*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[ArtieE]

You have time and time again said that you [don't know gods don't exist, the universe could be crawling with them] to explain your "lack of belief."

If you get so confused about that from now on I'll just say I'm an "agnostic atheist" instead of just an atheist. I assumed that was obvious but apparently not.

belief absolutely deals with knowledge.

So if I say I believe that something is true, I know that it is true?

 

[ArtieE]

I don't think they are meaningful, which is why I prefer the continuum approach.

I can't help it if you don't think they are meaningful, they are what they are. That you prefer a different approach I can't help either but that doesn't make "our approach" less meaningful.

 

[Curious George]

If you get so confused about that from now on I'll just say I'm an "agnostic atheist" instead of just an atheist. I assumed that was obvious but apparently not.So if I say I believe that something is true, I know that it is true?

LOL, I think you meant to quote me here. No if you say you believe something and it is well justified and it is true then you know something. Otherwise how am I to distinguish. But is there anything you believe that is not based off something you assume you know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agnostics believe that the truth or falsity of the proposition is unknown or unknowable. To withhold judgement on the proposition such that one does not believe or does not disbelieve entails a belief that the truth or falsity of the proposition is unknown or unknowable. Knowledge is most commonly accepted to be justified true belief. That is to say, that knowledge is completely relevant in a discussion about belief.

Only insofar as knowledge could be considered a subset of belief. Belief does not necessarily entail knowledge, but knowledge entails belief - ergo, when discussing belief, we are not necessarily dealing with knowledge, but dealing with a broader spectrum of positions which includes knowledge. It's no different to discussing fruit and citrus fruit. You can talk about fruit and citrus fruit would be part of the discussion, but to equate all fruit to citrus fruit is inaccurate. Albeit one is a subcategory of the other, knowledge and belief are still not the same thing, in the exact same way that fruit is not the same thing as citrus fruit, or London is not the same thing as England.

 

[ArtieE]

But is there anything you believe that is not based off something you assume you know?

To know something is different from believing something. An atheist doesn't believe gods exist for many reasons, for example simply because his parents never bothered to turn him into a theist and he's never given gods a second thought. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe gods exist or don't exist because of lack of evidence/knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

Only insofar as knowledge could be considered a subset of belief. Belief does not necessarily entail knowledge, but knowledge entails belief - ergo, when discussing belief, we are not necessarily dealing with knowledge, but dealing with a broader spectrum of positions which includes knowledge. It's no different to discussing fruit and citrus fruit. You can talk about fruit and citrus fruit would be part of the discussion, but to equate all fruit to citrus fruit is inaccurate. Albeit one is a subcategory of the other, knowledge and belief are still not the same thing, in the exact same way that fruit is not the same thing as citrus fruit, or London is not the same thing as England.

not quite the same thing, but nonetheless, to say that citrus fruit does not belong in a conversation about fruit seems silly.

Now the reason that it is not the same thing is that without some knowledge, you cannot have belief. The knowledge we have informs the beliefs we have. So, when talking about beliefs knowledge is especially relevant.

 

[Curious George]

To know something is different from believing something. An atheist doesn't believe gods exist for many reasons, for example simply because his parents never bothered to turn him into a theist and he's never given gods a second thought. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe gods exist or don't exist because of lack of evidence/knowledge.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Let us try again. Is there anything you believe that is not based off something you assume you know?

 

[ArtieE]

Now the reason that it is not the same thing is that without some knowledge, you cannot have belief.

You confuse knowledge with evidence. You can have enough evidence to believe something but not enough to know it, and you can have enough evidence to say that you know beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Willamena]

ROTFL. Atheists don't believe gods exist. Strong atheists don't believe gods exist AND actively believe gods don't exist. It's just a matter of being able to understand that when we say just atheist, one word, we mean a person who doesn't believe in gods, and when we say strong atheist, two words, we mean a person who doesn't believe in gods and also actively believes gods don't exist.

Yes, I've heard this from you before: "strong" atheists are the ones who indulge the contradiction. When strong atheists say just "atheist," though, they usually mean strong atheist (i.e. himself).

 

[Curious George]

You confuse knowledge with evidence. You can have enough evidence to believe something but not enough to know it, and you can have enough evidence to say that you know beyond a reasonable doubt.

You confuse knowledge with evidence. Think hard on this Artie. Does belief in evidence assume knowledge?

 

[ArtieE]

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Let us try again. Is there anything you believe that is not based off something you assume you know?

No nothing I believe is based on anything I know. Everything I believe is based on evidence. If I had enough evidence I would say I know it.

 

[ArtieE]

You confuse knowledge with evidence. Think hard on this Artie. Does belief in evidence assume knowledge?

Belief in evidence?

 

[Curious George]

No nothing I believe is based on anything I know. Everything I believe is based on evidence. If I had enough evidence I would say I know it.

Yet you know this is evidence?
Yet you know evidence exists?
You require knowledge... at least assumed knowledge to get to evidence Artie.

 

[Curious George]

Belief in evidence?

give an example of evidence and I will explain.

 

[ArtieE]

Yet you know this is evidence?
Yet you know evidence exists?
You require knowledge... at least assumed knowledge to get to evidence Artie.

Don't know what you mean. You get from evidence to belief to knowledge depending on the quality of the evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

give an example of evidence and I will explain.

You give an example because I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Curious George]

Don't know what you mean. You get from evidence to belief to knowledge depending on the quality of the evidence.

lol, alright Artie, let us see if I can provide you with sufficient evidence:

If I see a chair before me, is that sufficient evidence to know there is a chair before me?

 

[Curious George]

You give an example because I don't understand what you mean.

you don't know what evidence means? You were just using the word.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

not quite the same thing, but nonetheless, to say that citrus fruit does not belong in a conversation about fruit seems silly.

That depends entirely on the conversation. If we were discussing the differences between different kind of fruit, citrus would certainly be part of the discussion. However, when discussing the difference between fruit and vegetables, citrus isn't necessarily relevant. In this case, we are discussing the difference between belief and absence of belief, so knowledge (while still a subset of belief) doesn't really factor into that discussion.

Now the reason that it is not the same thing is that without some knowledge, you cannot have belief.

That's not necessarily true. Case in point, I recently saw the new Star Wars movie and I concluded that it was good. "The new Star Wars movie is good" is a belief I hold; a position that I hold to be true. However, I don't KNOW that the new Star Wars movie is good - it is not a justified true belief, it is an opinion (which is another subset of belief).

 

[ArtieE]

lol, alright Artie, let us see if I can provide you with sufficient evidence:

If I see a chair before me, is that sufficient evidence to know there is a chair before me?

No, it's sufficient evidence for me to believe there's a chair before me but it could be a mirror trick and there's no chair there at all.