Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics! What are your sources of knowledge?

[Iti oj]

The holy books aren't really being specific are they...

im not sure i agree some times they are too specific

 

[s13ep]

Ah, serious question? They are both specific and allegory, and then some history/non-religious, etc. (inbetween stuff). So, it depends, really. In a broader context, ie ''my perspective'' /these things tend to be subjective and interpretive/, I do not read much of the text literally. Some, I do. so, it's an interpretational question. This is something that most churches recognize, and even in the more fundamentalist or literal traditions, it is understood that some of the text is prose, etc.
This means that the person ''critisizing'' theism, /in general/, really has to have their stuff together, and, as a general rule, the ''atheist'' position is not at that level.
So, regardless of the text specificity, the atheist position actually has to deal with the problem of the 'theism', in a broader context. Without understanding this problem, it is more about debating specific ideas, sort of like, dialogue for debate sake, because the arguments don't tend to be 'actual' enough to warrant more interest.

I understand what you're saying, but those who're sent, or who're not-sent, onward for debate, are not exactly conditioned by the books or those who preach them; and a lot of your debate-prose is assimilated from Atheists/Theists, in debate or conversation. The preachers or holy books themselves should give you a decent-foundation to stand up for your beliefs.

 

[Iti oj]

Ah, serious question? They are both specific and allegory, and then some history/non-religious, etc. (inbetween stuff). So, it depends, really. In a broader context, ie ''my perspective'' /these things tend to be subjective and interpretive/, I do not read much of the text literally. Some, I do. so, it's an interpretational question. This is something that most churches recognize, and even in the more fundamentalist or literal traditions, it is understood that some of the text is prose, etc.
This means that the person ''critisizing'' theism, /in general/, really has to have their stuff together, and, as a general rule, the ''atheist'' position is not at that level.
So, regardless of the text specificity, the atheist position actually has to deal with the problem of the 'theism', in a broader context. Without understanding this problem, it is more about debating specific ideas, sort of like, dialogue for debate sake, because the arguments don't tend to be 'actual' enough to warrant more interest.

no it doesn't if the reason to believe in the biblical god is the bible then the bible alone is enough to dismiss it.

there is no 'theism in general' t deal with since the reasons to believe in the first place is claims made.

 

[Desert Snake]

I understand what you're saying, but those who're sent, or who're not-sent, onward for debate, are not exactly conditioned by the books or those who preach them; and a lot of your debate-prose is assimilated from Atheists/Theists, in debate or conversation. The preachers or holy books themselves should give you a decent-foundation to stand up for your beliefs.

I adhere to to the Bible, and some other teachings. My point was not to say that they /texts/, are not important (to me).

 

[Iti oj]

i clearly explained to you out side of some one claiming god/s exist i wouldn't even considered the idea, for their would be no reason to, erg outside of countering certain claims and the arguments that justify them, i don't have any arguments for atheism. that is why we need to specify what god and the claims about said god.

now i am a naturalist, bu not every atheist is.

@q konn ignoring what you asked for ?

 

[s13ep]

I adhere to to the Bible, and some other teachings. My point was not to say that they /texts/, are not important (to me).

Is that good or evil? Is that God or Godlessness?

Can you answer these questions? How do you know it's true? (Out of your shell, and into the world around).

If you can't answer my questions, you don't really adhere to it... You just think you do and that's enough for belief now-a-days! I'm trying to be nice but I can't help but dismiss what you're saying with wisdom. Haha!

Sorry in advance!

 

[Demonslayer]

This means that the person ''critisizing'' theism, /in general/, really has to have their stuff together, and, as a general rule, the ''atheist'' position is not at that level.

I would agree with this if theists could agree on what is literal and what is not in the Bible. It normally goes something like this:

- Atheist criticizes something crazy in the Bible like Noah's Ark
- Theist says "you don't know what you're talking about, not everything in the Bible is literal, you're just trying to be a jerk"
- Atheist points out that somewhere around 30% of theists actually DO think Noah's Ark is literal.

This is a common defense/deflection of Biblical supporters. If you could all agree on what was literal, we wouldn't portray something as literal and then attack it. But when one-third of all Americans believe things like Noah's Ark are literal, why can't we criticize that?

What about Jesus rising from the dead after three days...is that literal?

 

[Desert Snake]

Is that good or evil? Is that God or Godlessness?

Can you answer these questions? How do you know it's true? (Out of your shell, and into the world around).

If you can't answer my questions, you don't really adhere to it... You just think you do and that's enough for belief now-a-days! I'm trying to be nice but I can't help but dismiss what you're saying with wisdom. Haha!

Sorry in advance!

I'm not interested in having a dialogue with you; you have already dismissed my position, so I'm not going to humour your bad suppositions. And theres no wisdom there, btw, that is pure /unwisdom/.

 

[s13ep]

I'm not interested in having a dialogue with you; you have already dismissed my position, so I'm not going to humour your bad suppositions. And theres no wisdom there, btw, that is pure /unwisdom/.

Whatever! You failed to answer my questions which are the foundation to any 'adherence to what's written in the bible'. Hey! I'm not insulting you or trying to, keep clairvoyant, but remember you're not going to win this debate and you're not helping others win theirs either...

 

[Desert Snake]

I would agree with this if theists could agree on what is literal and what is not in the Bible. It normally goes something like this:

- Atheist criticizes something crazy in the Bible like Noah's Ark
- Theist says "you don't know what you're talking about, not everything in the Bible is literal, you're just trying to be a jerk"
- Atheist points out that somewhere around 30% of theists actually DO think Noah's Ark is literal.

This is a common defense/deflection of Biblical supporters. If you could all agree on what was literal, we wouldn't portray something as literal and then attack it. But when one-third of all Americans believe things like Noah's Ark are literal, why can't we criticize that?

What about Jesus rising from the dead after three days...is that literal?

There is no reason for that not to be literal; though even if it wasn't completely so, it would not change the nature of Jesu as not merely a fisherman rebel.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't focus on the crucifixion, incidentally. That does not change my theology.

 

[dust1n]

Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics! What are your sources of knowledge?

Everybody could respond. Theists or Non-theists.

Regards

Sure. I just flip open a random book from over a millennium ago, and then pretend like God wrote it. It's the best source of knowledge there is.

 

[paarsurrey]

historically and scientifically inaccurate , loaded with contradictions, illogical, and immoral actions and behaviors, etc but this has been covered ad nasum here on RF

The forum just debates and discusses the issues, it cannot judge others.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The holy books aren't really being specific are they...

Specific about what?
Regards

 

[dgirl1986]

historically and scientifically inaccurate , loaded with contradictions, illogical, and immoral actions and behaviors, etc but this has been covered ad nasum here on RF

Excellent point

 

[paarsurrey]

I understand what you're saying, but those who're sent, or who're not-sent, onward for debate, are not exactly conditioned by the books or those who preach them; and a lot of your debate-prose is assimilated from Atheists/Theists, in debate or conversation. The preachers or holy books themselves should give you a decent-foundation to stand up for your beliefs.

Quran does provide decent-foundations.
But the thread is about the sources of knowledge the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics rely upon for Atheism. They have none, except always shifting the " burden of proof" on others and then sitting pretty.
They have absolutely no sources specific for them.
Regards

 

[Valjean]

What makes the Bible any more reliable than the Quran, the Tao Te Ching or The Hobbit? Is it fact-checked, tested, peer reviewed?
The Bible is no textbook.

 

[Iti oj]

The forum just debates and discusses the issues, it cannot judge others.
Regards

what ?

 

[gnostic]

For me, sources of knowledge comes from education, studies and practical experiences in jobs or careers and other aspects of life (lifestyle, taste). Sources come from any experiences in what I learn, what I read and in what I do.

If you are talking about the sources of knowledge ABOUT agnosticism, then I am truly not interested.

I recognized that are a number of agnostics, who have given their philosophical thoughts about agnosticism, but I don't rely on them.

I see that I fall under which category of agnostics that fit me, so that's what is what I am. I don't need to read agnostic materials to be agnostic.

But I am not just an agnostic. I am made of lot things: my outlook to life is also being a naturalist and being a humanist, but at times, I am a cynic.

I am very interested in science, so I am also empiricist and epistemologist (although my experience in science lean more to the engineering side).

At times, I can be idealist, but at other time, I am a realist. I can be optimist at certain matters, but pessimist in others.

I have mentioned before that I was civil engineer. I actually wanted to be architect, but I was too technical, not enough of artist.

What I am saying that there are too many things that have been going on my life, that you can't simply put a single label, like "agnostic", to me.

I think a lot of agnostics and atheists feel the same way.

And here is a little secret, paarsurrey: theists, including Christians and Muslims, are more than just theists, or more than just Christians or more than just Muslims.

 

[dust1n]

Quran does provide decent-foundations.
But the thread is about the sources of knowledge the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics rely upon for Atheism. They have none, except always shifting the " burden of proof" on others and then sitting pretty.
They have absolutely no sources specific for them.
Regards

Of course we don't. That's the whole point. There is no "God-given knowledge" because no atheist/agnostic assumes that a text from a long time ago is actually a channel from some god to humanity. Anyone can just posit or make up a god and claim to have the knowledge of that god, but it doesn't actually mean they do. Otherwise, all the religious people of the world wouldn't disagree about which text is this supposed channel from some god to humanity.