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

[Desert Snake]

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.

I would not really say that ''agnostic'', or atheist is really a commited stance. Perhaps anti-theism is, but atheism is really just an argument that has an 'out', and agnostic isn't positing either side of the argument, so you mixed those up, incidentally. This is similar to the ''mytaphysical naturalism'' idea, which is actually a position that one cannot argue against ,because it posits that whatever the evidence is, it fits into the positions definition, lol.
So...not much meaning or significance going on here, ..

 

[dust1n]

I would not really say that ''agnostic'', or atheist is really a commited stance. Perhaps ant-theism is, but atheism is really just an argument that has 'out', and agnostic isn't positing either side of the argument, so you mixed those up, incidentally. This is similar to the ''mytaphysical naturalism'' idea, which is actually a position that cannot argue against ,because it posits that whatever the evidence is, it fits into the positions definition, lol.
So...not much meaning or significance going on here, ..

Not really. Atheists/agnostics/skeptics generally agree, for the overwhelming most part, that no human, even if their was one, inspired a scripture with certainty, enough to claim it as knowledge.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Plus, a crap ton of "religious people" don't think texts are divinely channeled like that in the first place, nor do they engage in ridiculous posturing like "my text is holier than your text." That seems to be unique to exclusivist theisms, which are usually monotheisms.

 

[dust1n]

Plus, a crap ton of "religious people" don't think texts are divinely channeled like that in the first place, nor do they engage in ridiculous posturing like "my text is holier than your text." That seems to be unique to exclusivist theisms, which are usually monotheisms.

An atheist/agnostic/skeptic person can be religious. Being religious doesn't entail believing knowledge has been channeled by god via a book. Being atheist/agnostic/skeptic does entail believing that no knowledge has been channeled by god via a book.

 

[Sees]

An atheist/agnostic/skeptic person can be religious. Being religious doesn't entail believing knowledge has been channeled by god via a book. Being atheist/agnostic/skeptic does entail believing that no knowledge has been channeled by god via a book.

Don't think agnostic or skeptic fit in with that last sentence.

 

[dust1n]

Don't think agnostic or skeptic fit in with that last sentence.

If you are agnostic, you do not believe it is possible to know if there is a god or not. So, if one thinks it is impossible to know if there is a god or not, then how is it possible to think that a god, with a high degree of certainty, imparted knowledge via a channel from god to humans? If someone thinks that they have access to a channel from god to humans, then you they necessarily must believe in god. And agnostic may be "agnostic" about whether or not such a channel exists. But then you couldn't really claim any knowledge via that channel, because it can't be known that it is authentic...

So yeah, how could an agnostic person believe that some text is a truth delivered from a diety?

And skepticism:

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]

Philosophical skepticism is a systematic approach that questions the notion that absolutely certain knowledge is possible.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

 

[Sees]

If you are agnostic, you do not believe it is possible to know if there is a god or not. So, if one thinks it is impossible to know if there is a god or not, then how is it possible to think that a god, with a high degree of certainty, imparted knowledge via a channel from god to humans? If someone thinks that they have access to a channel from god to humans, then you they necessarily must believe in god. And agnostic may be "agnostic" about whether or not such a channel exists. But then you couldn't really claim any knowledge via that channel, because it can't be known that it is authentic...

So yeah, how could an agnostic person believe that some text is a truth delivered from a diety?

And skepticism:

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]

Philosophical skepticism is a systematic approach that questions the notion that absolutely certain knowledge is possible.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Neither of which necessarily holds to "believing that no knowledge has been channeled by god via a book." They don't imply certain denial or strong negative stance by default. You could say an agnostic believes we can't know for sure, or using common definition on here - he/she isn't sure or is on the fence. You could say the skeptic isn't convinced and questions the veracity of the position/s. There isn't an assumption of a-scripturism though.

 

[dust1n]

Neither of which necessarily holds to "believing that no knowledge has been channeled by god via a book." They don't imply certain denial or strong negative stance by default. You could say an agnostic believes we can't know for sure, or using common definition on here - he/she isn't sure or is on the fence. You could say the skeptic isn't convinced and questions the veracity of the position/s. There isn't an assumption of a-scripturism though.

The question is about one can obtain knowledge... if an agnostic doesn't believe we can know with certainty that a god wrote any particular channel to humanity, than an agnostic can't garnish any knowledge from a religious text.... If they did, it would be implying that he religious text is actually divine in some manner, and that the information is actually "knowledge," and they would no longer be agnostic.

 

[McBell]

The question is about one can obtain knowledge... if an agnostic doesn't believe we can know with certainty that a god wrote any particular channel to humanity, than an agnostic can't garnish any knowledge from a religious text.... If they did, it would be implying that he religious text is actually divine in some manner, and that the information is actually "knowledge," and they would no longer be agnostic.

False dichotomy.
Knowledge is still obtainable from a book regardless of if you think said book is divinely inspired/written.

 

[StopS]

False dichotomy.
Knowledge is still obtainable from a book regardless of if you think said book is divinely inspired/written.

The problem is that no books connected to the divine hold any useful contents..

 

[dust1n]

False dichotomy.
Knowledge is still obtainable from a book regardless of if you think said book is divinely inspired/written.

Knowledge about affairs that only a god would know about it is not obtainable unless there is some god-like being relaying that information to humans. In the context in the way knowledge is being used here,

"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."

Source of knowledge implies that only some sort of divinely inspired text actually has this knowledge, and that no other "knowledge" is comparable to it.

Obviously knowledge is obtainable from any book. But it isn't knowledge of certainty. There's no additional knowledge that proofs the knowledge, as it were. So without the whole God-thumbs-up thing, why would anyone who is an atheist/agnostic/skeptic think that any knowledge is going to meet the equivalence of standards that theists believe about the knowledge they supposedly derived from "God."

I hope that explains a bit better.

 

[paarsurrey]

Obviously knowledge is obtainable from any book. But it isn't knowledge of certainty. There's no additional knowledge that proofs the knowledge, as it were. So without the whole God-thumbs-up thing, why would anyone who is an atheist/agnostic/skeptic think that any knowledge is going to meet the equivalence of standards that theists believe about the knowledge they supposedly derived from "God."

"knowledge is obtainable from any book. But it isn't knowledge of certainty."
Yes. In the ethical, moral and spiritual reams, only revealed religions provide useful knowledge, useful for this world ans also for the hereafter.
Regards

 

[dust1n]

"knowledge is obtainable from any book. But it isn't knowledge of certainty."
Yes. In the ethical, moral and spiritual reams, only revealed religions provide useful knowledge, useful for this world ans also for the hereafter.
Regards

Exactly. Since atheists/agnostics/skeptics all do not believe in "revealed" knowledge, we do not have that sort of knowledge. But if we wanted it, all we would have to do is take any random book and say God revealed to us. That's how valuable any "revealed" knowledge. It's "revealed" because someone claims it to be "revealed." That's it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Exactly. Since atheists/agnostics/skeptics all do not believe in "revealed" knowledge, we do not have that sort of knowledge. But if we wanted it, all we would have to do is take any random book and say God revealed to us. That's how valuable any "revealed" knowledge. It's "revealed" because someone claims it to be "revealed." That's it.

Sorry for the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics for having no specific source of knowledge of their own, they have to cherry pick from others.
Regrds

 

[viole]

Sorry for the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics for having no specific source of knowledge of their own, they have to cherry pick from others.
Regrds

What others? There are so many different ones.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

Sorry for the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics for having no specific source of knowledge of their own, they have to cherry pick from others.
Regrds

I know. If atheists/agnostics/skeptics want a specific source of knowledge of their own, all they have to do is take a book, like, "The Chronicles of Narnia" or "One Thousand and One Nights," say that it is "revealed" knowledge instead of "not revealed" knowledge, and call themselves Narnists or 1001nightists. Then atheists/agnostics/skeptics can enjoy being on the same level as religion... though they probably can't use the name anymore.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sorry for the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics for having no specific source of knowledge of their own, they have to cherry pick from others.

Poor things!

 

[paarsurrey]

I know. If atheists/agnostics/skeptics want a specific source of knowledge of their own, all they have to do is take a book, like, "The Chronicles of Narnia" or "One Thousand and One Nights," say that it is "revealed" knowledge instead of "not revealed" knowledge, and call themselves Narnists or 1001nightists. Then atheists/agnostics/skeptics can enjoy being on the same level as religion... though they probably can't use the name anymore.

Sorry, that won't work for you, as they won't have the claims and their reasons part with them.
Regards

 

[dust1n]

Sorry, that won't work for you, as they won't have the claims and their reasons part with them.
Regards

Of course it would. Unless anyone who claims to have revealed knowledge can demonstrate that any such knowledge is actually revealed, then it's the same standing as anyone else who claims to have revealed knowledge.

Did you consider the implications of your argument? There are many religious texts that are not the Qur'an that claim to have revealed knowledge. The Bible is a text that claims to be revealed. The Qur'an claims that revealed knowledge is corrupted, and that the Qur'an is the revealed knowledge. Similarly, the Druze believe that Al-Kaim bi-Amr Allah built on top of that and have even more revealed religion.

All you have to do is claim some knowledge is revealed, regardless if it is even true or not, and BAM! you got yourself a set of revealed knowledge that atheists/agnostics/skeptics don't claim to have.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everybody could respond. Theists or Non-theists.

I mostly use google which is great because you can look anything up right quick. In the olden days we had places called "libraries" where they kept "books". We also used to write letters and had black and white TV. In them days we used to do the washing up by hand too.