Kevin's Watch

In democracies outcomes are ideally representative. And as a percentage of your population are people with religious beliefs, I guess such beliefs are represented. As to people running our governments, well you already have this today. There are state leaders who are religious or are influenced by their beliefs or the beliefs of others today. That is the current status quo. Just look at Trumps acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israels capital. Look at Pence and his religious beliefs.

Is it ideal? Hell no .. and just like throughout history when religious extremes are represented politically all manner of injustices occurred. So too the anti LGBTQ agenda and racist elements evident in the US government today.


Interesting comments on TRUTH .. I agree truth as expressed by individuals, even religions .. is a purely and conceptually subjective.

And on that basis there is NO truth .. however does there exist objective or even universal truth that surpasses the subjective?

This has been long debated. Are there two kinds of TRUTH? Truth that is evidence based and truth that is opinion based? If so the latter cant really be TRUTH, conceptually or otherwise?

Evidence based TRUTH is something that resides in the domain of science .. I do not see it in the domain of religion or faith, whether exercised institutionally or individually .. for the simple reason that it is calculated via faith, belief which evades any test or evidence. Thereby resigning it moot.

Fist and Faith wrote:We're having two conversations.

Maybe I was fooled by your statement that you don't agree that religion and politics should be separate.

Many---most, probably---would prefer their legal system aligned with their ethical/moral/religious commitments in a holistic/generic way.
Only authoritarians, fucknatics, and naive/unaware/manipulated want it literally/specifically enacted.

Sky...there are ALL KINDS of "truth." Some kinds cluster in families, naturally.
I like it that way, in general. I get annoyed when a kind of falsehood is called a kind of truth, or when one kind of truth is cross-pollinated, transplanted, or imposed on other kinds/places where it is not applicable.

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:We're having two conversations.

Maybe I was fooled by your statement that you don't agree that religion and politics should be separate.

Maybe I didn't express myself terribly well. I think religion and politics should be separate.

But I think it's only natural for people to want the laws of their society to reflect what they believe to be True - regardless of whether they arrive at their Truth by religion, science, astrology, or any other road. Why would we expect a devout believer to ignore those beliefs when deciding who to vote or campaign for? There's no reason for them to think religion and politics should be separate.

Vraith wrote:
Sky...there are ALL KINDS of "truth." Some kinds cluster in families, naturally.
I like it that way, in general. I get annoyed when a kind of falsehood is called a kind of truth, or when one kind of truth is cross-pollinated, transplanted, or imposed on other kinds/places where it is not applicable.

I cant understand this. I question whether there are ALL KINDS OF TRUTH. Do you suggest there are stages of TRUTH? EVOLUTIONS OF TRUTH?

If a fact cannot be proven, evidenced it cannot be truth.

So truth in families? What is that? Stories that are believed truths?

Maybe I am too black and white .. it is unfortunately the way I think. To me something is either true or it isnt. A fact is objectively established or it is a subjective opinion ,... not a truth.

I see that humans move through truth processes .. ie thinking the world flat to discovering it not. In that sense that truth was established in stages and replaces belief or thought .. with fact .. established objective fact.

Beliefs are not facts, they are not truths. Yet they hold some sense of credibility ONLY because a large enough group or class of humans believe it. In some regards that corroborates the belief .. but does not prove it.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:We're having two conversations.

Maybe I was fooled by your statement that you don't agree that religion and politics should be separate.

Maybe I didn't express myself terribly well. I think religion and politics should be separate.

This unfortunately is an impossible scenario. So long as their are people with faith, they it will always influence policies, change etc.

FF wrote:But I think it's only natural for people to want the laws of their society to reflect what they believe to be True - regardless of whether they arrive at their Truth by religion, science, astrology, or any other road. Why would we expect a devout believer to ignore those beliefs when deciding who to vote or campaign for? There's no reason for them to think religion and politics should be separate.

^^^^^ This is the reality we all live with^^^^^^^

Skyweir wrote: I cant understand this. I question whether there are ALL KINDS OF TRUTH.

Do you suggest there are stages of TRUTH? EVOLUTIONS OF TRUTH?

On the second: stages of truth? depends on what you mean. There are stages of understanding/knowledge, of course...but truth? Maybe---though wouldn't think so.

On the first:
The angles of a triangle are exactly 180.
They are always less than 180.
They are always greater than 180.
A donut is equivalent to a coffee cup.
All are true. Several are mutually exclusive. At least 3 [I'm not sure of the 4th] cannot possibly be physically/materially true, only approximately so, are the same "family" of true, but not true in "reality." Cuz physical existence is a different kind of true.
Last night, I saw an angel fight a dragon. That is true. It's not the kind of true that tables are made of. It's not the kind of true that the triangles are made of.
It is probably the same, or pretty close to the same, as the kind from the time I saw a character NAMED "Angel" attack a thing that looked awfully dragon-esque on a TV show.
The photons that allowed me to see that TV show are a different kind of true from the maths, the vision, the show.
All of those things, and more, have relationships that can be teased out/constructed. But none of them can, ever, be fully contained within another. And at least some---maybe all---cannot even be fully contained within themselves.

I'd even say it is possibly entirely the inherent differences in kind that make it possible for us to know at all. Yea, we've got this brain, but it evolved to deal with the world, has different faculties for different information...but integrates as well...just like it integrates sight/smell/sound/taste/touch and the dozen or so other senses.

Cail wrote:The Church teaches that those who don't follow their beliefs and dogma are not only wrong, but condemned to hell. On that alone they're monsters. Add in the kid-diddling and the coverup, as well as all the other atrocities, and they can go stuff it.

And which religion does not teach that wrong choices have consequences? Even Hindu's teach that enough bad karma will have you taking a worse position on the circle of rebirth until you work that bad karma off.

And on the last part of your statement, you can add Youth program leaders, law enforcement, baby sitters, guardians, doctors, foster parents, politicians, etc.. It's an ugly world out there. I personally don't like the coverup, and the Church is reaping that mistake even now.

But clearly you wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Avatar wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Vraith wrote: On the second, right. Now show me the religion that has that truth, knows reality.

The point isn't that I think anyone has found the ultimate Truth. The point is that many people believe they have, and it makes sense to me that they would want to live in a society whose laws are based on that Truth.

There is no Truth.

--A

Oh but there is; it is the Truth that if you stick your unprotected hand into a fire for any lenth of time that you will be burned.

The definitions for and distinctions between "fact" and "truth" seem a bit blurry to me. I call that a fact, not a truth.

Fist and Faith wrote:The definitions for and distinctions between "fact" and "truth" seem a bit blurry to me. I call that a fact, not a truth.

What is "Truth" (the capitalized truth)

I define that as a collection, possibly system, of truths, all adding up to a way of life. Your Truth tells you things like: your place and meaning; how to behave; what you consider important...

Yeah, like Fist, I consider that a fact.

Facts are objective. Everything else is subjective.

--A

Indeed .. but Truth cannot be subjective.

I follow your reasoning V .. but you seeing the "angel" fight the "dragon" was what was true .. you did see whatever that was unconstructed to be.

The angel was not an angel but a person with that name so good analogy from an allegoric perspective. As to your triangles .. indeed those equations that dictate what constitutes an angle are facts.

So it seems that the conversation has progressed to distinguishing facts from truth. To my mind facts are indistinguishable from truth .. with a capital T. I actually did not know a donut is equivalent to a coffee cup .. but in what way is it equivalent? LOL .. in volume, in shape ??

I get that you were making a funny there .. but that analogy is not the equivalence of a truth imho.

And yes our brains .. thats an interesting discussion .. are we capable of computing truth accurately? If we have evolved over generations .. and acquired a composite of learning .. maybe we are not really capable of assessing TRUTH?

No, Truth is subjective. Facts are objective.

--A

Skyweir wrote:Indeed .. but Truth cannot be subjective.

I actually did not know a donut is equivalent to a coffee cup .. but in what way is it equivalent? LOL .. in volume, in shape ??

I get that you were making a funny there .. but that analogy is not the equivalence of a truth imho.

maybe we are not really capable of assessing TRUTH?

Truth can ONLY be subjective...or at best/least contextual.
Some schools of thought say that truth is not, cannot be, a noun--the big "T" doesn't exist, it is always and only an adjective...for example as a modifier of statements. True statements.
Even facts are contingent, contextual, situational...though a photon is more constrained/definable than the question of whether the Pope shits in the woods.

I was making a funny, but it's not an original---I thought everyone had heard it. But it is also true. Literally. Not an analogy. If you're interested in how, check i out topology. Heh...search the joke/comparison, it will probably take you to the right places. Google is your friend.
[[[I was thinking I might be able to Rick-roll you with that, in addition to it being true. But I couldn't find an applicable one...damn it.]]]

We can assess truth through process and comparisons and disconnected/multiple perspectives/systems. Never be complete, never perfect, never "T"ruth. But deeper, richer, valuable.

[[don't move to the conclusion from all that that every individual belief/opinion is equal in validity, importance, accuracy...knowing the full/real/universal truth might be beyond us if it existed...but the false, the non-real, CAN be identified and excluded with far greater confidence/reliability.
As I've said before, pretty sure, I can't [no one can, at this point] ABSOLUTELY show no god of any kind exists. But I CAN show with near certainty that particular gods don't/can't.]

Genius reply .. love it _

Now that I have consulted my friend, google, I get your metaphor, well they claim it to be a metaphor, which it is

"You can put your finger through the hole in a teacup handle, but you can't put it through a potato, so these are two different categories of topological objects,"

Anything that includes a potato is total genius ... no matter what the conclusion .. so ok

and ugh I discussed this with my better half .. and he is of the same mind that truth is subjective .. even in a court of law .. truth is only ascertained subjectively by 12 individual humans.

Im not overly comfortable with this though .. as I tend to notions of universality .. that notions of universal truth .. that are surpass "religion" that certain facts exist and are irrefutable.

I appreciate that butts up against relativist notions of all truth being subjective. But clearly there are irrefutable facts that exist, universal truths .. gravity, the chemical composition of water H2O, night and day, between what two witnesses see and what actually occurred.

If all truths are subjective .. then objective, quantitative standards, cannot exist .. yet they do. So I challenge the notion that Truth can only be SUBJECTIVE. We establish objective standards and measurements .. you will counter I expect with .. that are relative to the knowledge possessed at the time.

Please dont feel that you have to explain this to me .. I will read further to get a better appreciation of your view point and of the topic in general. And I totally appreciate that youve been here a lot longer than me, and would have probably had the very same discussions over and over, many times. So I get it must be .. a .. "ugh sigh" thing for you.

But this is an issue for me .. because I do hold to the concept of universal truths .. not from a sense of divinity, as it has long been used over the years .. Ive made my atheism clear ..

My better half believes truth to be human and thereby subjective .. but I see truth more in line with laws and natural phenomena ie gravity .. if I drop an apple it will fall to the floor .. that is true. It will always be true.

The only time it will not be true will be when the laws are altered .. ie .. a zero gravity vacuum or chamber .. or on a different planet where the laws of gravity are not identical to the laws of gravity on earth.

Despite a subjective perspective of an event .. there is objective evidence of the event .. which is THE truth .. I think a tree that falls in the forrest and no body hears it does it really fall .. Fuck yes it falls. It does not need to be observed by a human to confirm its falling. What is that??

If no one is there to see it ,.. it simply means no human fucking saw it _

Relativism is an anthropocentric view of EVERYTHING .. which is why it grates my gears .. and now .. right now my better half is posing the question .. does Pluto exist? Does it exist to an earthworm??

WTF .. of course it fucking exists .. it exists beyond any subjective opinion on the matter ..

I always hated these types of proposals. Yes alright it is possible I am missing some key points .. I just dont know that yet. LOL

So now someone .. is suggesting it is about how we perceive reality. But again .. "how we perceive" is intrinsically subjective. So a continual irritation .. and puhlease with the tree falling and hearing

Hearing is only one sense .. we can set a recording device in the fucking forrest and record the fucker falling .. Did we hear it at that time .. No .. we didnt need to we recorded the fucker. Then we went their and saw the fucking fallen tree .. right? Was vertical .. now horizontal .. "fallen" to the ground. Right?

There are measurements, standards, periodic table, mathematics, metrics .. for assessing the composition of elements, facts, laws, truths.

Perhaps it is more accurate to consider a truthly evolution knowledge and truth go together. Truth, knowledge and evidence go together

I worked my whole life establishing facts .. objective facts .. they werent subjective facts, yes they had to convince a subjective audience .. absolutely, .. no question. Forensic evidence, photographic evidence

Ok so another argumentative statement from this interloper .. "photographic evidence records only one perspective" NO SIR you are wrong .. at a scene of an accident we recall every camera at each corner of the intersection .. we have every view .. lets add live satellite imagery .. we got a pretty good idea of the facts from all angles, ADD that to other evidence, road measurements .. length and dimensions of skid marks, the vehicle damage .. and we can establish what caused the accident absolutely.

Then you can add eye witnesses .. which as youve all said are the least useful .. because SUBJECTIVE

IS THIS NOT SO? And no Im not shouting .. and I am ask with the greatest of respect and cheerfulness .. sorry I do swear a lot .. another thing that interloping better half also disdains pffft

Here's an example that just occurred to me. It's a fact that, on the average, the human body contains X% water, Y% carbon; has A feet of blood vessels, B feet of nerves; etc. We're all, by and large, the same.

And it's a truth that my family's lives are worth vastly more than anybody else's life.

Skyweir wrote:, I get your metaphor, well they claim it to be a metaphor, which it is

I tend to notions of universality .. that notions of universal truth .

Heh...I have a lot of responsiveness to all that...some may be comforting, some not...but jammed up right now, hopefully I'll get back to it.

But...on the first...it is a metaphor, and a joke/play in its way. But it is ALSO really, actually, so. A coffee-cup shaped object/space CAN, in fact, be reshaped topologically into a donut-shaped object/space, and shares an inconCEIvable number...or at least a pLEthora of identities/properties.

The second...related in its way to the original topic...why do people want universal truths, especially sight-unseen? Are you CRAZY? Cuz the universal truths could well be:

1) Everything is predetermined, and almost all you fuckers are going straight to hell and ain't shit you can do about it no matter how good you want to be.
TO HELL, for fucking EVER.

2) Kill or be fucking killed. Everywhere, all the time.

3) Science is a lie from the devil. [And/or, life is suffering, bitter, illusory]

4) Beings like Hitler and Stalin and Mao, and all the other mass-murdering fuckers are RIGHT. Hell MIGHT is RIGHT.

Fist and Faith wrote:Here's an example that just occurred to me. It's a fact that, on the average, the human body contains X% water, Y% carbon; has A feet of blood vessels, B feet of nerves; etc. We're all, by and large, the same.

And it's a truth that my family's lives are worth vastly more than anybody else's life.

And to my mind you have just demonstrated the fallibility of relativism.

One "truth" is arguably law based, a natural phenomenon, can be measured and proven, ESTABLISHED. Perhaps this is a universal truth, if those percentages NEVER change under exactly the same conditions. If certain conditions change, so too may those percentages .. dont know, not a biologist

The other "truth" is only a truth to YOU .. its your relative "truth" which makes it LESS valid to humans as a whole. Your familys lives are worth more than anybodys elses TO YOU. Therefore NOT a universal truth .. on the simple basis of its subjectiveness.

I think perhaps it is more accurate that relativists claim there is NO truth. Because an opinion about something does not a TRUTH make.

Ok a simple dictionary definition

the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness;

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case,

a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

I have highlighted the issues with the term TRUTH. On the bolded expansion of the definition .. it contradicts the previously established definition of TRUTH. A truth is defined as a fact, reality .. then theyve added "my bolding" that TRUTH is also a belief that is accepted as TRUE.

This is how religious "truths" have become accepted over time. And it is antithetical to the definition of TRUTH. A truth cannot be subjective .. ever at all. It is not a belief that has popular acceptance. How popular? How much acceptance makes a "belief" a "truth"? You see we start becoming utterly UNSTUCK.

It cannot be measured, there are NO metrics, it cannot be broken down to its known elemental composition .. a belief .. is just that A BELIEF .. it is NOT a truth .. with a little t or a big T.

Something is either true or it is not. Can it be true at one time .. and as time passes that thing no longer be a truth? No. It can be known as a belief .. it was something that we thought or believed was true. It could NOT be a truth.

A truth MUST be provable.

I think relativism is undone because it is anthropocentric. And that is the source of its subjectivism.

V .. yes I understand your point. Truth is often touted by "religion" and even political extremists .... but none of those truths are established facts. Therefore they are not TRUTHS, they are not universal TRUTHS.

And I agree its a slippery slope. But one that should be pushed back on imo.

I know that universality has long been used by "religion" to articulate and justify and explain divinity, and those things related to a divine or religious understanding and appreciation of the universe, "the creation", "god" and "gods" etc.

But imo that has been a corrupting of the notion of universality or universal truths.

Those things are no more than beliefs, granted STRONGLY held beliefs .. yet beliefs nevertheless. Should their be imperial evidence of a gods existence, its creation of the world, its influence in the lives of humans .. then we might need to reassess.

And it is beyond ridiculous, literally well beyond.

TRUTH is not the domain of religion .. not even remotely. TRUTH is the domain of fact, evidence, knowledge, intelligence

.. I mean lets look at ridiculous "intelligent design" notions. Puhlease .. wake up and smell the coffee .. made out of dinosaur bones

There is not TRUTH in "intelligent design" .. it resides in the domain of fantasy, fabrication, confirmation bias etc. It perpetuates information that is not NOT truth .. not evidence based, not fact, isnt measurable, quantifiable and NOT irrefutable or established.

Skyweir wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Here's an example that just occurred to me. It's a fact that, on the average, the human body contains X% water, Y% carbon; has A feet of blood vessels, B feet of nerves; etc. We're all, by and large, the same.

And it's a truth that my family's lives are worth vastly more than anybody else's life.

And to my mind you have just demonstrated the fallibility of relativism.

One "truth" is arguably law based, a natural phenomenon, can be measured and proven, ESTABLISHED. Perhaps this is a universal truth, if those percentages NEVER change under exactly the same conditions. If certain conditions change, so too may those percentages .. dont know, not a biologist

The other "truth" is only a truth to YOU .. its your relative "truth" which makes it LESS valid to humans as a whole. Your familys lives are worth more than anybodys elses TO YOU. Therefore NOT a universal truth .. on the simple basis of its subjectiveness.

I think perhaps it is more accurate that relativists claim there is NO truth. Because an opinion about something does not a TRUTH make.

Ok a simple dictionary definition

the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness;

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case,

a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

I have highlighted the issues with the term TRUTH. On the bolded expansion of the definition .. it contradicts the previously established definition of TRUTH. A truth is defined as a fact, reality .. then theyve added "my bolding" that TRUTH is also a belief that is accepted as TRUE.

This is how religious "truths" have become accepted over time. And it is antithetical to the definition of TRUTH. A truth cannot be subjective .. ever at all. It is not a belief that has popular acceptance. How popular? How much acceptance makes a "belief" a "truth"? You see we start becoming utterly UNSTUCK.

It cannot be measured, there are NO metrics, it cannot be broken down to its known elemental composition .. a belief .. is just that A BELIEF .. it is NOT a truth .. with a little t or a big T.

Something is either true or it is not. Can it be true at one time .. and as time passes that thing no longer be a truth? No. It can be known as a belief .. it was something that we thought or believed was true. It could NOT be a truth.

A truth MUST be provable.

I think relativism is undone because it is anthropocentric. And that is the source of its subjectivism.

V .. yes I understand your point. Truth is often touted by "religion" and even political extremists .... but none of those truths are established facts. Therefore they are not TRUTHS, they are not universal TRUTHS.

And I agree its a slippery slope. But one that should be pushed back on imo.

I know that universality has long been used by "religion" to articulate and justify and explain divinity, and those things related to a divine or religious understanding and appreciation of the universe, "the creation", "god" and "gods" etc.

But imo that has been a corrupting of the notion of universality or universal truths.

Those things are no more than beliefs, granted STRONGLY held beliefs .. yet beliefs nevertheless. Should their be imperial evidence of a gods existence, its creation of the world, its influence in the lives of humans .. then we might need to reassess.

And it is beyond ridiculous, literally well beyond.

TRUTH is not the domain of religion .. not even remotely. TRUTH is the domain of fact, evidence, knowledge, intelligence

.. I mean lets look at ridiculous "intelligent design" notions. Puhlease .. wake up and smell the coffee .. made out of dinosaur bones

There is not TRUTH in "intelligent design" .. it resides in the domain of fantasy, fabrication, confirmation bias etc. It perpetuates information that is not NOT truth .. not evidence based, not fact, isnt measurable, quantifiable and NOT irrefutable or established.

So I take it you are a proponent of the "Shit just happened" theory over the "Intelligent Design" theory. (Both of which are just as provable and improvable as the other)