• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

dafydd said:
I like word games.
Click to expand...

[word game and reductio ad absurdum]You are so wrong, that you have abandoned your ability to be a true, rational, logical and objective human. You are now in violation of the true, logical, natural, physical and objective order of reality and you are a non-human. This is objective true, because this is how reality works!!![/word game and reductio ad absurdum]

So what do you understand the word objective to mean? :)
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
[word game and reductio ad absurdum]You are so wrong, that you have abandoned your ability to be a true, rational, logical and objective human. You are now in violation of the true, logical, natural, physical and objective order of reality and you are a non-human. This is objective true, because this is how reality works!!![/word game and reductio ad absurdum]

So what do you understand the word objective to mean? :)
Click to expand...

How do you know so much about a person that you have never met? Telepathy? I just checked in the mirror and I am definitely human. As for the topic of the thread, my atheism is based on logic and the total lack of evidence for the existence of gods.
 
Pixel42 said:
Did you click on the link?
Click to expand...

Well Pixel42 the link shows a series of videos, the first of which I watched.


I am unsure as to the connection between the subject of the series (or at least the first vid) and your expression

"People who choose to believe something for which there is no empirically verified evidence may be making a big mistake."

Other than all involved were the ones making the big mistake and that the big mistake can be traced way back over time.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
If it is objectively true, how is that beside any point?
Click to expand...

Because your criteria for labeling it "objective" is based on common agreement, not whether or not it's actually objectively true.

Navigator said:
To my understanding something cannot be declared 'general' or 'universal' if it is not first objectively agreed upon.
Click to expand...


Maybe the problem here is grammatical. What exactly do you mean by "objectively agreed upon"? That phrase can be interpreted in a variety of different ways, and each interpretation would give it a completely different meaning.

For example, one person might assume that it means that it's objectively true that people agree with it, while a second person might assume it means that people agree that it's objectively true, while a third person might assume that it means that people who consider the question objectively agree that it's true.

So what exactly do you mean by "objectively agreed upon"?
 
Navigator said:
1: Oh yes, which also in your opinion includes interest in life after death and ideas about god...even if one does not actually believe the hobby horse stuff, if I recall you correctly?

2: Sorry about that, here 'tis.
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop you being interested. But there is no empirically verified evidence of “life after death” and “ideas about god” or “pet hobby horse stuff” like the ‘pre-existing consciousness’ you previously wittered on about in this thread. These are no more than mere possibilities or subjective beliefs.

So far ALL evidence regarding things like “life after death (e.g. claimed NDE’s) has shown them to be natural phenomena. It’s possible that this will not always be the case but up to now it has been – as have ALL investigations into supposed supernatural phenomena to date.
 
Brian-M said:
Because your criteria for labeling it "objective" is based on common agreement, not whether or not it's actually objectively true.




Maybe the problem here is grammatical. What exactly do you mean by "objectively agreed upon"? That phrase can be interpreted in a variety of different ways, and each interpretation would give it a completely different meaning.

For example, one person might assume that it means that it's objectively true that people agree with it, while a second person might assume it means that people agree that it's objectively true, while a third person might assume that it means that people who consider the question objectively agree that it's true.

So what exactly do you mean by "objectively agreed upon"?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the actual content of the context.

The question asked was "is subjective knowledge possible in any sense?" which in the course of my answer another question was asked:

"What is the difference between subjectively, inter-subjectively and objectively agreed on? How do you explain your usage of objective instead of another word or no word at all; i.e. "that bit is agreed upon"?"

So to me it is better to use the word 'objective' in relation to the word 'subjective' rather than the words 'generally' or 'universally', especially when working with the fact that we each are experiencing the physical universe subjectively.

To my knowledge it is not argued that we are living on a planet in a galaxy in a universe. The 'we' are all subjective positions which agree to the objective position (which as you say is generally or universally' agreed on.

That bit is objectively agreed upon as far as I can tell. Otherwise the question might have to be:

"is objective knowledge possible in any sense?"

So the problem here might not be grammatical, but the language itself.

Or, as you say, to reduce the possibility of subjective individuals assuming a number of things from the word being used, that a more appropriate word such as generally or universally need be used.

So then...would those words be helpful in trying to answer the original question?

"is subjective knowledge possible in any sense?"

We know objective knowledge is. Certainly in relation to the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe and subjective experience to do with those things...objective knowledge is possible.
 
I've found (in my experience) that "subjective knowledge" is an incoherent concept. The useful concept is "subjective experience." The subjective is experienced; what is experienced is subjective; knowledge doesn't apply.

The inverse, "objective knowledge," also works as a concept, but only as an approximation, a shorthand phrase meaning "an explanation that is shared and successful among a group of people." "Explanations" include models, theories, and narratives, which need not necessary be true; thus, one can have shared agreed-upon knowledge of, for instance, the biography of Harry Potter or the movements of the Celestial Sphere.

Neither subjective experience, nor objective knowledge, equates with truth or has a sole claim to the potential for truth.

It's tempting to ascribe knowledge status to subjective experience. For example, I witness my next-door neighbor committing a crime. I am now certain that he's a criminal, but I have no evidence and cannot convince anyone else. Can I say "I know he's a criminal?" Not without hyperbole; I am certain of what I experienced (and subjective certainty is itself a valid and common experience) but I cannot know from that alone about my neighbor. Such doubt, the unwillingness to leap from subjective certainty to claimed objective knowledge, is a fundamental tenet of skepticism: I might have mistaken, or misinterpreted, what I saw. If a case comes to court, as a witness I might be asked "what did you see?" but not "is the defendant a criminal?"

By the way, "objective experience" is just as perilous a concept as "subjective knowledge." See, for instance, tons of spilled ink regarding qualia.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I've found (in my experience) that "subjective knowledge" is an incoherent concept. The useful concept is "subjective experience." The subjective is experienced; what is experienced is subjective; knowledge doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

I fail to accept that your subjective experience is not something that you are learning by.

It most obviously is Myriad. The content of your posts generally (and perhaps even universally) say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
I fail to accept that your subjective experience is not something that you are learning by.

It most obviously is Myriad. The content of your posts generally (and perhaps even universally) say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Telling others how they think is very rude.

(I fail to accept that your words mean what you say they mean and will insert my own meaning).
 
tsig said:
Telling others how they think is very rude.

(I fail to accept that your words mean what you say they mean and will insert my own meaning).
Click to expand...

I agree. However in this case I was telling others how I think.

"I fail to accept that your subjective experience is not something that you are learning by."
 
Navigator said:
I fail to accept that your subjective experience is not something that you are learning by.

It most obviously is Myriad. The content of your posts generally (and perhaps even universally) say otherwise.
Click to expand...


Of course I learn from my experience. (What else is there to learn from?) That doesn't mean that what I learn is subjective knowledge, nor necessarily even knowledge at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Of course I learn from my experience. (What else is there to learn from?) That doesn't mean that what I learn is subjective knowledge, nor necessarily even knowledge at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I will keep that in mind.

Now I have already said on numerous occasions that there is some knowledge to be gained from subjective experience, primarily that I am consciousness having a human experience - and all that such an experience involves - and no one has protested that.

I consider that to be knowledge, subjectively gained in relation to the general, universal objective reality.
 
Navigator said:
I will keep that in mind.

Now I have already said on numerous occasions that there is some knowledge to be gained from subjective experience, primarily that I am consciousness having a human experience - and all that such an experience involves - and no one has protested that.

I consider that to be knowledge, subjectively gained in relation to the general, universal objective reality.
Click to expand...

If the general, universal objective reality is everything, then how can something be subjective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom