Negotiation took the place of debate, and to lay
claim upon truth on behalf of one's own religion violated the rules of good conduct.»
Not exact matches
Each side sends out as many gullible followers as they can find or buy and they send them to an agreed
upon place where they bash eachothers heads in and stab at eachother with spears and arrows and eventually only a few survivors will wander back to their masters covered in blood and wounds and
claim Truth for their side, since whichever side won was obviously God's chosen ones...
And, yes, based
upon what Jesus himself said, Christianity is exclusive... that is an a priori quality of
truth... so if Jesus was / is who he
claimed to be he deserves to be and indeed must be listened to.
When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the
truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a philosophical critique of the language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its
claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced
upon me that my faith is a delusion?
The Holy Spirit teaches us all things; we speak of the things that the Spirit brings;
truth reduced to language and writing (again); we continue to remind one another (in speech, script & action); meanwhile philosophy makes
claim upon the derivatives, often assuming even to authorship.
When pressed about the unfairness of disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray themselves as merely insisting
upon a proper definition of «science,» and not as making any absolute
claims about «
truth.»
My point with Concert was that the non theists tend to insist
upon verifiable, objective
truth in order to know with certainty, something that was not possible in his scenario and yet he still made the adamant
claim.
Faith is typically defined as a belief, reliance
upon, confidence in, or persuasion about the
truth of some
claim.
It
claims that by rooting around in our own egos or by reflecting
upon our life experiences as men or women, whites or blacks, we really won't discover much that is worth knowing, unless we know this Jew from Nazareth who is the way, the
truth and the life, and are part of a people who follow him.
Instead of emphasizing the universal
truth -
claim exerted by the Bible
upon the mind and conscience of all humankind, one spokesperson after another fulminates against evangelical «rationalism» and retreats to personal commitment.
Placher's answer to my question about the relative
truth or falsity of religious
claims touches
upon my comment that current forms of epistemological relativism provide a justification for affirming the
truth of beliefs without worrying about whether they are true for more than those who affirm them.
The «several months» thing for battery life is considerably less attractive when you realize that this is based
upon an AMAZON month and an Amazon month is 10 — 15 hours (15
claimed; 10 closer to the
truth, at least IME).
Writing reports
upon their outcome and
claiming its «the
truth» isn't science and seems to be at the root of the hostility the public have?