That is a prepackaged truth for all those Americans who believe that the CIA and the FBI are all immaculate, holy saints, virgins and martyrs. Amen.And those who believe the Warren Report are the JFK "troofers." They believe the "troof."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theists and the Truth
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
ppp
Well-Known Member
That's not a definition. That is an example. Define it so that I don't need you around to identify the difference in any given situation
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Let's give an example.
A criminal named B killed person A.
But B won't tell me he did it.
I will try to look for evidence that can show he did it.... but evidently B will never confess.
What should I do? Should I torture B until he confesses?
1. you establish it as fact that B did it, yet don't have evidence of said fact? how do you know B did it?
2. if you know B did it, then you can prove it. If you know it / can prove it, then wheter or not B confesses to it, is irrelevant.
Your example makes no sense and, more importantly, complete fails to address the points raised.
That point being, for the I-lost-count-time: if you assume the truth (about anything) will be handed to you in the future, why bother TODAY to try and find out and risk getting wrong anyway? Thus, it invites intellectual lazyness. As for on my side of the fence, where truth is DISCOVERED instead of REVEALED, rolling up your sleeves and working to try and find out what the truth is, is the only way to finding out what the truth is. It's either that or staying ignorant.
What part of this point don't you get or bothers you?
In the OP I asked a question: are atheists interested in the Truth?
You did not answer this question, but other atheists have.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Kennedy was likely a mob hit
Revenge for failing to prevent his brother to wage war on the mob.
The mob, through connections with his father who was a bootlegger, got Kennedy elected and he was supposed to be a "friend" in the white house.
His brother then went after the mob rather aggressively.
Kennedy getting killed was a delegated mob hit as revenge for that.
This is the testimony of mob guys who were either present or up and coming during those times.
Guys like Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Gazpipe Casso, Michael Francheze,...
As the story goes, the FBI etc knew / know this, but was covered up because not covering it up would mean to admit that Cosa Nostra managed to infiltrate all the way into the white house and admitting that the Kennedy's had close ties with the Italian mafia.
Kennedy's brother knew this and hated it, which was in part his motivation for going after them.
You have a weird definition of "truth".
Truth is that which reflects reality. It requires evidence / proof.
There's no such thing as "personal truth". What you really mean is "opinion".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I answered it.In the OP I asked a question: are atheists are interested in the Truth?
You did not answer this question, but many other atheists have.
If you don't want to answer, it's perfectly fine with me.
I'm interested in truth (no pointless / meaningless capitalization).
The difference is that in my world, any truth about anything is DISCOVERED.
So without putting in the work to find out what the truth is, the only other option is ignorance.
It's absolutely probable. James Files confessed to the crime and he was, together with Nicoletti who shot too, a mafia hitman.
But the average American citizen will tell you that it's a madman called Oswald who killed JFK.
So that's the Truth for them.
That's inexact.
In many cases, the authorities prepackage a "truth" for the populace and the populace is expected to believe it.
So many people take secrets to the grave with them.
So,..many truths will not be discovered.
I will not be content with "official truths". Because they are not the Truth.
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
The words are English. The semanic content is nonsense. Historical nonsense.
I didn't invent it.
Historical truth definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Historical truth definition: Historical people, situations, or things existed in the past and are considered to be a... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples
www.collinsdictionary.com
ppp
Well-Known Member
Repeated nonsense is still nonsense.
Audie
Veteran Member
A rest in ig city is in order
ppp
Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Again, truth is that which demonstrably reflects reality.
People making claims without evidence and other people merely believing it, is not what I call "truth".
Do you believe that States, for example European states can lie to their peoples?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Obviously. Why does that matter?
You seem to seriously confuse mere beliefs / opinions with truth.
Audie
Veteran Member
And invent definitions
It does matter.
I think certain élites in Brussels pass their time to defraud and deceive the European peoples.