You're basically referring to the idea that we stand on the shoulders of giants, right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics! What are your sources of knowledge?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
You're basically referring to the idea that we stand on the shoulders of giants, right?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
These sources did not exist in their current format 3000 years ago, yet the Universe/s existed with all the facts in it, so the Knowledge was there.
Regards
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
You've got a really weird definition of knowledge.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yeah, I agree.
He seemed to be saying that the only knowledge we all need in this life is the Qur'an. As if the bl@#dy book have the know-how to make coffee for me.
Bah!
I never said that. Quran supports all truthful knowledge and does not oppose it. Your understanding is faulty.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Of course - What we know now is based on what was learned by generations before. A few generations from now, we will be part of the giant which is stood upon.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Pay attention to my words. I expressed that already.
Everything I have expressed thus far only applies to Western thought.
In its current form, no - Western Culture didn't exist 3,000 years ago, so how could these sources have existed in their current form. That being said, I also used the qualifier of cultures and history. Unless you're an anthropological expert on the cultures of 1,000 BCE, you cannot claim to know what was or wasn't known 3,000 years ago.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
You're certainly using the word in a bizarre manner. Maybe you ought to give a definition so we're all aware of your usage.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
First I would like to know as to what unusual you understood or noticed.
I will correct you concept.
Regards
Knowledge as in "the ability to know something is true"?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I think I should elaborate my point.
Whatever knowledge people in the West or East had say 3000 years ago, it did not have the same disciplines as you mentioned in your post (and the list was no complete). These disciplines sprouted centuries after and were established in the Western format.Right
The natural factors generating knowledge in the Universe were at work 3000 years ago as they are at work now. These factors work independently whether human beings are ignorant of them or are know them.
Hence we may conclude although these sources did not exist in their current format 3000 years ago, yet the Universe existed with generating the facts in it, so the Knowledge was there.
Does it help bringing us on the same page?
Regards
One does wonder what you mean when you say that there was knowledge 3000 years ago.
It is indeed all but certain that some knowledge existed back then. But for that very reason it is a bit of a puzzle why you make a point that it did. You seem to be presenting that statement as an evidence or conclusion of some sort, but I for one am simply not understanding what you mean.
Knowledge is something that sentient, sensitive or rational beings attain. It does not exist without some sort of recording device or mind to collect it.
I would not be too surprised to find out that you are somehow misunderstanding the concepts. I'm not quite certain, but your use of "knowledge" seems to be in fact a bit closer to the meaning of... "academic discipline", perhaps?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Like I said, we're saying the same things. The data has always been there. The difference between ignorance and knowledge is discovery. That's all.
And for the record, of course my list wasn't complete. You had asked for breaking it all down into three or four sources. My point was that what you had asked for silly because there are thousands of sources, each with thousands of subsets.
It's not just me who is confused by your use of the word knowledge. We attain knowledge and understanding - it's not some ethereal thing just floating out in the space that we can go and grab. It's not a finite object that is attainable.
We learn and make discoveries based on experience, experimentation, and, well, a whole lot of other ****. We don't take bites of one giant source of "Knowledge" - we gather and learn, and the results of those experiences create knowledge. If, for example, mankind just suddenly vanished from existence, then the only knowledge on this planet would lie in the minds of the remaining higher mammals, who may, over the course of their grand evolutionary journey, discover different answers to the same questions that we have discovered for ourselves - thus, their knowledge would be different.
Do you follow?
knowledge is not a proper noun.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
If there will be no factual properties in something there will be nothing for the sentient, sensitive or rational beings to gain knowledge from. Since there are propertied endowed in things, therefore, there is possibility of gaining knowledge by someone.
Regards
In other words, existence brings with it the potential for people to learn about it?
Sure.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
They are no different than those of anyone else, the best sources of knowledge are whatever works.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
gnostic
The Lost One
No, paarsurrey. It is your understanding of the very word "knowledge" that has bewildered you. You simply don't understand what knowledge mean, and your evasiveness in supplying a definition to knowledge when others have asked you for one, prove your ignorance.
And the Qur'an doesn't say ANYTHING AT ALL, about supporting other knowledge.
Can you quote verses from the Qur'an in which it supported other (non-religious) knowledge?
Or are you going to evade this question or request too?