The Tautology of False Doctrine
October 8th, 2007 by Andrew Chalkley
Whilst wasting my life away on YouTube I came across a comment on a video. It said that a particular denomination of Christianity was “a completely false doctrine“.
That got me thinking, what does “false doctrine” mean? All doctrines are false – even if it’s from someone else’s theological perspective. If you say theirs is false, yours is often equally false from their perspective. Obviously any doctrine, decreed by some unproven supernatural entity, from an atheist’s point of view is false since there is not such entity. Doctrine cannot be absolutely true since the existence of that being is also not absolute. That’s why you need faith, isn’t it theists?
To say that any religion is a false doctrine when you subscribe to another doctrine on the grounds of faith is actually nothing short of name calling, especially when you do not support your position with evidence or even engage in a debate. Pride inhibits the individual from seeing simple logic. Pride in their “true” doctrine, pride in their life of faithfulness, how could they be wrong after all this time? They think it’s better to dismiss the others theological point of view by saying it’s false. Simple. Then logic (if it was ever there) departs and becomes a faith-to-faith stand off. Stalemate.
Doctrines of any faith should be taken with pinch of salt. Due to there being no absolute truth in the existence of a deity there cannot be an absolute true doctrine. No god, no doctrine. Doctrines are therefore false as their false gods. “False doctrine” is a case of tautology and should be removed from everybody’s vocabulary.
8th October 2007 at 6:46 pm
could be easily said as “all knowledge is flawed because all knowledge is man made, and man is flawed”
Took a lot of LSD to figure that out, glad you finally did too.
8th October 2007 at 6:51 pm
Wouldn’t have made a lengthy post
12th October 2007 at 11:34 pm
Wait a minute…
The statement ‘there is no truth’ is inherently flawed.
If its true that there no truth, then the statement above is not true (it cannot be proven to be true) and therefore there is truth…
I don’t think we have won the argument yet…
big hug
s
13th October 2007 at 12:30 am
The statement is not “there is no truth”.
It’s “if there is no proof of an entity how can a doctrine be true (i.e. an accurate model of how things work) that comes from said entity? It cannot.” It can be as only true as the being alleged to decree that doctrine. A theist’s perquisite is to believe or have faith therefore it cannot be cut and dry and they cannot say what doctrine is false and true since it’s only a belief. Belief operates outside of the parameters of true and false.
The only logical place to put oneself is outside of faith, belief, doctrine and religion and find the ever increasing reality based truth ourselves.
P.S. To say “There is no truth” is like a liar saying “I always lie”
13th October 2007 at 1:11 pm
What the heck has happened to you? E-mail me
15th October 2007 at 1:57 pm
Nothing happened to me - I happened
I hear you have acquired my e-Mail from Lucy. I look forward to hearing from you soon.