Quote from: GideonGono on November 02, 2019, 04:51:40 PM

Quote from: BADecker on October 09, 2019, 12:31:42 AM

Quote from: Magkirap on October 08, 2019, 11:49:22 PM

Quote from: Malsetid on October 03, 2019, 08:34:45 AM

Hey guys. I've been watching a lot of debates on youtube about this topic where theists, apologetics, philosophers, scientists, agnostics and atheists discuss whether religion has a monopoly over what people perceive to be right or wrong. Guys like WLC, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Frank Turek, Richard Dawkins etc. Go after each other's throats to prove their points and honestly, i think every one of them has a valid argument.

What do you think?

Everyone had their own set of beliefs so it was not surprising thar their arguments are both valid.

In a common law (lore) court in the USA, whatever anybody says is true. If there are differences, the court is there to find out which truth is reality.

Cool

How we know the truth if they believe that they beliefs was true? In fact, they have different beliefs but they have different think that they say the truth even in others was not. How we can say who is the true and who is not if a person have different beliefs? How the argument work?

That is what the court does... finds the truth. Once it is adjudicated by the jury, the answer the jury gives is the final answer. But...

While a jury verdict in a common law court can't be changed, somebody can bring up a different question that is similar to the first, and essentially makes the first verdict of no effect depending on the new question ruling with a new jury.

In addition, if somebody thinks the jury members acted wrongfully (in bad faith), he can take them to court individually and get damages. But he better be right, because if he loses, his damages and fines will increase.

Cool