The_Rational_Animal wrote:


Now you lost me. You claim to be "here to discuss philosophy", yet do not want to distinguish beliefs from knowledge. That latter activity is a major goal of epistemology and philosophy in general; an unwillingness to make such distinctions leads directly to vague arguments that you are positing here. Dictionary definitions, contrary to what you think, are inadequate. We cannot open up a dictionary, show it to someone and say "This is what this means!" They merely give synonyms and equally ambiguous words, which lead to an infinite regress of inadequate meanings to words. Wittgenstein, who formed the basis of the academic philosophy that pervades the philosophical process today, said that the aim of philosophy should be to clarify. You are only making the situation more unclear by telling people to look in a dictionary. No two definitions will be alike because no two people are going to interpret that definition in the same way. The philosophical process dictates that you, before all discussion, define the terms you are to use in your argument.

So, when I say that atheists "know" that there is no God, I mean explicitly that they have "justified true belief" (something I thought even the most basic student of philosophy would know from studies of Plato). Atheists have justification (a lack of proof and Occam's Razor), truth (at least in the subjective sense), and belief (because they most certaintly believe it to be a true statement of fact). Agnostics merely "believe" because they lack the willingness to make attributions of truth values to claims about religion. In order to be an atheist, you must be willing to make a truth claim, which is a commitment agnostics do not want to make because they make additional claims of skepticism or unknowability. Because athiests have the three criteron of knowledge, one can safely say that they "know" the non-existence of God by deduction and rational argument, whereas the agnostic justifies his belief with arguments of skepticism or unknowability yet lacks a side.

Thus, there is no middle ground or reconciliation between the atheist or agnostic: it is very much black-and-white, either you are or you are not. You cannot make two opposite claims simultaneously (A&-A) and expect people to respect that as rational.

The_Rational_Animal wrote:


Your failure to define the words you are using is leading to your confusion. "Belief" is the same thing as "knowledge" when the truth aspect of knowledge is subjective. Take for instance, "I know that your cat is dumb". I am certain of this claim's truth value, yet this truth value is entirely subjective to me. I use "to know" because I am certain enough in this truth value. Although it may not be objectively true, it still constitutes knowledge because knowledge is "justified true belief". If you do not wish to use that JTB definition of knowledge, then by all means suggest something else because I'm completely lost in what you think it is.

Yet, this is not "knowledge" (as you seem to see knowledge) because it is not objectively true. Hence, when I say "atheists know that God does not exist", I implicitly mean that they believe that God does not exist, because they see such a fact as true, but only subjectively. However, the distinction between agnostics and atheists stands to mean a lack of this subjective truth value on the part of the agnostic.

I am saying that you are irrational because you believe something which you think could be wrong. So what you are saying is a contradiction, hence meaningless, and not something that I wish to continue explaining.

Dranu wrote:
Is truth the criterion for distinguishing knowledge from belief? If that is the case, can a belief be true? If it can be, then what distinguishes it from knowledge? I am asking.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:


I don't define words, we're all speaking the same language I don't see why I have to inform others of the standard usage of said words unless they are ignorant of what they mean. Until someone claims a word is something that it is not, I'm not going to take the time to look up the word in a dictionary, copy and paste it here to educate people.

klorius wrote:


If you were using that as a reference, then you should have referred to the section describing 'weak' and 'strong' atheism, since it seems like that's the difference between your ('weak') definition and the one you're arguing against here (the 'strong' concept). Asserting that someone that holds that other definition does not understand what atheism is (while ignoring the alternate concept that is described in the very link you have posted) makes it seem like you're here to assert rather than argue.

klorius wrote:


I didn't know what this concept of 'weak' atheism was. You provided the link which made the distinction. Was it too much effort to pick out this relevant point?

The_Rational_Animal wrote:


Precisely. This is the absolutely wrong way to do philosophy and frankly I'm ashamed to be involved in this discussion.

Dranu wrote:
So then, what allows us to 'know' it is true versus thinking it it?

This sounds reasonable. However, what would determine objectivity and subjectivity? For certainly it is objectively true that God exists or does not exist objectively speaking.

Dranu wrote:
Yes, but to 'believe' in something we must recognize the nature of what we are talking about to some degree. We cannot talk about God unless we understand His nature to some degree. The same with a unicorn.

What constitutes this?

Dranu wrote:
Yes, which is why we can recognize the nature of a unicorn. It exists at least as a concept, even if it does not exist in reality. So back to my question in post #45.

So observation with teh 5 senses cosntitutes 'cognitive awareness'?

Dranu wrote:
Well in that case how do we know if the nature of the unicorn (that we hold in the mind) also exists in reality or not? Especially considering that 'cognitive awareness' is not constituted by the 5 senses. Is rational analysis enough? If so why does the unicorn not pass the test?