It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
... your version of the "truth".
... [According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]
Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it—“relativism.”
MANY religious organizations claim to have the truth, and they offer it eagerly to others. However, between them they offer a dizzying profusion of “truths.” Is this just another evidence that all truths are relative, that there are no absolute truths? No.
In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”
In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.
originally posted by: whereislogic
Guess I was spot on then with bringing up the philosophy of relativism.
Of course, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is an example of such a verifiable truth. As is this one:
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)
originally posted by: daskakik
It is just that your truth might be wrong ...
... but you clinging to it is religious dogma.
...
Which View Fits All the Facts?
With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:
1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.
2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.
3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.
How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [whereislogic: 'nature did it'; and now comes the subject where I placed my footnote earlier:]
What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down.* [Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.] Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”
To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed. [*: DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!]
On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*—Isaiah 40:26.
Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.
Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism [whereislogic: a.k.a. philosophical naturalism/'nature did it'] increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.
Meanwhile, "ancient aliens" leaves open possibilities that your specific belief doesn't leave room for. Even if you want to say technically "god and his angels would be ancient aliens", it is a package deal that doesn't include other possibilities.
Perfect example of your blind faith. That bible quote isn't as verifiable as 2 + 2 = 4.
Honestly, that is just something that tickles your ears, that is why you believe in it.
originally posted by: daskakik
...
That bible quote isn't as verifiable as 2 + 2 = 4.
Honestly, that is just something that tickles your ears, that is why you believe in it.
originally posted by: daskakik
It is just that your truth might be wrong but you clinging to it is religious dogma.
originally posted by: whereislogic
If it's wrong, then yes (but you have provided neither an argument nor evidence that it is wrong, so I'm going to have to go on the evidence at hand.
'That bible quote isn't verifiable like 2 + 2 = 4.'
And in your view, am I the only one behaving that way?