I think Im an atheist.

[Menard]

Also, who's an a$$hole and who isn't, or who is most friendly isn't relevant to me, truth is.

Truth is relevant?

That's a load of bulls**t.

What's truth? Define it.

Truth is relative to who's telling and who's receiving.

I frankly think that this whole damn thread is moronic. If it had been titled "I think I'm a christian", other than a few "at a boy"s, it would have dropped off the forum in short order. No, instead, someone professes they think they might be an atheist and you end up with a bunch of grown ups who still believe in things like the easter bunny and other fairy tales trying to dumb them down to their level.

Arguing against something with declaring your take to be the truth is nothing more than the flipside...so what's the difference one way or another? And what's the point...ladies?

[ulthar]

I frankly think that this whole damn thread is moronic.

Perhaps so.  But, I think it has been quite interesting.  Obviously, there is a very broad spectrum of personal, philosophical and spiritual beliefs represented on this forum.  It has been mostly a civil discussion among people who believe different things and I, for one, have learned quite a bit from reading it.

I have enjoyed most of it...so sue me.   

[AndyC]

You do have to hand it to Menard though. He doesn't play favourites.

And I do agree, anybody who claims to have a monopoly on truth is either a liar or a fool. Or both, come to think of it.

[RCMerchant]

You do have to hand it to Menard though. He doesn't play favourites.

And I do agree, anybody who claims to have a monopoly on truth is either a liar or a fool. Or both, come to think of it.

I agree.One mans "truth" is another mans "bulls**t". I have said before-on this forum-that I believe that flying saucers are real. Real what-? Not sure. But they are there-they are a fact (in my opinion). What they are? I dunno...but no one has ever taken a photo of god,nor have witnessed god buzzing over a city....but ufos have. Yet Im thought of as a nut. Hmm.
Dont get me wrong. If a belief in a god makes you happy-go for it. It just dont work for me anymore.

[indianasmith]

I'm with Plato.  I believe truth is eternal and absolute.  Otherwise it would not be true.

[RCMerchant]

 Idunno-one mans tuth is another mans reason to go onna jihaad. Personally-if it makes you feel good-fine. I got no problem with it. Unless you try to force your beliefs through murder-(jihaads,the Inquistion,Nazism-you get the picture-) well-any thinking human being should deny it. And organized religion seems to me to be a source of evil in the name of one god or another. No doubt good has been done. But-I dunno-good can be done without an ancient fear of Hell hanging over our heads. "My gods better than your god". Insane.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

Also, who's an a$$hole and who isn't, or who is most friendly isn't relevant to me, truth is.

Truth is relevant?

That's a load of bulls**t.

What's truth? Define it.

Truth is relative to who's telling and who's receiving.

I frankly think that this whole damn thread is moronic. If it had been titled "I think I'm a christian", other than a few "at a boy"s, it would have dropped off the forum in short order. No, instead, someone professes they think they might be an atheist and you end up with a bunch of grown ups who still believe in things like the easter bunny and other fairy tales trying to dumb them down to their level.

Arguing against something with declaring your take to be the truth is nothing more than the flipside...so what's the difference one way or another? And what's the point...ladies?

Ol' menard took things a bit further than I would, OK a LOT Further.  But Its amazing how much work a lot of atheists put into not believing.  Its almost belief in itself.
-Ed

[AndyC]

I'm with Plato.  I believe truth is eternal and absolute.  Otherwise it would not be true.

I don't doubt the existence of truth, but whether people know it, understand it, and are completely honest about it is another question.

I also think we need to make a distinction between truth and fact. A fictional story, full of people, places and situations that don't exist, can still contain a great deal of truth. On the other hand, one can lie quite effectively using information that is entirely factual.

[indianasmith]

Very good point!!!
Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams said, but facts, while composed of small truths, can be combined, or parsed, to create massive falsehoods.

For example, an enormous amount of violent crime in America is committed by young, African-American males.  Far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. That is an undeniable demographic fact.  Much of this violence is black-on-black.  I have read, and have seen no evidence to the contrary, that nine out of ten times, when a black man is killed by a handgun in America, another black man pulls the trigger.   So what are we to do with this information?

A racist can use these statistics to conjure up arguments for all sorts of repressive, evil social policies - mass executions, forced abortion and sterilization, pre-emptive imprisonment, et cetera.

A liberal (or social progressive, if you prefer) can use those same statistics to justify massive Federal intervention, social spending,  and high taxes to "save" this disadvantaged group from destruction.

Odds are neither approach would solve the social problems at hand, since they stem from a complex series of causes to which there is no simple solution - certainly no solution imposed from the outside.

That's because a single set of facts does not necessarily comprise the Truth.  They can point the way to truth, but they can also lead you away from it.

[Allhallowsday]

Very good point!!!
Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams said, but facts, while composed of small truths, can be combined, or parsed, to create massive falsehoods.
For example, an enormous amount of violent crime in America is committed by young, African-American males.  Far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. That is an undeniable demographic fact.  Much of this violence is black-on-black.  I have read, and have seen no evidence to the contrary, that nine out of ten times, when a black man is killed by a handgun in America, another black man pulls the trigger.   So what are we to do with this information?

A racist can use these statistics to conjure up arguments for all sorts of repressive, evil social policies - mass executions, forced abortion and sterilization, pre-emptive imprisonment, et cetera.

A liberal (or social progressive, if you prefer) can use those same statistics to justify massive Federal intervention, social spending,  and high taxes to "save" this disadvantaged group from destruction.

Odds are neither approach would solve the social problems at hand, since they stem from a complex series of causes to which there is no simple solution - certainly no solution imposed from the outside.

That's because a single set of facts does not necessarily comprise the Truth.  They can point the way to truth, but they can also lead you away from it.

Yes, let's compare the Racist with the "liberal".  The most wretched evil with those who don't agree with your politics.

[ulthar]

He's not comparing a racist to a liberal.

He's saying that both sides can take the same set of facts and use it to rationalize their own actions.  Are you suggesting that that does not happen?

[Allhallowsday]

He's not comparing a racist to a liberal.

He's not?    

He's saying that both sides can take the same set of facts and use it to rationalize their own actions.  Are you suggesting that that does not happen?

Gimme a break.  Don't be his apologist, you know right quick what he were up to.  "Both sides"?  "Both sides"?     A most perplexing characterization! 

[ulthar]

What are you talking about?  I'm not being apologist.

He clearly stated a set of facts, then clearly stated how two different groups (or representatives of those groups) would use those facts to make their case that they are superior:

"A racist can use these statistics..."

"A liberal can use those same statistics..."

His point even holds if we take his set of facts as hypotheticals. It happens every day, especially in the news media, that the same fact(s) is represented differently by those with different agenda.  Do you deny this?

I think you are just trying to be provocative because he used the "L" word (or something...      ).  Can't we just keep the discussion clean without (purposeful?) mis-characterization of what others are saying?

[AndyC]

I do think Indy used the racist and the liberal as opposing viewpoints. Mind you, in Indy's example, both viewpoints are equally wrong, and he has, in a way, presented his own views as the middle ground.

[Mofo Rising]

Truth is relevant?

That's a load of bulls**t.

What's truth? Define it.

Truth is relative to who's telling and who's receiving.

I agree with what you're trying to say here, but the idea of "relativity" can end up being just as dogmatic as what you're arguing against. It's true that there are multiple frames of references by which life can be approached, and all of us have our own frames we argue with.

The central gist of this thread is to understand some "ultimate" truths about reality. Is it all just an accident, or is there a god at center of it all? The people who have bothered to put their input into this thread have spent quite a lot of time and thought into defining "truth" as they understand it.

The statement, "Well, it's all relative" is usually uttered by people who want the easy out of having to accept other's arguments. Why think and argue when you can just claim the whole argument pointless? Much easier, and you can feel good about yourself.

"Truth" is not relevant? Really?