(June 14, 2018 at 9:28 am)Kit Wrote: If I was grading you on this assignment, Drich, you would be receiving a failing grade.
Could you perhaps choose one of the articles, read it thoroughly, and then critique it with critical thought?
A one liner saying "this article has nothing to do with the bible" isn't going to cut it. Please, attempt at actual participation.
Only one article came up your links are broken. your links lead to pages with 10 other links none of which have anything to do with the topic you wrote about.
That said you are the one that failed, because you failed to take what I had to say inconsideration with everything else written on the subject of "truth."
The only thing I corrected was the first definition of truth. when I did this it made the rest of the article ring true. Then I simply applied what the article intended to say about religion and applied it to none religious people.
What you dumb asses are too foolish to understand is that "we" people are all the same. meaning if you can point out a failing on one side of a closed minded argument you can bet your ass the same 'type of fool' can be found on your side of the argument. That is what I was pointing out here. Your article writer (ironically while describing the truth) does not understand the core principle of it. he list the primary defination of 'truth' as the total sum of what is known by man. This definition allows closed minded people (just like the "god works in mysterious ways" on our side of the arguement) hide behind a "god wins" answer. Meaning for those seeking the truth on your side of the argument runs into an unknown or unknowable they can take the 'best guess' of man and pretend that that guess is the same as truth. when you say "truth"= the best guess of man it fills in all the knowns and or unknowables of science and gives the weak minded self assurance that by backing the "science pony" they are on the side of truth.
My little 2 paragraph argument should have exposed that lie for anyone looking for the truth. Actually it should have exposed everything when I redefined what truth actually is. My definition leaves the pot holes in science and identifies unknowns in science as unknowns.
Do you understand now? or do I need to connect some more dots?
