Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:91-120|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is Faith-based

Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:24:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 9:06:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also 'atheist' doesn't just mean "doesn't believe in the Abrahamic god", either. You are nearly as much as an atheist as I, in fact, since you lack belief in all the other gods.

Atheism in general means disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. Unless you would like to show me an Atheist who does believe in the concept of God in some way, shape or form that I haven't thought of yet?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:25:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

That definition poses problems, as Gettier famously noted.

Consider this example. Smith and Jones both applied for a job. Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith therefore concludes that the person who will get the job, will have ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith ends up getting the job instead of Jones. Smith also, by sheer coincidence, has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith was justifiably right that the person who would get the job would also have ten coins in his pocket.

So Smith had justified true belief that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. According to your definition, he had knowledge of the fact, but every one of his reasons for believing his conclusion were wrong and it was only by sheer coincidence that he was right. He had the right conclusion and his conclusion was justified, but all his justifications for the conclusion were wrong. In the end, you can't count his belief as knowledge. It follows that since his belief was both justified and true, you can't define justified true belief as knowledge either.

I don't like getting into disputes over the definition of knowledge because it tend to become a semantic sh!t storm sometimes, but I reject your definition. The next most common definition is that knowledge requires certainty. Under that definition, I would deny the existence of knowledge for humans. Provide more definitions if you want, or defend your first one. I'll go on from there.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:39:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:25:33 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

That definition poses problems, as Gettier famously noted.

Consider this example. Smith and Jones both applied for a job. Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith therefore concludes that the person who will get the job, will have ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith ends up getting the job instead of Jones. Smith also, by sheer coincidence, has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith was justifiably right that the person who would get the job would also have ten coins in his pocket.

So Smith had justified true belief that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. According to your definition, he had knowledge of the fact, but every one of his reasons for believing his conclusion were wrong and it was only by sheer coincidence that he was right. He had the right conclusion and his conclusion was justified, but all his justifications for the conclusion were wrong. In the end, you can't count his belief as knowledge. It follows that since his belief was both justified and true, you can't define justified true belief as knowledge either.

I don't like getting into disputes over the definition of knowledge because it tend to become a semantic sh!t storm sometimes, but I reject your definition. The next most common definition is that knowledge requires certainty. Under that definition, I would deny the existence of knowledge for humans. Provide more definitions if you want, or defend your first one. I'll go on from there.

A justified very likely true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:41:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:39:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

A justified very likely true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

Or it has to be true. But then we can't truly know whether we have knowledge or not. Maybe we can just use reasonable faith to assume knowledge.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:50:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:25:33 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

That definition poses problems, as Gettier famously noted.

Consider this example. Smith and Jones both applied for a job. Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith therefore concludes that the person who will get the job, will have ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith ends up getting the job instead of Jones. Smith also, by sheer coincidence, has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith was justifiably right that the person who would get the job would also have ten coins in his pocket.

So Smith had justified true belief that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. According to your definition, he had knowledge of the fact, but every one of his reasons for believing his conclusion were wrong and it was only by sheer coincidence that he was right. He had the right conclusion and his conclusion was justified, but all his justifications for the conclusion were wrong. In the end, you can't count his belief as knowledge. It follows that since his belief was both justified and true, you can't define justified true belief as knowledge either.

I don't like getting into disputes over the definition of knowledge because it tend to become a semantic sh!t storm sometimes, but I reject your definition. The next most common definition is that knowledge requires certainty. Under that definition, I would deny the existence of knowledge for humans. Provide more definitions if you want, or defend your first one. I'll go on from there.

The bolded statement is not true if Jones does not get the job, therefore he did not have a justified true belief, and therefore did not hold knowledge under my definition.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:56:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:46:10 PM, phantom wrote:

I 'know' there's a difference, but I thought you were pointing out the difference to say that I was right in one sense, but not the other. My reply was to say I was right in both senses.

Ah. I wasn't trying to say that. Just that there's a difference. But yeah, you're overall right.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:07:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

Atheist is when you don't belief in God. This can be because they haven't seen any evidence for God. What faith is need for that?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:08:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:50:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:33 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

That definition poses problems, as Gettier famously noted.

Consider this example. Smith and Jones both applied for a job. Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith therefore concludes that the person who will get the job, will have ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith ends up getting the job instead of Jones. Smith also, by sheer coincidence, has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith was justifiably right that the person who would get the job would also have ten coins in his pocket.

So Smith had justified true belief that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. According to your definition, he had knowledge of the fact, but every one of his reasons for believing his conclusion were wrong and it was only by sheer coincidence that he was right. He had the right conclusion and his conclusion was justified, but all his justifications for the conclusion were wrong. In the end, you can't count his belief as knowledge. It follows that since his belief was both justified and true, you can't define justified true belief as knowledge either.

I don't like getting into disputes over the definition of knowledge because it tend to become a semantic sh!t storm sometimes, but I reject your definition. The next most common definition is that knowledge requires certainty. Under that definition, I would deny the existence of knowledge for humans. Provide more definitions if you want, or defend your first one. I'll go on from there.

The bolded statement is not true if Jones does not get the job, therefore he did not have a justified true belief, and therefore did not hold knowledge under my definition.

Why??

Are your only justified beliefs ones that end up being true? If the facts known to Smith pointed to Jones getting the job, than he was justified in believing Jones would get the job. However, there could have been facts not known to Smith, that lead to Smith getting the job. Truth is irrelevant to justification. I think theism was very justified in primitive times, but I still think it's false. Why on earth do you have to be correct in order to be justified? Tell me, if your most trusted friend told you he was going to McDonalds for lunch, but he ended up going to Burger King, wouldn't you be justified in believing he was going to McDonalds? Of course you would. So why is justification dependent on truth?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:09:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:41:27 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:39:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

A justified very likely true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

Or it has to be true. But then we can't truly know whether we have knowledge or not. Maybe we can just use reasonable faith to assume knowledge.

So what's your definition?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:11:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:56:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:46:10 PM, phantom wrote:

I 'know' there's a difference, but I thought you were pointing out the difference to say that I was right in one sense, but not the other. My reply was to say I was right in both senses.

Ah. I wasn't trying to say that. Just that there's a difference. But yeah, you're overall right.

Ok, cool.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:14:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:24:09 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:06:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also 'atheist' doesn't just mean "doesn't believe in the Abrahamic god", either. You are nearly as much as an atheist as I, in fact, since you lack belief in all the other gods.

Atheism in general means disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. Unless you would like to show me an Atheist who does believe in the concept of God in some way, shape or form that I haven't thought of yet?

Disbelief can mean not believing. How does that require faith?
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:18:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:14:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:24:09 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:06:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also 'atheist' doesn't just mean "doesn't believe in the Abrahamic god", either. You are nearly as much as an atheist as I, in fact, since you lack belief in all the other gods.

Atheism in general means disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. Unless you would like to show me an Atheist who does believe in the concept of God in some way, shape or form that I haven't thought of yet?

Disbelief can mean not believing. How does that require faith?

Faith is having complete trust and confidence in something. Because you do not know for a fact that God does not exist, you have complete trust and confidence in that He does not exist, faith.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:19:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:08:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:50:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:33 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

That definition poses problems, as Gettier famously noted.

Consider this example. Smith and Jones both applied for a job. Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith therefore concludes that the person who will get the job, will have ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith ends up getting the job instead of Jones. Smith also, by sheer coincidence, has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith was justifiably right that the person who would get the job would also have ten coins in his pocket.

So Smith had justified true belief that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. According to your definition, he had knowledge of the fact, but every one of his reasons for believing his conclusion were wrong and it was only by sheer coincidence that he was right. He had the right conclusion and his conclusion was justified, but all his justifications for the conclusion were wrong. In the end, you can't count his belief as knowledge. It follows that since his belief was both justified and true, you can't define justified true belief as knowledge either.

I don't like getting into disputes over the definition of knowledge because it tend to become a semantic sh!t storm sometimes, but I reject your definition. The next most common definition is that knowledge requires certainty. Under that definition, I would deny the existence of knowledge for humans. Provide more definitions if you want, or defend your first one. I'll go on from there.

The bolded statement is not true if Jones does not get the job, therefore he did not have a justified true belief, and therefore did not hold knowledge under my definition.

Why??

Are your only justified beliefs ones that end up being true?

No, but my definition of knowledge requires that. That's why I included true in the definition.

If the facts known to Smith pointed to Jones getting the job, than he was justified in believing Jones would get the job. However, there could have been facts not known to Smith, that lead to Smith getting the job. Truth is irrelevant to justification. I think theism was very justified in primitive times, but I still think it's false. Why on earth do you have to be correct in order to be justified? Tell me, if your most trusted friend told you he was going to McDonalds for lunch, but he ended up going to Burger King, wouldn't you be justified in believing he was going to McDonalds? Of course you would. So why is justification dependent on truth?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:25:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:22:39 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
Atheism is Faith-based|

is like saying the Secular meat Market is Kosher.

So Atheists know for a fact through definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real? Because anything else is faith.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:26:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let me show you:
H548
אמנה
'ăm"n"h
BDB Definition:
1) faith, support, sure, certain
1a) of a covenant
1b) of financial support
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong"s Number: from H543
Same Word by TWOT Number: 116h
Note the word "covenant". There is no covenant outside of YHWH, not one that is going to stand through the fire anyway.

Even in the Greek one of the man, many words for faith translates like this:

G2454
O92;_9;`5;^8;^5;[2;`3;_6;a2;`2;
Ioudaismos
Thayer Definition:
1) the Jewish faith and worship, religion of the Jews, Judaism
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer"s/Strong"s Number: from G2450
Citing in TDNT: 3:356, 372

Sorry about the code, my computer does not translate Hebrew and Greek font, at least not through this forum.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:28:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

1) Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something
2) A-Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that the FSM (PBUH) is not real
3) Therefore, they have faith the FSM is not real.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:33:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:09:40 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:41:27 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:39:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

A justified very likely true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

Or it has to be true. But then we can't truly know whether we have knowledge or not. Maybe we can just use reasonable faith to assume knowledge.

So what's your definition?

A justified and true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:41:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8
Horrible statement!!!!!

Oh, it exists...wake up and smell the blood shed. Wicked anti-semites are every where, unfortunately.

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such positions is called an "antisemite".
While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[1] and that has been its normal use since then.[2] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews"individually and as a group"that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."[3]
Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Although the term did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is now also applied to historic anti-Jewish incidences. Notable instances of persecution include the pogroms which preceded the First Crusade in 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the massacres of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, Cossack massacres in Ukraine, various pogroms in Russia, the Dreyfus affair, the Holocaust, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies and the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:55:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:28:08 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

1) Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something
2) A-Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that the FSM (PBUH) is not real
3) Therefore, they have faith the FSM is not real.

I suppose so in this context.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:03:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:19:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:08:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:50:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:33 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

That definition poses problems, as Gettier famously noted.

Consider this example. Smith and Jones both applied for a job. Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith therefore concludes that the person who will get the job, will have ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith ends up getting the job instead of Jones. Smith also, by sheer coincidence, has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith was justifiably right that the person who would get the job would also have ten coins in his pocket.

So Smith had justified true belief that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. According to your definition, he had knowledge of the fact, but every one of his reasons for believing his conclusion were wrong and it was only by sheer coincidence that he was right. He had the right conclusion and his conclusion was justified, but all his justifications for the conclusion were wrong. In the end, you can't count his belief as knowledge. It follows that since his belief was both justified and true, you can't define justified true belief as knowledge either.

I don't like getting into disputes over the definition of knowledge because it tend to become a semantic sh!t storm sometimes, but I reject your definition. The next most common definition is that knowledge requires certainty. Under that definition, I would deny the existence of knowledge for humans. Provide more definitions if you want, or defend your first one. I'll go on from there.

The bolded statement is not true if Jones does not get the job, therefore he did not have a justified true belief, and therefore did not hold knowledge under my definition.

Why??

Are your only justified beliefs ones that end up being true?

No, but my definition of knowledge requires that.

Knowledge requires truth. Justification doesn't.

That's why I included true in the definition.

I don't think you're paying attention. The only justified true belief Smith had was that the person who got the job would have ten coins in his pocket. His belief that Jones would get the job was justified but not true. So where's your problem? Initially you said the statement, "Smith has justified belief that Jones will get the job" was wrong since Jones didn't actually get the job. Now it appears you're admitting truth isn't necessary for justification, so I don't see any standing objection.

If the facts known to Smith pointed to Jones getting the job, than he was justified in believing Jones would get the job. However, there could have been facts not known to Smith, that lead to Smith getting the job. Truth is irrelevant to justification. I think theism was very justified in primitive times, but I still think it's false. Why on earth do you have to be correct in order to be justified? Tell me, if your most trusted friend told you he was going to McDonalds for lunch, but he ended up going to Burger King, wouldn't you be justified in believing he was going to McDonalds? Of course you would. So why is justification dependent on truth?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:07:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:33:44 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:09:40 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:41:27 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:39:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

A justified very likely true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

Or it has to be true. But then we can't truly know whether we have knowledge or not. Maybe we can just use reasonable faith to assume knowledge.

So what's your definition?

A justified and true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

See my Gettier example (my first post on this page). If you don't think it applies, say what you mean by "sound logical process".
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 5:08:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:55:39 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:28:08 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

1) Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something
2) A-Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that the FSM (PBUH) is not real
3) Therefore, they have faith the FSM is not real.

I suppose so in this context.

Would you say that your faith that the FSM is not real is the exact same as your faith that God is real?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:16:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 5:08:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:55:39 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:28:08 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

1) Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something
2) A-Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that the FSM (PBUH) is not real
3) Therefore, they have faith the FSM is not real.

I suppose so in this context.

Would you say that your faith that the FSM is not real is the exact same as your faith that God is real?

Well seeing as how the arguments for the existence and non-existence of the God of Abraham are both strong, and that the ones who argue for the latter created the FSM in mockery of those who argue for the former, I guess no, it is not the same.

Actually, it's due to this knowledge and the admittance on the part of actual Pastafarians that it is just a parody and mockery that I can say that I don't have faith in the FSM, I know the FSM is not real.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 12:27:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 10:16:16 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


Well seeing as how the arguments for the existence and non-existence of the God of Abraham are both strong,

I disagree that there are any strong arguments in favor of the God of Abraham.

and that the ones who argue for the latter created the FSM in mockery of those who argue for the former, I guess no, it is not the same.

Actually, it's due to this knowledge and the admittance on the part of actual Pastafarians that it is just a parody and mockery that I can say that I don't have faith in the FSM, I know the FSM is not real.

Oh? And what definitive evidence do you have of that? Considering I'm still waiting on that unicorn evidence, I doubt you'll be able to produce any.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:06:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 12:27:25 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 10:16:16 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


Well seeing as how the arguments for the existence and non-existence of the God of Abraham are both strong,

I disagree that there are any strong arguments in favor of the God of Abraham.

and that the ones who argue for the latter created the FSM in mockery of those who argue for the former, I guess no, it is not the same.

Actually, it's due to this knowledge and the admittance on the part of actual Pastafarians that it is just a parody and mockery that I can say that I don't have faith in the FSM, I know the FSM is not real.

Oh? And what definitive evidence do you have of that? Considering I'm still waiting on that unicorn evidence, I doubt you'll be able to produce any.

I really hope you're not serious.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:18:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:06:25 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/27/2013 12:27:25 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 10:16:16 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


Well seeing as how the arguments for the existence and non-existence of the God of Abraham are both strong,

I disagree that there are any strong arguments in favor of the God of Abraham.

and that the ones who argue for the latter created the FSM in mockery of those who argue for the former, I guess no, it is not the same.

Actually, it's due to this knowledge and the admittance on the part of actual Pastafarians that it is just a parody and mockery that I can say that I don't have faith in the FSM, I know the FSM is not real.

Oh? And what definitive evidence do you have of that? Considering I'm still waiting on that unicorn evidence, I doubt you'll be able to produce any.

I really hope you're not serious.

I am.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:26:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:07:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:33:44 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:09:40 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:41:27 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:39:42 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

A justified very likely true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

Or it has to be true. But then we can't truly know whether we have knowledge or not. Maybe we can just use reasonable faith to assume knowledge.

So what's your definition?

A justified and true belief which was reached via a sound logical process.

See my Gettier example (my first post on this page). If you don't think it applies, say what you mean by "sound logical process".

To arrive at the "knowledge", the person uses a sound logical process, not fallacies. I don't know much about them, but induction and deduction are acceptable I believe. Say then, that he has a premise one, a premise two and a conclusion. The conclusion logically follows if the premises are met, and the premises are truly met.

Oh and I'm just having a stab at this, I don't do philosophy, so I could be way out.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:27:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:18:54 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/27/2013 1:06:25 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

I really hope you're not serious.

I am.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 10:25:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:18:56 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:14:00 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:24:09 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:06:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also 'atheist' doesn't just mean "doesn't believe in the Abrahamic god", either. You are nearly as much as an atheist as I, in fact, since you lack belief in all the other gods.

Atheism in general means disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. Unless you would like to show me an Atheist who does believe in the concept of God in some way, shape or form that I haven't thought of yet?

Disbelief can mean not believing. How does that require faith?

Faith is having complete trust and confidence in something. Because you do not know for a fact that God does not exist, you have complete trust and confidence in that He does not exist, faith.

Wait, you just said that I do not know for a fact that God does not exist, which is true, and then you said I have complete trust and confidence in he does not exist? This is a contradiction. I do not have any positive belief in a God, but I don't know for a fact he does not exist.

For example I do not have any positive belief that Chris Christie will be the next president, but I do not know for a fact that he will not be the next president. It can be said that I don't believe Chris Christie will be the next president.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.