OtherGround Forums Atheism debunked

6 days ago
12/9/13
Posts: 6122
CaptainWoody -
Pretjah - 
CaptainWoody -

Pretjah

If you want to go down the path of history, you can't just overlook the treatment of people who didn't believe. The religious were in control, they got to write the narrative. Saying "I don't believe" is harmless, they twisted it into being nefarious and making positive claims against the church and state....then they could be "dealt with"


If what you're saying is true, you surely could present writings and documentation of historical atheists doing what you say is the "original" meaning.

It was the church's meaning....but not the truth.

listen if you want to disagree with me fine

 

reality is the word for the vast majority of it's existance meant DISBELIEF  not nonbelief.  it has also come to meannonbelief which is fine  but to say it only means non belief is an untruth in any sense of the word.

 

if a person says the sky does not appear to be blue, the proof is not on the person who says it appears blue to prove to the person saying it doesn't appear blue.  the proof is on the person saying it does not appear blue.  whether you think it's blue or yellow has no bearing on the disbelief in it being blue to the other person.

 

if you say 2+2 does not equal 4 the burden is on you to prove 2+2 equals somethign else no matter if i think it equals 4 or 10 has no bearing on your assertion that it's not 4.


Your analogies are completely inaccurate to what we are talking about.

"if a person says the sky does not appear to be blue, the proof is not on the person who says it appears blue to prove to the person saying it doesn't appear blue."


Again, you're trying to imply that a disbelief or non-belief (doesn't matter) of a God was first. You are correct here, the burden of proof is on the person saying "the sky does not appear to be blue"...because it's the first positive belief claim. Just because it has the word "not" in it doesn't mean it isn't a positive belief claim. It also makes sense because we know what blue and sky are...that's the only way you could say this in this fashion...otherwise it would be ramblings of a crazy person.

Imagine no one has heard of a "sky"....whether the first person says it isn't blue or is blue wouldn't matter to the second person...they would just be thinking "Wtf is a sky?"

That's why claiming there is a God came first, it wouldn't make any sense the other way around and that's why the burden of proof is on that side.

Which god.  Or do you mean gods came first.  You need to prove the god of the trees and all the thousands of other gods that came before your god don’t exist for that stance to be logical.

6 days ago
3/12/15
Posts: 4697

Atheists are mentally weak and insecure.

Such bitter/angry/confused little creatures. 

6 days ago
5/24/18
Posts: 872
The Lion King -

Atheists are mentally weak and insecure.

Such bitter/angry/confused little creatures. 

Religious people are mentally weak and insecure. 
 

Such bitter/angry/confused little creatures. 

6 days ago
9/23/07
Posts: 81208
The Lion King - 

Atheists are mentally weak and insecure.

Such bitter/angry/confused little creatures. 


"I only believe in real things"


This is a mentally weak statement ?

6 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8269
Brockback Mountain -
The Lion King - 

Atheists are mentally weak and insecure.

Such bitter/angry/confused little creatures. 


"I only believe in real things"


This is a mentally weak statement ?

Define real. Do you mean physical objects, or ideas, or emotions, or the colour red, or the sensation of the colour red? Is happiness real? What principles to you use to differentiate between the real and non-real?

6 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 3555

Who created God?  No one?  He’s just always existed?  Oh, so not everything has a creator?  Alright.  I’ll be over there not listening to you.

6 days ago
3/12/15
Posts: 4699

6 days ago
3/12/15
Posts: 4700

6 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40848
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Most of your post is confusing, I don't follow...It's strange.

I'll comment on this though,

""You can believe something without knowledge correct"
I don't think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature."


No it's not, they are totally different. Think of an athlete, a fighter perhaps. Total confidence, total belief in himself, his abilities, his training..etc. He 100% believes he can win. Does he know he will win? No. of course not. One wrong slip and he's coming in second.

You absolutely can believe without knowledge......

It's Pascal's Wager for fucks sake

6 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8271
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Most of your post is confusing, I don't follow...It's strange.

I'll comment on this though,

""You can believe something without knowledge correct"
I don't think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature."


No it's not, they are totally different. Think of an athlete, a fighter perhaps. Total confidence, total belief in himself, his abilities, his training..etc. He 100% believes he can win. Does he know he will win? No. of course not. One wrong slip and he's coming in second.

You absolutely can believe without knowledge......

It's Pascal's Wager for fucks sake

I didn’t say belief is knowledge, but it is a knowledge claim. When a religious person says they believe in god, they CLAIM to have knowledge of god. Just like the fighter who absolutely believes himself and says he’ll win with 100% confidence will claim that a victory WILL happen (a claim of knowledge, in this case, future knowledge). 
 

To bring it back to the original point of our discussion, my argument is that a theist makes a knowledge claim to the existence of god, an atheist makes a knowledge claim to the non-existence of god and an agnostic makes no knowledge claim at all. In my first post I said that definitionally an atheist and an agnostic should be exactly the same, but in practice, atheism isn’t about a lack of knowledge of god, it’s a knowledge claim to the non-existence of god, which is just fine. 
 

5 days ago
1/3/18
Posts: 6988
The Lion King -

Atheists are mentally weak and insecure.

Such bitter/angry/confused little creatures. 

Hey guys, here’s one of those examples I was talking about in my recent post response.

Maybe you should talk to him. Although it is possible that his god somehow told him to post that. Which is just one more reason why I think op’s particular god is a massive cock chugging fagoon. 
ooh, look! Look at what a huge hypocrite I am. Lmao

5 days ago
1/3/18
Posts: 6989
Pilgor the goat -
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Most of your post is confusing, I don't follow...It's strange.

I'll comment on this though,

""You can believe something without knowledge correct"
I don't think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature."


No it's not, they are totally different. Think of an athlete, a fighter perhaps. Total confidence, total belief in himself, his abilities, his training..etc. He 100% believes he can win. Does he know he will win? No. of course not. One wrong slip and he's coming in second.

You absolutely can believe without knowledge......

It's Pascal's Wager for fucks sake

I didn’t say belief is knowledge, but it is a knowledge claim. When a religious person says they believe in god, they CLAIM to have knowledge of god. Just like the fighter who absolutely believes himself and says he’ll win with 100% confidence will claim that a victory WILL happen (a claim of knowledge, in this case, future knowledge). 
 

To bring it back to the original point of our discussion, my argument is that a theist makes a knowledge claim to the existence of god, an atheist makes a knowledge claim to the non-existence of god and an agnostic makes no knowledge claim at all. In my first post I said that definitionally an atheist and an agnostic should be exactly the same, but in practice, atheism isn’t about a lack of knowledge of god, it’s a knowledge claim to the non-existence of god, which is just fine. 
 

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1295/what-is-the-difference-between-knowledge-and-belief

5 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 32790
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Of course you can believe without knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief. 

5 days ago
10/6/02
Posts: 8075
You can't make a truth claim about anything without God.
5 days ago
1/3/18
Posts: 6991
colubrid1 - You can't make a truth claim about anything without God.

Which god and how did you come to such a conclusion of absoluteness?

5 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8279
Im with the banned -
Pilgor the goat -
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Most of your post is confusing, I don't follow...It's strange.

I'll comment on this though,

""You can believe something without knowledge correct"
I don't think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature."


No it's not, they are totally different. Think of an athlete, a fighter perhaps. Total confidence, total belief in himself, his abilities, his training..etc. He 100% believes he can win. Does he know he will win? No. of course not. One wrong slip and he's coming in second.

You absolutely can believe without knowledge......

It's Pascal's Wager for fucks sake

I didn’t say belief is knowledge, but it is a knowledge claim. When a religious person says they believe in god, they CLAIM to have knowledge of god. Just like the fighter who absolutely believes himself and says he’ll win with 100% confidence will claim that a victory WILL happen (a claim of knowledge, in this case, future knowledge). 
 

To bring it back to the original point of our discussion, my argument is that a theist makes a knowledge claim to the existence of god, an atheist makes a knowledge claim to the non-existence of god and an agnostic makes no knowledge claim at all. In my first post I said that definitionally an atheist and an agnostic should be exactly the same, but in practice, atheism isn’t about a lack of knowledge of god, it’s a knowledge claim to the non-existence of god, which is just fine. 
 

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1295/what-is-the-difference-between-knowledge-and-belief

Wow, thanks for this link. I’ve never looked into this whole subject in any depth, I was missing a lot of stuff trying to work through it logically. 
 

 

5 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8280


this image is especially helpful for me (from link above)
5 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8281
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Of course you can believe without knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief. 

Yeah, I see that now. It’s not an intuitive conclusion, to me it seems that belief would be downstream from knowledge, but a lot of things aren’t intuitive in metaphysics. But I wasn’t trying to get into epistemology, Captain Woody brought that up and I was just trying to use his terms to better illustrate what I was trying to say. I learned a lot reading up on it though, so that’s a good day. 

5 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8282


Also, this graphic is pretty good, although the comments didn't seem to be so keen on it.
5 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 32792
colubrid1 - You can't make a truth claim about anything without God.

Go on...

5 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 32793
Pilgor the goat - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

“Additionally, the only broad category that can be addled to atheists is Non-Belief. It carries nothing else with it otherwise it’s something else that is not atheism.”

 

That’s not true. True “non-belief” would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn’t make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent. 
 

I agree that is what atheism should be, but it’s not how it’s practiced proven by the fact that the term “agnostic” even has to exist. If it were as you say, the terms would be identical in every way, thus negating a need for separate terms.


"That's not true. True "non-belief" would be agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a negative counter-claim to a different positive claim. It is simply ambivalent."

This is incorrect.

Gnosticism or agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge not belief, those are two different things and the word literally means that. ...Gnostic = Knowledge, Agnostic = without knowledge.

But if a true atheist stance is simply that there is no proof of god (aka: we have no knowledge of god), wouldn’t you say that agnosticism (no knowledge of god) and atheism (no knowledge of god) are the same thing? Apply Leibniz’ principle of the identity of Indiscernibles and you see they are identical in every way outside of the specific syntax and the historical use of that syntax. In essence, they mean the same thing, in practice they manifest very differently. That’s my argument; many atheists aren’t actually arguing a lack of knowledge in god, but are arguing they have knowledge in a lack of god. They aren’t athiest, they are anti-theists. 


You're skipping belief

Theism = belief ...atheism = no belief

You can believe something without knowledge correct?

"I don't know if there is a God"...that would make you agnostic

"I don't believe there is a God"...that would make you an atheist


Those are not mutually exclusive, you can be both. I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe there is, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

“You can believe something without knowledge correct”

I don’t think so, no. Belief itself is a knowledge claim by its very nature. You can’t believe in something physical (like say, an Apple being on your table) without objective knowledge, but when one says they believe in god, they’re claiming to have a different type of non-objective knowledge of that entity (which manifests as belief). In practice, an agnostic would say that there can only be objective knowledge of god but we don’t have it (yet?), whereas an athiest says there cannot be any objective knowledge of god, which is in itself a belief. 


Of course you can believe without knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief. 

Yeah, I see that now. It’s not an intuitive conclusion, to me it seems that belief would be downstream from knowledge, but a lot of things aren’t intuitive in metaphysics. But I wasn’t trying to get into epistemology, Captain Woody brought that up and I was just trying to use his terms to better illustrate what I was trying to say. I learned a lot reading up on it though, so that’s a good day. 


" to me it seems that belief would be downstream from knowledge"

I would change one word, in most cases it "should" be.

5 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 32794
Pilgor the goat - 


Also, this graphic is pretty good, although the comments didn't seem to be so keen on it.

For me first thing is to separate knowledge and absolute certainty.  

 

5 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8284
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
Pilgor the goat - 


Also, this graphic is pretty good, although the comments didn't seem to be so keen on it.

For me first thing is to separate knowledge and absolute certainty.  

 

By absolute certainty do you mean something like logical truth?
 

Three angles of a triangle = 180; half of the people on earth are below average intelligence, etc. 

5 days ago
8/3/15
Posts: 35

BS because OP didn’t triple dog dare me.

4 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 32800
Pilgor the goat - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
Pilgor the goat - 


Also, this graphic is pretty good, although the comments didn't seem to be so keen on it.

For me first thing is to separate knowledge and absolute certainty.  

 

By absolute certainty do you mean something like logical truth?
 

Three angles of a triangle = 180; half of the people on earth are below average intelligence, etc. 


I mean people who think if someone says they know something it means they are claiming to be absolutely certain. For example I know humans evolved, however, I am not absolutely certain we evolved.