Truth doesn't need to be defended...

Well, no. What I'm saying is any truth that needs to be defended couldn't possibly be the truth.

If you believe in something you can try to convey that belief to someone else but if your own belief is contegent on them accepting it as truth than you never really believed it yourself. Only rationalisations need concencus therefore only rationalisations need to be defended.

you have the option of defending your beliefs, but if you need to defend them your own faith is in question.

 

.

 

The only two things that are true are math and the fact that I exist. Everything else is not neccesarily provable and therefore possibly untrue.

Please tell me a truth that does not have to do with math or my existance.

 

Not able to be proved in what sense? God cannot be empirically proved. So that means God doesn't exist? I can't "prove" love, but we all admit that love, (and hatred) exist.

 

I agree Krin. Our perceptions and conceptions are limited by our finite ability to perceive/conceive, and our ability to communicate our perceptions/conceptions is further limited by our finite ability to communicate, so how can we presume to impose those limits on what might be an infinite universe?

Anytime we try to use finite language to define something infinite we wind up with a paradox.

 

What the hell do you mean by 'needs', Naykid?

I'll get into it with you, if you're willing to go all the way from the very beginning.

 

If, when someone challenges your belief system, you feel compelled to change their mind, rather than speaking your peace and letting it go, than your belief isn't real.

Not to say that whatever belief system you claim to be subscibing to isn't legit, just saying you don't really belive it.

what you're really defending is your own denial.

 

^I'd agree with that. People who so vehemently defend their position usually sound like they're trying to convince themselves rather than me.

 

I agree too.

 

i would agree that this is the case SOME of the time,but come now,let us not generalize.
you dont think there are simply really arrogant/egotistical people who completely believe themselves and get satisfaction by making everyone else agree with them,or at least fucking with thier head a bit
also think on scales of automatic reactions,the person's doubt of thier own belief may be completely nonexistant until it meets opposition,and they have an instinctive reaction to enter a debate and re-evaluation phase because of sort of inter-personal insecurity.
i guess u could brainstorm for each person in existance,we all have pretty different variables.
belief can crumble and resolidify many times,i see people as flexible things,they constantly flux and change,including personality traits and such
and uh...so forth

 

but why are them believers put in a position by the secure (non-believers) individuals to defend or even talk about what's their's (belief's) ..aren't they supposed to be personal ? unless, your agenda is to genuinely research or hidden agenda to ridicule ...

is the act of callin their faith's far from truth or the state they're in as denial actually feedin into the insecurities of the supposedly secure lot ?

 

Yes but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: If someone has a beleif (an opinion) even if that belief is based on truth, when they defend it they're not really defending that truth, just their opinion which happens to be based on that truth.

If someone calls me an orangataun, and I feel compelled to convince him that I'm human, I'm not defending my humanity--that's allready a given--I'm defending my pride.

By the same token if someone attacks my belief system it isn't like the existance of whatever it is I believe in is in jeapordy and contingent on my winning the argument.

If I chose to argue, which, as you said, is a human reaction, more often than not I'm just defending my pride or reacting out of fear that my own belief (not the thing my belief is baased on) is contingent on my winning the argument.

Now, it's possible that someone who engages in debate over what he beleives in has as his motive a desire to share that belief with the person he's debating, but my opinion is that if the proponent of that belief is arguing from a position of hostility his motives are something other than this.

Hostility is an indication of fear, not faith.

 

Most times they put themselves in that position. again, if someone calls me an orangataun he hasn't put me in a position of having to prove I'm human. IF I coose to try to do so, that's my choice.


For instance; if someone read this thread and for whatever reason took it as an attack on their beliefs it would be a strong indication of lack of faith on their own part.

Taken at face value it should be obvious that this thread isn't meant as an attack on any particular belief or even religion/ beleif systems in general, it's a critigue on the way some self professed proponents of any beleif system conduct themselves.

 

the sky is not blue

its black, with small white polka dots

 

I would never try to debate a man with an arm growing out of his face.