Truth

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Oh, come on. You mean you thought you had eradicated these sorts of notional defects by now? You've only been educating readers here for a matter of years. When you're a philosopher, you're a philosopher for life.

Yes, bbarr, this may be your cross to bear. Where to begin though, yikes.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, bbarr, this may be your cross to bear. Where to begin though, yikes.

I hope it wasn't just my post, at least. 😛

Originally posted by bbarr
Sigh.

Agreed

Originally posted by Conrau K
What is a personal truth?

Good question. I've been wondering that since I read "entitled to...their own truth" in the OP.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...Opinions can have deadly results sometimes....…

Agreed: and as the case of Adolf Hitler demonstrates, opinions that are not based on logic nor the evidence but rather on what a person wants to believe can have deadly results -obviously an absurd proposition such as “all blacks are inferior” cannot be based on logic nor evidence and are only believed by people that believe whatever they want to believe.[/b]

==============================
Agreed: and as the case of Adolf Hitler demonstrates, opinions that are not based on logic nor the evidence
=====================================

I don't know about that Andrew. Hitler had a very strong logic and a compeling set of evidence. He was persuasive.

I do not say that his logic was good morally. I do suggest that it was strong. He created a scapegoat for Germany's woes in the Jewish race.

If you are going to advance an argument that all logic is the property of Athiests, I will certainly not agree with that. I don't think Atheists have a copyright on logic or evidence, if that is where you are going with this.


===========================================
but rather on what a person wants to believe can have deadly results -obviously an absurd proposition such as “all blacks are inferior” cannot be based on logic nor evidence and are only believed by people that believe whatever they want to believe.
==========================================

I agree that the nature of prejudice is of course to advance those ideas which seem to confirm their belief and understate and resist those ideas which negate what they want to believe.

I don't think wanting to believe something makes it necessarily false. For example an atheist (and most that I hear) want that there would be no God.

And I freely admit that I want that there would be God. Though I did not always feel so. C.S. Lewis said that when he was athiest, to speak of his search for God was like speaking of a mouse's search for a cat.

I can freely admit that I want there to be God. I don't know many athiests who will admit what they really want. They posture themselves to be objective and detached and only concerned for evidence.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
Agreed: and as the case of Adolf Hitler demonstrates, opinions that are not based on logic nor the evidence
=====================================

I don't know about that Andrew. Hitler had a very strong logic and a compeling set of evidence. He was persuasive.

I do not say that his logic was good morally. I do ant. They posture themselves to be objective and detached and only concerned for evidence.[/b]

…Hitler had a very strong logic and a compelling set of evidence …

Can you explain to me his “very strong logic and a compelling set of evidence” to, say, support the proposition that “all blacks are inferior”?

…I do not say that his logic was good morally. I do suggest that it was strong.…

That is an understatement; the only kind of “logic” he had was illogic -no real logic was on the side of his beliefs.

… He created a scapegoat for Germany's woes in the Jewish race. …

Yes -because he believed them to be “inferior” -no logic there.

… I don't think wanting to believe something makes it necessarily false.…

But it surely makes it more likely to be false -yes?

…For example an atheist (and most that I hear) want that there would be no God.…

Oh here we go again -the same old claptrap about atheists “wanting” there to be no god -I have no doubt you have convinces yourself of this absurd lie to discredit atheists -a classic example of believing whatever you want to believe.

… I can freely admit that I want there to be God. I don't know many atheists who will admit what they really want.…

that’s because their “wants” generally have nothing to do with their beliefs.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Hitler had a very strong logic and a compelling set of evidence …

Can you explain to me his “very strong logic and a compelling set of evidence” to, say, support the proposition that “all blacks are inferior”?

…I do not say that his logic was good morally. I do suggest that it was strong.…

That is an understatement; the only y want.…[/b]

that’s because their “wants” generally have nothing to do with their beliefs.[/b]

====================================
Can you explain to me his “very strong logic and a compelling set of evidence” to, say, support the proposition that “all blacks are inferior”?
======================================

The history I learned was that the harshness of the winners of WWI furnished an extremly bitter atmosphere in Germany. This hardship imposed by the winning nations of the WWI Hitler utilized and twisted to make the Jews the scapegoats.

The bitterness of the defeated German people was fertile ground for Hitler's kind of racist propoganda.

There has been at least one book I know called "The Bell Curve" here, in which some American author does argue basically:

1.) Success is based on intelligence
2.) Intelligence is based on race
3.) Therefore success is based on race

The book is filled with statistical arguments that African Americans consistently score lower in tests of intelligence.

By the way, I am African American myself, so I have no compelling motive to want to agree with the book. My point is only that this author has proposed his "documented" and "scientific" evidence for racial lower intelligence of vlacks. This of course is received gleefully by some racists.

My only point here is that like Hitler, others have mustered up their "logic" and reasons to present a facist view of a group of people.


=======================================
…I do not say that his logic was good morally. I do suggest that it was strong.…

That is an understatement; the only kind of “logic” he had was illogic -no real logic was on the side of his beliefs.
=======================================

I agree that it was twisted logic.



=================================
… He created a scapegoat for Germany's woes in the Jewish race. …

Yes -because he believed them to be “inferior” -no logic there.
=======================================

You are saying that bad logic is no logic. You are saying that evil logic is not logic.

I think that is all you are really saying. Okay, for the sake of discussion let's grant that. Evil and prejudicial logic is not logic.


=====================================
Oh here we go again -the same old claptrap about atheists “wanting” there to be no god
===========================================

Ah, here we go again - Argument by Boredom

===================================
-I have no doubt you have convinces yourself of this absurd lie to discredit atheists -a classic example of believing whatever you want to believe.
========================================

Not every atheist is like this. I believe that there are some atheist who would like to believe that there is a God but say they cannot.

For example, I have heard a Jew or two express that if the Holocost happened then, unfortunately, they cannot believe in a God.

So don't slink into "here we go again" Argument by Boredom.

I can say "here we go again!" with a whole lot of junky reasonings you utilize too.

Originally posted by Badwater
I guess I differentiate between 'truth' and 'facts'. Facts are immovable, provable, absolute. Truth is elusive and dynamic. 'The truth' to me is different from 'truth'. Truth can have a shimmering clarity and be a murky fog. It may be semantics or clarifying my interpretation of this quote, but given my interpretation I can't say that I agree with it.

Can you give an example of truth as a 'murky fog'?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
What if the Truth is difficult, or even impossible, to verify? How do I proceed in the meantime?

I guess you would have to examine the evidence, and follow where it leads.

Or do you mean to say there may be no evidence for truth?

Originally posted by jaywill
Ah, here we go again - Argument by Boredom

Are you able to defend your claim? Can you find any atheists who do not want there to be a God (given a choice)? I for one, would certainly want to have a God (of my choosing).

Originally posted by veritas101
I guess you would have to examine the evidence, and follow where it leads.

Or do you mean to say there may be no evidence for truth?

I'm imagining that in some cases, the evidence may be scant. In others, it may be too complex to be readily understood. In those cases, people's beliefs will perhaps more resemble what you call 'their own truth' rather than capital-T Truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you able to defend your claim? Can you find any atheists who do not want there to be a God (given a choice)? I for one, would certainly want to have a God (of my choosing).

===================================
Are you able to defend your claim? Can you find any atheists who do not want there to be a God (given a choice)? I for one, would certainly want to have a God (of my choosing).
======================================

I just did informally.

What profit would it be to me to concoct such a thing? I told you that I have heard an argument from Jewish atheists along this line - "I would like to believe in God. Unfortuntely I cannot because the Holocost to me proves that there cannot be a God."

Loosley quoted, a notable saying - " If Altchwitz exists then God does not exist." (spelling? the reference is to a famous concentration camp where scores of Jews were murdered in Germany."

Based on this saying and similar sentiments I have heard from atheistic Jews I submit that this is an example of an atheist who would prefer to believe in God.

And as an athiest, I would think you would welcome such. I find it a very tough and tragic rational for the evangelical Christian to deal with.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm imagining that in some cases, the evidence may be scant. In others, it may be too complex to be readily understood. In those cases, people's beliefs will perhaps more resemble what you call 'their own truth' rather than capital-T Truth.

Then there is also the possibility that an individual's perception may be blurred and not the evidence itself...

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Are you able to defend your claim? Can you find any atheists who do not want there to be a God (given a choice)? I for one, would certainly want to have a God (of my choosing).
======================================

I just did informally.

What profit would it be to me to concoct such a thing? I told you ...[text shortened]... uch. I find it a very tough and tragic rational for the evangelical Christian to deal with.[/b]

What profit would it be to me to concoct such a thing? I told you that I have heard an argument from Jewish atheists along this line - "I would like to believe in God. Unfortuntely I cannot because the Holocost to me proves that there cannot be a God."

How is that someone not wanting there to be a god? That's just someone saying that they see the holocaust as being evidence that there isn't a god.

I actually happen to be a Jewish Atheist and that isn't my reason for not believing in god and not wanting to isn't either.

This argument is simply based on the fact that the holocaust was something that happened that was intensely evil and if god was good and existed then it's unfathomable by them that god could have sat by and allowed it to happen. That's not them just not wanting to believe in god, that's them just seeing that as being evidence that there is no god.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Can you explain to me his “very strong logic and a compelling set of evidence” to, say, support the proposition that “all blacks are inferior”?
======================================

The history I learned was that the harshness of the winners of WWI furnished an extremly bitter atmosphere in Germany. This "here we go again!" with a whole lot of junky reasonings you utilize too.[/b]

…My point is only that this author has proposed his "documented" and "scientific" evidence for racial lower intelligence of blacks.. …

But it isn’t "scientific" ! It is racially biased and therefore, just like anything that is biased, not part of real science. In real science you just objectively conclude whatever the evidence suggests it true and without bias else it isn’t real science but total rubbish.

…My only point here is that like Hitler, others have mustered up their "logic" and reasons to present a fascist view of a group of people. .…

But it isn’t "logic" ! It is illogic.

… You are saying that bad logic is no logic.. …

Yes. Either the logic is sound in which case it is real logic or the so called “logic” is unsound and flawed in which case it is illogic.

… You are saying that evil logic is not logic. .…

There is no such thing as “evil logic”. There is such thing as illogic designed to give some people irrational excused for atrocities but even this illogic is not “evil” but rather just plain stupid -evil is in the hart and not in reason -no matter how logically flawed that reason may be.

…===================================
-I have no doubt you have convinces yourself of this absurd lie to discredit atheists -a classic example of believing whatever you want to believe.
========================================

Not every atheist is like this.
.…

-but virtually all are -why would an atheist not want to believe there is a god?

… I believe that there are some atheist who would like to believe that there is a God but say they cannot. .…

Of course -I am not disputing that -but that is not what you said.
You said that atheists do NOT want to believe that there is a god (as well as implying that THIS is the reason why they are atheist!) and it is this that I and virtually all atheists dispute here -can you give a rational premise for your belief that atheists generally do NOT want to believe that there is a god ?
-and why would an atheist not want to believe there is a god?