Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth

oh..how so.?..please explain...
what do I mean to say...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We've already been over this. My explanation is in the post you just quoted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so you feel my wording is not to your liking and nonsense to you.
ok...I can dig that...thanks for sharing...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you? Do you really understand that a belief can be the end result of a pursuit for truth? Do you really "dig" why the better question would be to ask why people defend beliefs they know to be wrong?

 

Can you understand that belief is never an end result... but merely a way point to something further on...?

If all beliefs are ultimately wrong how can a belief ever be true?

"Belief is merely a stepping stone, a way point, a place of respite, on the journey towards the truth that can never be discovered." ~ anon

"Truth is an absolute where as belief is an infinite variable" ~anon
but you are more than entitled to believe as you choose to.... [thus infinite variability....because "truth offers no such choice" as it is absolute regardless of what you believe]

 

proposition: Belief empowers the delusion of ego where as truth dis empowers the ego of it's delusions of grandeur.

"The truth is ALWAYS irrational to someone who believes in a lie" ~QQ 2006

 

Now you're trying to poison the well. The point was simply that a belief can be the result of the pursuit, whether it's the whole picture or just a piece of it. And to say something "is never" an end result is silly.

On what grounds do you make the claim that all beliefs are ultimately wrong?

Vague, and not very helpful. Are you basing your view that truth is wholly elusive on this anonymous quote?

This seems to contradict your position at the beginning of this thread, which was that truth is merely what someone believes.

 

But what if what you believe is the truth?

Another vague, oversimple and incorrect platitude. People who believe a lie don't necessarily believe it because the alternative is irrational. Sometimes they believe a lie because from their perspective it provides the best answer. Other people believe because they fear the implications of other beliefs. Indeed, there are countless reasons why someone would believe in something untrue, so anyone attempting to bake it down to a single sentence has their work cut out for them. And someone as artless and wholly devoted to ignorance as you has no hope of accomplishing such a feat.

Then again, the sentence does, quite ironically, sum up your own personal experience. As anyone following this thread could attest, your preconceptions are, essentially, that your truth is the only truth, and all other options are irrational.

 

oh how so?

simply because if it were a correct or right it would be a truth [absolute] and not a belief.
Example:
The logical truth of Newtons:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

when applied exclusively to 3 dimensional space

well that's why I said earlier:"there is only one thing I know that I can be absolutely certain of...."

support that or be considered a dunce for ever by everyone reading this thread with half a brain.

 

How would you know given the limitations of your capacity to "objectively" observe anything?
You gotta remember your science tells us [incorrectly IMO] that we are just interpreters of arriving information and that we reconstruct miraculously, a shared and common reality.
I posted about "mind independence" earlier.
"Mind dependency" regarding the absolute truth means that everything is subject to interpretation. therefore a subjective belief.
And there is only one thing I know that isn't dependent on "mind" to determine it's truth or not.
and QED and QM have been playing with it for years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"My hero"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit: can't find a bust pic of R. Feynman..which is a pity

 

Evidence.

Science doesn't say anything happens miraculously. And how could you say anything is incorrect if you also posit that nothing can be known? You'd have to know that it isn't true to make such a determination, yet you say you can't possibly do so.

I don't know what this means, and I don't how one can make the leap from "everything is subject to interpretation" to "everything is a subjective belief." Obviously everything is subject to interpretation, because everything must be interpreted. That doesn't mean there are no objective values. Unless you're suggesting that the speed of light isn't what science claims it is?

That makes no sense. Grammar aside, if there is no mind to determine, then nothing can be determined. Again, is this just your inability to properly phrase a point you're trying to make? What are you trying to say here?

 

in the dark ages they had evidence the Earth was flat too... so?
How do you observe the evidence with out the distortions of mind and preconception?
Evidence is jack shit if you can't see it and only re-construct it...in your head...

exactly ... everything we think we know is in some ways incorrect.

see above

speed of what?...[chuckle] Now let's not get onto the subject of the definition of energy again, shall we? [ too upsetting for some other posters]

yep you got it, No "thing" [nothing] can be determined as true.... zero, zilch, void, nothingness, unconsciousness....
0=0 true yep.
So the only thing I know that I can be absolutely certain of is.....______!

 

If you didn't see it before have another look at it:
[video=youtube;CO6NOx53SrU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO6NOx53SrU[/video]
and think about the very end when he is looking at a blank scroll with only his reflection in it...
What does he see and what doesn't he see?
For those who may not know the movie, the holiest of sacred scrolls is supposed to contain the holy grail of all truths.
One of the most profound bits of "philosophy on the net" IMO
If you haven't seen the animated movie Kung Fu Panda I would thoroughly recommend you consider doing so...

My apologies for the off topic diversion into the nature of the truth, but Balerion seemed so persistent.

This thread of course is about the defending of a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth.
[which is essentially exploring the nature of ego]

 

@QQ --

No they didn't, they simply assumed that it was flat, either because they were ignorant(the planet was demonstrated to be round and not flat well before the Dark Ages) or because their religious book decreed that god had made the world with four corners. However they never had any evidence to support their assumption other than "just look around you, does the world look round?" Which isn't really evidence.

 

It's not me, but the dull content of your posts that sets the threshold here.

You would not know either if they hit you over the head with a textbook.

 

Well, they also had other evidence:

Sailors sailed hundreds of miles and reported that the water was still flat and did not drain anywhere.
One could see a great distance, limited only by the visibility of the air; nowhere could any change in local vertical be seen.
With the best surveyor's tools of the time, flat plains (i.e. salt flats) were really flat and not curved.

With the poor tools of the time they could not easily refute this evidence. It was not until about 500BC that astronomers created the observational models and mathematical tools to start looking at polar stars and calculating the possible curvature of the Earth.

 

500BCE is still earlier than the Dark Ages.

 

So I used a bad example...

was the point at issue not the world being flat...
What examples could you offer that shows how evidence is open to interpretation therefore subjective? [if any]

 

So because the interpretation is subjective the evidence must be as well?

 

so even though they had evidence around 500 BC they still continued to believe that the world was flat...?

Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth tends to have those sorts of outcomes...