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

[kidkunjer]

You can't control what's in your genes, at least not yet, but you can control everything else.
Perception isn't a matter of choice but of biology. You see what your eyes see, your brain interprets those signals. What you decide to think about those signals is up to you, of course, but the images you receive are objective, you see what is, limited only by the mechanisms in your biology.

I can see that you believe all that, but i don't find it convincing at all. This is precisely what i'm talking about. Your faith in these things is clouding your judgement, making you talk in paradoxes.

You disagreed with me when I said that I cared about what was actually true, not what felt good to believe was true. I don't care about comfort at all. What is, is. How it makes me feel is irrelevant.

you assert this but all evidence points the other way. How can i believe it when you demonstrate the opposite? It seems to me that part of what brings you comfort is the belief that you don't care about comfort. I guess this makes you feel stronger, more resilient, strokes the ego, gives comfort.

I'm not arguing against consciousness at all, I have no idea where you got that from. At best, I'm saying that consciousness has no effect on objective reality

you and i obviously have very different perspectives on what makes up "objective reality". It seems that if one thing is certain, and another is not, it seems extremely odd to call that which is uncertain "objective reality", before you've even demonstrated it exists at all.

That there are two alternatives and one of them must be true. If one is false, the other, by definition, must be true. Most systems are not so well defined. In most systems with multiple options, the true answer must be independently verified as being true, not simply assumed to be true.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that you've just set up a system whereby the only way not to be conscious is to be dead, which seems a bit extreme to me.

I have not set anything up. I've simply observed what is.

But you've largely just said that so long as you are alive and your brain is functioning, you are conscious, therefore, by your own seeming definition, you can prove you are conscious just by remaining alive. I don't see your definition making things any easier, sorry.

again with the comfort. Its not there to make things easier or more comfortable to you, its there to describe reality. If you don't like reality then there's very little i can do to help.

 

[kidkunjer]

How so?

isn't that an almost exact definition of the placebo effect?

 

[Cephus]

I can see that you believe all that, but i don't find it convincing at all. This is precisely what i'm talking about. Your faith in these things is clouding your judgement, making you talk in paradoxes.

Whether you are convinced by it is irrelevant. I have no faith, you're seeing things that do not exist, just as your entire position is about seeing things that do not exist. You prefer things a certain way so you insist that they are that way. I accept reality as it actually is without adding anything to it. You're engaging in projection.

you assert this but all evidence points the other way. How can i believe it when you demonstrate the opposite? It seems to me that part of what brings you comfort is the belief that you don't care about comfort. I guess this makes you feel stronger, more resilient, strokes the ego, gives comfort.

Which describes your position, in fact you've admitted as much in the past, you want things to be a certain way because you are attached to fiction and the like. Then you try to impose that view on me because you don't want to feel bad about your own position.

you and i obviously have very different perspectives on what makes up "objective reality". It seems that if one thing is certain, and another is not, it seems extremely odd to call that which is uncertain "objective reality", before you've even demonstrated it exists at all.

But that's the thing, there is no perspective, there is only reality. Reality is what we can collectively and objectively see, touch and test. It is an ever-expanding circle, we are constantly learning more about the universe and as we learn more, we accept that as a demonstrated part of reality. We'll probably never understand it all but that's fine, knowledge is a work in progress.

I have not set anything up. I've simply observed what is.

No, you've "observed" what you want to be, not what is. You've said so yourself. You like certain things, therefore you refuse to believe that those things are not real or important. You insist on putting your own personal spin on things, such that because it appeals to you, because you get emotional comfort from it, that it has to mean something. You really need to stop looking in the mirror when you accuse others. It's irrational.

 

[kidkunjer]

Whether you are convinced by it is irrelevant. I have no faith, you're seeing things that do not exist, just as your entire position is about seeing things that do not exist. You prefer things a certain way so you insist that they are that way. I accept reality as it actually is without adding anything to it. You're engaging in projection.

1) tell me just 1 instance where this is the case
2) tell me just one example of where I've said i believe anything at all.
3) Give me just 1 example when I've said i don't accept something with proof of it.
4) tell me just 1 example when I've said i'm attached to fiction that i like.
5) tell me just 1 example in support of anything you've said whatsoever.

you're blindly madly asserting things that are so far away from the truth, you must be either trolling, or seriously mentally ill. So far i have made not 1 single assertion, I have not presented anything that I've asked you to believe, I have been reasonable and as respectful as i could whilst you descend further and further into the gutters of rationality and fundamentalism.

Answer at least one of my 5 requests, or i will know you are either mad or troll and end this interaction forthwith.

 

[Willamena]

You can't control what's in your genes, at least not yet, but you can control everything else.
Perception isn't a matter of choice but of biology. You see what your eyes see, your brain interprets those signals. What you decide to think about those signals is up to you, of course, but the images you receive are objective, you see what is, limited only by the mechanisms in your biology.

I can see that you believe all that, but i don't find it convincing at all. This is precisely what i'm talking about. Your faith in these things is clouding your judgement, making you talk in paradoxes.

What about what he said doesn't make sense to you?

 

[Cephus]

What about what he said doesn't make sense to you?

I didn't read it as not making sense, I read it as not being emotionally attracted to what I said, hence he doesn't want to accept it. However, I might be wrong in that, I just figured that someone who is acting entirely on emotion isn't really worth having a rational discussion with.

 

[StopS]

Everybody could respond. Theists or Non-theists.

Many theists are my enemy. They want me to believe what they believe - without evidence. They try and indoctrinate me and my children.
Most theists don't, they don't care. But too many do. Too many want to kill me - because I don't believe what they believe. A small group almost managed. Only for not believing.

So I need to know my enemy and why it is they want me to believe nonsense. That's why I read the texts and talk to their clerics and seek interaction to understand what makes them tick and learn where the weaknesses are so I can destroy their belief and make them leave me alone, sending religions to where they belong, a museum.
Millions of brains are focused on imaginary problems originating from imaginary gods instead of helping solve the real problems we have on this planet.

 

[gnostic]

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

If that's true, then what we have (truth) is really subjective, and it is no better than personal opinion or personal belief.

This is why I think people using the term "truth" are based on experiences that may or may not be true, which make people claiming they have the "truth" to be pointless exercise, because there are so many versions of truth.

This make the term "truth" useless, and the current definition irrelevant.

 

[Willamena]

If that's true, then what we have (truth) is really subjective, and it is no better than personal opinion or personal belief.

Not so much, because there's this thing called relative, and it trumps objectivity. Truth can be objective and relative.

This is why I think people using the term "truth" are based on experiences that may or may not be true, which make people claiming they have the "truth" to be pointless exercise, because there are so many versions of truth.

This make the term "truth" useless, and the current definition irrelevant.

No, it's just true for each of us.

 

[Milton Platt]

I personally don't describe myself as a skeptic. I just realize and acknowledge, not just admitting and knowing, that I know nothing.
As for what is knowledge, everything we observe and take in is knowledge. There is something to be learned from everything.

I can sorta buy that, as long as critical thinking comes into play. As Aristotle said, you should be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

 

[Pudding]

Everybody could respond. Theists or Non-theists.

Regards

Definitions of knowledge:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

What is the sources of knowledge?

Knowledge can comes from:
- books of variety topic, the knowledge in those books can be the accumulative collective works of people's research by using logic/experience/experiment.
- life's experience, by observing what works best and learn from the mistakes.

 

[paarsurrey]

Definitions of knowledge:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
What is the sources of knowledge?
Knowledge can comes from:
- books of variety topic, the knowledge in those books can be the accumulative collective works of people's research by using logic/experience/experiment.
- life's experience, by observing what works best and learn from the mistakes.

Then the Atheists should not deny the truthful revealed religion that has a revealed book and the truthful prophet had experiences the revelation from G-d. It is not against science and it works for advancement of humans in ethical, moral and spiritual realms, not covered by science.
Regards

 

[Iti oj]

Then the Atheists should not deny the truthful revealed religion that has a revealed book and the truthful prophet had experiences the revelation from G-d. It is not against science and it works for advancement of humans in ethical, moral and spiritual realms, not covered by science.
Regards

imo holy books are evidence against the gods they purport

 

[paarsurrey]

holy books are evidence against the gods they purport

How? Please
Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

imo holy books are evidence against the gods they purport

Are you going to present that evidence, at some point?

 

[Iti oj]

How? Please
Regards

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

 

[Iti oj]

Are you going to present that evidence, at some point?

are you going to listen to some one state there opinion and try to understand?

 

[Desert Snake]

are you going to listen to some one state there opinion and try to understand?

This is not an excuse for not presenting evidence, all the while complaining that I am not being 'specific' enough about my Deity adherence.

 

[Iti oj]

This is not an excuse for not presenting evidence, all the while complaining that I am not being 'specific' enough about my Deity adherence.

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.

 

[s13ep]

This is not an excuse for not presenting evidence, all the while complaining that I am not being 'specific' enough about my Deity adherence.

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