*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[OutOfTheDarkness]

How would you argue against it?

You could start with which is the sub set.

If you cannot have a belief without the knowledge of it, does that not make belief the subset. Knowledge first, then the different types of belief.

You could also ask why does every religious discussion boil down to these definition battles?

"Prove your belief that God exists."

"What is belief?"

That's how. It's a deflective defense mechanism. Baffle, obfuscate, argue like a child every and any miniscule point to avoid having to give proof.

"What is proof?" Right?

If anyone truly believed half of the nonsense they spout, then they wouldn't need to eat, sleep or drink, because none of it is real and none of it means anything. Yet, if you ask them what they had for breakfast, they demonstrate they use their knowledge based on verified truth that certain foods are nutritious enough to keep them alive... and eat them. If someone claimed that pillow feathers are the ultimate in nutrition, they would also be the first to demand proof before injesting.

Reality. It's a funny thing. It gets you every time.

 

[Willamena]

I'm constantly amazed and impressed by people who implore set theory. But I've used in the past, so no worries.

 

[Curious George]

You could start with which is the sub set.

If you cannot have a belief without the knowledge of it, does that not make belief the subset. Knowledge first, then the different types of belief.

.

You cannot have 2 without 1, yet both are part of a set of numbers.

Knowledge is a specific belief you must have to form other beliefs. This is because knowledge creates the system on which other beliefs are based. You cannot process other beliefs but for some system of logic. The use of that logic system is to hold it as true.

The necessity of this system, justifies belief in the system. We call this system true, because without it no truth is possible, which contradicts our experience. Hence the system itself, or at least a portion thereof, is justified true belief.

The reason conversation like this comes down to definitions is not to deflect, but in hopes of curing some equivocations and errors in logic.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

You cannot have 2 without 1, yet both are part of a set of numbers.

Knowledge is a specific belief you must have to form other beliefs. This is because knowledge creates the system on which other beliefs are based. You cannot process other beliefs but for some system of logic. The use of that logic system is to hold it as true.

The necessity of this system, justifies belief in the system. We call this system true, because without it no truth is possible, which contradicts our experience. Hence the system itself, or at least a portion thereof, is justified true belief.

The reason conversation like this comes down to definitions is not to deflect, but in hopes of curing some equivocations and errors in logic.

... and you could have corrected that, long before you got to the "A belief must be justified and true, in order to be a justified true belief."

When I called you on it, rather than say oops, sorry, you justified talking down to someone on such a disgusting level as having to go to the "basics".

There was no justification for that, and no amount of terminology changes that.

Funny how you don't like being talked down to. There is a term for that.

 

[Curious George]

... and you could have corrected that, long before you got to the "A belief must be justified and true, in order to be a justified true belief."

When I called you on it, rather than say oops, sorry, you justified talking down to someone on such a disgusting level as having to go to the "basics".

There was no justification for that, and no amount of terminology changes that.

Funny how you don't like being talked down to. There is a term for that.

I don't mind your choice of language, I even find it slightly amusing.

My explanation that a justified true belief must be a belief that is justified and true, was designed to show that I was not saying a belief must be justified and true in order to be believed. As was posited as my assertion by the poster to whom I had replied.

However, I have also had to make similar statements to clarify that I did not intend a justified true belief to mean a belief that is truly held, and justified.

Language can be tricky, and even when one thinks they are clear, they are not necessarily so. That you chose to quote me, out of context, remarking on such "wisdom" made me laugh. That I replied with an equally esoteric quip likely did nothing to remedy the situation. But, my point was sometimes one must break something down in a very basic way in order to avoid misunderstanding.

 

[outhouse]

My explanation that a justified true belief must be a belief that is justified and true, was designed to show that I was not saying a belief must be justified and true in order to be believed.

Which is not a statement of certainty even in philosophy. Geniuses argued against that in its correct form.

Justified true belief is a philosophical argument to explain a few ancient mens definition of knowledge in an argument. It is not a stand alone definition nor the only way to explain knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

Knowledge is a specific belief you must have to form other beliefs.

No it Is not. Knowledge is knowing. It can surpassed belief completely.

1 + 1 = 2 I do not believe the answer is 2 in any fashion. I know the answer is two, with no belief at all.



Belief is not knowing and thinking you are correct.

 

[Gambit]

No it Is not. Knowledge is knowing. It can surpassed belief completely.

1 + 1 = 2 I do not believe the answer is 2 in any fashion. I know the answer is two, with no belief at all.

In like manner, I know that a necessary being is required to account for a world of contingent beings.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why would I? Or the OP?

You know that that is the topic of the thread, right?

The point was, the literature given is obviously absurd. When it includes the following statement in the description:
Our culture now assumes that atheism is the default position indeed, the only position for anyone who wishes to be seen as educated, contemporary, and urbane. In the media, atheism is usually portrayed as scientific and rational versus religion, which is seen as stuffy, outdated, and irrational.
The information contained is so skewed that it can only be dismissed as a waste of time.

 

[outhouse]

In like manner, I know that a necessary being is required to account for a world of contingent beings.

Does not refute . Knowledge is knowing. It can surpassed belief completely. in any way.

 

[Curious George]

No it Is not. Knowledge is knowing. It can surpassed belief completely.

1 + 1 = 2 I do not believe the answer is 2 in any fashion. I know the answer is two, with no belief at all.



Belief is not knowing and thinking you are correct.

Here is the problem, we are going to go around and around on this. Is it possible to define knowledge in a different way? Sure, I think @Shad provided an example last time we had this discussion (though I am not sure that it does). Plato even offered the strongest argument against it quite some time ago. But here is where we stand, we can point to problems such as gettier problems with JTB, and we can discuss problems with the formulations which have come since gettier, but many of these formulations continue to use the "justified" "true" and "belief" portions of the definition. Granted, many additional prongs have been added and some have just intensified the definition of the term justification, but we still need a definition for knowledge. If you want to explain your definition, please do. But defining knowledge as knowing does not explain what knowledge is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here is the problem, we are going to go around and around on this. Is it possible to define knowledge in a different way? Sure, I think @Shad provided an example last time we had this discussion (though I am not sure that it does). Plato even offered the strongest argument against it quite some time ago. But here is where we stand, we can point to problems such as gettier problems with JTB, and we can discuss problems with the formulations which have come since gettier, but many of these formulations continue to use the "justified" "true" and "belief" portions of the definition. Granted, many additional prongs have been added and some have just intensified the definition of the term justification, but we still need a definition for knowledge. If you want to explain your definition, please do. But defining knowledge as knowing does not explain what knowledge is.

Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin had some trouble with the definition of knowledge as JTB, and came up with a personal definition which was something along the lines of "A belief which is held so strongly that it would be worldview-altering to change or refute it". I think that definition has a variety of problems too, personally, but I've yet to see any lengthy articles or lectures by him explaining his definition in-depth.

Not sure if that helps or makes things worse... Oh well.

 

[Curious George]

Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin had some trouble with the definition of knowledge as JTB, and came up with a personal definition which was something along the lines of "A belief which is held so strongly that it would be worldview-altering to change or refute it". I think that definition has a variety of problems too, personally, but I've yet to see any lengthy articles or lectures by him explaining his definition in-depth.

Not sure if that helps or makes things worse... Oh well.

I will try to find something on that. I would not so readily want to give up the truth portion though, as then two conflicting beliefs could both be knowledge. Also, introducing "world view" is always tricky, as that definition has seemed to create its own baggage.

But thank you. Perhaps, Matt Dillahunty will offer a convincing argument.

 

[Gambit]

Does not refute . Knowledge is knowing. It can surpassed belief completely. in any way.

I wasn't attempting to refute your claim. But if I wanted to refute your claim, then all I would have to do is invoke "Godel's incompleteness theorems."

 

[outhouse]

I wasn't attempting to refute your claim. But if I wanted to refute your claim, then all I would have to do is invoke "Godel's incompleteness theorems."

That refutes nothing.

You keep posting arguments as if they have decided anything, not just shown a particular opinion on the given topic.

 

[Gambit]

That refutes nothing.

Actually, it does. It demonstrates that any axiomatic system is based on some premise that cannot be establishe within the context of the system. IOW, knowledge must include some aspect of faith.

"Every knower knows God implicitly in anything it knows." - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Reflex]

Godel's incompleteness theorems are a pebble in atheists' shoes.

 

[outhouse]

knowledge must include some aspect of faith.

.

Factually false. There is no faith at all knowing 1 + 1 = 2 NONE at all

It is not he end all to any part of epistemology, it is only one of many arguments in this study.

 

[outhouse]

Godel's incompleteness theorems are a pebble in atheists' shoes.

I would say reality, logic and reason are pebbles in some theist shoes.

I know better not to make the mistakes of stereotyping a whole group for perceived mistakes of a few.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Godel's incompleteness theorems are a pebble in atheists' shoes.

How, exactly?