Twist on Voltaire

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is the prime example of 'my religion is the TRUE religion, my god is the TRUE god and ALL other religions obviously worship other gods so THEY are FALSE religion while my religion is the only TRUE religion' so everything said in that religion is objective not subjective.

It's an example of what I said about scientists, they have the right to be wron ...[text shortened]... gy, not a real science. Computer science, ok, evolution science, not science, it gets in my way.

It has already been demonstrated that the so-call evolution science is a belief and therefore a religion.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has already been demonstrated that the so-call evolution science is a belief and therefore a religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjz-33M-bt8

Philosophical question:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

In a similar vain:

'If a youtube clip was lost in the forest and you were not able to see it, would you still have an opinion?'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Philosophical question:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

In a similar vain:

'If a youtube clip was lost in the forest and you were not able to see it, would you still have an opinion?'

I do not see a need to answer ridiculous and irrelevant questions. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not see a need to answer ridiculous and irrelevant questions. 😏

But you have a penchant for the ridiculous.

Originally posted by FMF
If not through discovery and debate, how else can "an objective standard of Truth" be obtained and agreed upon? I don't see how one has any chance of identifying something as being "objective" unless there is some effort to reach consensus and acceptance. It is not enough for someone with your beliefs to simply declare them to be "The Truth" when you are then unable to convince people that they are anything other than your "subjective" assertions.

"Objective" truth means nothing.

Everyone must discover their own truth.

Now in most cases, involving the natural world, it's easy to see the truth and this truth is testable and verifiable. So it's easy to see the papers and to evaluate the work and judge it on its merits.

But in the supernatural world, knowledge expansion takes a different form, and must use a very different medium. This is where faith comes in. Most people do not test their faith, they do not question it, as it seemingly either is, or is not. But early on in one's travels of faith, it gets tested, through no effort of one's own, usually. This is why every person of faith has their own testimony, and this testimony, while not certifiable proof to others, as in the realm of the natural world, is it still a truth which verifies that person's faith. Even those whose faith has already been tested and found true can find additional support for their own faith in the faith of others, in this way.

Thus, in the natural world, where science reigns supreme as a measure of truth, so in the supernatural world does faith reign supreme as a measure of truth. The truth of science is often obvious and requires no "work" to believe. It is an "external" truth. The truth of faith is often not obvious to others, and in the case of others, some "work" is required to find the truth of the testimony if it is not a "personal" or "internal" truth.

And yes, "external" truths DO need to be agreed upon, but "internal" truths do not. They are true to the owner of the testimony regardless of how many others believe it too. The ONLY reason one needs to submit "proof" to others is when one is attempting to make one's "internal" truth into an "external" truth. But faith also allows one to "take away" a portion of truth from others' "internal" truths.

But then again, some people aren't going to believe ANYthing beyond external truths or their own internal truth dialogue. They just don't have enough faith to allow anyone else's testimony.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Objective" truth means nothing.

Everyone must discover their own truth.

Now in most cases, involving the natural world, it's easy to see the truth and this truth is testable and verifiable. So it's easy to see the papers and to evaluate the work and judge it on its merits.

But in the supernatural world, knowledge expansion takes a different form, ...[text shortened]... wn internal truth dialogue. They just don't have enough faith to allow anyone else's testimony.

You are so close to William James in what you say that he is worth quoting a little here. He argues in a famous essay that, for many aspects of our life, we are obliged to have faith in something or to believe in it prior to any possibility of knowing the "truth" of the matter. Among his examples is sport, where the person achieving great feats does so by believing in something that does not yet exist and might never exist. He applies the same thinking to religion and suggests not only that, in the absence of faith / belief. we will never have access to the experience it offers, but also argues that having religious belief leads to experiences and actions that would not otherwise be available to us.

“In truths dependent on our personal action, then, faith based on desire is certainly a lawful and possibly an indispensable thing.”
― William James, The Will to Believe, Human Immortality, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

“Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact.”
― William James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

“A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned.”
― William James, The Will to Believe, Human Immortality, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

“Our faith is faith in some one else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case. Our belief in truth itself, for instance, that there is a truth, and that our minds and it are made for each other,--what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire, in which our social system backs us up? We want to have a truth; we want to believe that our experiments and studies and discussions must put us in a continually better and better position towards it; and on this line we agree to fight out our thinking lives.”
― William James, The Will to Believe, Human Immortality, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

“Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?”
― William James, The Will to Believe, Human Immortality, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

“Since belief is measured by action, he who forbids us to believe religion to be true, necessarily also forbids us to act as we should if we did believe it to be true. The whole defence of religious faith hinges upon action. If the action required or inspired by the religious hypothesis is in no way different from that dictated by the naturalistic hypothesis, then religious faith is a pure superfluity, better pruned away, and controversy about its legitimacy is a piece of idle trifling, unworthy of serious minds. I myself believe, of course, that the religious hypothesis gives to the world an expression which specifically determines our reactions, and makes them in a large part unlike what they might be on a purely naturalistic scheme of belief.”
― William James, The Will to Believe, Human Immortality, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

I disagree with William James as he argues in this collection of essays but his views and yours overlap and are at least worth discussion.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
But you have a penchant for the ridiculous.

I was unaware that I had such an ability to answer ridiculous questions. I must be better than I thought. 😏

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Objective" truth means nothing.

It's interesting that you choose to take it up with me rather than josephw. He refers to his own beliefs as The "objective" Truth all the time, while I have never once referred to my opinions and beliefs in such a way.

Originally posted by Suzianne

And yes, "external" truths DO need to be agreed upon, but "internal" truths do not. They are true to the owner of the testimony regardless of how many others believe it too. The ONLY reason one needs to submit "proof" to others is when one is attempting to make one's "internal" truth into an "external" truth. But faith also allows one to "take away" a portion of truth from others' "internal" truths.

I look forward to seeing more of you confronting the "internal" truths of those you disagree with by engaging their testimony and the questions they pose about your "internal" truths, rather than the cyberspace fist swinging and ad hominems that you so often resort to and which make your personal "truths" ~ as they do with snarling message board Christians such as robbie carrobie and RJHinds ~ seem so brittle at times.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]And yes, "external" truths DO need to be agreed upon, but "internal" truths do not. They are true to the owner of the testimony regardless of how many others believe it too. The ONLY reason one needs to submit "proof" to others is when one is attempting to make one's "internal" truth into an "external" truth. But faith also allows one to "take away" a port ...[text shortened]... narling message board Christians such as robbie carrobie and RJHinds ~ seem so brittle at times.

Perhaps some of us love our God enough that we believe any attack against Him should be defended, even if by a snarling message board.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps some of us love our God enough that we believe any attack against Him should be defended, even if by a snarling message board.

And you refuse to see that such attacks leads to religious war.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you refuse to see that such attacks leads to religious war.

Chistians must defend the attacks of Satan and put on the whole armor of God.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are so close to William James in what you say that he is worth quoting a little here. He argues in a famous essay that, for many aspects of our life, we are obliged to have faith in something or to believe in it prior to any possibility of knowing the "truth" of the matter. Among his examples is sport, where the person achieving great feats does so by ...[text shortened]... in this collection of essays but his views and yours overlap and are at least worth discussion.

There is much to agree with in William James' work. I'm not a huge fan, but on some level he does approach truth in a rather unfeeling, mechanical way, but never really travels the few final yards to 'bring it home'.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Chistians must defend the attacks of Satan and put on the whole armor of God.

You must mean "defend against" the attacks of Satan, no?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You must mean "defend against" the attacks of Satan, no?

This infernal machine left out a whole word again.