News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Just got banned from Christian Forums

Started by St Truth, September 22, 2017, 09:53:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 12:43:56 PM
Truth is that which is true. The quality of being true. Or, in case you want to know what 'true' is, truth is that which accords with fact and reality. I'll give an illustration. This statement is true: 'The September 11 terrorist attack happened before I was born.' This can be verified by looking at my birth documents, checking with my parents, checking with the priest who baptised me, looking at the records in the hospital where I was born. Truth is verifiable with evidence or in some instances (for example some truths in astrophysics) by reason and calculations.

I know you don't want to discuss philosophy, but you are LARPing Plato or Aristotle, like most people do here.  I don't see you coming here to discuss religion, but that is fine.  You are here to discuss atheism, and there are some fine atheists here.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:03:57 PM
Try going on a Mormon website and shouting down Brigham Young.
It's easy to shout down a dead man...
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 12:57:17 PM
Confirmation bias and group think ;-)  I would agree, as long as no humans are involved.

I know what he's going to say. That the human senses can't be depended upon and so observation by humans don't mean anything. William Lane Craig does that too when he realises he has no way out. Hindu priests and all the 'mystical' religions love to do this. You can't depend on your senses. So, just trust the holy man. But what's the point of listening to the holy man if your senses aren't reliable. You may be hearing something else. Somehow, your senses will become reliable when you listen to what the holy man says.  Haha.

Baruch

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 01:07:11 PM
I know what he's going to say. That the human senses can't be depended upon and so observation by humans don't mean anything. William Lane Craig does that too when he realises he has no way out. Hindu priests and all the 'mystical' religions love to do this. You can't depend on your senses. So, just trust the holy man. But what's the point of listening to the holy man if your senses aren't reliable. You may be hearing something else. Somehow, your senses will become reliable when you listen to what the holy man says.  Haha.

Not quite ... reliability isn't a property of human beings, under any conditions.  Doesn't matter if they are using their senses, doing a deduction from axioms, or brushing their teeth.  You are correct that some definitions of mysticism, and revelation, rationalize that there is info beyond the senses.  And even Plato says that.  Aristotle says the same things, almost ... but he was a biologist, but Plato was a mathematician.  Logicians and mathematicians are constantly in an ivory tower.  Theologians do better, they levitate ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 12:43:56 PM
Truth is that which is true. The quality of being true. Or, in case you want to know what 'true' is, truth is that which accords with fact and reality. I'll give an illustration. This statement is true: 'The September 11 terrorist attack happened before I was born.' This can be verified by looking at my birth documents, checking with my parents, checking with the priest who baptised me, looking at the records in the hospital where I was born. Truth is verifiable with evidence or in some instances (for example some truths in astrophysics) by reason and calculations.
Okay--so truth and facts are the same for you.  Right? Same as for trdsf.  And I can go along with that.

The 'truth' you are referring to is objective.  I agree that that is so.  Another type of 'truth' could be something I'll call 'personal truth', for lack of a better word.  My personal truth is that it is bad to mistreat animals.  Or to practice spousal abuse.  But then, I guess these could be called values, as well.  So, actually, the way you use truth could have 'facts'  substituted for  'truth' and all your statements would still be accurate.  The same could be said for my use of personal truth--one could substitute 'value' and be accurate.  So, why not just drop 'truth' in each instance--would that not make our statements more clear?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:05:46 PM
I know you don't want to discuss philosophy, but you are LARPing Plato or Aristotle, like most people do here.  I don't see you coming here to discuss religion, but that is fine.  You are here to discuss atheism, and there are some fine atheists here.


I am a sensible and rational man. I can only discuss in a rational way. Since religion is irrational and (as you yourself SEEM to indicate because you never say anything clearly which is very wise because that way, nobody can refute what you say because it's too hazy), religion can't be discussed with reason, I won't discuss it. I really am unable to discuss in any way that is not rational.

I have illustrated in another thread where you posted something why philosophy can be a silly game. As I have said many times before, most respectable philosophers don't believe in God or any imaginary beings. But philosophy affords the means for even a believer in pixies to construct a framework that will make a belief in leprechauns or pixies logical. You just meddle with the premises. I said that some time ago and today, I saw a post of yours which clearly illustrated what I said about coming up with nonsensical premises. I replied to that post.

Ultimately, I don't want to play games. To say that philosophy justifies God's existence is as silly as saying quantum physics supports a belief in God (which some people in CF do). You are not a philosopher. Most of today's philosophers don't believe in God. You are doing precisely what the non-physicists do when they try to justify God with quantum physics. The fact is like philosophers who are mainly atheists, so are physicists. I attended a talk given by Lawrence Krauss when a Christian asked some silly question about God's existence in the light of quantum physics. What a stupid thing to do with Lawrence Krauss. Krauss didn't spare the guy for a second. He basically chewed the guy's head off and spat it out.

What you propose to do with philosophy is precisely what that guy wanted to do with physics. But most people here aren't philosophers and neither are you. But the world's best philosophers are atheists. So what does that tell you?

It's really pathetic that religionists  have to resort to fields that they aren't experts in but the real experts don't accept God. Don't talk to a teenager about philosophy. Talk to the real philosophers who are almost all atheists.  I would say the same thing to people in CF who try to talk God into quantum physics. They aren't even physicists but they after reading some Christian article by non-physicists, they think they've nailed it. I always ask them to talk to the real physicists who are all atheists.

Baruch

#186
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2017, 01:13:03 PM
Okay--so truth and facts are the same for you.  Right? Same as for trdsf.  And I can go along with that.

The 'truth' you are referring to is objective.  I agree that that is so.  Another type of 'truth' could be something I'll call 'personal truth', for lack of a better word.  My personal truth is that it is bad to mistreat animals.  Or to practice spousal abuse.  But then, I guess these could be called values, as well.  So, actually, the way you use truth could have 'facts'  substituted for  'truth' and all your statements would still be accurate.  The same could be said for my use of personal truth--one could substitute 'value' and be accurate.  So, why not just drop 'truth' in each instance--would that not make our statements more clear?

MikeCL - Yes, don't call facts other than facts ... truth implies a lot of philosophy, which nobody agrees on.  This is a problem with English, and other forms of Newspeak.

St Truth ... "reasonable" ... is a rhetorical claim.  It is about power, status and politics, not about epistemology.  Same as "truth".  You aren't making a statement about reality, but making a claim about yourself.  Rhetorically speaking, I am not playing games, and I don't see anyone else doing that either.  I am relating to a young man, interesting person, who is young enough to be my grandson.  A person to person relationship thru the magic of the Internet.  That is what is wonderful, though I am glad for the technology too.  And if you want to be a logician some day (Bertrand Russell) then good for you.  But that subject is even dryer than maths .. but more power to you ;-)

Have you read "Logic: A Very Short Introduction"?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:23:19 PM
Yes, don't call facts other than facts ... truth implies a lot of philosophy, which nobody agrees on.  This is a problem with English, and other forms of Newspeak.
I agree.  Maybe St. Truth should call himself St. Fact.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

St Truth

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2017, 01:13:03 PM
Okay--so truth and facts are the same for you.  Right? Same as for trdsf.  And I can go along with that.

The 'truth' you are referring to is objective.  I agree that that is so.  Another type of 'truth' could be something I'll call 'personal truth', for lack of a better word.  My personal truth is that it is bad to mistreat animals.  Or to practice spousal abuse.  But then, I guess these could be called values, as well.  So, actually, the way you use truth could have 'facts'  substituted for  'truth' and all your statements would still be accurate.  The same could be said for my use of personal truth--one could substitute 'value' and be accurate.  So, why not just drop 'truth' in each instance--would that not make our statements more clear?

It's mere semantics. 'It's bad to ill-treat animals' is, to me, an opinion. If you say ill-treating cows will make them unable to produce milk and that will harm the dairy industry, that can be true if there is evidence that milk production is affected by ill treatment. Our main interest is the existence of God. This is NOT an opinion. It's either true or false.  Yes, I can see what you mean by using 'fact' instead. Existence of God is either a fact or a fallacy. That must be objective. Either God exists or he does not.

Baruch

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 01:30:24 PM
It's mere semantics. 'It's bad to ill-treat animals' is, to me, an opinion. If you say ill-treating cows will make them unable to produce milk and that will harm the dairy industry, that can be true if there is evidence that milk production is affected by ill treatment. Our main interest is the existence of God. This is NOT an opinion. It's either true or false.  Yes, I can see what you mean by using 'fact' instead. Existence of God is either a fact or a fallacy. That must be objective. Either God exists or he does not.

I can't agree.  Writing consists of lexical analysis (symbols), syntactic analysis (logic), pragmatic analysis (rhetoric) and semantic analysis (philosophy).  Semantics is where all the interesting things are, for me.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:23:19 PM
who is young enough to be my grandson. 

If you were my grandpa, I would pummel you with questions until you tell me what reason (if any) you have to believe in God. And I won't let you stray away into millions of other topics which you invariably do.

But since I am St Truth, I have to tell the truth. No, I would not do that with my real grandpa. I have tried. He told me it was inappropriate to talk about religion. My other grandpa doesn't believe in God although he goes to church on holy days.

But the fact is I find your evasion extremely frustrating. You told me you only came to religion as an adult. I would never go to religion when I'm an adult if I hadn't been brought up in a religion. I'm very sure something happened. Something emotional. It's impossible to go to religion by rational means. The rational part comes later when we try to justify our religion. But the actual going into religion is entirely an affair of the heart.  You have to suspend your thoughts  to believe in God in the first place. I'm very sure I'm right. That is why nobody who is religious ever wants to explain how he first became a believer.

St Truth

If a person explains why he first believed in God, his explanation is sure to sound silly to anyone hearing it. Because one believes in God for no reason and when one recounts this first belief, it's sure to sound crazy to people around. I'm sure I'm right.

Mike Cl

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 01:30:24 PM
It's mere semantics. 'It's bad to ill-treat animals' is, to me, an opinion. If you say ill-treating cows will make them unable to produce milk and that will harm the dairy industry, that can be true if there is evidence that milk production is affected by ill treatment. Our main interest is the existence of God. This is NOT an opinion. It's either true or false.  Yes, I can see what you mean by using 'fact' instead. Existence of God is either a fact or a fallacy. That must be objective. Either God exists or he does not.
Yes, ill-treatment of animals is an opinion.  But I elevate that opinion (for myself) to a personal truth or value.  If I were to mistreat an animal it would damage me, as well as the animal.  I do not expect anyone else (but I would like that everyone would) to hold that particular value, but it is a truth for me.  And using the word 'value' for truth makes my statement clearer.

In you cow example, by substituting 'fact' for 'truth' your statement becomes clearer.  I think 'truth' is a much more emotionally loaded word.  And unless you wanted to talk religion or philosophy I think 'fact' allows one to make a clearer statement of what one means.

When discussing god(s), I think fact would work better in that god(s) issues truths and not facts.  When talking about the existence of god(s) we are really saying it is a fact god does not exist--not that god is true or untrue.  God's existence is, as you said, either a fact or not.  Truth, when issued from god, is not objective, but subjective, because each hearer hears what they want to.  Whether or not god is in existence is objective--fact or not.  When talking 'truth' there is almost always at least a little philosophy or religion included. 

So--St. Fact, what do you think???? :))
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 01:44:29 PM
If you were my grandpa, I would pummel you with questions until you tell me what reason (if any) you have to believe in God. And I won't let you stray away into millions of other topics which you invariably do.

But since I am St Truth, I have to tell the truth. No, I would not do that with my real grandpa. I have tried. He told me it was inappropriate to talk about religion. My other grandpa doesn't believe in God although he goes to church on holy days.

But the fact is I find your evasion extremely frustrating. You told me you only came to religion as an adult. I would never go to religion when I'm an adult if I hadn't been brought up in a religion. I'm very sure something happened. Something emotional. It's impossible to go to religion by rational means. The rational part comes later when we try to justify our religion. But the actual going into religion is entirely an affair of the heart.  You have to suspend your thoughts  to believe in God in the first place. I'm very sure I'm right. That is why nobody who is religious ever wants to explain how he first became a believer.

But why would it matter?  Are you in self doubt?  What purpose would an answer serve for you ... particularly if you framed the axioms and method of deduction ... you are just begging for self affirmation.  When you have more self confidence, you won't need anyone's affirmation.  And if I were your grandpa, I would be very proud of your growing up, and support you, for being you, not for what you believe.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

St Truth

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2017, 01:47:34 PM
Truth, when issued from god, is not objective, but subjective, because each hearer hears what they want to. 

I cannot accept that. We must be very careful when we ascribe 'truth' to an imaginary being because religionists are desperate people and they will seize your words and insist that you have admitted that God is real. That's my experience in CF. There is no truth or falsehood issued from God unless we can first establish the fact that God exists.