Are theists and atheists epistemic peers?

That would make "belief in God" no different than "belief in love," "belief in justice," "belief in guns," and whatever else it is that people profess to believe in.

I find this to be a very strange idea. Selfish, egotistically absorbed, unilaterally imposed: to go around claiming one believes in someone, claiming one is acting on that someone's behalf - but all along having no actual connection to that person that would be verified by that person.

If God hasn't actually verified one's relationship to Him, one cannot justly claim one has a relationship with God.

If theists merely believe in God, but do not necessarily have knowledge of Him, this is like Jane claiming she is married to Peter - while Peter doesn't know anything about this marriage nor are there any legal marriage documents that both Jane and Peter accept as binding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is not a correct interpretation of my stance.

I use "knowing God (in the fullest sense)" in the same way I use "knowing one's friend."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal,

If it is the case that you really do mean ''some'' theists instead
of ''theists'' (you usual term), then what are we talking about.?
What do ''other'' theists interpret it to mean?
What is the actual percentage of each types interpretation?.

When I ''read'' statements from you such as ''i did what theists told me to do'', what does it mean?

As you would have been told about God by other people, how would you know you have no knowledge of God? From your perspective, what IS knowledge of God?

Irrelevant.

What do you ''know'' about God that compels you to make this
statement?

:roflmao:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're funny.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dishonest of you.
Your original statement:

Is fallacious.

 

Signal,

So what's wrong with that?
Were you expecting fireworks and a brass band?

YOU may ''go around'' making claims, YOU may go around claiming to ''act on someones behalf'', but that does NOT mean others will.

We all have a connection, the moment we hear about God. From
there we make our choices.

Okay, repeat after me: A THEIST IS A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN GOD.

No it's not. A marriage is an agreement between two people, no belief is necessary.

Bear in mind what YOU mean by ''knowledge of Him", ie, the same relationship one has with a friend.


jan.

 

Um, is this not a claim on others' behalf:

In other words you just invalidated your own claim.

 

We are talking about what one declares to be The Absolute Truth.
This is not something mundane. It is something to be taken earnestly.

It's common for theists to go around making claims, claiming to act on God's behalf.

There is a difference between hearing the word "God,"
and in fact hearing about God.

Merely hearing the word "God" and some claims that presume to be "about God" cannot obligate a person yet.

It's still open what "to believe in God" means.

Is God some kind of universal whore that everyone can blamelessly declare to believe in Him, regardless if He gives any confirmation to said person???!!

 

My experiences with some people.

Whatever they interpret it to mean.

Why would that matter?

Just what I said.

1. Knowledge of God
and
2. knowing that it is knowledge of God - knowing that I have arrived at said knowledge the right way - so as to distinguish my knowledge form mere accidental knowledge.

Children can have knowledge of many things, but their knowledge is accidental knowledge at best, for they do not know why what they know is true and whether the way they have arrived at their knowledge is the right way to arrive at (a particular) knowledge.

To what?

Actually, it is my assumptions about kwnoeldge and belief that lead me to that conclusion:
"If one knows X, then I think one would also believe in X."

Unless, of course, by "believe in" we mean 'trust, rely on', in which case the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

Riiight. Atheists are just evil motherfuckers who have the same kind of knowledge of God as theists, but, since they are such evil motherfuckers, they refuse to believe in God, they willfully rebel against God.

You're not.

 

No knowledge of god is required to make this statement. Simply a knowledge of what the word knowledge means.
Please, at some point in your life (preferably soon): GET A CLUE.

 

Signal,

Yes, but not every theist does that.

Not as common as 'they don't'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Erm, which is why I said: ''We all have a connection, the moment we hear about God.''

''Cannot''? You say.

You mean you don't know?

You like that word ''whore'' don't you?

It is for you to work out what God is and isn't.

jan.

 

Jan wishes to believe in 'God' because he heard of the concept. We are really down to the last straws here, showing that theists don't really have anything. At least he is being honest, so thanks.

 

Signal,

Then it's not really a ''theist'' issue. Is it?

Oh! So it doesn't really matter that you're misrepresenting
a whole group of people, because of what 'some' people said or did?

I want bathe in the depth of your claim.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it doesn't say ''i did what some people told me to'', it says ''theists.

Do you actually 'know' anything?
And if you do, how do you know that that knowledge is knowledge of that thing?

Personally, I think experience is the key.

Are children generally wrong?
Or do they explain things how they see them?
Isn't the point of obtaining knowledge, to arrive at the truth?

The subject of your next thread perhaps?

Atheists are people who don't believe in God.

Not even a tiny bit?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Black or White.
This way or That way.
One extreme or the other extreme.

I can't really argue with that.

Learn to develop some middle ground.


jan.

 

Hmm, not what you claimed earlier:

 

Going around making claims, claiming to act on God's behalf is the distinguishing characteristic of those who claim to be theists.

Back to whether theists can unilaterally obligate others. See recent thread on this.

I mean there are different ways to conceive of belief.

You like reading and repeating it, don't you?

Oh? Not up to God?

 

Wrong.
Learn to read.

jan.

 

Really?
Nope, not really.

Learn English.

PS, still waiting for you to support that claim, BTW.

 

Already explained in my posts.

jan.

 

Also wrong.
You've skirted the issue, provided nonseniscal "rationalisations" and failed to actually support the statement.

Edit: I just went back and checked. In actual fact you stopped answering my questions:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2819758&postcount=103

 

My experiences that I have been talking about when it comes to the use of the word and concept "God", were with people who claim to be theists.

Those unjust generalizations that I presumably make based on my limited experience - they are all in your mind.



Secondly, often when we talk about the type "theist" - ie. when the definition of what it means to be a "theist" is under question, and what that definition entails.
This is an ideological/theoretical issue, not an experiential or statistical one.

For example, in the question "Can theists unilaterally obligate other people to God?" the word "theists" is meant to denote theists as such; it is not referring to "some particular theists (whom I have met)."

Those people claim to be theists. Should I doubt them?

Granted, the standard epistemic criteria are high, next to impossible to satisfy.

Generally, we do not consider children to be authoritative.

I do not think this is actually decidable. Chances are that children repeat a lot after other people, esp. their parents.
Merely repeating after others hardly counts for "explaining things as one sees them."

Sure.

No.