• 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?

LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Paarsurrey, to the extent I may support your second stage questions, I must say that 100% reliability is not something worth worrying about. Better to simply do our best, which when reliability is a concern usually means employing the scientific method.

Being an Atheist does not factor into it. Or at least it should not.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Cephus said:
What is demonstrably left when people stop believing in it.
Click to expand...

Not how I'd define reality, and probably not how you define reality in practice either, but whatever floats your boat. It is not my intent to derail this thread with this particular conversation. Point is, people have different ways of understanding what reality is, and it is, at most, a philosophical position. So when people say they derive knowledge from "reality" I really don't know what they mean by that. Which philosophical understanding of reality? Which map of the territory?
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
LuisDantas said:
Paarsurrey, to the extent I may support your second stage questions, I must say that 100% reliability is not something worth worrying about. Better to simply do our best, which when reliability is a concern usually means employing the scientific method.

Being an Atheist does not factor into it. Or at least it should not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for supporting me.
Scientific method is not designed to cover every and all aspects of life. It could be only one among many sources though.
I don't understand as to why 100% reliability is not desired. Please elaborate.
How much minimum % of reliability is a must for a good source?

Regards
 
P

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
I'm not an atheist, but I'll give this a try. I get my knowledge from books, the Internet, television, people directly telling me things, reasoning and first-hand experience.
paarsurrey said:
Those who have joined the discussion (as per OP) and have mentioned their sources of knowledge, in the second stage I would like them:
  1. To mention against every source the accuracy of every source in %.
  2. Do their sources, all combined give 100 % accuracy?
  3. If not, how do they cover the grey area not covered by their sources?
  4. Do they cover all aspect of our lives?
This is just to self-assess our sources and to improve upon them, if possible.

Regards
Click to expand...
(1) I really don't know where to begin when it comes to calculating the percent accuracy of my sources. Some are probably very accurate while others are not.
(2) Nope.
(3) They don't. I just accept that I can't know anything with 100% certainty.
(4) Maybe. There might be some that I'm forgetting.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
Thanks for supporting me.
Scientific method is not designed to cover every and all aspects of life. It could be only one among many sources though.
I don't understand as to why 100% reliability is not desired. Please elaborate.
How much minimum % of reliability is a must for a good source?

Regards
Click to expand...
How could we even know we have 100% reliability? It is just not possible.
 
Cephus

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Quintessence said:
Not how I'd define reality, and probably not how you define reality in practice either, but whatever floats your boat. It is not my intent to derail this thread with this particular conversation. Point is, people have different ways of understanding what reality is, and it is, at most, a philosophical position. So when people say they derive knowledge from "reality" I really don't know what they mean by that. Which philosophical understanding of reality? Which map of the territory?
Click to expand...

That's absolutely how I'd define reality, it is what is left when people take away their assumptions, assertions and claims. It's what actually exists beyond human perception. I don't think it's at all philosophical.
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Cephus said:
That's absolutely how I'd define reality, it is what is left when people take away their assumptions, assertions and claims. .
Click to expand...

that's why acknowledging our faith, our personal beliefs is important, be they theistic or atheistic, would you agree?
 
Cephus

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Guy Threepwood said:
that's why acknowledging our faith, our personal beliefs is important, be they theistic or atheistic, would you agree?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. Personal beliefs and faith that vary from reality are simply wrong. I don't care how strongly one believe in leprechauns, that doesn't make leprechauns exist. Anyone who believes in something for which there is no evidence has an unwarranted and irrational belief. That is not something to be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top