Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Concepts of God and Religion [View all]intaglio
(8,170 posts)37. Please read what you have written
All you have done is dodged the question like a good little acolyte.
Gilbran's answer merely distracts, "I have found a truth." What is a truth? How do you identify it? What are the characteristics that differentiate a truth from a falsehood?
Look at your final paragraph where you demonstrate truth. Firstly
However, the truth exists.
This is just unsupported assertion.
Second you conflate "truth" with "fact" and illustrate it with lazily used language.
The truth is that the earth revolves around the sun.
Not true, not even a fact; the Earth rotates around it's axis, the earth orbits the sun. Even these facts can mislead e.g. the earth describes a complex spiral through space influenced by other gravitic, resistance and impact events. There is no absolute truth, just a description of what is happening.
Third you parrot a supposedly absolute with no understanding of that absolute.
The truth is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, as Newton's third law states.
Like most people you miss that Newton's Laws are only an approximation. You ignore the important qualifier that "For ideal, non-elastic bodies for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" and forget to note energy losses due to heat and other events. Newton's 3rd is not a "truth" it is but a working principle.
Lastly,
And the truth is also that we should treat all others as we would want to be treated if we were them.
The most bland piece of new-age posturing, the actual general name for it is "The Golden Rule" or, more descriptively, "The ethic of reciprocity" and it has flaws. Most obviously: If I were Adolf Hitler I would not be Adolf Hitler. If by some chance my mind became so warped by occupying his body that I became a genocidal dictator:
1) the I that I am now would not want to treat Adolf Hitler as I, personally would wish to be treated; and
2) the I that was Adolf Hitler would not want to be treated in the way that Adolf Hitler would treat me.
There are other problems with this restatement of the Golden Rule, amongst which is the fact that no philosopher would call it a truth!
Finally a paradox (suggested by my Sigoth); Perhaps the only truth is that every time we think we have grasped the meaning of the word it flutters away from us like a butterfly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I have tried to say the same thing WAAAAY less elegantly, and with way more words, here on DU.
patrice
Feb 2013
#9
I don't feel a need to prove anything to you. I'm tired & need to go look for work so here's a riff:
patrice
Feb 2013
#14
No, it's a general observation of the state of discourse on the topic, not an analysis, and words
patrice
Feb 2013
#16
Thank you, SarahM32, it's not easy sticking my head up like this and at least trying to do
patrice
Feb 2013
#35
Agree about how one decides what's, more or less, true. But it's not my job to "get" OP or you
patrice
Feb 2013
#48
CHOOSE that or don't. Let others do the same. None of that means anyone should not stand
patrice
Feb 2013
#51
Here's a source for, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Jim__
Feb 2013
#11
Well, it would help if the site had the correct translation of the Tetragamaton
intaglio
Feb 2013
#4
No, the author is not a fundamentalist. The message makes that abundantly clear.
SarahM32
Feb 2013
#21
"not the god of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and other fundamentalists, but the real God..."
mr blur
Feb 2013
#60
I hate posts like this that get basic facts wrong or make erroneous assumptions...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2013
#26
Considering the anachronistic nature of so many religious texts, to think prophecy...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2013
#57
Nice thread, All! Bookmarking & I promise to explore later. MUST get on the treadmill now &
patrice
Feb 2013
#50
"How can an All Faiths Coalition be a cult?" How can a Unification Church be a cult? (nt)
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2013
#76
"As the messenger says, it's the message that's important, not the messenger."
cleanhippie
Feb 2013
#80
Nothing but that, and of course your incessant referral to "the message." Yes, cultish, indeed.
cleanhippie
Feb 2013
#81
False assumptions and accusations were predicted, and are according to prophecies.
SarahM32
Feb 2013
#84