Sabbath for Skeptics

Jews are religious believers too. At least the ones who are not atheists.

Rumor has it that there are more atheist Jews in Israel than religious Jews.

And thank G-d Jews in the US aren’t allowed to vote.

“The Skeptical Zone” is decidedly anti-Christ.

Is it equally anti-Jewish?

If not, why not?

571 thoughts on “Sabbath for Skeptics

  1. fifthmonarchyman: A few short years of hardship is nothing in comparison to actually being subsumed into the eternal divine rapture of the Triune God.

    Come and be my sex slave them FMM, if it matters so little. I will rent you out for the rest of your life. You white, middle class man who knows nothing of what suffering is but pretends to…

  2. fifthmonarchyman: it’s with in the doctor’s power to save people from the nauseousness associated with chemotherapy but no, it’s necessary that they go through that to cure the cancer.

    Those doctors must be an evil bunch

    A few short years of hardship is nothing in comparison to actually being subsumed into the eternal divine rapture of the Triune God. Just a a few short weeks of nauseousness is nothing compared to the years of life the treatment engenders

    peace

    Fuck me you are nasty.

    Doctors are limited in their abilities and knowledge – but if they could remove the awful side-effects of chemotherapy they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

    What’s God’s excuse?

  3. FMM:

    If there is no ultimate standard by which to judge the truth of a proposition there is no way to know ultimately if a proposition is correct or not.

    As there is no ultimate standard of truth that is not circular, including your standard of truth, there is no standard of truth that enables us to know ultimately if a proposition is correct or not.

    To say you can’t know that any proposition is true in your worldview is the same as saying that knowledge is impossible

    No, what you mean to say is, “To say you can’t know that any proposition is ultimately true in your worldview is the same as saying that ultimate knowledge is impossible.”

    As there is no ultimate standard of truth that is not circular, including your standard of truth, there is no worldview in which you can say that a proposition is ultimately true and ultimate knowledge is possible.

    Fortunately, we get by just fine by means of provisional knowledge, which appears to be as good as it gets. It doesn’t follow that knowledge is impossible, only that “ultimate knowledge” is impossible. We know provisionally the things we know that enabled the placement of Curiosity on Mars. Provisional knowledge can be tested against non-ultimate observations and predictions and can be exploited with astonishing precision, as exhibited through Curiosity. It doesn’t much matter that “Curiosity knowledge” is not also “ultimate knowledge,” based upon “ultimate truth.”

    This is nothing new: all science is provisional.

  4. fifthmonarchyman:

    Neil Rickert: That only implies that there is no logical certainty.

    No it implies that it’s possible that there is no truth.

    No, it only implies that there’s a problem with your conception of truth.

    If there is no truth there is no knowledge therefore in a world where there is no certainty whatsoever it’s possible there is no knowledge at all.

    At most, it would imply that there’s no “justified true belief”. But that’s a silly characterization of knowledge, anyway. Knowledge is in our abilities, including our abilities to use the word “true” in effective communication.

  5. fifthmonarchyman: No it implies that it’s possible that there is no truth.

    If there is no truth there is no knowledge therefore in a world where there is no certainty whatsoever it’s possible there is no knowledge at all.

    I do not ask for certainty only that a presupposition can yield actual and not possible knowledge.

    And yet, you have absolutely nothing that indicates, or even suggests, that your presupposition can yield either actual or possible knowledge.

    How exactly do you know that? What criteria did you use to come to that conclusion?

    And how come you don’t know about these matters? Is revelation letting you down?

    Glen Davidson

  6. Reciprocating Bill,

    Fortunately, we get by just fine by means of provisional knowledge, which appears to be as good as it gets. It doesn’t follow that knowledge is impossible, only that “ultimate knowledge” is impossible. We know provisionally the things we know that enabled the placement of Curiosity on Mars. Provisional knowledge can be tested against non-ultimate observations and predictions and can be exploited with astonishing precision, as exhibited through Curiosity. It doesn’t much matter that “Curiosity knowledge” is not also “ultimate knowledge,” based upon “ultimate truth.”

    This is nothing new: all science is provisional.

    As Dawkins put it:

  7. OMagain: Come and be my sex slave them FMM, if it matters so little.

    Is the arrangement the only way I can procure an eternity with God? If not then I’ll pass

    Woodbine: Doctors are limited in their abilities and knowledge – but if they could remove the awful side-effects of chemotherapy they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

    Perhaps there is no way for God to remove any more suffering than he already has. How do you know this is not the case?

    peace

  8. GlenDavidson: And yet, you have absolutely nothing that indicates, or even suggests, that your presupposition can yield either actual or possible knowledge.

    Wait a minute,

    Walto at least has acknowledged that God could reveal something to me is such a way that I could know it and also know I know it.

    Do you have any reason to believe he could not do this if he exists and chose to do so?

  9. Reciprocating Bill: there is no standard of truth that enables us to know ultimately if a proposition is correct or not.

    How exactly do you know this? What criteria did you use to make this determination?

    Reciprocating Bill: It doesn’t follow that knowledge is impossible, only that “ultimate knowledge” is impossible.

    Again how do you know this?

    Do you disagree that God could reveal something in such a way that we could know and know that we know it? If so please provide evidence for your claim.

    peace

  10. OMagain: What an evil, evil god you worship. … You are sick in the head.

    OMagain: Fuck you.

    OMagain: You are evil fmm. People like you should be relics of history, like the Nazis, looked back on with disgust. How ever humans ever like that, we’ll wonder in the future?

    OMagain: Come and be my sex slave them FMM, if it matters so little. I will rent you out for the rest of your life.

    OMagain: It’s not like you help keep any conversation going, is it, with your drive-by comments most of the time with little to no substance.

    Conversation with you? Why?

    Woodbine: Fuck me you are nasty.

    TSZ is such a wonderful place to visit.

    I will say that this particular sequence is atypical. Things rarely get this vulgar.

    Thank God.

  11. fifthmonarchyman: Wait a minute,

    Walto at least has acknowledged that God could reveal something to me is such a way that I could know it and also know I know it.

    Do you have any reason to believe he could not do this if he exists and chose to do so?

    “If”

    See, you haven’t filled in crucial “ifs.”

    Glen Davidson

  12. FFM:

    How exactly do you know this? What criteria did you use to make this determination?

    Back to the FFM ‘bot. That’s disappointing.

    Do you disagree that God could reveal something in such a way that we could know and know that we know it? If so please provide evidence for your claim.

    Wrong question.

    The right question is:

    Is it possible for a person to believe that they know something by means of revelation, and to believe that they know it because God revealed it to them in such a way that ensured he knows it and knows that he knows it, and be wrong?

    Of course it is.

  13. Reciprocating Bill:

    The right question is:

    Is it possible for a person to believe that they know something by means of revelation, and to believe that they know it because God revealed it to them in such a way that ensured he knows it and know that he knows it, and be wrong?

    Of course it is.

    For example?

    Oh, yeah…

    Glen Davidson

  14. Reciprocating Bill: Do you disagree that God could reveal something in such a way that we could know and know that we know it? If so please provide evidence for your claim.

    That seems to be assuming the existence of the very thing in dispute.

  15. Reciprocating Bill: Is it possible for a person to believe that they know something by means of revelation, and to believe that they know it because God revealed it to them in such a way that ensured he knows it and knows that he knows it, and be wrong?

    Of course it is.

    Sure but that is not at issue. We are not discussing the possibility of error but the possibility of truth.

    Error is possible in every worldview that I’m aware of. In mine knowledge is possible as well.

    peace

  16. petrushka: That seems to be assuming the existence of the very thing in dispute.

    What exactly is in dispute in your opinion?

    I’m discussing the possibility of knowledge in your worldview. Nothing in that statement assumes anything about your worldview

    I’m not sure what you are discussing perhaps you can enlighten us.

    Peace

  17. FMM:

    Sure but that is not at issue. We are not discussing the possibility of error but the possibility of truth.

    If my statement is correct (and you agree that it is), it is possible that you believe that you know something because God has revealed it to you and did so in a way that ensures that you know it and know that you know it, yet are wrong.

    If you concede that is possible (and you just did), then “ultimate truth” and “ultimate knowledge” have eluded you, too. “Ultimate truth and knowledge” that may be right and may be wrong is no more “ultimate” than are provisional truths.

  18. Reciprocating Bill: If you concede that is possible (and you just did), then “ultimate truth” and “ultimate knowledge” have eluded you, too.

    Again the question is not about certainty but the possibility of knowledge. Knowledge may well have eluded me but in my worldview at least it is possible.

    It’s possible because God can reveal it. Whether he chooses to do so is another matter entirely.

    How do you know stuff in your worldview?

  19. What’s interesting about this whole line we get from FMM and many others is that their idea amounts to the claim that they are right when they feel very certain about one or more matters. So why not just say that they’re right when they’re sure they’re right?

    Well, because that’s just a little too obviously nonsense (many people obviously think that, and few others concur). So what they do instead is to invent something else that “is able to give them knowledge,” because that is included in their definition of that entity (omniscient, omnipotent, whatever). Then it doesn’t feel just made up, especially since there is a kind of logical possibility to it, and they even see it as “foundational” to knowledge which they can’t really understand as (mainly) a perceptual/cognitive human construct. In the end, it seems better to them to rely on a “powerful” fiction that can just do anything, including founding their knowledge, than on a process that they don’t understand, let alone comprehend how it produces reliable (if fallible) knowledge/truth.

    So it’s a fiction, but it’s supposedly a “possibility” vs. an “impossibility” that really is nothing more than their ignorance of the possibilities. To anyone who actually understands anything about human cognitive development, the fiction is ridiculous nonsense, but if it’s the “only possibility” for knowledge via the “foundation” that is assumed to be necessary, it’s really the only way. And FMM seems unable or unwilling to consider what a pack of nonsense he believes, even when there’s actually a great deal of coherent and sensible information on how humans perceive and construct knowledge.

    FMM’s fiction beats your knowledge, to his mind, and it seems highly unlikely that he will ever change.

    Glen Davidson

  20. GlenDavidson: What’s interesting about this whole line we get from FMM and many others is that their idea amounts to the claim that they are right when they feel very certain about one or more matters. So why not just say that they’re right when they’re sure they’re right?

    Yeah. Why not be more like “the skeptics” here fifth?

  21. FMM:

    Again the question is not about certainty but the possibility of knowledge. Knowledge may well have eluded me but in my worldview at least it is possible.

    Not knowledge of the “ultimate” sort you’ve been claiming. Given than anything you believe has been revealed to you could be wrong (as above), what you acquire by means of revelation can’t be called knowledge, and certainly not “ultimate” knowledge.

    Of course, you can acquire Curiosity knowledge in the way the rest of us to – by observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward. The process doesn’t reveal “ultimate” knowledge, but nothing does, and the provisional knowledge it yields will git’er done.

    Welcome to the human predicament.

  22. Mung: Conversation with you? Why?

    Once again, you lie and spin. I was not talking about a conversation with *me*. I was talking about your input in general. I don’t care if you speak to me or not, and it makes little difference. I will comment regardless as you no doubt know.

  23. fifthmonarchyman: Is the arrangement the only way I can procure an eternity with God? If not then I’ll pass

    Such a shame that many people in that situation have no such opportunity to pass. But you are happy that those people are living a hell because it brings them closer to God right?

    And as doing something about it is not needed, it’s all part of gods plan and is bringing them closer to God anyway you won’t do anything about it. There’s no need!

    Which is why people like you are the enemy of people who want to make this world better, without assuming it’s all “fixed” magically in the next.

  24. Mung: Conversation with you? Why?

    Oh, perhaps because few others bother with you? As can be seen on any thread really, you are mostly ignored.

  25. Mung: Things rarely get this vulgar.

    I’m sure you and fmm will find it in your Christian hearts to forgive me, won’t ya? I mean, mass murderers can go to heaven so why can’t I?

  26. Reciprocating Bill: Not knowledge of the “ultimate” sort you’ve been claiming. Given than anything you believe has been revealed to you could be wrong (as above), what you acquire by means of revelation can’t be called knowledge, and certainly not “ultimate” knowledge.

    I don’t think you are getting it. My inquiries have not been about certainty but about any knowledge at all.

    In my world view we can know stuff if God reveals it to us.

    I want to know how you can know anything at all.

    It seems to me that knowledge requires the existence of truth. In my world view truth is a necessary part of the universe.

    From what I understand truth may or may not exist in your worldview. If truth does not exist you can know nothing.

    You are fixated on the wrong thing instead of certainty you need to look at truth. Is it a necessary part of the universe or not in your worldview.

    peace

  27. OMagain: And as doing something about it is not needed, it’s all part of gods plan and is bringing them closer to God anyway you won’t do anything about it. There’s no need!

    whatever gave you that idea?

    You are simply completely incorrect. It is not only part of God’s plan that we do something about it but we are commanded to do something about it. God gets glory when we do something about it based on gratitude for what he has done for us.

    On the other hand in your worldview if I understand it correctly you are thwarting evolution and inhibiting the progress of the universe if you do something about it.

    I would think people with compassion for the poor and “less fit” would be the enemy of folks who want to make the world a “better” place from an atheistic point of view. I would guess that is why charity is not an atheist strong suit

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman: You are simply completely incorrect. It is not only part of God’s plan that we do something about it but we are commanded to do something about it.

    Mother Teresa disagrees.

    By even her own words, Mother Teresa’s view of suffering made no distinction between avoidable and unavoidable suffering, and instead cultivated passive acceptance of both. As she put it, “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.” Or consider this anecdote from her life:

    One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition. And I told her, I say, “You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus — a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.” And she joined her hands together and said, “Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.”

    And her words would seem to carry more weight yours, all things considered.

    fifthmonarchyman: On the other hand in your worldview if I understand it correctly you are thwarting evolution and inhibiting the progress of the universe if you do something about it.

    No, you don’t understand my worldview.

    fifthmonarchyman: I would think people with compassion for the poor and “less fit” would be the enemy of folks who want to make the world a “better” place from an atheistic point of view. I would guess that is why charity is not an atheist strong suit

    Guessing is all you people seem to do. Last time this came up IIRC you were presented with a list of atheist charities. But that does not fit your worldview, so you simply “pretend” to forget.

    Before making such statements why don’t you do some actual research? Or was it “revealed” to you?

    fifthmonarchyman: peace

    No, if anything it’s war.

  29. OMagain: And her words would seem to carry more weight yours, all things considered.

    I like some of the thing Mother Teresa said others not so much but I would hope she would agree that the Word of God would carry more weight than either of us all things considered

    As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,
    (1Ti 6:17-18)

    and

    Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
    (Luk 12:33)

    and

    “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
    (Mat 25:31-46)

    end quote:

    OMagain: No, you don’t understand my worldview.

    Probably not that is why I ask questions like—— how do you know stuff in your worldview? Well how do you?
    While we are at it how do you know what is evil in your worldview?

    OMagain: Before making such statements why don’t you do some actual research?

    You mean research like this?

    https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman: You mean research like this?

    You orignially said:

    fifthmonarchyman: I would guess that is why charity is not an atheist strong suit

    Yet the page you quote notes:

    Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

    Seems to me you don’t understand how close 65 and 56 are. What’s the margin of error for that study by the way? So whatever you have to say about atheists from that study applies just as much to theists!

    It seems to me I would expect the number of people claiming a religious affiliation who give to charity to be 100%. As it’s not, what’s your point exactly and how does it relate specifically to atheists?

    And how do you explain only 65% of believers donating?

  31. fifthmonarchyman: peace

    He said after providing a study that he purports to show atheists are uncharitable, but which in fact shows theists are just as uncharitable.

    You’ll never achieve peace like this you know,….

  32. fifthmonarchyman: While we are at it how do you know what is evil in your worldview?

    I recognise evil when I see it. I see it in people like you and WJM, active cheerleaders for the unsupportable and unconscionable.

  33. fifthmonarchyman: In my world view truth is a necessary part of the universe.

    Yet you’ve no way to know if you’ve ascertained truth – including the truth of this assertion.

    – The presuppositions of your worldview are circular, as you state above. I wouldn’t found a claim for “ultimate” knowledge upon circular reasoning.
    – You can be wrong about revealed truth. From which it follows that it is possible that everything you believe on the basis of revelation may be mistaken. I wouldn’t found a claim for “ultimate” knowledge upon “revelation” about which I may be mistaken.

  34. Reciprocating Bill: Yet you’ve no way to know if you’ve ascertained truth – including the truth of this assertion.

    In retrospect, I’m inclined to the view that fifth is an old fashioned Berkeley style of idealist, though he may deny that.

    For Berkeley, percepts come directly from God. Fifth seems to say the same, except that he calls them revelations rather than percepts.

  35. GlenDavidson,

    What’s interesting about this whole line we get from FMM and many others is that their idea amounts to the claim that they are right when they feel very certain about one or more matters. So why not just say that they’re right when they’re sure they’re right?

    I’m reading this as this comic came up on my Twitter feed:

  36. OMagain: Yet the page you quote notes:

    Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

    Seems to me you don’t understand how close 65 and 56 are. What’s the margin of error for that study by the way? So whatever you have to say about atheists from that study applies just as much to theists!

    It seems to me I would expect the number of people claiming a religious affiliation who give to charity to be 100%. As it’s not, what’s your point exactly and how does it relate specifically to atheists?

    And how do you explain only 65% of believers donating?

    What’s even worse:
    Theist “charitable” donations includes their funds to religious ministries which perform no actual charity, enriching the organization and providing wealth almost beyond belief to the top guys. Not that this is the direct fault of the suckers who give – it’s the fault of the undeserved respect US culture has for religion, which influences tax law and makes it impossible for the IRS to reign in any “charity” scam hiding under the skirts of a church. And of course it’s the fault of the wolves who take advantage of the culture.

    What’s important is to compare apples to apples: if we subtract donations to church “charities” from the total, atheists are far more generous proportionately than theists. IF theists were not allowed their tax breaks for donating to illegitimate church “charitiies”, who knows if they would ever donate anything whatsoever?
    .
    .
    .
    Oops – editing out superfluous “to”, but already quoted below. Where’s the blushing emoji for me?

  37. hotshoe_: Theist “charitable” donations includes to their funds to religious ministries which perform no actual charity, enriching the organization and providing wealth almost beyond belief to the top guys.

    Ah, we don’t have that really where I am. That makes it *much* worse.

    Apprently the top 3 most generous people in the world are athiests. Hey, evil-ffm, that does not seem to make much sense?
    1) Warren Buffett atheist, donated 40.785 billion to “health, education, humanitarian causes”

    2) Bill & Melinda Gates atheists, donated 27.602 billion to “global health and development, education”

    3) George Soros atheist, donated $6.936 billion to “open and democratic societies”

    From: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20111125

  38. OMagain: Ah, we don’t have that really where I am. That makes it *much* worse.

    Apprently the top 3 most generous people in the world are athiests. Hey, evil-ffm, that does not seem to make much sense?
    1) Warren Buffett atheist, donated 40.785 billion to “health, education, humanitarian causes”

    2) Bill & Melinda Gates atheists, donated 27.602 billion to “global health and development, education”

    3) George Soros atheist, donated $6.936 billion to “open and democratic societies”

    From: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20111125

    Heh. Thanks for bringing that data in.

    Not that it will change anyone’s mind – and really, it shouldn’t – not as if “atheism” is the guiding force behind the Gates’ generosity, so “atheism” shouldn’t get any credit.

    But then theism shouldn’t get any credit either, and the snotty theists keep insisting it should.

  39. Reciprocating Bill: Yet you’ve no way to know if you’ve ascertained truth – including the truth of this assertion.

    I can know stuff if God reveals it to me if God does not reveal it I can no absolutely nothing.

    That is the point.

    How do you know stuff in your worldview?

    Reciprocating Bill: From which it follows that it is possible that everything you believe on the basis of revelation may be mistaken. I wouldn’t found a claim for “ultimate” knowledge upon “revelation” about which I may be mistaken.

    Again for probably the 50th time I have made no claims. I Presuppose the existence of the Christian God because his existence makes knowledge possible. I know of no other worldview that does so.

    Whether knowledge is actual in my worldview depends on whether God has actually revealed

    Guess what.

    The Logos became flesh.

    Peace

  40. hotshoe_: how do you explain only 65% of believers donating?

    quote:
    “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
    (Luk 6:46)

    and

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
    (Mat 7:21)

    end quote

    By the way here is another interesting piece of research
    http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

    Apparently Atheists donate when they have an emotional connection to the recipient.

    quote:

    “Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,”

    end quote:

    That is fascinating.

    Appeal to emotions instead of relying on rational thought appears to be driving force in problem of evil arguments as well.

    I think that helps explain why you can’t seem to deal with this topic in a calm and rational manner

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman: How do you know stuff in your worldview?

    I just told you. By observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward.

    The process doesn’t reveal “ultimate” knowledge, but nothing does, and the provisional knowledge it yields will git’er done.

  42. fifth,

    When is it finally going to sink in? To show that knowledge is impossible in our non-Christian worldviews, as you’ve claimed, you would have to show that we cannot have justified true beliefs, per the definition of knowledge that you’ve accepted.

    We have beliefs. For example, I believe that my truck is in the driveway, where I parked it.

    Justification doesn’t require absolute certainty. I’m justified in believing that my truck’s in the driveway despite the fact that I’m not absolutely certain of it — someone might have stolen it or a UFO might have vaporized it.

    Like justification, truth also doesn’t require absolute certainty. I believe that my truck is in the driveway, and if my truck really is in the driveway, then my belief is true, whether or not I am absolutely certain of it.

    Your burden of proof is therefore enormous: namely, to show that all of our beliefs are unjustified and/or untrue, and that all of our potential beliefs are also unjustified and/or untrue.

    You won’t be able to pull it off, obviously.

  43. fifth:

    To say you can’t know that any proposition is true in your worldview is the same as saying that knowledge is impossible

    There’s your error, in a nutshell. That statement is false.

    Do you understand why? (Hint: See my explanation above.)

    If there is no truth there is no knowledge therefore in a world where there is no certainty whatsoever it’s possible there is no knowledge at all.

    First, “no certainty” doesn’t mean “no truth”, as I explained in the previous comment.

    Second, “it’s possible that there’s no knowledge” is not logically equivalent to “knowledge is impossible”. This is logic 101, fifth. Think about it.

  44. fifth,

    Appeal to emotions instead of relying on rational thought appears to be driving force in problem of evil arguments as well.

    I answered this here.

  45. fifthmonarchyman: I think that helps explain why you can’t seem to deal with this topic in a calm and rational manner

    Rational is not quoting from the bible, frankly.

    fifthmonarchyman: I think that helps explain why you can’t seem to deal with this topic in a calm and rational manner

    Yes, because you’ve actually addressed rationally the fact that atheists donate at near-identical rates to theists. Except you have not, you’ve just pretended it was not raised, instead choosing to deal with the fact that not all theists donate.

  46. fifthmonarchyman: quote:
    “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
    (Luk 6:46)

    and

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
    (Mat 7:21)

    end quote

    So let me be crystal clear. Are you saying that 35% of Christians are not true Christians and as such they will be going to hell?

    That if a Christian chooses not to donate to, say, their mega-church, that is sufficient to send them to hell?

    Is that what you are saying? Please try and use your own actual words, rather than quote more from the bible. As from what you’ve just quoted, it’s quite clear – 35% of Christians are not true Christians according to you.

  47. FMM really seems to think that if it is possible that I don’t know that p, then I’m not entitled to say that I know p, regardless of how strong my reasons are that p and the overwhelming likelihood that p is true.

    It’s hard to know what to say to someone who insists on satisfying the demand for absolute certainty right after conceding that the demand cannot be satisfied without a question-begging circularity.

Leave a Reply