Originally posted by bobbob1056thOh come on! You don't really believe this nonsense, do you? Existence is the gift, not some poor bastard's getting himself strung up.
What's wrong with being an "ATHEIST" you ask... besides rejecting the best gift you can receive and going to hell when you die, there's not much else that's "wrong" with being an "ATHEIST".
2 edits
Originally posted by yousersJust keep expanding the groups of gauge fields and manifolds until you can't think of anymore. Then let somebody else worry about it.
True, sir, but how can you ever be certain you are not stepping into another studio? How are you sure they do not continue ad absurdium? How do you escape the mal genie??
Originally posted by yousersIn short, you give up the belief that knowledge requires certainty, and then you reason abductively from the content of your conscious experiences to the existence of an external world. Only if you think that you can't know something unless it can be shown with P=1 should you be concerned about Cartesian demons and the possibility of wholesale deception.
How do you escape the mal genie??
Originally posted by bobbob1056thWhat's wrong with being "A-THEIST" you ask?
What's wrong with being an "ATHEIST" you ask... besides rejecting the best gift you can receive and going to hell when you die, there's not much else that's "wrong" with being an "ATHEIST".
Everything.
Oh . . . sorry its one word.
Originally posted by bbarrWhat is knowledge if you can never be certain of it? I cannot simply accept a theory of knowledge such as JTB without absolute certainty to the exclusion of all other theories. If we give up certainty, then how can you conclude that your knowledge is correct while that of a theist is not? Do you simply define knowledge as that which you achieve by some obscure method?
In short, you give up the belief that knowledge requires certainty, and then you reason abductively from the content of your conscious experiences to the existence of an external world. Only if you think that you can't know something unless it can be shown with P=1 should you be concerned about Cartesian demons and the possibility of wholesale deception.
Without certainty, how can you distinguish truth from falsity with any objectivity?
Originally posted by yousersYou believe that you have a left foot. It is possible that you are merely hallucinating the presence of a left foot. Hence, you cannot be absolutely certain that you have a left foot. Hence, by your criterion of certainty, you cannot know that you have a left foot. But, of course, you know you have a left foot. Hece, your criterion of certainty is silly and wrong.
What is knowledge if you can never be certain of it? I cannot simply accept a theory of knowledge such as JTB without absolute certainty to the exclusion of all other theories. If we give up certainty, then how can you conclude that your knowledge is correct while that of a theist is not? Do you simply define knowledge as that which you achieve by some ob ...[text shortened]... e method?
Without certainty, how can you distinguish truth from falsity with any objectivity?
Originally posted by bbarrCorrection, I do not KNOW (with the certainty that I desire) that I have a left foot, since I cannot be certain, but I believe that I do. Your critereon for knowledge cannot give undeniable knowledge. It requires another element: faith. You must assert and believe that you have knowledge by using this method. Hence, there is nothing universal about it.
You believe that you have a left foot. It is possible that you are merely hallucinating the presence of a left foot. Hence, you cannot be absolutely certain that you have a left foot. Hence, by your criterion of certainty, you cannot know that you have a left foot. But, of course, you know you have a left foot. Hece, your criterion of certainty is silly and wrong.
One man puts his faith in a god and takes his religious doctrine as truth. You put your faith in your favorite theory of knowledge and take that as truth.
Originally posted by bobbob1056ththis is nothing inherently wrong with being atheist. keep in mind that the weak atheist (or better yet, the meek atheist) claims arguably very little.
What's wrong with being an "ATHEIST" you ask... besides rejecting the best gift you can receive and going to hell when you die, there's not much else that's "wrong" with being an "ATHEIST".
there is nothing wrong with expecting your beliefs to be coherent and make some sense. there is nothing wrong with questioning dogmatic principles that offer no proof for their justification. there is nothing wrong with questioning the validity of books that were written by ordinary men. there is nothing wrong with admitting the world is hard to figure out and thinking that maybe no one really knows the answers. there is nothing wrong with keeping your mind open to reason and new ideas. there is nothing wrong with questioning practices that others take for granted. there is nothing wrong with seeking out the truth.
even if a person is a strong atheist, i see no reason why his hard and fast beliefs are any more wrong or arbitrary than yours.
1 edit
Originally posted by yousersWell, if you believe that knowledge requires certainty, then by your own criterion nobody knows anything at all. This is certainly a bizarre entailment, and indicates that you merely use the term 'knowledge' in an idiosyncratic manner nobody need take seriously. Further, and interestingly, since it is at least possible that knowledge does not require certainty, you cannot be abosolutely certain that knowledge requires certainty, and hence by your own criterion you cannot know that knowledge requires certainty. Finally, if knowledge requires certainty, as you claim, then why should any of us be concerned with knowledge? If I can have a belief that is overwhelmingly probable given my evidence, then why should I be concerned with the putative fact that I don't have knowledge? Not only is global skepticism of the sort you endorse self-refuting (because you can't know that knowledge requires certainty), but it makes knowledge into something that is irrelevant to our lives. If I am justified in believing that I have a left foot (say, hypothetically, because given my evidence the belief that I have a left foot is 99.99999...% likely) then why on Earth should I care that my belief is not absolutely certain? Nothing in this requires faith at all, not one little bit. I am perfectly happy having beliefs that are overwhelmingly justified given my evidence.
Correction, I do not KNOW (with the certainty that I desire) that I have a left foot, since I cannot be certain, but I believe that I do. Your critereon for knowledge cannot give undeniable knowledge. It requires another element: faith. ...[text shortened]... faith in your favorite theory of knowledge and take that as truth.
In short, if you claim that I don't know what I believe, then I have three responses: 1) You use the term 'knowledge' in an idiosyncratic manner, and have given me no reason to think that knowledge requires certainty, 2) Your own criterion for knowledge entails that you can't know that knowledge requires certainty, and 3) If knowledge did require certainty, knowledge would be irrelevant to our epistemological concerns.
Originally posted by bbarrGee, I don't know about all that.😕
Well, if you believe that knowledge requires certainty, then by your own criterion nobody knows anything at all. This is certainly a bizarre entailment, and indicates that you merely use the term 'knowledge' in an idiosyncratic manner nobody need take seriously. Further, and interestingly, since it is at least possible that knowledge does not require certai ...[text shortened]... knowledge did require certainty, knowledge would be irrelevant to our epistemological concerns.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHoly Mackerel !!
Well, if you believe that knowledge requires certainty, then by your own criterion nobody knows anything at all. This is certainly a bizarre entailment, and indicates that you merely use the term 'knowledge' in an idiosyncratic manner nobo ...[text shortened]... ty, knowledge would be irrelevant to our epistemological concerns.
Gets my rec, do Fundies need assurances from Scripture before tying both shoes?
😛
Originally posted by bbarrScience speaks of degrees of certainty.
Well, if you believe that knowledge requires certainty, then by your own criterion nobody knows anything at all. This is certainly a bizarre entailment, and indicates that you merely use the term 'knowledge' in an idiosyncratic manner nobody need take seriously. Further, and interestingly, since it is at least possible that knowledge does not require certai ...[text shortened]... knowledge did require certainty, knowledge would be irrelevant to our epistemological concerns.
btw i never look up the meanings of 7 syllable words.