The truth about Truth

[Nurvingiel]

Yes, it is worth poiting out. Though different people will weight a belief's validity differently. IOW a lot of that would be subjective, even though there are some generalizations you could make (like some people have more knowledge and/or technology at their disposal).

I have never met anyone who thought all beliefs were exactly equal. Then again, there's a lot of people that I know that haven't said what they think on this one way or the other.

Since you said 'a lot of people' , I assume you've had a conversation with someone about this at some point. What would a person who thought that say to support their own belief system in general? If all beliefs are equal, why do they believe a specific one? I just can't imagine anyone having a 'belief of the week', to give all belief systems a fair chance.

[Lief Erikson]

Such a person would not attempt to argue that their belief is correct, based on evidence. They don't necessarily just believe in any single one. They may call themselves Christian, but they accept all other religions as equally accurate.

One problem run into in this form of reasoning (if it can be called that) is that where one religion has a specific code of morality and other belief systems have different ones, then if those other belief systems are equally correct, it must be fine to behave by their codes of morality when we want. It can, I won't say always, but can lead to some fairly lax morality.

I probably didn't fully answer your question. I'll be back later .

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I don't really remember what my whole question was anyway so no worries.

I don't think accuracy can appropriately describe religion anyway. I think it's better to think that they approximate the truth to varying degrees of closeness - what degree exactly, we'll never know in our lifetime.

Perhaps someone who believes that all beliefs are exactly equal feels they all approximate the truth to the same degree of closeness, just in different ways. However, I doubt there actually are people like this.

My new question for you is have you ever met such a person? I know I never have. I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing someone who may not exist at all. (However, it is an interesting discussion. )

[Lief Erikson]

I have met them personally and debated with them before. Unfortunately, our youth group has taken a massive decrease in numbers since then, and also is no longer as oriented toward discussion and debate. I still know some of them, though don't meet them often. I have a video tape devoted to refuting them. Perhaps I should watch it again, to get acquainted again more fully with their arguments.

I assure you that these people do exist. Liberalism (in this form) is relatively common amongst youth of the US. I also knew a Belgian girl who believed something similar to this. Since you tend to connect yourself with how I view liberalism, I sometimes accidentally throw you into this crowd. It's my mistake, and I must remember not to do this .

The difficulty that these particular liberals have is that they substitute the word "truth" for "belief". If they only switched to belief, I'd agree with everything they say. One of my old youth leaders once was arguing with one of these liberals. It was absurdly simple to push her into a corner.

"What if I believe you're the Messiah?" he asked.

"Then that's your truth," she answered.

"Oh, then you are the Messiah?" he queried.

The belief that every religion is true is doubtless very comfortable. It also, though, is very obviously untrue. We argue it by pointing out the contradictions between religions. "Both cannot be true at the same time." That's where we strike.

[katya]

I think "lying" is intentional deceit.

Example: "Did you brush your teeth, little Johhny?"

(Aw man, I don't wanna brush my teeth, it's just a drag) "Yes, I brushed my teeth." (Yeah, sure I did, yesterday.)

Since little Johnny did brush his teeth, he didn't say anything untrue, but it was pretty much a lie, because his mom meant did he brush them this morning. He intentionally deceived her.

I suppose the opposite of intentional deceit is intentional clarification.

example: "Little Johnny said he brushed his teeth this morning."

"No, actually he meant that he brushed them yesterday."

"I see...."

These are according to what we perceive as being true. Maybe Johnny really did brush his teeth this morning and forgot, but that's not what he believes.

Truth is what is actaully true. Reality. Whether it exists, who knows, but it's what actually is. Whether or not Johnny actually did brush his teeth.

I suppose all our thoughts, misconceptions, and lies are all part of the truth too. Like, you could say unicorns don't exist, but they do, in our imaginations, our art, etc.

So I agree with whoever said the opposite of truth is non-existance. If truth encompasses everything, the opposite of everything is nothing.

All beliefs are truth in this respect because they are truly believed. The truth is that athiests don't believe in God. The truth is that some people do believe in God. The beliefs are not true, but they both exist and are therefore part of the truth.

[Lief Erikson]

I completely agree with your post, Katya . You put things very clearly and, IMO, accurately.

[Spock]

[katya]

Thank you! Um...Spock?

You guys, I asked my mom "What is the opposite of lying?" and you know what she said? "Standing." Oh, mom....

[Lief Erikson]

Lol!