*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Curious George]

In modern terms, it is called factual knowledge.

Keep that in mind while continuing with your greater understanding.

Are you trying to define knowledge? What is factual knowledge?

 

[Curious George]

Yes. Please go back to them yourself before trying to pass them on as knowledge.

Lol...methinks your lost.

 

[Curious George]

But if knowing is just a kind of belief it literally means we know nothing and believe everything. Knowing is just a special name for a certain kind of belief nothing more. It doesn't mean that knowledge is something separate from belief. You can't say you either believe or you know you can only say you either believe or have a different kind of belief which would be silly don't you think?

Again equivocation.

 

[Curious George]

Since the discussion is on atheism, let's use an atheist example.

If you have knowledge of God, but do not believe in God... is your knowledge still a belief?

If you are Agnostic, does your knowledge of God now create a suspended belief dependent on proof accepted by the individual?

The real issue is that, like the old teachings of Gods, old philosophy teachings are also out of date on their definitions and interpretations.

Using the modern brain and language, which have evolved since Plato, it would be more appropriate to claim a "fact" is a justified true belief.

Your rhetoric does nothing to justify your contention that this philosophy is outdated.

 

[Curious George]

Just as an aside... terminology dropping is a debating tactic used by those in a vulnerable position. To seasoned debaters, it is like the smell of fear, or the blood in the water, so to speak.

Over terminologizing is an attempt at intellectual intimidation, unfortunately, it is on par with a bear standing up to look tall. The user hopes to deflect from the argument put to him, to a definition of terms battle instead. Since the user likely doesn't fully understand his own position, typically because of book smart type knowledge (memorization), they take the argument to where they are most comfortable. (regurgitating what they memorized) If they are lucky, their opponent is intimidated by the terminology, because there was a time in history when memorizing information was considered highly intelligent.

It is much like "Credential Dropping" (I have an MA), or using quotes, (see... this smart person in history agrees with me).

Watch for them...

Lol, didn't mean to intimidate you. When I discuss I use numbers as well....watch out.

 

[ArtieE]

Again equivocation.

Is that shorthand for "I couldn't find anything logically wrong with that and no good arguments to counter it?"

 

[Curious George]

Is that shorthand for "I couldn't find anything logically wrong with that and no good arguments to counter it?"

No, it is shorthand for noting that you are excluding knowledge when knowledge is not excluded. You are doing so based on a semantic argument. You first note correctly that I have indicated that knowledge is a type of belief. Then you conclude that we have only beliefs. So far so good. But then you switch the definition of belief to exclude knowledge. Thus, the belief in your first part is different than the belief in your second part.

In your first part belief includes knowledge, in your second or does not. Therefore, they are different definitions. Hence, you are equivocating.

I am sorry that you assume that I do not have a more elaborate explanation for your logical errors. And, I am sorry I assumed you were astute enough to comprehend what I was saying based off a short answer. I will try to make my answers more comprehensible for you.

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by "from which to start"? If you're just going along with the epistemological idea that all positions and assumptions we make about the world must be based on some assertion of fact, you're kind of getting it the wrong way around. We have to start with assumptions of fact, but that doesn't mean we start with a justified true belief in that fact. Belief comes before knowledge.


Again, you're grasping by using vague terminology and making false equivocation. Do you or do you not accept that knowledge is a subset of belief, and that not all beliefs are assertions or assumptions of knowledge?


You're confusing belief and knowledge. You don't need to know A=A, you just need to believe it.

I am pointing out that we must first have knowledge before we can have other types of belief.

Yes, I accept knowledge is a subset of belief. That is what I have been saying all along. I also accept not all beliefs are knowledge.

I am not confusing, belief and knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

[Curious George]

But if knowing is just a kind of belief it literally means we know nothing and believe everything. Knowing is just a special name for a certain kind of belief nothing more. It doesn't mean that knowledge is something separate from belief. You can't say you either believe or you know you can only say you either believe or have a different kind of belief which would be silly don't you think?

You can say you know when you have a specific type of belief.

If we were playing cards and you had an ace (knowledge), you could say you had an ace (knowledge). Just because an ace(knowledge) is a card (belief) does not mean you could not say you have an ace( knowledge). However, saying you have a card(belief) is not incorrect. It is true that you have a card(belief). But you cannot then say you do not have an ace (knowledge) because you have a card (belief).

What you are implying makes no sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am pointing out that we must first have knowledge before we can have other types of belief.

How does that make sense? That's like saying we need to have cake before we can have baked goods.

Yes, I accept knowledge is a subset of belief. That is what I have been saying all along. I also accept not all beliefs are knowledge.

I am not confusing, belief and knowledge. Belief is a subset of knowledge.

Well, you just said that knowledge is a subset of belief and then immediately followed it by saying belief is a subset of knowledge, so it appears you are confusing the two.

 

[Curious George]

How does that make sense? That's like saying we need to have cake before we can have baked goods.


Well, you just said that knowledge is a subset of belief and then immediately followed it by saying belief is a subset of knowledge, so it appears you are confusing the two.

The last bit was a mistake, I apologize. I meant that knowledge is a sub set of belief, not the other way around.

It makes sense because you must build from knowledge. You cannot have beliefs but from starting with knowledge. This knowledge may be so self-evident that it is just assumed, but without that knowledge, you could not have any other type of belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The last bit was a mistake, I apologize. I meant that knowledge is a sub set of belief, not the other way around.

Ah, no worries. My apologies.

It makes sense because you must build from knowledge. You cannot have beliefs but from starting with knowledge. This knowledge may be so self-evident that it is just assumed, but without that knowledge, you could not have any other type of belief.

What knowledge are you referring to? What knowledge can you possibly hold without which you could not have any other belief?

 

[Curious George]

Ah, no worries. My apologies.


What knowledge are you referring to? What knowledge can you possibly hold without which you could not have any other belief?

If nothing else, that A=A. What belief can you possibly hold before this?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If nothing else, that A=A. What belief can you possibly hold before this?

And how is that knowledge?

 

[Curious George]

And how is that knowledge?

Is it true? Is it justified? Is it something we hold true?

I am pretty sure all of these are yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is it true?

Can you demonstrate it to be?

Is it justified?

Can you demonstrate it to be?

Is it something we hold true?

Yes.

I am pretty sure all of these are yes.

That's something you need to demonstrate.

 

[Curious George]

Can you demonstrate it to be?


Can you demonstrate it to be?


Yes.


That's something you need to demonstrate.

I am not a fan of solipsism. If A=A is not true, then you have no basis to say anything is true. Ergo, no basis to discuss belief or knowledge because to do so necessitates the assumption that A=A as true. So, if not A=A then all of your experience is for naught.

 

[Willamena]

The claim that we found beliefs on prior bits of knowledge seems uncontroversial. If I know when the sun will come up tomorrow, and I've set my alarm accordingly, I am safe in believing that I will get to work on time.

 

[Willamena]

Is it true? Is it justified? Is it something we hold true?

I am pretty sure all of these are yes.

Technically, I don't think axioms are justified. That's why they're called axiomatic.

They do to qualify as knowledge, but not JTB type knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

Technically, I don't think axioms are justified. That's why they're called axiomatic.

They do to qualify as knowledge, but not JTB type knowledge.

I am suggesting it is justified by necessity.