Posts Tagged relative truth

I hate politics…

I truly have a  love/hate relationship with politics, even as I sit and think about this post I can’t help but feel somewhat annoyed by the fact that I have decided to write it.

Now I let me rephrase that a little, I don’t hate politics in general, I hate modern U.S. politics but more over modern U.S. politicians. These people constantly attempt to use the government and law to force their belief systems onto those that do not share similar beliefs and then use the statement “[insert belief] is the foundation of this great country!” Yes typically this reflects towards the Christian vocal majority, but is not limited to religious context by any means. They believe that using dead people that can’t speak for themselves as a reference point validates their statement and desires.

So here’s a quick little rant before I get into the real reason I am writing this:

  • Our forefathers did not draft any documents related to the foundation of this country in an attempt to describe anything near what is currently labelled “Free Market”.
  • Christianity was not the foundation of America, as a matter of fact, once you can actually label which sect of Christianity is the “right” version of it, let me know because each of these cults are setting foundations that contradict each other on every thing except the belief in the Judeo-Christian God and JC, speaking of Judaism, most “True Jews” as I like to call them find your little book and stories of JC and “God” as far fetched as most Atheists do.
  • Most of our forefathers would be closer to modern libertarians than any other political party represented today and if you actually read what was written, all they wanted was liberty from an Oppressive government, if you listened to those that you represent you would realize that we currently are establishing an oppressive government similar to the one that our forefathers fought to be free of.
  • Two party system will never work, all you are ever doing in that case is choosing who will do a less terrible job rather than choosing the right man for the job.
  • The current candidate system is flawed beyond belief, if there was one thing I would personally gut from the process of becoming an elected official it is the fact that you must raise money to be nominated. The nomination process should not be a matter of who can collect the most money but rather who has a better plan and foundation to lead this country, state, county, city, town, neighborhood in the right direction.
  • If we maintained a fund raising scheme it should be to give that elected official the means to live during their “tour of duty” as an elected official, this is because I believe that political office should be a volunteer assignment and if that person cannot raise the funds to live off of during their stay in office, they can have a real job like the rest of the country.
  • All claimed “plans” or ideas for improving the “system” should be required to be published and unable to be altered once nominated. This publication should be freely available to anyone who would like to understand it and/or question it.
  • It should also be required that once in office anyone that gives a “donation” to an elected official, whether it be buying lunch or giving a cash donation should be publicly available for viewing, the day to day interactions regarding political agendas or advancement should be public record, this could entail but should not be limited to video surveillance of the political official whenever acting in an official manner or while under the protection of federal agents.
  • If a politician mentions any form of religious sect/cult/denomination as a reason or motivating factor in a decision that they are to make their vote/nomination/submission should be disqualified for reasons similar to that of a public official receiving a bribe.

Those are just a few things that I think are currently wrong, or could be corrected in the current U.S. political scene. Yes I understand that these changes could easily create more issues, but if you can think of an issue that can be created by them, then it is something that can be corrected. That is one of the major problems with our country as it currently stands, we see problems but hold no power to change them due to the fact that we have so many lifer’s as politicians or we are choosing the “lesser of two evils” so to speak. This is exactly how I feel about our current presidential election that is coming in November, we are not choosing the best man for the job, instead we are choosing the lesser of two evils in our own eyes. Neither truly deserves to sit in office, in my personal opinion Obama didn’t deserve the Democratic nomination in 2008, I was a Clinton fan for the Democratic candidate and it wasn’t because she was a woman, it was due to her understanding of political office, her track record in foreign policy and her blatant understanding of the working class American. Sure Obama paints youth centers and volunteered to aid inner city youth, but what good does that do if those same kids parents don’t have the money to put food on the table?

“So what Derik? This is a lot of bitching but no substance.” is what I am assuming everyone who has read this far is saying, well, here’s my ultimate statement. Mitt Romney should win the 2012 presidential election. Not because he is the best man for the job, not because he is the lesser of two evils, but rather because he is the greater of two evils. He has shown his true colors and we know what he is truly about, this is an oppressive dictator of a man who would take the U.S. for everything it has and then apply for Canadian citizenship or move to a Non-extradition country so that we could not pursue him. This is the man that would take all of the asphalt roads in America, tear them up and milk all of the petroleum out of them to make gas despite us not having the roads to drive on, this is the man that would clear cut America for an extra nickel on his hourly wage. He would have us living in hovels and caves so that he could sell the timber and building materials from our homes to China or Columbia just so that he could buy a new vacation home. We know this about him, we understand the true evil this man represents.

“Derik you’ve gone off the deep end with this one buddy! With all of that we should be fighting to keep him out of office!” is what I am sure you’re thinking at this point, that is if you haven’t stopped reading and closed this by now. But hear me out, when the revolutionary war occurred it was an outcry due to taxation without representation, it was a statement that enough was enough and we were through with being oppressed by a blind dictatorship that did not hold our well being as their main concern, but rather just desired to line their own pockets and live the good life. So, this is what Mitt Romney wants to do with America, it’s evident in his speeches and his blatant acknowledgment of his backers. So why do I want him to become president of the U.S.? Because he’s the man that will likely insight a new revolution, he is the man that will push this country and those that go about their lives blindly into standing up and recognizing the culture that we currently live in. He will start the revolution and usher us into a new United States of America, we will have a civil war again, but this time it will be the embodiment of the majority versus the vocal majority, there will be an uprising and a reclaiming of the power that the people once had, once again the majority of the people and the voice of the people will be heard rather than manipulated and tossed by the way side for a profit. We will no longer be marginalized. It will take someone like Mitt Romney to finally wake us up and get the majority to fight back rather than watch and live vicariously through people like the Occupy Movement or Anonymous.

So, at this point I say we have two options (1) we continue to hobble along with false representatives like Obama or (2) we elect a person that will unify the country in the desire for a true democracy again and inspire a revolution, we elect Mitt Romney the man we all know will happily drive this country into ruin, and then we stand up and we fight back.

No longer should we accept “almost enough”, no longer should we feel as if our hands are bound due to a blatant disconnect between the people and those that are elected to represent us. No longer should we have a feeling of dread when we hear about a new law or a new bill being considered or passed in congress, our elected officials should be celebrated as heroes and heralds of our political ideals, not puppets of the wealthy.

So, I say if you truly desire a return to “the good old days” or truly believe in democracy and the voice of the people, that in November you elect Mitt Romney, he may be the worst of the worst, but one good thing will come of his term in office, and that is the people taking this country back and making it ours again.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Evolution of Skepticism Daily – July 5th 2012

Evolution of Skepticism Daily – a new show highlighting Pagan and Atheist news from around the globe. If you have a news article or would like to have something you’ve done highlighted email me at

Opposing Views – Video: Atheist John Wolff Files Complaint Against Restaurant’s Church-Goer Discount

LifeSiteNews – Dismantling the new atheism

BBC News – Casey Kearney killer ‘told pagan priestess of demon attack’

CNN – American Atheists Fly “Atheism is Patriotic” Banner Over NYC on July 4th

Huffington Post – Lose Your Illusions and Find Infinity: A Jewish Mystical Take on Atheism and God

TechDirt – UK Pensioner Could Face Arrest For Atheist Poster

News24 – It is really easy to be an atheist

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Derik and Hezekiah debate whether truth is relative or not…


Bertrand Russell On Induction.


“The inductive principle, however, is equally incapable of being provedby an appeal to experience. Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future. If the principle is unsound, we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow, to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone, or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall. When we see what looks like our best friend approaching us, we shall have no reason to suppose that his body is not inhabited by the mind of our worst enemy or of some total stranger. All our conduct is based upon associations which have worked in the past, and which we therefore regard as likely to work in the future; and this likelihood is dependent for its validity upon the inductive principle. ” An excerpt (chapter 6, on induction) from “Problems of Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell.

You can get the whole thing here.

If you think you have answer to this “problem”, feel free to let me know.



posted by Hezekiah Ahaz @ 2:20 PM  76 comments 


At April 14, 2012 3:22 PM Blogger Alex B said…
I don’t know if you bothered to read what you posted, but he kind of answers right there.

“Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future.”

At April 14, 2012 3:26 PM Blogger Justin Hall said…

yup, Mr Russel did not see this so called problem any reason to accept christanity.

At April 14, 2012 3:28 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

You’re a genius.

In other words, by Faith.

At April 14, 2012 3:52 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Your objection is absolutely useless.

At April 14, 2012 4:36 PM Blogger Reynold said…

You’re a genius.

In other words, by Faith.
You must be defining “faith” differently than anyone else.

Trust based on evidence is not faith.

At April 14, 2012 4:49 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Do you have answer or not?

At April 14, 2012 5:16 PM Blogger Justin Hall said…
I do, concept formation is a form of induction, thus induction is presupposed by and a prerequisite for cognition, thus to use cognition to call into question induction amount to a preformative inconsistency, the question is invalid.

At April 14, 2012 5:19 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Seems to me that the answer lies within the text and it plainly states that we must base it upon expectations and experience.

” All our conduct is based upon associations which have worked in the past, and which we therefore regard as likely to work in the future; and this likelihood is dependent for its validity upon the inductive principle.”

This does not say I wake up with the sun is shining through my window, so I expect the sky to be blue because I have faith in the sky not changing colors. It says I wake up in this situation expecting the sky to be blue because my experience and the information I have consumed through life tells me it is going to be blue.

Faith and knowledge are not the same.

At April 14, 2012 5:23 PM Blogger Justin Hall said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At April 14, 2012 5:25 PM Blogger Justin Hall said…
reposted with grammatical fixes, sorry folks


ah but what hezekiah is saying is that that reasoning that you gave an example of itself presupposes the validity of induction, its circular. I am not sure Hezekaih is actually wrong when he accesses someone using Russel’s answer of employing faith. I think the way to deal with the question is to attack the question’s validity itself.

At April 14, 2012 5:39 PM Blogger Justin Hall said…

damn, how do you use that iphone of yours to type this stuff, this phone sucks. Ok here I post for the 3rd time what I meant to say. Please delete the earlier two post Hezekiah.


ah but what hezekiah is saying is that reasoning that you gave an example of itself presupposes the validity of induction, its circular. I am not sure Hezekaih is actually wrong when he accuses someone using Russel’s answer of employing faith. I think the way to deal with the question is to attack the questions validity itself.

At April 14, 2012 5:50 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
my example, of the sky, was an example of why it is not faith but rather knowledge and experience that dictates what I expect.

The best part about all of this is I do not subscribe to any philosophical dogma, psychology is much more interesting to me, and to watch philosophical debates continue in circles, because philosophy was meant for theory and concept and not fact, is entertaining, like putting peanut butter on a dogs tail, it never stops spinning.

From my point of view on philosophy
(which can be read here: is that there will never be a philosophical question with a real answer, it is meant to question everything but has no intention of supplying an answer. So to ask for an answer to a philosophical question is like asking an Alzheimer’s patient to remember your birthday.

Let’s start asking Rhetorical Questions of each other instead, you may actually make some head way.

At April 14, 2012 5:57 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

It’s actually a pretty good question.

You’re exactly right there would need to be order before experience. However, that order is only discovered by experience.

Concept formation is automatic. However, everytime you attempt to use a concept that assumes induction.

The only way out of it is to appeal to something outside yourself or transcend induction itself.

What say you Justin?


What allows you to extract past experiences and make predictions about the present/future?

At April 14, 2012 6:56 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
To better answer your question HA I need to make something clear between you and I, so I need these questions answered.

Do animals understand logic and reasoning?

Are animals capable of begging the question?

At April 14, 2012 7:18 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

I don’t know. I am not an animal.

However, I highly doubt animals worry about these things.

At April 14, 2012 7:36 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
I would imagine they are capable of at least logic and reason, or else how would wolves decide it was better to attack a sick or wounded animal for food rather than the largest animal, larger means more food, but sick, old or wounded means an easier kill and less likely of a loss of a pack member. Seems like logic and reason in action.

As far as begging the question, in my opinion it would be a waste of time for an animal to concern themselves with such things, meaning that it would not be worthwhile for them to engage in circular arguments pertaining to metaphysics or the reasoning as to how we are here.

At April 14, 2012 7:41 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

What do you think seperates us from animals?

At April 14, 2012 7:47 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
the desire to destroy each other without reason, greed, and arrogance are the major things I feel separates us from the animals.

Aside from that I have to admit, I agree with Agent Smith from the Matrix, we’re probably closer to a virus than most animals anymore. We spread and destroy our surroundings with complete disregard for our host.

At April 14, 2012 8:10 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Is there evil in the world?

At April 14, 2012 8:28 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Nope, as my wife so wonderfully puts it, there is perception of evil and everyones perception of evil is different.

For instance I have a vary narrow perception of evil, I won’t get into details but lets just say many of today’s morality laws I find to be comedic and unnecessary.

so as far as the existence of evil, no evil does not exist, evil is a set of deeds that people do that is contrary to the social standard of perceived good.

At April 14, 2012 8:39 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
So, murder is evil depending on the person?

At April 14, 2012 9:32 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Yup, you kill during war it’s not evil, you kill in your home town it is. Double standards, both are murder, you have killed someone you do not know for reasons unrelated to the major population of the world, yet one is considered duty the other is considered crime.

At April 14, 2012 9:33 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
North Korea for decades was another example of perception of evil/good. We considered Kim Jong-Il an evil dictator, yet a whole country wept when he died.

At April 14, 2012 9:39 PM Blogger Justin Hall said…

yes but that does not mean that they, the whole country of North Korea were right to do so:) Are you arguing that morality is purely subjective?

At April 14, 2012 9:41 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

let me get to the bottom this.

So, There is no standard of morality?

At April 14, 2012 9:56 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…

The argument is that good and evil are based primarily on personal, social and cultural perception. They may not have been right to us, but from their stand point he was a great leader. To us he was a tyrant and evil little man.

define morality to an unarguable point and you will then have a standard, standards are set by social and cultural leaders, which you cannot claim to be 100% correct leaving it to perception of the person setting the standards.

For instance, we will dig into one of the ten commandments. We’ll use “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”

What if my daughter was starving, I was injured to a point that I could not work and what ever state benefits did not last a whole month, so I stole food to feed my daughter so she didn’t have to eat out of a garbage can.

Our social morals state that stealing is wrong, but my purpose for stealing was justifiable as a father doing what ever he must to tend to his child’s well being.

So which is right? Society perceives my actions as criminal. Yet another point of view shows my actions as being a caring father.

Another example, Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife.

What if it is consensual between all parties? I have known a few serious Christians that were considered Swingers and did not feel they were breaking this commandment because all parties are in fact consenting adults. Which moral standard is correct? The mass christian standard that states sex should only be within a marriage and only for the sake of procreation or the one that the small sub-culture has stated is alright because everyone is happy with the situation and consensual?

In my opinion, the sub-culture of swingers is correct because their actions do not harm anyone outside of their circle.

At April 14, 2012 10:03 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Is it ok if I steal from you and covet your wife?

At April 14, 2012 10:08 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
well lets see… if you’re asking to steal is that really theft?

and as far as coveting my wife, if you tame her you can have her for a night. Believe me, not an easy feat.

I think your response may not have been well thought out.

At April 14, 2012 10:09 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Oh, and can I get the phone number for your church? I’d like to turn them onto this conversation, especially where it’s currently going…

At April 14, 2012 10:22 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Look I think you know what’s happening here.

Now, is it ok derik if I steal and lie to you?

When you call something right or wrong what do you base that on?

How do you know what’s right or wrong if there is no standard?

At April 14, 2012 10:47 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Ok, if you stole from, and it was for instance, to care for a child as my example stated, I would support it and would actually upon finding out why, ensure that the theft was not something that had to continue that you didn’t have a personal burden on your conscience. As far as lying, did it hurt me? if not, fuck it, I don’t care, I’m not so petty as to get angry over something small, everyone lies, whether it be a small white lie, like when you told your wife/girlfriend that the dress didn’t make her ass look fat, or if it’s a big lie, like “No officer I didn’t realize I was going 120 MPH in the School Zone.”

If the lie did effect me, I would care, and I would respond accordingly. But that does not mean that lying is evil. It means that you felt a necessity to tell me something other than the truth. My response will vary depending on reason.

So there you have it, both would be right or wrong in my opinion based on perceived necessity of the lie or theft.

Now, to further answer the rest of your questions, I will go with the amendment of adding lying to the equation. I know that lying is wrong because the majority of the worlds society has decided that untruths are wrong as a whole, but as you saw because I am anti-establishment I choose to assess each situation based on it’s own merit. This is also how I judge whether something is right or wrong, I can best describe it from the Scott Cunningham book Wicca A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner where he says “The Wiccan ideal of morality is simple: do what you want as long as you harm none.” and “do nothing that will harm yourself.”

Seems like a pretty simple description of right and wrong, if it hurts others or yourself it’s wrong, if it doesn’t it’s not wrong. may not be right, but it’s not wrong. But again, this is how I choose to perceive right and wrong, meaning in the end it’s still a perception and not something that can be boxed up and given as the only answer.

At April 14, 2012 10:56 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

This is getting kinda hilarious.

What is truth derik?

At April 14, 2012 11:22 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
we have already come to a conclusion that truth is based on perception also, because your truth and mine are very different.

My truth is something that can be proven through tangible evidence. and Tangible evidence to me is something that can be proven through the use of ones senses. Obviously this is not a reasonable explanation of truth to you since you believe our senses lie to us, but it works pretty good for me.

At April 14, 2012 11:46 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Ok you said truth is based on perception

“truth is based on perception”

How do you know that statement is true?

At April 15, 2012 12:00 AM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
evidence from other blog posts have already shown that you and I perceive truth as different tells me that truth is based on perception.

For example, you perceive the bible to be a factual book. I on the other hand see it to be a compilation of short stories based in a historical fantasy setting. – our truths are different due to perception of fact, you say that because the words are on the page it is fact, so I question does that make the information in the Satanic Bible fact?

At April 15, 2012 12:17 AM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

but we both can’t be right.

Are you evading?

How do know you derik that what you are perceiving is true?

Are you ruling out deception, delusion etc.?

No, Derik truth is based on God not on my perception.

At April 15, 2012 12:25 AM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
you’re right, we can’t both be right, within each others views.

in my view the bible is a book, like many other books it has truthful statements within it, and it shows signs of morality, but so did Aesop’s Fables, that didn’t make them true.

as far as deception and delusion, televangelists are full of deceit, doesn’t make their message differ much from your own, they just take advantage of people while doing it. And as far as delusion, if someone today claimed to be Jesus they would be considered delusional, but how would we know he wasn’t telling the truth?

and you have proven my point in your statement “No, Derik truth is based on god not on my perception.” how is it based on god when you can’t fact check against the origin of your truth? You can’t walk up to god and say “is what I am saying true or not?” instead you have to rely on your perception of truth to give you an understanding of what you consider truth.

another example of perceived truth.
“Honey, does this dress make my butt look fat?”
“no dear, your butt looks wonderful in that dress.”

Now her butt may in fact look gigantic in the dress, but to her husband her butt looks perfect the way it is within the dress. He is telling her the truth, but others may find it to have been a lie.

Can they both be right?

by the way, is the information in the satanic bible correct?

At April 15, 2012 1:39 AM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
The thing is I start with the truth of the bible. I don’t work backwards.

if somebody claimed to be Jesus today, and many have done so, we can immediately reject him based on the revelation we have.

The statement “truth is relative” is self-refuting.

If it’s true that “truth is relative” then I could easily say truth is not relative. Since you would have to agree with me your statement will be refuted.

Satanic bible ? never read it and don’t plan on to.

At April 15, 2012 1:53 AM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
why wouldn’t you read an important part of your culture?

then if it’s not relative… does his wife’s ass look fat in the dress or not?

see again, if you actually read more than every other word of my statement, the beauty of truth being relative is it is based upon point of view. You may not find the truth being relative, but I do. For instance, and I will use an argument you’ve used a couple times, if I see something as red, but a color blind person sees it as grey is it not true that based upon each persons view point their color is correct because who is to know which view point is the truth? Did god tell one person it was red and one person it was grey? or since our senses as you say are from god, is he actually deceiving one of them?

At April 15, 2012 4:59 AM Blogger Reynold said…
Hezekiah Ahaz
No, Derik truth is based on God not on my perception.
One has to perceive everything through one’s senses and reasoning abilities. That would include your god.

Without perception, you’d never be able to tell that your god existed. Look that word up sometime.

Plus, your god does not always advocate telling the truth.
See 1 Samuel 16:1-5. How can you base the concept of “truth” on a being who lies?

The thing is I start with the truth of the bible. I don’t work backwards.
How do you know that the bible is true? I’ve shown you were it has errors before…

As to your question to me earlier: Others have answered it right after you asked me.

At April 15, 2012 7:21 AM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Do you have answer or not?

Quit wasting time.

At April 15, 2012 7:23 AM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

The statement “there is no truth” is absolutely preposterous.

At April 15, 2012 1:15 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
but HA you didn’t answer the questions.

does his wifes ass look fat in that dress?


Did god deceive one of those poor people on the color?

and here’s another one, if we lived in a world where everyone saw in grey scale and suddenly someone saw color, would that persons truth about the way things look be different than everyone elses?

At April 15, 2012 1:27 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

It’s simple.

Is truth relative or objective?

At April 15, 2012 1:54 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
have you read my previous comments? You know my answer.

so instead of one person seeing color what if one thousand unrelated people suddenly started seeing color?

and since I’ve already established the basis behind the first two questions it should be as you say “simple” to actually answer the questions now that they have been asked a third time, by the way are you evading answering the questions?

so for the third time (hopefully the charm)
Does the mans wifes ass look fat in the dress?


Was god deceiving one of those people on what color the object really was?

At April 15, 2012 4:32 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Truth is not relative.

At April 15, 2012 4:51 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
you realize that your refusal to answer the questions presented to you prove your wrong right? your refusal speaks volumes about the fact that you can’t prove your claim that truth is not relative. Even with not answering you prove that it in fact is relative.

oh and as far as your comment “the truth is not relative.” my response is obvious, in your opinion, which is a beautiful response because it confirms my claim.

If the truth is not relative, prove it, I have given you many examples of truth being relative, where is your proof of truth being absolute? Are you going to say God or the bible? Because that would be an amazing answer, since once again I can respond with “in your opinion” and I can back it up through referencing Wicca, Hinduism, Norse Mythology, Shinto, Buddhism or just about any other religion that does not reference your god or bible but believes their answers to be truth.

So maybe we are going for lucky number 7, so here’s the fourth try.

Did “God” deceive the man who sees color or who sees grey?


does the mans wife’s ass look fat in the dress?

and now for the third time, if the world saw in grey and suddenly a thousand people saw color which truth is correct?

At April 15, 2012 4:54 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
and how about this, most KKK members consider themselves good christians, yes GOOD christians. Yet they perform evil actions towards others, despite some being community leaders, pastors, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, civil servants, police, firemen, and just about every other profession in the world, and, for sake of argument lets say, aside from their actions in the KKK they are good wholesome people.

Are they evil because of something they may do once a month, yet they repent and ask for forgiveness from God? Are they forgiven despite the knowledge that they will do it again next month?

At April 15, 2012 5:02 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

You said truth is relative.

ok, truth is not relative.

Do you agree?

If you say yes, you refute yourself

If you say no, you refute yourself.

Your choice

At April 15, 2012 5:06 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Option three:

in your opinion truth is not relative.

You believe everything to be black and white, the beauty of being color blind is you see shades of grey.

So attempt number 5 for the first two questions.

Does the wifes ass look fat in the dress?


Does the man seeing Grey scale or the man seeing color possess the truth?

I’ll leave the other question out for now, I think these two questions make a valid enough point.

At April 15, 2012 5:13 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
ok then in your opinion truth is relative. both of us can’t be wrong

Your playing useless word games.

hahaha what is it with this wife question.

Do colors exist or not?

At April 15, 2012 5:28 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
if you read the previous statements you would understand the wife question, along with dodging the questions you are proving that you respond blindly with questions like “…what is with this wife question.”

and actually yes both of us can be wrong… that’s another example of truth being relative. If we added Justin, Steve, Reynold, or Dawson they may have a different view point than either of us, meaning that within their opinion we are wrong.

I am not playing word games, if I was I would be trying to use twisted context and illogical syntax to my sentence structure. Instead I am trying to make these questions as blatant and direct as possible.

So attempt number Six, we’re getting closer and closer to that lucky number seven, will we get an answer though? Only HA can tell for sure.

Does the mans wifes ass look fat in the dress? (if you need context scroll up)

and question number two.

Does the man who sees in Grey scale or the man who sees in color possess the truth?

At April 15, 2012 5:41 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
If truth is relative then it’s not relative.

If you agree, you refute yourself.

if you disagree, you refute yourself.

Can the whole world be wrong?

At April 15, 2012 5:55 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
does the whole world have an opinion?

and again, I don’t have to worry about answering in the restraint of you description, my answer states that it is left for perception to decipher the truth.

So lucky number seven,

Does her ass look fat in the dress or not? (you said it was a simple question to answer but still refuse to answer)


which man is god deceiving if truth is not relative, the one who sees in color or the one who sees in grey scale?

At April 15, 2012 6:09 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

If you consider yourself to be honest, you’ll stop playing word games.

Now, the statement:

“everybodies opinion could be wrong”

Is problematic,

if you say yes, you have problems.

if you say no, you have problems.

At April 15, 2012 6:34 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
dude I hate Scrabble…

as far as this quote:

“Now, the statement:

“everybodies opinion could be wrong”

Is problematic,

if you say yes, you have problems.

if you say no, you have problems.”

I think you are working on your own word game yet at the same time tripping yourself up.

answer this question, does your refusal of answering my questions prove that truth is relative?

So you don’t have to scroll up I will post them yet again.

Does the wifes ass look fat in the dress?


which man is god deceiving, the one who sees in color or the man who sees in grey scale?

At April 15, 2012 6:49 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

if truth is relative, then my truth is that truth is not relative.

In that case, you would have to agree and reduced yourself to absurdity.

At April 15, 2012 7:10 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
In fact I don’t “have” to agree with anything, that’s the exact reason why truth is relative. I am not required to agree with your truth.

But since you state that truth is not relative, answer the two questions.

Does the wifes ass look fat?


which person is god deceiving, the one who sees in color or the one who sees in grey scale?

if truth is not relative, there is an absolute answer to both of these questions.

but if truth is relative, the question about the wife can be boiled down to the statement “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (great reference to confirm my claim, and it’s such a popular statement too). And as far as which truth is real in the terms of color vs. grey scale, I leave that up to you for determination since I honestly don’t have that answer, my truth is color is there and grey scale is the false statement, but if I woke up tomorrow and was color blind, I would have to revise my truth because even if I knew it was red the day before, my current senses tell me it is no longer red but in fact a shade of grey.

your requirement that I HAVE to agree with you is the only claim towards absurdity.

assuming a necessity of affirmation will just leave you blowing like a leaf in the wind.

At April 15, 2012 7:39 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Everything you just said is false.

That’s my truth.

At April 15, 2012 7:43 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
so you didn’t say it was simple to answer the question?

beauty is not in the eye of the beholder?

god does not give us our senses?

you didn’t say truth was not relative? (sweet thanks for confirmation on that)

your truth is very convoluted and twisted my friend.

Next question, which way is up?

(I only ask because I am not sure you actually have a firm grasp on reality anymore, I may have drove you insane.)

Oh and since you have confirmed you are incapable of answering my previous questions, I will ask anyone else who is reading this whether they believe the mans wifes ass looks fat or not in the dress, and which man is being deceived, the one who sees color or the one who sees greyscale?

At April 15, 2012 7:48 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
I thought you said insane was a “bad” word?

You can’t have it both ways.

If both our “relative truths” are true then yours is false.

At April 15, 2012 8:02 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
sadly I am not qualified to diagnose your illness, so I must use such a crude statement as insane.

I’m going to go ahead and accept a portion of your truth that gives me the ability to accept that you do not honestly believe God gives us our senses (something I have seen many people try to get you to admit.) I will also accept that you have refuted your statement that truth is not relative, with the comment “Everything you just said is false.” Since I had previously been stating you had claimed truth to be relative (see these are word games).

At April 15, 2012 8:10 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
oh and I should point out that my favorite part of our exchange is the fact that you’re the only one trying to claim to be right.

I am happy to allow you to continue in your ignorant bliss of your perceived truth.

Hey, I know let’s bring back the KKK member question, here I’ll even copy and paste it again so you don’t have to scroll up.

At April 15, 2012 4:54 PM , evolutionofskepticism said…
and how about this, most KKK members consider themselves good christians, yes GOOD christians. Yet they perform evil actions towards others, despite some being community leaders, pastors, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, civil servants, police, firemen, and just about every other profession in the world, and, for sake of argument lets say, aside from their actions in the KKK they are good wholesome people.

Are they evil because of something they may do once a month, yet they repent and ask for forgiveness from God? Are they forgiven despite the knowledge that they will do it again next month?

At April 15, 2012 9:18 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

You said there is no evil.

At April 15, 2012 9:29 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
no I said evil is a perception.

But by your world view as I understand it, if they repent and ask for forgiveness they are forgiven of their sins, I have never heard anyone say that they couldn’t go right back out and do it again if they again repent and ask for forgiveness. Isn’t that how it all works?

Jesus died so the KKK members can kill people right?

I mean I’m pretty sure it’s actually even a prerequisite to be Christian to be in the KKK.

Don’t worry HA, we know you can’t answer the hard questions so these may as well be rhetorical.

At April 15, 2012 9:35 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Read the bible.

You’ll be surprised.

Cheap bate tactics

At April 15, 2012 10:19 PM Blogger Whateverman said…
If truth is relative then it’s not relative.


At April 15, 2012 10:24 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
What’s wrong?

At April 15, 2012 10:53 PM Blogger Whateverman said…
What’s wrong?

Based on the way you’re using the word, “Truth is relative” is not a truth claim. It’s an opinion.

At April 15, 2012 10:53 PM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
which bible?

At April 15, 2012 11:49 PM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Is truth subjective or objective?


anyone except the satanic and jehovas witness translations

At April 16, 2012 12:00 AM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
I don’t like to be lied to, so which is the true translation of the original bible?

At April 16, 2012 12:05 AM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Is lying wrong?

At April 16, 2012 12:17 AM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
why is there a bible of pure lies? I might be interested in reading that.

as far as my opinion of lying, refer to one of my previous responses. In this case I would be upset because if you tried to refer me to a resource to prove your point knowing I would find it to be lies, that would be a waste of my time, so I might be a little upset.

So it’s a simple question, which one is the true translation? the Koran? the Dead Sea Scrolls? KJV?

At April 16, 2012 12:34 AM Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…

Be honest you’re here to disrupt and harrass.

At April 16, 2012 12:39 AM OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Sounds like a relative truth, in your opinion I am trying to disrupt and harass, but in fact I am trying to validate a point and you have helped greatly in showing that truth is in fact relative. Thanks a bunch!!!

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

, ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: