Someone doesn't understand analogies and illustrative examples I see.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Someone doesn't understand analogies and illustrative examples I see.
Even in 2017 it is not some language rule that the component parts of a word define usage and meaning.
3 isn't just "I don't believe that gods exist." It is "I don't believe gods exist" and "I don't believe that gods don't exist."
Curious George
Veteran Member
Indeed, I and some others go further and suggest that labeling so leads to obfuscation, equivocation, and forces us to include other arbitrary parameters. I am not fond of the way many have come to use the terms. But, communication is still possible. The obfuscation and equivocation is minor. And the arbitrary parameters only arise when discussing "Implicit atheism." So, I abide by their categorization when we need to have a discussion about anything.
And since 3 includes "I don't believe gods exist" how can you possibly combine that with 1 "I believe that gods exist"?
The same way you are combining it with "I believe that gods don't exist."
Both 1 & 2 are beliefs. 3 is rejecting both belief 1 & belief 2.
It doesn't believe that gods exist (excludes 1), and it doesn't believe that gods don't exist (excludes 2).
Growl growl growl. You're right, I suppose.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Oh, I understand the analogy. I just don't understand why you insist there must be something in the box without bothering to take a look!
There is no combination. "I don't believe gods exist and I believe that gods don't exist" is the complete definition of a strong atheist. They aren't two separate sentences. The original says and I quote: "2. I don't believe that gods exist and I believe that gods don't exist." One sentence, 13 words, one definition. 3 is also one definition.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Pretty basic epistemology. Perhaps do some reading if I'm talking over your head? Couldn't hurt.
Here's a place to start.
Epistemology - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
You can't express yourself in plain English then? How sad...
Repox
Truth Seeker
Oh, you rascal. You changed 2, back at post 717, and I hadn't nocticed.
Here is my original list:
And here is you agreeing to that list:
So, I'm not sure which original you are quoting.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
The 'plainness', if there exists such a word(if not, consider it invented), of English or any other language hinges both on ones level of comprehension and on one's ability to read and understand.
Besides, everything I said was boiled down as much as humanly possible. Ball's in your court now.
Your addition of "I don't believe that gods exist" to 2 is trivially true, by the way.
We can do the same thing to theist: "I don't believe that gods don't exist and I believe that gods exist."
It's a completely unnecessary addition because the "I believe X" part already means "I don't believe not-X".
Me neither. I have completely lost track.
Here is what you said and I quote:
"So, to narrow it down, a belief can be defined as holding a proposition as true.
Knowledge is defined in the field of epistemology as simply 'justified true belief'.
That makes belief and knowledge subjectively indistinguishable from each other, as what qualifies as 'justified' and 'true' will vary from subject to subject.
Your dichotomy is invalid."
and
"You don't believe something unless you also believe what you believe constitutes knowledge. You can't have knowledge without believing in the truth of a premise.
Your dichotomy is invalid."
Surely you are capable of expressing this in plain English?
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
No offense, and never one to back down from a challenge, but I'm really at as loss as to how to further simplify those statements.
I have lost track. Feel like starting over?
You're not supposed to simplify them. Just use your own different words to describe what they say in plain English.
Curious George
Veteran Member
He is saying that knowledge is a particular type of belief, and the only thing that distinguishes knowledge from mere belief are factors which are not based on that individuals perspective. (I disagree). But if he is correct, then a person cannot claim to believe something unless they think rightly, or wrongly that it is knowledge. Hence, he objects to the validity of you saying that a person can believe something without also believing that it is true and justifiably so. He is thus saying either a person believes something and consequently believes it to be knowledge or a person does not really believe at all.