Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have no idea whether Wikipedia screwed up or not. I was just pointing out that you screwed up by not reading a citation given in Wikipedia before referring to it on the SDMB, a mistake I made myself … once.
And I don’t know whether Jerry Falwell is a lone voice or not, my dear coffeecat, THATS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION. I was responding to JThunder’s claim that the Westboro Church* “has been routinely and heavily criticized by other churches.” *
If that’s the case, I said, please give me some citations. Because if it’s both routine and heavy, it should be easy to find a bunch of citations, but I couldn’t find any, so I asked.
At this point neither you nor JThunder have produced any citations either. So abuse me all you want for what you fantasize my thoughts are regarding Wikipedia and Jerry Falwell, give me the rolleyes … but the jury is still out on whether other churches have routinely and heavily criticized the WBC, and your abuse and rolleyes aren’t helping your side of the discussion at all. Your contribution to date has been one unsuccessful attempt at providing a citation, and you want to get on my case? Really?
Why can’t people understand that the idea of faith in something unseen isn’t a provable tenet?
It doesn’t make someone an idiot to believe so, no more than the cynic that tries as hard as possible to disprove said belief.
Why do people get so worked up about this shit? The militant atheists on here would try to convince you that religion is some kind of disease and never does any good.
The nutters would have you believe that religion (OK, I’m talking Christianity here) can do no wrong.
Why can’t people see both sides of this?
YES, religion has been a method of subjugating, torturing and killing people in the past (in America and elsewhere, but has also done countless good deeds)).
NO, it is no longer like that (in America).
What’s so hard to understand? Live and let live, I say.
Oh well then, we’d best pack up all our bits and bobs and just go on home then! Problem solved, nothing to see here, move along. We’ll just take our tacky Spinoza and our petty parietal lobe activity studies and our cites and just slink right out, now that we know the whole theist/atheist issue has been categorically settled and there’s no bigotry, prejudice or attempts to curtail civil liberties occurring in America any more. Whew, that was a real nail biter, that.
Wait a minute. You’re the one who’s making a claim here. Why are you foisting the burden of proof onto someone else?
To recap: You say that there is no universal Truth. I’m asking you if it’s universally true (or if you wish, True) that there is no universal Truth. Is it?
And I said yes, it’s universally true and I explained the logic behind it. If you believe you can provide an instance where it’s not, feel free. It’s just like when I tell you there’s no god. You’re the one claiming one exists, so you’re the one who has to provide the proof. It’s not “whoever says it has to prove it.” I’m saying it doesn’t exist and you’re saying it does. If you feel it does, prove it.
Jeeeeez…you can do better than that, JThunder. Do you have an example that holds true to your belief that there is a universal Truth? Or are you going to play word games and pretend that you don’t know what I’m talking about?
I’m content to leave it alone as well. I’d note that regardless of what other posters have said, arbitrary has more than one meaning and we don’t have to reject the word as a whole to reject their implications.
I’d point out once again, that I didn’t write the dictionary or those definitions. and that you never clarified what your take on the actual definition was. So be it. Moving on.
Thanks for explaining.
I happen to believe there is a Truth and we humans are still making efforts to uncover it, in a messy imperfect way.
Something that may relate. I agree about the incredible diversity of humans and what our gifts are and what we value. I like the analogy of the body. Different parts have their own function. The cells are different but their essence is the same. When the body is in harmony it functions better.
In my own exploration I came upon my own theory. The way to this Truth is by being true to ourselves. As individuals we go forward acting on what we believe to be true. Knowing we have a lot left to learn we let our experiences and our seeking and being open to new information refine our belief system.
So, while you being true to your own concept of what is true, and me to mine , and Jesse to hers, may on many levels seem far far apart, on one level it’s the same and might be considered the same path.
It’s like various people having a GPS with the same destination. We may not know exactly what that destination is because it’s off screen, but we follow our GPS. Yours takes you through terrain that is very different from the terrain I travel so it appears we are on very different paths with different destinations.
I know how goofy an idealistic this sounds. I just thought it related because of your comments about truth, vs Truth. I’m aware I may be whistling in the dark.
It does seem to me that humanity as a whole is striving to make moral progress. Human rights has made progress overall even though we have plenty of work left to do. That can only happen when individuals make an effort as a group.
I’m with you with regard to being true to ourselves, but I disagree that it leads to a universal Truth.
I don’t think we’re supposed to have a universal Truth, nor do I think it would be beneficial to mankind as a whole. The fact that we’re as diverse as we are helps us work together for the common good. However, this is simply a benefit of being human; there is no “greater purpose” in it. If there were a common Truth, there’d be no reason for us to be diverse to begin with. We would have been created the same, with the same goals, same values, etc. Our diversity is (to me) clear proof that this is all there is. To quote National Lampoon’s Radio Dinner,
We are a fluke of the universe.
We have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
the universe
is laughing behind your baaaaaaack.
I thought I did. Here, I’ll try one more time. The dictionary definition provided two versions you thought applied. One is a specific legal term (typically) that characterizes a judicial decision as “arbitrary” when something is not mandated by statute. I don’t believe that’s how the word was being used in this thread. And, I’m guessing most people would agree, this sense of the word is not truly “arbitrary” as it’s typically understood; the average judge does not pull decisions out of his ass, even if the law permits him to.
3a described something as arbitrary that is, “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee>.” Anything is arbitrary in the sense you seem to be applying it, if it involves individual preference at all, to any extent. This is not a terribly helpful definition or distinction–it applies to virtually everything. It also (ISTM) ignores the “rather than” qualifier. Something is not arbitrary if it has an element of individual preference in it. It is arbitrary if it is SOLELY based on individual preference or convenience.
So, the illustrations provided–someone who studies and evaluates different belief systems for their internal logic, for example–are NOT arbitrary according to this definition either, not unless we torture “individual preference” into something so broad as to be meaningless. My individual preference to accept the theory of evolution (and, yes, I understand what the term “theory” means) is not arbitrary if I have evaluated and assessed it thoroughly. Or my belief that O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife. Or that Roe v Wade was a poorly reasoned SC decision. Each of these (currently) defy conclusive proof, and there are people that disagree with me on each determination. That needn’t mean these assessments are arbitrary–i.e., again, unless we force the word into a definition so broad that it includes virtually everything, in which case “arbitrary” becomes meaningless.
And, FWIW, 1 and mainly 4 in this definition are the way people typically use the word, and I believe it’s the way it’s been used in this thread, all our parsing aside. If someone rushes in to say, “No, I meant it in the sense of number 5, that a religious belief system is simply not assigned a specific value,” I’ll roll my eyes. Yes, it is a sub-definition. But “arbitrary” was clearly being used in a dismissive manner in this thread (#4)–no other way to interpret it, IMO.
This isn’t a word game, Kalhoun, and you obviously know it. You claimed that there is no absolute truth, and then asserted that this is absolutely true. Do you honestly not see a problem with that?
Besides, you’re the one making the claim. It’s up to you to defend it. It’s not up to me to disprove it. And even if it were, the mere fact that it’s self-contradictory constitutes a sufficient rebuttal.
Since you apparently want to dodge the issue and foist the burden of proof onto someone else, I’ll take the bait for once. I propose the following absolute truth: “The claim that there is no absolute truth is self-refuting. After all, by its own internal logic, such a statement cannot be absolutely true.”
Now I’m sure that you’re going to try to dance around that, or perhaps challenge me to produce some other absolute truth. I daresay that the vast majority of fair-minded individuals can see the problem quite clearly though.
In fact, if there truly were no absolute truth, then you would have no business aruging with me on this matter. After all, you cannot claim to be absolutely right, nor can you claim that I am absolutely wrong. And if you say, “That’s not true!” then I can fairly respond by asking “Is it absolutely true that my statement was incorrect?”
I don’t believe there’s a god and other people do. There. No absolute Truth (you realize we’re talking about universal Truth in the “spiritual” sense, right??). Unless you can prove that there’s a creator that is conscious and somehow cares what goes on here on Earth, and could also somehow make us all accept that we all have exactly the same end in our future, then I think there’s no choice but to accept that we’re each here living our lives as we see fit, based on our life experiences, which are all interpreted differently. You can’t have a universal Truth without a universal god.
Okay. So because you don’t believe in a god, there is no absolute Truth? I assume that you don’t see a problem with that logic.
I also see that you’re now imposing a “spiritual” clarifier. Fine. Let’s play that game. Is it absolutely True that there is no God? For that matter, is it absolutely True that there is no spiritual Truth?
I clarified that way up-thread. It is absolutely true that there is no god in my life, therefore, it’s absolutely True that there’s no spiritual Truth.
