A question for fans of the god myth.

[LogDog]

wouldn't you agree that whether something is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with any evidence one could come up with?

Truth does exists independent of evidence. The actuality of "truth" was that the earth was round to begin with and that our original interpretation of the natural world had been flawed. Evidence confirms the reality of truth.

 

[Comprehend]

Truth does exists independent of evidence. The actuality of "truth" was that the earth was round to begin with and that our original interpretation of the natural world had been flawed. Evidence confirms the reality of truth.

Agreed, you have now invalidated the premise behind your statement in post # 35 claiming that truth was dependant upon evidence...

 

[Mister Emu]

No you don't . Nobody does

How could you possibly know that?

 

[Mister Emu]

Your truth is not everyone's truth you just think it is.

Something is either true or not true. If two or more people have dissident "truths", one is incorrect.

Logdog is correct here your are showing your arrogance. If you can't prove it then don't say it.

To the first, I refer you to post #9. To the second, not a rule I necessarily follow.

To say that YOUR God is the truth shows how naive you are.

Well, I'm not about to say He isn't the truth.

No one here KNOWS he or she is right thats what faith it all about. I guess you have yet to learn that....

I do.

 

[michel]

On the contrary, it is drawing a clear line between the myth of God, that "opens the door for understanding," and an actual god that is unknown/unknowable.

Edit: If it's a choice between getting hurt by his remarks and taking offence, or getting snarly and snippy, or teaching him a bit about how the meaning of myth empowers an understanding of god, I'll take the latter.
:yes:

An admirable trait; fruballs for positive mental attitude.................

*sheesh*

Well, there's a few wasted minutes of reading an eight-page thread that I'll never get back...

"Truth is Truth!"
"Truth is relative!"
"God is Truth!"
"Truth is God!"
"Arrogance is confidence!"
"Confidence is arrogance!"

*sheesh*

Arrogance is confidence ? I am surprised at you Paul!!!

There is a big difference between confidence and arrogance. Confidence is an understanding that you are OK and valuable. Arrogance is shouting it from the rooftops like you are the most important person in the world, and feeling that you are better than other people. You do not have to be arrogant to be confident. They are completely different things. Most truly successful people have confidence but none of the arrogance.

And that is from:- http://www.bygpub.com/books/tg2rw/chap14excerpt.htm because I wasn't confident enough to p[ost without a second opinion!!!!:sad4:

 

[Willamena]

Something is either true or not true. If two or more people have dissident "truths", one is incorrect.

People do not have "truths", they simply have versions of the truth, i.e. bits and pieces that only approach the generalized "the truth". If the version don't match then "the truth" about the things that don't match is something neither of them have (although one may be closer to it).

In my opinion, it is fallacy to accept one's version of the truth as "the truth" rather than "my version of the truth."

 

[Mister Emu]

People do not have "truths", they simply have versions of the truth,

I can't really find the difference between saying people have different truths, and saying people have different versions of the truth. It means the same thing.

If the version don't match then "the truth" about the things that don't match is something neither of them have (although one may be closer to it).

That one is correct and the other incorrect is also a valid possibility.

 

[Willamena]

That one is correct and the other incorrect is also a valid possibility.

Correctness is a different beast.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I can't really find the difference between saying people have different truths, and saying people have different versions of the truth. It means the same thing.


That one is correct and the other incorrect is also a valid possibility.

Perhaps an example is in order.

Imagine person X believing that the earth is flat. He has never been exposed to anything telling him otherwise. Person Y, however, believes that it is round. She has studied the science behind it, and has seen pictures of the earth from space.

We can agree that the world is most probably round, making X's belief incorrect. But X will never know otherwise. He goes through his life with a flat-earth perspective. While his belief is incorrect (an assumption based on our best evidence) his perspective was true: he existed in a flat-earth world. His truth could have changed, warped by new information. But his flat-earth perspective, known to him after the new information to be incorrect, still was true in its place - and may continue to be despite his scientific belief. Within his limited scope of awareness, the earth was flat.

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps an example is in order.

Imagine person X believing that the earth is flat. He has never been exposed to anything telling him otherwise. Person Y, however, believes that it is round. She has studied the science behind it, and has seen pictures of the earth from space.

We can agree that the world is most probably round, making X's belief incorrect. But X will never know otherwise. He goes through his life with a flat-earth perspective. While his belief is incorrect (an assumption based on our best evidence) his perspective was true: he existed in a flat-earth world. His truth could have changed, warped by new information. But his flat-earth perspective, known to him after the new information to be incorrect, still was true in its place - and may continue to be despite his scientific belief. Within his limited scope of awareness, the earth was flat.

Thank you, I agree. If I may, I would like to say the same thing over again, in my own words, to demonstrate a difference in the way I think. *grin*

Person X, person Y... We can agree that the world is most probably round, so from the perspective of our shared reality X's take on reality is a mis-take. But X doesn't know otherwise, because he doesn't share our shared reality. He has a flat-earth perspective; he lives in a flat-earth world. While he truly believes in something that from our perspective is incorrect (an assumption based on our shared reality), it is not incorrect from his perspective. He may adopt a new view if he gets new information, but in the context that he understood the flat-earth world he will always understand the flat-earth world. If he adopts the new view, he can, and probably will, live in two worlds, both true in their contexts.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Thank you, I agree. If I may, I would like to say the same thing over again, in my own words, to demonstrate a difference in the way I think. *grin*

Person X, person Y... We can agree that the world is most probably round, so from the perspective of our shared reality X's take on reality is a mis-take. But X doesn't know otherwise, because he doesn't share our shared reality. He has a flat-earth perspective; he lives in a flat-earth world. While he truly believes in something that from our perspective is incorrect (an assumption based on our shared reality), it is not incorrect from his perspective. He may adopt a new view if he gets new information, but in the context that he understood the flat-earth world he will always understand the flat-earth world. If he adopts the new view, he can, and probably will, live in two worlds, both true in their contexts.

Psychologists use the phrase "shared view of reality" a lot when describing mental states, and I do like it.

 

[LogDog]

Agreed, you have now invalidated the premise behind your statement in post # 35 claiming that truth was dependant upon evidence...

The realization of the actuality of "truth" is dependant upon evidence. Claiming "truth" when no evidence is available to verify its actuality is my concern. I'm not suggesting the possibility is zero that your god does not exist. But for the religious to claim they have absolute knowledge of what the "truth" really is leads me to question reasoning and judgment. Instead of "I know the truth", how about "I think I know the truth"? This subtle adjustment in language would go a long way to extinguish the air of religious arrogance that is so ever present.

 

[jmaster78]

How do you feel your life on earth has been made more complete through your religious belief?

i used to think alot about the questions i had no answers to, like which religion was correct, what evidence is real and what is fake, why religions fight each other in the name of the same god of love and peace. now i know there are no answers! like anything you look for, though it may be disappointing to find it doesn't exist, but there is comfort in knowing the quest is over!

 

[Willamena]

The realization of the actuality of "truth" is dependant upon evidence. Claiming "truth" when no evidence is available to verify its actuality is my concern. I'm not suggesting the possibility is zero that your god does not exist. But for the religious to claim they have absolute knowledge of what the "truth" really is leads me to question reasoning and judgment. Instead of "I know the truth", how about "I think I know the truth"? This subtle adjustment in language would go a long way to extinguish the air of religious arrogance that is so ever present.

How about "from where I'm standing, it's true"?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

How about "from where I'm standing, it's true"?

That seems like a good phrasing.

LogDog, I feel I owe you a personal (and public) apology. I've reacted harshly to your comments, and have done you an injustice in doing so. I'm sorry for that.

 

[UnTheist]

I was wrong in my comments. I meant his truth wasn't everyone else's truth. I consider that personal truth, not absolute truth, which would be the same truth to everyone.

 

[Random]

I believe calling God a "myth" is intellectually dishonest and inaccurate to boot: for the sole reason that even limited insight into the truth can reveal that God's story is ongoing and evolving because it is OUR story: the story of God is a human one, and that is why we call our record of the past "His-story" or history for short. It is about Man directly, not a fixed mytho-poetic fantasy designed to teach morals, tradition and ritual which is what a myth properly is. Sure, God preforms these functions too, but to call Him/Her/It a myth is ignorant, purile and facetious: a deliberate falsification of higher knowlege or gnosis.

 

[Willamena]

...for the sole reason that even limited insight into the truth can reveal that God's story is ongoing and evolving because it is OUR story: the story of God is a human one, and that is why we call our record of the past "His-story" or history for short.

*psst* That metaphor is exactly what makes it myth.

 

[Random]

*psst* That's exactly what makes it myth.

There is unlimited imagination in myth, not history.

 

[Willamena]

There is unlimited imagination in myth, not history.

Hm. I don't follow what you're saying, then.