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

[paarsurrey]

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

 

[Cephus]

Uh, is there any particular reason why our sources of knowledge would be different from anyone else's?

They're not, everyone gets their knowledge from the same places, whether they want to acknowledge that or not. Theists assert additional sources of knowledge that they cannot demonstrate. Atheists don't feel the need to make things up.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

I don't think you will like the way this will go.

 

[allfoak]

I don't think you will like the way this will go.

I think he knows what way it will go.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think you will like the way this will go.

For instance? Please
It will add to our knowledge. Won't it?

Regards

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For instance? Please
It will add to our knowledge. Won't it?

Regards

Can you clarify for me what you mean by your second part challenge? Are you talking about everything I have ever claimed ever? Or do you want us to narrow the field a bit.

 

[gnostic]

It really depends on the application of knowledge.

I have a qualification as a civil engineer. It required knowledge in civil design, but that depends on what field in civil engineering that I'd want to pursue, such as structural design, road work, in water work (like water pipe or sewerage system), etc. I would needs some basics, like maths and physics that are related to these fields.

None of the subjects require me to know any specific religion, any specific deity, or read any specific scripture or related religious literature. The bible and Qur'an are both utterly worthless, because they couldn't help me to study or graduate in the fields of civil engineering.

I had also computer science qualification and no scriptures can help me with knowledge in programming, algorithms, database design or administration, networking and a whole lot of other stuffs.

Likewise, if I want to learn about religion, I would read their scriptures...that if they have any. I wouldn't attempt to use engineering or computer science textbooks to find out something about religion or god(s).

And one thing for certain, the sources of knowledge in civil engineering or computer science didn't come from god, if that's what you are suggesting.

Each knowledge have their uses, applications and limitations (or scope), and often they are not interchangeable.

And over the years, I have acquired many different knowledges, that are unrelated to computers, engineering and religion/mythology.

So what specific knowledge are talking about?

 

[LuisDantas]

For instance? Please
It will add to our knowledge. Won't it?

Regards

I don't think so.

You seem to be implying that we would have access to 100% reliable sources of information if we only dared to accept / believe in them. And also that it is something of significant practical importance.

I fear you will be disappointed in both regards, and sorely so.

 

[paarsurrey]

It really depends on the application of knowledge.

I have a qualification as a civil engineer. It required knowledge in civil design, but that depends on what field in civil engineering that I'd want to pursue, such as structural design, road work, in water work (like water pipe or sewerage system), etc. I would needs some basics, like maths and physics that are related to these fields.

None of the subjects require me to know any specific religion, any specific deity, or read any specific scripture or related religious literature. The bible and Qur'an are both utterly worthless, because they couldn't help me to study or graduate in the fields of civil engineering.

I had also computer science qualification and no scriptures can help me with knowledge in programming, algorithms, database design or administration, networking and a whole lot of other stuffs.

Likewise, if I want to learn about religion, I would read their scriptures...that if they have any. I wouldn't attempt to use engineering or computer science textbooks to find out something about religion or god(s).

And one thing for certain, the sources of knowledge in civil engineering or computer science didn't come from god, if that's what you are suggesting.

Each knowledge have their uses, applications and limitations (or scope), and often they are not interchangeable.

And over the years, I have acquired many different knowledges, that are unrelated to computers, engineering and religion/mythology.

So what specific knowledge are talking about?

Did I talk of Bible or Quran in this thread?
I don't think so.

Thanks for participating in the discussion however.

gnostic said: ↑Each knowledge have their uses, applications and limitations (or scope), and often they are not interchangeable.

I appreciate your above point.

Please be expressive on the sources in relations to your knowledge that you have acquired very diligently.

Also you may please respond to the the second stage questions in my post #41 above.

You are welcome.

Regards

 

[Riverwolf]

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?

Accuracy to what, exactly?

I should hope the knowledge we get covers all the aspects of our lives. We do tend to act based on our knowledge.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can you clarify for me what you mean by your second part challenge? Are you talking about everything I have ever claimed ever? Or do you want us to narrow the field a bit.

There is no challenge here. Just to compare our notes to understand one another as human beings with different thought , opinion and shades.

• To mention against every source the accuracy of every source in %.

• Do their sources, all combined give 100 % accuracy?

It is very rational to give the sources and their accuracy in % as the experts of that filed give.

If one has given one's sources, that would reflect in its total.The total cannot be more accurate than them individually.

It is open for everybody.

Regads

 

[gnostic]

It is very rational to give the sources and their accuracy in % as the experts of that filed give.

Nothing is 100% accurate, not even in civil engineering or computer science.

There are always room for improvement or various and alternative design that can be used to achieve the same result.

Computers for examples, was quite primitive in the 60s, and couldn't achieve much. But every year the design of every component, become faster, smarter, smaller or more efficient than the one before.

It is the same way with engineering. I could design and have bridge in various different ways or what materials to use for construction, etc. And in Australia, there are number of safety standards that I have to follow.

The resources or sources for either civil engineering or computer science are vast. And technology keep changing, so how I am to tell which sources are more accurate than the others?

In the real world, the world keep changing. Asking for 100% accuracy so many different fields, is being ignorant of the reality that different knowledge can also change over time.

So again, I would you want specific knowledge do you want to talk about, if it is about religion or not?

 

[allfoak]

If the only true knowledge comes from knowing ourselves, then the accuracy of the knowledge of any individual would depend upon the ability of that individual to know themselves.

In truth, it is not really the accuracy of the knowledge that should be of concern, but rather how much of our true self are we able to mirror in our life.
Most are living one image or another and denying who they are, rather than learning who they are, which leaves them in a place of ignorance.

 

[Vinayaka]

Common sense.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nothing is 100% accurate, not even in civil engineering or computer science.

There are always room for improvement or various and alternative design that can be used to achieve the same result.

Computers for examples, was quite primitive in the 60s, and couldn't achieve much. But every year the design of every component, become faster, smarter, smaller or more efficient than the one before.

It is the same way with engineering. I could design and have bridge in various different ways or what materials to use for construction, etc. And in Australia, there are number of safety standards that I have to follow.

The resources or sources for either civil engineering or computer science are vast. And technology keep changing, so how I am to tell which sources are more accurate than the others?

In the real world, the world keep changing. Asking for 100% accuracy so many different fields, is being ignorant of the reality that different knowledge can also change over time.

So again, I would you want specific knowledge do you want to talk about, if it is about religion or not?

It is simply about the sources and the accuracy of the sources.

You know there are people here with many thousands of posts who say that history is 100% correct and want see everything in terms of history. If a thing is not expressed in terms of history they think it not to be useful.

There are others who see things in terms of science and still others who think everything should be mathematical.

And all such people are masters in their subjects or have a degree of doctorate.

I am an ordinary person, life is as important to me as it is to them. I have to see through the things.

 

[paarsurrey]

Common sense.

And "Common sense is not so common."
* Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If the only true knowledge comes from knowing ourselves, then the accuracy of the knowledge of any individual would depend upon the ability of that individual to know themselves.

In truth, it is not really the accuracy of the knowledge that should be of concern, but rather how much of our true self are we able to mirror in our life.
Most are living one image or another and denying who they are, rather than learning who they are, which leaves them in a place of ignorance.

If the only true knowledge comes from knowing ourselves

Please quote for the source.

Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

And "Common sense is not so common."
* Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)

Indeed. The source of my knowledge was my mother, God bless her.

 

[paarsurrey]

Indeed. The source of my knowledge was my mother, God bless her.

G-d bless her.

Regards

 

[Iti oj]

empirical observations. Repeatability. Predictive and explanatory powers.