• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Truth is dead: Long live RF!

What does 2+2 equal?

  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3.99

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 4.315671

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 6915425168.000003

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • A Pink Elephant in a tutu

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 2 doesn't exist. It's a Social Construct developed by the CIA

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • When two "2s" love each other very much they have sex and give birth to a "4"

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • I don't know. Sunstone hasn't told me yet. Sunstone is always right.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
This just reinforces may claim that everyone has to find their own truth.

Do you believe there are any universal truths?

For instance, that a rock is a rock is a universal truth.

From my perspective, someone's "personal" truth is only a truth to that person, and cannot be universally accepted as truth.

Should we not hold the truth of natural reality more valuable than a personal truth?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
How exactly does that work? If I claim to see a dog, and you -- looking in the same direction at the same time -- claim not to see a dog, are we both telling the truth? If I accept evolution and you do not, are we both right? If you think things fall towards the center of the earth because of gravity and I think it's because of invisible gremlins pulling them there, do we both have the truth?

Now you're getting the picture. (BTW, is it really a dog just because you, and the rest of the world, says it is?)
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I had a difficult time responding. While 2 does not exist, it is not a social construct developed by the CIA. It is a human construct drawn (or typed) as a curve and a line to symbolize dualism, which, obviously, in my worldview, does not exist.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Do you believe there are any universal truths?

For instance, that a rock is a rock is a universal truth.

From my perspective, someone's "personal" truth is only a truth to that person, and cannot be universally accepted as truth.

Should we not hold the truth of natural reality more valuable than a personal truth?

How is "a rock is a rock" a universal truth? Isn't it only a rock because we say it is? Can there ever be any "Universal Truths"?
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
How is "a rock is a rock" a universal truth? Isn't it only a rock because we say it is? Can there ever be any "Universal Truths"?

It is an untruth to refer to a rock as something other than a rock, which makes the statement "a rock is a rock" a truth. It is a rock because that is the term we have deemed proper for its name sake, and that in no way invalidates the truth of it being a rock. Yes, there can be universally recognized truths; a rock is a rock, a tree is a tree.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I think you're right to some significant extent, although I don't think that's the whole picture. The incorporation of religious fundamentalism into politics with the rise of the Religious Right over the past forty years, and the rise of post-modernism over nearly the same time frame appear to me new developments that have exacerbated the situation.

On a more serious note, I think both you and @columbus are both correct as to why the standards of truth have deteriorated. But another perspective...

With information readily available, as stated above, people have become lazy in their research, and grasp at what is most readily available to them (for example, the first result in a Google search) regardless of how true it is, because it's the most popular perspective. To make matters worse, many don't care how much truth their is to their discovery, because their new truth is in line with what is popular.
 
Have you had the experience of telling the truth on RF and finding that people don't believe you or that they will not accept evidence as valid even when it is presented to them?

Most people can easily identify this in others, I wonder how many also believe they are themselves guilty of doing this at times?

thinking-face_1f914.png
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As for the poll, I voted that 2+2 equals a "Pink elephant in a tutu".

I voted for 5:
  • “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
Can't argue with that.
 
With information readily available, as stated above, people have become lazy in their research, and grasp at what is most readily available to them (for example, the first result in a Google search) regardless of how true it is, because it's the most popular perspective. To make matters worse, many don't care how much truth their is to their discovery, because their new truth is in line with what is popular.


I wonder if the perception of a decline in 'truth' is really just a decline in accepted orthodoxy (which is independent of truth) and a broadening of the field of public discourse.

Theres 2 important things:
1. In the past you had a much narrower range of public narratives, so less to disagree about and find fault with
2. A far higher orthodoxy regarding these narratives creating a perception of truth

In the past, more people believed the same things, and what most people agreed on was 'truth'. I'd say people are far less lazy with their research these days. In the past research was difficult and time consuming so few people bothered, they just consumed mass media. Anything outside mass media didn't really happen for most people.

While this was less partisan in the past, and also better funded with less reliance on PR sources of information, the mass media has never been a particularly accurate purveyor of information. People were far more trusting of 'authority' in the past though, so would take it at face value.

Just my thoughts anyway.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Have you had the experience of telling the truth on RF and finding that people don't believe you or that they will not accept evidence as valid even when it is presented to them?
Probably. Give us your example of this experience.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I tend to stay away from Evolution vs. Creation debates as I don't know how to really change people's mind. It would seem in most debates people have one view and that it doesn't change in the course of a debate. It is true that people's views do change with time if they are on here, but its hard to not feel debating can be pretty futile sometimes. I know that believing in some kind of cosmic justice that the "truth" will win eventually/most of the time may be a bit of an illusion, but its a hard one to give up.

Well, it's not about the person your talking to. Remember, there are lurkers all over the place. . . I read almost everything you post, even if I don't have time to comment or leave a "like." There are times I've wanted to respond, but interacting with the depth of your ideas is often beyond my abilities or time.

For me, RF is not an echo chamber or a brick wall. It's a place with a silent audience, and the purpose of rhetorical debate is not to sway your opponent. It is to sway the audience.

Thanks for everything you do, and the high effort and thought you put into your communication. You've really made me think.

I am happy you are here!
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I thought I would focus on this comment, because the premise behind it is very scary.

I was just watching the latest episode of "The Orville", which was titled "Majority Rule".

The gist of the show:
The basic premise is "government by American Idol" where there is no democracy or structure of formal law; rather, people dish out justice through a voting point system where the majority decides what happens. If the person gets more than ten million down votes, by having done anything the majority personally finds offensive, the person becomes "corrected" (lobotomized).

Maybe the American government is not perfect, but at least it has rules in place to prevent such a thing as the "Majority Rule".
I watched it as well - Another Orville fan. Yay!

They also voted on what was true or not. So if the majority voted that the sun goes around their planet, that would be considered true.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
As far as telling the truth goes, I don't expect people to agree with me. I want them to, of course, but that's often not the case. Confirmation bias is part of the issue. People are so invested in their views of the world, myself included, that it takes either time or some tremendous shock to shake the emotional certainty that some cling feeling that they would psychology 'drown' if they let go.
 
Top