Are theists and atheists epistemic peers?

No, it falls under not knowing a person to be real.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. They're reports of subjective experience.

Yet somewhat lacking in consensus and actual testability.

Or both subscribe to the same delusion!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, it doesn't because there's no exterior phenomenon to subject to testing.

One can justify anything with enough thought and time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can do, yes. Depends upon the interpretation of that experience.

When personal experience is recorded in a document or passed on as word of mouth, you effectively wrap the initial empirical knowledge in a container - e.g. a book, a spoken story.
When you pass on this container the person has empirical knowledge of the container, but not the content.
Reading a book gives you empirical knowledge that there are words on the page, for example, but not of any truth value that those words may have.

Only in as much as truth is subjective.
Generally what is subjective is the interpretation of the evidence.
Which is why science requires repeatability and verifiability - to minimise the level of subjective interpretation.

I never said documents are irrelevant, but I would say that they alone can not provide knowledge, and they can give confidence in interpreting one's experience - but (the documents) are certainly not infallible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

subjective empirical experience.
of which you guys just validated as admissable.

only lacking because atheists invalidate the testing methods just as easily as some theists invalidate sciences testing methods.

theists and atheists?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

exterior vs interior is another argument..
this statement just boils down to using the correct test parameters.

true enough..

 

??

You will need to explain this.

I indeed assume that those who claim to be theists, know God - in a manner similar as one would know a friend etc.
Many who claim to be theists even proclaim to have just this kind of personal relationship with God.

What?????

 

That will depend on what we posit is necessary for there to be belief.

It is assumed that epistemic peers would have the same beliefs, sooner or later.

 

Nope.

Really? Suggest a method of repeatedly testing a personal experience of the type claimed by theists. A method of showing that it is caused by god as opposed to a "brain glitch".

No, you prawn.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just as soon as we invent an infallible mind-reading machine...

 

not really..it would just mean that they can could communicate on the same level knowing exactly what the other means when they say 'i know' (or some other easily misunderstood word/s)
(epistemic compatibility?)

 

... thus already having the same beliefs.

 

communication of a thought or idea does not imply a belief of said thoughts or ideas..

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

 

You are doing here the same thing you have done earlier in our interpersonal conflict: confusing what "about/of X" can be used to mean.


An atheist will say, for example:
All I have heard about God, I have heard from other people.

but some theists interpret this to mean
'Since you say these things you have heard from other people are indeed about God, you indeed know God. You are an atheist because you don't want to believe in God, not because you wouldn't know God.'


And even a statement with a clarification like this
All I have heard about God, I have heard from other people, but I myself have no first-hand knowledge of God.
isn't enough to dissuade those theists from their interpretation. They'll ignore it (ie. the clarification) or accuse one of lying or having a warped personality.


To solve this confusion, I have recently started to introduce a formulation like
All I have heard "about God" (note the qute marks; whether what they told me really is about God or not, that is another matter), I have heard from other people.


Basically, it comes down to how we talk about the exchanges on theistic topics, and the precision that may be necessary, as our meta-communication can be interpreted incorrectly.

I might say, for example
"Dyw and I were talking about God."
A theist would comment on this "So you two indeed know God! You talked about God! You aren't atheists or agnostics!"

But what Dyw and I meant was that we talked about topics involving the word and concept "God."


The times of legalistic precision are upon us!

 

If they can "communicate on the same level knowing exactly what the other means when they say 'i know", it implies precisely that.

I can also entertain a bunch of ducklings.

 

<what i say by no way is it infered that i believe is what i actually said unless said statement is actually what i believe and not just what i think i believe,in which case said statement must be evaluated by a group of my epistemic peers to confirm or validate that which was said was in actuality what i said,if it is determined that what i said was not actually what i said, then the I in question must be refered to an institution who's sole responsibility is to indoctrinate you into a system of beliefs which may or may not have anything to do with what i said or what i meant to say or what i actually said..>

 

Signal,

It is all based on belief, not actual direct sense perception.

To be a theist one doesn't have to know God, even [though] one believes
in God.


jan.

 

Signal,

???

Wasn't you the one saying, a while back, that all knowledge
of God is derived from other people?

That's not the reason why I come to that conclusion, but I can't speak
for anybody else.

Generalisation on your part. Again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Theists can claim the same thing.

And what would be your conclusion?

No.
You can know God, or about God, and be atheist.
One is only an atheist because one doesn't believe.

The same can apply when two theists talk about God.
The only difference is a matter of belief.

That will not make any actual difference.

jan.

 

What?
Atheists...don't believe there is a God. Any God.
No more my many than your one.
Technically, an Atheist can study the phenomena of religious belief, but that doesn't mean they "know God".

Unless by "knowing" you mean some sort of intellectual understanding only...which is never how knowing struck me...when I was a Christian.

I would be more like you describe; I think Jehovah exists, but He...misrepresents himself.

 

Interesting. Maybe like thinking back and forth with God?

 

chimpkin,

How did it strike you when you was a Christian?

A belief which could be construed as a claim based on knowledge.
The ''knowing God'' talked about by Signal, describes a level of belief,
not ''knowing'' in the way one physically knows ones friend.

jan.

 

It makes a world of difference to me.

 

No. I said that all that I know "about God" (note the quote marks; whether what I know really is about God or not, is another matter), I have heard from other people, I have no first-hand knowledge of God.

Learn to read.
I put great care into how I use the words "some," "all" and "none."

That I either have no knowledge of God, or have knowledge of God but am not conscious that it is indeed about God.

That doesn't mean that all atheists know God.

If one knows God, then I think one would also believe in God.

That's a cheap shot.

Those threads were started by atheists, who were likely operating out of very different ideas about what it means to "believe in God" than theists do.

It all depends on what you mean by "belief."