LOL.This makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Printable View
LOL.This makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
And that is why the world is the way it is...people fighting over who is right in something that cannot be proven. People can have their own truth that is different from anothers, and both be just as true. If you honestly think about it....what harm truly falls when you allow others that freedom without judging through ones own limitted sight? And what harm falls when we don't give others that freedom? Even if your answer falls along the lines of having the responsibility to "save" others from their wrong... isnt that slightly obvious of the limitted sight to think that one knows all enough to make such a judgement? I still stand by what I said... there is room for both. The contradictions may appear to us in that way now...but wont forever.
we can all gaze upon an apple and each of us see a different shade. We can each watch a movie and extract a different message. We can each read the same book and gain something completely different that we can apply to our lives and make us better people. Personal truths are the very same. Just because they differ doesn't mean one is right and ine is wrong.
truth exists but if you brag about how you know it, you're far from it.
I think truth is a clearer term, it's reality that I think is not defined. One's view of their own reality is their own relative truth, I suppose?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
There are many questions which can be answered differently and each answer will be correct.
Respectfully I disagree. They both exist. There is reality and there is truth and lack of truth. Then aside from truth there is the concept of being true which is up to you, eg., are you "true" to your wife? (This may not be how you meant the word "true" but I will use it this way to make my point) If your vows to your wife leads her to expect you to be true to her by not fornicating with other women and you actually do then the objective truth is that you weren't "true" to her. Then if you go to her and tell her "Baby, I've been true to you." You would not be telling the truth. Truth like reality is a discernable thing that exists objectively. Let's say that if you exist then you are "real" and then it would be the truth to say that you are real. So there you have both reality and truth. Expressing your argument during the voir dire of a jury panel may be a good way to quickly get excluded from a jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
"I think, therefore I exist" -- Rene Descartes. The only thing we know for certain is that we exist. That is the truth. Anything else is subject to misinterpretation, opinion, viewpoint, and indoctrination.
To say that there is no truth is an absolute statement. It is one thing to say that you believe there is no truth, and another thing entirely to say there is no truth.
Without truth, I'd rather die. I would be frightened out of my mind to live in a world where no one believes in it. What you get is moral relativity, where no opinion or belief is better than any other, and only the strong survive. Forget the lame, mentally deficient, women, and children. They would suffer and face death in such a world.
to go with this one would think one lives a complicated juxtaposed life.Quote:
Originally Posted by papillondemai
one is what he or she is and depending on time and experience on may go on changing because that is the nature of man.Quote:
Then aside from truth there is the concept of being true which is up to you,
he or she is up beat and continuously changing. so I would say there is not true but what there is, is circumstantial.
yes up to a point. if she does not ask then she won't get an answer, meaning if she has not asked are you having an affair then she won't know whether you are telling here the truth or not. in her eyes you are with her and not with others too. therefore the way you are addressing her is simply a delusion, a different reality you are in from hers.Quote:
eg., are you "true" to your wife? (This may not be how you meant the word "true" but I will use it this way to make my point) If your vows to your wife leads her to expect you to be true to her by not fornicating with other women and you actually do then the objective truth is that you weren't "true" to her. Then if you go to her and tell her "Baby, I've been true to you." You would not be telling the truth.
for the concept of 'true' to be, both parties must ensure that their circumstances are equal and if when they are then there is no need for truth. truth is to counterbalance of wrong but when it does it is no longer wrong. and so it is a catch 22. in this case the wife does not know but the husband does and therefore she is not being lied because she does not know.
two conflicting thoughts.
I would say that I am real because I exist. and not the other way. a reality would not be with an existence concept.Quote:
Truth like reality is a discernable thing that exists objectively. Let's say that if you exist then you are "real"
I respectfully disagree. I have a reality. truth is circumstantial and therefore prone to dissolving as soon as a circumstance is in accordance with the latter.Quote:
and then it would be the truth to say that you are real. So there you have both reality and truth.
interesting. I have never come across a 'voirdire' until now. one is tempted to say it is 'seesay' which means one relies on witness in order to say. hence the 'voir'. but wihout a witness there is no juries. and without a jury there is no saying and without saying there is no judging.Quote:
Expressing your argument during the voir dire of a jury panel may be a good way to quickly get excluded from a jury.
so to express an argument I am not sure I understand. do you mean a jury is in conflict with an other jury about what the opinion is?
that is not the truth that is reality. there is reality because we exist and not the other way. take reality out of the man and the man does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by NedSiegel
the other way round does not work. take the existence out of reality which one can because one dies but does reality goes on existing yes. it does because there is one reality 'that someone has passed away'. this reality is known/confirmed by another existence.
another way:
I think therefore I say.
I say therefore I exist.
I exist therefore I am.
one has to say it first in order to confirm it and in order to confirm it one has to hear it.
to think is silent.
to say is active.
No they were not, physical reality was there, but laws of physics are models, and as with model airplanes they do not exist before someone designs them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Shaw
interesting because one thing about physics is that word law that I find almost dictating if not lecturing.Quote:
Hard to say, but probably truth: for instance, the laws of physics were there/true before we started to discover them, ...
there is no law what there is intention. in other words what is intended is defended.
physics is a collective studies of makes the universe ticks and how it draws upon to stick. in other words physics needs its mathematics to join one line to another without it it means nothing. space is everything and maths is its it. the first time I went to a physics class I thought boredom draw itself to wind me up.
and I so exited from it as quick as I saw it. never looked back.
and so and as mal4mac says we did not discover physics we made it up. the truth is somewhere in between and the need to catch it by all means necessary is what physics does. it is to justify something that is already established a long time ago. time is the biggest rival to physics you can understand why I exited it so not to offend time. time is money physics is economically duped.
ok well here is a question:Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
do you know better then god?
and if not then why not because you should.
that is to me a question with an answer that provides a reason for it to be asked.
here I did not tell the truth or lied I asked a question and to which the answer is the reason.
there is no wrong or right what there is a purpose a reason.
I'm a little confused about what you are asking.
Atheist doctors certainly don't forget the lame or mentally deficient. I don't go about strong-arming the lame, mentally deficient, women, or children. I don't know an atheist who does! You don't need an absolute standard of morality to encourage people to behave decently to each other; you don't need a big sky-daddy, or a guy in a funny hat in Rome, laying down the law. We can make our own laws, and have done so in many countries (not perfectly, absolutely, well, but "very well" in liberal, secular, democracies.)Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
Most atheists are kind people and care for others. I perfectly acknowledge that. But if someone doesn't have an absolute reason why they should be selfless, they're not obligated to care for the sick and dying and the most vulnerable. That doesn't mean people wouldn't do so without a reason anyway, but what's stopping someone from throwing their mom suffering from dementia in a nursing home when they no longer want to take care of her and they have the money to do so? What answer will they have to face? Why should they take care of her if they're sick and tired of her? Because it's the "nice" thing to do? Try convincing someone with that answer.
So what? As long as the doctor does his job I'm happy. I don't need to imagine that there's a sky-god with a big stick ready to smite him if he does something naughty. There are enough social & professional reasons for the doctor to be a good doctor. Are the health services collapsing under the weight of atheist neglect? There's no evidence for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
Some would argue otherwise...
Most of you should consider what a thread is about before you open your mouth. This thread is about whether or not there is truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Oh, come on - Fetal Bovine Serum is extracted from bovine fetuses; Horse Serum is extracted from horses, and Calf serum is extracted from calves. If truth didn't exist, where the heck would we have gotten truth serum from?
You're right. Sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
On what evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
Relax. He isn't the Old Testament God, even if his tone leans that way. A thread isn't a straight and narrow path; let it meander where it will. If you want it to meander back to the original question, then please do that by subtle means, not by shaking a big stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop