Guest end3 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss issues or do you want just open up discussions for cheap punches? I'm not in it for cheap punches.....I don't like when people immediately crap on my thoughts.....witch seems to be the objective here. You remember Hans.....an admittedly bias site. I really don't understand how we as people raised relatively the same can be so different in ideology. I think it is motivated by emotions rather than facts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer. Living in fact is not exactly limiting of imagination, only what imaginative ideas can be proven into facts once they come into existence by hypothesis. Sounds rather sterile to me K. In other words, you don't want to discuss the issues or your question but just get a chance to yell "I don't like it!" Your question is interesting, but your attitude forces me to leave the topic. And let's look at his comment. How many times can you name that life happened despite your ability to factually define it. I see this statement as discounting those times or even those fantasies that bring value to life by disinfecting them away like cleaning a countertop. It IS sterile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss issues or do you want just open up discussions for cheap punches? I'm not in it for cheap punches.....I don't like when people immediately crap on my thoughts.....witch seems to be the objective here. End you come to a ex Christian forum and you insist on sharing your Christian religion and your Christian inspired thinking. What do you expect people to do about that? In my opinion the disagreements are rather friendly considering the tactics you use. You could alway agree to not talk about religion and move on to other topics where this kind of conflict doesn't exsit. You remember Hans.....an admittedly bias site. I really don't understand how we as people raised relatively the same can be so different in ideology. I think it is motivated by emotions rather than facts.... Oh? Do tell us what facts you base that thinking upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss issues or do you want just open up discussions for cheap punches? I'm not in it for cheap punches.....I don't like when people immediately crap on my thoughts.....witch seems to be the objective here. End you come to a ex Christian forum and you insist on sharing your Christian religion and youre Christian inspired thinking. What do you expect people to do about that? In my opinion the disagreements are rather friendly considering the tactics you use. You could alway agree to not talk about religion and move on to other topics where this kind of conflict doesn't exsit. You remember Hans.....an admittedly bias site. I really don't understand how we as people raised relatively the same can be so different in ideology. I think it is motivated by emotions rather than facts.... Oh? Do tell us what facts you base that thinking upon. I'm just continually amazed at people such as yourself that pretend they have some factual reservoir large enough to define life and then doggedly fly that in the face of reality. I guess it makes sense that someone who would believe the former would live the latter. I've asked you before to please leave me alone MM. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deconverted Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 end3, you seem pretty cryptic about what exactly you believe about this topic and as a new member here, I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this topic and then we can all discuss it better I think. I assume you must have a history on this site and most maybe understand where you are coming from better than I do, but when you make a statement like the one you just made about being amazed that people have a factual reservoir large enough to define life and then doggedly fly in the face of reality, I have no idea what you mean or what you are referring too. Can you please be less cryptic and explain? Back to the topic...as we discuss the idea of truth and why people can't agree on it, it seems fairly straight forward to me. I assume that most people can at least agree that there is absolute truth...meaning truth isn't relative. For example, the truth of the matter is that Barrack Obama is currently the president of the united states. Some people who've been living in a cave may believe that the truth is that someone else is the president, but there is only one truth about this, regardless what certain people believe. We all may not see the truth or know it, but there is only one. Is this line of reasoning faulty? Are people actually arguing for relative truth? When it comes down to the real issue here (the bottom line for most people on this website and our Christian counterparts), this real issue is whether or not God exists. Either he does or he doesn't. Just because I don't think the God of the bible exists (I can't say 100% for sure of course) doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I am simply putting my best guess forward, based on what I know, reason, and see in reality. I assume people like end3 are posting here trying in some round about way to make us ex-christians "think" more about the issue and he is maybe trying to convince us that his god really does exists. He is probably frustrated that we can't all agree on this (as I used to be)? What I don't understand is, since my de-conversion, most of my Christian friends are really hung up on the idea that I have made some "choice" to not believe, and that as humans we all have to make some sort of choice. They say my agnostic views are the choice of non-belief by default. I try to tell them I am not making any positive or negative choices here, or any affirmations, on whether or not God exists. I am simply saying that my reason and the reality I see tells me that the god of the Bible most likely doesn't exist. I can't say for sure, as I simply don't know. My Christian friends hate this and tell me I am making some sort of active choice. The bottom line is, none of us were there at "creation"...whatever that "creation" was. We are all guessing. Some are more sure of their guess than others and make bold truth claims, but I simply cannot go that far, in either direction. Why is it that I have to make a choice one way or the other? Why can't I just say "I don't know"? I realize the Bible talks about unbelievers in pretty negative ways, but I don't really have anything to reject as a choice...anymore than any of us "choose" to not believe in Santa Clause or the Easter bunny. End3, do you think I am actually making a choice to disbelieve in the god of the bible? It just seems like the most reasonable thing to believe (that god doesn't exist), but I really have no way of knowing for sure. If he does exist, he surely seems to be hidding and causing massive confusion! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer. It's not limiting. I can still imagine unicorns, I just don't believe in them, because I don't limit my beliefs based on a single book. I look at reality as it exists on its own with and or without me, and that's how my beliefs about it are formed. Sure, I see it through my perception. Though the mere fact that I can read and understand what you are writing, confirms that there is something there. Sure, I could just be a brain in the matrix, and maybe no one but me exists, but as far as I know, this is what is, an its what I have to work with. In science, agreement of truth isn't hard to attain, if you have the evidence to back up your claims to survive the endless scrutiny. Even Isaac Newton's theories are still being tested, and the guy's been dead for hundreds of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectrox Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 If you really are looking for truth, End, and not just looking for affirmation about what you have decided to believe then you'll find precious little of it in the Bible. People here have gained some personal enlightenment from it and thoroughly digested it but it's a philosophical cul-de-sac. Today, the best ways of homing in on the truth of any claim are the scientific method, logic and reasoned argument. This comes from an understanding of reality - not an assertion of an out-dated, dodgy authority. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss issues or do you want just open up discussions for cheap punches? I'm not in it for cheap punches.....I don't like when people immediately crap on my thoughts.....witch seems to be the objective here. You remember Hans.....an admittedly bias site. I really don't understand how we as people raised relatively the same can be so different in ideology. I think it is motivated by emotions rather than facts.... Well, I won't crap on your thoughts, End. As I said in my response to your OP, I think you've asked an excellent question - one that has the potential to illuminate just why folks don't agree, even when they share the same upbringing, the same education, have the same access to the facts, the same this, the same that, etc., etc. And Yes, I totally agree with you that this lack of agreement stems from the emotions, not the intellect. I covered this (sort of) when I wrote this... ...it's so hard to reach agreement on the Truth because there will always be those who want it to conform to what they WANT. They cannot and will not accept any evidence that contradicts their inner models of what they think the truth SHOULD be. That's why I began by talking about personal agendas and vested interests. Some people will always serve their agendas and their interests, even if it means denying the evidence of their own eyes and ears. What we WANT the Truth to be springs from our emotions. Though we apprehend reality thru our senses and use our intellects to make sense of it, deep down each of us harbors a whole raft of emotionally-driven biases, preferences and taboos. Imho, these are the root cause of our disagreements with others. Your thoughts? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss issues or do you want just open up discussions for cheap punches? I'm not in it for cheap punches.....I don't like when people immediately crap on my thoughts.....witch seems to be the objective here. You remember Hans.....an admittedly bias site. I really don't understand how we as people raised relatively the same can be so different in ideology. I think it is motivated by emotions rather than facts.... Actually, I'm not sure we all are raised the same. My childhood experience is probably very, very different from yours. Secondly, are we driven more by emotions than facts, absolutely. I think there are some studied showing that we're not as rational as we think we are. But it doesn't mean that when we do attempt to figure out a truth that we do it in a rational (cold), reasonable, logical way, for the simple reason that if truth is truth, then truth will stay truth and not changing with mood or feelings. Truth shouldn't be what you decide it to be, but what you found out it to be. Truth should be about discovery, not creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Florduh got this right in the first response. There's objective truths and subjective ones. Conflating the 2 only creates confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Dear End, Since I can't message you privately and because I'm keen to hear your thoughts on this subject, I can only hope that you'll respond to this. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 End, lately you've been writing stuff that makes me feel so sad for you. I really want you to consider this: You're saying that a fact-driven, objective reality is sterile. Why? What do you base that on? Now that people have told you that they use that objective reality as a touchstone and don't feel like it's sterile at all, have you re-assessed your guess, or do you still cling to it because you simply must? You're trying to conflate subjective philosophical cravings with objective, verifiable truth and reality. It doesn't work that way. Reality, truth, these things are true no matter who is doing the measuring. Truth makes predictions that come out the way we expect. Truth can be tested and re-tested and will always give the same response. Truth doesn't care if you "believe" it or not. But since your religion is not true by any objective measure, because its predictions do not in any way bear fruit in reality, because its claims are dependent almost completely on whether or not the person measuring them is a believer (and to what extent and belonging to what denomination), it is not the real truth. The problem is that most people already agree on what the truth is. Most of us know that reality is not subject to interpretation, belief, desire, or fear. It's only people subscribing to Judeo-Christian religions who seem to have a different idea. For example: answering prayers YES is a promise in the Bible. If God were real and Christianity were the real faith, then every time you prayed, you would get what you wanted--as indeed God promised half-a-dozen times in the NT. As we've discussed before, the yes/no/maybe thing is a construct made up recently by fundagelicals desperate to rationalize why God doesn't at all do what he promised. You're promised miracles like Jesus did--you're told you can handle snakes, that you can move mountains, that you can resurrect the dead, that you can heal amputated limbs. But you already know that's not true. That is a false prediction. You've brought this topic up enough, End, that I wonder why you seem so bothered by the idea that reality is objective. I don't think you're being honest... AGAIN.... with why you're bringing it up now. You always have an agenda, and you always hate it when we don't play along with the script you want for us. That we don't buy your Christian pablum bullshit doesn't make us "persecuting." When you're honest, we usually be honest right back with you. But you're not honest, and your arguments are only persuasive to someone who's bought the same lies you have. I really feel for someone like you, stuck in a faith that forces you to contort your intelligence like this. When reality is subject to your whims and beliefs, things get really complicated fast. If you go with reality being objective, though, things get really simple. Which is why science goes with objectivity and not witch-doctor rituals, alchemy, New Age drum circles, and astrology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Probably a myriad of things, but intuitively I wouldn't think it should be this hard for mutual parties to agree on "truth". Hey End! In my opinion, the problem arises here mostly because of a mismatch between the meaning of "truth" and the meaning of "agreement". I hope I can explain what I mean here. From a study of mathematics, I've learned that truth is not the simple thing that some people may think it is. For example, in the category of sets the set 2={true, false} is often employed. With it we may specify, for instance, a subset of another set. However, in the category of graphs an entirely different object is used to specify a subgraph of a given graph. But this is not the main point I wish to make here. I am fairly well convinced that when people agree with each other, they don't agree about "truth" per se. Rather, they agree about understanding. When parties have common understanding, then they agree. Missed ya buddy. I hope you're keeping yourself sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Belief and truth are two different things. Being a christian trains one to believe that belief is a "fact", and therefore a "truth", and christians continue to act like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Belief and truth are two different things. I agree with you Galien, and many philosophers agree with you too. In fact, many of them define knowledge as being a justified true belief. And I have even seen this represented as... premises -- justification--> conclusions or as justification: premises --> conclusions Strangely enough though, the very notion of justification has come into question. I think we live in very uncertain times in many ways. It seems that we cannot trust the words of others, and many of our ancient texts which were once held sacred are no longer thought trustworthy. It seems a deep and empty skepticism has pervaded the people. Doubt abounds. It seems to me that people attempt to cope with this skepticism in many ways. As for myself, I have looked to nature. For it seems to me that, though I may ask the wrong questions or am capable of misinterpreting nature, it does not lie. Many scientists have also had the same inclination. But today, even within the sciences, there is unrest. And here I wish to once again quote my hero biologist. "It may be that the question "What is life?" is hard because we do not yet know enough. But it is at least equally possible that we simply do not properly understand what we already know." - Robert Rosen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Edited because I had nothing new to add. "What is truth?" was my post, and someone beat me to it. I really should read all of these threads before I respond, but still, what is truth? Maybe "we" would be closer to agreement on what truth is if we first eliminated what truth isn't. Faith isn't truth, it is faith. Science in and of itself isn't truth, it is an ever changing field of discovery. Belief isn't truth, it is belief. Empirical evidence might be truth, but only so far as we humans duplicating in a laboratory what can be understood and duplicated with what is available to us right now. Maybe there is no true truth at all, and we all have to make up our own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts