Argument against "lacktheism"

[Alien826]

It is the second case, that one cannot claim a proposition false because it has yet to be proven, where theists find solace. I would argue that this safe haven is an illusion and does not provide the protection claimed.

Yes. The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is trivially true, but only because absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

 

[osgart]

Your perception, my perception, anyone's individual perception is wholly insufficient to make an objective determination. That is the great lesson learned with the advent of the scientific revolution. We human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures. We can not and should not rely solely on our own perceptions. This concept is beautifully illustrated in medical research, where double-blind methodology is employed so that neither the participant nor the experimenter know who is receiving the study treatment and who is receiving the placebo. Even being a highly educated and trained professional is insufficient to ensure objectivity in a researcher. This idea that we must maintain appropriate skepticism of our own perceptions is one that is difficult for many to accept. I suspect that it is something that you may not have fully internalized.

When you and others refer to "God" or "Gods" and how they may be classified, there is no distinction being made as to whether one is talking about imagined entities or objectively existent things. The conversation starts and remains within a theistic paradigm in which the entities being talked about are explicitly assumed possible, and to even use the labels and refer to the claimed characteristics of the imagined entitles provides strong confirmation bias to the theist that there is actually something there to talk about. To even debate the existence of "God" (a label with no true meaning given its indiscriminate and divergent uses) places both parties firmly in a box of abstract construction where whatever can be imagined is possible. The non-believer should not even enter the box, which is what you seem to be taking issue with.

I would suggest to you that your use of language on this topic provides tacit acceptance for all the unevidenced premises used to support the formation of such concepts, regardless of your intentions.



Classical Philosophy is another box that does not require appropriate skepticism of personal perceptions. I would recommend setting aside classical philosophical terms such as "physicalist/materialist naturalism" and all the outdated baggage that such terms carry.

As to "spiritual laws", the topic would be another example of jumping into a theistic paradigm. It is an imaginary construct. How does one demonstrate what does not exist other than to both point at its absence and lack of empirical indicators to suggest its possibility? No empirically verified indicators have been presented, as far as I am aware.

Which leads to your last recommendation, explaining the efficacy of a scientific approach to acquiring objective knowledge and understanding of the world. I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is convincing someone to be skeptical of their own perceptions and the need to set aside their emotional needs, wants, and desires when evaluating these issues. On top of this is the need to accept that some questions cannot be currently answered and may never be answered, to accept the unknown as unknown. The deeper an intrenched belief or emotional attachment, the strong confirmation bias will hold sway over an individual. Simply making a clear and cogent argument would be insufficient.



It is my recommendation that everyone avoid entering the realm of philosophy for the reasons stated above.

I would also take issue with the last sentence. Is an atheist drawing their conclusions solely from their own perceptions? I would suggest that they are basing their determination on the current scientific consensus, in which acquired knowledge is held with varying degrees of confidence depending on levels of corroboration and verification, and outside of that consensus of knowledge would be designated as unknown or possibly unknowable. In other words, they are not making their determination on their perception at all.

What about morals, values, qualities of character, behavior, and what a person can learn on their own about such things?

All that corroboration, verification, and consensus may be group bias that reflects the limits of a group's shared and agreed upon epistemology.

People start with axioms they consider to be self evident but may not be provable and depending on those axioms they will draw conclusions.

So while much of philosophy is garbage, that does not mean that people, especially scientists are not doing philosophy of their own. They have to come up with an epistemology and a paradigm that they can work with. Assumptions are a part of the epistemology.

I really don't want to box myself into a particular epistemology while boxing too much out of it.

Everyone having their own philosophy is unavoidable. Philosophy merely questions all questions, and assumptions; it is thinking about one's thinking, and challenging our everyday axioms, and assumptions. It's the landscape of everything a person can think of, and new ideas too. So while there will be a junkyard of ideas, and land mines to avoid, there will also be useful inputs. Plus it reveals things about human nature.

Stories and ideas draw motivation and take on a life of their own.

 

[MikeF]

What about morals, values, qualities of character, behavior, and what a person can learn on their own about such things?

Behavior is simply the observed actions of a biological organism, in this case Homo Sapiens. Such actions or behaviors are the culmination and result of many factors including genetics, in vivo and childhood development, physical and social environment and their unique set of personal experiences.

Morals, values, ethics, and quality of character are expressions of someone’s subjective preferences. I say someone’s because such subjective preferences can be imposed on others depending on political power structures. Additionally, each new generation is socialized into the existing social structure and its dominant mores, values, taboos, etc. These sets of social values and taboos can evolve and change over time as societies change. On an individual level, attitudes about values and taboos can be greatly influenced by socialization or overt indoctrination. Beyond that it will depend on their unique personality formed by all the factors listed above for behavior.

All that corroboration, verification, and consensus may be group bias that reflects the limits of a group's shared and agreed upon epistemology.

Make no mistake, Homo Sapiens have limitations. We have our obvious physical limitations and more importantly the physical limitations of our central nervous system. But with billions of observers, each uniquely flawed to varying degrees, and over thousands of years, an objective picture can be pieced together from all that imperfect data. Once the scientific revolution occurred and investigation no longer relied on the fallible intuition of an individual philosopher, understanding of the world and ourselves grew exponentially. We are confident in that knowledge gained scientifically because it allows us to form more accurate and consistent expectations as well as continuing to open new valid doors of inquiry and exploration. In short, it is working, overcoming bias that leads to dead ends.

People start with axioms they consider to be self evident but may not be provable and depending on those axioms they will draw conclusions.

Umm, no, people start out as a newborn baby relying on reflexive instinctual behaviors in response to external stimuli. Over time, they begin to catalog what they experience and begin to form expectations based on those experiences. Knowledge of the external world, then, becomes reasoned expectation based on prior experiences. In essence, we are all born as amateur empiricists, as amateur scientists if you will.

Where we human beings can go astray is when we try to extrapolate beyond known experience in an effort to allay our fears about uncontrollable events or fears about the unknown. While our reasoning ability is quite useful, our thinking is in abstraction which easily allows us to imagine both non-existent things as well as that which cannot exist. This tendency to stray from reality into imagination is what scientific inquiry is designed to mitigate.

So while much of philosophy is garbage, that does not mean that people, especially scientists are not doing philosophy of their own. They have to come up with an epistemology and a paradigm that they can work with. Assumptions are a part of the epistemology.

I really don't want to box myself into a particular epistemology while boxing too much out of it.

Scientists are people, just like the rest of us. All of us have our foibles, biases, cultural conditioning, etc, etc. The question is whether the institution of inquiry, be it Science, Philosophy, or Religion, recognizes and acknowledges the flaws and fallibilities of their investigators and then takes active measures to mitigate those flaws and fallibilities throughout the investigative process. Is the knowledge held by the institution presented with varying degrees of confidence or is it presented in absolutes? Does the institution make claims beyond what has been corroborated by experience?

Everyone having their own philosophy is unavoidable. Philosophy merely questions all questions, and assumptions; it is thinking about one's thinking, and challenging our everyday axioms, and assumptions. It's the landscape of everything a person can think of, and new ideas too. So while there will be a junkyard of ideas, and land mines to avoid, there will also be useful inputs. Plus it reveals things about human nature.

Stories and ideas draw motivation and take on a life of their own.

I would argue that it would be science that questions all questions and assumptions. In terms of what remains in modern Philosophy I think I would agree that it has become an idea engine, a safe space to imagine and speculate beyond current scientific limits. But again, the product of such speculation has to be held with the commensurate confidence due speculation. In terms of individual and social subjective preferences, I think here too philosophy can be useful in terms of creating thought experiments to explore the pro’s and con’s of different moral, social, and political systems, but their value is speculative until tested within real social systems. And again, whether it is a philosopher, scientist, or average joe, it is still people making subjective choices in their modeling and goals for the social systems they are speculating about. In the end, it all comes down creating political buy-in if one wants to make changes to the current state of affairs. In terms of social preference exploration and evaluation, I see a lot of overlap between philosophy and literary fiction which I think ties in with your last sentence above.

 

[MikeF]

Exactly the kind of question that we need to be asking ourselves.
Wisdom involves the imposition of criteria upon the application of knowledge. So what will this criteria be based on? What will be it's goal(s)? What should they be? What shouldn't they be? These are not political questions, they are philosophical questions. And they are the very questions we humans need to be asking ourselves and each other at this moment in history. Not; "how does this work so we can manipulate it to our advantage?"

Yes, that is one of the very important questions that we need to be asking ourselves and each other right now, but we are NOT asking, because we are instead obsessed with ever new and more technological trinkets, and the illusion that we are ever more in control of our own destinies as a result. (We aren't.)

Well, we are in seeming agreement on the importance of asking who gets to decide how knowledge can and should be applied and who decides social values and norms etc. I have said these questions fall into the realm of subjective preference and are therefore a political matter. You disagree saying that they are philosophical questions.

Well, if I accept that assertion, who arbitrates between philosophers who promote opposite and conflicting ideas on the use of knowledge, or conflicting stances on certain moral questions?

When you say these are philosophical questions, can only trained philosophers weigh in with an opinion on these matters? If so, what would be the criteria to qualify?

As I see it, you aren’t solving anything by saying it’s a philosophical issue. Who else but imperfect fallible humans will be doing the philosophizing? I’ll be curious to see how you resolve this problem.

Religions can't tell people what to think. Some of them try, and some people want that, but by and large that just doesn't work. And no one wants it to. Instead, religions invite people to think for themselves, and about themselves: to self-reflect, and to consider their relationship to a world that's bigger and at least as important as they and their own desires are.

This seems to be a heartfelt expression of the way you wish things to be, not a reflection of reality on the ground. I am going to stipulate that neither of us has done an in depth study to support either opinion, nor has access to respected studies that reflect our opinion. Anecdotally from my experience, only the Unitarian Universalist churches I have attended would fit with your description above. Your description does not match my experience with Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, or non-denominal Christian churches I have attended. These churches were more than happy to tell people what to think and to have one verbally affirm that belief during service. They also did not encourage anyone to think for themselves.

There are probably 100 churches in the county I live in, and in nearly every one of them this Sunday the sermon will be about asking how we are failing to live up to the ideals that we consider to be divine, and how we could perhaps do a little better in that regard in the future. Sure, there will be a couple of preachers spewing hatred and condemnation toward the "sinful world" and all that, but they will be by a great margin, the oddities.

And where else in our culture are people being invited or inspired to reflect on exactly those kinds of questions; that we need to reflect on to begin to define and understand what wisdom might be, as opposed to knowledge and control? Perhaps in a college level philosophy class? But even there, it will tend to be presented as an "intellectual lesson" rather than an earnest quest. Is there even any real philosophical debate going on anywhere, anymore? Certainly none that an average citizen would ever encounter.

Except perhaps in church.

This seems a reiteration of the hypothesis that there is value in having society members periodically review and affirm social norms and values in the presence of others as a proactive way of encouraging compliance or maintaining buy-in. As I said, there may be value in this, it would be difficult to study, but again we are back to who decides the values, and in a free society, can or would you compel attendance.

It doesn't work that way. We aren't going to think and talk our way to becoming wise. We're going to have to engage in it as an actual deliberate quest, and be willing to play a bit part in a much bigger saga. But none of this is happening now, nor will it happen so long as we are all completely distracted and obsessed with our technological trinkets, and with the illusion that we can or will somesay control our own destinies if we can just figure out how it all works so we can manipulate it all to our advantage.

Ha, if we’re not going to think and talk ourselves into becoming wise, what the heck do we need the philosophers for that you are so insistent upon. This paragraph is an example of your quixotic subjective ideation. You have a visceral animosity towards what you call “our technological trinkets”. You require humanity to engage in a quest, but we still have to decide what we should be questing to or for; to simply say wisdom has no meaning without a realistic description of what that is and be universally perceived as wisdom. I think the biggest impediment to any utopian dream is that we are forced to work with human beings essentially as they are. Whatever system is created, it still needs to account for our underlying instinctual behavior and leverage it in ways that have an overall positive effect because they can’t be ignored and they are not going to be eliminated. And again, given that we can’t help but have differences in our needs and wants, whatever overarching goals or values are chosen, they will be the result of compromise.

Me too. I see "belief" as a kind of mental/emotional illness. Like an addiction. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is the long dark hallway that leads to insanity and the death of the mind. But you seem to only see belief as belief in some religious god-image.

This would be more of your quixotic subjective ideation in my view. I’m not a psychologist nor a behaviorist, but to say belief leads inexorably to insanity and death of the mind seems quite extreme to me. I might go as far as saying that belief can be stagnating. I think we should also entertain the idea that, for whatever reason, belief could be necessary somehow or for some individuals. Perhaps belief mitigates worry about the uncontrollable or unknown so that the individual doesn’t spiral down a long dark hallway to insanity. This is why objective study of human behavior is so important. The better our understanding of human behavior, the less we have to be at the mercy of our reflexive default responses to events and circumstances.

And you ignore faith all together even as faith is the antidote for the sickness of belief.

Don’t get me started on faith, my least favorite word in the English language. Faith, as used in religion, as opposed to colloquial usage as a synonym for ‘hope’, is worse than belief. My experience with its religious use would be defined as unconditional belief without evidence or even in spite of contradictory evidence. Faith is the friend of the exploiter and the preserver of ignorance.

Whereas this new belief in science as the only true pathway to truth is just as sick and twisted as any religious zealot's unquestioned belief in his mythological, inerrant god.

I get that these sentiments are very real for you, but they are certainly not universally shared. I think you have a good understanding of how I weigh in, but for the readers at home: The goal of scientific inquiry is not some nebulous concept of “truth”. Instead, it is the persistent endeavor to build an objective understanding of the world and how it works. Belief is not required as the success of the scientific approach speaks clearly to its efficacy.

It doesn't matter, because it is NOT being achieved by any other method, currently, with the rare exception of fine art. It's barely being achieved by religion. And anyway, who cares what the method is being called? The point is that we are being invited to reflect on ourselves, and on our ideals, and on our relationship with the world around us. And we are being invited to ask ourselves about the values, meaning, and purpose that we are currently ascribing to life, and if these define the human being that we really would like to become. Because it's in asking these kinds of questions that we will finally begin to confront our own lack of wisdom. And perhaps begin to see the steps we need to take to gain some for ourselves.

I don’t think you fully appreciate that even if everyone reflects on themselves, and on their ideals, and on their relationship to the world around us, that there is a high probability most will not match your conclusions on wisdom and ideals. So, in the end, we are still back to political compromise.

 

[MikeF]

This is not possible, as perception is conception. For us to recognize and understand any new experienced or observed phenomena means that we have placed it within the context of what we already believe we know about existence. And this presumed "knowledge" is inevitably going to be our subjective opinion, as we cannot claim to possess the truth of existence. There are no "objective events" from our perspective. All events that we perceive are subjectively perceived. Because perception is the process of contextualizing and labeling experience within our pre-conceived idea of what is.

I’m not here to change your mind. I know you feel very strongly about this. I agree wholeheartedly with you that all events that we perceive are subjectively perceived. The issue then, is whether there are means and methods available to us, collectively, that enable us to move beyond our individual subjective perception and create a more objective perspective. I am saying we can, and do, and that the success of those means and methods in creating a more objective perspective speaks for itself. The readers at home can decide for themselves which of us is closer to the mark.

Perhaps we would like you to try and understand that 'objectivity' is a myth, that, if it exists, is not accessible to we humans.

Seems to me that objectivity being a myth is essential in some way to your philosophical worldview. I’m sorry that reality inconveniently conflicts with it.

All your 'evidence' is subjective opinion that cannot then be claimed as proof of objectivity.

It is clearly convenient for you to think so, but alas, such is not the case.

All evidence is subjective, and there is plenty of subjective evidence for the existence of God.

And now we see why objectivity has to be myth and illusion in your eyes, for it to be otherwise would make it impossible to maintain your philosophical worldview where an artificial construct of reality can be created and populated with the entity or entities that best meet your subjective needs, wants, and desires.

It is up to the folks at home to decide if they too wish to be objectivity deniers to meet some personal need, or whether they are willing to accept the objective picture of the Cosmos that is slowly being built over time, regardless of how it may impact their current worldview.

 

[PureX]

I’m not here to change your mind. I know you feel very strongly about this. I agree wholeheartedly with you that all events that we perceive are subjectively perceived. The issue then, is whether there are means and methods available to us, collectively, that enable us to move beyond our individual subjective perception and create a more objective perspective. I am saying we can, and do, and that the success of those means and methods in creating a more objective perspective speaks for itself. The readers at home can decide for themselves which of us is closer to the mark.



Seems to me that objectivity being a myth is essential in some way to your philosophical worldview. I’m sorry that reality inconveniently conflicts with it.



It is clearly convenient for you to think so, but alas, such is not the case.



And now we see why objectivity has to be myth and illusion in your eyes, for it to be otherwise would make it impossible to maintain your philosophical worldview where an artificial construct of reality can be created and populated with the entity or entities that best meet your subjective needs, wants, and desires.

It is up to the folks at home to decide if they too wish to be objectivity deniers to meet some personal need, or whether they are willing to accept the objective picture of the Cosmos that is slowly being built over time, regardless of how it may impact their current worldview.

Yes, we can collectively move beyond our individual bias regarding reality. But we cannot move beyond our collective bias regarding reality, to establish the objective truth of reality. Which seems to be the delusion that you are so intent on defending.

Pointing out the objectivity is a myth does not mean it doesn't exist. It simply means that we don't/can't know it to be so, i.e., verify our conceptualizations of it. Atheists seem to have difficulty understanding this because they are so habituated to presuming that myths have no association with reality.

Objective reality is a myth because it's a realm of existence that we cannot cognitively enter. That doesn't mean it's not 'there' (here). It just means we cannot comprehend it objectively.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, we can collectively move beyond our individual bias regarding reality. But we cannot move beyond our collective bias regarding reality, to establish the objective truth of reality. Which seems to be the delusion that you are so intent on defending.

From what objective perch do you perceive this inescapable collective bias? What reference lets you know it exists and cannot be overcome?

 

[PureX]

From what objective perch do you perceive this inescapable collective bias? What reference lets you know it exists and cannot be overcome?

That's just my point. There IS NO OBJECTIVE PERCH from which we can assess any degree of objectivity, and therefor no honest, logical way for us to be proclaiming it.

 

[MikeF]

That's just my point. There IS NO OBJECTIVE PERCH from which we can assess any degree of objectivity, and therefor no honest, logical way for us to be proclaiming it.

The reality is, there is a lot of objective information an average human being can learn about reality, the same way in which other animals garner objective information, and that is through their senses. Simple things like the consistency of gravity, properties of water, effects of different temperatures are all objective data points about the real world. We are the product of millions upon millions of years of evolution which has resulted in refinement and sophistication of our sense organs specifically to provide us accurate and objective information about the objective world around us so as to aid in our very survival. It is primarily when we extrapolate beyond straight forward perception utilizing abstract thought that we can get into trouble, all else being normal. Obviously brain abnormalities, brain injury, and illness can adversely affect our perceptions.

Objectivity is not illusory or mythological despite your need for it to be in order to accommodate your imagined concept of reality. The principles and standards of scientific inquiry provide the mechanisms for error correction to ensure we remain within objective reality as we work to build our understanding of it and it is this that has you so chuffed and antagonistic towards science. It shatters the pretense that imagined realities can be considered possible.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, we can collectively move beyond our individual bias regarding reality.

Facts are what describe reality. Bias is anything that can't be confirmed as existing but believed and claimed.

But we cannot move beyond our collective bias regarding reality, to establish the objective truth of reality. Which seems to be the delusion that you are so intent on defending.

What you describe as reality is typically rampant with assumvtions and religious belief, combined with bias against science, so unless you are going to reel in your beliefs then there won't be any collective understanding of reality that you will accept.

Pointing out the objectivity is a myth does not mean it doesn't exist. It simply means that we don't/can't know it to be so, i.e., verify our conceptualizations of it. Atheists seem to have difficulty understanding this because they are so habituated to presuming that myths have no association with reality.

You suffer a common religious problem in that you think in absolutes, and dismiss that even we atheists understand that what our position is TODAY can change tomorrow if new information is attained. This is why atheists tend to value science and how it constantly seeks to gain more data so it improves what it describes of reality. We atheists know that what we understand today isn't a final conclusion, but it is the best we can do as of today. We also understand that religious claims are baseless, and until believers attain facts, or at least some credible evidence, their claims won't be accepted. Oddly many believers think they have absolute knowledge, even though that belief is fatally flawed due to a lack of evidence.

Objective reality is a myth because it's a realm of existence that we cannot cognitively enter. That doesn't mean it's not 'there' (here). It just means we cannot comprehend it objectively.

We humans can be certain of some things. We just don't have a complete and absolute understanding of everything. Those who know what can be known and what isn't (like supernatual beings doing anything) have an advantage in the 21st century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is trivially true, but only because absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

That is not necessarily true. There are all sorts of events that would leave massive evidence behind. A lack of evidence of that event happening would be evidence of absence. My friend across town claims that his neighbor set off a thermonuclear device. I cam over everything looks fine. I pull out my handy dandy Geiger counter and it only reads background radiation. There was no evidence for the blast. Since we would expect to see massive evidence we can conclude that there was no blast.

The phrase needs a qualifier. Absences of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is not necessarily true. There are all sorts of events that would leave massive evidence behind. A lack of evidence of that event happening would be evidence of absence. My friend across town claims that his neighbor set off a thermonuclear device. I cam over everything looks fine. I pull out my handy dandy Geiger counter and it only reads background radiation. There was no evidence for the blast. Since we would expect to see massive evidence we can conclude that there was no blast.

The phrase needs a qualifier. Absences of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

"Absences of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. "
A good qualifier, please, I appreciate.

Regards

 

[PureX]

The reality is, there is a lot of objective information...

The reality is that none of us can assess it objectively, so as to proclaim our grasp of it to be "objective". No matter how many times and ways you try to spin this to be something other than what it is, it just isn't going to spin. I understand that you really want to believe that you can know "objective reality", but so long as it's YOUR KNOWING, it's really just your subjective opinion. There simply is no way around this. And presuming your opinion is "objective knowledge" is not going to make it anything other than what it is: your subjective opinion. No matter how many times you insist and repeat that it's not.

 

[PureX]

Facts are what describe reality. Bias is anything that can't be confirmed as existing but believed and claimed.

Facts are based on our already inaccurate, incomplete, and biased vision and understanding of reality. And because of this, they are either deemed true or false in relation to other facts, that are themselves being deemed true of false in relation to ... you get the point. Facts are not truth. They are just bits of information that we have decided comport with lots of other bits of information as we have assembled it all in our heads. Reality is just an illusion of experiential continuity that we have invented in our minds.

What you describe as reality is typically rampant with assumtions and religious belief, combined with bias against science, so unless you are going to reel in your beliefs then there won't be any collective understanding of reality that you will accept.

Why not, we are just as capable of inventing collective ideas of reality as we are of inventing individual ideas of reality. And in fact, we are all doing both all the time.

You suffer a common religious ...

I am not religious, so please stop trying to paint me with your anti-religious bias.

We humans can be certain of some things.

Our imaginary certitude is irrelevant to this discussion. The simple fact is that we can't honestly or logically be certain of anything.

We just don't have a complete and absolute understanding of everything.

And therefor, we cannot honestly or logically be certain of anything. Because we don't know what or how everything we are so certain of would be different were we to obtain a full understanding of it.

 

[MikeF]

The reality is that none of us can assess it objectively, so as to proclaim our grasp of it to be "objective". No matter how many times and ways you try to spin this to be something other than what it is, it just isn't going to spin. I understand that you really want to believe that you can know "objective reality", but so long as it's YOUR KNOWING, it's really just your subjective opinion. There simply is no way around this. And presuming your opinion is "objective knowledge" is not going to make it anything other than what it is: your subjective opinion. No matter how many times you insist and repeat that it's not.

That's cool. Not here to change your mind, simply provide an alternative view. I think we pretty much laid out our positions on the matter.

Till next time.

 

[F1fan]

Facts are based on our already inaccurate, incomplete, and biased vision and understanding of reality.

So we can't know that an orange on a table is a fact? We can't know anything is a fact, in your view (that doesn't stop you from asserting these statements as if factual)?

How do you know? Maybe we humans DO have accurate and unbiased understanding of many many things, yet you dismiss this as a blanket bias? You don't seem to have thought out this view of yours as you make such definitive claims. You can't have it both ways.

You are correct that knowledge is incomplete, but you make no effort to acknowledge what IS known, and toss it all out because we don't have complete and absolute knowledge, as if gods. That is your ongoing error.

And because of this, they are either deemed true or false in relation to other facts, that are themselves being deemed true of false in relation to ... you get the point. Facts are not truth. They are just bits of information that we have decided comport with lots of other bits of information as we have assembled it all in our heads. Reality is just an illusion of experiential continuity that we have invented in our minds.

So is this statement a fact and truth? If so, then why write about how we can't know anything and sound like a hypocrite? If not, then why did you bother to write it? Maybe you are wrong. and this just your illusion. Either way, you lose.

Why not, we are just as capable of inventing collective ideas of reality as we are of inventing individual ideas of reality. And in fact, we are all doing both all the time.

Because religious ideas not only aren't factual and based on reason, they are used for deliberate deception against society. For critical thinkers such belief in ideas that not only aren't factual, but facts suggest these ideas aren't true means they are rejected. Yet you have accepted these ideas as you go on to be critical of reason and what can be known. Collective ideas about how the universe functions is fact-based, and unlike collective ideas that assert a god exists and acts a certain way for a certain reason. This is what critical thinkers know, and it is an advantage over your approach which allows unwarranted assumptions, and openly advocates for bias against science and reason. Ironically you post claims that supposedly are reasoned, when they are not. So again hypocritical: being critical of thinking and knowing while trying to present an illusion of a reasoned and true statement.

I am not religious, so please stop trying to paint me with your anti-religious bias.

Odd you have contempt for atheists, then.

This is odd of you, because you are very much religious in your assumptions. My guess is that you are trying to negate your religious assumptions as a default deception. Dear Emperor, you think you are dressed while others notice you have no clothes on.

Our imaginary certitude is irrelevant to this discussion. The simple fact is that we can't honestly or logically be certain of anything.

Speak for yourself. The educated critical thinker can know what is certain about knowledge and what isn't. You are a typical believe who has a vested interest in denying certain bits of knowledge for your personal ideology, as murky and confused as it is. It's funny to observe, you are like a guy who claims that we are all lost in the fog and there you are with a fog machine everywhere you go. You have certainly created your own truth and uncertainty. You need to ask yourself what you are afraid of.

And therefor, we cannot honestly or logically be certain of anything. Because we don't know what or how everything we are so certain of would be different were we to obtain a full understanding of it.

False. Clearly we don't have to know everything to know what we do know. We have discovered how atomic energy works. It blows me away how much we know about cells and how they work. We are actually able to cure many cancers. Yet you assert we can't be certain. Really? You are diagnosed with cancer, science offers a tretment, the treatment cure the cancer, and you're not certain of any of it?

This is your own problem, and of your own doing. You don't appreciate what we have discovered. I have seen many creationists use this same argument to criticize science and hope to create doubt that it has reliable conclusions about evolution. You're in bad company. I'm happy to be in the company of critical thinkers and atheists.

 

[MikeF]

So is this statement a fact and truth? If so, then why write about how we can't know anything and sound like a hypocrite? If not, then why did you bother to write it? Maybe you are wrong. and this just your illusion. Either way, you lose.

I got a kick out of this comment. Loved it.

 

[PureX]

Maybe we humans DO have accurate and unbiased understanding of many many things ...

Maybe so. Maybe not. The issue is that we are not able to determine what is true from what is not true objectively (beyond our opinion).

You are correct that knowledge is incomplete, but you make no effort to acknowledge what IS known, and toss it all out because we don't have complete and absolute knowledge, as if gods. That is your ongoing error.

I'm not "tossing anything out". I'm simply pointing out that what we think we "know" is really just our opinion about 'what is'. We don't objectively know 'what is'.

So is this statement a fact and truth?

This statement is true: presumed knowledge is uncertain knowledge. And uncertain knowledge is really just an opinion.

... then why write about how we can't know anything and sound like a hypocrite?

Because it's true. All human knowledge is presumed knowledge. That you won't accept this is not my problem.

Maybe you are wrong.

The fact that you had to write "maybe" proves that I am not.

Odd you have contempt for atheists, then.

I have no contempt for atheists because they are atheists. I have contempt for fools because they are fools. Not all atheists are fools, of course, but the number of fools among them is increasing.

This is odd of you, because you are very much religious in your assumptions.

No, I'm really not. But you have very little actual understanding of religion or theism, so to you I suppose it all looks the same.

Speak for yourself. The educated critical thinker can know what is certain about knowledge and what isn't.

The more you think you know, the less willing and able you will be to learn something new. "Knowing" is a huge and blinding bias. Real critical thinkers understand this innately, while the fools tell us all how much they think they 'know'.

 

[Alien826]

That is not necessarily true. There are all sorts of events that would leave massive evidence behind. A lack of evidence of that event happening would be evidence of absence. My friend across town claims that his neighbor set off a thermonuclear device. I cam over everything looks fine. I pull out my handy dandy Geiger counter and it only reads background radiation. There was no evidence for the blast. Since we would expect to see massive evidence we can conclude that there was no blast.

The phrase needs a qualifier. Absences of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Hmmmm. OK.