Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 05-05-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardMorey
If only people were that rational. There are many people who would admit that they have no knowledge (or, as I would prefer to say, evidence) of a deity but choose to believe that one exists. This is why I think belief and evidence (or knowledge) whould be separated - they are not contingent on one another. In your definition they are.

I agree. Imo, the way Totalitarianist is using 'belief' makes synonymous with 'certain knowledge' and therefore redundant.

Helen

Totalitarianist · 05-05-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardMorey
If only people were that rational. There are many people who would admit that they have no knowledge (or, as I would prefer to say, evidence) of a deity but choose to believe that one exists. This is why I think belief and evidence (or knowledge) whould be separated - they are not contingent on one another. In your definition they are.

The point is that they believe that they have knowledge of Deity -- that knowledge is "existence". The least one can possibly know about something is that it "exists", and this is knowledge -- the least possible amount of knowledge -- of that thing. This is precisely what the agnostic cannot have by definition.

Totalitarianist · 05-05-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
I agree. Imo, the way Totalitarianist is using 'belief' makes synonymous with 'certain knowledge' and therefore redundant.

Helen

I am not. Again, all that is necessary is that the person believes that he has knowledge of Deity. Whether the belief that he has knowledge of Deity is consistent with reality is a completely different question irrelevant to this discussion.

HelenM · 05-05-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
I am not. Again, all that is necessary is that the person believes that he has knowledge of Deity. Whether the belief that he has knowledge of Deity is consistent with reality is a completely different question irrelevant to this discussion.

I agree. The distinction you just made is irrelevant, though, to my point that you are using an erroneous definition of agnostic and also are trying to make belief and knowledge synonymous, which they are not.

Helen

pescifish · 05-05-2003, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
In other words you are asking: Why are definitions of words so important?

Exactly, Totalitarianist.

You seem uninterested in the actual discussion of the concepts behind the words as the majority of English speaking people use them. Instead you appear to be trying to insist on your own definitions. Helen makes an excellent point:

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
I agree. The distinction you just made is irrelevant, though, to my point that you are using an erroneous definition of agnostic and also are trying to make belief and knowledge synonymous, which they are not.

I understand the logic of your personal definition of the word 'agnostic'. By your definitions of all these words, your argument is quite sound.

So what?

That's not how language or communication works, at least without making it very difficult. You do not seem interested in General Religious Discussion. Instead, you appear to be arguing semantics.

Totalitarianist · 05-05-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
I agree. The distinction you just made is irrelevant, though, to my point that you are using an erroneous definition of agnostic and also are trying to make belief and knowledge synonymous, which they are not.

Helen

Tell me how I am making belief and knowledge identical explicitly.

HelenM · 05-06-2003, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Tell me how I am making belief and knowledge identical explicitly.

Here:

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
if you have knowledge of Deity, you necessarily believe in him. Agnostics cannot have knowledge of Deity. They necessarily do not believe in him. They are necessarily atheists.

You said knowledge implies belief and lack of knowledge implies lack of belief.

You thereby made knowledge and belief synonymous.

Helen

Totalitarianist · 05-06-2003, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
Here:

You said knowledge implies belief and lack of knowledge implies lack of belief.

You thereby made knowledge and belief synonymous.

Helen

But knowledge does imply belief. Can you deny that? Belief implies belief that you have knowledge.

HelenM · 05-06-2003, 05:23 AM

If I say "I believe" rather than "I know" I am making a deliberate distinction that you seem to deny exists.

I may very well have chosen to say "I believe" rather than "I know" precisely because I realize I lack [certain] knowledge.

Helen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2003, 05:23 AM	#49
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	If I say "I believe" rather than "I know" I am making a deliberate distinction that you seem to deny exists. I may very well have chosen to say "I believe" rather than "I know" precisely because I realize I lack [certain] knowledge. Helen

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.