(January 7, 2016 at 6:50 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote:(January 3, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I find it very annoying when theists play fast and loose with the definition of the word "knowledge."You don't decide to believe experience. If you stump your toe, you can decide that shit didn't happen, but it still did.
A common claim around AF is that our lack of belief in God is the result of some spiritual knowledge gap; that the information about God is right in front of the atheist's face but he chooses not to see it; that he is missing important information due to a narrow, empiricist world view.
I've seen it posed a couple different ways, such as with flowery language like: "you will know the divine truth only when you open your heart to the light that is all things." crapola, to more formally structured arguments involving philosopher name dropping, and: "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is," is." type of thing.
What is knowledge that is not testable, not measurable against anything, not reproducible, not able to be objectively confirmed, and not demonstratable to others? It is simply NOT knowledge. How can theists justify using that word when speaking of metaphysical or spiritual subject matter?
I might have a bit more respect for theism if theists would just call a spade, a spade. Theist says to me: I have knowledge that God exists. I know he exists because: I have experienced him, personally. He has shown himself to me, personally. His existence is self-evident to ME. How can the theist think he has obtained actual knowledge regarding God's existence if the only way he can pass it on is to just TELL people, "it's true, because I have experienced it, and I have decided that it is true, and I am telling you that it is." How can he regard his believe as anything but individual testimonial?
If a paranoid schizophrenic has delusions and auditory hallucinations of the devil speaking to him, would any reasonable person believe he has knowledge about the nature of Satan? Of course not. The schizophrenic's experience is real, and certainly powerful to him, but it is a subjective experience regardless.
I suspect theists paint god-belief as an intellectual subject rather than an experiential one because they think this will make it an easier pill for non-believers to swallow. It is as if they realize how irrational naked faith actually is, so they try to beef it up with philosophical rhetoric; try to make it appear grounded in reality when it's not. Maybe this makes it an easier pill for THEM to swallow.
Theists: Please remember to use the word "knowledge" only where it reasonably applies.
Here endeth my rant. Thanks for listening, and hopefully I didn't break any forum rules this time, and YES, I read them!
Knowledge via personal experience that was/is verifiable through the particulars of said scenario/s is still personal irrefutable knowledge that has been tested and/or verified by the individual.
It is not the same as scientific law, as it cannot be observed by a third party unless by the will of GOD. Apparently, generally speaking, God leaves the acquisition of utter truth to the individual. Otherwise it wouldn't be irrefutable to that individual.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
So if a paranoid schizo hears the devil, does he have real knowledge about the nature of the devil?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
