Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 20, 2015 at 2:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:
(October 3, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Delicate Wrote: Thus, atheists cannot escape absolute truths, on any level.
If there are any absolute truths, why would we want to escape them?
But what really does "absolute" add to "truth". Truth is simply a concept regarding the fit between language and the state of affairs it describes. Truth is already contingent on the correct use of the language so that it correctly maps to the way things stand. I simply don't understand what additional condition must be met in order for a bit of language to be not just the truth but also the "absolute" truth. Is this a coherent idea? I don't get it.
Also true of 'ultimate', 'objective' and other qualifiers. Something is either true or it isn't however each statement of truth, resulting from competent analysis, must, by necessity, include lists of the conditions under which the statement is true; assumptions, preconditions, constraints etc.. This speaks to the utility and pragmatism of 'truth' statements. To rephrase AronRa: if you can't show it, it isn't true. I think this type of 'grey area' (the fact that all truth is dependent on something) scares some people and triggers the type of 'uncertainty response' that can lead to religious dependence.
(October 9, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: Your argument seems to imply that atheism's validity requires absolute truth to be an invalid proposition. In reality, what is more practically pertinent than the existence of absolute truth is whether its verification is even achievable.
Can we, as humans, authenticate statements or concepts as absolutely true? How could we know? If we can't obtain absolute truth, is the question of whether it exists even relevant?
I don't hold that atheism requires one to reject absolute truth. At least I'm not convinced of that yet.
I just know it's fashionable in some skeptical circles to reject the notion of absolute truth. Looking at some of the comments in this thread, it's obvious there are some who aren't happy about it.
The above is a strawman.
"Fashionable" to reject absolute truth? You think this is a matter of aesthetics? No, it's a failure of the proponent of a claim (i.e. you) to produce something worthy of consideration.
(October 20, 2015 at 2:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:
(October 3, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Delicate Wrote: Thus, atheists cannot escape absolute truths, on any level.
If there are any absolute truths, why would we want to escape them?
But what really does "absolute" add to "truth". Truth is simply a concept regarding the fit between language and the state of affairs it describes. Truth is already contingent on the correct use of the language so that it correctly maps to the way things stand. I simply don't understand what additional condition must be met in order for a bit of language to be not just the truth but also the "absolute" truth. Is this a coherent idea? I don't get it.
Sometimes you must add qualifiers to express the severity of your conviction!
EG: If I say "Do you love me?", and then say "Do you REALLY love me? (whilst dropping my pants)", there is a subtle, I know, but distinct difference ...
It's the same with the No True Scotsman. Adding "real" to something, if it is already accurately defined, should make no difference. A "real" atheist is just an atheist. A "real" square is a square.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(October 18, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Delicate Wrote: I don't hold that atheism requires one to reject absolute truth. At least I'm not convinced of that yet.
I just know it's fashionable in some skeptical circles to reject the notion of absolute truth. Looking at some of the comments in this thread, it's obvious there are some who aren't happy about it.
The above is a strawman.
"Fashionable" to reject absolute truth? You think this is a matter of aesthetics? No, it's a failure of the proponent of a claim (i.e. you) to produce something worthy of consideration.
I'm not convinced by unargued assertions like the above. You certainly haven't demonstrated any claim of mine unworthy of consideration, after all.
Rather, it might just be that my framing of the issue triggered a defense mechanism in you (and other atheists), who instinctively sought out a way to "escape" absolute truths. This would explain why there's so much resistance in this thread to a view that doesn't exactly threaten one's atheism.
October 23, 2015 at 11:16 pm (This post was last modified: October 23, 2015 at 11:18 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 20, 2015 at 2:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: But what really does "absolute" add to "truth". Truth is simply a concept regarding the fit between language and the state of affairs it describes. Truth is already contingent on the correct use of the language so that it correctly maps to the way things stand. I simply don't understand what additional condition must be met in order for a bit of language to be not just the truth but also the "absolute" truth. Is this a coherent idea? I don't get it.
QFT. This is what I have been trying to say about objective/absolute truth being a tautology
From #16 on this thread:
Evie Wrote:Truth is always absolute. Something either is or it isn't . Whether we know what the actual truth is is another matter.
Religious and woo nutjobs like Deepak try to turn the meaning of the concept of absolute truth into more of a big deal than it actually is.
Basically the term "absolute truth" is a tautology.
Think of something relatively true, so it is partly true. Well the parts that are true are either true or not. Truth is ultimately a black and white thing. It's subjective certainty - and evidence and knowledge that are another matter.
There either is or there isn't a God. Whether we believe, know of a god or have evidence is another matter.
He almost certainly is nonexistent and there is no evidence for him and we don't absolutely know he doesn't exist.... but it's absolutely the truth (which is just a tautology for saying it's true) that God either does or does not exist.
There is nothing hocus pocus about absolute truth for the same reason there isn't any hocus pocus regarding truth. It's the same thing! Stop mis-defining the meaning into a bunch of bullshit woo you superstitious irrational people out there!
I then repeated the point a few times in posts later. Whateverest explained it so much better than I did. Thank you Whatev.
October 24, 2015 at 12:05 am (This post was last modified: October 24, 2015 at 12:08 am by RoadRunner79.)
(October 23, 2015 at 11:16 pm)Evie Wrote:
(October 20, 2015 at 2:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: But what really does "absolute" add to "truth". Truth is simply a concept regarding the fit between language and the state of affairs it describes. Truth is already contingent on the correct use of the language so that it correctly maps to the way things stand. I simply don't understand what additional condition must be met in order for a bit of language to be not just the truth but also the "absolute" truth. Is this a coherent idea? I don't get it.
QFT. This is what I have been trying to say about objective/absolute truth being a tautology
From #16 on this thread:
Evie Wrote:Truth is always absolute. Something either is or it isn't . Whether we know what the actual truth is is another matter.
Religious and woo nutjobs like Deepak try to turn the meaning of the concept of absolute truth into more of a big deal than it actually is.
Basically the term "absolute truth" is a tautology.
Think of something relatively true, so it is partly true. Well the parts that are true are either true or not. Truth is ultimately a black and white thing. It's subjective certainty - and evidence and knowledge that are another matter.
There either is or there isn't a God. Whether we believe, know of a god or have evidence is another matter.
He almost certainly is nonexistent and there is no evidence for him and we don't absolutely know he doesn't exist.... but it's absolutely the truth (which is just a tautology for saying it's true) that God either does or does not exist.
There is nothing hocus pocus about absolute truth for the same reason there isn't any hocus pocus regarding truth. It's the same thing! Stop mis-defining the meaning into a bunch of bullshit woo you superstitious irrational people out there!
I then repeated the point a few times in posts later. Whateverest explained it so much better than I did. Thank you Whatev.
I agree with much of what you said about absolute truth. However, in this context I don't believe that "relative" is referring to partial, or somewhat true (similarly with absolute and your tautology doesn't mean complete truth). Relativism is a postmodernist view, that there is no absolute truth, that all truth is relative to persons, times, circumstances and culture. All points of view are equally valid. In the extreme, this is applied to everything. Where it is normally contested is within the framework of a category (such as morality).
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
![[Image: absolut-vodka-absolut-truth-small-79707.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=files1.coloribus.com%2Ffiles%2Fadsarchive%2Fpart_768%2F7689155%2Ffile%2Fabsolut-vodka-absolut-truth-small-79707.jpg)
