Theists and the Truth

[TagliatelliMonster]

So maybe the difference is that "truth" (uncapitalized) is what we can handle, whereas we can't handle the "Truth," which might be said to be the ultimate truth.

No.

Instead, when she talks about "truth" what she really means is mere belief.
And when she talks about "Truth" what she really means is truth as in factual / demonstrable / verifiable.

 

[Estro Felino]

So maybe the difference is that "truth" (uncapitalized) is what we can handle, whereas we can't handle the "Truth," which might be said to be the ultimate truth.

A round of applause.
Standing ovation.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes.



And this can be verified and demonstrated. It's the truth.

You can also falsify your documents and make me believe you were born in Greenland. And I will believe you.

As the American Deep State falsified history and made people believe Oswald killed JFK.

 

[wellwisher]

Im not interested in hypotheticals, i answered as an atheist, as me. Fact and reality are objective.

Why does science still use casino math, and fuzzy dice data, which creates only the probability of being objective? Objectivity cannot be based on fuzzy dice data.

If you have two basketballs and a string, you can angle the string in a wide number of ways, and still touch both fuzzy dice basketballs. How can you be fully objective and not be tempted to pic an angle you subjectivity prefer, since that is possible. Any science with fuzzy dice is pseudo-objective.

Knowing the truth will require sharp data points; the singular angle between two exact points. This could be done if you knew the future or if had 20/20 hindsight of the past. In terms of 20/20 hindsight, we know the exact lottery winner from two weeks ago. But before that we had fuzzy dice. Fortune telling the future is not as objective. If you were in a realm where space-time separates so space and time are not connected. but each can act as independent variables, you can adjust the fuzzy dice with time potential, until sharp in the future.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can also falsify your documents and make me believe you were born in Greenland. And I will believe you.

As the American Deep State falsified history and made people believe Oswald killed JFK.

And still you continue to argue about what is so obvious.

At this point, I'm just going to conclude that you are arguing merely for the sake of arguing.
There's no substance here.

There's only you wanting to feel right and nothing else.


oh well, I tried.

Have fun patting yourself on the back.

 

[Estro Felino]

And still you continue to argue about what is so obvious.

At this point, I'm just going to conclude that you are arguing merely for the sake of arguing.
There's no substance here.

There's only you wanting to feel right and nothing else.


oh well, I tried.

Have fun patting yourself on the back.

It's not my fault and it's not your fault.
It's not that easy to express philosophical notions in a language, English, which is not my mothertongue.
And you probably misread me, since English is not your mothertongue either.

Others have perfectly understood what the point of the thread was.

 

[ChristineM]

Why does science still use casino math, and fuzzy dice data, which creates only the probability of being objective? Objectivity cannot be based on fuzzy dice data.

If you have two basketballs and a string, you can angle the string in a wide number of ways, and still touch both fuzzy dice basketballs. How can you be fully objective and not be tempted to pic an angle you subjectivity prefer, since that is possible. Any science with fuzzy dice is pseudo-objective.

Knowing the truth will require sharp data points; the singular angle between two exact points. This could be done if you knew the future or if had 20/20 hindsight of the past. In terms of 20/20 hindsight, we know the exact lottery winner from two weeks ago. But before that we had fuzzy dice. Fortune telling the future is not as objective. If you were in a realm where space-time separates so space and time are not connected. but each can act as independent variables, you can adjust the fuzzy dice with time potential, until sharp in the future.

The world, political, financial and scientific depends on chaos theory and fuzzy logic.

Perhaps if you took a while to learn what it means before dissing it willynilly.

Here @shunyadragon has done a thread on understanding chaos theory... Feel free to take a look... Or not.

Understanding Chaos Theory, Fractal Math, and Nature

 

[exchemist]

Why does science still use casino math, and fuzzy dice data, which creates only the probability of being objective? Objectivity cannot be based on fuzzy dice data.

If you have two basketballs and a string, you can angle the string in a wide number of ways, and still touch both fuzzy dice basketballs. How can you be fully objective and not be tempted to pic an angle you subjectivity prefer, since that is possible. Any science with fuzzy dice is pseudo-objective.

Knowing the truth will require sharp data points; the singular angle between two exact points. This could be done if you knew the future or if had 20/20 hindsight of the past. In terms of 20/20 hindsight, we know the exact lottery winner from two weeks ago. But before that we had fuzzy dice. Fortune telling the future is not as objective. If you were in a realm where space-time separates so space and time are not connected. but each can act as independent variables, you can adjust the fuzzy dice with time potential, until sharp in the future.

So quantum theory was never your strong suit, then, presumably.

 

[Stevicus]

No.

Instead, when she talks about "truth" what she really means is mere belief.
And when she talks about "Truth" what she really means is truth as in factual / demonstrable / verifiable.

Perhaps, although I was thinking of perceptions of "Truth" in the sense of being more of a statement on fundamental, ultimate reality in an objective sense, whereas "truth" is more just observational of something that's accurate within known reality. Like, when someone swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," then the expectation is that they would be making honest statements, not stating lies or committing lies of omission. But it can also be subjective and based on an individual's perception and point of view.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder whether atheists are saddened by the fact that certain truths will never be revealed.

No sadness over things that don't exist.
Nay, I scoff at loopy beliefs about sky fairies.
The real world suits me.

 

[Estro Felino]

Perhaps, although I was thinking of perceptions of "Truth" in the sense of being more of a statement on fundamental, ultimate reality in an objective sense, whereas "truth" is more just observational of something that's accurate within known reality. Like, when someone swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," then the expectation is that they would be making honest statements, not stating lies or committing lies of omission. But it can also be subjective and based on an individual's perception and point of view.

Bravo. Exactly.
I gave numerous examples.
There are Americans who will tell you that OJ Simpson has never killed anybody.
Why? He was acquitted, so he is innocent. That's the truth to them. The only truth.

 

[Stevicus]

Bravo. Exactly.
I gave numerous examples.
There are Americans who will tell you that OJ Simpson has never killed anybody.
Why? He was acquitted, so he is innocent. That's the truth to them. The only truth.

Yes, and I've seen the opposite expressed, where someone might be declared "guilty" in a court of law, which is accepted as the "official" truth, yet somewhere down the line, they might ultimately be proven innocent. That's happened quite a few times, actually.

Some people might accept the "truth" as something which is officially declared by some sort of authoritative source which they trust. This is based in the assumption that they have the expertise, they've examined the evidence, and reached a conclusion based on the rigors of science and a good faith effort to reach the truth. Scientific truth would also require peer review, so others of an equal expertise can check their work and make sure it's accurate, which carries the implication that an entire international community of experts in a given field can work independently and reach the same conclusions.

When it comes to legal truth or political truth or governmental truth, then it can get a bit murky. The main reason for that is that they can often be secretive and cagey about their investigations, how they acquired the evidence, what evidence they actually have, and whether they're telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." We, the people, just have to take their word for it and put our trust in the checks and balances of government to do the right thing. I daresay in most cases, it's probably mundane and above-board, at least in the sense that most crimes are (sadly) pretty routine and ordinary these days. Unless it involves someone famous or unless someone dies, the media won't usually cover it and the public won't even know about it.

As for O.J., I don't know. In fact, in a lot of these cases or issues that are commonly discussed here, I personally have no involvement or any first-hand knowledge about any of these things. I wasn't in Dallas on November 22, 1963, nor was I anywhere near Los Angeles when Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were murdered.

I wasn't involved in any of these investigations, nor do I have any access to laboratory facilities and/or forensic scientists to examine any evidence. All I really know is what I read and listen to from others, whether official or unofficial sources, and perceptions of any clear, concise "truth" can be somewhat clouded under those circumstances. As an agnostic, I can say that I'm comfortable with this, with some element of doubt. My life is not dependent on knowing who killed JFK or whether OJ really is guilty of murder.

Nevertheless, I still find it interesting to talk about, and I'll admit that I have a rather cynical view about politics and the ways and means by which we are governed. I've noticed certain patterns and trends which are constant throughout history and human society. The corruption, intrigue, lies, secrecy, deception, abuses of power, tyranny, atrocities, scandals, uprisings, insurrections, revolutions, assassinations, political prisoners, and when all else fails, open warfare. It's just what humans do. It's the story of human civilization. But we're not all horrible. Some of us have done some good things, too.

So, I look at theories surrounding the JFK assassination, and given the measure of hatred many had for him and resented him being President, it's entirely possible that some of them could have been driven to commit murder. Politics is politics, and sometimes it goes that way. History has shown us that. But that doesn't really prove anything about any specific event or claim, but I find it interesting when a common reaction seems rooted in a perception that America is somehow "exceptional" and above any such things. "This just doesn't happen in America!"

With O.J., it's quite a bit different, since it really has nothing to do with politics or government. Of course, I've never met him personally, but my sense from his TV persona is that he struck me as, at the very least, somewhat intelligent. He had a certain measure of wit, charm, and charisma which made him a popular TV celebrity. So, when the story first broke, I was considering the possibility that he might have hired someone to do it, but not that he would do it himself - because that would be exceedingly stupid.

 

[Polymath257]

Did OJ Simpson kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, in your opinion?

I find it likely. As a matter of law, he is innocent because he was acquitted.

Thanks. Perfect.
To so many American people, the Truth is that Oswald was the only perpetrator. They are blinded by their own ego, they will deny there were at least two mafia's hitmen on the crime scene.

Truth or truth?

And were those hit men actually working that day?

The US Government's official truth is that Oswald was the only perpetrator.

That is the official conclusion. Whether that conclusion is correct or not is the same as whether it is the truth or not. The government doesn't own the truth.

But that's their truth. The Truth (capitalized) is the historical truth. Who really had JFK killed and why. And whether they used some mafiosi as hitmen, and blamed Oswald.

There isno such thing as personal truth in a case like this. It it either true that mafia hit men killed JFK or it is false. Either the official government position is true or it is not.

See? I showed you the difference between truth and Truth.

Maybe someday any unresolved questions about the JFK assassination will be answered. Maybe not. Until more evidence is found or released to the public, we can only work off of what is available.

From what I can see, the issue isn't wanting the truth. It is whether being uncertain for extended periods of time is tolerable. But it is often the case that we have to wait for new evidence in order to figure out the truth.

Patience is a virtue.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, and I've seen the opposite expressed, where someone might be declared "guilty" in a court of law, which is accepted as the "official" truth, yet somewhere down the line, they might ultimately be proven innocent. That's happened quite a few times, actually.

That's the point of this thread. The judicial truth is a truth. To appease the people.
It's not the Truth. The historical truth.

Unless it involves someone famous or unless someone dies, the media won't usually cover it and the public won't even know about it.

The powerful conceal the historical truth and call their own lies "The Truth".

I wasn't involved in any of these investigations, nor do I have any access to laboratory facilities and/or forensic scientists to examine any evidence. All I really know is what I read and listen to from others, whether official or unofficial sources, and perceptions of any clear, concise "truth" can be somewhat clouded under those circumstances. As an agnostic, I can say that I'm comfortable with this, with some element of doubt. My life is not dependent on knowing who killed JFK or whether OJ really is guilty of murder.

I couldn't care less about OJ either.
But the two Kennedys' murders do matter to me, because it shows how murderous the Deep State can become.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is the official conclusion. Whether that conclusion is correct or not is the same as whether it is the truth or not. The government doesn't own the truth.

Exactly. The Government sells the commoners a "fictitious truth" to appease them.
But it's not the historical Truth.

From what I can see, the issue isn't wanting the truth. It is whether being uncertain for extended periods of time is tolerable. But it is often the case that we have to wait for new evidence in order to figure out the truth.
Patience is a virtue.

It's also about justice.
As a Christian, I believe in a God that guarantee an otherworldly justice.

 

[Stevicus]

That's the point of this thread. The judicial truth is a truth. To appease the people.
It's not the Truth. The historical truth.

Yes, I suppose that's a major component of politics. The most effective politicians are those who can keep the hoi polloi under some degree of positive control. The upper classes and ruling elite in every society has been keenly aware of the fact that they're overwhelmingly outnumbered by the "cattle" around them, but as long as the cattle can be kept pacified, they can be controlled. That's been the ongoing dilemma for governments even going back to Ancient Rome when they thought "bread and circuses" would be enough to keep the people content.

The powerful conceal the historical truth and call their own lies "The Truth".

It changes over time. What might have been considered historical truth 100 years ago might have changed since then. Such as the historiography of the U.S. Civil War.

I couldn't care less about OJ either.
But the two Kennedys' murders do matter to me, because it shows how murderous the Deep State can become.

Well, yes, politics is like that. Humans overall have shown themselves to be quite murderous - and it is even worse when they do so at the level of state power. But aside from that, it gives one the impression that the public figures whom people vote for and elect to office aren't really the ones who are truly "in charge," and that thought may be troubling to some.

Is America some kind of runaway train with no driver, or is someone competent actually running things?

I would imagine it would be somewhat different under an authoritarian monarchy or dictatorship, since at least people would know who, exactly, is in charge and running things.

 

[Estro Felino]

Is America some kind of runaway train with no driver, or is someone competent actually running things?

American commoners are good, because they are the ones who make things run with their sacrifices and hard work.

Unfortunately élites can use illegal means like murder to reach goals.
Anywhere. In any country.
We have had the Deep State that had a Prime Minister, Moro, killed. And they blamed the Communists (yes, sure).
Or after decades, some magistrates admitted that there was between the seventies and the early eighties a state terrorism, where the secret services blew up banks, railway stations, to dissuade political opponents.

 

[Stevicus]

American commoners are good, because they are the ones who make things run with their sacrifices and hard work.

Unfortunately élites can use illegal means like murder to reach goals.
Anywhere. In any country.
We have had the Deep State that had a Prime Minister, Moro, killed. And they blamed the Communists (yes, sure).
Or after decades, some magistrates admitted that there was between the seventies and the early eighties a state terrorism, where the secret services blew up banks, railway stations, to dissuade political opponents.

Yes, a lot of things have also come out about the activities of the U.S. government, the ULTRA program, COINTELPRO, various other revelations such as what came out in the Pentagon Papers. Even the Church Committee recognized the possibility of a conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK assassination, but couldn't really prove anything, so it never really went anywhere. But other troubling things came out, such as the US role in the installation of the Shah of Iran, or the US role in the 1973 coup in Chile. These are not wild conspiracy theories; these are pretty much acknowledged as truth, though oftentimes mitigated by the argument that it was better for the government to do that, than it would have been to allow communist control. But then there are reasons to doubt whether even that was entirely true.

From a certain jingoistic standpoint, one might argue that the "deep state" is actually a good thing for America, if one believes that the Kennedys were a threat to America and the American way of life. J. Edgar Hoover - and others like McCarthy, Nixon, Goldwater and many other right-wing anti-communists might be seen as "heroes" in some people's eyes, as they have been viewed as protecting America from the Red Menace and the Godless Commies (sounds like a good name for a band). All of these things the "deep state" did were supposedly good for America, so even many Americans have been persuaded to tacitly accept it. A lot of people might be inclined to accept it and not ask too many questions about what the government is really doing, because "they can't handle the truth." It's viewed as better to simply accept that they're fortunate enough to enjoy the protection of the deep state and simply leave it at that.

 

[Audie]

I don't know.
Of all stories I heared, I think the mob hit one is plausible.
But I don't know.


What's the difference between "truth" and "Truth"?

(8th time asked, still no answers - will you have yet another excuse?)

I let them go to ig for playing that game.
I was not amused.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps, although I was thinking of perceptions of "Truth" in the sense of being more of a statement on fundamental, ultimate reality in an objective sense, whereas "truth" is more just observational of something that's accurate within known reality.

She explained what she meant and it was rather clear.
Without the capital "T", what she really refers to is mere belief / opinion.
With the capital "T", what she really means are demonstrable factual things.