• 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?

icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
You are welcome and free to present your evidence of Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics having whatever the sources of knowledge they have of their own specifically.
Regards
Click to expand...

I would say that - for the most part - my knowledge is based on evidence, either directly or indirectly. For example when I first learned mathematics, I didn't see evidence for mathematics, but now I see abundant evidence that math works. Closer to RF, I would say that I see abundant evidence that theocracies typically run roughshod over human rights, this evidence leads me to be suspicious of theocracies. These are just a few examples.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
icehorse said:
I would say that - for the most part - my knowledge is based on evidence, either directly or indirectly. For example when I first learned mathematics, I didn't see evidence for mathematics, but now I see abundant evidence that math works. Closer to RF, I would say that I see abundant evidence that theocracies typically run roughshod over human rights, this evidence leads me to be suspicious of theocracies. These are just a few examples.
Click to expand...
Is it a scientific argument? Please
Regards
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
paarsurrey said:
In many matters one does not need or demand any evidence. Right?
Click to expand...
Cephus said:
Depends on the claim. For commonplace claims, not really. For extraordinary claims, like the existence of a god, absolutely.
Click to expand...
Cephus is right on both counts, paarsurrey.

If you going to make claims that defy reality, nature or physics, then yes people are going to be skeptical of such claims, and would expect evidences.

The more physical and tangible the evidences are, the better is. And that evidences have to be verifiable.

The more incredible the claims, the more skeptical people are going to be. Some people would fall for it, but others won't. And if the only thing can provide is, are just your words or testimony, then there are chances that you could be telling the truth, but there are the chances -
  • you could be lying,
  • you could be exaggerating/embellishing,
  • your emotions are clouding judgement,
  • you could be biased,
  • you could be hallucinating or be delusional,
  • etc
How can we tell you are not doing any one or more those things, above?

The answer to that, is "evidence". Evidence that we can verify it is true, or refute to be false.

This is why evidences that can be verified or tested is so important in science.

If we look at the 3 examples below, I will explain what I mean.
  1. Muhammad claimed that Angel, but there are no evidence to support, except his say-so.
  2. Muhammad say that he is a prophet of God, but other than his words and people believing that he one, there are no evidences to his prophethood.
  3. Muhammad claimed that the Qur'an come from God, and again there are no evidences to support his words, other than believing in him.
None of these he had claimed he could collaborate with evidences, just his words and his undeniable charisma, but any political leader, lawyer, salesman, actor or even con-artist can be eloquent or persuasive enough to get people believe what they want, doesn't necessarily mean that what he say is true.

That's not evidences, that people believing in what he say; that's FAITH, not FACT.

I have seen you do that many times before: you confuse "faith" with "fact". The later rely on evidences, the other rely on belief and faith in that belief.
 
Noa

Noa

Active Member
I have not read all thirteen pages. The original post was very brief. Could the original poster expound a bit as to what they mean by source of knowledge? Every human utilizes thought, experience, and so forth. What specifically are you aiming for?
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Cephus said:
You're welcome to be. You're also welcome to ask for evidence or reasoning for my claims and I will provide it. That's how rational debate operates.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm also within reason to not ask for evidence that I know will be faulty or not forthcoming, etc.:thumbsup:
 
Cephus

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
q konn said:
Right, I'm also within reason to not ask for evidence that I know will be faulty or not forthcoming, etc.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You don't have to ask for anything, but if you're just assuming that it will be faulty, the fallacious thinking is yours.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Cephus said:
You don't have to ask for anything, but if you're just assuming that it will be faulty, the fallacious thinking is yours.
Click to expand...

/your statement is true if I don't already know that your wrong in a certain conclusion that you've arrived at, ie the argument is ''wrong'' , regardless of the context or conclusion.
 
Last edited:
s13ep

s13ep

42
New Atheists and other evils are just as spiritual as some Theists, they conduct rituals and practice magic; blood sacrifices to a God or Godhead, casting invisibility, and such (I even imagine they dabble in the 'erb), but by way of things that they have worded, and evolved, to be logical; such as by 'telling a joke', or 'group laughter' (where one on the receiving end of the joke is sacrificed). It's a sick ritual that corporations, the state and Academia have us involved in, and they are supported by the New Atheist movement---they cast invisibility upon their overlords, they sacrifice the intelligent to boost their own and Godheads will. And so, their sources of knowledge are prior magic practices, or ritualistic behaviour, worshipped by, New Atheists and other evils, as logic, in effort to pervert the course of justice.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Cephus said:
You're welcome to be. You're also welcome to ask for evidence or reasoning for my claims and I will provide it. That's how rational debate operates.
Click to expand...
q konn said:
Right, I'm also within reason to not ask for evidence that I know will be faulty or not forthcoming, etc.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate, considering that you think it is already made judgement before you have seen or heard what the other person have to say.

This is preconception and bias rolled into one, is truly not logical reasoning, q konn.

Leaving out science and religion in this example:

If two people (A & B) put forward their opposing arguments, and I was to judge each judgement impartially, I would not only have to listen and understand what both sides of arguments. If one person (A) say he has evidence and provide them, and the other person (B) no evidence to present to me, I would at least be able to verify the person A's evidence if it is true or not. Without evidence from person B, I am most likely favor person A.

But if both sides presented verifiable evidences for their respective cases, then I would be to analyse and verify which side's argument is more likely.
​
Do you understand q konn?

If you don't want to hear what Cephus, then your mind is already made up. That's "bias" talking, not logical reasoning. You think Cephus' evidence is faulty, but since you don't want to see it at all and don't want to verify the evidence to be true or not, then you have already lost the debate, because you don't think anyone else is right except you, speak of only your arrogance and ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top