Not going to play your head games because as far as I know, you rely on the same dysfunctional and unverifiable bible the others posting here none of which can think outside the protective cover of their religion. Should have used something like epistemic truth ... but my original goal was just to get away from absurd religion apologists, what was I thinking. I don’t have your professed superior education (nor do I want one) so I am incapable of mounting mental rebottles to mental manipulations. Find someone as ‘smart’ as you think you are (if you can) and converse with them.

Of course there is. How many lost people exist in the world that are incapable of deciding if something is right or wrong just because you think we all need a PHD to do it, get a life.

Do you have a reading problem because I don’t. I don’t care how much wiggle room you require for your ridiculous stretches of the imagination, just to pretend to make it all work out for you, I don’t need any stretches because I only the facts to back up my claims … and you have your little black book. Hum, who wrote the first four gospels then, please enlighten me???

What in the world do you classify yourself as ... an innocent bystander who cannot post his own thoughts because the evil dictator won't allow it ... whine away as it is music to my ears.

Thanks zigzag, I needed a pat on the back ... all better now.

I cannot because JU won't let me alter a post with a different name regardless if it is my own post. And besides, I don't care what you think I am supposed to do to make you feel all welcome and fuzzy. And pardon me for trying to answer your (and others) non epistemological questions and slams, what was I thinking?

 

But some of the most famous arguments in modern epistemology have involved assertions that one simply knows that something is the case.

I'm not positing "non epistemological questions and slams".  When you make a statement and then follow with, "And anyone who disagrees with me is a brainwashed moron" (my phrase), it isn't an honest conversation.

I'm taking it that the above referral to Moore's argument is meant as sarcasm (correct me if I am wrong).  But it's exactly the point I could make.

My own views are experiential.  I've seen "the hands".  I could as easily turn to the person next to me and say their views are ridiculous absurd because they are ignorant of what I have witnessed...but that wouldn't be much of a conversation either.

I have an aunt who thinks hypnosis is as bunch of bunk.  Years back I hypnotized her and had her write a not to herself saying, I have written this while I am hypnotized.".  

I then woke her and asked her if she recalled anything and when she said no, I handed her the note.  She read it, threw it to the side and replied, "That doesn't matter because I know it isn't real.".

This thread is deja vu all over again.

 

Sin, you forgot to say: "And anybody who disagrees with me is a brainwashed moron."

To clarify, I wasn't serious when I wrote that, and I agree that insults don't make for good conversation.

But, more seriously, I don't think that "honest" is the correct word for it. People really do believe that there cannot be reasonable disagreement over certain beliefs and that the reasoning of those who disagree with them must be somehow defective. It would be dishonest if they didn't express that.

I apologize if this post seems brief. I originally wrote a lengthier response discussing my reasoning for why it is that people hold the beliefs described above and some irrelevant features in Moore's essay, but decided that the world could do without my attempt at philosophical brilliance.

Don't thank me too quickly. I'm also an elitist.

A brief response is fine.

I sympathize with GFT's feelings and understand where she is coming from.  To me though, her emotion seems to come from confusing two different things as being the same.

The first is, "some people gave me a bad experience with God and caused me a lot of pain and distress".  That's valid.

The second is the conclusion, "Therefore God is bad and can't exist".

The possibility of the existence of God and it's character/nature isn't determined by anyone's bad experience or dislike in life or how someone or some group of people presented their views of it.  God either "is" or "isn't"--independent of the press and reviews people give their own and other's ideas of it. 

So a believer will attempt to present an epistemological  logic to others--something that gives validity to questions or points to answers to the questions like, "How can we know if there is a God?", "How can we gain knowledge of it?", etc., etc.   Doing that isn't irrational or moronic (though a person's arguments may be sometimes).

I had a gentlemen years back insist he could determine what my thoughts were.  I laughed at him and called him a fool.  He got angry and said he could prove it. I told him that if he wanted to attempt to prove it I'd listen to what he had to say. He did then indeed give me convincing evidence that in that one case he had indeed done it.

Now I could say, "Well no one has ever recorded that, it's never been on CNN and no one can explain it and lots of idiots claim it all the time and are just crazy"--but those viewpoints would have nothing to do with what happened.

I could quote statistics and scientific and psychological explanations but if he did indeed know my thought those things don't explain how and don't address if it's relevant or important.  That's what an epistemology is all about.

Coming to the table with the immediate rebuttal of, "Inconceivable!" to every statement made is not a conversation--it's a Monty Python sketch.

.

I know, I remenber, that is why I won't be conversing with you much either;   it was just a thanx and nothing more.

I am sure they would have been brilliant and I thank you again for your consideration, peace.  

It is just impossible for you to take my word for anything, even when I tell you exactly what I believe or why I believe it. Whenever I want to know something about myself, all I have to do is ask one of you Christians, amazing that ... short enough for you. You are so foolish, I do not believe god exists as described in the bibles ... how do you hate something that doesn't exist, or is that a Christian thing too???

I hear the sound of one hand clapping...

Good mystical hearing, good night David.

 Some good reading, as usual. 

 Keep it up BT 

You see Tess, I am happy as to how this argument turns out, because if you remember, I was telling you certain things you're being told here now, some time ago. Now, what satisfies me is not the thought that I was right, which I knew before without the need of others telling me, but that I think that the distress you might be feeling now (judging from your own words and the general tone of your discussion) might be a sign that, in a few years maybe, you might realize something as to the nature of your dislike for religion, and forgive the faults which are responsible for it and their authors, thus improving your spiritual well being. You are free not to believe me, obviously.

As to the personal attacks, the reasons why I retorted (with my mind games) in the past was to show you their nature, not to convince you that I am in a way or in another. You may think that I do not possess any knowledge or that I do not have a life as much as you wish. On the other hand, if I may venture to suggest a course of action, perhaps you might be more cautious with other people in expressing your judgements, as not everyone is capable to consider them for what they are, and you might wish to make sure that what you say is well argumented, because this improves the relationship with people in general.

As to relying on the Bible, that is not advisable. My suggestion is never to rely on anything or anyone, but to reasonably trust what is reasonably adjudicated as truthful. On the other hand, your refusal to collect knowledge is just like your refusal of religion: a form of subjectivism. You cannot like science when it says what you want to hear, and dislike it when it doesn't. That's not how it works.

Most people are incapable of adjudicating what is right and what is wrong correctly, as you can clearly see watching any news program.

You missed the (subtle) irony of what zigzag is saying. I would bet that he is truly:

1) gently making fun of you by pointing out how you dismiss arguments

2) evaluating my knowledge of statistics (De Finetti is not a Bayesian, at all: subjective probability is a state in the mind of the observer and not a more or less reliable evaluation of the objective likelihood of an event, only real experience determines the quality of probability adjudication)

3) and improving the overall fun of the conversation

With just one little comment.

Correctly you say huh, that is such a relative word that doesn’t mean much outside one’s own opinion or a school/work environment where people are supposed to get the correct answer and not incorrect ones. Besides, if they get the right results, why is it important that they do it correctly? Not true anyway ... most people are handicapped because of their delusional dogmatic beliefs, be they secular, religious, political, racial etc. Reason is innate in nature because if it wasn’t so, we wouldn’t be here having this ‘discussion’. Assuming a ‘relatively normal and sane’ subject, one has to intentionally go out of their way (just lacks a rational understanding) to open their mind to the irrational or the nonexistent and then pretend otherwise. This is why a child will believe just about anything they are told … no real world perception yet. This is usually self-correcting unless they are conditioned from birth to believe in only one ‘real’ fantasy whatever that may be.

As for Christianity (whatever), what would you have me say? I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the bible(s) is just a work of fiction, end of story. If the bible is not the word of god and it is not, then the religions that rely on it solely as proof are just works of fiction too, how could it not be so?  I don’t know how to pretend otherwise just for discussion sake when evangelicals bring god into the discussion, I just feel compelled to speak my mind.

What personal attacks??? I am not inclined to play with my words because I prefer to speak my real thought such as: YOU; “As to relying on the Bible that is not advisable." conveys the same message I express by, ME; "The bible is an unproven fairy tale" IMO. I prefer not to mince my words is all and I do not try to play mind games. Sometimes I can even be civil on occasion (shit happens), I just like to see some of it myself because it is a two way street.

 

I'm going to pass over the first part and let others explain for themselves, but I do want to comment on this. I agree that in many cases we shouldn't ignore the arguments that others present for beliefs that contradict ours. However, there are serious epistemic and practical problems with adopting this approach generally. Epistemic problems, because this approach might lead to our having fewer items of knowledge; and practical problems, because we can't respond to every possibility that contradicts our beliefs even if we limit those possibilities only to those of which we're aware. I don't have any good solutions to these worries. It's a problem I struggled with when I had the luxury of spending my time struggling with these kinds of problems, but never made any progress. 

You're giving me too much credit. I’m not that clever, but I do enjoy fun. And teasing Italians.

De Finetti wasn't an objective Bayesian, but he considered himself and is considered, at least within analytic philosophy, to be a Bayesian since he believed that personal probabilities should be updated in accordance with Bayes’ Theorem. His position is usually called subjective Bayesianism or Bayesian-subjectivism.

My point was simply a believer will try to give others a reason in a way they can understand to consider the existence of God and that the Christian God may actually represent him.

I don't feel teased at all, and neither do I feel Italian, I confess. Humanity should avoid such distinctions, they are so parochial. I do on the other hand appreciate my Italian cultural heritage, as a tool to wield.

I do appreciate your contributions, though.

Nonetheless, it's certain that we might ask ourselves if De Finetti isn't prevalently classified as such in a country where Bayes is seen as the ultimate authority on statistical verification (or more properly, falsification).

Don't worry, if you didn't notice them, others did.

Every human knowledge, more or less, is an unproven fairytale, from some point of view. This is the conundrum. On the other hand, I am confident enough in my stance, that I do not consider it impossible that you may realize its worth someday. In the meantime, feel free to think whatever you want.

Epistemology was not what she really wanted (upon reflection) but it is what she asked for. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I suppose the boob that posted this probably meant Empiricism which emphasizing experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. How about a change in subject matter to Empiricism then???

Lol.

Perhaps pragmatism?  

David, I am just tired of all the mind games. People seem to think if they study hard and long enough, they will become adequately enlightened and self-empowered to tell everyone else what's what ... in all matters. They also seem to think that if they themselves believe in something enough, personally, it just ‘has’ to be true and it must be applied to the rest of the world. I do not concern myself with the beliefs and thoughts of others beyond typical conversation. I am sure they have their reasons just as I do.

To my knowledge beyond conception there are no earthly absolutes besides the inevitable death awaiting us all. My hackles go up when people speak of such things as absolutes when applied to general human behavior because there are no others. Dogmas of one sort or another are always involved and by definition, they are to a one, self-important. But today most just calls it bigotry, unless religions are involved. Religious folk just have flowery names for it that seems to be self-excusing too; but a rose by any other name is still a rose in everyone else’s eyes. If this is what you mean about “pragmatism” then it works for me too.

Where you and I completely disagree (and I think the physical universe with me) is, "there are no earthly absolutes".

From a scientific viewpoint alone that's improbable to a degree that I think statistically would be considered in the realm of "impossible".

There are absolutes...and more than just physical death.

We can debate and dsiagree about what they are and whether we can or how accurately we can perceive and understand them but they exist...despite any of our ignorance.

My intent is never to play mind games but when someone responds to anyone else and rebuts them with what effectively amounts to, "I disagree because I know what you think you know can't be known because it isn't knowable."...the very mindset is just an affront to logic and thinking. 

This isn't an "Us vs. Them" viewpoint it's an issue of admitting limitations and allowing  for the possibility of, "things I don't get" to maybe be true.

This statement is an affront to logic of any kind??? Ok geese, what absolutes are there then, just name one other? This is a crock and you are just whining here. You know darn well why I view the bible as a work of fiction (because it is) and you damn well should understand what that means for an opposing standpoint or argument. At what point do you place credence in any other work of fiction like the Koran for instance? The difference is that I view these two opposing dogmas (all) equally but you only take yours seriously the rest being bogus for one reason or another of your choosing of course … the rest just being bogus. I understand you much better than you think (my experiences) but we cannot even get to a debate until you stop taking things so personally and telling me what I mean as opposed to asking me. I am as unique in the universe as you are for the same reasons and we are both frowned upon for those same reasons by the very same people too. If you engender magic for your reasoning for everything of importance, how can you reasonably deny others their magic and reasoning? I am not playing favorites but you are. Besides, what could anyone with reason possibly have against those who prefer their proof in some verifiable format or another? I do not know how you manage to believe the things you profess all at the same time anyway??? I stopped playing the maybe games many moons ago somewhere back in the 50’s when I started questioning the validity of fairy tales.

Here's a simple response and examples of absolutes:

• You're absolutely sure you're right
• You're absolutely sure I am wrong
• Your absolutely sure it's impossible you're wrong
• You're absolutely sure it's impossible I'm right

Your viewpoint and arguments you've presented all require the above to be absolutely true.  I'd say that's a boatload of absolutes for a person who believes they "don't exist".

If you disagree with any of the above--point out to me which one(s) it(they) are.

Unfortunately David, I disagree with all of it. I am not absolutely sure of anything because I have no conclusive proof one way or the other on any subject whatsoever. This is simply based on the exacting biblical standards you profess for yourself. But I have to base my decisions on those things I can actually understand ... not those things you believe or think you understand. I stopped playing the ‘what if’ game too when my children proved to be resistant to reality under such conditions. What part of there are no human moral absolutes do you not understand … or can you provide one or two conclusive examples to the contrary? 

If there are no absolutes, there is no "right" or "wrong", no "good" or "evil" and no truth or lies and it's absolutely pointless to consider these things or be restrained by consideration or thought of them.

If I hunger I eat. If I see food...I take it.  If you are in my way, I move you.  If you resist, I remove you.  We all do whatever we want for any reason we choose and none of it is of any signifigance.

Hypocrites who reject any real truth nod and say this is how it is--but they live lives of hypocrisy based on all sorts of truths they can't rationalize away and can't function without.

In the end, the hypocrite says, "Since I am not certain of my truth--neither can you be of yours".

They are like "Rainman" and repeat their mantras of, "We must go to K-mart" and circle back over and over to that point--angry at any thought of anything else.

If there are no absolutes, why care?

You're angry at religion--why?  Why should you care?  The fact you do shows you have decided there are certain truths that supersede others.

Come on David, a pretty simple question here??? Ditto This is just religious talking points here. People got along just fine before the bible recreated the earth and in those places that weren't saddled with biblical dogma and hardships. How else do you explain the survival of countries like China and India whose people certainly weren't bible thumpers? I simply asked for an example or two of your professed absolutes ... several times now. I find it amusing that you bring up hypocrisy all the time because the worst hypocrites in the world are religious folk.  If you actually need a divine rule book just to enable you to understand the concept of right and wrong, then I feel sorry for you. This is all just nonsense David. If you come over to my Home and try to take food from my family just because you are hungry, you would get your first practical lesson on secular morals. The moving and removing of people requires a bit more effort than just scribbling a few words on a piece of paper, but you never expound on the things you say. Besides, you have no Idea what the 'real truth' even means because you are totally ensconced within your biblical shield behind which exists so you believe, the only ‘real truth’ … to the exclusion of everything else including the combined worldwide knowledge bank. The blindness comes from your denial and lack of respect for others who have their own mystical rule books with the same validity claim you folks have. Your inability to at least respect others for doing the exact same things you folks are doing for the exact same reason and to the exact same god … just speaks volumes about your peculiar one way divine morals, your sense of justice and your idea of fairness (right and wrong). A hypocrite is somebody who pretends to have admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings but behaves otherwise … like Christians who claim to live by the word of god and their biblical absolutes but don’t … all the while insisting everyone else has to live up to those Christian absolutes too, regardless of preexisting beliefs of their own.