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

[paarsurrey]

And rational people understand that and don't pretend to achieve, or even seek, absolute certainty. That's the mark of an intellectually mature individual.

If there is truth and certainty; why it cannot be achieved? And yet one believe it exists.
Does one mean that Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics are wanting in sources of truthful knowledge to gain certainty?

Regards

 

[Cephus]

If there is truth and certainty; why it cannot be achieved? And yet one believe it exists.
Does one mean that Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics are wanting in sources of truthful knowledge to gain certainty?

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.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

It is rational to ask this question when the sources are enumerated as:

Science, facts and reality

Truth is the source of knowledge.

Yes, and ultimately truth.

Please give the percentage of certainty of the sources at the disposal of Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics, after mentioning all and giving the percentage of certainty against them, one by one.

Please

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is truth and certainty; why it cannot be achieved? And yet one believe it exists.

There is truth, but we are not particularly well equiped to finding out what it is.

Does one mean that Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics are wanting in sources of truthful knowledge to gain certainty?

Regards

You could see it that way if you really wanted to, I suppose. We usually don't see a point in doing so.

 

[Parsimony]

Thanks for your response.

For example let us classify three types of knowledge, knowledge by certainty of reason, knowledge by certainty of sight, and knowledge by certainty of experience.

This might be illustrated like thus:

1. When a person perceives smoke from a distance his mind conceives that smoke and fire are inseparable, and therefore where there is smoke there must be fire also. This would be knowledge by the certainty of reason.

2. Then on a nearer approach one sees the flames of the fire and that is knowledge by the certainty of sight.

3. Should one enter one’s hand into the fire, that would be knowledge by the certainty of experience.

Which one of the above gives 100% certainty to one, in your opinion?

Regards

Technically, none of them do. I could potentially hallucinate any one of those things if I had been poisoned by the right kind of chemical. Or those experiences could take place in a dream. Or we could be inside of a complex computer simulation and nothing that we experience is objectively real in the first place.

 

[Maldini]

Every knowledgeable thing. Like science.

 

[gnostic]

Truth is the source of knowledge.

But, whose "truth"?

Each religion believe they have "the truth"...but which one?

They all like to throw words around, like "truth", or "reality" or "peace", but they have corrupted them with their blind faith and their biases.

Because each one make a claim, truth has become subjective, just like one's personal opinion.

I like my knowledge to be more verifiable than any written scripture.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It is rational to ask this question when the sources are enumerated as:

Please give the percentage of certainty of the sources at the disposal of Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics, after mentioning all and giving the percentage of certainty against them, one by one.

Please

Regards

There are, literally, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sources that you are unknowingly asking for.
Everything ever written by humans is part of the basis of human knowledge. Your premise is quite flawed - I think we all know where it's headed though...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hoyle rejected the Big Bang because he had an emotional attachment to his own pet idea, one that had no evidence to support it. .

yes, atheism

rational people understand that and don't pretend to achieve, or even seek, absolute certainty. That's the mark of an intellectually mature individual.

Those people call it faith

 

[Harikrish]

There are, literally, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sources that you are unknowingly asking for.
Everything ever written by humans is part of the basis of human knowledge. Your premise is quite flawed - I think we all know where it's headed though...

It is harder than you think.
80% of Churchgoers Don't Read Bible Daily, LifeWay Survey Suggests

80% of Churchgoers Don't Read Bible Daily, LifeWay Survey Suggests | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com

 

[paarsurrey]

There are, literally, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sources that you are unknowingly asking for.
Everything ever written by humans is part of the basis of human knowledge. Your premise is quite flawed - I think we all know where it's headed though...

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

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But, whose "truth"?

Each religion believe they have "the truth"...but which one?

They all like to throw words around, like "truth", or "reality" or "peace", but they have corrupted them with their blind faith and their biases.

Because each one make a claim, truth has become subjective, just like one's personal opinion.

I like my knowledge to be more verifiable than any written scripture.

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

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Regards

"Blind faith in truth"?

What do you mean? Is it at all strange that skeptics do not claim to know everything, nor to have access to something that does?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Regards

Who believes in Truth? *shudders*
Every time I see capital T for truth, I break out in hives. Put me in the 'No, I don't believe in Truth, but suppose you could say some things are true (factual) camp'. Sorry of that doesn't help your argument.

 

[Willamena]

There is truth, but we are not particularly well equiped to finding out what it is.

If that's true, then... it's false.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
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

Who believes in Truth? *shudders*
Every time I see capital T for truth, I break out in hives. Put me in the 'No, I don't believe in Truth, but suppose you could say some things are true (factual) camp'. Sorry of that doesn't help your argument.

I have changed the T of Truth to t of truth.
Now what is the change in your views?

Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have changed the T of Truth to t of truth.
Now what is the change in your views?

Regards

Sure, truth exists. Most of it is of the mundane and uninformative variety, though.
For example, it's true that I live in Melbourne. It's also true that I would get a sharp pain if I smacked my foot with a hammer.

I'm not certain this is the sort of truth you're asking about though. What sort of truth ARE you asking about?

 

[Willamena]

But, whose "truth"?

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

Each religion believe they have "the truth"...but which one?

They all like to throw words around, like "truth", or "reality" or "peace", but they have corrupted them with their blind faith and their biases.

Because each one make a claim, truth has become subjective, just like one's personal opinion.

The question is about atheist/agnostics. They do not look for "truth" in religious statements.

I like my knowledge to be more verifiable than any written scripture.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure, truth exists. Most of it is of the mundane and uninformative variety, though.
For example, it's true that I live in Melbourne. It's also true that I would get a sharp pain if I smacked my foot with a hammer.

I'm not certain this is the sort of truth you're asking about though. What sort of truth ARE you asking about?

I mean the Absolute truth that is why I used capital T and not t.
There cannot be a relative truth if there exists no absolute Truth.

Regards

 

[Bunyip]

I mean the Absolute truth that is why I used capital T and not t.
There cannot be a relative truth if there exists no absolute Truth.

Regards

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.