*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Curious George]

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.


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).

yes but in order to hold that belief you require knowledge of the Star wars movie do you not?

Yet, belief or absence of belief is wholly contingent on knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

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.

ok, so you see a chair, and touch the chair, and smell the chair and maybe even taste the chair... is that sufficient evidence?

 

[Willamena]

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).

If you don't know, then no one does.

 

[ArtieE]

ok, so you see a chair, and touch the chair, and smell the chair and maybe even taste the chair... is that sufficient evidence?

Yes. When I have reached a point beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

yes but in order to hold that belief you require knowledge of the Star wars movie do you not?

Nope. In fact, I don't even have to have seen the movie to formulate a belief on it. You need not "know" anything to formulate a belief.

Yet, belief or absence of belief is wholly contingent on knowledge.

What knowledge is a babies absence of belief in giraffes based on?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you don't know, then no one does.

Exactly. Nevertheless, it is a thing many people have based many beliefs on.

 

[Willamena]

You need not "know" anything to formulate a belief.

Not even language skills?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Well... technically we don't know the physics of what we call thought... yet... and it may be governed by something like molecular physics... so what you perceive as a choice is simply an interaction between molecules acting on a given set of physical, predictable rules.

Regardless... the point is we don't know, and won't know if we, humanity, keep stopping at the explanation that an imaginary friend decides it all and he wants you to wear a special hat.

If the evidence comes back I will accept it as such. However even then nothing will change as we pragmatically assume free will from the get go or we can't function.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. In fact, I don't even have to have seen the movie to formulate a belief on it. You need not "know" anything to formulate a belief.


What knowledge is a babies absence of belief in giraffes based on?

Yes, knowledge is required to formulate belief. Otherwise one only has experience not belief.

Babies absence of belief in giraffes are based on their absence of knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

Yes. When I have reached a point beyond reasonable doubt.

But how can you know it is a chair without knowledge of what a chair is?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not even language skills?

Yep. Even illiterate mutes can formulate beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, knowledge is required to formulate belief. Otherwise one only has experience not belief.

Experience and belief are not mutually exclusive. A belief can be formulated through experience rather than knowledge.

Babies absence of belief in giraffes are based on their absence of knowledge.

Now you're just grasping. You claimed belief and absence of belief is wholly contingent on knowledge, and you are now claiming you can base an absence of belief on ABSENCE of knowledge. So which is it? Is knowledge required or not?

 

[ArtieE]

But how can you know it is a chair without knowledge of what a chair is?

It's not the knowledge of what a chair is we are talking about, it's the knowledge that there's a chair present.

 

[Curious George]

Experience and belief are not mutually exclusive. A belief can be formulated through experience rather than knowledge.


Now you're just grasping. You claimed belief and absence of belief is wholly contingent on knowledge, and you are now claiming you can base an absence of belief on ABSENCE of knowledge. So which is it? Is knowledge required or not?

I am not grasping. If you lack knowledge, then such entails a lack of belief

No, one can have experience, but to have belief they must have knowledge. Otherwise there is no order to the experience to form belief. With order you assume truth, that is to say you need a priori belief, that you must assume to be knowledge before you can have any synthetic belief. Otherwise you are literally just experiencing the world, not making any judgement.

 

[Curious George]

It's not the knowledge of what a chair is we are talking about, it's the knowledge that there's a chair present.

Which requires knowledge of chair, present, and "is." This is because belief is contingent on knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. Nevertheless, it is a thing many people have based many beliefs on.

Well, I know if the movie was good or not, because "good" is my judgement to make.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not grasping. If you lack knowledge, then such entails a lack of belief

So is an absence of belief contingent on knowledge or an absence of knowledge? Are there any positions a person can hold that are not contingent on knowledge?

No, one can have experience, but to have belief they must have knowledge.

So what is "justified true belief" compared with plain "belief"? Is there a difference?

Otherwise there is no order to the experience to form belief. With order you assume truth, that is to say you need a priori belief, that you must assume to be knowledge before you can have any synthetic belief. Otherwise you are literally just experiencing the world, not making any judgement.

I'm afraid barely any of this is comprehensible. Define "order to experience" and define "synthetic belief".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, I know if the movie was good or not, because "good" is my judgement to make.

But whether or not the film IS objectively good or not is not a judgement you can make, as opinion is necessarily subjective.

 

[Curious George]

So is an absence of belief contingent on knowledge or an absence of knowledge? Are there any positions a person can hold that are not contingent on knowledge?


So what is "justified true belief" compared with plain "belief"? Is there a difference?


I'm afraid barely any of this is comprehensible. Define "order to experience" and define "synthetic belief".

If something's existence is contingent on your existence is not the things lack of existence entailed by your non existence?

Justified true belief is just that. However, one needs to assume truth before one can believe. A=A is a a priori belief that is justified by its necessity to any systematic ordering which we must assume to be true. Without a justified true belief such as this, we have no system within which to form beliefs.

the difference between justified true belief and plain belief is that justified true belief is justified and true.

in order to make sense of any of your experiences they must be ordered. hence, "order to experience."

a synthetic belief would be a belief derived from experience as opposed to an analytic belief, belief derived from definition.

 

[Curious George]

But whether or not the film IS objectively good or not is not a judgement you can make, as opinion is necessarily subjective.

On what objective basis can "good" be evaluated?