What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[firedragon]

Under the law of Moses, if a witness lies and a person is put to death because of that, the false scheming witness is also put to death. Deuteronomy 16 explains that. You might want to look at it. “You Must Not Testify Falsely” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)

I've read it. Thank you.

 

[blü 2]

The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

The idea of having a jury is on the one hand to prevent the state from convicting whom they please, and on the other to bring a collective rather than a single or narrow view to the question of guilt or innocence. Originally juries were also meant to employ their local knowledge in sorting the baddies from the goodies, but modern jury practice is intended to eliminate prejudice (which literally means 'pre-judgment') as far as possible.

So the question may not be whether the modern jury is a good idea, but whether there's a better alternative. In the US, trial by jury is mandated by the Constitution (as a barrier against the state determining who's a criminal). In other parts of the Common Law world the accused may be allowed to have (or at least to apply to have) the case heard and determined by the judge alone.

The question, as your post in effect says, is more general than criminal cases. What matters most?

I'd say that objective truth ─ the making of accurate and not-misleading statements about objective reality ─ is the important thing, and we should do our very best to find it.

Even though we're dealing with humans here.

 

[danieldemol]

Yeah. Good. Maybe you don't know every post of every single person. And it's not personal. So dont think its about your known people.

I read through every post on the thread you mentioned, including post#219 where you falsely accused @England my lionheart of trying to mute you when he did no such thing.

You clearly have a persecution complex and reading comprehension issues to top it off.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I read through every post on the thread you mentioned, including post#219 where you falsely accused @England my lionheart of trying to mute you when he did no such thing.

You clearly have a persecution complex and reading comprehension issues to top it off.

In my opinion.

Excellent. Thanks for the research, and the hard work.

Cheers.

 

[Riders]

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?
So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not
be allowed to. Your speech should be muted.

WHats with all the naysaying no no no chatter? Nobody in this religious chat says stuff like that because you are free to have your own opinion and express it. Noone around here says that. If you think he married an adult and want to debate it or express that go right ahead, no one is stopping you.

 

[firedragon]

Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?
So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not
be allowed to. Your speech should be muted.

WHats with all the naysaying no no no chatter? Nobody in this religious chat says stuff like that because you are free to have your own opinion and express it. Noone around here says that. If you think he married an adult and want to debate it or express that go right ahead, no one is stopping you.

Nice. Thanks for the leave.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

"Valid" according to what? The truth is "what is". And that includes all our various concepts of it. The problem is that everyone thinks their truth is 'the truth', and that there can only be one truth. But logically, it's all part of the same universal truth (what is). And if we want to try and understand that universal truth, we are going to have to let go of the idea that our truth is the truth, and that there can only be one truth. But few of us are actually willing to do that, in spite of the fact that we nearly all claim to be devotes of and to 'the truth'.
Yes, they are all "valid" relative to the context in which they are being assessed.

Valid as in the meaning;
Valid
adjective
2. sound; just; well-founded:
ie. a valid reason.

Yes, they are all "valid" relative to the context in which they are being assessed.

As if they were being observed from a neutral observer.

Let’s say Sally, Frank, Sue, and Bob were all wearing wristwatches.
They relied on these to know when it was time to move to the platform in order to board the train.
Thus Sally’s, Frank’s and Sue’s perception of time passing was demonstrably skewed (as they were aware, thus the relying on their watches rather than their perception of time passing).
Wouldn’t Bob’s perception of the passing of time and even more accurately the station clock and each of their wristwatches (without the burden of emotional perspective) be the more “true” to the time transpired as might be viewed from an impartial observer. More of an objective or universal truth?

 

[RestlessSoul]

 

[firedragon]

The truth is "what is". And that includes all our various concepts of it. The problem is that everyone thinks their truth is 'the truth'

This is not about subjective truths. IT's about Objective truths. Unless you are of the view that there is no objective truth in the universe. It's a habit now for people to keep speaking about subjective truths arbitrarily but it's not based on reality. It's not rational. It's not scientific. It's not logical. Everything is not subjective, neither is everything objective. If you think analytical truths are subjective, that's absolutely false. And, if you think objective truths are subjective, it's an oxymoron. Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

View attachment 64771

“Lord, show me things as they are.
You show a thing as fair, and in reality it is ugly.
You show a thing as ugly, and in truth it is beautiful.
Show us everything just as it is,
So that we will not fall into the snare.”

- Rumi

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is not about subjective truths. IT's about Objective truths. Unless you are of the view that there is no objective truth in the universe. It's a habit now for people to keep speaking about subjective truths arbitrarily but it's not based on reality. It's not rational. It's not scientific. It's not logical. Everything is not subjective, neither is everything objective. If you think analytical truths are subjective, that's absolutely false. And, if you think objective truths are subjective, it's an oxymoron. Hope you understand.

Whatever objective reality may be, separated from it as we are, we can only experience it subjectively; that is the paradox of the human condition. Every view is from somewhere; there is no view from everywhere, unless it be a God’s eye view.

No science and no philosophy can give us direct untainted experience of what is objectively real and what is true. In quantum theory, this is known as the measurement problem.

Only through union with God, can man hope to know reality as it truly is. That, I think, is the true meaning of both those Rumi verses above.

 

[PureX]

Valid as in the meaning;
Valid
adjective
2. sound; just; well-founded:
ie. a valid reason.

As if they were being observed from a neutral observer.

Let’s say Sally, Frank, Sue, and Bob were all wearing wristwatches.
They relied on these to know when it was time to move to the platform in order to board the train.
Thus Sally’s, Frank’s and Sue’s perception of time passing was demonstrably skewed (as they were aware, thus the relying on their watches rather than their perception of time passing).
Wouldn’t Bob’s perception of the passing of time and even more accurately the station clock and each of their wristwatches (without the burden of emotional perspective) be the more “true” to the time transpired as might be viewed from an impartial observer. More of an objective or universal truth?

The watches would not be necessary if time were a singular truth. But it's not. So they had to impose a mechanical method of synchronicity. But is the time on their watches, 'the truth' of time? Nope. It's just an arbitrary imposition. And if these three people tell themselves that their time is "the only true time" just because it synchronized them they will never understand the truth of time.

 

[PureX]

This is not about subjective truths. IT's about Objective truths.

The truth is the truth. It is not subjective or objective. It is only experienced by us that way because of the way our brains cognate information (compare/contrast/repeat). You may be obsessed with this idea of "objective truth", but logically, it doesn't exist. It's a conceptual mythology.

Unless you are of the view that there is no objective truth in the universe. It's a habit now for people to keep speaking about subjective truths arbitrarily but it's not based on reality. It's not rational. It's not scientific. It's not logical. Everything is not subjective, neither is everything objective. If you think analytical truths are subjective, that's absolutely false. And, if you think objective truths are subjective, it's an oxymoron. Hope you understand.

Everything is subjective TO US. Because WE are the subjects that term is referring to, and we cannot escape ourselves into some "objective otherness". Science is not "objective". It's invented by us, and is based on our limitations and biases.

 

[Christopher Adam Geiser]

Recently they just released a photo reveling thousands of galaxies never before seen. they also didn't release four other photos to the public which would be nice to see.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The watches would not be necessary if time were a singular truth. But it's not. So they had to impose a mechanical method of synchronicity. But is the time on their watches, 'the truth' of time? Nope. It's just an arbitrary imposition. And if these three people tell themselves that their time is "the only true time" just because it synchronized them they will never understand the truth of time.

Not to mention that the gravitational impact of massive objects, such as the earth, causes time to move more slowly. So the four friends watches would move at different rates if, say, one of them was at the top of a mountain while the others were are sea level.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

For me, given that I made my peace with the ability to have or know 'truth' long ago, and hardly expect to have such so frequently, it is more about combatting those who seem intent on believing and spreading lies, often from their own ignorance or lack of education or perhaps because they just 'feel this way' - it hardly matters. Not much one can do actually unless they are willing to abandon any fixation they might have and to press the reset button - as to where the fixation came from.

 

[firedragon]

Whatever objective reality may be, separated from it as we are, we can only experience it subjectively;

Exactly. But there is an objective truth. Cannot change that. And I think you repeated what I said in different words. But you should realise, that there is an objective truth. Some facts are universal, whether you are born or not, if you can see or not, if humans exist or not, if the whole universe exists or not.

No science and no philosophy can give us direct untainted experience of what is objectively real and what is true.

Really?

This thread is derailed as usual, but lets see what you are speaking about.

Can you explain how philosophy has not given analytical truth?

 

[firedragon]

The truth is the truth. It is not subjective or objective.

You just said truth is objective without understanding the implication of what you concluded with.

 

[firedragon]

Science is not "objective".

Mate. Science is inductive. It can give you objective truths. Its possible. E.g. if Science finds out that there is a world beyond our solar system, it can later become an objective truth. In philosophy, science gives inductive facts. Do you understand?

 

[firedragon]

What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

For me, given that I made my peace with the ability to have or know 'truth' long ago, and hardly expect to have such so frequently, it is more about combatting those who seem intent on believing and spreading lies, often from their own ignorance or lack of education or perhaps because they just 'feel this way' - it hardly matters. Not much one can do actually unless they are willing to abandon any fixation they might have and to press the reset button - as to where the fixation came from.

So who is lying? Interesting comment you made. Is it relevant to this thread?