It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The failure of reasoning:

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

I said "if", that wasn't a claim.


Except that you literally stated this a few comments ago:

Example of a truth statement that refers to a truth: Humans have a mind.....example of a truth statement that refers to a fact.....humans have a brain. Facts are what is the case materially....truth is whatever is the case immaterially

and

Now let's get into why it's defined that way: everything in existence can only BE in one of two natures: Physical or spiritual: Material or immaterial....as a truth or as a fact.....a car exist "materially" and exist as a fact....a statement exist immaterially and exist as a truth

You've been making this claim throughout this entire thread and have not once actually shown it to be correct.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
I respect how you feel, but your feelings are not addressing the topic.


How can any of us address the topic when whenever you respond to us you're diverting the subject elsewhere?

You claim to know the truth? Lets hear it.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
The point has been made, spiritual claims cannot be discerned by reasoning, they have to be spiritually discerned.


And what leads you to believe that your special way of deciphering the universe with your spiritual claims is any more truthful than anyone else's spiritual claims?


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
If you know that you only do better with facts, then a truth claim is not one that you want to attempt to address.


Truth and fact are synonymous words! Do you not understand this? You have been claiming that 'truth' isn't the same as 'fact' and that 'truth' applies to the immaterial. show the sources which back your claims.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
Semantics?....Truth and fact are nowhere near of the same meaning or intrinsic value.


Excellent! You must then have reason to believe this, such as citation from an encyclopedia or a dictionary. I've already provided once source form a dictionary, and guess what, truth and fact are synonymous terms.




posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

As soon as you get over your feelings, we will have a mature conversation, I can't argue over how you feel about me, I'm too objective for that.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Read this carefully, when I said "if" I was referring to if you believe that truth is material and that I wasn't claiming that you were actually believing that, so if I misunderstood what you were saying that I was claiming then I humbly apologize. So let me address every bit of your last post. "You've been making this claim throughout this entire thread and have not once actually shown it to be correct".....let me start with this comment: Truth is conceptual by nature meaning: it is a product of mental thought, not material, this makes it abstract and objective (not guided by human feelings) it's non contingent meaning it's not subject to change, this makes it reliable (able to be trusted) not subject to human feelings, it is what it is no matter how someone feels about it. Truth and fact are synonymous because in the state that they both exist, it's actually the case, just in two different natures and states. This is why statements can only be true or false, because statements are abstract objective realities, not material, even though they can be written on paper in a language. "You claim to know the truth? Lets hear it." here's the issue with what you're asking me, whatever I give you, I want you to understand how to reference what I say, like when I just posted the intrinsic value of truth, this is why it's defined the way that it is. When you ask someone to give you the truth, you need to know the criteria to referencing the truth since it doesn't have a physical description, otherwise what I say can be referenced but, to you it will seem unknown and lead to "application" problems like, "how did you get that from the definition of the word?' " And what leads you to believe that your special way of deciphering the universe with your spiritual claims is any more truthful than anyone else's spiritual claims?".....You should want to know how to spiritually discern things so that when someone makes spiritual or truth claims, you will know how to call it out and show where it is objectively false. I'm not the enemy, I want people to know how they would know so that people will stop just believing or not believing because either they don't understand or it makes sense.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: olaru12

As soon as you get over your feelings, we will have a mature conversation, I can't argue over how you feel about me, I'm too objective for that.


And that response demonstrates how nonobjective you are. Caught up in ego driven competition to prove a point, consumed with self admiration, disdain for others that have differing opinions.

Maturity indeed....



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

If it were up to me, society wouldn't have to deal with judgmental bible thumpers....who use that bible but, behave against it and tell people if they don't serve God, they are going to burn forever.....it's worth getting attacked on here by people, perhaps it is the way I'm responding to them...I need to work on that. The God conversation is not what people think or portray him as, I am disliked by many Christians because of what I speak but, I know that it's righteous, especially when I show them in their own bible.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

No, I didn't intend you for you to take it that way. I'm not against you...let's start over.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: olaru12

No, I didn't intend you for you to take it that way. I'm not against you...let's start over.


The thing about narcissistic traits is that the subject whom has them rarely realize just how narcissistic they are, if at all.

Olaru put it perfectly. Your ego is massive, you view nothing objectively at all because everything you are talking about is your own subjective opinion or observation. Objective means you can use information outside of your own experiences. You have yet to demonstrate anything at all except a abhorrence for everyone else, which is more than apparent to everyone but yourself. You judge everyone else and never take even a moment to see how you act towards others.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Fair enough...I didn't expect you to respond that way but, we'll keep it mature....you stated objective being outside of ones experiences, actually it would be, not guided by their personal feelings...narcissist generally are manipulative people and always make you feel as if you are not there yet but keep raising the bar. Maybe I gave that impression, and when discovered, they usually make the recipient feel that they are the problem.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

Read this carefully, when I said "if" I was referring to if you believe that truth is material and that I wasn't claiming that you were actually believing that


Did you not even read my post? I already addressed your "if" nonsense.

My comment is directed at your continuous claim that "Truth is immaterial"

I've already shown you how it isn't immaterial, and you have completely ignored it.

You're making the claim that it is, so produce the evidence. I don't want your subjective opinion on it. You claim to be "I'm too objective for that", yet you have not once used objective information to prove anything throughout this entire thread.

Truth is Immaterial? Prove it. Grab a dictionary, grab an encyclopedia and prove it.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
You should want to know how to spiritually discern things so that when someone makes spiritual or truth claims, you will know how to call it out and show where it is objectively false.


This has absolutely nothing to do with objectivity what so every. You literally just stated that for someone to 'spiritually discern things' that they have to experience it for themselves. That's SUBJECTIVITY!

Do you not even understand the definition of Subjective and Objective?


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm not the enemy, I want people to know how they would know so that people will stop just believing or not believing because either they don't understand or it makes sense.


You haven't even stated what 'the truth' is!



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

What seems like my personal view would be because there seems to be no reference for what I say, my wife was reading my post and made a good point, how I convey something makes a big difference even if it is really true and objective so I apologize for that.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

Fair enough...I didn't expect you to respond that way but, we'll keep it mature....you stated objective being outside of ones experiences, actually it would be, not guided by their personal feelings...


It's the same thing... being outside of the mind and independent of it.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
narcissist generally are manipulative people and always make you feel as if you are not there yet but keep raising the bar. Maybe I gave that impression, and when discovered, they usually make the recipient feel that they are the problem.


I never said you were a narcissist, I stated that you were expressing narcissistic traits.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: auto3000
What seems like my personal view would be because there seems to be no reference for what I say, my wife was reading my post and made a good point, how I convey something makes a big difference even if it is really true and objective so I apologize for that.


If there is no reference for what you're saying, then it cannot possibly be known with any level of certainty, and therefore cannot possibly be "truth"


edit on 25/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

wait, let me make sure we're on the same page, do you believe that truth is immaterial or material because if you already believe that it is abstract but asking me to demonstrate it then under what basis are you believing that it is?



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I said seems to be no reference, not by me, by you.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

No....i'm was stating the general personality of that type of person, no assuming you are saying I am.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

wait, let me make sure we're on the same page, do you believe that truth is immaterial or material because if you already believe that it is abstract but asking me to demonstrate it then under what basis are you believing that it is?


Truth:
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:
mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147

I said seems to be no reference, not by me, by you.


If you have references for your claims, then by all means present them.


originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Ghost147
No....i'm was stating the general personality of that type of person, no assuming you are saying I am.


You are incredibly unaware of how you write, word things, and 'falsely' imply things.


edit on 25/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Why do you think that a statement can only be true or false? there are facts of the matter and truth of the matter, what's the difference? they are not the same, and what makes them different?



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

I commend you, seriously but even when you post definitions, those are concepts, are they conceptual by nature or physically perceivable by nature like forms of matter?



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

some things are conceivable but not conceptual by nature like the concept of walking: a person can physically walk but also think about walking.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

and some things are purely conceptual only like absolutes, or better yet logical absolutes.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join