Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Devilnaut · 10-23-2002, 08:29 PM

Sure it's paradoxical, since obviously if I was 100% certain of my statement, the statement would be false.

Since I'm not, I don't see a contradiction.

Theli · 10-24-2002, 03:36 AM

I don't see how theist would in some way guarentee "absolute truth".
It might be part of certain theist's beliefstructure that A is right and B is wrong, and this is beyond questioning (being absolute truths). But in the end that is simply a hollow notion.

I saw a claim (that the writer called proof) wich was based on this notion. It said that god exists because:
Without god there is no absolute truth, and without absolute truth it is not absolutely true that god does not exist.

Obviously a claim that doesn't last very long outside the believers circle.

Laurentius · 10-25-2002, 01:46 AM

Obviously a claim that doesn't last very long outside the believers circle.

Yet truth is nothing but the claim that lasts within the social circle. (you'll bear the society you belong to even when/if you're not aware of it).

AVE

Psycho Economist · 10-25-2002, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gruveguy:
<strong>If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct?</strong>

Doesn't follow. Sure, demographically, lots of athiests aren't absolutists... but there are plenty of ways to conjure up "absolute truths" without having a supernatural agent that can intervene on one's behalf (a god).

A "strict" interpretation of Plato's Forms comes to mind (after all the perfect "Form" of a god would be necessarily proscribed from interfering in the natural world).

Also, the philosophy of objectivism is a whole school of thought (largely populated by athiests) that deals with the pursuit of "objective" moral truths (which they interpret as capitalism

).

Vorkosigan · 10-25-2002, 03:16 PM

Looks like Gruve was a drive-by poster. Thanks for wasting our time.

hinduwoman · 10-25-2002, 05:31 PM

Gruveguy, you would like Jainism then. It is an atheistic religion, but one of its main tenets is that anything can be true, even if improbable. So their debates do not degenerate into catfights, on the grounds that the opponenet's view can be the truth. So I suppose I should call it an agnostic religion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2002, 08:29 PM	#21
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Sure it's paradoxical, since obviously if I was 100% certain of my statement, the statement would be false. Since I'm not, I don't see a contradiction.

10-24-2002, 03:36 AM	#22
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	I don't see how theist would in some way guarentee "absolute truth". It might be part of certain theist's beliefstructure that A is right and B is wrong, and this is beyond questioning (being absolute truths). But in the end that is simply a hollow notion. I saw a claim (that the writer called proof) wich was based on this notion. It said that god exists because: Without god there is no absolute truth, and without absolute truth it is not absolutely true that god does not exist. Obviously a claim that doesn't last very long outside the believers circle.

10-25-2002, 01:46 AM	#23
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Obviously a claim that doesn't last very long outside the believers circle. Yet truth is nothing but the claim that lasts within the social circle. (you'll bear the society you belong to even when/if you're not aware of it). AVE

10-25-2002, 03:16 PM	#25
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Looks like Gruve was a drive-by poster. Thanks for wasting our time.

10-25-2002, 05:31 PM	#26
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Gruveguy, you would like Jainism then. It is an atheistic religion, but one of its main tenets is that anything can be true, even if improbable. So their debates do not degenerate into catfights, on the grounds that the opponenet's view can be the truth. So I suppose I should call it an agnostic religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.