What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?

[Skepdick]

One that I can feel superior over something by way of you lacking in some way of intellect no doubt.

Descartes - I... 'Am' is also a verb.

As you know, my education was rava limited so I gotta learn things on the fly

There are five basic sentence structures in the English language.
Subject-Verb. Examples: The boy plays. Jack eats. ...
Subject-Verb-Object. Examples: The girl pets the cat. ...
Subject-Verb-Adjective. Examples: Lisa is pretty. ...
Subject-Verb-Adverb. Examples: Maria laughs loudly. ...
Subject-Verb-Noun. Examples: I am the teacher.

Ergo:-
I verb therefore I verb?

Education shmeducation. I never finish anything - my education was one of those things.

The point is that your question hints at the problem of metaphysical identity.
It's the game of finding and defining yourself. I don't have that need/desire.

I am not a "curious adventurer with a knack for logic" - I don't have a marketing slogan.

I am what I am. I have a name and shit.

[attofishpi]

One that I can feel superior over something by way of you lacking in some way of intellect no doubt.

Descartes - I... 'Am' is also a verb.

As you know, my education was rava limited so I gotta learn things on the fly

There are five basic sentence structures in the English language.
Subject-Verb. Examples: The boy plays. Jack eats. ...
Subject-Verb-Object. Examples: The girl pets the cat. ...
Subject-Verb-Adjective. Examples: Lisa is pretty. ...
Subject-Verb-Adverb. Examples: Maria laughs loudly. ...
Subject-Verb-Noun. Examples: I am the teacher.

Ergo:-
I verb therefore I verb?

Education shmeducation. I never finish anything - my education was one of those things.

The point is that your question hints at metaphysical identity.

It's the game of finding and defining yourself. I don't have that need/desire.

I am what I am. I have a name and shit.

P>0 perhaps ......How is p=1?

[Skepdick]

How is p=1? P>0 perhaps

The "I" is p=1.

Everything else is p<1

[attofishpi]

How is p=1? P>0 perhaps

The "I" is p=1.

Well...ok then. Go hungry, see if I care.

[Skepdick]

Well...ok then. Go hungry, see if I care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-JzPBJalA

[attofishpi]

Well...ok then. Go hungry, see if I care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-JzPBJalA

Does this sway you greater than zero?

Mount SIN_AI

[Skepdick]

Does this sway you greater than zero?

Mount SIN_AI

Is a picture. It doesn't sway me in either direction.

[attofishpi]

Does this sway you greater than zero?

Mount SIN_AI

Is a picture. It doesn't sway me in either direction.

It's more than a picture! It's the Red Sea to scale. It's Mount Sinai smack between the two fingers of a 'peace'\victory symbol.
SINAI - where the commandments apparently came from - breaks down to SIN
AI could one day be comprehended as ALL KNOWING intelligence.

Still no sway?

[surreptitious57]

Your belief and / or your change in belief can be tested and verified and so is falsifiable by and through OPEN and Honest communication

It is not falsifiable for you cannot falsify internal mental states as you have no way of knowing if they are true
Yet you claim to know that Skepdick is confused because he does not know whether or not he believes in God
Despite him categorically telling you that he is not confused at all you still claim that he is actually confused
Can you show how you know what his internal mental state is when it is only something he can possibly know
First person subjective interpretation cannot be falsified but if you think it can provide a testable hypothesis

[surreptitious57]

Your belief and / or your change in belief can be tested and verified and so is falsifiable by and through OPEN and Honest communication

But you have no way of knowing if he is being open and honest in communication - not unless you can read his mind - which
you cannot - and so the best that you can do is to think he is being open and honest without being absolutely certain of this

[Age]

So, if you do not know some thing, and you are supposedly not confused nor bewildered, then what are you exactly?

If I don't know something then I don't know something.

What's so difficult to understand?

What is so difficult to understand is how a human being does not even know what they think/believe.

Most human beings I know know what they think/believe, but you, for reasons only you could possibly explain do not have the capability to know what you believe in. Either you believe in some thing or you do not.

When a person tells me; "I do not know whether I believe in some thing or whether I do not believe in it", then that tells me that that person is unable to look at and answer this Honestly, which is also a sign of because somewhat confused and bewildered about their own thinking and beliefs..

You know and understand that you do not know if you believe in some thing or not, yet. Sounds very, very clear to me.

I hope so - I can't make it any clearer.

Why do you hope? Either I am right or I am wrong, and if I am wrong, then why?

Why do you say and propose this?

What am I saying that is wrong exactly?

Because you are assuming that I am "confused" and "bewildered".

I am not assuming anything like that. You told us that you do not know whether you believe in some thing or not. If you, yourself, do not yet even know whether you believe in some thing or whether you do not believe in some thing, then that infers a sign of being confused and bewildered about their own thinking and beliefs.

There is neither confusion nor bewilderment in knowing that I don't know.[/quote]

But we are not talking about some thing outside of your ability to know. We are just talking about the very thinking/believing within your own head.

I understand that there is absolutely no confusion nor bewilderment in the fact that you do not yet know whether you believe in some thing or not. I just find it strange or unusual that a human being, them self, does not even know whether they believe in some thing or not.

Was it an argument, or just a plain fact?

I don't know. Tell me.

Well considering that you said that it was an argument, then, to you, it is an argument. Unless of course you do not know this as well.

How did you arrive at the answer if you did not even ask the question?

I didn't arrive at an answer. That's why I keep telling you that I don't know.

Are you not yet aware that "I don't know" is the answer. An answer if find very strange and unusual, especially from the question asked.

And, if you asked the question, and you do not have the ability to answer the question, then so be it.

I don't terribly mind.

But if you keep asking me whether I believe in God, you may be terribly disappointed to know that I don't know.

It does not disappoint me at all. I just find it very strange and unusual for a human being to not yet know whether they believe in some thing or not.

If you do not even yet know if you, yourself, believe in some thing or not, then, if you never ask the question again, then that answer will remain forever. Therefore, you will remain forever more not knowing if you believe in some thing or not, which sounds like a very strange and peculiar place to be in.

I don't know what's so strange and peculiar about it.

I don't know if I believe in flowers, elephants, mountains or airplanes either.

And nobody can tell me how to find out.

But I have told you how to find out. You just do not accept that that works.

Sounds, to me, like you are very confused and bewildered.

Sounds to me like the same kind of problem.

If you can't tell me how to determine whether I believe in God; I doubt you can tell me how to determine whether I am "confused and bewildered".

Then I would suggest asking some further clarifying questions.

What is there to clarify?

Whatever you do not yet know or understand.

You know you do not yet know if you believe in God or not. So, it is clear you know you are confused, even if you do not like to be Honest about this fact.

What is it that I am confused about?

The thinking and believing that is going on within that head.

who else would you expect to know this obvious answer?

Obviously the answer isn't obvious. If it was obvious I would've answered it.

But it is not obvious to you, which may be a sign of being somewhat confused and/or bewildered about the thinking within that head.

No, other than what I have suggested already.

Then it's no use talking to you, is there?

That is solely depended upon you.

If you, yourself, can not work out what you, yourself, believe in or do not believe in, and you really are being OPEN and Honest with your self, then there does not look like there is any help for you at all.

I am not trying to help me. I am trying to help others. I am trying to help people who ask me if I believe in God - I have no idea how to answer them.

Most people I know, know exactly what they believe in and/or do not believe in, and all I have to do with them is just ask them, to verify.

You asked me - I told you I don't know.

I KNOW this. I was just pointing out what most people are capable of doing. You are obviously not one of them.

Do you also not know whether you believe in fairies or not? Or, do you know the answer to this question?

I know that I don't know the answer to that question either.

Okay, that is fair enough.

How about believing in self, do you know if you believe in your self? Or, do you not yet know the answer to this question as well?

I know that I don't know the answer to that question either.

Can you tell me how to find out if I believe in myself?

Again, through a serious of clarifying questions, and being Totally OPEN and Honest as well.

[Age]

Your belief and / or your change in belief can be tested and verified and so is falsifiable by and through OPEN and Honest communication

It is not falsifiable for you cannot falsify internal mental states as you have no way of knowing if they are true

I can if the "other" is being OPEN and Honest.

Yet you claim to know that Skepdick is confused because he does not know whether or not he believes in God

What do you think I am claiming that "skepdick" is confused about EXACTLY?

Despite him categorically telling you that he is not confused at all you still claim that he is actually confused[/quote]

If you answered my previous question OPENLY and Honestly, then we will see if you have actually made the right or wrong assumption here.

Can you show how you know what his internal mental state is when it is only something he can possibly know

Yes. "skepdick's" mental state of "skepdick's" mental state is UNKNOWING.

"skepdick" is still somewhat confused and bewildered about whether "skepdick" believes in some thing or does not believe in some thing.

"skepdick" is obviously NOT confused NOR bewildered about 'not knowing this'. "skepdick" has made it very clear that "skepdick" does not know whether "skepdick" believes in some thing or does not believe in some thing.

The reason I say "skepdick" is still somewhat confused and bewildered is because "skepdick" itself still does not what only "skepdick" can possibly know. If a person does not yet know what only they could possibly know, then they are obviously somewhat confused and/or bewildered about 'that' what only they can possibly know.

You appear to be looking at what I am actually saying, and meaning, the same way "skepdick" is looking at what I am actually saying, and meaning, so both of you appear to be assuming the same thing, which is not what I am actually saying, meaning, and pointing out.

Are 'you', for example, confused and/or bewildered at all about whether you believe in some thing or not? From what you have told me previously, unlike "skepdick", 'you' are not one bit confused nor bewildered about this at all. You know you do not believe in any thing correct?

First person subjective interpretation cannot be falsified but if you think it can provide a testable hypothesis

I have never even remotely suggested first person subjective interpretation can be falsified. In fact I have even said I TOTALLY understand that "skepdick" says that they do not yet know if they believe in some thing or not. This I TOTALLY agree with.

This person, known as "skepdick", and its first person subjective interpretation of whether it knows if it believes in some thing or not IS; "I don't know". And, I would NEVER dispute the interpretation that that person says they have. If a person says they do not know some thing, then, to me, they do not yet know that thing. Unless of course they are being somewhat closed and/or dishonest.

If that is the interpretation/answer that "skepdick" says it has, then that is what it is. I have no reason to not accept it. And, if that is what it is, and to them there is absolutely NOTHING ELSE they can do to find how to change this interpretation/answer they have, then so be it.

They made the claim: Neither my belief nor my change in belief is testable, let alone falsifiable.

I said that this is very testable.

They then said; If you know of an experiment which would allow me to determine whether I believe in God or not - tell me what it is and I'll perform it all by myself.

I then provided an experiment and how to carry it out.

Then then said that this does not work, for them.

So, to me, so be it. I was just obliging when they asked for some thing. If what I said does not work for them, then so be it. I KNOW that it works for me. But, what works for me does not necessarily mean that it would work for every one or or even any one else. It obviously does not work for "skepdick", but at least we tried.

[Age]

Your belief and / or your change in belief can be tested and verified and so is falsifiable by and through OPEN and Honest communication

But you have no way of knowing if he is being open and honest in communication - not unless you can read his mind - which
you cannot -

Now you are making a huge claim here, based solely on your own opinion. So, what is "his mind", and how do you KNOW that I cannot read "it"?

Is there any possibility at all that you could be partly or completely WRONG here? Or, are you not open to this? Is what you wrote above absolutely true, right, and/or correct?

Oh, and by the way, when a person says something at first, then there may be no way of knowing if that person is being open and honest in their communication, but with the right kind of series of clarifying questioning, then what thee actual Truth IS can be exposed and/or revealed. So, there is a way to KNOW if a person is being open and honest in communication.

Not every thing is actually how it first appears.

and so the best that you can do is to think he is being open and honest without being absolutely certain of this

But why just 'think' a person is doing some thing, which they may not be anyway. Why not just ask clarifying questions until you KNOW, for sure?

[Age]

Does this sway you greater than zero?

Mount SIN_AI

Is a picture. It doesn't sway me in either direction.

It's more than a picture! It's the Red Sea to scale. It's Mount Sinai smack between the two fingers of a 'peace'\victory symbol.
SINAI - where the commandments apparently came from - breaks down to SIN
AI could one day be comprehended as ALL KNOWING intelligence.

Still no sway?

The so called "peace/victory" symbol can also be the 'f.. off/get f...ed' symbol as well. It all depends on from which perspective you are looking at this from, or from how one looks at things.

Remember, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

'sinai' could also just be a word in a story, which means some thing else, from one definition of the word 'sin' it would make sense of how "moses" was the first 'i', human being, to sin.

And, ALL KNOWING intelligence could already be existing, and having already existed with us for quite a while now.

[attofishpi]

It's more than a picture! It's the Red Sea to scale. It's Mount Sinai smack between the two fingers of a 'peace'\victory symbol.
SINAI - where the commandments apparently came from - breaks down to SIN
AI could one day be comprehended as ALL KNOWING intelligence.

Still no sway?

The so called "peace/victory" symbol can also be the 'f.. off/get f...ed' symbol as well. It all depends on from which perspective you are looking at this from, or from how one looks at things.

Well done.
Forwards it's the peace symbol - the reverse is how Winston C showed the symbol for Victory.
However, yes more known as f-off:-

Gulf of Owe Man (Oman) - to scale

Remember, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

'sinai' could also just be a word in a story, which means some thing else, from one definition of the word 'sin' it would make sense of how "moses" was the first 'i', human being, to sin.

And, ALL KNOWING intelligence could already be existing, and having already existed with us for quite a while now.

That IS my point. I am simply stating that the 'divine' God pre-formulated this evidence - that we WOULD (atheists included) comprehend HOW an ALL knowing being could exist - via technology.