fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1837 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1837 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02. [broken link]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Robin Of Sherwood/Michael Praed]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Glee]

__________________________________________________

05.

[We Got Married - Ga In (Brown Eyed Girls)/Jo Kwon (2AM)]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

[Buzz Lightyear of Star Command]

__________________________________________________

09. http://i.imgur.com/8DbqS.png
[linked for nudity/kind of porny]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Josh Groban and Andrea Bocelli]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Beast Wars, Megatron]

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

[Magic Mike]

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

17.

[Harry Potter & Little House on the Prairie]

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

[X-Men: First Class]

__________________________________________________

21.

[Death Note]

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23.

__________________________________________________

24.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

25. [SPOILERS for something, OP did not specify]

__________________________________________________

26. [SPOILERS for Vampire Hunter D]

__________________________________________________

27. [SPOILERS for Christmas Doctor Who and New Year's Sherlock]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

28. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]
[SPOILERS for Loveless]

__________________________________________________

29. [TRIGGER WARNING for abuse]

__________________________________________________

30. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

31. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape, animal cruelty]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #262.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There are an infinite number of unknowable truths.

If we accept your argument here, then you render the entire basis of our perception of the world (empirical truth, rather then inductive reasoning for truth) meaningless.

Which brings me to the central point, what is the difference between a falsehood, and an unproveable negative?

Religion isn't based on science, though, and nobody here is arguing that it is (people who do that are very bad at religion). Empirical truth no longer applies when what you're talking about isn't based on quantifiable evidence anyway.

That's not science though.

Philosophy brah.

And they are making a positive claim (regarding truth and our ability to ever know something), which I believe to be wrong.

What positive claim? They said you can't prove God exists or not. When it comes to religion and faith, "truth" becomes completely subjective.

Right, which in itself is a positive assertion to privileged knowledge (that god is inherently unknowable, but more deeply, the underlying tautology that an unknowable true claim, and an unknowable false claim are two separate categories in more then a trivially true fashion).

And no, truth isn't subjective. Truth is the exact opposite of subjective. So I'd be interested in your reasons for believing it to be so.

First, talking in plain English rather than Philosophy 101 Word Salad will make you sound less like a condescending ass, and make it much clearer just what the hell your point is.

Second, are you asserting that whether God exists or not is provable? Because in that case I'd say you're either delusional or a zombie.

Third, I said truth is subjective in regards to faith. When you choose to believe or not believe in things you cannot prove to be true, then truth of whether those things exist or not is subjective. If you believe God exists, then He does exist for you. If you believe God doesn't exist, then for you He does not. No need to make it more complicated than that.

It's not word salad, I'm using the terms because it's significantly shorter and more succinct then devoting a miniparagraph to each idea there. But I'll try to cut back on it.

My assertion is rhetorical games - the assertion that we cannot know god exists, is in and of itself a positive claim of knowing an unknowable. It seeks to demonstrate the way in which treating unknowable truths as valid possibilities is going to leave you eating your own tail.

But more fundamentally, as was said, unintentionally the distinction is being made that their exists a difference between a truth that can never be proven and affects us in no way, and a falsehood that cannot be known and effects us in no way. Except the issue here is that there isn't.

I am loving your existentialism, but as Sartre said hell is other people, and existing in a society imposes upon you a requirement to follow shared perceptions of a physicalist universe, what you believe is merely that.

Or we could get more basic and point out that truth exists external to the individual. Unless you're divorcing the idea of existence of god as a human conception from god as a metaphysical truth, and suggesting that one is believing in the idea of god, which gives the idea validity as a human construct within ones own mind?

And again, your point is...what, exactly? Because as far as I'm concerned, you've been blabbering for three paragraphs but haven't said anything. There's nothing to even debate because it's not clear what you're trying to say or what your argument even is.

I'm not a religious person and I've never had faith (well, I thought I had, but not really) but Faith work as anon said: if you received it then you believe that God exists and whatever other articles of faith are there.

Most theist religions work under the assumption that God is beyond human comprehension so human science is useless to understand it/him/her. It is, in the end, a matter of faith and science has nothing to do with it.

And, tbh, I never understood the need to fret about this issues. If you believe, good for you! If you don't. good for you! It doesn't really matter unless people are being obnoxious jerks and then that is the problem.

[ SECRET POST #1837 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject