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?
1) First of all the study looked at all religious folks not just Christians
3) I would say that the percentage of actual Christ followers is much less that 35% of professing Christians. I don’t even think that is controversial.
Whether a professing christian decides to donate to their church is irrelevant. What it important is doing what Christ says. In fact donating to your church instead of the poor might be a sign you are not a christian
peace
No that is not what I’m saying at all. I am amazed that folks still don’t seem to get it
I’m not demanding certainty just truth.
As far as I can tell In order for knowledge to exist truth must exist.
Truth is a necessary part of my worldview. I know this because the Logos is truth. For me Truth is presupposed because with out it knowledge (again not certainty) is impossible .
What I want to know is does truth exist in your worldview? How do you know this?
So far the consensus seems to be that it’s possible that truth exists in the the atheist’s world if it actually turns out that P is true but you have no way of knowing that this is actually the case.
Again just to be very clear I’m not claiming that truth (and therefore knowledge) does not exist in your worldview. It’s only a hypothesis on my part.
I am asking if truth exists given your presuppositions and specifically how you know this.
So far it’s been crickets on that front so It’s possible that you don’t understand the question
peace
OK, so what percentage of Christians do you believe are going to hell?
No true Christ Follower would judge others. That is not even controversial.
Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible
Somehow, I’d expect greater familiarity with truth by FMM if he really were in possession of said Truth.
A vague conception divorced from reality seems to be about all he can muster.
Glen Davidson
Neither do you, you just presuppose that there exists a certain authority which is truth and that authority is required for truth to exist , atheists have two less presuppositions.
As RB said ,we have enough knowledge to put a spacecraft on another planet and send pictures back, the belief in your version of the Christian God does not seem necessary for that knowledge
The presupposition that there exists an external reality does not presuppose truth, it just provides a way to search for knowledge.
The big difference is that most of those believers consider giving to their church as a charitable donation. If you take away the church tithes, I’m pretty sure that the difference in bona fide charitable giving is not significant.
If nothing is true knowledge is impossible because knowledge is justified true belief.
peace
No I don’t think you get it, I don’t presuppose an authority I presuppose truth. Truth is an authority precisely and only because it is truth.
I agree that as far as I know atheists don’t presuppose truth. That means they need to provide an argument for why truth exists in their worldview. That is what I keep asking for and so far Ive gotten two replys
1) truth does not exist
2) Truth exists if P is true.
The first makes my point for me and to the second I say —“in your world how do you know?”
peace
I would argue that truth and therefore the Christian God was necessary to put a space craft on another planet.
If you disagree I would ask you how you know we did it
peace
1) have you done any actual research on this?
2) How is it that giving to a church is bad but giving to a secular organization good? I don’t agree with a lot of what the ACLU or GLAD does but I would still consider a donation to it legitimate. I might question the wisdom of giving to the united way given their history of financial mismanagement but I would still consider it charitable giving.
I actually find all of this we give more than you talk to be a silly rabbit chase.
It should be obvious that the majority of charitable organizations in the west were started by people of faith. And I have shown that atheists giving tends to be more emotionally based than that of people of faith. That is enough to demonstrate that my original point was not totally with out merit.
Remember this started when I responded to a claim that Christians don’t care about suffering with a suggestion that it’s an atheist worldview that would lead someone to question the value of charity
peace
keiths agrees. He accepts that knowledge is justified true belief.
keiths says it exists in his, and that’s how he can have knowledge.
Are we making progress?
Category error! your belief in your truck no disappearing is a colloquial use of the word belief, which is not the same as Fifth’s belief in God. No one will say with a straight face that “i believe my truck will be here this afternoon” is equal to “I believe God will guide me to a new life tomorrow” are the same thing.
Anyway, atheists do not believe stuff, they hold to percentages of certainty. Atheism, like science cannot and does not seek truth, only utility.
But this position flies in the face of what the vast majority of people on the planet seek, which is not utility (which we don’t reject out of hand, mind you 😛 ) but meaning.
So Fifth, you won’t be able to pin any of these folks down on presuppositions. They won’t bite. But if you like butterflies, and stinging bees………then thats a different story.
I wonder which one is the Monarch and which is the hornet?
Well, go on and do that! Argue it! Just saying “My argument is X” does not actually make an argument.
Actually construct a chain of reasoning that starts with The Christian God and ends up with space craft on another planet.
Go on, or stop saying you “would argue” unless you actually do.
Not sure how you conducted your poll but that seems to be a false dichotomy. As an atheist, I can still believe propositions are true and yet not be absolutely certain.
Neither do scientists promise to provide truth. They do indeed provide utility. Atheists are a motley crew whose common attribute is that they lack belief in gods.
I agree there seems to be a widespread emotional need (I would even believe it is a sizeable majority) in people to find a meaning to our existence.
I can’t speak for other atheists, but I see very few hornets. Others have described Jerry Coyne as an antitheist. Neither he nor other candidates for atheist bête noir: Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, have proposed any campaign or actions intended to oppress theists.
I uphold the right of anyone to hold whatever beliefs seem right to them and that should be guaranteed by law. Only acts should be subject to law and legal sanction. The law should be blind to and unconcerned regarding an individuals beliefs. A truly secular society would guarantee the right of all individuals to free thought. Live and let live!
Of course if one brings one’s beliefs to an open public forum, they are fair game for challenge and discussion.
There need not be a long chain of reasoning. It’s simple deduction really
truth is necessary for knowledge
If we “know” that we put a space craft on another planet truth and therefore the Christian God necessarily exists because the Logos is truth.
On the other hand in the atheist worldview as I understand it you merely treat the proposition that we put a space craft on another planet truth as knowledge but we have no way of knowing that we actually did it. That is because for you truth is in way a necessary part of your worldview.
Now I am not claiming to be the definitive expert in how atheists know things that is why I keep asking you the question
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
fifthmonarchyman:
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.
FMM:
That’s called a “claim.” So please no more of this “I’m not making any claims” flapdoodle.
That said, to date you’ve offered the circular application of presuppositions and belief in revelations that may be mistaken in support of your claim. If that’s all you’ve got, I reject your claim.
I agree, but that is not remotely the question
The question is
How will you ever be able to say you know that your truck in in your driveway?
IOW how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
No, go on, create the chain of reasoning. You can’t, hence this attempt at diversion.
The thing is your answer works (for you) for whatever we want to replace “put a space craft on another planet” with. For example:
You see? Answers that are suitable for all questions are actually no use at all for anything, other then for people like you.
It’s the same with ID. All questions can be answered with “The designer wanted it that way”.
So unless you construct the chain of reasoning that leads to the specific event and show specifically how each link in the chain relates to the next your answer is no answer at all.
Jesus!
What’s the number of the beast ffm?
fifthmonarchyman:
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.
That’s called a “claim.” So please no more of this “I’m not making any claims” flapdoodle.
To date you’ve offered the circular application of presuppositions and belief in revelations that may be mistaken in support of your claim. If that’s all you’ve got, I reject your claim.
ETA: fix bolixed up post.
What is the criteria that you used to determine that these are the proper means for determining the truth of a proposition?
How do you know that your determination is correct?
No it’s simply a statement of what I would argue if I was interested in arguing with you.
I know you do.
by the way how do you know anything in your worldview?
peace
OMagain,
Ah mockery, What atheists resort to when even the problem of evil has abandoned them
Is that really all you got?
peace
*butts in*
Feedback. Bill’s list: “…observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling…” refer to ways of confirming models against reality.
In your worldview how do you know this?
peace
Remember, we atheists got nothin’. Atheism is the null hypothesis. No gods, no ghoulies! You’re making the positive claims.
I grant you the right to believe what you will, the right to think what you want. Make positive claims in an open forum and you should not be surprised when people ask how you support those claims.
maybe we are finally getting somewhere
So are you saying that Bills list are presuppositions in your world view?
peace
FMM:
Back to the ‘bot.
All scientific knowledge is considered provisional and subject to change from new research or better interpretation. All of us get by in life by making pragmatic assumptions. We keep the ones that work and, if we have any sense, discard the ones that don’t.
If that involves you understanding what my world view is and vice versa, I’m doubtful but remain optimistic. 🙂
Jesus!
It’s a serious question. What is the number of the beast?
You know what I’m going to ask next, which is why you are desperately trying to avoid answering the question.
I think I do get it,do you presuppose that truth exists sourceless? An atheist can presuppose truth exists that requires no evidence, you lend authority to that presupposition by the presupposition of authority of the divine source of the truth, correct?
Just curious, when Jesus is the truth, what is that truth is that and why is that that truth necessary for other truth exist?
The hard way, in the act of justifying provisional knowledge, trial and error. In my view knowledge does not come from some fountain of truth, rather is the justification process, we nibble at the edges of truths. Newton’s Laws are both true and false. both are qualities which provide knowledge.
Just curious, did Jesus the carpenter ever make a mistake?
Go ahead provide the variable of your version of the Christian God used to construct and land the spacecraft. I am open to your justification.
I presuppose there is an external reality , the rest is trial and error. If a rocket explodes we learn and gain knowledge, if it doesn’t we learn and gain knowledge.
This is the big problem in FFM’s useless “epistemology.” What does it even mean? It’s apparently a metaphysical word, a kind of “magic” that allows knowledge to be possible. The hows and whys are not given, there is no explanation, it’s just a requisite condition, and, boringly, it is supplied by God.
When in fact “truth” is simply our judgment regarding knowledge. Well before we have the concept of “truth” in our cognition, we just gain knowledge in the usual ways, by perception, example, and by being told something. The latter, in particular, can be problematic, however, as not all that we are told happens to be so, or “true.” So we learn this modifier, “true,” in conjunction with “false” or “wrong,” and we use it as a value judgment.
Now we hear that humans landed on the moon and walked around on it, and brought back some rocks. Then someone else says that this never happened, and that the “evidence” was all faked, with staged photos and rocks made in a lab (the really difficult one to believe). Well, which is true? My judgment: humans landed on the moon and brought back some rather complex rocks. Likewise, we make judgments with respect to life having been designed, vs. having been evolved.
Truth, to humans, simply is what we ajudge to be correct, according to what is known and what can be perceived. In abstraction and as an ideal we may speak of a Truth that may lie well beyond our perceptions and brain processing of those perceptions, but that is inaccessible to us (at least to those of us not thinking that we have “revelation”), and so practically “truth” is just about whether or not something “is,” “was,” or “will be” (always a bit more conditional–the sun doesn’t have to “come up” tomorrow if a black hole zips into earth).
How does the human judgment of “true” or “false” underlie our ability to know? Mostly it doesn’t, it’s just the sort of valuation that we must bring to claims, and even to “false perceptions.” At least FFM and others have never given us any good reason to think that “truth” exists beyond this praxis, our evaluations of claims and of other judgments. Apparently, knowledge precedes “truth,” since we have to actually know some things even to begin to say that this or that is not “truth,” and then we learn the concept and make evaluations according to that concept.
Likewise, we can judge FFM’s claims to be, by any reasonable standard, false, since these don’t accord with how humans begin to conceive of “truth” nor with how “truth” and falsity” are used in practice. While it’s still a rational possibility that FFM’s presupposition is “true,” we have no way of knowing that it in fact is true, and must treat it as if it were not until shown otherwise. Presupposition is (apparently) simply making things up, and so presuppositions are properly judged “false” unless they are simply held as “true” in a system of thought that has no bearing on normal judgments (typically, not even on the normal judgments of those believing in that system). Presupposition isn’t a worldview, except insofar as it substitutes ficiton for discovery and normal evaluations.
That’s how “truth” works, we judge made-up “foundations” as “false,” at least in the “normal sense.”
Glen Davidson
So theists tend to give not because they want to emotionally help others but because they are obligated and it is in their self interest to obey?
That makes sense in a way. Evil-fmm noted suffering is considered by him to be part of God’s plan. So why would people want to “fix” suffering, it’s been mandated by God and presumably mandated for a reason. So they give, but only to pay their tithe to get into heaven…
newton,
What do you mean by “truth exists”? Certainly statements that correspond closely to reality can be categorized as “true”, but I’m not sure that “truth” can be said to exist in any meaningful way.
Agreed.
GlenDavidson,
Very nicely put.
Agreed
In your worldview how do you know that “Science” is the correct way to acquire knowledge?
peace
It’s man’s number. It is a gematria that certainly means Nero Caesar. That is the case whether we follow 666 or the variant 616
check it out
Quote:
If the Latin (rather than the Greek) spelling “Nero Caesar” (above) is transliterated into Hebrew (nrw qsr), the final “n” in Neron being omitted (and its corresponding value of 50), the name computes as 616, which is the number indicated in the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament (the fragment illustrated below). If, instead, “Neron Caesar” is correct, it may be that the Latin was transcribed incorrectly, perhaps because the copyist realized that this transliteration did not equate to 666 and so omitted the letter, which changed the sum to 616.
Still, each digit of 666 is one less than seven, the perfect number, and such mathematical play may have tended to establish 666, rather than 616. Regardless of the number, Nero is the only name that can account for both 666 and 616, which is the most compelling argument that he, and not some other emperor, such as Caligula or Domitian, was intended. Too, for the number to have any significance for a reader of the first century AD, it would have to refer to a contemporary historical figure.
end quote
from here
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html
It’s also probable that there are hidden meanings as well to the number. I would assume that those meanings will become evident when and if it is necessary for the reader to know them.
The minor controversy number of the beast is actually an interesting topic because it gives us one of the earliest examples of textual criticism being applied to the NT. What is cool about this fact is it lets us know that even a far back as Irenaeus in the second century Christians were very concerned with accurate transmission of the text even down to what are seemingly unimportant details.
peace
I’m having a hard time parsing your comment could you possibly rephrase your question?
peace
So you’re saying that if we believe something to be correct based on perception it is necessarily true?
1)What if we are deceived?
2) What “perception” did you have that convinced you that your definition of truth was the correct one
3) if I don’t share your perception does that mean that your definition is necessarily false to me?
peace
Since truth is defined as justified true belief would you agree that knowledge can’t be said to exist in any meaningful way in your world view?
peace
Your schtick isn’t about certainty, it’s about the possibility of knowledge. Except when it’s not.
You seem rather poor at discerning truth.
You are.
What a dumb question.
Are your perceptive faculties really that different from mine? Or are you just confusing perception with your dogmatic assertions? Your dogmatic “perceptions” do not lead to any sort of meaningful truth.
Glen Davidson
No it’s not about certainty at all.It’s about knowledge which requires truth among other things, My question was an effort to get clarification on what Glen Davidson was trying to say.
He seems to be saying that if we believe it based on perception it’s true. I want to know if that is what he means
peace
I think so. I think that is a big part of the difference between Atheists and Christians is the function of the Sensus divinitatis but that is a different topic all together .
To some extent everyone’s perceptive faculties are unique. For example Some can sense sarcasm better than others.
My wife’s sense of smell is such that she is repulsed by things that I am completely oblivious to
A trained pianist can perceive a difference in pitch that I would never even notice
peace
Work on your reading comprehension, since I didn’t write anything like that.
Anyway, you’re not trying to understand, but to play the toddler’s game of asking “Why?” to the point of exhaustion, and you don’t have any excuse for it. It’s more than obvious to the knowledgeable that empiricism isn’t perfectly “founded” at all, but that it works, while your nonsense is completely unproductive in practice, and orthogonal to any explanation of anything, let alone that of having and getting knowledge in the first place.
Glen Davidson
And no doubt as well supported as the rest of your nonsense.
Oh please, you just equivocated on “sense.” Yes, we can “sense” sarcasm, but that’s really not what is normally meant when the “perceptions” are being discussed, since sarcasm identification is a matter involving learning and practice.
Women have a better olfactory sense than do men, according to studies.
Don’t care. it’s commonly understood that the senses can be sharpened, that learning can train the senses as well as can other mental faculties. And why should it be otherwise anyhow?
Glen Davidson