This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
Depends on the circumstances.
but ultimately by the Son
quote:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
(Heb 1:1-2)
end quote:
peace
By finding out whether it makes reliable predictions, mostly. But it depends on the category of knowledge. I know my foot hurts is a bit different from I know that hot air rises, or I know that Paris is the capital of France.
And “I know that it is God talking to me” seems to me to be crying out for some kind of verification. But you will not say how you would attempt to verify it.
This may be true.
But how about plain old good moral opinion without added objectivity? That doesn’t have to come from an omniscient God who is good. What’s wrong with it?
How do you know that this is the proper way to know things? What criteria did you use to make this determination? Is it possible you were mistaken?
Why? Exactly how did you decide that infallible revelation required verification while your fallible phyisical sensations and reasoning faculties could be trusted? Could you be mistaken in your appraisal?
I would be happy to if you would simply let me know if you think such a thing as revelation is even possible.
But since you apparently want to engage in a one sided interrogation rather than a discussion I don’t feel obligated to oblige you. Is such an approach wrong? How do you know?
peace
Subjective opinions are like belly buttons everyone has one but you don’t get a lot of wisdom about the wider world by gazing at them.
peace
Is it possible that science is just a big mistake?
How did you decide that your imagination takes precedence over our highly evolved senses? Did perception evolve just to deceive us? Do tell, it would be nice if you’d explain why we see, rather than merely wait on revelation.
It would be nice if you’d tell us anything about this “reveletion,” other than that you indubitably receive it.
Because you’re clearly not providing anything worthy of consideration, just a bunch of unwarranted assertions.
Glen Davidson
OK, so what do YOU mean by “objectively good” as opposed to plain “good”?
Yes it’s possible. It’s possible that my belief that there is no such thing as a “proper” way to know things is mistaken.
But then I don’t think there are an objective set of definitions of words. I go on how people use them.
Because it makes no sense to me to think otherwise – to think that it is possible to know that something is infallible without being able to test whether this is a reasonable thing to think true. If someone told me that they could infallibly predict the results of my next coin toss, I’d want to verify that before I believed it. Same with someone who tells me they can infallibly know what God wants.
It makes no sense to me. Knowledge without the possibility of verification seems to me to be not-knowledge. Clinically, one would call it delusion (interestingly, even if the delusional belief happens to be true).
I’m trying to understand you. If you don’t want to respond to my queries, that’s not wrong, but it does seem to be a bar to further discussion.
From my perspective no from yours yes. Correct?
I didn’t decide this
From your worldview’s perspective I would say possibly this is the case.
We can say for sure that if Darwinism is true accurate knowledge acquisition was definitely not the purpose for which our senses evolved.
Is it possible that an omnipotent God could reveal stuff to us with out us knowing how he did it?
1) you are not the judge.
2) what criteria did you use to make this determination?
3) could you be mistaken?
peace
So you use your fallible reason to verify your fallible reason?
Do you know what circular reasoning is?
how do you know it’s not then?
peace
Unwarranted assertion.
Unwarranted assertion.
Unwarranted assertions.
Question without reference to anything known.
Unwarranted assertion.
You know, actual knowledge, not your unwarranted assertions.
Could you provide the first reason why we should believe any of your claims about “knowing”?
Glen Davidson
How could it be otherwise?
And there it is. The question is, what would qualify as “different” for a deity? Given that all the deity examples I provided are all omni-everything deities just like the god of the bible, what difference could there be in terms of characteristics? I don’t see how there could be any. Odd then that all those religions – including yours – teach different things about what their deities believe. Almost like…uhh…like…those religions just reflect what the leaders believe…
Maybe, but that goes for you claims too. Saying this “Yahweh” of yours is all that and a bag of chips is rather silly given that you really can’t show it’s any better than any other deity. You may believe he is, but why should anyone else care what you believe? More importantly, why should anyone else hold your beliefs as somehow more accurate or better than their own? I certainly don’t and judging from the other posts here, no one else holds your beliefs in very high esteem either.
Oh dear Fifth…’fraid that’s not the case. I can understand that you’d think this from your perspective, but from my perspective if my god is the same as Yahweh, then “Yahweh” is just an inaccurate name and misinterpretation of my god. And, I might add, all the teachings about Yahweh then become questionable. Good luck with that…
All gods that I don’t believe in have revealed things to me. For one, they’ve all revealed that they are simply manifestations of man’s desires and beliefs…
What would I be agreeing with you about? That gods are just manifestations of man’s imaginations? Ok…I’m good with that.
Umm…no…actually I don’t. All I have to do is note that you can’t seem to demonstrate that this “Yahweh”, or rather more precisely, that the texts concerning this “Yahweh”, are somehow more credible than all the other texts concerning the hundreds of other omni-gods out there. There in lies the defeat of your claims.
“I’m hungry”
Hey…it’s not my claim! Go tell Phoodoo!
Why does it depend on the circumstances?
Revealed knowledge or subjective opinion?
Here in lies one major misunderstanding that some theists exhibit – the idea that acquiring knowledge is questionable regardless of the utility.
Fifth, your question doesn’t even make sense. If I can make predictions about the world around me that are 100% accurate, why would I even consider if the knowledge to do so came about “the proper way” or not? What does that even mean?
Compare that to knowledge gained by “revelation”…how much utility has that ever offered? Yeah…not so much…
This is the whole point of the “I’m hungry” exercise you don’t seem to be able to grasp. If I operate only on state conditions, the concept of gods and any revelation becomes moot. Unless knowledge can be used to change states, it’s meaningless.
Some of the better minds in theology have tried to defeat the “I’m hungry” exercise, but so far no one’s been able to do so.
You asked a question I answered it.
If you disagree make your case then tell me how you know
peace
Are you saying you don’t know if revelation is possible?
OK then
do you know if revelation is impossible?
peace
I’m not asking you to believe anything. You can relax.
I’m only asking how you know stuff.
peace
revelation !!!!!!
peace
Cool then
If your proposed deity is exactly the same as Yahweh it is Yahweh.
So apparently all you are claiming is that Yahweh can reveal stuff so that you can know it
I agree
So there are differences between your proposed deity and Yahweh. Namely what they believe.
Please detail those differences here then so we can compare and see if your god is sufficient to provide knowledge.
peace
This is not a difficult concept
It’s simply the question of knowledge.
Knowledge is justified true belief.
You need justification before you can claim to know something.
How do you know that accurate predictions is an adequate justification?
Please be specific
peace
Knowledge gained by revelation provides 100% accurate predictions by definition.
So are you now saying that providing accurate predictions does not offer utility?
make up your mind
peace
how do you know this?
how do you know? Be specific please
peace
Which is provisional on whether your revelation is correct. Is every claim of revelation true?
There is no such thing as incorrect revelation
not every claim of revelation is true but every instance of revelation is true
peace
Including yours, of course. You’ve affirmed that your experiences/claims of revelation may not be actual instances of revelation.
Sure
I’m not God so “all” my beliefs are not necessarily true.
Some are though
peace
How do I tell which type you have?
fifthmonarchyman,
You can’t know that. As keiths and others have repeatedly pointed out, since you are a fallible human you can’t know which of your beliefs is true and which are not. It is logically possible, even by your own argument, that everything you believe is false.
You could just go by the odds.
Or by the usefulness of the claim.
Who knows, though, you might miss out on, well, basically nothing.
Glen Davidson
But you don’t know which are which.
revelation
Some things I know for certain others less so.
For instance I know for certain that I and the Christian God exist.
and I don’t know for certain that Patrick will not be able to falsify my “design game” hypothesis with a quick easy one week hack like he said he could.
peace
Easy. The ones which arrive while we’re examining the entrails of a sheep sacrificed to god are the genuine true revelations.
But since YHWH forbade all sorcery and the sheep were sacrificed and burnt but not examined, there have been no genuine true revelations after the Babylonian era.
All claims of revelation by any individual since then, by any other means, are simply false at best and sent from Hell at the worst.
fifthmonarchyman,
Show your proof that the Christian god exists.
once again
with out the Christian God knowledge is impossible
I know this therefore the Christian God exists
If you disagree tell me how you know stuff
peace
And, like all of us, some things you “know for certain” are mistaken.
no
If I can be mistaken I don’t know for certain, This should be obvious.
Do you often abandon logic like this?
How would you know if you did?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Once again, provide a detailed explanation of why this claim is true or don’t try to use it to support your claim that the Christian god exists.
Right. And since you can be mistaken about even propositions “you know for certain,” you don’t really know for certain. That’s why “know for certain” is in quotes.
And, of course, revelation doesn’t help – because your belief that a particular bit of “knowledge” derives from revelation can be mistaken, as you have stated.
Still provisional. Anything else?
Tell that to Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Eratosthenes.
You haven’t demonstrated that you know this. You’ve only claimed that you know this.
How do you know that revelation is a reliable way of knowing?
Ok. Fair enough I suppose. Except I know for certain the Christian god does not exist. How can two such opposing certainties be rectified?
Revelation
That’s not an accurate statement, Fifth. People throughout history have been wrong about things that were certain. For thousands of year people were certain that the Earth was flat. For hundreds of years people were certain that the sun revolved around the Earth. People were certain that illness was the result of supernatural intervention (and many people are still certain of this). And yet all such certainties turned out to be false.
Your certainty is no different…
Being certain about something is not the same thing as knowing something for certain.
Being certain is a subjective feeling
Knowing for certain is a statement about objective reality.
You claimed that you agreed that an an omnipotent God could reveal stuff in such a way so that I could not be mistaken.
I am beginning to doubt you understood the question
peace
where exactly do you think they got their knowledge?
Demonstration is not in any way necessary for knowledge. I know lots of things I have not demonstrated
Do you agree that revelation is possible?
peace
revelation
Do you agree that it is possible for an omnipotent God to reveal stuff in such a way that I can know it?
peace