This is equivalent to saying what I was saying before: according to you, to rationally believe X, one must know X (saying it is a fact is redundant). — Bob Ross
I don’t think one needs to know X to believe X — Bob Ross
I was giving you an example of atemporal dependency, not telling you what is sufficient for rational belief. Knowing what X means is required for rational belief in X, but it is obviously not sufficient. It doesn't establish that an agnostic atheist can rationally believe that God doesn’t exist without knowing God doesn’t exist, only that they can't without knowing what it means. The connection between rational belief and knowledge is just the connection between mental representation and informational content. For some kinds of information, there's a temporal dependency, but there are always atemporal dependencies (rationality itself, semantics etc)."To rationally believe X, I have to know what X means"
This is perfectly compatible with agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist knows what it means for god(s) not to exist, so they can “rationally” believe that god(s) don’t exist without knowing god(s) don’t exist. — Bob Ross
Your OP was attacking agnostic atheist in the sense that one needs knowledge of X to believe X — Bob Ross
I don’t see how any of that is atemporal. In order to know what “becoming president in the future” means to believe Bob is going to be the next president, I need to know the former before the latter. — Bob Ross
Is believing a ridged state for you? Are you equally sure about all your beliefs? — mentos987
how do I non-temporally acquire knowledge of X and then a belief in X without that inevitably being a temporal process? — Bob Ross
"No, I can have an irrational belief that turns out to be incorrect, based on fallacy or just lack of knoweldge, or I can have a rational belief that turns out to be correct based on knowledge."
That’s not what you implied thought with:
"I have to know what the president of the United States is in order to have a belief about who will become president in the future." — Bob Ross
This implies that one only needs some knowledge which is not the thing about to be beleived for that belief to be rational — Bob Ross
Which one seems more relevant to philosophy of religion's terminology? — Lionino
Correct me if I am wrong, but the OP mentions dictionaries and definitions at many points — Lionino
and some arguments seem to be based on these definitions — Lionino
This whole argument references the sourced definition of atheism you used. — Lionino
Let's see what the relevant dictionaries say:
A Dictionary of Atheism Stephen Bullivant and Lois Lee: "A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence".
A Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.) Simon Blackburn: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none."
A Dictionary of Psychology (4 ed.) Andrew M. Colman: "Rejection of belief in God. atheist n. One who rejects belief in God."
The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World: "The Greek for atheism is ‘not to recognize the gods’ or ‘deny that the gods exist’ or, later, ‘to remove the gods’." — Lionino
Let's see what the relevant dictionaries say: — Lionino
This sort of “logical dependency” you described is not atemporal. — Bob Ross
Exactly, so you could believe that the next president will be Bob without knowing it: — Bob Ross
that’s exactly how agnostic atheism works. — Bob Ross
You have now conflated the knowledge used to formulate the belief in X with the need for knowledge of X to formulate the belief in X. — Bob Ross
Every object is a being. — Lionino
'Anti-' means opposition, that is what the dictionary says. You ascribe this "morally" adverb to the word opposition when it is not there. There are countless examples of 'anti-' prefixed words without moral meaning.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-ageing
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-id
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-romantic
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anti-aircraft
The word anti-matter itself indicates reverse, instead of moral stance or counter-action. — Lionino
I believe it will snow because I believe someone said so to me earlier. Knowing is not a requirement for believing. — mentos987
Experience is not the same as knowing. In my experience, the earth is flat. — mentos987
No, in this case, the beliefs derived from knowledge does not refer to the same thing. — mentos987
Uncertainty and certainty are the scales themselves. Being certain and being uncertain, those are the actual levels of certainty, and they are separate. However, being certain can still contain a degree of uncertainty (0-5%). — mentos987
This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be saying that we must have knowledge of X before we can believe X; but then you say it is atemporal: can you give an example? — Bob Ross
"Beliefs that we formulate without knowledge are usually predictions or estimations"
Isn’t this a temporal dependency? — Bob Ross
This also seems like you are saying that we just need to have knowledge of Y (as opposed to X) to believe X, which is compatible with the etymological schema. — Bob Ross
Not necessarily, I can be unsure about it. — mentos987
However I probably have some experience that suggests that it will snow. — mentos987
But yes, I can know some things and use that to form beliefs about something else. The belief is weaker than the knowledge though. — mentos987
My bad, it is supposed to read "Being uncertain indicates that you are not certain". — mentos987
If someone asks me "Do you believe you need oxygen to survive?" then I answer, "No, I know I need oxygen to survive". — mentos987
"I believe it will snow". — mentos987
Being certain is a step on the Certainty scale: 95-100% — mentos987
Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — mentos987
"I am opposed to the pilot-wave", everybody understands that as thinking that pilot-wave is a bad theory — Lionino
Opposition to the existence of something is clearly denial of existence. — Lionino
Opposition shouldn't be read to mean "denial of" — Hallucinogen
Well, you said it yourself:
Antitheism means opposition to the existence of a God — Hallucinogen — Lionino
No, to me you either believe it or you know it. Knowing is stronger than believing. — mentos987
Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — mentos987
There's a binary distinction between certainty and uncertainty — Hallucinogen
Not to me. The term “uncertain” would indicate 5-95% certainty. — mentos987
And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen
Antitheist. — Lionino
. If you see any logical fallacies in the way I use my definitions, feel free to point them out. — mentos987
Certainty in X cannot coincide with uncertainty in X, so suggesting that they're not disjoint is a fallacy.Not to me. — mentos987
But not between belief and knowledge (they can coincide, — Hallucinogen
Not to me, knowledge is a step above believing. — mentos987
I think that knowledge can contain a small degree of uncertainty. — mentos987
Likewise, if we only have uncertainty at our disposal, then we don't have belief in it. We would just have lack of belief. — Hallucinogen
I don't follow. — mentos987
Lack of belief can come from contradictions, no? — mentos987
5-50% certainty would indicate disbelief.
0-5% certainty would indicate knowing that something is not true.
The term “uncertain” would indicate 5-95% certainty. — mentos987
you have the relation backwards between beliefs and knowledge. Knowledge, traditionally, is a true, justified, belief. A belief is not determined after one recognizes they have knowledge — Bob Ross
The etymological schema is going to say that we formulate beliefs, which are not yet knowledge — Bob Ross
e.g., I believe that the tree I walked passed 3 days ago is still there even though I have little justificatory support for it, etc — Bob Ross
then there is a meaningful difference between those who claim to only believe something and those who believe it and know. — Bob Ross
Knowing something indicates a certainty of 95-100%
Believing something indicates a certainty of 50-95% — mentos987
Having faith in something is when you simply choose to add a percentage of certainty. E.g. 55% belief + 41% faith = knowing that God exist.
How do you feel about this? — mentos987
If I don't believe in the existence of God, any god, because there is no evidence for its existence, what does that makes me? An agnostic, an atheist, an agnostic atheist? — Alkis Piskas
But it does seem important to me to note that religious belief may not be entirely rational. — Ludwig V
I'm attending the actually, etymologically sound usage of the words. Why would you accept randomly-ascribed meanings that don't fit the etymology. — AmadeusD
That isn't looking at the words - that's taking a definition that fits your point. — AmadeusD
The one provided by an institutional atheist organisation has much more authority, imo. — AmadeusD
2. I have identified robust meanings for these words which avoid double-counts, inaccuracies and inconsistencies, on my view. — AmadeusD
Knowledge and truth are not the same thing. — Philosophim
Knowledge is the most reasonable conclusion we can make with the information we have at the time. That can change as new information comes about. — Philosophim
We can only assume that what we know is the closest to the truth at the time — Philosophim
because at the time rationality and reality are not contradicting our conclusions. — Philosophim
No. No it wasn’t. — AmadeusD
And the citation has been provided more than once. — AmadeusD
Just bloody look at the words lol. — AmadeusD
atheism -- The theory or belief that God does not exist. — Oxford Reference
As Tom helpfully provide earlier in the https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ — AmadeusD
They are anti-theists. ... Anti-theism. That there is NOT deities. — AmadeusD
A-theism literally means not theism. It doesn’t contain anything close to a positive claim. — AmadeusD
I know there is no matter that can travel faster than light as of today. I believe we might find something in the future. — Philosophim
An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist.
An agnostic believes/thinks we can’t know if God exists.
They can co-exist in one entity. — AmadeusD
You cannot prove a negative. Proving something requires what's called, "The burden of proof". Someone must present evidence of what they are claiming exists. To claim things don't exist requires no burden. — Philosophim
Who's calling themselves an agnostic atheist? — Philosophim
That's just misunderstanding the definition of the terms. — Philosophim
'lack of belief in god' and / or 'belief in the nonexistence of god' and is not a statement of knowledge — 180 Proof
not a truth-claim) like agnosticism. — 180 Proof
it can be "rational" to believe something without knowing whether it is true. — 180 Proof
So do you think it is "irrational" to know that there is a god and not to believe in that god — 180 Proof
ust as a wife can know that her husband exists and does not believe in him — 180 Proof
If so, please explain. — 180 Proof
I think your conflation of knowing (i.e. a proposition) and believing — 180 Proof
No, I don't believe in gods, I consider myself an atheist — Tom Storm
Atheism goes to belief, agnosticism goes to knowledge. — Tom Storm
I do not believe there are gods. But I do not know that there are no gods. — Tom Storm
2) to have no rational justification to assert that God does not exist, and 3) to have no disposition to believe that God might exist. This differs from agnosticism vis-à-vis (3). — Leontiskos
but I belive that noone is ever 100% sure — mentos987
I also believe that most people that call themselves atheists are really agnostics. Atheism is just a more common term. — mentos987
When I say that I am "absolutely certain" about something what I really mean is that I believe it to be true with an error margin of about 0.01%. — mentos987
But I think a person can be 85% sure that god does not exist and still call themselves an atheist. — mentos987
To me it is about the level of certainty. — mentos987
What does it come from? If you say reasoning about reasoning about the world, that lands it in higher-order reasoning about the world. Now, I challenge you to name what a priori reasoning responds to in total separation from the world. — ucarr
Quantum computing has something contrary to say about the last part of your claim. — ucarr
If mind emerges from brain — ucarr
Functional mind that has impact upon existentiality, meaning and usefulness is never uncoupled from the physicality of the natural world. — ucarr
What a priori reason is practiced by brain in a vat never in contact with the world? — ucarr