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.
And that would make the “designer” an egotistical maniac.
LOL! Yeah. ‘Cuz. Definition! D’oh!
Not so much. I believe you could be wrong about everything you claim to know.
“I’m hungry”
so if something is true “by definition” you can know it for certain/
How do you know that?
How do you know that?
peace
Not if his glory was also the highest good.
which it is since he is good
peace
Acting like the judge with out the authority to do so is the very definition of rebellion.
Attempting to judge with out all the facts is the definition of foolishness
I agree I’m not the judge
The real judge is the one who offers the assurances and he is faithful to accomplish his purposes.
It’s a good thing that is not what I’m saying happened
You are once again attacking a strawman of your own imagination.
at some point I would think you would tire of that
peace
It was a precise answer to the question that you asked.
We’ll see, perhaps.
But how would you know, I hear myself asking.
Yes, well, I’d suggest that is true for all conscious beings. We are party to what is going on in our own heads.
Now I’d call that a leap of faith.
You’ve provided absolutely no information about anything in what you write above.
Yes.
OK
I’ll look forward to some!
My apologies Mung. I intentionally threw out the phrase to see if anyone would followup on the implications without revealing the basis.
Basically, it’s a philosophical exercise. In principle, the “I’m Hungry” exercise illustrates why any outside influence to any behavior is a non-sequitur. In short, every behavior can be traced back to the initial unknown (but later labled) state of “I’m hungry”.
Once again, you are missing the point. The phrase “I’m hungry” has no reference to a feeling of wanting to eat in this exercise. That would make the exericise moot. Rather, the “I’m hungry” designation denotes an identification of two states: one of discomfort and one of contentment. Whether that state is actually “hunger” makes no difference. The entity in the exercise need only attempt to move from discomfort to contentment. What that state is called is irrelevant.
In this case, yes. I can compare the two definitions and notice, “hey! They’re the same!” Burn!
Oh…yeah…and “no god required!” Double burn!
keiths:
fifth:
No, it just means that you’ve recognized your fallibility.
Not in the slightest. Your reasoning is atrocious.
could you be mistaken?
peace
Not at all, as keiths and Patrick have so graciously demonstrated if I can know anything for certain it must be because an infallible being has overcome my fallibility.
In other words if I know I exist then God has revealed it to me
By revelation of course
Except that some conscious beings don’t think they exist.
Given your worldview how would you convince them that they are wrong? More importantly how do you know for certain that they are not right?
Ok so you agree that I would be perfectly justified in saying that I know by revelation that a particular revelation is genuine even if I don’t know the mechanism or method by which have come to that knowledge.
cool.
Now we have some common ground from which to work with.
That being said
here is another way I can verify the truth of something I believe
quote:
We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
(1Jn 4:6)
end quote:
If you need me to I can unpack this for you. Just let me know.
peace
Alan I want you to know that I appreciate your hospitality here. You should be commended for your efforts.
I’ve told Neil and walto that I think we could have some interesting discussions over a beverage on the front porch. I definitely feel the same way about you
peace
If I actually know that I am fallible it must be because God has overcome my fallibility in at least one case.
Do you know you are fallible? Could you be mistaken about this?
If not it necessarily follows that you are the recipient of revelation.
Peace
Could you be mistaken about this?
peace
No.
Oh…I’m sorry…I did not realize that you had mental difficulties. Let me try this a different way:
Same = same.
Maybe that will help.
Interesting WOW.
How exactly do you know this? What criteria did you use to make the determination?
Is it a presupposition of your part that same=same or do you have evidence for this claim?
Are you claiming to know for certain that the law of non-contradiction is universal and unchanging?
How could you possibly know this given your worldview?
How would you respond to Keiths and Patrick claim that if you know anything for certain it is because an infallible being has chosen to overcome your fallibility?
Like I said this is a very interesting development.
thanks in advance
peace
I’m not attacking anything, Dear Soul. I’m just pointing out that we don’t have to believe in Jesus to know stuff, as you have so adroitly pointed out.
So give us the credit we deserve for knowing what we know and put a sock in it.
You don’t have to believe in God to know stuff but God has to exist for you to know stuff.
Just like you don’t need to accept science to benefit from science.
peace
I don’t disagree. I just haven’t seen where you support your claim that “Christ is the truth.”
Yes, I anticipate that you will say “REVELATION.” But I don’t understand why I should accept that ambiguous word as an explanation for anything.
The thing is, FMM, you haven’t done anything but claim that your sectarian source of everything that you call “God” is necessary for anybody to know stuff.
You haven’t provided any warrant other than your belief in that imaginary being and the attributes you ascribe to it to support that claim.
I never said you should.
If you had given me the slightest indication that you would be willing to explore the evidence with an open mind I would be happy to discuss the evidence for the deity of Christ.
But since you have not I don’t feel any obligation to do so.
It’s enough for me at present that you recognize that Christ is necessary for knowledge even if you choose to call him by another name.
Are you now saying that truth is imaginary and at the same time necessary for knowledge?
peace
Comparative analysis.
I have evidence: “I’m hungry”.
I did not claim anything about the law of non-contradiction.
I don’t need to know it. “I’m hungry” suffices.
That does not appear to be their argument, so I’m not sure what you are referring to.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, what at least four people have demonstrated is that even if we accept your unevidenced claims at face value they still lead to the conclusion that you could be wrong about everything you believe.
We’ve futher demonstrated that when this is explained to you so clearly that you can’t continue to pretend not to understand it, you dissolve into incoherence.
Before you turn the bot on and ask my how I know these things, click on the provided links. The evidence is there.
It appears that Alan thinks I can’t be wrong about my existence and Pedant thinks that I could not be wrong about the law of non-contradiction. Do you disagree with these folks?
How do I decide which of you is correct?
peace
I would disagree with your argument for several reasons
1) It assumes that the laws of logic are universal and unchanging yet you provided no evidence for this claim
2) It assumes that an omnipotent God could not overcome my fallibility. That is itself a violation of the law of contradiction,
3) According to your If I know anything for certain that information has to come from an inflatable source capable of overcoming my fallibility iow God. I know this for certain therefore god has to exist
It seems to me that your argument is self refuting.
what am I missing?
peace
fifth,
Your God is inflatable?
fifth,
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t help you. The fact that an omnipotent God could overcome your fallibility doesn’t mean that he always would.
Thus, not only could you be mistaken about any particular instance of purported revelation, you could in fact be mistaken about them all.
I needed that chuckle thanks
1) God can’t lie and since he is Good he will reveal some things to me by definition .
2) God does not have to always overcome my fallibility for me to know something he only has to overcome it once
1) You are going to have to clarify this. I see no reason why it would follow that I would need to be infallible to know stuff. I need only to have access to some one who is infallible and good .
2) could you be wrong about what you claim?
peace