Juggling talking to more than two people in one post? Very skilled.
"How do you define truth that supersedes other peoples' belief? What answer can you give believers that they will know is truth even though they disbelieve it?"
Most people are indoctrinated at young age to resist external criticism. Truth spans the spectrum from objective knowledge, to subjective beauty. Science which deals with the former has made serious inroads into religious "truth", but unfortunately is being corrupted in some ares with political "truth"--which operates in the same way but is actually growing, because people find it easier to feel than to think. In any case, only the ones who are ready to hear, will hear. Much of atheism is still more a form of rebellion than a reasonable stand, and adopt many of religion's intractable tactics, again, because it's easier to feel than to do the work necessary to achieve reasonable results.
How do you define truth? ...so that your truth will be right and convincing them they are wrong?
Subjective Truth, beauty art and such, are up to the individual. But objective Truth is pursuing the path of evidence, facts and proof. But only those trained to think that way,
and committed to think that way, will be ready to hear and listen. I'm not saying I've never been wrong, and I make it a point to admit my errors openly when they occur for my one internal, and my external, credibility. Ego is the biggest emotional obstacle to pursuing Truth via reason and evidence. I've never found a way to come to grips with that problem, and I have to admit I've had very little success getting through. But I just can't bring myself to quit.
Anyway, to answer your question, I define Truth as God, wherever that leads, and the aspects of Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty. There may be more but I've been looking a long time and those are all I can identify. In line with that, morality is a huge conglomerate of rules heaped by the religions onto a simple, core moral code which most religions give lip service too. That code is the Golden Rule, which I state as, honoring the
equal rights of
all to life liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation from force or fraud. This is universal and is all that should govern our interactions. All other codes of behavior are individual and subjective, and I refer to them as virtues.
The root of all evil is not money, or even power, it's a moral/legal double standard. You can set that in stone.
I never had that. I understand why people would ask why.
Why is THE question. My answer is to pursue the Truth (knowledge, justice, love and beauty), where pursuit can be equated with worship. It's true whether there is a creator God or not.
If they dont have a faith, the best I can do is offer solace in my belief. That dying in peace ends the cycle of birth and death and their karma can continue. Help them be comfortable with thr unknown. Most likely, if I had children, theyd have a belief system if not my own. Id comfort them through their faith.
But you're setting yourself up as a hypocrite, supporting what you don't believe. As a deist, when I suffer grief, only time will assuage that grief--but I never have to be troubled by the question, why? It's all necessary to maintain our free will in this life...in this test. I think "I don't know" is the best answer we can give rather than a made up vision of heaven, a totally sadistic vision of hell (which no God would ever imagine), or an inevitable oblivion.
Because a non-interactive God is the only reasonably possible God, given the total lack of anything but hearsay evidence otherwise.
Not really. Agnostic atheists still don't believe in that god concept. They are probably pretty similar to hard atheists.
Claiming certainty or not, which allows for the possibility of an opposing view, is a huge separation. It's the difference between a closed mind and being open minded.
The fact of the matter is this. Life can suck. The world can suck. The universe doesn't owe you anything. You aren't born with any right to happiness or pleasure. Deal with it. That is the harsh truth of the universe.
You're arguing with the revealed religions. I agree with what you say. Again, the ONLY difference between me and atheism is hope that there may be something more after life here. I don't say there is, only hope.
What this means in context of a humanitarian is that we have to make that meaning. We have to take those rights and give it to ourselves and our future children. We need to look at this hard faced reality of zero tolerance and grace and claw out of it a meaning of our own.
Yes, meaning, the pursuit of Truth (knowledge, justice, love and beauty). That works whether there is a God or not.
A lot of people will die sad, alone, in pain and in meaningless depressing ways. The ones that do make it through need to live our lives to the fullest and find that meaning in our lives. Be the savior of someone else. Help and old lady across the street, be nice to the kids you see, be a decent person. Its up to us to protect each other. There is no god that will swoop down and save the ****ing day. This isn't a ****ing comic book.
Once again, you're preaching to the revealed religions, except for those people you write off in your first sentence, most of whom will never have any contact with a compassionate angel such as yourself.
This is life. Struggle is real. Its relevant and its what makes it worth to live a life of meaning despite the challenges.
Again.....I agree, and if I'm one of the unfortunate prisoners in Plato's Cave, I will cling to whatever Truth I can discover, and hope.
