you know I have always wondered why people get so passionate about their views, when most of the time the argument always comes back to something like, there is no such thing as the 'truth,' isnt everything we argue just an idea? and in trying to convince each other of our ideas, how do we know that they are even true in the first place....
Good question We have two things: Facts Convictions People mostly argue their convictions. If you say the earth is flat, then you are in direct conflict with the truth. If you say someone is wrong for believing in God, then you are wrong for thinking your convictions are right over another - this is what causes war. Most people fault here when they are in certain debates, an open-mind must always be open. You can say it is stupid, smart, good, etc. about other's convictions, but you cannot say they are wrong and they cannot say you are wrong.
Re: Good question Okay, great reply! with this statement above, what if there was substantial evidence to say that God was not in fact true. Then would one be 'wrong'? Isnt wrong and right, by binary opposition suggesting that there is an ulitimate truth? therefore by you saying they are wrong for thinking a certain way , excluding another idea and thus making this a condratictory statement?
Re: Re: Good question .......God was not in fact NOT trueNOT Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If there was an ultimate truth that God did not exist, then all who believe are wrong It is just like the flat earth. I believe the earth is flat. But it actually isn't. So if I believe God exists, and God actually doesn't, then I am wrong.
From General Relativity, universal absolute truth is just an idea. Truth exists only on a local scale where real-time, shared experience gives rise to unqualified agreement (no faith required).
Facts are the only solid truth. What has happened is the solid truth, because it is and it is there. (Unless someone goes back in time to change it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) But the truth is only with what is relative, what's there right now, if those facts change, the truth then would have to change.
Regardless ... Be there truth or Truth, or not, It's fun if the participants don't get too carried away. And, one way or the other, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Personally I think it is fun. Some people have to defend their views like their lives depend on it but I don't. In the end it doesn't make any difference. 99.9% of the time people wouldn't changes their mind anyway. (that is a very conservative estimate) So it doesn't matter. Some people just want to win the debate. In my case I just do it for fun. Sometimes I even take a position I don't believe in and just want to see what others have to say about it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sometimes I just want to be the devil's advocate for a debate's sake.
Re: Re: how can we argue if there is no truth? I agree indefinitely, we need more open-minded people in this world who accept where they are at fault, and that would change for the better. Pride will consume you if you have too much of it. I understand that. Be wrong just to see the results.
