Thinking and knowing are not mutually exlusive states of awarenesses imo, although I can see why someone would think that is the case. At least, this is my p.o.v. .

In particular, there are different levels of knowledge and thinking (e.g. if you're stupid, your depth of knowledge may be not great (but not nothing at all) but your thinking might have to be great)

And I know why you think that is the case...

Your comment was bs and you know it. Define "I" is a hole that has no bottom. The only reason you would steer the conversation into that pit is to mire it in nonsense to avoid your bad position. If you actually had something of substance to say you would have started with a definition rather than asking me to start. By asking me you can deflect the conversation into a pointless exercise of definitions.

I am not surprised to see sophomoric nonsense on this site, but I am a little disappointed to get it from you.

You can have the last word if you like. My silence after this is dismissal, not concession. I will not have read your reply.

It's a little sad to see RLK take the Alter2Ego approach.

Perhaps you have, but it doesn't mean that it's been adequately resolved.

I have a red mug on my desk. I see that it's red, and others see that it's red. It's correct to say that my belief system includes the claim "the mug is red."

This is a non-predictive claim. And it does nothing useful except create an identification with the cup with the property of redness.

I claim that the characterization you WANT to assign to your belief system is not consistent with your actual belief system. You do, in fact, hold many ontological beliefs which make no predictions at all. The fact that it is possible to connect rednesss to properties of other things (blood, fire, whatever) is irrelevant because the property of redness is not actually making these predictions. (Also, it seems clear to me that "usefulness" along these lines is not the same concept of "usefulness" as applied to predictions.)

Functionality of beliefs is not the primary determinant the role of beliefs.

Faith is for the weak-minded.

This is a weird example. A lot of predictions follow from your belief that the mug on your desk is red. For instance, if you look at the same mug again, it will appear red to you. If someone else with normal eyesight looks at the mug, it will look red to them, etc.

And obviously, our ability to see colors is useful to us--think of stop lights for an example.

This seems pretty obvious to me, so you must be using "predict" and "useful" in a more specific way.

Here is the context:

What's the criticism? What is the part of the belief system (that wasn't even presented) is "not functional"? Presumably (and I could be wrong), something that would qualify under this criticism would be something like "there is an afterlife that depends on your decision in the present life." Knowing that behaviors today may impact the future would be a non-trivial prediction. Not only that, but only a tiny bit deeper into this is that this prediction also becomes a guiding framework for decision-making. That's useful as well!

(Now, I grant that this is straying from evidence claims, which is what duffee's post was about. But that's not Veedzz`'s criticism.)

I predict the mug will still be red the next time I look at it and that my non-colorblind friend would see it as red as well. What is the "usefulness" of this prediction? Certainly, the prediction about the afterlife is at least as "useful" as this.

I think that VeeDDzz is using the words strangely, and stated this:

It is a predictive claim. How is this an attack on the predictive power of epistemology? in the slightest?

Also how is it not useful? It's highly useful. The knowledge that it's red allows you to differentiate your mug from other mugs based on this criteria (as well as other criteria - all of which are useful).
I disagree. You navigate reality using inputs from your five senses, all of which is considered evidence by your brain (of a reality out there), allowing you to avoid walking into heavy objects, avoid eating deadly food and directly influencing every other behaviour you can think of. If you strip functionality from this, you see there's no need for the various sensory input at all. Even if ontological beliefs are correct, and even if the sensory input of information is not evidence of anything - but rather an illusion - functionality is still the driving force behind why you choose to believe that trees are immobile or that rocks aren't going to start singing all of a sudden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)
... māyā is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Māyā is held to be an illusion, a veiling of the true, unitary Self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman... Many philosophies and religions seek to "pierce the veil" of māyā in order to glimpse the transcendent truth from which the illusion of a physical reality springs...

So, hypothetically, if someone were to ask:
I don’t think I’m out-of-bounds citing my particular beliefs. That is, unless the above question was rhetorical or disingenuous, then challenging metaphysical assumptions as a way to spiritual experience seems like a perfectly legitimate response.

What are you predicting?

Ahhhh... but now you've changed your concept of "useful."

I can claim that you navigate the reality in your head, not the "reality out there." We've all seen the examples of optical illusions and we're all aware of the reality of inattentional blindness.

Note that I did not say that sensory input had *NO* value. I'm just claiming it's not the primary determinant for the role of beliefs.

Which of the five senses tells me that it's better to be "good" than "evil"? The decision-making process involves more than sensory input.

I just wanted to digress to OP: I know from a previous post that OP is searching & struggling with things.
First & foremost I hope things are going well!!!

To begin with why does a "religious" experience preclude you from finding God.?
Sam Harris commented to something of the effect that "much to the consternation of other Atheists we can have spiritual experiences" (this during a table talk with "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." So, even hard core anti-theists speak of these experiences.

Religious experience is a very, very broad word. But, I think...I believe from the your previous post is that you are searching for the very same 'thing' I so desperately longed for.
Meaning, purpose, a reason for sheer existence...hope & PEACE.

I think you have a longing for these: is this "it"?

Jesus stated that "I have come that you may have life & have it to the full" (John 10:10).
If Jesus was who he said he was then this is an existentially sublime statement: then there is hope & purpose.

Nevertheless, question everything! Continue to search. A coin always has two sides..."The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him" (Proverbs 18:17).

This needs to start with a realization of what you are.

Think about the sense of sense.

How do we sense? Why do we sense?

The tiger's sense is to hunt while the gazelle's sense is to flee. Each of these creatures started as a dot of energy that was connected to the circuits of the bodies they were born into. These dots of energy can be nothing other than God manifested. The sense that tells the gazelle to flee is the God that controls that energy and the sense that tells the tiger to hunt is also God manifested in that tiger. Each God fights as a separate entity according to the makeup of his genetics. This universe is a hostile compilation of all the Gods fighting for their own rights and purposes.

God manifested that same dot of energy into you. Each of these dots of energy started equal but ended up individual through different genetic makeups and experiences. You are the current result of the experiences that your life has taken you to at this particular point in time. You are individual.

When you realize this then you realize that you are God.

God can be nowhere other than in the dwelling place of the imageination. A body without recognition is not God. God IS the recognition.

Allow your realization to start with recognition. It's difficultly easy.

No it does not. I havr never had a religious experience either and I not only believe that God exists but that "he" is most closely represented by the bible

What evidence are you expecting to find that is not there?

Also, your usage (or definition) of faith here is not in line with most intellectual groups of Christians usage

You believe in a jealous, unkind, bipolar, innocent children murdering God? I never understood why would people want to believe in such a cruel being.... Not only there is no evidence that some type of God exists, but to believe in something so unsubstantiated and evil? Blows my mind..

That doesnt describe the God that I believe in at all, nor is that the God that is revealed in the bible

As far as evidence, there is plenty. I don't believe despite evidence but in light of the evidence

OP you should pay attention to birds, especially cardinals.

OP, try sleep deprivation and solitude.

I toyed with the idea of defining my "God" as I would see him.

God didnt created the universe (maybe he did this but thats all he did)
God doesnt communicate or has never communicated with us (humans)
God doesnt intervene at all, in any form
God doesnt have a plan for me, you are anyone.
God doesnt care what happens to us.
God did not make a heaven or hell.

and to the athesits

Wow, this is pretty deep. Can you be my life-coach?

If you haven't seen it, it's from the Devil's Advocate. Pretty decent movie if you can get over Keanu's stilted acting.

Know Thyself, is the answer to all of your implied questions. Who am I? What am I? You're pissing into the wind until you realize this for you. No one can tell you, you can't read about it, you can't google it, you can't logic your way there; you have realize it, experientially, yourself.

For all the days of your life, you can toy with ideas, form and play with opinions, define and refine concepts, fantasize about theories and construct a life-osophy. And that's all just a mental game. And playing that game is what keeps you from that which you are searching for.

What happens when you stop playing that game for a few minutes, for an hour, for a day? What happens when you stop grasping onto, attaching to and identifying with the thought, 'I am suffering'....

Within you, the place of realizing knowledge and the place of toying with ideas are mutually exclusive arenas. Remove your attention from the latter to find the former.

That speech in Devil's Advocate is really great. Al Pacino is brilliant in that movie

So, it seems that everyone wants the Christian religious experience. These discussions always seem to go that way.
What if someone were to say it is possible to have a religious experience without having to accept the notion of an unmoved mover?

I am curious if you ever had an experience where everything felt in place - maybe on vacation at the beach, sitting in the sun on the sand with a nice breeze, maybe when you wake up in the morning, drinking your coffee outside, the dog seems happy, the sun is rising and brilliant and birds are in the distance. There is a sense of now, completeness and connectedness to the experience.

Have you ever felt that way? No need for God, but why wouldn't these experiences qualify as religious?