Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So we have to consider the consistency of the above. Is knowledge and belief two different things?

It comes down to your epistemology.
If you have an epistemology based on evidence then you can claim knowledge such as "all the evidence is consistent with X but inconsistent with Y therefore Y is untrue and X is likely to be true" you can also claim knowledge such as "all the evidence is consistent with X and also consistent with A therefore X is likely to be true and A is likely to be true, I understand that X and A are incompatible therefore if one is true the other is false but I have insufficient evidence to know which one (if any) is true".
For an epistemology based on evidence it isn't acceptable to wishfully choose one plausible alternative over another. If you did then you would be invoking belief as opposed to knowledge.

OK…

Quote:If you have an epistemology based on faith then you just believe in whatever you want to believe and you call that knowledge. For this epistemology there is no difference between belief and knowledge. Given this epistemology then a theist must be a gnostic theist and can't be an agnostic atheist.

Within those definitions, fine, but as the old joke goes, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. I don't accept a faith-based epistemology as valid in any meaningful sense. If somebody tells me that they are a gnostic of either side based on faith then by my definition they are necessarily agnostic.

Quote:A gnostic atheist is similar to a gnostic thiest, they have chosen an epistemolgy of faith rather than evidence, they choose to equate knowledge with belief.

Yes, if they have chosen a faith-based position. It is possible that they are coming from a knowledge-based epistemology and be weighing the evidence differently or may be incorporating evidence that others do not have. The question then boils down to whether or not they can convince anybody else to accept the evidence they provide.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:55 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 12:57 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I guess the real question is, "Do you believe there are gnostic atheists?"

If so, please show me where to find a gnostic because I have some questions to ask him/her/it about the upcoming lottery.

There are plenty of atheists who claim knowledge that god doesn't exist. Go find free, he'll help you out.

You didn't read did you?

All gnostics (atheists or theists) do is redefine terms in order to make them fit... like you're doing.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  But you've changed the claim of belief to a claim of knowledge...

Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, but I don't believe god exists.
Gnostic theism = god exists
Gnostic atheism = no god exists

This isn't consistent.
To be consistent you would have to say
Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god doesn't exist

But as we know this isn't the case
A person who believes that god doesn't exist isn't agnostic, they are gnostic.
So we must reason that a person who believes god does exist as also being gnostic.
So now we have
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.
To be consistent we would also have to describe agnostic theism as the same
Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.

Since we don't have a different definition of agnostic atheism to agnostic theism we should really drop the theism/atheism qualifier.

Agnostic = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.

BUT, since this definition includes the phrase "I don't believe god exists" then this qualifies as "atheist" hence agnostic can't be a position of theism.


BUT REALLY, this isn't the way it works.
agnostic means without knowledge as apposed to a belief claim.
atheist means lacking belief in gods as apposed to a knowledge claim.

So we have to consider the consistency of the above. Is knowledge and belief two different things?

It comes down to your epistemology.
If you have an epistemology based on evidence then you can claim knowledge such as "all the evidence is consistent with X but inconsistent with Y therefore Y is untrue and X is likely to be true" you can also claim knowledge such as "all the evidence is consistent with X and also consistent with A therefore X is likely to be true and A is likely to be true, I understand that X and A are incompatible therefore if one is true the other is false but I have insufficient evidence to know which one (if any) is true".
For an epistemology based on evidence it isn't acceptable to wishfully choose one plausible alternative over another. If you did then you would be invoking belief as opposed to knowledge.

If you have an epistemology based on faith then you just believe in whatever you want to believe and you call that knowledge. For this epistemology there is no difference between belief and knowledge. Given this epistemology then a theist must be a gnostic theist and can't be an agnostic atheist.

A gnostic atheist is similar to a gnostic thiest, they have chosen an epistemolgy of faith rather than evidence, they choose to equate knowledge with belief.

My only comment on this is that most people believe that their beliefs are knowledge.

Have you ever heard someone say something like, "I saw our friend bob at the grocery store today, but I believe that's not true." or "I saw bob at the grocery store today, but I'm totally unjustified in holding that belief.

Everybody wants their beliefs to match reality, and if they thought their beliefs either were false or unjustified, they would discard them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 03:08 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:16 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Still ignoring the omniscient thing, eh?

So, do you believe that no one has any knowledge? Except perhaps than knowledge of their own existence? Do you think we all know nothing except the fact that we exist?

Yeah. No one can obtain knowledge in its truest sense. It's simply not possible. And, I cannot and do not have the knowledge of my existence. As far out as it may seem, and as ludicrous as it may sound, I cannot prove 100% that we're not a part of the Matrix or something similar.

This is why we often equivocate very strong beliefs to knowledge. It shows that our lack of belief, disbelief, or ignorance is negligible to what we consider as our belief system.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 03:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 03:08 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  So, do you believe that no one has any knowledge? Except perhaps than knowledge of their own existence? Do you think we all know nothing except the fact that we exist?

Yeah. No one can obtain knowledge in its truest sense. It's simply not possible. And, I cannot and do not have the knowledge of my existence. As far out as it may seem, and as ludicrous as it may sound, I cannot prove 100% that we're not a part of the Matrix or something similar.

This is why we often equivocate very strong beliefs to knowledge. It shows that our lack of belief, disbelief, or ignorance is negligible to what we consider as our belief system.

Just want to make sure I'm clear. You believe that knowledge does not exist. Is this right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This isn't consistent.
To be consistent you would have to say
Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god doesn't exist

That is not consistent with the definition of atheism that I have been using.

Quote:So now we have
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.

An agnostic atheist can believe that god doesn't exist so that doesn't work.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:31 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 03:09 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:24 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Ahh -- exactly the opposite of what Matt Finney is doing here (redefining belief to equal knowledge). Maybe they are the same person?

I'm not doing that at all. Knowledge = belief that is justified and true

Same definition as everyone else.

I'm not questioning your definition of knowledge. You seem to have a strange conception of belief, though. You don't have to be 100% certain of something to say you "believe" it. Most people, when they say they believe something, mean that they think it is likely to be true, but they are not certain that it's true. If they were certain, they wouldn't call it belief -- they would call it knowledge.

To use one of your own examples, if someone says they are not sure whether God exists, but if they had to choose, they would say probably yes -- that is not atheism or disbelief. "Probably yes" qualifies as belief by the commonly understood definition of the word. I would call that person a believer. A weak believer perhaps, but a believer nonetheless. You can't call them an atheist until the "probably yes" becomes "probably no". Otherwise you're making up your own definitions of words, and people aren't going to understand you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-08-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 03:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 03:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yeah. No one can obtain knowledge in its truest sense. It's simply not possible. And, I cannot and do not have the knowledge of my existence. As far out as it may seem, and as ludicrous as it may sound, I cannot prove 100% that we're not a part of the Matrix or something similar.

This is why we often equivocate very strong beliefs to knowledge. It shows that our lack of belief, disbelief, or ignorance is negligible to what we consider as our belief system.

Just want to make sure I'm clear. You believe that knowledge does not exist. Is this right?

I know what you're doing.

But yeah, according to what knowledge is, it is unobtainable unless a being is omniscient.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:34 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 03:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 03:09 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm not doing that at all. Knowledge = belief that is justified and true

Same definition as everyone else.

I'm not questioning your definition of knowledge. You seem to have a strange conception of belief, though. You don't have to be 100% certain of something to say you "believe" it. Most people, when they say they believe something, mean that they think it is likely to be true, but they are not certain that it's true. If they were certain, they wouldn't call it belief -- they would call it knowledge.

To use one of your own examples, if someone says they are not sure whether God exists, but if they had to choose, they would say probably yes -- that is not atheism or disbelief. "Probably yes" qualifies as belief by the commonly understood definition of the word. I would call that person a believer. A weak believer perhaps, but a believer nonetheless. You can't call them an atheist until the "probably yes" becomes "probably no". Otherwise you're making up your own definitions of words, and people aren't going to understand you.

Yeah.

That is pretty much what I said here:

(11-08-2015 03:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  This is why we often equivocate very strong beliefs to knowledge. It shows that our lack of belief, disbelief, or ignorance is negligible to what we consider as our belief system.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:38 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 03:19 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It is possible that they are coming from a knowledge-based epistemology
knowledge-based epistemology is incoherent.
I say this because epistemology means
Quote: the study of knowledge and justified belief
In essence epistomology is the method or criteria one holds in order to determine how to come into knowledge.

A faith based epistemology is where a person has decided that their faith determines if something is knowledge.
An evidence based epistemology is where a person has decided that evidence dictates whether something can be determined as knowledge.
A distinguishing feature between faith based and evidence based epistemology is that faith based does not require evidence. For example, Catholics believe that the Eucharist bread and wine are transubstatiated into Jesus' body and blood. They don't need supporting evidence, they just believe this to be true because they have faith in their church and what they are told to believe.

Now a "knowledge-based epistemology" would mean that they use knowledge to determine how to come into knowledge. This is circular and thus logically incoherent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: