Gagan,

but, as Kostamojen correctly indicated, "to the best of our knowledge" does not make something a fact, or more importantly True.

Here's Merriam-Webster:

3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

(I eliminate definitions 1 & 2 because they define more to the derivative from the Latin facere which [meaning defs 1 & 2] have to do with doing or making or having been made)

And so, one again (someone shoot me), my whole point is what people are calling fact, in other words believing to be actual, True, actually existing, are often later found to be not actual, not True, not actually existing ... and therefore are not reliable. My issue is, this is a large basis of our culture's "faith" in science... and yet by their own griping it is actually no better an explanation of Truth than faith (in God) is. If your perception of truth is always changing then how True is it? Why should it then be considered reliable? Or more reliable than anything other system? Its either True or False, right?

jason

 

So... how's that existance of God discussion going?

jason

 

Noooo *aaack* <pulls hair out>. Its not my point, hahahaha woooo o heeehee hee hohohoho hahahaha cookook cookoo cookoo..

There IS a Right and there IS a Wrong.

Our culture has the bad habit of assuming and living by the idea that things are Right and later proving they are Wrong.

This bad assumption shows that we do not know what is Right and what is Wrong, what is True and what is False.

So when we live our lives based on a science that is always changing, what we think is Right or True is just as unreliable a truth as many consider faith to be an unreliable truth


Man, I know this ia foreign concept to just about every American... but I didn't think it'd be this hard. I think this is attempt #7.

jason

 

Well, my head's stopped spinning

Now that I understand you, I think you're wrong I believe there is a Right and a Wrong. I believe there is Truth.

If there is no Truth there is only chaos, and human society in the past couple of hundred years has started to prove that (again?).

With the advent of Modernism, (perceived) Truth became as variable as knowledge, but without the same type of authority history shows before the Enlightenment and before the Renaissance (where scientists and philosophers became our priests and pastors). With the advent of Post Modernism we've rejected all authority, except for the authority of the individual. This is the culmination of unalienable rights, individuality, republicanism (not the party, the form of gov't) and democracy (again, not the part, the form of gov't), etc, etc.

We have now been endowed by our society with the right to choose anything and everything as long as it doesn't infringe upon others. But that's a lie, because we are always infringing upon others, on a personal, local, and global way. This is why total individuality is chaos. It is unachievable and yet our society is based upon its supposed reality.

You cannot live as a relativist and share the Universe with other people. Eventually you will have to share a common reality either as a result of colliding relative views or as a result of believing Relativism is False. Which is my belief, which Relativism rejects, becoming non-relative. Or put another way, relativism must except non-relativism to be relative. But it doesn't. Its as "closed" and non-relative as any theistic or ultimate theological belief.

Stupid, isn't it.

 

Originally posted by christoph1371

Chris... I recommend you read all the way through before you respond... its a "whole picture" kinda post

But can't we agree to disagree? I can accept that you think I am wrong. But, your making me wrong doesn't mean anything to me but you see things different. There is no right or wrong.

You can't pull things out of the air, Chris. I know you want to believe this, but there is nothing in human history or capacity that lends to any reality of this being possible, that we can maintain an individualistic, diverse autonomy and still love one another. And, even if it could in a small context, it would eventually be overrun by other factions which do not subscribe to the same relative belief system. Humanity is not capable of finding an internal common bond outside its Creator. And if you do not believe in a Creator, then there is no common bond. We are no more evolved than we were 10,000 years ago. We have new names and new faces for the way we interact, but look at our country's predicament right now. What is so different? Look around the world, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintos, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Gnostics, Republicans, Monarchians, Autocrians.... where do they get along? Where are they not waring eachother in time and space for the past 10 millenia? What is your proof that we can agree to disagree? Humanity has proven itself incapable of relativism and shows no possibility of growth in that area. It is not in our nature. You have no basis on which to claim this as true or to ask it of humanity.

"Truth" is today's society does exist. However, it is just a word. we can make it mean what ever we want.

I hate to tell you, but despite when science shows its been wrong in the past, there is some end-of-the road Truth. There is a God or there is not a God. The speed of light is variable or it isnt, or it is both. Light is a particle, or a wave, or both. At some point there is Truth. The Universe is the way it is and it is not subjective because you'd feel left out of the process since it is actually an objective reality. To think otherwise is to just make stuff up 'cuz you feel like it.


And finally YES we can live as relativists and share the Universe with other people. Just becasue it isn't happened right now, doesn't mean that it will never happen.

Now? Going back to my rant above... what makes you believe this is possible through purely human efforts? Do you have anything to point to which say we have a winning capacity to do this through human effort alone?


To think, where would we be if Amerigo or columbus din't take that step off the "flat earth".

Another human endeavour spawned by greed and political power.

The easiest way for anyone to really understand my "vibe" is to really watch and understand the matrix. I have believed that thought/idology since early teen years. NO, not that we are stuck in a computer world. But, rather..."free your mind" There UNLIMITED possibilites that are in your brain. You are the only thing that hold you back.

What gets me about this is you are what? In your early 20s? I am equally only in my early 30s. Now I'll take a stab at it, but maybe I'm wrong, I've been a true student of all this stuff since I was oh maybe 16 and then finally I got old enough to start understanding it maybe in my latest of 20s. And that's when I realized if I go around making up stuff that pops outta my head because it sounds good and has nothing in it that is gleaned from 5,000 years of recorded human history, philosophy, social anthropology and theology, I'm sorta just a banging gong.... now hold on, don't get your panties in a bunch...

I'm not trying to put you down. But you've just kinda made something up because a neat theme from a pop scifi movie got you thinking. You, just you. I do want you to realize that you fall deeper into your own trap by thinking that not only can you survive on your own but you can define the universe on your own. "Getting along" is the culmination of relating to your past and to those around you. If you think that you have it all figured out (which I do not believe that I do, incidentally, despite my tone), it generally means that you do not have it all figured out.

Even as a Christian, my faith is not based upon the erronous idea that I have it all figured out... its based upon the fact that God has it all figured out. Now *there* is freedom. Freedom?! Yep, freedom. If God has it all figured out, then I am free to serve and love you. I am free to give up my rights for the sake of others. I am free to not clamour for my own needs and worry for my future. And best of all, I am free to get it wrong.

jason

 

Who said having God forgive relieves you of responsibility? Not I, nor would I.

Who says I am pulling anything outta air? not me...I do believe what I say.

Just because you believe what you say makes it true, or at least substantial? You really believe that? Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? Am I then doubly inferior to Aryans because of my Jewish and Christian heritage?

You give all these fluffly ideas with no substance. You speak in riddles to Steppin with no substance. What can you show for what you believe? Where can you show that humanity at all poses any of the quality or propensity for your perfectly relativistic, individualistic anarchist world?

If one can take your ideas logically at all, your concern for a-religious reponsibilty flies in the face of your relativism, by the way. You cannot put responsibilty on people who clash with you relativistic viewpoint. That would be very unrelativistic of you. You need to think this through.... unless "free your mind" means "don't listen to reason, be a fluff bunny and ignore everything else but your own whims and desires!"... *shiver*

btw - as far as your age. Think about why I assumed what I did.... can you at least admit that you make up your views as you go along and as your feelings dictate? Or else, give us the courtesy of some sort of background in the human condition that supports what you think... and you haven't even defined that either.

jason

p.s. wow, if we only got I-Club post credit for this thread

 

Damn Skippy.

Honesty. Respecting what other have to say. seems simple to me.

I still don't know what you mean by Choice Vs Decision.

you can e-mail me or PM that one.

-Gagan