What you believe to be true is a belief... what is true is what truth is...

Truth is a concrete actuality... What the actual reality of the the concept of "Deity" is.... either there is or is not a "Deity" And that truth is what we are talking about the defence of the cocrete actuality that there is or is not...

Just cause we cannot fully comprehend the intricies of that truth, and just because you can contest it with what you believe to be truth, would not change the reality of what that truth is.

Everything we have been discussing is a matter of presenting the best information around us in defense of said truth... I understand your perspective that what anyone presents as truth can easily be corrupted by what they believe to be true... rather than what truth really is... but then that wouldn't be truth, that would be a belief...

Those serious about finding what really is truth live with that dillema... pushing aside personal conviction or experience and delving into the reality of the world around us and the evidence that exists to point us toward that concrete absolute, with as little bias as possible - emotionally or otherwise.

Now, is that possible? IMHO, not really... and that is why I enjoy pursueing other opinions, such as SciFlys... as it allows me to see a perspective of truth with a bias in a direction different than mine, which is the result of many different experiences he has had, other than mine... This gives me the ability to see a different perspective of the understanding of the "Truth" and whether or not, based on the evidence presented, that it is consistent with the reality around me and with the nature of the world and mankind.

Understandibly, this post can go on forever.... and most probably will end up locked... But, some good points were presented on both sides... there is just not the real ability to discuss these types of topics appropriately in a forum such as this... and the instant gratification world of online postings doesn't really allow for the in depth research and comparison based perspectives that make these discussions truely fruitful and full of more than just "Pure-Beliefs", but thought out and presented observations of the reality around us and how that impacts what perspective matches up to truth and what doesn't.

 

Oh, that is classic. If you think for one moment your attack on me effects me in any way except humorous...you're sadly mistaken. Quackery is your form of humor? Yet you fail to even recognize my sarcastic post....

Lets see, you accuse me of deceivinig you....and I respond by saying you're a dolt while poiinting out the sarcasim and that allows you then go this route. Typical...

Spamming? Blathering? Have you seen some of the topics you create just to see yourself type?

I take the dolt back. You're simply lost!

Oh, and if you recall...we had this same discussion when you created the "Selfish is Good" thread....

 

^^^^^ Like how I ignore the side issues ^^^^^

LOL - I just keep treading on topic... La-De-Da....

Tim the peacemaker watches as it goes

D
O
W
N

T
H
E

H
O
L
E

Thanks for the good discussion while it lasted.... sorry to say I got it right about discussing these matters in forums...

SciFly - Much Respect!

 

The point where threads go down the tube is when folks stop talking about ideas and start insulting each other.

It doesn't matter whether you are the first person to cross that line or not.

If you lack the maturity to keep the discussion to the ideas and instead rise to the bait of a personal attack you are just as guilty as the attacker.

We'd all be much better off if personal attacks are ignored. The attacker is already marking himself as antisocial by his attack. Why lower yourself to his level?

 

Absolutely gentlemen.

Obviously, where Scifly completely missed my sarcasim is because several posts earlier...Scifly stated he actually listened to him. Obviously he did not do this or he would have known Ravi is not an athiest.

Now, I figured he already seen the site and if he listened to the first few minutes....I'm thinking he would have known. No need to respond Scifly...

peace guys

 

Nah... I think I was right in the other post as well....

Even your earler post regarding the flyingspaghettimonster is solely more evidence that discussions like this don't really work too well in this kind of forum...

I agree fully with SciFly and Still share much respect for his ideas... this is just not really the place to adequately discuss them...

The two individuals who really were having the discussion are pretty much on the same page regarding the ability to discuss much further... so a lock isn't too bad....

 

Oh yeah....gets to this point every time. You called it.

Nothin but love for my Scion family



Peace guys and have a wonderful Thanksgiving

 

another way to say it is "if you experience it, it's the truth, the same thing "believed" is a lie". that "concrete" thing you talk about is the experience of the truth. if you experience a deity that deity is real. imo, you are god in your universe, you caused it. you pretend not to have caused it so you can play in it. i mean no blasphemy.

you can remember you caused it anytime you want to. or i may have it all wrong, you decide.

 

I think that when you start putting things in the category of either it is or it is not, you limit possibilities and that creates another issue. I personlly feel more comfortable with being able to say there is a possibility of this or that or maybe some other possibility, and not to simply say it is either this or that. If you can't say for sure if it is this or that then whatever you choose to go with cannot be anything more than your belief. Who can say for certain one religion is right or wrong? Who can say for certian that there is an afterlife? No matter what we do in this world, these remain unanswered. I think that if you can accurately say something is either or, or neither nor, then you cannot limit your thinking to what it is only as we know it, without exploring other possibilities too.

I see have yet to see anything that would make me believe that everything is not based on a belief. Just because something appears one way doesn't mean it can't be another or that is the only possibility. Reality and truth, two very interesting concepts. Here something to think about.....You can believe that if you punch me I wouldn't punch you back, I can believe that if you punch me I would punch you back, but if it actually does happen whose to say which will happen? If I did punch you back then at the moment my belief would be true. But very well the next time it happens I might not do anything and your belief would be true. Or I could just right hand slap you and neither of us were right. The point is at either point in time one or the other could be true but they could both be true or untrue. Whose to say that couldn't be a possibility with religion?

I'm only saying this to say that there are obviously some things that are not concrete actualities especially when it comes to human thinking and knowledge. And just because there are some good arguments for them, that doesn't validate them as concrete or actuality. There are plenty of things that our beyond our scope of understanding, doesn't necessiarly make them false, and it doesn't necessairly make them true either. Religion could possibly be a combination of both, some truths, some untruths, and exist as both at the same time.

 

"i'm not here....it's all you".

hard to get i know. what that means in a nutshell is that you have an experience of being somewhere and look for an explanation of how that can be. how can you be? you look outside of yourself for an explanation. you are because you are. you are because you chose to be. there is no magic. you will always be and we have all known it forever.

 

Your saying you don't believe the truth? I don't have to experience something in order for it to be true. According to what others have said on here, either something is true or not.....if that be the case then I don't have to experience something for it to be true, either it is true or not and I could have guessed it was true, but that doesn't take away the fact that it is true.

 

that is exactly what i am saying. no, what i'm saying is the truth is individual. my truth isn't necessarily your truth. i don't believe there is a universal truth outside of your belief in it.

 

is that for you, or everyone.....the truth is something we can't believe in or you just don't believe in the truth?

 

I do not speak of experience when I speak of truth, I speak of what reality points toward... and the idea that there is a concrete absolute that must be accounted for... not based upon individual experience, as I believe that said experience taints one's perspective of truth itself.... but the pursuit of truth outside of individual experiences and addressed as the reality of what all specific evidence points toward... The unfortunate reality is that there is more to rationally point toward the idea of a deity, than to show that a diety does not exist... Atheism falters on the point in this quote in my opinion and forces my hand toward a belief revolving around deity

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

I also do not speak that I have that concrete truth fully understood or isolated from any other perseptions of what another beliefs that truth to be... That is why I respect and try to comprehend and troubleshoot other perspectives... but, even if I have it totally wrong and my perseption of the truth is incorrect, it doesn't stop the truth from being the truth.... and me wanting to pursue it...

 

i don't mean to be cryptic. i am saying the truth is experienced individually. my truth may not be your truth. let's say you believe in ghosts or a god or flying broomsticks. you have seen them. you know they exist. they aren't true for me til i see one, although i might believe in them, just like any other myth or quaint story. don't call them truth though.

 

That is all I'm striving for too....and in the process trying to weed out the untruths in as much as that is or may be possible.

 

Well I been saying that all along.....check out my previous post.

 

you are a thoughtful person. there is no reason for you to concern yourself that i or anyone other than you (same thing), are "saved" except for a concern that we haven't done enough to ensure it. trust me, you are fine in that regard. what if god told you exactly what it was you were to do, you would be happy doing it, no matter what it was, right?. what you are doing is what god wants you to do....be happy.

done deal.

 

On the matter of personal attacks: the amusement comes when
the "did you even read you dolt" guy twists around and fogivees me? for attacking him in the first place
???



And this is a laough, how the patter runs and thengs are generalized and faulty logics prevail and the choir sings to itself in soured notes the beautiful Ave Maria to drive the louts like me away.

Did you know some people even think that eating the heart fo their dead makes them stronger? Hooooo reminds of the original Christian's ritual with props instead of real flesh. What's the difference?


There is no circularity of logic running in me. No justiffications of anything other than a plus b = c
extended only so far as physical world tests do repeatedly prove and show, such as.. "why the sky is blue" stuff. All keyed by science.

No matter what direct question a secular person were to pose, the reply from ScionDad will go off on great, sweeping tangents, include personal aspersions and fill a page with links to some ego tripping sheep herder (sic) Ravi
oli

Q: Are homosexual men immoral in God's eyes?

 

A: no

If we can't decide for ourselves what is good or bad, how are we supposed to infer what god thinks?

there is to much cryptic nonsense in this thread. (I'm guilty as well)