Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
THREE: You are heading down a leading trajectory here, as all books and records should generally be included, not religious books alone. Everything we understand is subject to the reality we perceive, via our human senses, even those obtained by instrument measurements are still subject to our design and interpretation.
FOUR: Again you are suggesting that something found in any religious book by definition can NOT be 'Universal truth'. While that is often the case, I would say far from absolute. A simple illustration is that many religious literary texts contain historical data. I could go on, but only one instance is required to fracture the 'truth'
FIVE: 'Faith' is a challenging topic, because it's hard to get people to agree upon what it means, so you are trying to define it and speculate on it's origin (as you define it) rather than driving a 'truth', specifically #5 of 10. In Strong's Concordance (going from memory) I believe one definition is: Certainty, based upon knowledge. While many people define it as substituting hope in lieu of evidence and knowledge.
SIX: Agreed, when you believe you have all the answers, questions become the enemy.
SEVEN: "Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth" Accepted by who? Not by the greater religious populous. You say they are wrong they say you are, refer to Truth #1 and consider that YOUR truth might be a sub of perceived truth. Don't get me wrong, I fall into the same camp, but I could be wrong too. It just seems most likely to me based on my perceptions.
EIGHT: Reprise of #6
NINE: More a description of an observation and hope for our species than a 'truth'. Don't forget in all of your optimism to calculate in the element of predatory ambition, that is entrenched in the human condition.
TEN: I can go with most of this, although again, more an observation than a truth. In this one however, the phrase 'backward ways' implies more of a choice to be archaic, than the recognition that most of those those qualities are the result of human development. It's popular to condemn that behavior, that is all too often instinctual, born out of tribalism. IMO it's just going to take more time for those instincts to be diluted to the level of inconsequential.
You asked, I offer my thoughts, nothing more. The great thing about this effort, is that you are THINKING and working to inspire others to do the same, nice job.
Can this process evaluate any claims, at all, to see what one(s) match what we see better?
What it does is say we need to look for a reliable process. But it never requires the reader (or devout follower) to do anything but wait to be told.
Interesting to note that you can so quickly agree or accept the first two while more than a few others even had some issue with these. Glad to move onto three in this case anyway.
THREE: You are heading down a leading trajectory here, as all books and records should generally be included, not religious books alone. Everything we understand is subject to the reality we perceive, via our human senses, even those obtained by instrument measurements are still subject to our design and interpretation.
True. Of course there are many other books of all sorts we can find some fault with, but also of course the subject or focus here is on religion. Religion and/or science and critical thinking anyway. Also true that "perception is everything." What I try to address straight off with truth #1.
FOUR: Again you are suggesting that something found in any religious book by definition can NOT be 'Universal truth'. While that is often the case, I would say far from absolute. A simple illustration is that many religious literary texts contain historical data. I could go on, but only one instance is required to fracture the 'truth'
Though true again, I did not write that nothing of value can be found in religious books. I am simply making a case for which is the most likely path to arrive at the truth most "accurately and peacefully." Documented history rather than religious books, for example. Empirical science rather than theology. Which is best from an objective universal truth standpoint? Emphasis on universal, that we don't tend to fight about?
Also as I wrote, where we can accept the truth with "the most certainty and least conflict."
None of this means that a holy book doesn't have something of value to offer. Or any other book for that matter, but for the sake of choosing a path that leads more universally to universal truth without conflict, my 4th truth is how I cast my vote.
FIVE: 'Faith' is a challenging topic, because it's hard to get people to agree upon what it means, so you are trying to define it and speculate on it's origin (as you define it) rather than driving a 'truth', specifically #5 of 10. In Strong's Concordance (going from memory) I believe one definition is: Certainty, based upon knowledge. While many people define it as substituting hope in lieu of evidence and knowledge.
True again and I have many times pointed to the fact that faith is the result of many different influences that can cause different people to believe what they do. No question. Nevertheless, I offer what I think is a fairly common understanding about how many comes to speculate about what is going on around him. I think it's more than just my "speculation" as to origin. "Substituting hope in lieu of evidence and knowledge certainly fits my understanding of how faith comes to be as well. The many ways faith can come to be, "typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic" as I wrote in truth #5.
Seems we might agree about this too, generally speaking.
SIX: Agreed, when you believe you have all the answers, questions become the enemy.
SEVEN: "Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth" Accepted by who? Not by the greater religious populous. You say they are wrong they say you are, refer to Truth #1 and consider that YOUR truth might be a sub of perceived truth. Don't get me wrong, I fall into the same camp, but I could be wrong too. It just seems most likely to me based on my perceptions.
The greater religious populous does not have a commonly accepted "effort to arrive at the truth." Please find me a world-wide effort more commonly accepted than science. No matter the country. No matter the religion, all of which have little in the way of commonality when it comes to establishing the truth, there are scientists in all variety of countries watching the stars, going into space, looking into microscopes, testing theories, medicines, working on universal problems (like cancer) that make for a universal effort that transcends the boundaries of religion and sovereign borders. Quite unlike any other efforts by comparison. This is what I mean by my 7th truth. People don't go to war over different ideas about how to cure cancer, for example. Discovering the true nature of things by way of the telescope or microscope or stethoscope...
NINE: More a description of an observation and hope for our species than a 'truth'. Don't forget in all of your optimism to calculate in the element of predatory ambition, that is entrenched in the human condition.
Perhaps a bit of "reprise," but I think there is more to eight that adds some worthwhile "meat to the bones" here.
You are not the first one to suggest my use of the word "truth" can be substituted by other words when it comes to these observations of mine. Observations, steps of logic, insights, whatever. Perhaps I should not have used the word truth, since of course all anyone might consider along these lines is "entrenched in the human condition." Nevertheless, I like to think I argue truth, as best as I am able of course. As perhaps we all should even though we all know we won't all agree about the facts, reason or logic that has us believing what we do. If this were not the case, there would be no need to posit what I do.
My hope has always been to find the flaw in what I suggest to be truth and/or the better way. Not so much to argue that truth can be an objective matter (per my truth #1).
TEN: I can go with most of this, although again, more an observation than a truth. In this one however, the phrase 'backward ways' implies more of a choice to be archaic, than the recognition that most of those those qualities are the result of human development. It's popular to condemn that behavior, that is all too often instinctual, born out of tribalism. IMO it's just going to take more time for those instincts to be diluted to the level of inconsequential.
You asked, I offer my thoughts, nothing more. The great thing about this effort, is that you are THINKING and working to inspire others to do the same, nice job.
You will have to help me to better split this hair between what you agree is truth and/or what we can all argue is observation. I don't think backward ways is necessarily a choice. In fact I think people who cling to backward ways do so for another wide host of reasons not always so clearly by choice. Just like many a religious belief is not always just a simple choice. Everything about us is really a function or result of human development. Much of what I explain is well founded by documented history that describes that development.
Thanks for your thoughts and positive affirmation with respect to my intentions here. I can agree that among a few goals that had me write out these Ten Truths, getting people to think about all this kind of thing is certainly one of them. Your input is much appreciated more than you know. Thanks again!
You will have to help me to better split this hair between what you agree is truth and/or what we can all argue is observation. I don't think backward ways is necessarily a choice. In fact I think people who cling to backward ways do so for another wide host of reasons not always so clearly by choice. Just like many a religious belief is not always just a simple choice. Everything about us is really a function or result of human development. Much of what I explain is well founded by documented history that describes that development.
Thanks for your thoughts and positive affirmation with respect to my intentions here. I can agree that among a few goals that had me write out these Ten Truths, getting people to think about all this kind of thing is certainly one of them. Your input is much appreciated more than you know. Thanks again!
Irkle has provided an extensive and substantive critique of your Ten Assumptions as you requested, yet you have ignored him. Why is that?
You will have to help me to better split this hair between what you agree is truth and/or what we can all argue is observation. I don't think backward ways is necessarily a choice. In fact I think people who cling to backward ways do so for another wide host of reasons not always so clearly by choice. Just like many a religious belief is not always just a simple choice. Everything about us is really a function or result of human development. Much of what I explain is well founded by documented history that describes that development.
Thanks for your thoughts and positive affirmation with respect to my intentions here. I can agree that among a few goals that had me write out these Ten Truths, getting people to think about all this kind of thing is certainly one of them. Your input is much appreciated more than you know. Thanks again!
Listen, I'm not of the mindset to argue the validity of your points, they are all good points, what struck me wasn't so much the validity, as it was trying to establish them as "Truths", as though the fundamental document for building some intellectual culture. Perhaps that wasn't your intention at all, how could I know...? If you were trying to establish 10 Truths as a cornerstone code of life, for example, it's be best to mitigate, preclude even, ambiguity. If instead, they are meant to be 10 Observations and Resultant Guidance, I'm in. No offense intended.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
