Originally posted by WajomaThat was good. At least Rick Giles was honest enough to provide a link to his source. [James Randi]-who was a lot more entertaining to listen to I might add, not that I could prove it.....
Nice little spiel, touches on religion but not really the topic, very relevant to this board where some of us have spent so much time. Enjoy:
http://nzbefree.blogspot.com/
AoC show #7
Edit: Don't even have to read, just sit back and listen.
Originally posted by WajomaHe does a pretty decent job at sounding reasonable, but he truly hit the nail on the head when he discusses the belief system that is known for what it rejects. Obviously seeing the problems this presents, he is campaigning to change the term.
Nice little spiel, touches on religion but not really the topic, very relevant to this board where some of us have spent so much time. Enjoy:
http://nzbefree.blogspot.com/
AoC show #7
Edit: Don't even have to read, just sit back and listen.
Doing so will necessarily require blatant avoidance of one of man's historical constants, the indisputable default position: belief in God.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA belief in Gods is a far more common "default position" in human history.
He does a pretty decent job at sounding reasonable, but he truly hit the nail on the head when he discusses the belief system that is known for what it rejects. Obviously seeing the problems this presents, he is campaigning to change the term.
Doing so will necessarily require blatant avoidance of one of man's historical constants, the indisputable default position: belief in God.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTo what end? Who care's if anything is a provable fact or not? The existence or non existence of things may not be dependent on our assent. The universe will probably not cease to exist when I no longer acknowledge its presence.
....Doing so will necessarily require blatant avoidance of one of man's historical constants, the indisputable default position: belief in God.
In a vortex of claim and counter claim, the very arguments that set out to undermine the cetainty of belief in a God, also help to erode the certainty with which any cognitive construct can be reliably subscribed to.
Post modernism's subjective reality, that places the control of truth in the hands of the user, allows for myriad infinities, that place each individual at the center of their own universe. Does this transform us into God's ourselves, or have we simply made the first step on the bottom rung of perception that leads us to appreciate the incredible diversity of thought that maps the human mindset?
Originally posted by kmax87To what end? Who care's if anything is a provable fact or not?
To what end? Who care's if anything is a provable fact or not? The existence or non existence of things may not be dependent on our assent. The universe will probably not cease to exist when I no longer acknowledge its presence.
In a vortex of claim and counter claim, the very arguments that set out to undermine the cetainty of belief in a God, also help ...[text shortened]... that leads us to appreciate the incredible diversity of thought that maps the human mindset?
Well, you for one. Otherwise why would you be intent on establishing the proper level of concern we grant it?
The existence or non existence of things may not be dependent on our assent. The universe will probably not cease to exist when I no longer acknowledge its presence.
That's quite a breakthrough you're working on there.
In a vortex of claim and counter claim, the very arguments that set out to undermine the cetainty of belief in a God, also help to erode the certainty with which any cognitive construct can be reliably subscribed to.
Preacher, meet choir.
Post modernism's subjective reality, that places the control of truth in the hands of the user, allows for myriad infinities, that place each individual at the center of their own universe.
Mm-hmm...
Does this transform us into God's ourselves, or have we simply made the first step on the bottom rung of perception that leads us to appreciate the incredible diversity of thought that maps the human mindset?
So the whole point of this exercise is to become appreciative? You kinda lost me.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGiven my observation of a claim vortex possibly not advancing the debate much past already established ideas, the point I was trying to make was that subjective truth taken to its logical conclusion makes argument/debate redundant.
......Preacher, meet choir............So the whole point of this exercise is to become appreciative? You kinda lost me.
The consequence of that I thought would be for people to take another look at their shared humanity and hopefully explore slightly more constructive and empowered forms of communication.
Originally posted by kmax87Are you saying there is no such thing as objective truth? I believe it is imperative that humans recognise reality.
Given my observation of a claim vortex possibly not advancing the debate much past already established ideas, the point I was trying to make was that subjective truth taken to its logical conclusion makes argument/debate redundant.
The consequence of that I thought would be for people to take another look at their shared humanity and hopefully explore slightly more constructive and empowered forms of communication.
Originally posted by WajomaI would agree that there are objective verifiable facts, but truth....? If an objective reality exists outside of our subjective perception of it, how could we know with absolute certainty where its boundaries were. It would seem the only way for a truth or a reality to meet the criterion of being objective, it would have to be an idea agreed upon by consensus of an independently large group of people as being so, or it would have to be some externally established idea or concept which people adopt as being true as a result of it being relevant and reliable to their way of thinking.
Are you saying there is no such thing as objective truth? I believe it is imperative that humans recognise reality.
Can a person independently discover truth? If they did, how would they know it to be so if they did not observe it to be true for other people? I'm not sure you could know truth without applying some normative influence of the 'group' over it and seeing if the concept was valid in more than just your own particular set of circumstances.
Originally posted by kmax87C'mon, truth by consensus?
I would agree that there are objective verifiable facts, but truth....? If an objective reality exists outside of our subjective perception of it, how could we know with absolute certainty where its boundaries were. It would seem the only way for a truth or a reality to meet the criterion of being objective, it would have to be an idea agreed upon by consensu ...[text shortened]... d seeing if the concept was valid in more than just your own particular set of circumstances.
If you recognise that there is a thing called reality and humans can recognise it then it is possible that one sees it and all others don't. But that's not the world we live in people deal with reality everyday, mostly the 4X2 in the face reality of the physical world.
Lesson 1:
&feature=related
Originally posted by WajomaNo, not truth by consensus, but the ideas that take hold, the consensus of peoples responses to ideas, the talk that they walk so to speak, by their lived experience, becomes a democratic expression of what the 'truth' is.
C'mon, truth by consensus?.......
The 'truth' is not something agreed upon but rather an observed reality, a common denominator of social interaction that is relevant and valid for a particular group at a particular time.
And btw it was just resting,....pining for the fjiords...😀