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

[Willamena]

Why not?

Because there would be nothing to be in relation to something else.

 

[Bunyip]

Because there would be nothing to be in relation to something else.

Would you be kind enough to re-write that sentence please? I can not decipjer your meaning.

 

[kidkunjer]

We never know anything to any degree of absolute certainty. We can't even be absolutely certain that we exist. I don't even know for absolute certain that I'm real and neither do you. These kinds of things are simply not possible and pretending otherwise isn't rational. Everything that we "know" is just reasonable to a specific percentage of certainty.

are you sure? I cannot know that you exist, so to argue for that would be insane, but i know that i exist, as i am the one questioning it. I also know that i'm experiencing what i'm experiencing as i'm experiencing it. to deny it forms a paradox, and not just the linguistic kind either.

of course it may be that the reason you don't know that you exist, is because you don't.

NOT everything we know is a percentage of certainty, that's everything that we believe. You and I must have different definitions of what it means to know or believe.

 

[YmirGF]

I certainly don't rely on the various scriptures to validate my experience. My greatest sources of knowledge can be found in my failures throughout life. Those experiences taught me more than any books could ever impart.

 

[gnostic]

Yours, for you. Truth belongs to each of us.

That's right.

That's why I don't give much credence to religious people who use word like "truth". Their truth don't need verification or evidence; you just have to believe whatever their "good" books say. The books (scriptures) and religions sound more like a con.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why not?

Morals exist, even if objective morals do not. Truth exists, even if absolute truth does not.

Personally I believe that some things are absolute truths, like 'slavery is immoral' for example.

There are no absolute morals as they have to correspond with time and occasion.

Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

There cannot be a relative truth if there exists no absolute Truth.

There are no absolute morals as they have to correspond with time and occasion.

I think you're on the verge of something here... keep going.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If there are many sources, one may classify them in three or four groups.

Regards

Sure...

There are:

• Biology Sources
• Chemistry Sources
• Physics Sources
• Astronomy Sources
• Engineering Sources
• Climatological Sources
• Architectural Sources
• Agricultural Sources
• Social Science Sources
• Economical Sources
• Artistic Sources
• Business Sources
• Logistical Sources
• Communicational Sources
• Military Sources
• Behavioral Science Sources
• Mechanical Sources
• Mathematical Sources
• Legal and Political Sources
• Lingual Sources
• Health Care Sources
• Philosophical and Religious Sources

And that's only to name a few... Each of those particular sources themselves have a nearly inumerable about of subset sources of knowledge.

It is strange that Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics believe that Truth does exist, but cannot name a person who ever reached it or mention sources to reach it. Do they have blind-faith in Truth? Please

Given the small list above, which person (or persons) do you propose has somehow garnered all of the knowledge necessary for imparting Truth (capital T) to humanity?

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure...

There are:

• Biology Sources
• Chemistry Sources
• Physics Sources
• Astronomy Sources
• Engineering Sources
• Climatological Sources
• Architectural Sources
• Agricultural Sources
• Social Science Sources
• Economical Sources
• Artistic Sources
• Business Sources
• Logistical Sources
• Communicational Sources
• Military Sources
• Behavioral Science Sources
• Mechanical Sources
• Mathematical Sources
• Legal and Political Sources
• Lingual Sources
• Health Care Sources
• Philosophical and Religious Sources

And that's only to name a few... Each of those particular sources themselves have a nearly inumerable about of subset sources of knowledge.



Given the small list above, which person (or persons) do you propose has somehow garnered all of the knowledge necessary for imparting Truth (capital T) to humanity?

Please mention against them the level of certainty they generate in one.
Did all these disciplines ( and many more not listed by one) exist say about 3000 years ago?

Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please mention against them the lever of certainty they generate in one.
Did all these disciplines ( and many more not listed by one) exist say about 3000 years ago?

Regards

Huh?
Knowledge compounds... 2+2=4 is tested by 6+6=12. The same principle applies in various places while still generating testable and positive outcomes. It can thus be trusted that the basic premise is true. Extrapolate that to all branches of education. Boom - knowledge.

Did they exist 3,000 years ago? The material existed but the science did or did not, depending on which culture you're studying.

 

[paarsurrey]

Huh?
Knowledge compounds... 2+2=4 is tested by 6+6=12. The same principle applies in various places while still generating testable and positive outcomes. It can thus be trusted that the basic premise is true. Extrapolate that to all branches of education. Boom - knowledge.

Did they exist 3,000 years ago? The material existed but the science did or did not, depending on which culture you're studying.

2+2=4 is tested by 6+6=12

That is for the Mathematics; all disciplines are not in that format.
For example:

• Social Science Sources
• Economical Sources
• Artistic Sources
• Business Sources

These are not 2+2=4.
Are these?

Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

Of course not, man. It's a principle. Keep up.

 

[Paradox22]

That is for the Mathematics; all disciplines are not in that format.
For example:

• Social Science Sources
• Economical Sources
• Artistic Sources
• Business Sources

These are not 2+2=4.
Are these?

As I understand it, he was responding to your implication that since these sources of information are not 3000 years old, they have less weight or credibility. Age does not measure the worth of a source of information. If it did, it is unlikely that old ideas are more credible/useful than more recent sources of knowledge.

 

[Cephus]

are you sure? I cannot know that you exist, so to argue for that would be insane, but i know that i exist, as i am the one questioning it. I also know that i'm experiencing what i'm experiencing as i'm experiencing it. to deny it forms a paradox, and not just the linguistic kind either.

of course it may be that the reason you don't know that you exist, is because you don't.

NOT everything we know is a percentage of certainty, that's everything that we believe. You and I must have different definitions of what it means to know or believe.

No, actually, you don't know that you're experiencing anything, at least not to any degree of absolute certainty, that's the point. For all you know, you might just be a very complex computer program that is programmed to respond to "stimuli". You could be part of someone's very elaborate dream. You just don't know, that's why rational people don't judge the world in terms of absolute certainty, that simply isn't possible.

Further, while you do have experiences, one thing that I don't see theists ever question is the *SOURCE* of those experiences. You cannot draw a direct causal link between the actual experience and the actual cause of the experience. You claim a cause without being able to demonstrate a cause. Therefore, you don't know what you are experiencing, you are claiming to know what you are experiencing but you do so without evidence, logic or reason. You do it because the claim makes you feel good. That is not a good measure of truth.

So once we throw absolute certainty out the window as a ridiculous standard, we have to start measuring the most reasonable explanations for our experiences. We have to start looking at what we really understand about the world around us right this minute and provisionally select causes that match up with that understanding, realizing that as we learn more, we might have to re-evaluate our positions. Beliefs don't do that, they take positions that are emotionally satisfying to the believer as absolute, unchangeable truth, whether they can be justified as such or not. I don't know what your definition of terms is, I just know how to rationally evaluate positions and keep emotions out of the equation because emotions don't actually prove anything.

 

[Willamena]

Would you be kind enough to re-write that sentence please? I can not decipjer your meaning.

We can take things in an absolute context, as the thing-in-itself, or in the context of being in relation to something, anything or everything else. Truth is generally things in the former context; the latter is useful only for seeing the truth of the relation.

 

[paarsurrey]

are you sure? I cannot know that you exist, so to argue for that would be insane, but i know that i exist, as i am the one questioning it. I also know that i'm experiencing what i'm experiencing as i'm experiencing it. to deny it forms a paradox, and not just the linguistic kind either.

of course it may be that the reason you don't know that you exist, is because you don't.

NOT everything we know is a percentage of certainty, that's everything that we believe. You and I must have different definitions of what it means to know or believe.

kidkunjer said: ↑NOT everything we know is a percentage of certainty

We sometimes or often cannot know something unless it is expressed in comparison to something or in relation to something.
Suppose one is sick and has suffered a lot from a disease, one of his friend meets him and asks him as to how is he now. He responds saying I am 95% cured. It is not mathematical %age, yet it expresses eloquently.
I meant this expressive percentage. One should mention the sources of one's knowledge with the expressive percentage its lead one to certainty for clarity.

Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

One should mention the sources of one's knowledge with the expressive percentage its lead one to certainty for clarity.

But who does this? I mean, is that how you normally communicate?

"I'm 85% certain that what I learned at school today was pretty good stuff, mommmy."

"This here book right here is 'bout 48% acc-u-rate."

Knowledge (and yes sources of knowledge) is/are collective. It's not a single source that people give a percentage of certainty to, unless of course you're religious and you're trying to set up a response for offering something that "we can trust with 100% certainty."

 

[Bunyip]

We can take things in an absolute context, as the thing-in-itself, or in the context of being in relation to something, anything or everything else. Truth is generally things in the former context; the latter is useful only for seeing the truth of the relation.

Thanks for taking the trouble to re-state your comment, I'm sorry - but I still have no idea what you are trying to say. My apologies.

 

[9Westy9]

Everybody could respond. Theists or Non-theists.

Regards

Lot's of things. Mainly my own reason and understanding. Not perfect but I don't see anything better.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lot's of things. Mainly my own reason and understanding. Not perfect but I don't see anything better.

That is your input on the sources.Using the sources at your disposal.
Do you think Knowledge exists?

Regards