Are theists and atheists epistemic peers?

Ho hum, here we go.

I don't believe in god because I don't believe in god. I haven't seen, read, or heard anything to convince me he exists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know, it's obvious isn't it?

You know 'God' for what it is, why you don't accept, and you know that you know it.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pardon?

Incorrect. Please explain this.

Wrong again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am an example. :shrug:
I know of some peoples' various concepts of God, but a concept of God is not God.

I would say this is tautological, as I would say that one can only know what exists.
In the case of atheists, they know that various concepts of God exists, and they do not believe that God itself exists.

For an atheist to "know God", rather than to merely "know the concept of God", the atheist must first acknowledge that God exists. And if they do that and still call themselves atheist then they are lying.

I would differentiate between knowing God and knowing merely a concept of God... I see the former as acknowledging existence whereas the latter does not.

 

Sarkus,

Okay.

In the case of theists, they know that various concepts of God exist, and they do believe that God itself exists.

What do you mean by ''know God''?
To be a theist doesn't mean you have to know God, even one believes God exists.

It depends how you define ''know God''.
And how far is the stage of develop of ''knowning'' the concept.
For example atheists boast having a better understanding of the bible than
Christians. They descibe God in the way they see him, often citing them as reasons why they don't believe in him. They go into detail as to why God cannot exist, while stating for the record they do not totally dismiss the ''concept of God, which means they must ''know'' something about him.

I could go on and on.

jan.

 

So what? Is the bible god?

Nope. We use theists' descriptions of god.

Also wrong. We go by what theists claim about god.

You probably could, but it wouldn't make you any less mistaken.

 

i think i know what i know,
i know i know what i know
i don't know what i don't know
i think i know what i don't know..

btw..epistemic peer, to me would be a communication issue, not a belief issue, just because person A believe and person B does not believe, does not invalidate them for epistemic peer.
and we were talking about it from the science perspective,theist can be an epistemic peer of the scientist,(and vice versa) this does not say that ALL theist are the epistemic peer of ALL scientists..(or vice versa)

 

Indeed. Some go as far as to claim to actually know God... i.e. as an actuality rather than a concept.

Know it to be more than a concept... know it to be an actuality. As I said, I don't consider it possible to know something that does not exist.

Never said otherwise. Theism is merely a belief in the existence of God. My point is that for an atheist to "know God" is, as I see it, epistemically contradictory:
An atheist (one who does not have the belief that God exists) who claims to "know God" is one who acknowledges the existence of something but chooses not to believe that it exists.

Some might. But it's rather a generalisation on your part.

And so they don't believe in that particular concept.

Why must they "know" something about God in order to state this?

Do you believe in the existence Zquarg?
I'd assume you haven't heard anything about Zquarg... so do you totally dismiss the "concept of Zquarg"?
Someone may try to tell you that an ancient book describes Zquarg as having attributes A, B, C.
You analyse them and accept them as someone's concept of Zquarg, but there is no evidence this is Zquarg... just someone's concept of.
So... do you believe in the existence of Zquarg now? You don't have belief in the concept that someone else has, sure... but what do you actually know of Zquarg?

 

just a point to make..

be clear as to the difference between
'know' as empirical knowledge and 'know' as familiarity
I can 'know' a person without actually having any empirical knowledge concerning them.

 

Huh?
What makes you think familiarity with someone isn't empirical?

 

I know you..this doesn't mean that my opinions of you are empirical.
I can know you to be an ahole,someone else can know you to be the sweetest person on earth..this does not invalidate either opinion..you may be an Ahole to me (not saying you are) AND be sweet to another..this is dependant on which face you show to one person, and which face you show to another..
so in order to know you empiricaly, i would have to be in a position to see every facet of your personality,and this would be impossible for me as a person to do, so i would only know you as you relate specific parts of your personality suited to the task of communicating what is needed to me specificly..
(see how the logic of; God only shows us what we need,and not his totality,would contribute to my opinion of what God shows you can be different than what God shows me)

 

It means exactly that:

Wiki.

Nope.
You opinion of me, formed through interaction is, by defintion, emprical. It's just incomplete.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who me? I'm the luurvliestist person the world.

 

ok..that may be..
the use of the word empirical by most residents of sciforums has been used in a uncontested,unerring, context..this is how i am using the word.

 

You have my official permission to jump heavily on anyone misusing the word that way.
See? told you I'm luuurvely.

 

yea!..
this is how i know you..you do not admit defeat..but you do show it by changing your demeanor..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Defeat?
Surely you jest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The "change in demeanour" was due to your realisation that I was understanding "empirical" in a completely different way than you meant it.

 

Familiarity can only be achieved through empirical means.
I would rather you be clear as to what it is you feel one has knowledge of.
You can "know" a person only if you have met them (empirical knowledge of)...
As for "knowing" people on the internet... everything is drawn from observing the text/pictures they post... which again is empirical.

If you feel that you can read a dossier on someone and feel that you "know" them (are familiar with them) then you are mistaken, because at best you can "know" the conceptualised person created within the dossier - i.e. it may very well be a made-up person.

So rather than try to clarify what it is "to know", perhaps one should be clear on what it is one knows (or doesn't know) about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i would argue that..but there is another point to be made right now..

so..
personal experience with subject, qualifies for empirical knowledge (correct?)
word of mouth or document would not qualify for empirical knowledge..

you are saying empirical knowledge can be subjective.
and documents are irrelevant to knowledge...
(i argue if it leads to knowledge it is not irrelevant)


this seems a(the?) point of conflict between science and religion.
both are true.

 

Correct. Which is why science requires repeatability (verifiability).

Nope. But they are irrelevant to empirical knowledge. You can read something that actually is true and justified, and you can believe it.

See my first comment. With science empirical experience is tested and verified. And tested again. To make it as objective as possible.

 

Testimonies are the empirical knowledge of God.
where those testimonies line up, is where the repeatability comes in. ability to repeat is subjective to the individual.

it is easier for a theist to verify another theist, because both understand the testing parameters better than the non-theist..(substitute scientist/non scientists )

point being..(pry not the only one..)
The scientific method applies to religion.

the bible as a guide book, not a rule book.

consider;substitute 'justifiable' for 'objective' sounds truer, and qualifies religion.