[killerB]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Right, I didn't realize only one person's meaning of the word truth mattered.

truth - Definitions from Dictionary.com
truth 
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.

BDA116's addition example + killerb's lighthearted reply = tailfeathers ruffled

[leelover]

Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 4me

That would be your "assumption" not "truth." I was just participating in another thread on a similar website and made this post...

Since there can be only one truth, the mere existence of religion dictates that there will be conflict as a result of different interpretations of the ultimate truth; man’s belief that their version of the truth is correct and therefore, those who believe otherwise are infidels or bound for an eternal lake of hellfire, etc.

good assessment, I believe!
So, should we all sing "Imagine" and believe in peace? Have the only conviction be that we should all get along with no real plan on how to do so?
When I was much younger I read something on Jihad, I had an "Imagine" attitude at that time, btw (well, close anyway). I remember thinking, "How can anyone be so committed as to kill in the name of religion? After all it isn't something anyone can prove right or wrong, at least here."
Lots of water under the bridge since then. I personally would not kill to spread my beliefs, that is not what Jesus Christ taught. (yes, I am one of those).
Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and The Crusaders don't share my view. I think the will pay for this for Eternity. I believe they used ignorance to spread their "hate" version of the Gospel.
From what I know (and my firsthand info is admittedly limited), Islam has a different view of making converts and dealing with "infidels".
So, how do you know? Are there just different views on things that can't be proven, or does right and wrong exist?

[Quick 26]

you are going to open a can of worms with the religion topic. the roman catholic did not kill for religion from what i can remember

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Quick 26

you are going to open a can of worms with the religion topic. the roman catholic did not kill for religion from what i can remember

I agree about the worms, I think that's what this forum is for.
Spanish Inquisition, etc., many more. Check it out on your own.

[Quick 26]

i was brought up catholic, but i prefer to visit other churches. i will have to do some research

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Quick 26

i was brought up catholic, but i prefer to visit other churches. i will have to do some research

Coming back and rereading this thread after a while.
I did not mean to say that all Catholics are deceived or evil. Neither do I think that it is right to "slam or bash" any religion. There are sincere people everywhere.
I, too, am doing some research. I am finding that many have "blood on their hands".
I started this thread because I have been reading alot of old threads in the religion forum. They have really great debates going on, facts and opinions, both being backed up with copious information. Good show all (well, at least most)! But, at some point it all comes down to what is BELIEVED to be true.
That's my premise (thanks to NavyDevilDoc, I now know I have one! I actually think I may have more than one, does that make me poly-premisoric? ), that what we believe to be true, in the non tangible, really comes down to faith.
Even if you are not "religious", I think you believe what you do by faith. If you are "scientific", I think at some level there is a "theory" involved. Yes, I know this theory is based on evidence, but faith is still employed.
So, evidence, . Is there evidence to prove something true or false? Do we all look at the evidence the same? I have seen alot of evidence in my life to "prove" to me the existence of a loving Creator. I also see plenty of evidence that the world seems to be an unfair place. We could probably expound on that for a LOOONG time.
So the conclusion I come to (long ago), is that there is no "argument" that is going to "win". No great debate is going to end with "Ok, you are proven to be true, lets all be______ now". Fill in the blank with the appropriate religion, or non-religion.
I believe each individual has to evaluate the motives of their own "heart". Are they "good"? As compared to what standard?

[seamus]

Originally Posted by leelover

I am just now begining to look into this. Do you say it's a joke because the "proof" is still based on faith?

I say it because my wife just completed a paper on knowledge management for her MBA.

After reading the articles she was assigned and going over the other research she was doing I realized two things:

Epistemologists are experts at wordsmithing an answer so you get no answer.
Epistemologists definitions of knowledge and information were simply circular definitions using the words to define themselves.

I realized I knew just as much by simply defining the words knowledge and management as I did after reading all that crap. For me, epistemology is now on par with phrenology as a science.

[Proto]

Avast, me hearties! What about the Pastafarins?


Comment: Sarah Carey: Gospel of spaghetti monster - Sunday Times - Times Online

[tuffy6969]

It's true if it has happened before. Otherwise, how can you prove it happened at all? Or....will EVER happen? That's when the faith kicks in.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by seamus

I say it because my wife just completed a paper on knowledge management for her MBA.

After reading the articles she was assigned and going over the other research she was doing I realized two things:

Epistemologists are experts at wordsmithing an answer so you get no answer.
Epistemologists definitions of knowledge and information were simply circular definitions using the words to define themselves.

I realized I knew just as much by simply defining the words knowledge and management as I did after reading all that crap. For me, epistemology is now on par with phrenology as a science.

Thanks for you reply, Seamus. I have pretty much come to the same conclusion, though I am not as articulate in descibing my sumation.
Congrats on your wife going for the MBA, Godspeed to her!

[seamus]

Originally Posted by leelover

Congrats on your wife going for the MBA, Godspeed to her!

Thank you, Sir. I will pass on your kind words and wishes.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Proto

Avast, me hearties! What about the Pastafarins?


Comment: Sarah Carey: Gospel of spaghetti monster - Sunday Times - Times Online

Interesting article. Faith allows for people to believe what they wish to.
Personally, I might not be to opposed to the FSM sect, I mean a nice Chianti, some crusty garlic bread, anti-pasto, we could really have some "fellowship"!
As far as the rest of Ms. Carey's assertions, what does the Bible itself say?
I know, you can't prove it's God's word...on and on, etc. But, what does IT say? Most of the things she points to are the designs or opinions of the Roman Catholic Church. Um, I do not agree that they are "God's voice on Earth". I have no problem with anyone who questions God or His word. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't.
BUT, if you question it why don't you go to the source yourself? There is NO excuse for not doing so. If any one can use the internet they have access to as much info as needed for just about anything! And if you can use the internet, you should be able to understand the Bible if you wish to. WHY are so many intelligent people satisfied with taking others word for what it says? So someone reads "a commentary" on the Bible and why it's this or that. Is there a literary work on Earth that cannot be taken out of context if someone has the agenda to do so?
So a lot of people claim the Bible is God's word (a lot of people have died for this belief), does that make it so? NO. But I would think it would make it a reason to check it out for yourself rather than take someone else's word for it. Seems to me that that act (taking someone else's word) has caused lots of problems in history.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by seamus

I say it because my wife just completed a paper on knowledge management for her MBA.

After reading the articles she was assigned and going over the other research she was doing I realized two things:

Epistemologists are experts at wordsmithing an answer so you get no answer.
Epistemologists definitions of knowledge and information were simply circular definitions using the words to define themselves.

I realized I knew just as much by simply defining the words knowledge and management as I did after reading all that crap. For me, epistemology is now on par with phrenology as a science.

You just haven't read any Objecitvist Epistemology yet.

[phobiaphobe]

Not my words, but food for thought:

"To introduce into one's consciousness any idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgement - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, and to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything."

[seamus]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Not my words, but food for thought:

"To introduce into one's consciousness any idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgement - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, and to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything."

I see a lot of posts around here that attempt that principle exactly.

[jhonda41]

Originally Posted by JBODIE

Fact: There is no true Truth, it is all belief because is two sides to everything.

there are three sides to everything, your side, my side... and the truth.


-jh

[Quick 26]

[leelover]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Not my words, but food for thought:

"To introduce into one's consciousness any idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgement - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, and to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything."

Where is that qoute from Phobe? Could you please post a paragraph or two in front of that one?

[phobiaphobe]

That's a chunk of an article written by Dr. Nathaniel Branden in 1962. He was sort of an Ayn Rand groupie at the time. I'll post some more of it when I get home tonight.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

That's a chunk of an article written by Dr. Nathaniel Branden in 1962. He was sort of an Ayn Rand groupie at the time. I'll post some more of it when I get home tonight.

I have done some google searching on Dr. Branden and Ayn Rand. Interesting stuff. I have heard these concepts and philosophies, didn't realize from whence they came. They still boil down to the same conclusion: theories and beliefs.
Maybe some are even true, but there is nothing to empower them. Look at the Rand/Branden conflict to see how well their philosophy worked in reality. Interesting that Dr. Branden states these ideas are popular among the young. Life has the tendency to knock the stuffing out of perfectly good concepts as time passes and experiences grow.

[BladeRider]

When was the first definitive writing that the earth was round?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by BladeRider

When was the first definitive writing that the earth was round?

[leelover]

Looking at this thread again I think it probably should have been titled "How do you identify Truth?" Because Truth obviously exists (IMO).
One post earlier alluded to this: The truth will set you free.
Any one know where it comes from? Is it valid? Does your perception of truth do this, if so please explain why.
One thing I will say, just because an organization calls itself the "Truth" does not make it so.