*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Curious George]

But if knowledge is a specific type of belief then we actually know nothing and only believe things...

No. We have a specific type of belief that is called knowledge. When a belief is both justified and true it is considered knowledge. There are other formulations of knowledge but most revolve around justified true belief.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

But if knowledge is a specific type of belief then we actually know nothing and only believe things...

Verified knowledge becomes a probability or certainty. Unverified knowledge that an individual claims as fact, is a belief.

 

[ArtieE]

Verified knowledge becomes a probability or certainty. Unverified knowledge that an individual claims as fact, is a belief.

Yes, but Curious George clearly stated that knowledge is a kind of belief which must mean that all we really have are beliefs...

 

[Curious George]

Verified knowledge becomes a probability or certainty. Unverified knowledge that an individual claims as fact, is a belief.

So in your formulation we have two separate types of knowledge and one separate type of belief?

Do these separate knowledges have a breakdown of a priori, a posteriori, synthetic and analytic categories?

 

[Curious George]

Yes, but Curious George clearly stated that knowledge is a kind of belief which must mean that all we really have are beliefs...

It seems that you are equivocating. You say "all we have are beliefs" but you mean to exclude knowledge in that. If knowledge is a type of belief, then it is not excluded. If that is not your intention, disregard. But, it seems to be because earlier you said we know nothing as a consequence of "only having beliefs"

 

[ArtieE]

It seems that you are equivocating. You say "all we have are beliefs" but you mean to exclude knowledge in that. If knowledge is a type of belief, then it is not excluded. If that is not your intention, disregard. But, it seems to be because earlier you said we know nothing as a consequence of "only having beliefs"

In post 856 you clearly stated that knowledge is a specific kind of belief which can only mean that all we have are beliefs and just call one of them knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

In post 856 you clearly stated that knowledge is a specific kind of belief which can only mean that all we have are beliefs and just call one of them knowledge.

Yes, but to conclude that we "know nothing" as a consequence is an equivocation. Knowledge is a specific type of belief, so you cannot logically conclude that we lack knowledge if all we have are beliefs.

You don't follow this?

Let us rephrase with a category you are more familiar:

Humans are a type of mammal. We have no humans only mammals.

It doesn't follow.

 

[ArtieE]

Knowledge is a specific type of belief, so you cannot logically conclude that we lack knowledge if all we have are beliefs.

If knowledge is a specific type of belief then all we have are beliefs one of which we just call knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

If knowledge is a specific type of belief then all we have are beliefs one of which we just call knowledge.

Absolutely, but that does not mean we know nothing. Because as you point out here only having beliefs does not exclude knowing.

 

[ArtieE]

Absolutely, but that does not mean we know nothing. Because as you point out here only having beliefs does not exclude knowing.

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?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

So in your formulation we have two separate types of knowledge and one separate type of belief?

Do these separate knowledges have a breakdown of a priori, a posteriori, synthetic and analytic categories?

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.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

No. We have a specific type of belief that is called knowledge. When a belief is both justified and true it is considered knowledge. There are other formulations of knowledge but most revolve around justified true belief.

In modern terms, it is called factual knowledge.

Keep that in mind while continuing with your greater understanding.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Sometimes basic is necessary.

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

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, a belief has to be justified and true to be a justified true belief. One can believe something that is neither justified or true, but even this requires a justified true belief from which to start.

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.

Justified true belief is knowledge, hence all belief must start with a justified true belief. Even beliefs that are not true or justified must rely on a justified true belief. You cannot get to anything except experience, but that experience cannot even be ordered without 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?

By ordered I mean accommodated and assimilated, processed and analyzed. None of your experiences can be organized without a system by which to organize them any organizational system will at least require the a priori knowledge that A=A.

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

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't see that. They are essentially the same, which is supported by JTB. A thing known can't but be believed; justification for a thing believed can be sought. Can always be sought.

Knowledge is a subset of belief - i.e: we can BELIEVE something without it being a JTB.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

... a sky must be clear and blue, in order to be a clear blue sky.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

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...

 

[Willamena]

Knowledge is a subset of belief - i.e: we can BELIEVE something without it being a JTB.

That's a way of looking at knowledge without defining it. The difference with JTB is that knowledge is defined in terms of belief.

 

[atanu]

It is not a perception. I can prove it.

Any society that has grown up without the book of Mormon... or any individual that has never read the Book of Mormon... doesn't know what the book of Mormon says.

If all the religious holy books somehow "reveal themswlves" in people's heads, then everyone would be all faiths.

There is a reason there are pockets of similar believers in the world... because they are exposed to the local religious book, and CHOOSE to follow the local deity.

You mean that for the first persons who conceived any knowledge: spiritual or scientific, there was an external book a priori existent.

Possible.
.......

 

[Midnight Rain]

We needn't the symbols to know what 2 + = or 4 mean. It is knowledge of the concept not knowledge of the symbols that is necessary.

And what if the knowledge you have of something is sufficent? For example a person who has never seen a chair before needn't know what a chair is to know of the object that we would call a chair. They could touch, feel, examine ect the unknown object and the knowledge of what a "chair" is isn't needed .

When we talk about god this is actually partially based off of a Catholic argument which is that no one knows the fullness of god. No one has a full definition of god. The elephant has three people touching it. One touches the ear, one touches the leg and the last one touches the trunk. They all give drastically different descriptions of the same thing.

Though in a single case I do agree with some people who postered earlier (it may have been you I don't recall) that as soon as you obtain knowledge of it you begin to develop beliefs about it. You can either begin to believe it or you can not believe it.