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.


Truth vs. Belief

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by seagrass
Why do we need to classify and judge?

actually we don.t need to classify but it seems to me that some people feel a bit more comfortable with it.

like belonging to a club, maybe their truth is that then they are somebody!

Originally posted by killuminati2012

I would have to say that there is little to nothing that we actually know.

do we really know nothing or have we forgotten that we got all the knowledge in us?

Originally posted by seagrass
How would/could we live as a group without the belief of good or bad?

is this a belief seagrass or a knowledge?
or is it just a concept to make life easier?

i mean regarding something as good or bad is just 2 sides of a medal!
something i consider as bad coz it just doesn.t fit into my moral concept could be regarded as good when coming from another point of view


sorry if some stuff has been discussed before i just came across this thread and as usual i have to say something to everything that makes me thinking


Originally posted by dragonking76

Maybe we aren't meant to find the truth, but I still seek it, as if by instinct.

who says we aren.t meant to find the truth?
what truth?
and isn.t the seeking for it the motivation of mankind - as i mentioned before :learning studying exploring?

Originally posted by seagrass
Isn't it possible that without good and bad, we wouldn't judge so much and it wouldn't cause us to need to act out in negative ways? Say if sex was not seen as "bad", we might lose all our rapists?

that sex rapist stuff i guess it not so much about regarding sex as "bad" by some religious communities it is more about power
the one who is raping know that he is in controll of the other huamn being

so no we won.t lose the rapists

and maybe the materialism and the poverty has also to do with this power and controll stuff!
i am not sure about it yet but it could be

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by orange-light
isn.t truth changing according to the knowledge we gain?

Yes,I'd agree with that one.

They were sure it couldn't be done

"No possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air..."
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory

"Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy

"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the Moon because of insurmountable barriers to escaping the Earth's gravity".
Dr. Forest Ray Moulton, University of
Chicago astronomer, 1932.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist

"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances".
Lee DeForest,
American radio pioneer, 1926.

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia".
Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859)
Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

"We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers".
John Von Neumann, 1949

"Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value".
Editorial in the Boston Post, 1865

Nuclear power:

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream,
a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."
Robert A. Millikan (1863-1953)
speech to the Chemists' Club (New York)

"Any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine..."
Ernest Rutherford (1933)

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
Albert Einstein, 1932.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:17 PM
If you really think about it there probably isn't any truth, at least none that can be prove, because everything is subject to each individual persons perception. A basic idea of this was shown in 'The Matrix' They could feel, smell, taste everything, but in the 'real world' it didn't exist. Of course would it really matter what existed in the 'real world' or not if we do not perceive of its existence then does it exist?

Sorry if this point had already been brought up.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:07 AM
I think truth can be a belief and that a belief can be truth.
It's all in the mind.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:50 PM
I guess truths have been proven, where as beliefs have not been proven. This does not mean however, that beliefs are not true; it just means they have not been proven yet or they cannot be proven to be true or false.

In science, scientific theories are not facts or truths, but they do tell us what is most probable or most likely, based on the available and observable evidence. Scientific theories go through a strict and stringent process to become an accepted theory. Scientific theories are not facts but they are the closest things to a fact that you can get. A scientific law, on the other hand, is generally accepted to be true/fact and universal. Not all scientific theories become scientific laws but they might become so, in the future.

Everyday truths like, do I like ice cream or does my wife or husband love me or hard to prove even though there is a truth there, that exists. A person cannot prove that their husband or wife loves them, yet they instinctively know it to be true, i.e. they believe it! Obviously science can only tell us so much in these types of areas lol
Not everything that is possibly true can be proved and vice versa. So if someone chooses to believe something that cannot be disproved or proved to be true, even if it is not really true, it is in a sense their truth.

So to answer your questions:

Originally posted by seagrass
Someone said... Truths don't change. Beliefs always change.
How much truth do we really know?

We know very little truth.

Originally posted by seagrass
How much of what we consider truth is in actuality a belief?

A lot

Originally posted by seagrass
So why do we persist on arguing beliefs that can't be proven as truth.

See all the above

Originally posted by seagrass
Why do we get so angry when another wont agree with our belief system

I guess feelings get in the way sometimes.

Originally posted by seagrass
What are your truths? Not your beliefs....
Do we really have that many?

I have so many truths but sometimes they are disguised and intermingled with my beliefs

- JC

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in