I am glad we agree! I ALSO called bullshit that particular beleif of yours.

The notion that by becomming a politician one automatically gains immunity from being "good" or "evil" IS bullshit.

By that argument Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc were not evil, it was just "politics"

While certainly there is a time and a place to say that, and just because someone does not agree with you does not make them evil, it must be remembered that people are capable of evil in every position you place them in.

Granted, but if we let good/evil be inserted into our political system, then what? There are those out there who will take such things to the extreme. e.g. Those who claim that all liberals are evil and deserve to go to hell. (Or vice versa) Sound familiar?

That's the type of politics that irks me. We're in the same sinking boat, why slit each other's throats?

Its called applying logic and reason. Justifying evil to avoid a slippery slope of branding people evil for merely disagreeing with you is just as weong as labeling people evil for merely disagreeing with you.

You should strive to be impartial and logical and reasonable.

What you are saying sounds a lot like "zero tolerance", which undermines the very fundamentals of being intelligent. That strive to quantify and qualify things via our advanced minds is a good thing and should be encouraged. Otherwise a simple program could replace you.

So it's logic that implies that we have to admit that the other party is evil and should...go to hell, or whatever place you want them to go? Bullshit Taltamir. I'm not justifying evil, nor am I ridiculing it. Sure, there are those evil acts - like what Dahmer did.

There's a point though when it gets to be too much. Do you honestly believe that it is okay for someone who is "intelligent," to label you as evil and that you deserve to be thrown in jail, murdered, sent to hell? My qualm, is with the people that "apply logic and reason" to label people as different or evil in order to push/promote division, hate, their warped view, etc.Example being, diehard christians who claim that all of the people who have had abortions are going to hell....uh, sorry, but I don't buy that bollocks.

Sorry, but shit like that is fucking stupid.

No, logic is just a tool used to help us process/convey information.  AJ, I get the feeling you feel truth is relative (on a side note I've been meaning to reply to your PM.  I apologize for not doing it in a more timely manner and L-RD willing I will).  Something isn't true just because it works that's called pragmatism; neither is it true just because it feels good which is subjective nor is it true just because its 'my truth.'   Futhermore, truth is something that corresponds to reality therefore it does not yield to size and strength of the latest lobby group or popular demand.  Truth is more than merely just a matter of opinion or preference.  Something is true even if everyone denies it. 

Truth is essential for a realistic world.  This is kind of what Tal is getting at.  There are universal truths whether people want to admit it or not. A logical example is that every right angle will be the same size.  There is even universal truths in nature, for example humans need oxygen in order to live.  If you remove the oxygen the human will eventually die.  I can stop believing in oxygen and right angles yet there'll still exist.

Most diehard christians won't say that the act of an abortion will send someone to hell.  Its the sinful person refusing to conform to the image of G-D.

I can't speak for all 'diehard christians' (not sure what you feel makes an individual a diehard christian) I think the problem with abortion is that the methods employed to kill a preborn child involve burning, smothering, dismembering, and crushing which are very painful ways to die.  Futhermore, abortion involves killing.  The zygote which fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of life (metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell production) is indeed terminated.  Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger said in Woman and the New Race 'The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.'

Most die hard christians will say that a person can be forgive of doing this. Its not necessarily our actions that dictate who we are but the reason behind them yet our actions give us a glimps of who an individual might be.

I'm not getting into a debate on abortion.

That's the thing though, the truth, while some may claim it to be universal...is actually based on perception. It's all relative to a person's perception.Granted, there may be a general view/perception of the world that is common with people, but when I look around and observe and see that what WE as a culture and/or country view as truth and right and so on....is viewed as wrong. It comes down to which theory on truth do you believe; do you believe the consensus, pragmatic, correspondance, coherence, constructivist, or pluralistic.

Interesting....there is no universal truth.  First, your statement that you just wrote out essentially saying there is no universal truth well there's at least on thing true here: the statement that you just wrote that there is no truth.  Let's look at that for a moment.  If your essential statement 'there is no universal truth' is true, it's false, and if it's false, it's false.  So if your statement 'there is no truth' is false, then it's false.  But even if it's true that there is no truth (only perception which I'll get to) then it's alos false, because that becomes a true statement, which nullifies it.

This is what we call a self-refuting statement.  Here's an example, “I can't type a word of English.” or “All generalizations are false.” Since I wrote that I can't write in English yet here I am writting in English which of course would be self-refuting. Your statements are self-contradictory. They self-destruct. My statement that I can't type a word of English and your statement that 'there is no truth' defeat themeselves.

Let's look at that phrase "there is no truth" Descartes said, "I can doubt everything, but the one thing I can't doubt is the fact that I am doubting." He came up with a dictum: Cogito, ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am." I must exist if I'm pondering my existence. Someone who states that there is no truth must exist, and so it's true that at least one individual, the one uttering the statement, must exist.

Time must also exist, by the way. Time must exist to express a sequence of words, the sequence being "There is no truth." The word "is" must come after the word "there," and the word "no" after both of them, and one can only come after the other if there's time, with present, past and future. So time must exist as an objectively true thing, because this statement was written with words in temporal sequence.

The statement itself is a proposition, so propositions must exist. That's a truth. It contains tokens, words that are tokens of ideas. The concept of truth, the concept of negation expressed in the word "no," must exist as ideas and be true as existants, things that exist.

There has to be the concept of unity, the idea that the four words work together in a sentence, and plurality, the distinction of the four different words. Space must exist to differentiate one word from another, separating the units.

If the statement itself that there is no truth is true, then its opposite must be false. If there is no truth, then it is not the case that there is truth. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction must exist and be true. That statement is also distinguished from all of its contradictions, so the law of identity must be true.

There's at least one sentence that exists, because you just wrote it. That must be true. There are English words, and grammatical relationships between the words-- subject and predicate. That must be true.

The numbers one through four must exist because there are four different words. So addition must be true, because you add those units up and get the number four. The alphabet exists. Parts of speech exist, like nouns and verbs.

As you can see even before you write your statement out there is several things that are true.  There is no way that these can be false either considering the given statement, 'there is no (universal) truth'.

There's no universal, absolute truth in my belief, because it all comes down to perception. There maybe a commonly shared perception of truth, but then you get to areas of the world where that "universal truth" is not considered truth.

One could say that time only exists because we exist. Essentially, time is a term that we apply to change because we need a way to understand or perceive it. I think there's an entire article about this in Discover magazine (May or June issue i think). Look it up, it's interesting.

If its based on perception and there is no universal truth then right angles are all different sizes. That is if it is based on perception.  Buildings every where around the world should be collasping. Ok wait a minute........Ok..........No buildings are falling down yet.  I have some friends who live in Turkey, I'll skype them and ask them if any buildings are falling down over there......Nope.  Let me go make a bet with my co-workers that my right angle will be the same size as there...........Ok, none of them took the bet, because all right angles are the same.

Now on to perception.  There is no way we can sense with our 5 senses oxygen.  I can't see oxygen.  I can't feel oxygen.  Before I go any further oxygen is colorless, odorless, and tasteless.  So there is no way for us to perceive oxygen oxygen with our 5 senses without any aid that is.

Again, you can believe that its only based on perception.  With that in mind, why don't you get a .5m by .5 m black plastic bag that has only one opening, put it over your head, and tie it around your neck so your your whole head is inside the bag for about 5 hours.  You should be fine.

I guess I should rephrse my point. I am talking about truth in terms of religion, faith, moral rights and wrongs. I may have my belief set, but that is defined by my upbringing, culture, etc. We perceive things to be universally true due to our perception of things, albeit limited. I still ask though...are they true? Are what we see and observe, etc...really true, or is it...merely what we perceive to be true. This goes for my belief. The only thing we can be sure of being true, is that...due to our perception...we don't know, and can only go with our best guess/observations, et al.

Dealing with the bold statement first. There are many political alternatives in the world (monarchy, Fascisim, communism, democrarcy ect ect) this doesn't mean someone growing up in the midst of one of those systems is unable to see that some forms of government are better than others. What if we tell a Marxist or a conservative Republican that if he had been raised in Nazi Germany, he would have belonged to the Hitler Youth? He will probably agree but ask what your point is. What is the point of this analogy? Just because a diversity of political options has existed in the history of the world doesn’t obstruct us from evaluating one political system as superior to its rivals. Just because there have been many political systems and we could have grown up in an alternate, inferior political system doesn’t mean we are arrogant for believing one is simply better.  That kind of evaluation isn’t arrogant or presumptuous.

How do you know that you're correct? Even though you claim that others don't know the 'Ultimate Reality' as it really is.  You sort of implied that you do.  To say that the 'Ultimate Reality' can't be known is to make at least one statement of knowledge.

If we can’t know Reality as It really is, why think one exists at all? Why not simply try to explain religions/politics as purely human or cultural manifestations without being anything more?

This goes back to my original statement: 'Something isn't true just because it works that's called pragmatism; neither is it true just because it feels good which is subjective nor is it true just because its 'my truth.' (that's relativism)   Futhermore, truth is something that corresponds to reality therefore it does not yield to size and strength of the latest lobby group or popular demand.  Truth is more than merely just a matter of opinion or preference.  Something is true even if everyone denies it.'

You can not perceive germs (without external help) yet you can feel their affect if they are able to take over your body.  If someone has AIDs even though you can't tell that they have AIDs (nor may that person they themselves know as well) nor can you perceive or see the AIDs virus doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  If you get AIDs (which I hope you don't) you may not know or perceive that you have YET it can lead to your death (Yes, I understands that AIDs usually allows other illness to kill you). 

Truth is not always what we perceive hence why I've used the oxygen example.  You can believe that oxygen doesn't exist yet it doesn't stop it from existing.  Truth goes beyond what we see. Why? Because it pertains to reality.

"We perceive things to be universally true due to our perception of things, albeit limited. I still ask though...are they true?"

If I have 10 apples and then I eat 3 apples. I will always have 7 apples.  It doesn't matter where I'm at.  I could be in China guess what? I'll still have 7 apples.  I could be on the moon (hopefully I have some type of oxygen producing unit because if I don't I'll die whether I believe or don't believe in oxygen) and I'll still have 7 apples. That's truth. Even if someone tries to agrue that I have 10 apples still the proof still points to the fact I have 7 apples no matter what I or anyone else says or states.

Relativism and Pluralism, are both illogical.  You can’t in the same breath say, “Nothing is universally true” and “My view is universally true.” Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true—relativism!

I don't know, which is my point. I can only go with what I observe to be true, or consistant.

Have you observed/felt personally a tornado? Hurricane? Earthquake? Volcano exploding? a rogue wave? that the World Trade Center Towers are no longer there? Mozambique? something called a sound wave?

If you answered no to any of those questions then how do you know that they actually exist? If you need to experience something first well how about you experience some Ebolavirus in order to know if its harmful or that it exist. I use to work for the government and I might be able to get you some.

I guess since you've never physically seen Stalin, Hilter, King Henry VIII, or an eskimo, how do you know that they exist with your line of logic here:

With that same line of reasoning, I could say getting shot by a gun is fun, so you should get shot by a gun.  If you haven't ever PHYSICALLY SEEEN a gun being shot with your line of logic how would know that its not fun UNLESS you try it out yourself. 

In the world/reality we live in there are universal truths whether you want to admit it or not.

All right angles are the same size NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO.

a part of a whole CAN NOT be bigger than the whole itself.

If I take 3 apples away from a total of 10 apples I will always have 7 apples.

All humans need to have oxygen.

Those are just some of them

You have clearly misread what I said. Read it again.