Actions speak louder than words.

liveya

joseph brand wrote: »

ROFL

The church has never shown arrogance. Not even when they ordered parents here in Ireland to turf their daughter (who had given birth out of wedlock) out onto the street. The baby went to an orphanage, but you know the rest I'm sure.

Also, we're all wondering if you have proof that His Noodliness or the Space Tea Pot don't exist.

If you discovered that a friend or relative was spending money that they didn't really have, on a psychic, (resulting in debt problems), would you try to help them, or would you keep schtum? There are plenty of videos that PROVE that these gangsters have no 'special' abilities other than the ability to con weak minded people out of their savings.

You have to admit, to say that athiests are always right is, well you know..

Now, the church may seem arrogant to you, but when you think about it, it's not. Athiests make claims based on their own grounds. now the church teaches what it teaches, even though some find it a terrible inconvenience, because they beleive it to be revealed to them by God.

So the church didn't make the road up to God, or claims to have made these teachings. they beleive God revealed the truth to them, and accepted it, this is actually humility.

Blowfish

liveya wrote: »

I never claimed to know the absolute truth, or claimed that I know there is absolute truth, but when I voice an opinion, for obvious reasons, I beleive it to be true, based on sound reasoning - based on my own experiences.

I believe there is an absolute truth, and I beleive my opinions to be that truth, otherwise why would I voice them? - does that clear it up?

No, because it's still contradictory.

You believe there is an absolute truth. Nothing wrong there.

You believe your opinions to be that absolute truth. As mentioned earlier, belief something is absolute truth, requires absolute proof, else you cannot know it holds in all cases.

You admit you do not have absolute proof of your beliefs.

This is contradictory.

liveya

Blowfish wrote: »

No, because it's still contradictory.

You believe there is an absolute truth. Nothing wrong there.

You believe your opinions to be that absolute truth. As mentioned earlier, belief something is absolute truth, requires absolute proof, else you cannot know it holds in all cases.

You admit you do not have absolute proof of your beliefs.

This is contradictory.

I don't see how. If I believe my opinions to be true, in line with absolute truth, which I also believe exists, then how is it contradictory? Remember, you can believe something without proof, as long as it's reasonable for the person, based on their experiences.

Maybe I have contradicted myself, and I withdraw that statement, but I cannot until I see how I have contradicted myself.

IT-Guy

liveya wrote: »

I'm going to address the issue at hand here..

I hold to absolute truth, so it makes sense why I voice my opinion, even if I cannot prove something is true. Now you are a nihilist, where nothing matters at all, so, like a relativist actually, you want your cake and eat it too. You should be able to see the difference between why I would voice an opinion and why you shoulldn't bother, even though you admit your opinionis never true, therefore has no value.

It goes back to the title of the thread, actions speak louder than words. You say opinions are never true, yet you behave in a way they are. I see a contradiction there.

Nihilist does not mean nothing matters at all in the sense I think you mean, maybe you're thinking of anomie or a sense of existential despair? The phrase 'have your cake and eat it too' has to me 2 different meanings:

1. that you want the pleasure and enjoyment of 'cake' without actually consuming it
2. you want to be presented with 'cake' and be allowed eat it too

If you mean it in the first sense then I'm not sure how it applies here? If in the second sense then of course, it's perfectly normal. Can you clarify for me please or have you another meaning?

My sense of nihilism allows me to fully appreciate the meaning I put into things. It negates the meaning others would try to put on something where I don't share that same sense of meaning. Again it's a tool, not just a worldview. I still don't see why my sense of nihilism (one of many I possess) doesn't allow me an opinion? In fact it's a better way to form an opinion in my experience, if I believe something to be true it's because I've either experienced it or the evidence for it can be tested, verified and reproduced.

Standman

liveya wrote: »

I never claimed to know the absolute truth, or claimed that I know there is absolute truth, but when I voice an opinion, for obvious reasons, I beleive it to be true, based on sound reasoning - based on my own experiences.

I believe there is an absolute truth, and I beleive my opinions to be that truth, otherwise why would I voice them? - does that clear it up?

I don't think you really believe your opinions to be the absolute truth, if that were the case you could never change your mind about anything. There is always a chance something can be wrong, even if it is so small it may as well be 0.

liveya

Standman wrote: »

I don't think you really believe your opinions to be the absolute truth, if that were the case you could never change your mind about anything. There is always a chance something can be wrong, even if it is so small it may as well be 0.

I understand what you mean now, and many times of course I've changed beliefs.

liveya

IT-Guy wrote: »

Nihilist does not mean nothing matters at all in the sense I think you mean, maybe you're thinking of anomie or a sense of existential despair? The phrase 'have your cake and eat it too' has to me 2 different meanings:

1. that you want the pleasure and enjoyment of 'cake' without actually consuming it
2. you want to be presented with 'cake' and be allowed eat it too

If you mean it in the first sense then I'm not sure how it applies here? If in the second sense then of course, it's perfectly normal. Can you clarify for me please or have you another meaning?

My sense of nihilism allows me to fully appreciate the meaning I put into things. It negates the meaning others would try to put on something where I don't share that same sense of meaning. Again it's a tool, not just a worldview. I still don't see why my sense of nihilism (one of many I possess) doesn't allow me an opinion? In fact it's a better way to form an opinion in my experience, if I believe something to be true it's because I've either experienced it or the evidence for it can be tested, verified and reproduced.

Yet, not the belief itself. Has nihilism been proven to you? If not, why do you beleive it?

I don't think it's reasonable to create your own temporary meaning for your life, until you die. I think this is intellecually dishonest. I understand ones desires to do so.

IT-Guy

liveya wrote: »

Yet, not the belief itself. Has nihilism been proven to you? If not, why do you beleive it?

I don't think it's reasonable to create your own temporary meaning for your life, until you die. I think this is intellecually dishonest. I understand ones desires to do so.

You could say that about any belief though? You're on a path of infinite regression here, belief being built upon belief. The only way to be sure is evidence, nihilism to me isn't a belief, it's a sense, one that becomes heightened around indoctrination. As I've said it's a personal experience, if others can identify with it then cool, if not then I'm not going to force that on you or tell you it's the only way to live and certainly not before the age of reason

Life is temporary so any meaning I choose is mine to apply and you've kind of proven a point I was making in another thread, religious people seem to not only want others to believe as they do but to have that belief enshrined in law. You think I'm being intellectually dishonest by applying my intellect to my view of the world? Smacks of a lack of maturity and understanding to me

Kivaro

liveya wrote: »

Maybe I have contradicted myself, and I withdraw that statement, but I cannot until I see how I have contradicted myself.

And where is this quote?
It seems to have disappeared:

Originally Posted by liveya
I know there is no absolute proof of God, it will have to always be a matter of faith, as long as we're finite human beings, with limited faculties, it can never be proven to us, since for us to experience anything, it has to work through the realms of science, thereofore losing its metaphysical significance. As I stated on a previous thread, it's perfect the way it is.

How ontological of you.
Limited faculties?
You should look what humans did with qubits and quantum computing during the week: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/07/quantum-computing-no-cooling-required/

liveya

IT-Guy wrote: »

Life is temporary so any meaning I choose is mine to apply and you've kind of proven a point I was making in another thread, religious people seem to not only want others to believe as they do but to have that belief enshrined in law. You think I'm being intellectually dishonest by applying my intellect to my view of the world? Smacks of a lack of maturity and understanding to me

If religious people want you to beleive what they do, it's only because they beleive it's the best for you, and society as a whole. For example, every human being from conception to death is to be valued, and respected. Doesn't sound too bad to me. A religious law isn't bad for society, if you don't believe it.

liveya

Kivaro wrote: »

And where is this quote?
It seems to have disappeared:



How ontological of you.
Limited faculties?
You should look what humans did with qubits and quantum computing during the week: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/07/quantum-computing-no-cooling-required/

I was referring to our limited faculties in comparison to Gods.

IT-Guy

liveya wrote: »

If religious people want you to beleive what they do, it's only because they beleive it's the best for you, and society as a whole. For example, every human being from conception to death is to be valued, and respected. Doesn't sound too bad to me. A religious law isn't bad for society, if you don't believe it.

I think you accused someone of arrogance on this thread, if you can't see the arrogance in your own post, specifically the bolded bit then you're not only biased but also naive. I think as a rational adult I know what's best for me, to say that anyone else does is inappropriate. I don't want others to believe as I do, I would like to live in a society where all views are respected but none given preference, secularism ftw! The problem is some people and groups believe they're not respected unless their opinion carries more weight or has the final say.

mrac

liveya wrote: »

If religious people want you to beleive what they do, it's only because they beleive it's the best for you, and society as a whole. For example, every human being from conception to death is to be valued, and respected. Doesn't sound too bad to me. A religious law isn't bad for society, if you don't believe it.

So you believe societies like saudi arabia and other theocracy, who punish a gay person for just being, who imprison and kill people who simply leave their religion and stone women for being raped are in some way good for society?

I would be interested in how you could possibly defend religious law as being good for society.

Blowfish

liveya wrote: »

If religious people want you to beleive what they do, it's only because they beleive it's the best for you, and society as a whole. For example, every human being from conception to death is to be valued, and respected. Doesn't sound too bad to me. A religious law isn't bad for society, if you don't believe it.

That's a pretty major assumption, there are plenty of religious beliefs that contradict it.

To use an extreme example, what about the Aztec beliefs that their gods were nourished by human sacrifice? Do you think that wasn't bad for society, regardless of whether you believed in it or not?

Sarky

liveya wrote: »

I understand what you mean now, and many times of course I've changed beliefs.

But you're certain you got it right THIS time, yeah?

Kivaro

liveya wrote: »

I was referring to our limited faculties in comparison to Gods.

But there is no such thing as "God(s)".
Which means that human faculties are unlimited, and whatever restrictions/limitations currently in place will be resolved eventually.