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.