fuzzy matching and discrete mathematics.

 

Nice assertion about your god's reference frame being the superior frame (though note that no frame would necessarially be incorrect, just differing in details), though something to argue would be nice, not much to debate there, as this will degenerate into another "who's got the bigger dick" sort of discussion, and I'd really hate to have to make another horse cry (that's a joke, son). Is there an objective way to determine the correct frame of reference, outside of a very biased work, with lousy credentials?

 

Your discourse has marks of misunderstandings brought about by misinformation (intentional or otherwise) that is propigated through typically evangelical and fundamentalist media, this would include a conservative pastor and Christian talk. You set up a false dillema in your initial post that is a halmark of that type of environment. While you may "think for yourself" your environment has tainted your method of writing.

 

Online I have a tendency to call people "kid" due to how long I've been around ("When I was yer age we had a command line and we liked it! And when we killed a process you could hear it die!" sort of thing). Many adults on the internet become kids, I have found, and mostly exactly in the way that I hate (I have my reasons. It is best left at that). This has resulted in me calling many people kid regardless of age, creed, gender, or what have you, just based on general maturity.

 

You're getting bombarded, and are getting frazzled, I can see that in your writing. There is a lot to respond to and only so many hours in a day, and you are only human, I'd probably be the same way. So, relax. Take a deep breath. Take some time. Get a bagel and come back with some new arguments. Asshole statements asside (see other thread), you're kind of growing on me. Now if it is like a fungus remains to be seen, kid.

[Ouroboros]

MacGyver,

 

If find these kind of conversation really interesting and engaging, and unfortunately I don't have time to dispute any arguments tonight, but with this posting I just let you know I will come back with a rebuttal within a day or two.

 

H

[NimbusBirdMgp]

  God has made us as we are vessels of dishonnor bound for destruction.  God has made birds for flying; do you need to warn them not to fly?  If we were not reprobates we would be denying God's will.  In fact we probably obey God's will better than you do, if only because it is easier to be a sinner than a saint. We don't have a choice.  God has made us this way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"God has made birds for flying; do you need to warn them not to fly?"

 

... Did you ever read my mind? I have had this as thoughts many times for myself. More maybe like... "Why is it that Birds don't have a Bible? And if they did, I assume it would have a passage in it like... " ** chirp ~ clah ~ clah ~ Don't be anxious to fly in this life, but wait to have your spiritual flying in the afterlife. For that which is aesthetically pleasing now only fools the human race into such spiritual matters as it tries to be obnoxious with the human conflicts. So that the meaning of this present life is only futile and vane. ~ chirp ~ clah ~ clah ** " Ever see a Bird go ... in their expressions?

 

(I'm also a Bird Brain and as Birdsmakgenp in other forums.)

[white_raven23]

There is something I don't understand: how can a pagan expect to convert a Christian by argument or vice versa?  When two people are starting from different presuppositions, there is no way to arrive at the same place. 

 

 

Just because it is the Christian "way" to try and convert the masses, I suppose it's easy for one of them to assume other belief systems are trying to do the same thing.

 

Mac, no one here is trying to influence anyone elses belief systems. Even in debate, while people can get heated about exchanging points of view, that's all it is. We're all still athiests, pagans, deists, and even christians at the end of the day.

 

We don't buy conversion, so why would we impose it on others? Even you Mac, we don't want to convert you into anything you don't want to be.

However, none of us are big fans of ignorance. Ignorance causes great harm and little good.

If you want to be a christan, fine.....we just want you to be an informed christian. YOU need to know your religion. Not based on what someone else has told you about it, and not someone elses spiritual reflections.

 

If you're going to have faith....don't settle for the leftover-meatloaf-glow supplied by others. Experience your religion for yourself. Read the bible, and apply your own point of view. And when I say read the bible, I mean the parts that haven't been covered in bible groups or sermons (there are plenty....come on). Form your own feelings about the religion you've chosen to follow. Be actively spiritual. Don't just be another nodding head on a bench. Create your own relationship with god.

 

Otherwise you'll just sound like all the other xtian-clones who come here with the same tired mantras.

[Ouroboros]

white_raven23,

 

You're making such a good point, so I wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

I remember as xian, I only would read xian literature and nothing else. Everyone was warned from now and then to read books, or see movies that would take your faith away. So you would be scared to read anything that could contradict your belief.

 

It wasn’t until I started to read opposite opinions that I could get the whole truth. It’s funny that xians claim they have the truth. But how can you have the truth when you only study one side of the subject. It’s like saying you know everything about how to play basketball, but you only practice how to play defense. You need all facts before you have the truth.

[Zach]

Can there be absolute truth or is everything relative?  And how does relative truth work: how does one imagine a universe where there is no absolute rule?  Doesn't science tell us about laws of nature?  How can there be no spiritual law governing the universe?  Isn't it true that when someone claims something to be true to themselves they are in fact declaring their own truth to be absolute? 

 

A statement is true if it correponds to reality. If I say, "There is an apple on my desk," that statement is true if and only if there is actually an apple on my desk. Science does not provide absolute truth; it attempts to inductively explain reality. The idea of a "spiritual" law is unintelligible; it presupposes a coherent definition of "spirit", which has not been provided.

[Vulgaris Prime]

I refuse to be wrong, so someone please correct me!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Best. Quote. EVAR.

 

The telling nature of this is infinite.

[Ouroboros]

I refuse to be wrong, so someone please correct me!

 

Best. Quote. EVAR.

 

The telling nature of this is infinite.

 

Agree. The definition of paradox, contradiction and conflict.

 

It's ok if you don't like to be wrong, and let others correct you.

 

But to say that you already have the state of mind of not being corrected, and then asking for correction...

 

[Ouroboros]

Right you are, Zoe.