Is it true that this is only something that a stupid person would come up with?
Look, this is getting silly. Truth is what corresponds to reality. You know that. We all know that. Asking someone to define truth is the debating equivalent of a filibuster. Educated people do not honestly need a vocabulary lesson in matters so fundamental.
Interestingly enough, I’ve only seen people say “Define truth!” when challenged to defend the claim that there is no absolute truth. Apparently, one can declare that no real truth exists, but when this viewpoint is challenged, then you can expect statements like “Oh, yeah? Well, define truth!” to fly around.
I stated the difference between Truth and truth, and you don’t seem to get that Truth is universal (and doesn’t exist) and truth is what each person defines it to be.
So you’re stating that *reality *is real? Wow, profound. I will accept that reality is real. I will also accept that your version of reality is terminally flawed because you view it through the lens of human frailty and not a little ignorance.
You don’t seem to understand that if there is no universal Truth, then it is not universally true (or True) that there is no universal Truth. Your heated response amounts to nothing more than a fervent reiteration that “It’s True anyway, darn it!”
And if I had claimed that this was some profound insight that’s difficult to grasp, your sarcasm might have a place here. I did not, though. Quite the contrary; I took great pains to point out that the nature of truth – that which corresponds to reality – is not difficult to grasp, which is why educated people do not need to be tutored on this vocabulary lesson in the course of debate.
First of all, you’re confusing reality with its perception. I will heartily agree that humans can perceive reality differently and at times, inaccurately. This has no bearing on the question of whether truth (or Truth) exists or not.
Furthermore, are you honestly trying to disparage my viewpoint on the grounds that I am a flawed human being? What about you? Do you also view reality “through the lens of human frailty and not a little ignorance”? If so, does this mean that we cannot take any of your statements to be true? Does this include your claim that there is no absolute truth (or Truth, if you wish)?
You seem to be reading my statement incorrectly. Maybe one of the other posters can explain it better than I can. Nonetheless, I’ll give it another try.
When speaking of universal Truth, I’m speaking of the “truth” that will somehow be bestowed upon us in an afterlife. The kind of truth that religious folks talk about. “We’ll find out the reason for existence, the meaning of life, and the purpose behind all the suffering dumped on mankind by a creature that has the ability to make life perfect.” If there is no god, there can be no universal Truth. All we have is the lower-case “truth” we each decide for ourselves. It is decided while we live, since once we’re dead, we’re just plain ol’ dead.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I don’t agree but that’s okay. How others were using the the word doesn’t change the actual definition and or how I was using it. Several people pointed this out to you but no matter.
IMO it’s pretty obvious that arbitrary means more than “on a whim” but I agree we’ve spent enough time on it.
I really don’t understand how diversity proves there is no universal Truth. Using the body analogy aren’t the types of cells in our body incredibly diverse and preform a variety of functions and yet remain part of the same body and in their essence , the same?
I don’t think that’s any proof that I’m right and you’re not. Perhaps you are. I just don’t understand the chain of thought behind the conclusion when there seems to be obvious examples of that not being the case.
I don’t see a reason for a variety of strengths and weaknesses among the creatures on the planet. If there were a universal Truth, we would all be capable of “getting it” in the same way. However, because everything is different, all of it would be processed differently. So yes, we’re sort of the same, but we actually aren’t the same at all. Some people’s liver cells function differently than others, some people have different brain composition that will make them process information differently. Even people who are raised by the same people can have different opinions on that experience. Even when people are told something at the same time, they don’t always report what they heard in the same way. Even if that “something” were to come from a god.
I think you’re making an argument from perceptions. Everyone’s perceptions are a universe in themselves.
While I agree that’s true, I also think there’s facts beyond perceptions as shown by independent confirmation of scientific theories, or simply stubbing your toe. In your perceptions that table leg wasn’t there, but your perceptions sure changed while you’re writing that pit thread about table legs. Bastard things.
The problem is there’s no way to prove universal truths. There’s always the possibility of errors in judgment, errors in evidence, missing evidence, hidden evidence and things without evidence as well as deliberate red herrings (see: I think therefor I am).
Truth therefor is subjective and more or less arbitrary based on preceptions.
I don’t think that contradicts my point. If anything, it affirms what I said, since it declares that truth is not simply a matter of perception. Your statement is problematic for people who declare that there is no absolute truth (or Truth), but not for people like me who affirm that there is real truth out there.
That’s a rather ironic statement, since I’ve yet to see you provide ANY facts for your position. You have declared that there is no God, and that this therefore implies that there is no Truth, but that’s not the same thing.
Which once again reflects the double-standard that we’ve been complaining about in this thread. Theists and other religionists get challenged for their supposed lack of evidence, or they get persistent demands for “facts” – yet the absence of evidence or facts from the other side is simply glossed over.
FTR, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that your statement is self-contradictory and thus, self-refuting. That’s a fact. You’re trying to dance around this by declaring that “Truth” can only be known in the afterlife, that there is no God, and that there is no “Truth.” Those are statements of fiat, not established facts.
Finally, the point remains that – by your own declaration – “Truth” is absolute whereas “truths” are not. For the sake of argument, let us grant this distinction on which you insist. If there is no “Truth,” then such a statement cannot be absolute, so you cannot absolutely declare it to be true.
You’ve been trying to dance around this using various techniques – by declaring that it can only be learned in the afterlife, for example, or by saying that you’re only talking about “spiritual” truth. Sorry, bucko, but that doesn’t fly. If such Truth could only be bestowed in the afterlife, then how do you know that it can only be bestowed in the afterlife? Or is your statement just a flawed “truth” with a small t?
Y’know, I realize the premise of this thread was that an atheist “groupthink” existed on this board, but that’s no excuse for laziness. My stance is to operate on the assumption there is no God until facts demonstrate otherwise. There may be a few atheists here who go further than that and take the idea of the existence of God to be offensive, but they’re just jerks and we’re not part of any kind of atheist club.
But in this case the “other side” isn’t presenting an alternative God, they’re asking for you to provide facts supporting your God. The absense of facts hurts the God-proponents. I can’t see how they hurt the God-doubters or God-deniers. Similarly, a lack of facts undercuts the unicorn-supporters, not the unicorn-deniers.
Anyway, the rest of your post uses the word “you” pretty freely, but it can’t possibly refer to me specifically, so I figure it’s to a group of “you” and I won’t take any of it personally.
I would say that most believers choose a religion based on more than a “sudden or freakish” fancy, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t arbitrary, and dropping “whim” from the process doesn’t make the process any more reasonable.
I don’t think I am. Could you please explain how “by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something” applies in this case? Perhaps an example?
It does according to mine and yours.
sigh! I hope you noticed that the definition you provided separates
“subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion: an arbitrary decision”
and “capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:”
both are legitimate uses of the word and while some may have indicating religious beliefs are the latter , I and several others were not.
So when two people study the Bible and historical documents for 20 years and one says “I believe this indicates Jesus rose from the dead” and the other says " I don’t see any indication Jesus actually rose from the dead" how can that be anything other than their personal discretion? Certainly it’s not a whim.
When many Christians read the same Bible and some read it literally and some don’t and some say “this scripture means X” and others say, “no it means Y” and so on , isn’t that their discretion? When Christians say this verse should be taken literally and this one should not , isn’t that discretion?
That doesn’t mean there’s no thought process behind it. I’m guessing when you and I read "John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."we come to different meanings. Neither is a whim because we’ve both put some effort and time into study. Both are still ultimately our own discretion.
I could agree that beliefs are not completely arbitrary but I’d say they are predominantly arbitrary by your own definition. You seem to be rejecting a legitimate use of the word because of what a few posters said.
It’s the aspect of religious belief (some, anyway) that you’re actually using to show why it’s more than “just a whim.”
An arbitrary decision might be, “I’m just comfortable with the religion I was raised in,” if by that the person means he’d be equally as comfortable with any other he might have been raised in. I’m sure there are many people who do in fact feel this way (the point I’m making is that religious beliefs aren’t necessarily of this nature).
Suppose another individual looks to see which religious belief systems are most internally logical. Or are based on the most honest, reasonable translations of scriptures. That person is attempting to discern the intrinsic nature of these belief systems–i.e., those attributes that distinguish them, that make a selection something other than “throwing a dart.” This discernment–like many other assessments made outside of the religious arena, examples previously provided–is rendered imperfect, to some extent subjective, because we are human.
But if we categorize any decision that is TO ANY EXTENT subject to human bias as arbitrary, we have tortured the definition into meaninglessness. I believe that’s what you’ve done in ignoring the “rather than” qualifier (BTW, I think that definition provided is a needlessly imprecise one, not that you’re the editor of that dictionary). You’re concluding that anything not akin to a scientifically repeatable fact influencing the decision renders it arbitrary. That’s silly, and also not what your won definition said.
I did indeed notice. I hope you’re also noticing that you’ve seemed to overlook the “without restriction” and “solely” qualifiers. The distinction that renders something arbitrary is not that it is subject to any extent to individual will or judgement, or that it is contingent, to a certain degree, upon one’s discretion. The important distinction is that the decision is subject to individual will or judgement without restriction, that it is contingent solely upon one’s discretion.
It may or may not be. I’d have to understand the reasoning behind it. Some “reasons” may be frivolous to a degree that it amounts to a whim, IMO; that’s certainly the assessment many in this thread have made regarding religious beliefs. But, again, I think common sense, standard understanding, and your own definition make clear that something is not arbitrary simply because it is influenced by personal bias–all things are, including much in the realm of science. When people say someone’s beliefs are arbitrary, are you really arguing that’s not dismissive, that they’re really just trying to refine a subset of what is also sound, logical, well-though-out? That’s how you read the use of the word in this thread?