…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
More like this.
Patrick, your New Year’s resolution for 2016 should be to come to understand that not everybody who disagrees with you and will not change his/her mind is being wilfully dishonest. Your regular substitution of moral indignation and insult for argument is very unattractive. And all the posts of yours that make that allegation should be guanoed.
It’s simply not the case that everyone who does not make arguments in a manner that you approve of must be arguing in bad faith. FMM is wrong; completely confused even, IMO. (Norm’s brief posts above indicate basically how/why.) But even with FMM’s robotic error-making, you manage to sit atop a horse that is higher than his. Get off it.
Happy Holidays.
care to elaborate a little?
I see it like this
FMM—-I can know stuff because God exists
Norm—-I don’t need or care about no stinking knowledge
I’m not sure how that response proves me wrong. What am I missing?
peace
peace
That works ….
… provided that what you mean by “knowledge” is different from what most other folk mean. Effectively, you are not communicating.
I agree — sort of.
I’m not into telling people what sort of resolutions they should make. However, walto is correct on the point that disagreement is not necessarily a matter of being wilfully dishonest.
For example, I see FMM as being completely honest, yet seriously mistaken.
how so?
So if by “knowledge” Norm means tasty pudding he can claim to have defeated my argument?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’m merely asking for support for his truth claims.
What part about the question “How do you know stuff?” is unclear or hard to understand?
peace
I suppose the question is whether even the wackiest, most demonstrably preposterous delusions are “honest”. I regard error as when the evidence disagrees with you, and delusion as when the very concept of evidence is distorted or abandoned.
The concept of knowledge as commonly understood, disallows most notions of gods. Gods lie outside of knowledge, and live in the realm of the imaginary. Dreaming up imaginary entities only subtracts from knowledge, because it stuffs “knowledge receptors” in the brain with noise.
How do you know this? How can you possibly know this given your worldview?
😉
peace
What evidence did you use to make this determination?
Could you possibly be deluded in your understanding?
peace
It’s a foolish question. Acquiring knowledge varies from person to person. There isn’t an expressible “how” as best I can tell.
It varies from event to event, and from datum to datum, in each person.
To be sure, most people know (or “know”) most of their structured knowledge from being told by other people, media, etc. But they still need to know a number of things from body signals, perception (seeing to drive is rather important), and by figuring things out.
Of course FMM claims a single source, based on nothing but some rather poor thinking. It has the advantage of being simple, if also the disadvantage of being simplistic and essentially meaningless. This allows him to bleat “How do you know?” like a 12-year old who recently learned about the relativistic nature of most knowledge and figured out how to be annoying with it (smart, though, to the 12-year old), while claiming knowledge based on his unfounded claims. It’s transparent fakery (granted, perhaps not transparent to him), yet it must appeal to his ego in some manner.
Glen Davidson
I can ONLY know this because of my worldview, which permits genuine knowledge. Conversely, your worldview is antithetical to genuine knowledge to the point where (as was pointed out) you cannot know what “knowledge” means, and can’t communicate.
Look at it this way: We both look both ways before crossing the street, because we base our actions on the knowledge gained from this observation. I apply the same approach to everything, but you suspend it when it comes to your imaginary gods, and you substitute word games — but only in that narrow area. If you applied your word games to any other aspect of life, rather than using observation-based knowledge, you wouldn’t survive the day.
So how do you KNOW there’s no cars coming, just because you can’t see or hear any? Why can’t you use this approach to KNOW there are no gods, because you can’t see or hear any? Just as in the case of the cars, the overwhelming majority of the time you’ll be right, and won’t need to play games.
fifthmonarchyman,
Naw. Been through it all before ad nauseam. Happy Holidays.
Yes, but if you were in Chernobyl, would you know that there is no radiation because you can’t see it?
Well, you get a Geiger counter, or whatever. Sure, but the point is that it does get complicated (dark matter and dark energy?), and one can’t rightly a priori deny the possibility of complex evidence for theistic claims, either. The trouble is that none of the complicated logical “proofs” or, worse, vague evidences (information in the genome, or fine-tuning) meaningfully gets anywhere. At least St. Anselm’s “proof of God” is interesting in a way that the unyielding and plodding presuppositional absolutism coming from FMM can never be.
Glen Davidson
Interesting. Care to elaborate?
What determines “genuine” knowledge and how exactly you know the difference?
Then explain how your worldview permits this “genuine” knowledge and how you know this
How do you know it is proper to apply the same approach to everything?
How do you know that I don’t?
How could you possibly know these things given your worldview?
How could you possibly know this?
What you call “word games” is simply my effort to treat Christ as Lord I can assure you that I endeavor do that every day.
The fact that Jesus is Lord allows me to have tentative confidence in my observations.
How can you be sure that your observations are valid given your worldview?
peace
How do you know it’s simplistic and meaningless?
Does “meaning” even have meaning in your worldview?
How would you possibly know?
peace
It’s dull nonsense made up from using words non-referentially. Use words with reference to observable things and think well, and you won’t ask such meaningless, simplistic, and frankly, stupid questions.
Why can’t you discuss anything like a knowledgeable person? Is it because you’re too damned ignorant to understand how people know things?
If this were in doubt, why would you even ask?
Can you even think through the implications of your mindless BS?
How could you possibly be informed on this matter, if you’re too stupid and/or ignorant to already know such apparent things? Are you three, or what excuse do you have not to know what an educated grade schooler understands to some extent?
And don’t tell me that you know because of “God,” unless you can actually show that you do, because there’s no evidence of a good understanding coming from you at all. By all appearances, you’re stuck at a rather low understanding of human perception and comprehension, hence it’s doubtful that you know anything well.
Glen Davidson
I know how people know things, by revelation. You on the other hand deny the source of revelation.
So you owe us an explanation of how knowledge is possible with out it
Do you agree that an omnipotent God could reveal stuff to me even if I don’t show you that he does it?
An omnipotent God could easily reveal stuff to me even if you saw no evidence of understanding in me at all.
If you disagree please explain how could you possibly know this given your worldview?
Peace
How do you know that it’s dull “nonsense” ? How do you know that my words lack reference?
How could you possibly know given your worldview?
peace
I’m not about to claim that we “know” all about phenomena we have never had the instrumentation to observe. However, you should notice that nobody claimed any faith in dark matter or energy, which are names we give to a body of genuine observations
Theists, on the other hand, are making claims about entities for which no suggestion of existence, even indirectly, has never been found. Even things like fine tuning are apologetic in nature – efforts to “support” a priori beliefs.
I don’t think this is so complicated. As an effective agency, gods have invariably been replaced by actual agencies wherever there is any observable actual effect. Gods have been reduced to, at best, membership in the set of all things nobody can prove do NOT exist.
Given your complete failure to provide so much as a single observable referent, that’s the way to bet in this case. You could, of course, change the odds by producing even a single objective referent, something someone not ALREADY sharing your delusions could verify for themselves.
You assert that, stupidly and endlessly. I certainly haven’t seen indication of anything suggesting divine revelation to you, indeed, you seem simply to revel in presuppositional BS.
How do you know that? Please be specific, and if you quit making up shit that would help, too.
So logic is a problem for you as well. If I did deny the source of revelation, as you assert without evidence, why would it be that I thereby owe an explanation for knowledge without the idiotic tripe that you claim provides you knowledge? Why would I owe anything to you, who won’t even discuss anything on an even basis, but who claims higher knowledge without giving any reason to believe in it?
Do you have evidence (not your insipidly ignorant beliefs) for an omnipotent God?
So could Santa.
Who cares?
You haven’t provided anything like evidence that there is a God who can reveal anything at all.
Why would I disagree with your hypotheticals?
More importantly, why would I care about your hypotheticals? They’re just idle thoughts, by anything you’ve provided.
Glen Davidson
It’s dimwitted, uninformed crap. I can judge that because I’m informed about epistemics, while you are not.
You, and no one else, have provided none, nor have I seen any on my own. Plus, you’re an ignorant presuppositionalist.
How could you know otherwise, given your ignorant “basis of knowledge”?
Glen Davidson
How do you know that a referent needs to be observable in order to exist?
How could you possibly know this?
1) you are not the judge
2) how do you know that being informed about a subject makes you qualified to be the judge?
3) how do you know I’m not informed?
How do you know anything at all given your world view?
How do you know that reference must be provided or seen in order to exist?
come on man use your head.
peace
everyone please take some time and think before you post.
It would save a lot of bandwidth if you all would simply ask yourself “how do I know this?” before you post yet more unsubstantiated claims.
Or You could continue to post foolishly without thinking and be foiled by a simple bot
Thanks in advance
peace
Great question,
An omnipotent omniscient God is perfectly capable of revealing stuff to me in such a way as I can know it. surely you agree that this is the case.
If you disagree tell me how you know.
😉
peace
Was it an existential question?
No, it wasn’t. Reading isn’t your strong suit, either.
You are? And leave God out of it, you don’t speak for God.
I am the judge, of course, insofar as anyone actually is. The difference between you and me is that I judge using information, while you just use your prejudices, or presuppositions, whatever you wish to call them.
Why would you ask that, unless you assumed that being informed makes one more qualified to judge?
See, jackass, you don’t really doubt the matter, you just ask because you’re a blithering troll who can’t make an actual case for your claims. You think that merely asking inherently difficult-to-answer questions will get around the fact that everything you claim in these matters is useless speculation, at best.
I told you, it’s the fact that you neither write according to good information, nor do you use logic well. You’re a simple-minded boob, whatever native intelligence you may have inherited.
How do you know that I think I know anything at all? Please explain in comprehensive detail, and if you don’t it must mean that you don’t know it at all (using your disingenuous “standard”).
I know that I didn’t make any such claim, fuckwit.
Again, learn the difference between epistemics/epistemology and existential claims. Your basic ignorance is appalling, assuming that you’re not just being dishonest.
This from an idiot who doesn’t distinguish between empirical issues and existential matters.
God you’re an ignorant clod.
Glen Davidson
Yes, and? I fail to see that a logical possibility makes up for the fact that you’re an appallingly ignorant fool on the matter of knowing anything.
Yes, dishonest fuck, I said that Santa could as well. See, this is why we know that you’re not just a deluded moron, you don’t deal honestly with responses, let alone deal honestly with intellectual matters of epistemics. Perhaps you’re so thoroughly dishonest intellectually that you’re not dishonest in a perjuring sort of sense, but you’re far from dealing honestly with anything, especially your interlocutors.
Can you understand the written word in any manner that is even slightly different from your own beliefs?
Few would disagree that a hypothetical entity actually defined as omnipotent/omniscient could give you knowledge. We would not agree that there is any indication that you have such a source (or, why do you write like an ignoramus?), or that any such source is in evidence in this world.
Quit blithering away with your supposed “knowledge” and pay attention for once to what is written, not to what you imagine is written. You’re a disgusting person to deal with because you make strawmen of what others write. If you’re incapable of doing otherwise perhaps it isn’t deliberate dishonesty, but it is an intellectual dishonesty that prevents you from possibly dealing with matters intelligently and responsibly.
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman,
The actual repetition, observable by anyone who reads more than two of your comments, is this:
ffm: God exists.
Patrick: Provide support for that claim.
ffm: *irrelevant questions*
Patrick: You still haven’t provided support for your claim.
ffm: *more irrelevant questions*
The bottom line is that you are the one asserting that a god exists. You have the burden of proof. You can ask as many questions as you want but it won’t change that nor will it change the fact that you have never supported your claims here.
I’m not playing your ridiculous, dishonest game any longer. Support your claim that a god exists or admit that you cannot.
walto,
No one who has asserted that government force should be used against people who are not harming others, purely to achieve some goal that person thinks desirable, has any moral standing to criticize those of us who value honesty, integrity, and honor.
This is Noyau.
In this case fifthmonarchyman is behaving dishonestly and I’ve provided evidence to support that claim. Now I know, someone who has spent most of their life sucking off the public teat can’t really be expected to look too closely at moral issues lest they have to avoid mirrors for the rest of their life, but the least you can do is not criticize the values some of the rest of us hold. Normally I’d invite you to print out the comments you find most offensive, roll them up tightly, and insert them into your tightest orifice. Since we’re suggesting New Year’s resolutions, though, I encourage you to spend a considerable amount of time thinking about the productive members of society you have leeched from over the course of your life. When you can feel some shame for that, we might have the basis for a discussion of morality.
Neil Rickert,
I’m not speculating as to his internal state. My conclusion that he is behaving dishonestly is based solely on his comments here. He makes claims and refuses to support them, instead studiously attempting to avoid his burden of proof by asking repetitive questions of others. That is not honest behavior.
I’m a strong supporter of free expression because I think it’s the best way for bad ideas to be challenged and good ideas to get exposure. That outcome depends on people engaging openly and honestly. I don’t care why fifthmonarchyman isn’t doing so, I am just pointing out that he is not.
If you ignore that kind of behavior in a forum like this, you get more of it.
I think the argument is that without God human knowledge would not be possible. Human knowledge is possible. Therefore God exists.
It’s not that no argument is made and no evidence given, it’s that you don’t like the argument and evidence.
You’re right, I don’t like arguments that have fatuous premises designed to lead to a specific conclusion, rather than premises that are erected to be reasonably agreeable to everyone.
I’m of course talking about this premise: Without God human knowledge would not be possible.
Prove it.
Great! Then you can tell fifth what knowledge is and what makes knowledge possible. IOW, you claim to be capable of answering his question.
No.
I don’t know that you think you know anything at all.
I know you know stuff. I know this because God reveals stuff to everyone. If you need further clarification I will be happy to provide it, Just ask
peace
Please explain why my request that you support your claims is irrelevant yet your demands that I support claims I never made are relevant?
for probably the 100th time I am making no such assertion. To do so would be silly God is not a proposition he is the standard by which propositions are judged
you are badly mistaken. I’m not making any claims. That is what you are doing. You continue to make claims yet you have failed to support even one
peace
Yes, a good class on epistemology and epistemics could probably give a good basis for such an account in a quarter or so.
No, I am not jumping through hoops to deal with people as despicable as yourself and FMM. I noted the inherently difficult-to-answer questions used to ward off questions FMM can’t answer properly, with this one clearly being within that range, and of course you just demand that I provide such an answer, like the pathetic jerk that you are. You have no more interest in truth or honesty than FMM does, so it’s back to the attempt to game these matters by demanding answers that this forum cannot provide.
Just because someone knows something doesn’t mean that it’s simple enough to do in a forum. You’re simple-minded like FMM, but I really doubt that you fail to understand that point no matter how little you care about reading something properly, so it’s likely just more of your dishonesty.
Not, of course, that either FMM or you is actually interested in a meaningful answer anyway. Clearly another reason I’m not going to play your dishonest game.
Glen Davidson
Well then why did you write as if I did think so?
See, your dishonest little games don’t really work, when taken to their logical conclusions.
How do you know that?
And bullshit answers like “revelation” don’t count unless you have evidence to back it up. Also, evidence counts in your view, or you wouldn’t demand it from others. What we don’t have is any kind of link between “God” and evidence, hence you would need to show both that God exists (the earlier step) and evidence that God provides knowledge to anyone. Do that and you’ll have something other than prejudice that you try to inculcate in others by mere repetition.
If not, skip the repetitious bullshit, at least.
Glen Davidson
You can’t.
The premise that it’s possible God does not exist is not reasonably agreeable to the Christian.
It can’t be agreeable to us because to grant it would be tantamount to conceding the argument of the atheist from the very start.
The premise is designed to lead to the conclusion that knowledge (and existence for that matter) is possible with out God.
God’s existence is necessary by definition. To deny it is to embrace absurdity.
To deny God’s necessity is the very height of fatuousness.
quote:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
end quote:
nuff said
peace
revelation
See how easy it is to answer that question if you actually have a basis for knowledge
peace
The thing about FMM and honesty is that he’s not really stupid enough to be incapable of knowing that he deals dishonestly with other commenters. I don’t know that he allows himself to think that far, but it’s virtually certain that he at least knows enough to stay away from thinking this matter through, which is what he’d have to do in order not to know that his responses lack honesty.
What he’s almost certainly honest about is his presuppositions and the consequences of those BS premises. That matters, mere people discussing such claims do not. Hence the focus is on staying honest to the presuppositions that are heavily tied into his ego, and restating those over and over as if they are truth, while mere mortals disagreeing with him are of almost no consequence by contrast.
Thus he does not deal honestly with what other people write, for they are merely potential threats to the Great Truth that gives him authority and truth, in his eyes. He might at times, but not if it’s a problem for his “Truth,” and, as a consequence, himself. But since he really doesn’t care about people who “deny Truth,” so what?
You can’t really say that his strawmen, twists, and substitutions are honest with respect to anyone here, but you can’t really say that he’s being dishonest within his own standards. It’s just that his BS really matters, and we do not.
Glen Davidson
Because you continue to act as if you actually know something.
I simply ask how you can support that implied but untenable claim given your worldview that specifically denies the only possible solid basis for knowledge.
peace
See how disingenuous you are when you believe a pack of lies?
Glen Davidson
How do you know that?
Please be specific, and don’t respond with vacuous nonsense like “revelation.”
How do you know what the only possible solid basis for knowledge is?
Please be specific and honest, not responding with the disingenuous tripe of “revelation” nor the pretense that your presuppositions are anything but idiotic.
Glen Davidson
By the way, I asked that you avoid the repetitious bullshit.
You didn’t.
Glen Davidson
notice the sleight of hand here
GlenDavidson moves from presuppositions to premises to claims as if they are all the same thing.
When in fact they are nothing of the sort.
It’s this sort of sloppy thinking that is at the heart of the difficulty he is having here.
I suggest he take the time to actually think about what he is writing about to avoid this sort of foolishness in the future.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
You are contradicting your own words from another thread:
You are claiming that a god exists and you are claiming that without this god knowledge is impossible. You have not supported either claim. Please do so.