Truth doesn't need to be defended...

[NaykidApe]

only spoken.

Therefore any religion that needs to be defended couldn't possibly be the truth.

(My 2 cents)

[Autentique]

It's like Nietzsche said, "there are no facts only interpretations".. that's why everyone is defending their own truth.
But I lnow what you mean.. you dont have to defend that the sky is blue, because it is.

[Burbot]

well how do we KNOW the sky is blue, or can we ever KNOW it--do we just accept it as "blue" for our own simplicity

[NaykidApe]

It's like Nietzsche said, "there are no facts only interpretations".. that's why everyone is defending their own truth.
But I lnow what you mean.. you dont have to defend that the sky is blue, because it is.

Good anology Autenique. But I don't know if everyone's defending their own truth. I think alot of people are defending their decision to stop seeking their own truth and just accepting someone else's version of "truth".

[NaykidApe]

but sometimes the sky is grey, or blackStill, if you're walking around on a cloudy day and someone says "the sky is blue" you don't have to defend the fact that's it's actually grey at the moment. All you have to do is point up.

If the other person won't look, it's not like the sky will suddenly turn blue.

The other person can call the sky whatever colour they want and it'll still be grey, and you don't really lose anything by letting them think so (hey, you tryed to make them look. It's not like what you see will cease to be true just because the other person won't look at it).

[NaykidApe]

well how do we KNOW the sky is blue, or can we ever KNOW it--do we just accept it as "blue" for our own simplicity

We accept it as blue because to whatever extent our senses allow us to percieve it, it looks blue.

It's "truth" in as far as we can percieve truth in this matter.

[SaintStephen]

I like Descartes philosophy: I think therefore I am. Perceptions are not always constant. The only thing provable to be real is your own existance.

Whats really awesome is that if you doubt your own existance, just the manifestation of doubt requires thought which proves your existance.

[Autentique]

I dont think there's one big truth.. if there is.. it would be that every moment has its own truth.. what i believe to be true yesterday, could be a lie today.

[Burbot]

all environment is changing/changable, so truths and facts can change

[SaintStephen]

but by definition a truth and a fact DONT change.

[Autentique]

you need to remember that there is no absolute truth. Everything is relative.

[TrippinBTM]

I like Descartes philosophy: I think therefore I am. Perceptions are not always constant. The only thing provable to be real is your own existance.

Whats really awesome is that if you doubt your own existance, just the manifestation of doubt requires thought which proves your existance.I think he had it partially right. The part that thinks (and therefore is), is the ego-self. If you doubt the ego, the thought of that doubt is the ego doubting itself, which clearly proves it exists.

However, the ego is an illusion. Illusions exist, true, but they are not real.

but by definition a truth and a fact DONT change.truth and fact do change, because they are relative. Especially fact. It used to be a truth that the earth was the middle of the universe, and was backed up with facts like the sun going around it, and the planets. The facts changed when we discovered more things (telescopes, gravity, etc). Facts are not unchanging or set in stone. Truth is similar, it is sort of like the overall understanding, encapsulating all the facts we know into a coherent whole. But as the facts change, so too does the truth (since our truths are based on our preceptions and understanding...which change constantly). What is truth to me may not be truth to another, because he has a wider understanding.

Consider this example. We've agreed that the sky is blue, that this is the truth of the matter. However, to a honey bee, it would look much different because they see a different color range than we do (shifted into UV, I think, so they instead of red, they see yellow...i think). Does that mean that to say the sky is blue is untruthful?

[Autentique]

i know im getting out of subject but i have to say it :p

we are only free when we let our ego go.

[stoney69]

only spoken.

Therefore any religion that needs to be defended couldn't possibly be the truth.

(My 2 cents)
judgemental 2 cents note, could be so close to it!

[nitemarehippygirl]

truth and fact do change, because they are relative. Especially fact. It used to be a truth that the earth was the middle of the universe, and was backed up with facts like the sun going around it, and the planets. The facts changed when we discovered more things (telescopes, gravity, etc). Facts are not unchanging or set in stone. Truth is similar, it is sort of like the overall understanding, encapsulating all the facts we know into a coherent whole. But as the facts change, so too does the truth (since our truths are based on our preceptions and understanding...which change constantly). What is truth to me may not be truth to another, because he has a wider understanding. no, that was never a truth, then.

the truth is the truth whether or not we know it. it was never 'fact' that the sun was moving around the sun; that was merely belief. how was it fact, other than that it was widely believed? facts do not change, but beliefs do. you say that truth only consists of what we currently believe; it is presumptuous to think that we have any bearing on what truth is. when humans believed that the sun moved around the earth, it was never truth that the sun moved around the earth. the truth remains regardless of our beliefs.

Consider this example. We've agreed that the sky is blue, that this is the truth of the matter. However, to a honey bee, it would look much different because they see a different color range than we do (shifted into UV, I think, so they instead of red, they see yellow...i think). Does that mean that to say the sky is blue is untruthful?no! :D

when we say, "the sky is blue", what we mean is,
"the sky is blue. [disclaimer: items refer to the human eye unless otherwise specified.]"

because blue is simply a term to describe the human eye's perception of the wavelength of light, saying "the sky is blue" is true.


love,

[nitemarehippygirl]

[Truth doesn't need to be defended] ..only spoken.

Therefore any religion that needs to be defended couldn't possibly be the truth.

(My 2 cents)truth doesn't need to be defended or spoken of to be truth - we have nothing to do with truth's continued existence as such.

if some religion happens to be truth, and the ignorant among us who do not recognize the rightness of it & attack it, then can't the religious defend their religion? of course; whether or not they defend it doesn't change the fact that it's truth, but maybe if they do, they can help us to understand.

along with the sky analogy..
if some of us think the sun moves around the earth, & some of us think the earth moves around the sun: if the latter is true, and the sun-movers attack the earth-mover's beliefs, they can defend themselves and their belief is still true.

but when you cannot defend yourself (which is what i think you were meaning to say), then your belief is stuck on the fence between truth and untruth. if you cannot defend yourself, your belief may still be truth (as we have nothing to do with what is true) though you have nothing to say about it.

what do we know?

[nitemarehippygirl]

you need to remember that there is no absolute truth. though everything we experience as humans we experience subjectively, it doesn't mean that there is no objective experience. why do you claim there is no absolute truth? you seem to claim too much when we know so little.

[TrippinBTM]

no, that was never a truth, then.

the truth is the truth whether or not we know it. it was never 'fact' that the sun was moving around the sun; that was merely belief. how was it fact, other than that it was widely believed? facts do not change, but beliefs do. you say that truth only consists of what we currently believe; it is presumptuous to think that we have any bearing on what truth is. when humans believed that the sun moved around the earth, it was never truth that the sun moved around the earth. the truth remains regardless of our beliefs.
But it was the truth to those people living then; they did not have the wider understanding we do now. It WAS a fact that the sun went around the earth, any fool could watch it do so! You can't apply modern understanding to ancient beliefs, because that is a biased, modernist interpretation. To those people, it was the truth. Their religions and philosophies reflected that.

I think you're getting too abstract, saying the truth exists regardless of the fact that no one knows it. How can it exist, when even the idea of it doesn't exist? As far as those people, with their smaller range of understanding, that truth did not exist.

Remember that idea that the world is an illusion, made up entirely of our perceptions? Well, that's true, 100%. That's not to say some real, objective world doesn't exist on it's own (not really on it's own, as we're integrally a part of it)...but all we ever know is our perceptions.

maybe we should define our terms, because I'm, as I write this rebuttal, starting to agree. I've always thought facts were relative, but is the "truth" equivalant to objective reality? Or is it sort of the sum total of our factual understanding worked into a worldview?



when we say, "the sky is blue", what we mean is,
"the sky is blue. [disclaimer: items refer to the human eye unless otherwise specified.]"
Alright, but no one really considers that when they say it. We are limited by our perceptions, and until recently didn't even know about how bees see colors. We figured the sky really WAS blue. And generally, even knowing about light refraction and such, still insist that, yes, the sky is blue. That is all we've ever seen it to be (minus sunrises/sets). We don't care about how a bee sees it. It is a human truth: the sky is blue.

[krin]

the objective truth always exists,just by definition,even if reality is solely based on subjectivity and is different for everyone,then thats the objective truth.
there is no absolute truth...except that truth
and thats ok,who says contraditions dont work

"i think therefore i am" is a flawed statement.to make it flawless you'd have to change it to:
"there is something,therefore,there is something."
we dont know if "I" exists,or "thought" exists.
All that can be said is that ...sOmEtHiNg.... is goin' down,or went down,or is down,who knows,but something.
So yes you can doubt your own existance,but not existance of something.

and "nothing" exists by definition because it doesnt exist,get it?
theres is ALWAYS nothing,and there is ALWAYS something
the paradox is ultimate my friends

[Autentique]

along with the sky analogy..
if some of us think the sun moves around the earth, & some of us think the earth moves around the sun: if the latter is true, and the sun-movers attack the earth-mover's beliefs, they can defend themselves and their belief is still true.


what do we know?
But this is a proccess that's gonna go on forever, things we believe to be the truth now on the future will be discard as misconceptions. So what can you say with absolute certainty that is true. I will say nothing.

[NaykidApe]

truth doesn't need to be defended or spoken of to be truth - we have nothing to do with truth's continued existence as such.

if some religion happens to be truth, and the ignorant among us who do not recognize the rightness of it & attack it, then can't the religious defend their religion? of course; whether or not they defend it doesn't change the fact that it's truth, but maybe if they do, they can help us to understand.

along with the sky analogy..
if some of us think the sun moves around the earth, & some of us think the earth moves around the sun: if the latter is true, and the sun-movers attack the earth-mover's beliefs, they can defend themselves and their belief is still true.

but when you cannot defend yourself (which is what i think you were meaning to say), then your belief is stuck on the fence between truth and untruth. if you cannot defend yourself, your belief may still be truth (as we have nothing to do with what is true) though you have nothing to say about it.

what do we know?
Well, no. What I'm saying is any truth that needs to be defended couldn't possibly be the truth.

If you believe in something you can try to convey that belief to someone else but if your own belief is contegent on them accepting it as truth than you never really believed it yourself. Only rationalisations need concencus therefore only rationalisations need to be defended.

you have the option of defending your beliefs, but if you need to defend them your own faith is in question.

[Shane99X]

.

[SaintStephen]

The only two things that are true are math and the fact that I exist. Everything else is not neccesarily provable and therefore possibly untrue.

Please tell me a truth that does not have to do with math or my existance.

[MollyBloom]

The only two things that are true are math and the fact that I exist. Everything else is not neccesarily provable and therefore possibly untrue.

.
Not able to be proved in what sense? God cannot be empirically proved. So that means God doesn't exist? I can't "prove" love, but we all admit that love, (and hatred) exist.

[NaykidApe]

the objective truth always exists,just by definition,even if reality is solely based on subjectivity and is different for everyone,then thats the objective truth.
there is no absolute truth...except that truth
and thats ok,who says contraditions dont work

"i think therefore i am" is a flawed statement.to make it flawless you'd have to change it to:
"there is something,therefore,there is something."
we dont know if "I" exists,or "thought" exists.
All that can be said is that ...sOmEtHiNg.... is goin' down,or went down,or is down,who knows,but something.
So yes you can doubt your own existance,but not existance of something.

and "nothing" exists by definition because it doesnt exist,get it?
theres is ALWAYS nothing,and there is ALWAYS something
the paradox is ultimate my friends
I agree Krin. Our perceptions and conceptions are limited by our finite ability to perceive/conceive, and our ability to communicate our perceptions/conceptions is further limited by our finite ability to communicate, so how can we presume to impose those limits on what might be an infinite universe?

Anytime we try to use finite language to define something infinite we wind up with a paradox.

[Talk Show Host]

What the hell do you mean by 'needs', Naykid?

I'll get into it with you, if you're willing to go all the way from the very beginning.

[NaykidApe]

What the hell do you mean by 'needs', Naykid?

I'll get into it with you, if you're willing to go all the way from the very beginning.
If, when someone challenges your belief system, you feel compelled to change their mind, rather than speaking your peace and letting it go, than your belief isn't real.

Not to say that whatever belief system you claim to be subscibing to isn't legit, just saying you don't really belive it.

what you're really defending is your own denial.

[TrippinBTM]

^I'd agree with that. People who so vehemently defend their position usually sound like they're trying to convince themselves rather than me.

[Autentique]

I agree too.

[krin]

i would agree that this is the case SOME of the time,but come now,let us not generalize.
you dont think there are simply really arrogant/egotistical people who completely believe themselves and get satisfaction by making everyone else agree with them,or at least fucking with thier head a bit
also think on scales of automatic reactions,the person's doubt of thier own belief may be completely nonexistant until it meets opposition,and they have an instinctive reaction to enter a debate and re-evaluation phase because of sort of inter-personal insecurity.
i guess u could brainstorm for each person in existance,we all have pretty different variables.
belief can crumble and resolidify many times,i see people as flexible things,they constantly flux and change,including personality traits and such
and uh...so forth

[stoney69]

but why are them believers put in a position by the secure (non-believers) individuals to defend or even talk about what's their's (belief's) ..aren't they supposed to be personal ? unless, your agenda is to genuinely research or hidden agenda to ridicule ...

is the act of callin their faith's far from truth or the state they're in as denial actually feedin into the insecurities of the supposedly secure lot ?

[NaykidApe]

i would agree that this is the case SOME of the time,but come now,let us not generalize.
you dont think there are simply really arrogant/egotistical people who completely believe themselves and get satisfaction by making everyone else agree with them,or at least fucking with thier head a bit
also think on scales of automatic reactions,the person's doubt of thier own belief may be completely nonexistant until it meets opposition,and they have an instinctive reaction to enter a debate and re-evaluation phase because of sort of inter-personal insecurity.
i guess u could brainstorm for each person in existance,we all have pretty different variables.
belief can crumble and resolidify many times,i see people as flexible things,they constantly flux and change,including personality traits and such
and uh...so forth

Yes but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: If someone has a beleif (an opinion) even if that belief is based on truth, when they defend it they're not really defending that truth, just their opinion which happens to be based on that truth.

If someone calls me an orangataun, and I feel compelled to convince him that I'm human, I'm not defending my humanity--that's allready a given--I'm defending my pride.

By the same token if someone attacks my belief system it isn't like the existance of whatever it is I believe in is in jeapordy and contingent on my winning the argument.

If I chose to argue, which, as you said, is a human reaction, more often than not I'm just defending my pride or reacting out of fear that my own belief (not the thing my belief is baased on) is contingent on my winning the argument.

Now, it's possible that someone who engages in debate over what he beleives in has as his motive a desire to share that belief with the person he's debating, but my opinion is that if the proponent of that belief is arguing from a position of hostility his motives are something other than this.

Hostility is an indication of fear, not faith.

[NaykidApe]

but why are them believers put in a position by the secure (non-believers) individuals to defend or even talk about what's their's (belief's) ..aren't they supposed to be personal ? unless, your agenda is to genuinely research or hidden agenda to ridicule ...

is the act of callin their faith's far from truth or the state they're in as denial actually feedin into the insecurities of the supposedly secure lot ?

Most times they put themselves in that position. again, if someone calls me an orangataun he hasn't put me in a position of having to prove I'm human. IF I coose to try to do so, that's my choice.


For instance; if someone read this thread and for whatever reason took it as an attack on their beliefs it would be a strong indication of lack of faith on their own part.

Taken at face value it should be obvious that this thread isn't meant as an attack on any particular belief or even religion/ beleif systems in general, it's a critigue on the way some self professed proponents of any beleif system conduct themselves.

[Mr MiGu]

the sky is not blue

its black, with small white polka dots

[NaykidApe]

I would never try to debate a man with an arm growing out of his face.