Atheism

[omnipotent_elf]

I am a Diest. I believe everything is fundementally(sp?) rational (for example, has a scientific reason) and can be explained in non-religiuos terms. This is a form of belief like hinduism, christianity, etc, so i hope it is not deleted.

I'm interested to see if anyone else has opinions on this form of belief

[Ciryaher]

Are you referring to belief that all forms of worship are the worship of the same God, regardless of ceremony?

If so, I share that belief :)

If not, please explain so that I don't merge this thread with another that asks "Do you belief in God(s)?"

[Talierin]

Deism is the believe that Good and Evil are on equal footing, right?

I don't believe that, because if you really think about it, Evil is just the corruption of Good, and corrupted things never work as well nor are as strong as things that are not corrupted.

I also don't believe that all religions lead to God. If you really looked at Christianity, you would see that it is totally different in its theology from anything else out there.

[Niniel]

I thought deism meant that you believe that God created the world, but has not involved himslef in it since then?
I do agree with you that everything can be explained rationally by using science, but I would call that atheism, because I don't believe there is a God.

[Feanorian]

I thought deism meant that you believe that God created the world, but has not involved himslef in it since then?

Theistic Evolution.

[Ciryaher]

*screams* AGGHHHH!!!

Omnipotent, please tell us what you're talking about! Not a single person has had the same opinion of what you mean! :confused: :D

[omnipotent_elf]

Diesm is the belief that everything is FUNDEMENTALLY RATIONAL, in that all things can be explained in non-religous terms.

Its like saying that man evolved from a common ancester, not, as the bible sugests(sp?) from god making man.

if it makes it easier, it is like the saying "everything happens for a reason", and diests believe that a god/religion is not the answer

Are you referring to belief that all forms of worship are the worship of the same God, regardless of ceremony?

sorry mate, but i dont beleive in a god

[Ciryaher]

Ahh...then your thread title is contradictory..."Deism" comes from the latin word "deus" which means "god" (or godlike, one of the two) and of course -ism is a system of something.

In that case, yes, I believe in God.

[Athelas]

>I also don't believe that all religions lead to God. If you really looked at Christianity, you would see that it is totally different in its theology from anything else out there.<

Not really. Messianic martyr cults have been common throughout history. Christianity is just the most recent version. Check out Mithraism.

[Talierin]

That's not what I meant. I meant that Christianity is unique in it's view that man is sinful and fallen and nothing he can do will save him, except through God. All of the other religions believe that man is inheritly good.

And it doesn't seem like Mithraism was very popular, nor it doesn't seem like there is much evidence about it's belief system....

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by Talierin
I meant that Christianity is unique in it's view that man is sinful and fallen and nothing he can do will save him, except through God. All of the other religions believe that man is inheritly good.

Actually, most religions that I have looked into (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism in addition to Christianity), one must follow God's laws to be with God.

Christianity, Hinduism, and Sikhism (that I know for sure of) all see that people start off with a clean slate. Children in Christianity are innocent, which means that people start out "good" and they are not sinful until they lose their innocence with age and experience.

[HLGStrider]

Deism: belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejections of supernatural relevation.

So, according to Random House Webster's you've mislabeled your own belief, O-E.

Tal is thinking you meant duelism, I believe.

What's irrational about a God? You say you don't believe in him because it can't be proven scientifically? Nothing can be proven scientifically.

[omnipotent_elf]

Ahh...then your thread title is contradictory..."Deism" comes from the latin word "deus" which means "god" (or godlike, one of the two) and of course -ism is a system of something.

well my spelling sucks
theres supposed to be an A in there
Diaesm

SORRY
could a mod change the title to the thread

apologies to all....

[Talierin]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Actually, most religions that I have looked into (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism in addition to Christianity), one must follow God's laws to be with God.

Christianity, Hinduism, and Sikhism (that I know for sure of) all see that people start off with a clean slate. Children in Christianity are innocent, which means that people start out "good" and they are not sinful until they lose their innocence with age and experience.

No, in Christiainity, God's grace alone is what gets you near God. It is through His grace that you are saved, and through His grace you are changed through the Holy Spirit into a human that can be in His presence. You don't *have* to follow all the laws anymore, because Jesus came to fulfil the law, but that doesn't mean you should do whatever you want. Why? Because now that Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit in them, they should become holy temples, i.e. without sin

Children are hardly innocent, in fact, most of them are MEAN. But in the bible it says that God won't hold children's sins against them if they happen to die before a certain age. I knew by the age of around four that I wasn't a "good" person...

[Niniel]

Not really. Messianic martyr cults have been common throughout history. Christianity is just the most recent version. Check out Mithraism.
Where in Mithraism are there martyrs? I'm doing my thesis about Mithraism and I after reading about 30 books about it I haven't seen any martyrs anywhere. Or did you mean something else?

[Athelas]

"First appears as an Aryan sun-god in Sanskrit and Persian literature circa 1400 BCE. The cult was introduced into the Roman empire in the 1st century BCE.

Mithra was:

* born of a virgin in a stable on the winter solstice--frequently December 25 in the Julian calendar (the emperor Aurelian declared December 25 to be the official birthday of Mithra, circa 270 CE)--attended by shepherds who brought gifts;
* worshiped on Sundays;
* shown with a nimbus, or halo, around his head;
* said to take a last supper with his followers when he returned to his father;
* believed not to have died, but to have ascended to heaven, whence it was believed he would return at the end of time to raise the dead in a physical resurrection for a final judgement, sending the good to heaven and the wicked to hell, after the world had been destroyed by fire;
* to grant his followers immortal life following baptism.

Followers of Mithra:

* followed a leader called a 'papa' (pope), who ruled from the Vatican hill in Rome;
* celebrated the atoning death of a savior who has resurrected on a Sunday;
* celebrated sacramenta (a consecrated meal of bread and wine), termed a Myazda (corresponding exactly to the Catholic Missa (mass), using chanting, bells, candles, incense, and holy water, in remembrance of the last supper of Mithra).

The emperor Constantine was a follower of Mithra until he declared December 25 the official birthday of Jesus in 313 CE and adopted the cult of Christianity as the state religion."

Basic sources for the study of Mithraism:

Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (1903)
M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, the Secret God (1963)
David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (1989)

[Niniel]

I know all that (though some of the tihings you say are quite debatable and not proved by any reliable sources), but where are there martyrs? As in meaning people who died for their fate?
BTW the studies by Cumont and Vermaseren, though very influential, are at the moment quite out-of-date, and most of the things in it aren't supported by modern scholars. Ulansey's studie is interesting though most of it is conjecture without proof.

[Athelas]

>people who died for their fate?<

My bad. I guess we have different definitions of Martyr.

[HLGStrider]

I don't think Christianity was much like the cults of that day. I read a little bit about that once and they had a lot of practices that were similar but not very. . .like a form of Baptism, but it involved standing beneath a dead cow and having its intenstines cut out over you. . .


I personally see too much that is Hebrew in Christ's story to believe it came from those influences.

So much of what he did was backed in the old testament prophecies. I find it doubtful that that would've occured through a Persian influence.

[Ciryaher]

You'd be surprised how much the story of Christ echoes the story of Krishna (even the names are similar). In fact, I would go so far as to say that their stories are exactly alike, except for minor details and the difference in Krishna and Christ's personality (Krishna was lordly, Christ was humble...that's about it).

And most Christian holidays fall on old pagan holidays. The Catholic church made it that way so that people wouldn't have the opportunity to celebrate their own holidays, because the Christian days would take precedence.

[HLGStrider]

A clever marketing scheme really.

;)

Simularities, yes, but I think that is because it is natural for humans to want this thing. Not because Christians copied it to be another Messianic Martyr Cult.

You find lots of stories of sacrificial gods. We humans want this because I think, deep down, we know we need it.

[Ciryaher]

Marketing scheme? Considering it's 2 to 4 thousand years older than the story of Christ, I doubt that. :p

HOWEVER! I believe in Christ, and that he was sent by God to teach mankind and forgive them of their sins by God's "grace" (though grace is too...shoddy a word. Teachings seems more accurate).

I also think that Christ not have been the first or only being sent by God to teach the masses. There are a few figures througout history who have made an impact on teaching people to turn to God and end their decadence in exchange for life everlasting. Persons such as Zoroaster, Krishna, Christ, Muhammad, and Baha'i (don't know his entire name) to name a few.

As far as some Christian groups are willing to push the symbolism and implications, I would be nearer the mark than they to suggest that these "Sons of God" are all preaching a similar message that, if followed, will lead one to God.

[HLGStrider]

Marketing scheme? Considering it's 2 to 4 thousand years older than the story of Christ, I doubt that.

The marketing scheme I was referring to was the holidays part. . .that we did that with Christmas and Halloween, for instance.

I would be nearer the mark than they to suggest that these "Sons of God" are all preaching a similar message that, if followed, will lead one to God.

Then why do they contradict eachother? Why would God send some that say one thing and some that say another? God would have no reason to decieve.

And really, all we have on Christ's teaching is the Bible. That's how we know he said what he did. And the Bible will not go along with the teachings of other religions. You can bend parts, but not the main body. . .

So, I don't think you can claim Christ, Cir.

When Mohamad said Christ was a prophet and Christ himself said he was God's son, you have a major contradiction. One of them is wrong. If Christ was wrong, he must've been insane. If he was insane, he wasn't a great teacher.

[Ciryaher]

God's son? Why, then, does God refer to *all* of us as His children? Of course Jesus was God's son. All of us are. He was born (though not conceived), lived, spoke, looked, ate, drank, sleep, and died just like all of us. He spoke a great message, healed, fed the starving, and through his sacrifice, we can all reach God by accepting his sacrifice and following God's laws.

On all the occaisions I can recall, Jesus insists that he is "the Son" and specifically NOT God himself. If anyone is to defend themself from believing contradictions, it should be those that believe Christ is God Himself.

Why would Satan try to tempt God? Why would God tell himself "Forgive them, they know not what they do"? Why would God say that he is not God, but is rather the Son of Himself?

[HLGStrider]

Why, then, does God refer to *all* of us as His children?

Where?

He doesn't really. . .We aren't Children of God until after we are saved according to what I understand of the Bible. That's what being Born again is about.

You don't understand the trinity very well. Jesus claimed to be the son of God. The father and the son are in unity. God's child is a God.

Camel begets camel.
Human begets human.
God begets God.

Satan had to tempt Christ because Christ was the second Adam, sent to suceed where Adam failed. It was the equivelent to the tree.

God has three parts. ..God can communicate to himself. When we pray it is Christ in us talking through the Spirit to God. . .all three parts communicating.

God's son is a God.

[Ciryaher]

How, exactly, does God beget His self?

[HLGStrider]

Jesus said that he and the father were one.

(John 10:30)

God and Jesus are two seperate personalities but linked in a relationship that we can best describe with our understanding of father and son.

Since they are one they are both God. Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

Jesus has always been with the father. He was with him in the begining (with God and was God).



Not the easiest to explain at eleven at night.

[Ciryaher]

Exodus 4:22, 23

"Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'"

I'm not going to go through the entire Bible looking for references to people as God's children, but that is at least one instance.

John 8:42

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

[HLGStrider]

Son is being used allegorically in this place. It's also refering to a nation, not a particular person.

About the mortal body question, after or before the crucifixion? Yes to before. No to after.

ah, you edited, so now I have to.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Isn't this quote on my side of things? It says that if you were Children of God you would love him, assuming that they don't and they aren't?

If so it was very fair of you to post it, but I don't think that was your intent, or you would've said somethign about it in your post.

It says that Jesus came from God. A few verses later he gives the "I the father are one" quote. . .so, where's your arguement?

[omnipotent_elf]

Ok, i would just like to note that i am NOT an Athiest. It is a misconception to put Deaists as Athiests, as we do not believe in the same things. Athiests dont believe everything is fundementally rational.

[HLGStrider]

The problem is, O-E, you don't seem to exist. .. Every spelling you've given of your belief, I've looked up in the dictionary, and it isn't there.

Besides Deism, and you say you don't believe in a God, and Deists believe in God.

I don't know what you believe! Atheism seems to be the best shot, because according to my dictionary, Deaism doesn't exist.

[Ciryaher]

Three elements reinforce eachother:

1) "I proceeded forth and came from God;"

This indicates that he came from God.

2) "neither came I of myself"

If Jesus was God in any way, he would not have said he did not come from himself!

3) "but he sent me."

Again, one cannot send oneself (3) if one is not from oneself (2), and so one cannot come from oneself (1)

*hopes that you're seeing my path of logic here*

[HLGStrider]

You're misreading it.

"I did not come of myself" means I did not come by myself. It does not mean that he is not God, otherwise the following, I and the Father are One, would contradict it.

In other words, Christ is saying, "I am not just some man coming from nowhere of myself to say this. I am coming from God."

Also, as I said, God has three parts, and Christ is obviously refering to the father part in this sentence.

Perhaps we can continue this another time. I'm tired and I'm going to bed. I feel I havent' been understandable tonight because I'm tired and I hate that feeling and it's driving me crazy.. .goodnight. ..blah.. .

[Ciryaher]

You can respond to this whenever you get the chance.

*I* misread it? What if *you* misread it? Why would God say something if he knew it would be confused? Why not make the message clear for mankind and not pretend that "by" and "of" mean the same thing? Why on Earth would he be talking about coming *by* himself? Nobody accused him of having a posse of Messiahs in his pocket.

"My father and I are one"

Sounds a lot like:

"So God created Man in his own image; in the image of God he created him"

If one is to assume a Son of Man is the Father of Man, then one must assume that the Children look like the Father. Does God look like George Burns? Does he have a literal head, body, arms and legs?

If you believe that he has no definite physical form, but rather a form that is beyond all human comprehension. That, of course means that man does not look like God, but rather that we are like God, just as an apple is like an apple tree. It is not the appearance, it is the fact that from that apple, an apple tree can come forth...the seed of God (perhaps it is free-will, goodness, or something else).

Just as Man does not literally look like God, we may follow the same path of reasoning that Jesus is not literally the same as God. He is one in thought, one in essence. Of course not one in body, and perhaps one in spirit. Two humans can share a similar bond though. Twins have been known to know what eachother are thinking, where each is, etc. This does not make them the same person, though; just beings of the same seed.

[Athelas]

Try imagining God making man in his spiritual image. Makes a lot more sense, being as God is not a physical being in the first place, so there was no physical model to copy to begin with.

[HLGStrider]

*I* misread it? What if *you* misread it? Why would God say something if he knew it would be confused?

It never confused me before you read it that way. . .Then I had to look at whether one should read it that way, and I decided one shouldn't.

The reason is because the way you read it contradicts other things Christ says.

The way I do doesn't.

"So God created Man in his own image; in the image of God he created him"

No, it isn't very similar. Being created in someone's image doesn't make you one with them. . .Humans were given gifts that the animals weren't given, godlike traits, however, just as I can give my traits to a book character I am writing, that doesn't make the book character me. I am hardly one with that book character. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how you make the jump from "in the image" to "one with" to me it doesn't seem to follow.

Just as Man does not literally look like God, we may follow the same path of reasoning that Jesus is not literally the same as God.

I don't see that reasoning. As I said before, man is not one with God. Jesus said he was. Where is the connection between image and essence?

He is one in thought, one in essence. Of course not one in body, and perhaps one in spirit.

So your hang up is with the body? We arent' bodies. After we die we are disembled from our bodies and only after the resurection do we get knew ones. Christ is not his body. The remaining parts of a being are Spirit and Soul and Mind. You say he is one in Spirit, I say you're right. You say he is one in thought, which I'll take to mean mind, so that's right. The only thing we have left is soul. . .

You didn't address that. I'd say they are seperate parts of the same soul.

Two humans can share a similar bond though. Twins have been known to know what eachother are thinking, where each is, etc. This does not make them the same person, though; just beings of the same seed.

But this isn't being one, which is what Christ claimed. Being one isn't resembling or even agreeing with someone.

[Ciryaher]

If you can't see my connection then you never will. No point in further discussion.

Regardless, one cannot logically accept the Bible as absolute truth; especially when one has not read other texts.

Fín.

[HLGStrider]

I actually researched it. I did a random search on Google. Picked out a Christian theology site that had a "contact us" and asked the question to the resident theologian. He said the following paragraph.

"The Spirit of truth proceeded from the Father (John 15.26). Now however we interpret this the Spirit of truth was God. That is the whole purpose for saying He proceeded from the Father. The whole point of 'proceeding from' is that it indicates coming from the divine and not the human. So in the same way when Jesus said He proceeded from the Father that was His basic meaning. That He did not come of Himself He often states. This was not denial of divinity but rather the opposite, that He and the Father acted together in total unity. See 14.9-10; 16.14-15 best wishes Peter."

I accept the Bible as absolute truth for many reasons. I plan to read some other things, but not anytime soon. I actually saw the Q'Oran available for the first time in my life. I noticed it in the reference section of my library while looking for books on publishing. I thought about picking it up, but that thing is about three times the size of the Bible, and I thought "Gosh. . .that'd take me about six months and I dont even know the policy for checking out reference books at this library. . ." (I don't do reference very often).

The Bible is the only thing we really have on Jesus, Cir. If you want to claim he isn't God, do it based on what he said in the Bible, otherwise you know too little about him to make any direct judgement.

[Ciryaher]

Book of Mormon?

Anyways, I still haven't been convinced. Every passage I have read either supported my view as I read it, or it was too vague to make a reasoned judgement.

If you find a quote where Jesus says "I am God", then perhaps I will reconsider...but until then, I will think on it.

[omnipotent_elf]

*sarcastically* If i dont exist, how can i be writing this. Believe it or not, not every belief is made in the dictionary:P
i will find the right spelling in the next week, (damn i'm disorganised), but i didnt start this thread so i could be told what i believe in doesnt exist. Thats downright arrogant to presume such a thing. The only reason i started this thread was that i was wondering if anyone else believed in the ideas that there isnt a god. I didnt expect people

I don't know what you believe

for the third time. I beleive everything is fundementally rational, and can be explained without the need for a god, or a religiuos reason. I can tell your finding that belief hard to...............idealise, but there is a community who are pronounced "day- ists" who agree with me.


well seeing as we got off topic....

I accept the Bible as absolute truth for many reasons

sorry, but could u tell me exactly what the absolute truth is?. I'm interested.

[Eriol]

Cir, check John 8. I don't really see how can anyone read John 8 and disagree that Christ was claiming divinity there, FULL divinity. I think the only way to uphold your position is to discard the gospel of John entirely; a rather harsh and unreasonable stance.

If you accept John, then Christ said, to a bunch of Jewish leaders, "Before Abraham was, I AM". You are aware, of course, that "I AM" is the Holy Name of God, never uttered by Jews, right? Think about it then.

Jesus, in this passage, claimed full divinity; as can be seen by the reaction of the Jews, who wanted to stone him immediately.

Sorry to butt in your thread O_E, but it got off-topic :(. My only comment on your stated beliefs is that I don't think that you can explain everything rationally. For one, you can't explain reason rationally ;). You can't even explain why you are alive, rationally.

[Ciryaher]

Well in my dreams last night I heard the song "In Excelsius Deo" and talked to one of my uber-Christian friends while reading the Bible...and in my philosophy class we happened to be in the chapter about Christianity's beginnings. If that isn't a bit of a sign, then I don't know what is.

After reading John 8, I agree that Christ is part of God. Should have listened to Bob (guy at work) and myself in the first place :)

I WAS WRONG

There's humility for you ;) :D

BACK ON TOPIC:

The believe that there is no god, gods, or any other supernatural power is atheism. However, there *is* deism, but I don't think it's what you're thinking about. From www.deism.com :

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God/Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

There is also a "Daism" which also called itself Adidam, however the webpage only seemed to be talking about a cult built around a man's "Divine Writings"...which were apparently about himself.

[HLGStrider]

O-E, I don't think I was being arrogant, when I said "I don't know what you believe" I didn't mean that I didn't understand your statement.

If I were starting a thread on Christianity I wouldn't start it with the title: God sent is only son to die for our sins and that on was Jesus Christ and by believing in him we can be saved. . .

I would title it: Christianity.

I doubt you want to title this thread: everything is fundementally rational, and can be explained without the need for a god, or a religiuos reason

You need a title. None of the titles you've given us exist. . .Perahps Random House is just getting shoddy however.

Atheism seems to be the best bet. I don't think Atheism believes things are irrational in general. I wouldn't say Atheism has a general theology other than "there is no god." There are atheists who believe in Good and Evil. There are atheists who don't. . .etc.

So, whatever your belief is, it falls under the umbrella of atheism (just as Christianity falls under the umbrella of theism).

Until we can come up with a title, I think Atheism is the most fitting.

Where'd you hear the word? Was it online or from a teacher or an acquaintance or whatever? Just I want to limit it down. . .

I think there is a belief that starts somethign like "natural" something or other. ..but I'm drawing a blank.

Oh, and the absolute truth bit? Are you asking me to define the phrase or actually tell you what I believe is true? I think the later is futile, as you would not believe it.

Absolute truth is the idea that there is a reality. That no matter what we believe something is true, and even if we were wrong, it would still be true. It's the idea that truth does not change with our ideas. It's the idea that truth is stabile.

Realitive truth is the idea that what you believe is true for you or that truth changes with the time or with popularity or something like that.

[Athelas]

An example of relative truth, and a good reason not to trust your physical senses too much.

Experiment: You will need three bowls of water: 1 very hot, but not scalding. 1 very cold, almost frozen. 1 at room temperature.

First put one hand in the very hot water, and the other in the very cold water. Hold for about a minute. Now immerse both hands in the room temperature water.

The hand that was in the hot water will percieve the temperature as cool. The hand that was in the cold water will percieve it as hot. Which one is true? That's relative truth.

I never heard of Atheism being defined as anything except a person who does not believe in any sort of divine power. They are not necessarily Rationalists or Vulcans or whatever.

[Malbeth]

Actually, in this exemple, we have a lot of absolute truths:
1- Person A had the perception that the water was cold. This is an absolute truth;
2- Person B had the perception that the water was hot. This statement also is an absolute truth.
3- The hot bowl has a specific temperature, perceived by a thermometer.
4- The cold bowl also has a specific temperature; and
5- The room temperature bowl has a specific temperature...

[HLGStrider]

This is actually a very good example of Absolute Truth.

I feel the bowl is cold. The bowl is hot. My perception does not change the temperature of the bowl. Despite my feelings the bowl remains hot.

The bowl is the absolute truth.

[omnipotent_elf]

Oh, and the absolute truth bit? Are you asking me to define the phrase or actually tell you what I believe is true? I think the later is futile, as you would not believe it.

hot and cold are very subjective words. One persons cold is another ones hot ;). Indeed. that is the reason there is no absolute truth due to peoples perspectives.

QUOTE]Where'd you hear the word? Was it online or from a teacher or an acquaintance or whatever? Just I want to limit it down. . [/QUOTE]

i read it in a book, things with pages. The book was credible, it was published by many companies, meaning that the arguments presented were intelligent enough to convince a few companies, like random house

but, it is a book hard to pinpoint, so untill i have access to the library in which i found it (sorry, i am a country aussie), it means that i will not be able to show you. Sorry for untill i do.

If i find you the book, will you accept my beiliefs?


1- Person A had the perception that the water was cold. This is an absolute truth

no it isnt. An aboslute truth is something that cannot be argued. If they have different perceptive they wil argue about the "truth". As such, there is no such thing as truth, only a construct of a persons perspective.

3- The hot bowl has a specific temperature, perceived by a thermometer

thermometer could be wrong ;) :D

[Malbeth]

thermometer could be wrong

Indeed it could... because there is such a thing as absolute truth... if there wasn't, the thermomether would be always "right"...

An aboslute truth is something that cannot be argued.

Not exactly... if someone argues that 2+2=5 this does not make 2+2=4 a relative truth.

Anyway, suppose person A stated: "I had the feeling that the bowl was hot".

How could this statement be argued? People do not have access to other people's sensorial perceptions.

[HLGStrider]

If i find you the book, will you accept my beiliefs?

What do you mean by accept? Believe as true? No. You can find books about Santa Claus if you want to. . .
Have a name for it, yes. That's what this whole issue about. It isn't about the vallidity of your beliefs, as you seem to think I'm getting at, it's about the name. We can't very well title the thread until we know what we're talking about.

I was listening to something about Greek Philosophers and I came across a school of thought that sounded like it might be what you're getting at. . .Pythagoreanism. It's the belief that the universe is rational in that it is mathematical. . .which is similar.

An aboslute truth is something that cannot be argued

You can argue anything. . .

there are somethings modern science still doesn't know for sure and there are conflicting theories about how things happen or work. .. When I took physical science I was treated to like three theories on light that were all different. We can argue about which is true. We don't know for sure. That doesn't make it relative. One is still true. . .or none of them are.

[omnipotent_elf]

I had the feeling that the bowl was hot

thats not an absolute truth. an absolute truth is something that is universally accepted, and i'm sure someone will disagree with you "feelings". I never said we could argue weather your feelings are wrong. In fact, to you they are right. That does not make it an absolute truth.



and as stated, there are many different beliefs, which is why there cannot be an absolute truth. Nothing will ever be universely accepted. If there ever is something universally accepted, it will be the first absolute truth.


Your right, my beliefs are similar to the pythagoreanism, accept it's a bit broader than just mathematics. and dont change the name of the thread now. It would just confuse people.

Indeed it could... because there is such a thing as absolute truth... if there wasn't, the thermomether would be always "right"...

what are you trying to get at?


You can argue anything. . .

therefor there is no abosolute truth ;)

[Eriol]

Do you think the sentence "there is no absolute truth" is true?

[HLGStrider]

thats not an absolute truth. an absolute truth is something that is universally accepted

Let's say I got everyone together, everyone in the whole world, and hypnotized them to believe that a rock is God. I did this because I believe that the rock is god and want them to agree with me? Would this make the rock god? According to you, if everyone agrees with something, it is absolute truth. Therefore, if everyone agrees with me, the rock is truly god. . .

But even if they beleive the rock isn't God and no matter how hard I believe the rock isn't god, so how does what we believe effect truth?

You seem to have an odd definition of truth. Once it was not universally accepted that the earth was round. However, now almost everyone knows that it is. Are you saying that once the earth was not truly round, but now it is? That must've been quite some change.

[omnipotent_elf]

well, lets move this argument to the truth thread