Do you believe that is true that I'm not being consistent or is that simply one truth of many?
Are you trying to argue for the sake of it or to get me frustrated, or is there some sort of actual point to this question?
That is sort of like saying that there is no wrong answer to a math problem because all the answers are using math to solve them. For example:
2+2=5
They got the 2+2 part right, but the answer was missed. Sometimes that is how it works. The steps maybe correct, but the answer is wrong. Likewise, the answer of '5' would be closer to being right than '6'. That is just how the truth sometimes is, some of the steps might be right, but the answer is wrong or likewise, they steps might be totally backwards, but they somehow got the right answer.
Nope, it's not like that. You got it backwards. In this argument, the steps of other religions might be "wrong" to you, but the answer is right. You're still thinking about it too concretely. Think about it this way: multiple streams from many different places may still feed into the same ocean.
I have noticed that a number of atheist tend not to know as much about science or philosophy, as they like to let on.
Anyone that believes anything strongly tends to like to think that they know much more about it than they do. Or at least, they'd like to seem that way.
The truth does not change, merely what we believe the truth is changes. That is a huge differences.
I don't disagree. However, fact is not always truth.
Sorry, but this is simply a fancy way of trying to get around the problem of the two contradictary world views. If the world really is a delusion, why are you wasting your time here? This discussion is merely a delusion and you should spend your time doing something else. Should you not? See what the problem with this view is? There is no reason to believe that this world is a delusion, is there? Second, the world can not be a delusion and not a delusion at the same time. The two are contradictary to one another and can't both be true. Three, everybody uses logic, to some degree or another. When you take a test in school, what is one of the tricks you can use to increase your chances of getting a right answer? You look over the answers and see what answers are obviously false, what ones can be true, and what ones are more likely true. This, in essence, is using logic. Finally, you talk about human perceptions and it comes right down to this... if everything is a delusion? How do you know what you know, is what you know? How do you know that the truth that the world is a delusion, is not, in itself, a delusion? It is a self defeating truth because it would say you can't know anything, at all, even that the truth is that there is no truth! Self defeating statements can't be logically true, can they?
"Self-defeating statements" can be logically brought about sometimes. Some things just don't have answers and do actually just run around in circles. And the world is only what your senses can perceive, right? So there really is no way to tell what is "real" and what is "delusion" except for what you can compare with other perceptions. What may seem real might not actually be real at all.
Furthermore, just because you can't really tell if it is real or a delusion doesn't mean you can't find meaning. Honestly, no one has any meaning in their life unless they find it, and no one has a purpose unless they create one for themselves.
I don't even know where the logic speel can from. Of course everyone uses logic.
Not at all, I look at the possible and work from there. As I pointed out above, if the world is a delusion, than how do you know that the world is a delusion? Can that be a delusion too? See the problem yet with such a system? It is, self defeating and can't hold up under it's own weight. That is what happens with extreme skepticism, everything comes apart. So if anything, my view is far from limited because it's not self defeating, but can logically substain itself.
The point is, you can't know if the world is a "delusion" or "real." And I don't know why the delusion would be a delusion. And no, I don't see the problem with the system. You're too caught up in "delusion" and "real" -- change your mindset to perception. I can only know what I can perceive, and you can only know what you can perceive; however, we can't know if something is real or a delusion. Questioning it really is kind of pointless. If you see that the world is only perception and that perception can change quite a bit from person to person, then you could see it as a delusion. If you see the world as perceptions that match across many individuals, then you could see it as a reality.
By limited, I mean you can only see from one angle and one stance. One group of people believes that the world is "real"; the other believes that the world is a "delusion." Obviously, if a large number of people can believe something, it usually has some sort of semblance of logic or sense to it. If you don't limit yourself, you may be able to understand the viewpoint of the opposite side. Neither can be proven as true or false; even in science, that would mean that both are candidates for "truth."
So you're saying that 2+2 can equal anything you want it to? Tell that one to your math professor and see how far it gets you, ok?
2+2 isn't contradictory to anything, so this doesn't jiv with your argument. This statement is actually rather pointless.
AS I said above, far from it because if anything, I am eleminating the impossible and looking out at the possible. In essence, I have a test before me and I am going though it and elemating the obviously wrong answers and looking closer at the answers that seem more right. This view is far more open because you are trying to make it sound as though, all the answers are right, when they are not. Likewise, my system is not self defeating because you are having to say that my view is 'wrong' and yours is 'right'. Yet, didn't you just get done saying that every path is true? Like I said, your system is self defeating and can't stand under it's own weight.
I never once claimed that I was "right" and you were "wrong." Don't put words in my mouth.
You have repeated yourself continually throughout this entire post. So far, I got that you don't think the world can be a delusion and that 2+2=5 apparently is the same thing as a contradiction, which it's not. However, you have not really gotten what I've been saying; you've been doing a lot of twisting. The world can be both "real" and "delusion" depending on what you define to be "real," and in either case, it would be impossible to tell which is correct, and thus both are plausible answers.
I also never said that "all answers are right." I have stated that all religions have fundamentally the same truth. That's quite a different thing. Don't lose sight of the focus of the debate.
Ummm no because in the Hindu system, it is though your own efforts that you finally can free yourself from the endless cycle of rebirth. In Christianity, is though the efforts of Christ, that your sins are forgiven. Like I said, two totally different views that both can't be true. It is logically impossible.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuum no, you're not actually taking anything I say into consideration. Please don't be comparable to a brick wall.
Even in Christianity, you have a doctrine that emphasizes a spiritual path. Although you must reach heaven through Christ, there is
still an emphasis on spiritual enlightenment.
Ummm no, I have already shown this is simpy false. The goal of Hinduism is to rid yourself of the endless cycle of rebirth and enter nirvina. The goal of Christianity is to accept Christ as your personal savior and to live our life in accordance with Christ. The goal of Judism is to follow the Torah and live your life in accordance with the law. See the problem yet? These systems are all contradictary and can't all be true.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum no, you haven't shown anything. You stated difference, but you haven't managed to nullify my argument. All of them have the final goal of relief from suffering, whatever you want to call it -- Nirvana, heaven, etc. All of them do have a strong spiritual element. Do you deny this?
This is sort of like saying that you can get to the store that is north of you, by heading south? No. How about East? No. How about west? No. How about going straight down? No. What about straight up? No. What is the best, and fastest way to reach the store that is north of you? Like it or not, not every route will take you to the store and if you believe that is how it works, go for it and see how far that gets you.
....Yeah. Which is what I was saying. If I live in the South, and you live in the North, then I will have to go North and you will have to go South. We both will reach the store. If I believe in Christ, and you believe in Muhammad, then I will be Christian and you will be Muslim. In the end, we will both die, and if we are both strong in our faith then we will both be spiritually enlightened, and we will both believe that we will be reaching the end of suffering.
Now, you can't tell which is "true" unless you could die and come back and inform us. But in either case, they have the same essential goal; that is the same "truth."
Personally, I believe that those heavens could be the same place, and that no matter which religion you come from, you can find your way there. But that is just personal belief, and doesn't really need to be debate since it is mainly speculation.
As I showed above, your arugments are self defeating and don't work up in reality. I have showed my case is valid logically and factually. You can not get to the store that is north of you, by heading east, west, south, up, down, etc. You get there by heading north. Likewise, you do not find what religion is true and false by saying they are all true, you find it by exploring them and following their logic to the end. Not all of them can be true, so one must discover if one is true or if none are true because not all of them can be true. As for my sources, you can eaisly go and look up the 'law of non-contradiction' and see what it says. It's a very old rule that dates right back to the days of Aristotle and Plato, it's nothing new or made up and is an idea that has existed for centuries.
You seem very sure that you're proving me wrong, whereas I really just don't see that at all. Sorry, you're not really showing anything to anyone but yourself.
Your case still contains many discrepancies and rough edges. Your case is "valid," but not really all that convincing.
And why can't all of them be true? Because they are different? How do you prove which is true and which isn't? Is there one that is "logically" more true than the next? How do you prove this, or how do you know?
And no "you can easily look up law of non-contradiction." If you've ever written a scholarly paper, then you would know that a single source (that you didn't even use in your own argument -- only against mine, which wasn't even all that valid in context) just doesn't cut it. Law of contradiction is basically common sense. When I say sources, I mean ACTUAL sources.
But I'm not going to demand those, because that would be a pain. Either way, if the only source you believe you need is that one, then it becomes pretty plainly obvious that you have not done much serious debating.
AKA, I should start to agree with you? Is that what it means to be 'creative'? I'm sorry, I don't really care about being creative or not, I care what is true and if you think your arguments can hold water, I assue you that they wouldn't last a day in a university setting. Such ideas that 'all paths are true' do not work well in reality at all and are, self defeating.
By creative, I mean don't repeat 2+2 (which still isn't valid in context) thirteen times in one post. I mean look at different views, explore possibilities, and don't get caught up in concretes. There's more to the world than "right" and "wrong," "true" and "false." If there wasn't, then there would be no need for essay tests.
And actually, that would work very well in a university setting. I know; I've taken classes aimed at discussing topics like these.
Too bad that the law of non-contradiction does not say that pain and pleasure are opposite, people say that.
Here is what the law of non-contradiction is.
I know what the law of non-contradiction is. Now, to shut you up about it:
"As is true of all axioms, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating. Since the early 20th century, certain logicians have proposed logics that denies the validity of the law."
The law applies to things that are COMPLETELY defined. Truth has many definitions. God has many definitions. Spirituality has many definitions. Even religion has various sides and layers and goals and definitions. It would be easy to apply it to apples and oranges; however, in the complexity of the current argument, you have to offer
more than "the law of contradiction says it can't." First, you have to be able to prove they are
directly contradictory, which has not yet been done. Stop leaning on that phrase and start creating arguments
using it, rather than
relying on it.