It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Your truth vs what we are told to believe: let’s get real

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767
ahh... how could I forget him. At least he described a set of reasonable guides in which to discern a meaning of life through his teachings after being fabulously wealthy previously in life.

edit on 4-4-2019 by dubiousatworst because: snark added

posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:48 PM

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: highvein
This is the worst part of it. Most modern philosophies are based on everything being absurd! Then we have people praising existentialism and trying to live and breath in an existential fashion. Then we wonder why we have such high suicide and crime rates? The sheer audacity of it is astounding. For those of you that don't know what existentialism is, it is foundationally denying that morality can have any real effect on thought, and that morality can not and is not objective. Due to this it is stipulated that all human action is thus absurd. Absurdity in this context, at its core, means that there is no meaning to life and that it is foundationally impossible to have or find that meaning. From that framework it should be pretty darn easy to realize that why so many people are floundering, having no direction in life, and are so centered on self gratification. Then when there is no direction, or no novel way to gratify one's self, there is no longer any reason to live.

I wonder if that can be proved with the scientific method?

posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:56 PM

edit on 4/4/2019 by r0xor because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 11:59 PM
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

Blue lives matters. Check out the number of white people who are experts on race at the end of the video:

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 07:23 AM
We are all subjective beings and as such an objective reality is beyond our ability to comprehend. We have senses and experiences we can remember and these serve us pretty well for survival when navigating reality. This works well enough, but ultimately it's all in our heads.

What we touch is not what we feel, what we see are colorful lies, what we hear are noises, not sounds, in the end all we have is our own subjective reality. If your mental landscape is one that helps you to survive to as old an age a possible, then it works for you, but objective truth and real understanding is forever out of reach.

Given all that, personal experience is the best teacher. On a personal level you can only be certain about your own subjective reality and compare that to what you are told to believe, but objective truth will always be elusive. You may argue that science will provide a method of proof concerning an objective reality, but you are the one experiencing the results of scientific endeavors as a subjective reality forever outside of objective truths.

posted on Apr, 5 2019 @ 03:17 PM
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Excellent post!

posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 11:02 AM

originally posted by: SteamyJeans
If truth was relative I’m not sure it would still be called truth?

True is true. Can’t really get around It. So It doesn’t matter what “your truth” is.

By some people it might be called truth but they would not be using words and concepts appropiately if they think of truth as being relative rather than absolute.

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future​—everlasting life.​—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you? ...

Someone out there wants to keep you in the dark regarding some particular important truths, what better way is there to make people believe that truth is relative, ever changing, vague and/or incomprehensible, “too elusive to grasp” so why even bother trying to figure it out with certainty? Just 'do as thou wilt' and go with whatever you feel like (whatever tickles your ears, see 2 Timothy 4:3,4), wherever the wind of your own carefully nurtured* arrogance, pride and haughty spirit blows (*: nurtured, conditioned and indoctrinated by this same 'someone', one of his favorite emotions to play on, this Master Propagandist).

Ephesians 4:14

So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.

It's only one of the most harmful philosophies for your mind to chew on, never mind me... (just checkout the text under my profilename)

I also sometimes call it the (agnostic) philosophy of vagueness, or general agnosticism (sometimes intermingled with selective agnosticism, willful ignorance and agnosticism regarding only specific subjects*, but willing to acknowledge other truths/certainties/facts/realities or things that are true/certain/absolute/factual/conclusive/correct, without error).

Those are synonyms where you see a /. As a reminder for those indoctrinated by for example the incorrect agnostic mantra that 'science does not deal with absolutes' (and all its variations) that is so popularized in "this system of things" (2 Cor 4:4). Professor of Physics Alexander Vilenkin expressed it as: "there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science". More details regarding this last bit can be found in my comment here.

*: an example of (conveniently) selective agnosticism can be found towards the end of the video below and how the expression 'ignoring the elephant in the room' is used regarding the evidence for the reality/fact of Creation.

Some people just pretend the facts aren't certain enough for any certain/factual conclusions when those conclusions are inconvenient and 'blocked' by their pride. Sticking their heads in the sand like an ostrich if you will. Called East-Indian deafness in my country.

Not sure what word I'm looking for with "blocked". Pride influences them from coming to that conclusion, as well as other things that are involved. Some of which I discussed already. Such as the promotion of agnosticism as the intellectual high ground and perhaps even supposedly as having a more open mind. But they're not really open to taking the evidence for Creation more seriously and following where it leads rather than trying to dodge (if pressed for a response or a discontinuation of ignoring the elephant in the room) with an elaborate evolutionary storyline that is supposed to sound convincing by reference to expert opinions, so-called but non-existing "scientific consensus" and so-called "peer reviewed publications" containing lots of sophisticated technical jargon and “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) As if it's well researched in contrast to the evidence for Creation that is supposedly not conclusive, convincing or reasonable (again in contrast to their own supposed "mountain of evidence" supposedly backing up their theory or theories; which it doesn't if you investigate the details and realize what's wrong with it, which parts they conveniently leave out of their storylines as they sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others, distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths and target your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, or the emotions of the reader or audience).
edit on 7-4-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in