(January 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: There is only one true type of "knowledge" - it's empirical knowledge, which can be observed, reviewed, and verified by all who behold it. Yes, that does mean scientific! If you have only "spiritual knowledge", you don't actually know anything as fact outside of your own experience, such so-called knowledge is nothing more than personal experience. Therefore, there is no "scientific knowledge vs. spiritual knowledge", there is only scientific knowledge vs. experience which is personal (exclusively within the believer's own mind), or anecdotal, but not of an empirical nature.

If I tell you I know that I had chicken for lunch yesterday, is that really scientific knowledge? Or not knowledge?

That sounds like ordinary language, garden variety knowledge to me.

(January 29, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: There is only one true type of "knowledge" - it's empirical knowledge, which can be observed, reviewed, and verified by all who behold it. Yes, that does mean scientific! If you have only "spiritual knowledge", you don't actually know anything as fact outside of your own experience, such so-called knowledge is nothing more than personal experience. Therefore, there is no "scientific knowledge vs. spiritual knowledge", there is only scientific knowledge vs. experience which is personal (exclusively within the believer's own mind), or anecdotal, but not of an empirical nature.

If I tell you I know that I had chicken for lunch yesterday, is that really scientific knowledge? Or not knowledge?

Can it be verified? Witnesses, deli receipts, biological data? If not, then in it's experience without evidence.

Please. For a change I'd like to see a rational atheist deal with this blockhead and his ignorant obsession with radical empiricism.

I know right, fucking ignorant atheists, with their standards..........why can't they just let that go and let your category b knowledge in, eh? Pretty sure you were afforded that opportunity and did nothing with it, didn't even make an attempt.

Makes it more than a little bit disingenuous to throw a temper tantrum now. Category b knowledge is ineffective, as ineffective as your bitching and moaning about the standards of others when they exclude your "knowledge" -as- knowledge has been. Allowing it in doesn't change that, or at least you gave us no reason to think that it did when given the opportunity. Doesn't seem like any obsession with radical empiricism is a problem at play here. Sounds to me like the problem is your own inability to make something of this category b knowledge even when it's allowed.

Let's lay all this to rest, give us an example of this category b knowledge, you have -another- opportunity.

Perhaps I've been misled all along. Atheism, defined a a lack of belief, does not entail radical empiricism. From the above comments it would seem otherwise.

(January 29, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: There is only one true type of "knowledge" - it's empirical knowledge, which can be observed, reviewed, and verified by all who behold it. Yes, that does mean scientific! If you have only "spiritual knowledge", you don't actually know anything as fact outside of your own experience, such so-called knowledge is nothing more than personal experience. Therefore, there is no "scientific knowledge vs. spiritual knowledge", there is only scientific knowledge vs. experience which is personal (exclusively within the believer's own mind), or anecdotal, but not of an empirical nature.

If I tell you I know that I had chicken for lunch yesterday, is that really scientific knowledge? Or not knowledge?

(January 29, 2016 at 8:22 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: That sounds like ordinary language, garden variety knowledge to me.

Chad this is me backing up Irrational in challenging the notion that knowledge always requires radical empiricism.

(January 30, 2016 at 11:42 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(January 29, 2016 at 8:21 pm)Irrational Wrote: If I tell you I know that I had chicken for lunch yesterday, is that really scientific knowledge? Or not knowledge?

(January 29, 2016 at 8:22 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: That sounds like ordinary language, garden variety knowledge to me.

Chad this is me backing up Irrational in challenging the notion that knowledge always requires radical empiricism.

Combination of rationalism and empiricism (with more value for empiricism) is what works best for me as an epistemological viewpoint.

That said, perhaps I should change my username soon.

(January 30, 2016 at 12:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Please. For a change I'd like to see a rational atheist deal with this blockhead and his ignorant obsession with radical empiricism.

With the ignorant unlettered and wrong shit you post you should really be careful who you call blockhead. The vast majority of humanity is more intelligent than you are, and Mr Hanky is vastly more intelligent.

(January 30, 2016 at 12:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Please. For a change I'd like to see a rational atheist deal with this blockhead and his ignorant obsession with radical empiricism.

Blockheads are obsessed with wishful ideas which are so indefensible that they must resort to combative language such as "radical" and "blockhead" against those who disagree with them, whenever said ideas are challenged. Blockheads cannot let go of their wishful beliefs, and they fear those who have - which, btw, is what empiricism is in fact all about, which you in your asininely childish ignorance downplay as "obsession".

When you start calling people names, you're going to find out that two can play at that game, Blockhead!