You equalised an athiest with a marxist. Though reading your post, I can understand how you thought so.
How am I duped?
The vicious circle of religion.
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
You equalised an athiest with a marxist. Though reading your post, I can understand how you thought so.
How am I duped?
aaqucnaona,
Are you saying you have nothing in common with Stalin, regarding religious views? Or is it that you don't want to be asociated with with him?
Well, yeah, especially when the dicipline used to gain said evidence, is totally insufficient (to say the least).
That's irrelevant.
No there isn't.
You're talking nonsense.
You're making the mistake that the knowledge that can be found via science, is the only knowledge there is. I'm all for science, but it has nothing to do with spirituality, unless your idea of spirituality is meat.
That's like saying I'm not going to drive a car untill one has been designed by a flower arranger. How long before you get to drive, do you think?
I've given you my perspective so many times.
The trouble is you can't see it.
You have chosen something that will never, ever, happen, to be the basis of whether you believe in God or not.
jan.
Are you saying you have nothing in common with Stalin, regarding religious views? Or is it that you don't want to be asociated with with him?
Well, yeah, especially when the dicipline used to gain said evidence, is totally insufficient (to say the least).
That's irrelevant.
No there isn't.
You're talking nonsense.
You're making the mistake that the knowledge that can be found via science, is the only knowledge there is. I'm all for science, but it has nothing to do with spirituality, unless your idea of spirituality is meat.
That's like saying I'm not going to drive a car untill one has been designed by a flower arranger. How long before you get to drive, do you think?
I've given you my perspective so many times.
The trouble is you can't see it.
You have chosen something that will never, ever, happen, to be the basis of whether you believe in God or not.
jan.
Ok. Can we postpone this debate and you tell me what your beliefs are, what is your position of knowledge and its certainity and what are your views on spirituality?
In return I will lay out my own [if you want] and then we would continue this discussion without talking at cross-purposes.
I am a theist, and I believe in God, not any god.
I don't know what you mean by ''position of knowledge and its certainity''.
My main view on sprituality is I am a spirit-soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul (God).
There are small details throughtout our conversation, that fill in the dots.
jan.
Ok, that's clear and simple.
''position of knowledge and its certainity'' means [since you seem to disapprove of the scientific method], how do you propose knowledge should be gained? And how do you make sure its the truth?
I don't disaprove of the scientific method.
It just cannot be used reveal truth or real spirituality, so when someone
uses it to say it shows God does not exist, I simply point out the distinctions.
jan.
Ok. That leaves only one last question before we may resume some conversation.
How [but what ways] do you find 'truth' [btw, what kind of truth are you talking about] and spiritual facts about God? And how do you make sure it is the correct version?
Truth 'IS'.
I think we only have to adjust our position.
I don't think truth is somewhere else.
jan.
OK. So truth 'IS'. How do we know it [or become aware of it]? Meditation? Phiolosophy? Religion?
Anything that makes us see things as they are.
It can be anything at all, even the slightest thing to jog the memory.
jan.
Come one Jan, thats way too vague. I understand you trying to feel this mystic [not mystical] wonder of intuition - but in this cruel, hard world this cannot work that way. Imagine David Icke telling you the reptilian truth. There has to be someway of knowing whether the truth is real - anyway will do [no insistence on science].
Ok. First of all, I do have a [slight] scientific sceptical bais, but its the only way to be sure.
Ok. So truth:
Truth is a fact, observation, explaination or system of information about anything. This truth is objective and [maybe] knowable. It can change according to the conditions affect that, about which it gives some knowledge.
Example. Size of the earth compared to the sun.
Dict. - Truth - n. -
1. A fact that has been verified
2. Conformity to reality or actuality
3. The quality of being near to the*true value
Reality/Actuality -
1. The state of actually existing objectively.
2.The state of being actual or real [very helpful! Lol]
Knowing truth:
Now, even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguard as truth is really the [objective] truth.
So we do modeling.
We look at subjective observations. We find recurrent threads. We imagine a reason or hypothesis about those observations.
This hypothesis is the idea that claims to be the truth and before we accept it as such we test it to see if it 'fits'. [Initiution can be used at this stage or just in this process].
The Hypothesis is used to explain all observation. It is used to make predictions and if each of this steps supports it; and nothing challenging it is equally strong [in its support], then for the time being, we can accept this idea to be true.
So yes, its a scientific process, but its the same as what you proposed, with a sceptical filter attached.
That's my stand on truth.
Ps. Without using the scientific method [as you insist with spirituality], what do you think should be done to be certain that the idea you had is indeed the objective truth.
Any comments? And
what is truth to you?
You have just said:
Please elaborate.
Last edited:
,aaqucnaona,
While what you say may be true, it is not ''the truth''.
The 'truth' is the origin of everything. It is what remains, and is present everywhere, everytime, and beyond. The ''truth'' is not dependant on our
acknowledgement of it.
Sure, this is an explanation of ''truth'', but is not really different than the term
''fact'', IOW, it relies upon us relating to it.
The truth must be beyond ideas, hunches, and feelings.
The truth is not ''out there'', it's the origin of everything, including ourselves.
It's merely a matter of alignment of our consciousness, IMO.
To get a truthful analasys, all the people involved in the process of revelation
must be without blemish, or bias. Even if we start out ever-so-slightly off, with regard to information, and we decide to follow, we will not know the truth.
I think that if we have to check, and re-check to see if the idea we have is indeed the truth, maybe it's not the truth. The truth IS, therefore if we come in alignment with it, then we become part of it.
jan.
While what you say may be true, it is not ''the truth''.
The 'truth' is the origin of everything. It is what remains, and is present everywhere, everytime, and beyond. The ''truth'' is not dependant on our
acknowledgement of it.
Sure, this is an explanation of ''truth'', but is not really different than the term
''fact'', IOW, it relies upon us relating to it.
The truth must be beyond ideas, hunches, and feelings.
The truth is not ''out there'', it's the origin of everything, including ourselves.
It's merely a matter of alignment of our consciousness, IMO.
To get a truthful analasys, all the people involved in the process of revelation
must be without blemish, or bias. Even if we start out ever-so-slightly off, with regard to information, and we decide to follow, we will not know the truth.
I think that if we have to check, and re-check to see if the idea we have is indeed the truth, maybe it's not the truth. The truth IS, therefore if we come in alignment with it, then we become part of it.
jan.
@Jan
Ok.
'Objective' - Jan? Relies upon us? A fact is something we know, its a subjective interpretation od our perception of a fact. That a long way from objective truth. And you equate them like mice and rats.
I said:
"Even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguarded as truth is really the [objective] truth."
Is this truth some version of universal consciousness or something similiar?
Is that what you mean by the alignment of the consciousness? Pls explain.
What is this process of revelation? Surely you have something in mind [as you define revelation] that it is not just some flash of intiution.
And how exactly do we know if our consciouness is in the correct alignment and if we have become a part of the truth.
Dammit Jan. You are making me sound like a new ager.
But, like I said, how [please be at least vaguely specific] do you make sure that your truth is indeed the truth? What is the method to do so?
I am more confused than ever. My brain is now a egg salad [officially]. Please disentangle my grey matter, will you?
Ok.
'Objective' - Jan? Relies upon us? A fact is something we know, its a subjective interpretation od our perception of a fact. That a long way from objective truth. And you equate them like mice and rats.
I said:
"Even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguarded as truth is really the [objective] truth."
Is this truth some version of universal consciousness or something similiar?
Is that what you mean by the alignment of the consciousness? Pls explain.
What is this process of revelation? Surely you have something in mind [as you define revelation] that it is not just some flash of intiution.
And how exactly do we know if our consciouness is in the correct alignment and if we have become a part of the truth.
Dammit Jan. You are making me sound like a new ager.
But, like I said, how [please be at least vaguely specific] do you make sure that your truth is indeed the truth? What is the method to do so?
I am more confused than ever. My brain is now a egg salad [officially]. Please disentangle my grey matter, will you?
aaqucnaona,
???
There IS an exact measurement of the distance between the sun and the earth. We can work out an approximate distance.
So, here we have a difference between ''the truth'' and ''objective truth''.
The truth IS.
Just think about that before you respond.
Try and understand what it means.
Whatever process we use to acertain the truth.
How do you know if you've had enough to eat, or catch a ball??
I think you should really give what I'm saying some serious thought before you
respond. It all begins with an understanding of truth.
Can you tell me anything that is truth, no matter how subjective?
And I'll bet I can relate to it.
Read above.
I suggest you stop trying to prove me wrong for the moment, and consider
what I'm saying. It will become clear.
jan.
???
There IS an exact measurement of the distance between the sun and the earth. We can work out an approximate distance.
So, here we have a difference between ''the truth'' and ''objective truth''.
The truth IS.
Just think about that before you respond.
Try and understand what it means.
Whatever process we use to acertain the truth.
How do you know if you've had enough to eat, or catch a ball??
I think you should really give what I'm saying some serious thought before you
respond. It all begins with an understanding of truth.
Can you tell me anything that is truth, no matter how subjective?
And I'll bet I can relate to it.
Read above.
I suggest you stop trying to prove me wrong for the moment, and consider
what I'm saying. It will become clear.
jan.
aaqucnaona,
I suggest you stop trying to prove me wrong for the moment, and consider
what I'm saying. It will become clear.
jan.
What you are saying is this:
Whatever feels true to you, really truelly true to you is the truth whose only property you list is that it exists.
I have absolutely nothing to go on. What do I understand? Is there a philosophy, a book or an article which can familiarise you with what you think?
I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to understand your superweird thoughts on some eternal truth that can be felt like satiation [for which actual mechanisms exist]. Sorry if my scepticism looks like I am trying to prove you wrong.
Please, give me some detail. I dont get what do you mean by "Truth Is" except that it exists. Please elaborate. Pour all your thoughts on truth on this thread, would you please?
aaqucnaona,
No. That's not what I'm saying.
What I, or anyone thinks, or feels, has nothing to do with what actually IS.
Do you agree that there is an exact distance between the sun and the earth, regardless of whether we know it or not?
jan.
No. That's not what I'm saying.
What I, or anyone thinks, or feels, has nothing to do with what actually IS.
Do you agree that there is an exact distance between the sun and the earth, regardless of whether we know it or not?
jan.
Agreed.
Of course. But whats your point here? That's not something one can know by aligning one's consciousness - you require astronomy, maths, physics and the scientific method and even after all that trouble you can never get the real actual exact distance.
Last edited: