Atheism does not exist

[Falvlun]

I'd've been surprised if you had. It's all word salad. That's what happens when people start seriously arguing that 'belief' and 'knowledge' and 'true', etc... actually have clearcut meanings.



Sorry, but no. It doesn't help. (I don't even know what fact you're talking about.)

The silly part of the definition is the 'true' part. According to the definition, we can only have knowledge of a thing if the thing is true. I laugh hysterically every time I hear that. It guts the entire definition with one deft move.

Jesus rose from the dead and Joseph Smith found golden tablets and many gurus walk on water and I can talk to my dead grandmother.

I know all these things because they are justified true beliefs.

In other words, everything is knowledge. All we have to do is justifiably believe that the thing is true.

Talk about a definition swallowing its tail!

I have the same problem with the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge. It's impossible to use.

That's why I tend to just go with how people actually do utilize the words knowledge and belief. There is definitely overlap between the two; the usage isn't even clear cut. But generally, people use words like "knowledge" and "I know" when they are talking about something they believe to be certain; it is a belief without doubt.

Belief can be used to mean the same thing, of course, but it also has the ability to refer to things we hold to be true without being sure about.

(Though I know that even this approach probably won't satisfy you since you like your ambigosity. )

 

[Falvlun]

So knowledge means nothing at all except 'being convinced that we're right'... which happens to be my own definition of knowledge and is much finer than 'justified, true belief.'

'Knowledge' merely means 'great psychological certainty that our mental outlook lines up with external reality.'

To have knowledge merely means to be convinced that we are right, yes?

Whoa, I guess we are alligned on this one.

 

[Falvlun]

There needs to be an emoticon for someone smashing their face to hamburger against a brick wall- the simple face-palm does not express how stupid this is.

Actually, it isn't that it is so stupid in itself, but coupled with your misplaced condescension, it becomes a fail of epic proportions.

"Justification" is a technical term in epistemology. You are criticizing something you obviously don't really understand, based on a term you are misusing. Justification refers to the support one has for a belief- knowledge is only knowledge if it is true (you cannot, by definition, know a falsehood- you cannot know that France is a monarchy, because "France is a monarchy" is false) and if it is justified- that is, if it is held on a sufficient basis.

But I don't want to do your work for you, you need to do your homework before you start shooting your mouth off-

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Many of us tend to be more interested in how people actually utilize words rather than how a small, specialized subset uses a word when talking about very specific subjects.

 

[idav]

"Justification" is included as part of the formula to prevent a lucky guess from being knowledge.

If I asked you what the capital of Alberta was and you made a guess, and it happened to be correct even though you just took a shot in the dark, that would not be real "knowledge."

Justification doesnt make it correct just reasonable. What of the scenario where the guess is wrong.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"Justification" is included as part of the formula to prevent a lucky guess from being knowledge.

Bingo.

 

[adi2d]

Congratulations- this is the best, and most pertinent, reply I've received so far.

In sum, the fact that A. the Christian notion of God is incoherent and cannot, by definition, exist (mutually exclusive properties- omnipotence/eternality/atemporality, the "problem of evil", an existent transcendent being, etc.) B. gods, particularly God, involve predicates which entail changes in the world, which have no occurred, or for which there is no evidence (global floods, creation ex nihilo, etc.), and the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence, and C. the fact that, in comparative religion and anthropology, the hypothesis that humans author deities and not the other way around remains unfalsified- implies that belief that God/gods do not exist is a (defeasibly) true and justified belief, aka "knowledge".

And I had such high hopes. You list evidence that the Bible is wrong but that is easy. Lot of the Bible is BELIEFS of men 2000 years ago
People have made Gods in their own image for long time but that is not what you said
You said you have evidence that god does not exist. God (if he exists) could have started the BB then went on his merry way doing God stuff. I don't know if its true or not(I don't BELIEVE that it is




Want to try again?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

OK, I guess. But that doesn't address my issue.

I have absolute knowledge that I can talk to my dead grandmother.

Why? Well, because it is a justified true belief that I can talk to my dead grandmother.

That doesn't sound silly or wrong to you -- me knowing (having knowledge) that I can talk to Granny?

If I can know that, then anyone can know anything.

You can only know it if its true- if you can actually talk to your dead Grandmother, (I'm guessing you can't, obviously)- and if your belief is justified- that is, if it is based on evidence or reasoning sufficient to establish that belief, as opposed to a lucky guess.

So knowledge means nothing at all except 'being convinced that we're right'... which happens to be my own definition of knowledge and is much finer than 'justified, true belief.'

No. Knowledge means "what we believe that is in fact true, and we have sufficient reason to believe".

Go read the link, then come back and take another swing at this.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And I had such high hopes. You list evidence that the Bible is wrong but that is easy.

Um, no... Biblical events (like the flood) are simply widely known examples of the predicates I was talking about.

You said you have evidence that god does not exist. God (if he exists) could have started the BB then went on his merry way doing God stuff. I don't know if its true or not(I don't BELIEVE that it is

Want to try again?

No need. You obviously have a peculiar notion of evidence. Evidence is data that increases the probability of a hypothesis. Everything I listed was evidence- conclusive evidence, in fact.

 

[Falvlun]

No need. You obviously have a peculiar notion of evidence. Evidence is data that increases the probability of a hypothesis. Everything I listed was evidence- conclusive evidence, in fact.

It's pretty amazing you haven't been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or something for definitively proving the non-existence of God.

You would think that such an important and far reaching discovery would have at least made the front page of the newspaper.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Whoa, I guess we are alligned on this one.

We really may be twins separated at birth, you know.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have the same problem with the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge. It's impossible to use.

That's why I tend to just go with how people actually do utilize the words knowledge and belief. There is definitely overlap between the two; the usage isn't even clear cut. But generally, people use words like "knowledge" and "I know" when they are talking about something they believe to be certain; it is a belief without doubt.

Yeah, sometimes I think that 'know' and 'knowledge' are the most dangerous words in the language. They force some otherwise very intelligent people to believe in magic.

They think that if they know a thing, that thing is true in some sense transcending their own puny human opinion. Magic.

 

[adi2d]

Um, no... Biblical events (like the flood) are simply widely known examples of the predicates I was talking about.



No need. You obviously have a peculiar notion of evidence. Evidence is data that increases the probability of a hypothesis. Everything I listed was evidence- conclusive evidence, in fact.

You liste a couple of things concerning the Christian God
You stated man has invented Gods
That is conclusive evidence in your mind?


All religions can't be right. But they can all be wrong


I looked in my cupboard for some popcorn but I didn't see any












Therefore there is no popcorn in the world
What more evidence could I need to KNOW I am right

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You can only know it if its true-

I'm sorry. I really don't mean to offend you, but that is the most bizarre statement I can imagine. It's as if you believe in magic. Or maybe that you believe yourself to be an actual prophet of God -- who can tell true from false with certainty.

... if you can actually talk to your dead Grandmother, (I'm guessing you can't, obviously)- and if your belief is justified- that is, if it is based on evidence or reasoning sufficient to establish that belief, as opposed to a lucky guess.

You're 'guessing' that I can't talk to Granny?

Oh... that's different.

So you can't know if it's true or false whether I can talk to Granny?

So no one can have a justified true belief about my Granny talk?

No one can have knowledge about my Granny talk?

Well, what use is knowledge if no human can ever have any?

Knowledge means "what we believe that is in fact true, and we have sufficient reason to believe".

'In fact true.' Yikes... what a concept.

Go read the link, then come back and take another swing at this.

Assuming that you are still in school, I think my best best is to wait a couple of years until you are, well... readier.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm sorry. I really don't mean to offend you, but that is the most bizarre statement I can imagine. It's as if you believe in magic. Or maybe that you believe yourself to be an actual prophet of God -- who can tell true from false with certainty.

It's like you're being intentionally dense. I'm not proposing anything out of the ordinary here. For me to know, for instance, that my cat is on the couch, my cat must actually be on the couch. Duh!

What about this is so difficult to grasp? In order to "know" something, as opposed to simply believe it, that something must in fact be true. Pretty obvious.

You're 'guessing' that I can't talk to Granny?

Yes, since it's highly improbable you communicate with the dead. High five!

So no one can have a justified true belief about my Granny talk?

No one can have knowledge about my Granny talk?

Never said that...

Well, what use is knowledge if no human can ever have any?

Never said that...

Assuming that you are still in school, I think my best best is to wait a couple of years until you are, well... readier.

Are you afraid of learning something, or what? Why your reluctance to go get an introduction to this concept you've been talking out of your you-know-what about, because you simply have no idea what it is?

It is undeniable that knowledge is justified true belief. This is simply what we mean when we use the word "knowledge"; "knowledge" and "justified true belief" are synonyms.

Go read the article, then come back- you are not ready for this conversation (and let's just note the irony in you making this accusation, even in jest).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You liste a couple of things concerning the Christian God
You stated man has invented Gods
That is conclusive evidence in your mind?

I'd say you're oversimplifying here. In comparative religion and anthropology, "humans author deities" is, as a hypothesis, consistent with all the available evidence- time after time we have examples of various religions throughout history which author concepts of deity- we can think of various primitive and pagan religions here.

We have not, so far, encountered a single case where there was any reason to think that humans did not author religion, so the hypothesis remains unfalsified and successful.

All religions can't be right. But they can all be wrong

I looked in my cupboard for some popcorn but I didn't see any

Therefore there is no popcorn in the world
What more evidence could I need to KNOW I am right

???

The point is that knowledge simply consists in defeasibly true and sufficiently substantiated beliefs. The three lines of reasoning I mentioned are alone sufficient to establish the absence of God/gods, and we could likely come up with others. Unless and until these are contradicted, they stand.

And there isn't anything newsworthy here, this is most old news- the problem is that people are, well, religious about their religion and tend to not hear what they don't want to hear. The writings been on the wall for a long time.

 

[Willamena]

I have absolute knowledge that I can talk to my dead grandmother.

Why? Well, because it is a justified true belief that I can talk to my dead grandmother.

Have you talked to her? If so, then it's knowledge. Experience--that is, a posteriori knowledge--is justifiably believable. (One of the methods of justification.)

That doesn't sound silly or wrong to you -- me knowing (having knowledge) that I can talk to Granny?

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm not the one to whom it has to be justified.

If I can know that, then anyone can know anything.

So knowledge means nothing at all except 'being convinced that we're right'... which happens to be my own definition of knowledge and is much finer than 'justified, true belief.'

Now you sound as if you haven't actually experienced talking her, but only because you are casting doubt on your knowledge. See, it works in reverse order, too.

'Knowledge' merely means 'great psychological certainty that our mental outlook lines up with external reality.'

To have knowledge merely means to be convinced that we are right, yes?

There is no condition on experience. Period.

 

[Willamena]

Justification doesnt make it correct just reasonable. What of the scenario where the guess is wrong.

Then it's an unlucky guess.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's like you're being intentionally dense. I'm not proposing anything out of the ordinary here. For me to know, for instance, that my cat is on the couch, my cat must actually be on the couch. Duh!

Right. The cat is actually on the couch and I am actually talking to Granny. So all is right and we are free to know these things.

But if the cat is not actually on the couch and I am not actually talking to Granny, then it would be inappropriate for us to know these things.

Um... you've never actually debated this kind of thing before now, have you.

But that's OK. You have come to the right place. We can help you organize your thought. Just give us 15 or 20 years of your life and we will make you into a mighty thinker and debater indeed! I'm sure of it.

What about this is so difficult to grasp? In order to "know" something, as opposed to simply believe it, that something must in fact be true. Pretty obvious.

That really is just hilarious. True stuff can be known, but untrue stuff can't be known. Goodness.

So many undeclared prophets of God walk among us in these days.

Are you afraid of learning something, or what? Why your reluctance to go get an introduction to this concept you've been talking out of your you-know-what about, because you simply have no idea what it is?

Since I can so easily debate circles around you, without the least exertion, why would you want to give me an even greater advantage by sending me off to learn more? That doesn't make good sense.

It is undeniable that knowledge is justified true belief. This is simply what we mean when we use the word "knowledge"; "knowledge" and "justified true belief" are synonyms.

Oh my. Undeniable that your personal definition of these terms are 'what the terms really mean.'

It's so curious to me how many fundie atheists have entered this thread. It's like a new phenomenon or something.

Atheists as certain of their truth as the fundiest Christian or Muslim is of his own.

Go read the article, then come back- you are not ready for this conversation (and let's just note the irony in you making this accusation, even in jest).

Oh, come on. Your bluster was fun for a couple of messages, but it's becoming tedious now. I'm curious whether you can actually keep up with the debate. Would you like to try that with me?

Here: See if you can grapple with this simple question. If 33% of humanity says that A is true, and 42% says that -A is true -- with the rest being undecided -- is A true or is -A true?

I look forward to your considered response.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Have you talked to her? If so, then it's knowledge. Experience--that is, a posteriori knowledge--is justifiably believable. (One of the methods of justification.)

Sure. I talk to her all the time.

So anway, you're saying that knowledge is subjective? Whether or not a thing is true -- that's subjective?

If so, then we're not far apart at all. I say that knowledge is merely psychological certainty. You seem to say the same. I mean, you want to give it formal criteria, like 'justified' and 'true', but I do the same thing without the formal structure. I see no good reason to do all of that when we can simply know a thing.

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm not the one to whom it has to be justified.

So you do agree that knowledge is simply subjective opinion, yes?

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, sometimes I think that 'know' and 'knowledge' are the most dangerous words in the language. They force some otherwise very intelligent people to believe in magic.

They think that if they know a thing, that thing is true in some sense transcending their own puny human opinion. Magic.

Knowing and believing are results of truth, not causes of it. Truth is in place before either can exist. (Truth is place before the world can exist, but that's another story.) By whatever means we each may imagine the 'true' switch to come on (and it doesn't matter which means), it switches on, and a belief is born.

Babies don't have beliefs, they just wallow in a world of sensations. When their brains are devleoped enough, they begin to put symbols to things, put two and two symbols together, and get results. Hungry, cry, get bottle, feel better.

The world is symbols. As we get older, we replace the sensation of hunger with the word "hungry," the sensation of the sight of a face with the word, "mom"; etc, until we are practically living in the world of symbols, every bit of the sensational world having been significantly replaced, and then, with education, we build a level of abstracted ideas on top of that. At that level, we analyse the world. At that level, we theorize, proposition and assign truth. That is where belief and knowledge reside.

When I say "assign truth," I don't mean that we go around labelling. A "sign" is present in the world of theory and analysis: it "jumps off the page" to slap us in the face with a message of significance and realization. Assignation, in this case, is recognizing truth, not labelling truth.

Holding a belief is investing in a proposition (a beast of symbols) with its assigned truth; it becomes knowledge when we know that we have good reason for holding that belief.