What is it that makes what you believe to be true and anyone who disagrees with you wrong? What is truth? Who decides what a truth is? If two people have opposing points of view and both are insistent that their opinions are True. Who or What should make the distinction?
TRUTH is not subject to one's opinions. Truth is Truth, regardless of what you think about it. People tend to confuse the terms and think something becomes "True" by virtue of the fact that they really, really believe it.
What is Truth? Truth is Factual truth, for which, means true; objective facts.
Truth isn't subjective nor is it different from person to person. The myth that each person has their own truth is only sustained by those who refuse to learn additional knowledge and think themselves have the answers to all things in life for everyone. This ego or arrogance is foolish, because it limits one's view about life, without truly understanding it themselves.
The thing that gets me - If you form a belief, based on a lie, and then enforce it with your free will faith. Are you not purporting the same lie, should you speak about it? AND, if it is a lie, for which, you formed your belief....How can you tell the difference between what's truth? if you're not open to learning.
Who or What should make the distinction? Self-Realization that Rationalization, Logic and Sanity, play an absolute role, when forming beliefs or before every action taken in society. Thus, the absolutes of morals can be applied to life. Hence, limiting the damage done to society, while freeing the minds of people, so they can control every aspect of their life.
Do some research on truth. Think about truth for a moment, keep an open mind. What is truth? What is true? Almost any "truth" can be viewed as a falsehood. It all depends on your point of view which more often than not is from an angle where some part of the truth can't be viewed.
Great question Arthur. I personally can't think of anything that's an absolute eternal truth except mathematics. Other things may be true but I don't see how we can predict that the future won't disprove them.
I like to think those who hold different opinions from us are holding their own truth (even though we're "positive" they're wrong) and hopefully they would allow others the same privilege.
Not even Math, the theory of halves... to get somewhere you first have to cover half the distance to the object, everytime you cover half the distance you have a new and smaller half to cross. Since there will always be another 'half' distance to cover, you cannot ever get to the object. Now explain then why we go splat, if we fall out of a tall building...
Very good question. There are two types of 'truths'. The first is a 'provable' truth, the second 'unprovable'. Provable truths, like fire is hot, are usually not debated as true or not because of the 'proof'. So your real question... How do we 'decide' if an unprovable opinion is a truth or not? We follow the evidence as far as it leads us. We draw on our past experiences, and our logic. We draw on our instincts, our feelings. We identify similar situations with similar possible outcomes. We dismiss that which we find absurd, or illogical. If proof is found that disqualifies anything in the process, we re-examine where that now dis-qualified thing led us, and start again from the fork it created, choosing the other path. Eventially we will either find proof, or we won't. If we don't, then the correctness of the idealogy(truth) will eternally be under review and scrunity. Openmindedness- the state of accepting, that which we believe is true, may be completely wrong.
I, personally, am very careful about sorting out the difference between what know to be shown as true and my own opinion. I pretty much use "rules of evidence" (the way a judge would) before I'll go so far as to call something "the truth". In a conversation, if I know, for a fact, something is the truth (plain, simple, and non-negotiable) I will present it that way. If not, I'll never say, "I know." I'll instead say, "I think" or "I tend to believe". If a person presents a provable truth he can usually back it up with any number of pieces of "proof" or "evidence". Opinion is opinion, so there's no need to make any distinction about "truth". At the same time, though, the person who only forms opinions based on solid "evidence" and solid knowledge is often better able to support his own opinion, as opposed to the person who just willy-nilly pulls opinions out of the blue, based on nothing. A reasonable person who cares about what's true and what's opinion will be very honest with himself or others about what's his opinion and what can be called, without doubt, the truth.
I like this answer. You seem to lead to the fact that YOU decide what is true and do not accept other peoples truths as your own until you look at the evidence and decide for yourself. The only real truth is your own, unless your mind accepts something as true no one will be able to convince you of a truth without absolute evidence to back it up.
Until your mind accepts it how can it be true to you. Who decides who prevails if the two parties walk away after looking at each others evidence still not sure of the truth the evidence does not matter. You have to convince that other person to believe the evidence and change their MIND into determining what you have shown them is in fact the truth.
I do not care how good the debater is until the other person concedes and believes the facts it is not a truth for them. Truth is a personal thing I think and yes I agree there are absolute facts out there that would be hard to deny. Once a person is exposed to one of these facts their mind easily accepts the fact as true but until the moment that the individual mind accepts the facts then it is not true for them.
people get the topics messed up sometimes. And some people who dont believe in God consider religion to be a social issue. and I guess the OP isnt really worried aobut it anyway. Or went to have some lunch. how are you today cags? Did you get the big snow this weekend?
Yes, some people go out of their way to make religion a social issue and I guess, the underlying basis for religion, is actually a social issue, but not for here or now.
I am doing fine. Thank you for asking. How are you? And, no - I didn't get a whole lot of snow, just an inch or two. The storm on the East Coast, apparently didn't have the legs to reach far enough North, so as to drench our area with snow.
I am by no means a philosopher but I believe that there is the "ablsolute" and the "abstract." That holds for the question of truth as well. In my view what I think is pornographic, someone may say it's art or vis a vis. Than there is the absolute, if someone is nude they are and it can't be denied right, that's absolute. Does that make sense? lol just a thought of course.
Truth. So much of it has to do with perceptions and how we interpret them. In a universe/reality of constant change it is all too often difficult to admit this truth; everything always changes - whether through time, our outlook, or external factors. What is truth one day may be revealed as the biggest falsehood the next. Empathize with another's truth, but never take it as your own, for to do so would be the theft of your soul and the denying of your own perceptions and set of experiences. (don't believe him, he likes to lie for the fun of chaos(not profit)- every story has six sides, we may only see three (if we stretch)) actually, they're both right and wrong, for their own reasons...why do you think we're always taught, 'read between the lines'.
There are some folks that always assume the truth is "somewhere in between", which is a strategy for almost always getting it wrong. If someone argues that 2 + 2 = 5, the truth is not 2.5. In practice they don't mean the truth, but a point at which a compromise might be reached.
In relatively trivial matters, we don't mind compromising, but where things are more serious, we actually want to find out. Finding out typically means being willing to be proved wrong and that becomes a problem for some people.
Politically, a powerful group will resist all attempts to have their propaganda challenged - they have no need to compromise because they are powerful, and they have every reason to resist because of their privilege. They will represent their untruths as truths and seek to persuade people to believe them, but the fact that they are untruths remains independent of their opinions.
What people think about the truth, doesn't necessarily affect what the truth is. For example, whether we believe in gravity or not, things will continue to fall. That's why science doesn't depend on belief. It finds the truth by validating its theories against the real world. The truth found by those means, are infinitely more valuable than the opinions people have about them.
Often when people talk about their "own" truth or truth "for them", they really mean their opinion. It's a popular confusion to think that opinion is somehow "true".
Very well stated, I only disagree slighty and only on the point of perception. You stated, "What people think about the truth, doesn't necessarily affect what the truth is."
I understand you meant that, just because people believe something, doesn't make it so. Believing that gravity doesn't apply to you doesn't nullify gravity. But the belief in 'God Wills it!' does change truth/reality. If people in great numbers think that something that is not true, is a truth, they will act accordingly. For example the 'good' people that think the truth is 'killing christians(infidels) is what God wants, and further that is the pathway to heaven'. Has lead to modern terrorism. The perception of truth is critically important and does effect the truth, or (as in this example) reality itself.
This is the crux of it. A lot of people hold their beliefs above question because it would make them feel insecure to challenge them. Their minds are built on false beliefs and if they were to find they were wrong their whole mental structure comes falling down. So they cling in desperation in fear of being wrong.
"may be" and 'quite likely' are different words because they represent different concepts, they are not the same thing... Remember - 100% total and utter lack of proof that God doesn't exist may not disprove something - but it is a pretty good indication.
What is this new meaning of the word "love"? Oh - the christian version? "Bend over - this may hurt but I know what is best for you," sort of love. Tough love. "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you sort of love"?
So - Prove god exists. Why are you always trying to shift the burden of proof? You are the one saying it exist and using LOLOL logic LOLOLOL to justify your ridiculous beliefs.
I agree most are not openminded, they believe what they believe (without proof) and refuse to change what they believe (without proof). Where is that proof you said you had, the stuff that proves God doesn't exist...
Because it's a foul creation. Really, if you were a God, would you allow all the terrible things that happen in this world ? Do you have children ? would you make them suffer in the name of polarity ????
Once my children are grown to a point in their life, where it is time for them to make their own choices, yes I would and do allow them to live as they see fit, and so does God. Would I (Mikel G Roberts) create malformed children, no, But I am not God. (your next point) So why then does God, and since God does, you hate God. Because anything that would do that or allow it must be evil. Satan (the concept) is evil, Satan is very powerful, and has free will... God will not enslave you, even if what you choose is evil, why then do you think God would enslave another, because you don't like that other...
(and Yes I think God is also Satan)... Yes God is VERY confusing.
Is it god that manufactures talidomine ? Is it god who spreads mercury and other metals in river waters ? Is god dropping atomic bombs or producing nuclear disasters ? God's the one that writes right in twisted lines
Is it God the creator of Man ? So he is the creator of man's mind. Man's mind have the ability to create those things. So Your God, if it exists is the sole culprit. He shouldn't have created such a 'Creation' !!
Well, but he did it. Ok? So let's stop complainig and assume our responsibilities. Or adopt Godesses. Which is the best way to sweeten the humour of a cruel god . And if god is in everyone of us, it's soothing too to oneself. hehehe
That has got to be just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you want to test the father's faith, give HIM cancer of the balls or something. An innocent child should never be used as an instrument.
"Benevolence is the expression of kindness and altruism. Benevolence means much good for others. As such, it is a form of love. But some theologians, such as Thomas Jay Oord, have argued that love involves both giving and receiving. A loving person must, then, be both benevolent and open to receiving good gifts from others"
I think in our society, the truth is whatever the mobb says it is. Power is in numbers, the more that believe the same truth try to impose their truth on the minority. I think the only truth could possibly be that there is no absolute truth.
When anyone, of whatever religious persuasion, holds thoroughly rigid views within the accepted norms of that religion, does it make for honesty and truth? Or deception and lies?Opening up one's mind to other points of...
Im interested in the opinions on the subject of sexual fluidity. Not bisexuality. The concept that sexual fluidity is having an urge for a certain gender for a period of time, and switching for another period of time.
Why can't some people respect others' political views, choices, lifestyles, religion, etc?Is it intelligence or lack thereof, socialization, upbringing, personality, environment, education or lack thereof, religious...
So another hubber a little while back decided to come onto my hub (http://link10103.hubpages.com/hub/Angry … hats-Funny) and tell me the true reason as to why I do not believe in Christianity, which is the moral...
Science of itself does not present claims and reasons on issues; others interpret it wrongly; it is a useful tool of the humanity ; and if interpreted correctly it is not in contradiction of the truthful religion.