Great! Now hopefully you can see how silly and sophomoric it is to compare me to a Humanist.
Because they are insisting I believe something that is not true.
The Christian has every right to proselytize, and I have every right to disagree with him.
I was referring to everyone else who were not Christians because if they did believe that way, they would be Christians! HELLO!!!
What constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met does not equal objectivity. So where is the double standard?
There is a big difference between truth and morality.
I fail to see a double standard here. Beliefs concerning morality are subjective, and just because you know something (by dictionary definition) does not mean you are right! Where’s the double standard?
Ken, once again, you are again going in circles. It’s either that you are unaware of this or you are trolling. (The only other possibilities are that you are an adolescent (underdeveloped brain) or have cognitive disabilities.)
I said that which is objective is demonstrable; I never said knowing was.
Do you understand that with this you are attempting to establish a standard that you expect others to accept? This is true because you are at this forum site debating. If you, in a sophomoric retreat, attempt to argue, “well, it’s something that I believe. I don’t expect others to believe it.” You belie yourself by posting here. I’m guessing that will go over your head too.
You clearly do not understand objectivity and subjectivity. (Unless, of course, the lesser the education = the more accurate one can understand.)
Also, knowing is demonstrable in the intellectual world. I realize that you dismiss this, but that only demonstrates that you have no idea what you are really talking about.
Regarding your proposal “that which is objective is demonstrable” (again) what makes this objective truth. Let me give you a hint, you need to not use circular logic for this proposal to be valid. OH, wait yes. That is too rigid a standard and only good for those people who live in the fake world of academia. Those in the “real” world get to use whatever standard that is preferred.
This is hysterical. Since, you dismiss intellectuals as not being in the “real” world, this, undoubtedly necessarily means that the lesser education that you have, the more you understand the “real” world. Ken, by this standard of yours, (the more education that you have the less you are in the “real” world) it necessarily means that the kindergartener is more in the real world than you are. I doubt that you see that your position is inane.
As I said before, you could know something and still be wrong.
Ken, again you may be trolling. If not, you really are quite ignorant. I do hope for your sake that you will attempt to educate yourself. If you are not trolling; if you were wrong about X, that necessarily means that you did not know X. I realize that logic does not cut muster with the elementary school set, but, regardless, it is a logical derivative. If you are not trolling, it is important for you to understand the differences between knowing and to have knowledge of.
I never claimed science as the arbiter of truth; as a skeptic I am just as critical of science as I am anything else.
While, of course, you can self-title yourself anything that makes you feel important, your chosen title of “skeptic” is overly generous to yourself. Skeptics do not dismiss intellectual challenges. And, with your tacit admission that you are not higher educated, I can accept that you do not understand the writing process. With this, I can accept that you do not realize the implications of what you write. You have continuously demonstrated that you do not understand the implications of a position of yours. If these two were coupled, I can easily understand that you do not understand what you write has meanings that you may not intend. A classic case of the elder Mayor Daley in the City of Chicago; “write what he means and not what he says.” If you are not trolling, it would be wise if you were to learn implications to your positions and how to express these ideas in written form.
I never said Christians don't know objective morality I just said they were wrong.
Ken, you are not being honest or, you are trolling, or this is another example of your simplicity. You wrote in your post #1912 “
There is no such a thing as objective morality.” This means that Christians cannot know objective morality. You’ve, again, contradicted yourself.
If those people actually saw God, their belief would not be based on faith, but fact.
Again, you can make up definitions that suit your attempts to save face, but your definition of faith is incomplete. The “blind faith” definition is a relatively new addition to the concept of faith. The concept of faith prior to the European enlightenment was squarely as I’ve described it. The “blind faith” concept came much later in human history. This too, is something that you can learn more about if you really wish to be taken seriously as a “skeptic.”
I don’t use myself as a reference point; somebody else does. This person using me as a reference can test to see if
*I exist
*I am perceiving data
*If I am interpreting data correctly
*Etc.
*Etc.
Sadly, you are going in circles again. You conveniently forgot that you failed to demonstrate that “somebody else” exists and you failed to demonstrate that someone used you as a reference point. You, here again, offer no demonstrable evidence that your perceptions can differentiate “objective truth” from “subjective truth.” Here again, you offer faith statements as “proof” of your knowledge of objectivity. You have faith in your perceptions which logically equals “Ken, using Ken as a reference point.” If you do not understand this, you, again, need to learn more.
You’ve gotten it wrong again. I said some truth claims are objective (like claims about math, or other things that can be objectively verified or demonstrated) And some truth claims are subjective (like those claims that are based on beliefs, opinions, and perceptions. If a Christian were to make a claim about something that can be objectively verified (like math) I would label his claim objective; and if I were to make a claim based on my beliefs, opinions, or my points of view; I would label my claim subjective.
Do you see, I doubt it, that you are attempting to establish a standard; “demonstrability.” Yet, when I expect you to meet this standard that you demand from the Christian, you fail to demonstrate your faith statements. Are you trolling? Or, do you truly not see that you have a double standard. If you were honest, especially to yourself, you would recognize that you have not met the standard that you demand from a Christian. Using circular logic, which is all you have offered, does not meet the demonstrability standard.
Great! Now hopefully you can see how silly and sophomoric it is to compare me to a Humanist.
Ken, before you make yourself look foolish again, I suggest that you study, in the academic traditions, (and not self-defined education) what a humanist is before you make statements that are easily demonstrated as false.
Because they are insisting I believe something that is not true.
Ken, uh, Ken. Do you realize that you’ve contradicted yourself again? I doubt it. You have no basis to demonstrate that Christians are insisting on something that “is not true.” Your basis for insisting Christians are insisting you believe something that is not true is how you, Ken, interpret data (Ken as
the reference point). You, therefore, (therefore means that the following point necessarily derives logically from the previous supposition) are insisting that they believe in something that is not true. Even to the least of the skeptics this is known as hypocrisy.
Also, while I doubt that you realize it, you are making a value judgement. This, in the intellectual world, (which I know is unsatisfactory to those of you who live in the “real” world) is moralizing. You really do not understand that you are “guilty” of the very things you criticize the Christian for.
The Christian has every right to proselytize, and I have every right to disagree with him.
Agreed (of course), but you have not made any statement that you’ve demonstrated as true. You have
only offered circular logic to “demonstrate” how you have knowledge. These are better known as faith statements.
I was referring to everyone else who were not Christians because if they did believe that way, they would be Christians! HELLO!!!
Ken, oftentimes you really make yourself look foolish and here is another example of it. While I expect that you’ll attempt to redefine “everybody else” in a way that tries to have you save face, you really do not know the subject for which you argue. I recently returned from India. The Indian population is estimated at approximately 1.3 billion people. Most of these people are Hindus with a large minority population of Muslims. Since you will likely agree that none of these people are Christians you will then have to agree that if they believe in objective morality, that your point is refuted. And, by the way, mostly they do believe in objective morality.
What constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met does not equal objectivity. So where is the double standard?
Apparently, you need lessons on reading as well as writing. What I wrote is that your double standard is that you expect the Christian to demonstrate that objective morality exists, but you fail to demonstrate that
any of your positions objectively exist. Ken’s standard for the Christian = demonstrability. Ken’s standard for Ken = belief
(post # 2008) “
My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality”
(post #2015) “
It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality”
In these two posts of yours you offer “belief” and “assumption” as demonstrable proof. You would never accept these from a Christian. Therefore, even to the simplest of skeptics, this is a double standard.
There is a big difference between truth and morality.
Yet another faith statement by Ken. Ken, please demonstrate this to be objectively true. Oh, that’s right. You “believe that your perceived experiences” are true and you “assume that your empirical experiences reflect reality” that it is true; therefore, it’s true. Amazing.
I fail to see a double standard here. Beliefs concerning morality are subjective, and just because you know something (by dictionary definition) does not mean you are right! Where’s the double standard?
I believe that you indeed fail to see the double standard. The double standard is
Ken’s standard for a Christian is that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is not an acceptable basis to establish objective truth.
Ken’s standard for Ken is that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is an acceptable basis to establish objective truth.
Even by the least of the skeptics, this is a double standard.
Respectfully,
T R-R