Christian Pride.

I was asking where the smugness was precisely given the premise. You could start with answering why "know" is implied to not be? Have you got no argument to present? Just this? I can understand your dismay - from one worldview (yours) all you see is sheer arrogance. But you do not address the argument. You ad hom the others worldview. You demonstrate here a classic weaknesses inherent in the empirical evidence uber alles mindset. You certainly do not sound humbly tentitive. In fact you sound quite prideful. Quite certain - when that is not an option for you (in this matter - I know the world is round - empirically). If the Bible is true (for that is all it has to be) then a load of phoneys is to be expected. You list a load of phonies yet don't believe the Bible when it says thats what you will see. Quetzel! And not a whit of argument to make a point. A total rant. A rant is but pride offended.

The smugness is derived from the way True Christians relate to those they consider "not-True Christians". The fact that you again state your "premise" is true, in the absence of any corroboration, is a case in point. Did you or did you not assert

quote:

---

If a particular creator exists then "special" "privileged" and part of something "exclusive" the person is who sits under the umbrella of that creator is entitled to feel.

---

I'm absolutely flabbergasted you don't see the arrogance in that statement. Lots and lots of "ifs" there, Ian. If you can demonstrate the "truth" of your premise, then perhaps there may be a legitimate point to your argument. In the absence of such a demonstration, all you have done is once again asserted you're right - and by extension everyone else is wrong. That is where the smugness is evidenced. That is where the arrogance of the True Christian is most obvious. Dismay? If anything, I feel pity for a philosophy that has so little evidence in support. I also get a chuckle out of the kind of mindset that can't see how weak their position is - proclaiming the other's position as "weakness" without anything to back up the assertion is faintly amusing. Where's the evidence for your stance, Ian? The self-referential writings of your particular religion's holy texts? And this is valid evidence for the truth claims in the self-same book how, exactly? Not certain, no. Absolute certainty is your philosophy's claim. I make no such statement. On the other hand, it is your worldview that you arrogantly proclaim is "true" - quite without foundation, I might add. It therefore behooves you to provide the necessary support for such an attestation. You don't see the connection? The "truth" claims of those folks I listed are absolutely identical to all the other un-evidenced truth claims out there - including the ones you tried to put over in your "argument". In other words, you have no basis for declaring your "truth" is any better than the Hills'.As to your "argument", a sequence of "ifs" with no basis in fact does not make much of a valid defense of your position. You can hypothesize 'till the cows come home - however, nothing says that either the logical construction of the argument OR the conclusions of that argument are valid. Especially with no empirical support of any kind.By the way, you can't "ad hom" a worldview, only a person. Just for future reference.

"Demonstrate" in what fashion? It may be that you are gunning in the direction of empiricism-only. IF so: when empiriscism demonstrates itself to be the only way to know something then we might get somewhere. That "dogma" suffers from that which you say mine does: it cannot demonstrate itself to be the case. "Empirisicm is the only way which can demonstrate it is the way to know something" ... relies on circular reasoning. You probably do not mean this...The thing is Quetzel is that you will not be convinced by my argument. For to be convinced by my argument you would have to believe things that I say and for which there is no tangible evidence. If that were the case then you would be saved by my argument. Convinced by me. Salvation by Iano. Whilst I agree that has a nice ring to it I do not hold that that can happen. That would be proud indeed: Salvation by Iano!!My function is not to convince you. Just to tell you. And that is in the Bible too.. Like I say, my role is not to prove. My role is to argue, illustrate, present. And that is what I find myself doing. Your own worldview has little to say about the questions of life we find ourselves dealing with here - so its not like the prospect of dealing with them overwhelms me. Many attempt to scrape their way to the top but as yet there is no clear cut incumbant. Its all to play for. I am not trying to argue the earth flat or some such thingGotta go. Its late. L8r Q

When?! Empricism HAS demonstrated a great deal! All of science, for starters - biology, chemistry, physics, engineering etc etc.None of these things were discerned through faith.But Q's point wasn't about science VERSUS empricism, it was about your inability to understand that because your faith (like all faiths) lies beyond the realms of the empirical it is evidenced no more or less than any other faith.Just like you, a Muslim "knows" that his is the "true" spiritual path. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

A greement by any other name would smell as sweet. Oh but they were. Faith that our eyes and ears are transmitting accurate information about the world to us. And a blind faith it must be said. Not at all like faith as I speak of it. Lets not quibble though (Schraf will throw a wobbler) empirical methods are great. Brilliant even. For that which lends itself to it. That a faith is not open to empirical style evidencing means that empiricism cannot comment on it. IOW empiricism cannot make a statement further than the limits of its own ability to make statements. "...it is empirically evidenced no more or less than any other faith" is a very acceptable, and properly limited statement.Write that down A perfect example of blind faith for which there is no empirical evidence.Q's rant ignored the premise on which no pride was argued, assumed empirical uber alles (in an attempt to side step the premise) and shot himself in the foot. I saw a fox run across the road last night. I was alone on the road so cannot demonstrate empirically that a fox ran across the road. But I know one did. This "demonstrate before you can have knowledge" gig is a fallacy.When arguing that someone is proud one cannot just say "your premise is invalid" thats all the empirical/demonstrate arguement does. In fact, the whole notion of charging pride is impossible to lay - if one cannot demolish the premise (which would allow for no pride) then one can say little about it. One cannot know.Agnostism about my or anothers pride seems the only option. Believe that I am if you like. Your entitled to faith

We work with what we see. How is that "blind"? Even if the whole world is an illusion, we have found ways of predicting manipulating said illusion, so to speak. On my part or on his?We have two options:1. The Muslim's faith is an example of blind faith for which there is no empirical evidence. This is true. This also applies to your faith.2. Or my own assertion that a Muslim "knows" that his is the "true" spiritual path has no evidence. This is also true (hence my use of quotation marks). This also applies to you!!Either way it doesn't help your position!

Empiricism has no moorings to anything but itself. What is empirically demonstrable is just empirically demonstrable. Nothing more to be said. It cannot comment outside that box. Its premise cannot be demonstrated empirically yet empiricists argue from a position which suggests that empirical (5 sense) knowledge is the only knowledge. It often goes further and says "If it cannot be demonstrated empirically then it is faith - and blind faith at that. Not knowledge" The gall!For example: if this were some alien kids playstation game (or even if it weren't but the world was otherwise totally deterministic) then we haven't found anything nor do we manipulate anything. What happens is what happens. An empiricist cannot demonstrate that he stands on any firm ground at all. On yours. As an apparent empiricist you have know way to know the statement you made is a true one. This option would be an example of the empiricist non-sequitur (ie: non-empirical = blind faith). The muslim can know that Allah exists. He can be certain of it and have empirical evidence (but not of the class of empirical you accept) that he does (although I am not all that sure as to how Allah is meant to interact with man). Its just that Allah is a mask behind which stands satan.It doesn't follow (or at least it cannot be shown to follow) that my own faith equates to that of a muslim. If God exists then by definition he can prove himself to me to be God - and not satan behind a mask. The muslim can claim the same as me. So you, the observer would have two contradicting claims to deal with and no way to tell the difference. That is your problem - not mine. Your problem doesn't impinge on my own knowledge. I don't get you. You say your assertion is true. But provide no argument that indicates it is My position is that when someone says I am proud because I say what I say but cannot make a case that I am - except to ignore the basis which demonstrates I am not - then out the jury must remain. Ones prejudice might flourish but that is about all that supports their position.In the meantime I use the discussion as a vehicle to argue some of the weaknesses in the positions a person holds in order to reject God. I'm an evangelist remember - that's my job. I leave the rest to him. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What? You mean if you “know” you’re right that excuses the insufferable smugness? The self-patting-on-the-back? The toddler’s “I’m better than you are, nyah, nyah, nyah” of the True Christian™? Especially since the “truth” of your position, as they say in court, “is not in evidence”?

---

Simple Q.Ian is right because God told him so, and all those other peopple are obviously wrong, because, well, it's just obvious!He has stated in the past that "he might be wrong" but every other thing that he writes indicates nothing of this purported doubt that he has, so I don't think it is real.It doesn't appear that he ever thinks he could be wrong.

quote:

---

Oh but they were.

---

Not at all, unless your "faith" is tentative, doubted, and liable to be thrown out or changed if something better comes along. Do you constantly look for ways that your faith might be misplaced or wrong? Do you constantly try to break your faith?Is this how you think of your faith in God?

quote:

---

Faith that our eyes and ears are transmitting accurate information about the world to us.

---

No, that's trust, not faith.

quote:

---

And a blind faith it must be said.

---

Er, no.

quote:

---

Not at all like faith as I speak of it. Lets not quibble though (Schraf will throw a wobbler) empirical methods are great. Brilliant even. For that which lends itself to it.

---

...and it is not faith.

It appears that you think a person can never be right. Would that be a sort of inverted pride. A false humility.'Right' in your mind is that which is empirically demonstrable only - a philosophy which can no more demonstrate itself to be empirically right than can my faith.At least in this we are comparing apples and apples

quote:

---

Empiricism has no moorings to anything but itself. What is empirically demonstrable is just empirically demonstrable. Nothing more to be said. It cannot comment outside that box. Its premise cannot be demonstrated empirically yet empiricists argue from a position which suggests that empirical (5 sense) knowledge is the only knowledge. It often goes further and says "If it cannot be demonstrated empirically then it is faith - and blind faith at that. Not knowledge" The gall!

​

For example: if this were some alien kids playstation game (or even if it weren't but the world was otherwise totally deterministic) then we haven't found anything nor do we manipulate anything. What happens is what happens. An empiricist cannot demonstrate that he stands on any firm ground at all.

---

...and yet, we can make accurate predictions about the workings of nature.The scientific method is a tool, ian, and nothing more.Do you decry the "lack of firm standing" of a hammer?Do not confuse the use of empiricism with "empiricists", as if they are one and the same.

quote:

---

It appears that you think a person can never be right.

---

Not at all. I am an agnostic, after all.You could very well be right in your blind faith, ian, but here's the thing;There is no way to tell if you are or are not.

quote:

---

Would that be a sort of inverted pride. A false humility.

---

No, it would be an iccorect assesment of my position.

quote:

---

'Right' in your mind is that which is empirically demonstrable only -

---

Well, how else has humanity ever learned anything that all can agree on?

quote:

---

a philosophy which can no more demonstrate itself to be empirically right than can my faith.

---

Oh, please. I don't have to have blind faith in the hammer before it will drive a nail.

There is plenty to be spannered on around the edges but as to his existance or how one is saved and the like? There is no need. It is the characteristic of science that the journey is a perpetual one with no absolute destination possible. It is a characteristic of a particular philosophy which tries to expand this limited (and proper) notion outside the realm of science and into everything. Again it is not empirically demonstrable to be the case.Empiricism cannot comment on that to which it cannot apply. To non (classically) empirical things. You are fine if you say "you cannot demonstrate empirically therefore it is not empirical knowledge"But anymore comment on the nature of a persons knowledge is beyond the scope of empiricism. For it cannot demonstrate its premise to be the case. One must take that on faith.

You assert the word blind but have not basis for saying so. Your lack of access to what I know does not allow you to assume blind. Live up to your agnostic position Schraf: say "I do not know whether Ianos faith is blind" That would be the coherant position for you.Similarily with your second statement - apply agnosticismAll that has to happen is for God to exist and for him to reveal himself to me in a way that I cannot mistake. Nothing more. And that is possible. For this would not rely on my ability to avoid error but on Gods ability to circumvent my ability to err. You would not say that God cannot do this (if he existed). Your agnosticism permits this (otherwise you are not an agnostic but something else)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Ah, so you DO understand. But you have no knowledge. Like the Muslim you only have faith.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.