The Twin Axes of Atheism/Theism-Gnostic/Agnostic Are Fake

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Putting this in its own thread.

I'm sick of hearing about this nonsense, so let's put it to rest, shall we?

If I believe P, then I think that P is true.
If I think that P is true, then I believe P.

Therefore, I believe P iff I think that P is true.

If I think that I know P, then I think that P is true.
If I think that P is true, then I think that I know P.

Therefore, I think that I know P iff I think that P is true.

Therefore, I believe P iff I think that I know P.

It is a contradiction for someone to believe P but not think that they know P.

There is only one axis of belief.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Putting this in its own thread.

I'm sick of hearing about this nonsense, so let's put it to rest, shall we?

If I believe P, then I think that P is true.
If I think that P is true, then I believe P.

Therefore, I believe P iff I think that P is true.

If I think that I know P, then I think that P is true.
If I think that P is true, then I think that I know P.

Therefore, I think that I know P iff I think that P is true.

Therefore, I believe P iff I think that I know P.

It is a contradiction for someone to believe P but not think that they know P.

There is only one axis of belief.

There is a difference between a claim to knowledge and knowing that you claim to knowledge is accurate. It is this which is "knowledge" in the belief/knowledge split.

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true. The knowledge of whether the claim to knowledge of belief is not covered by this.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

You haven't. Read the rest.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It is irrelevant to that they exist as an atheist or theist.

However, whether they a gnostic or agnostic IS relevant to whether that belief reflects reality, so it is important for marking what belief have been shown to be accurate an what haven't. In addition, it can be relevant to the position of belief that someone takes. If you have evidence confirming a deity exists or does not exist, it can influence what position of belief you take.

[Aporeia]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

Willow of Darkness

The contradiction would be for someone to believe P but not think that the knew P was true.

Welp, I've got one convert. Any other takers?

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It isn't about accuracy. It's about knowledge. For example:

Agnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), but do not claim knowledge that their beliefs are true.

Gnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), and claim that this is not just belief, but they KNOW this is true.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It is irrelevant to that they exist as an atheist or theist.

However, whether they a gnostic or agnostic IS relevant to whether that belief reflects reality, so it is important for marking what belief have been shown to be accurate an what haven't. In addition, it can be relevant to the position of belief that someone takes. If you have evidence confirming a deity exists or does not exist, it can influence what position of belief you take.

Yes, but if they believe, then they think their beliefs do reflect reality; you just admitted this. There is simply no distinction here.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

False Dichotomy

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It isn't about accuracy. It's about knowledge. For example:

Agnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), but do not claim knowledge that their beliefs are true.

Gnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), and claim that this is not just belief, but they KNOW this is true.

If you believe, you think you know, and vice-versa.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

False Dichotomy

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It isn't about accuracy. It's about knowledge. For example:

Agnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), but do not claim knowledge that their beliefs are true.

Gnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), and claim that this is not just belief, but they KNOW this is true.

No, it is about accuracy. Whether a given belief can be confirmed as accurate. "Proof" in other words.

The classic "agnostic atheist(i.e. no evidence for a diety)" usually holds that they have an awareness that deities do not exist. Indeed, they are not really less doubtful than a gnostic atheist really, both hold reject that deities exist. Both consider there to be no such things as deities. About the only meaningful difference between the two is that one(the agnostic atheist) admits that the non-existence of deities has not been proven.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It is irrelevant to that they exist as an atheist or theist.

However, whether they a gnostic or agnostic IS relevant to whether that belief reflects reality, so it is important for marking what belief have been shown to be accurate an what haven't. In addition, it can be relevant to the position of belief that someone takes. If you have evidence confirming a deity exists or does not exist, it can influence what position of belief you take.

Yes, but if they believe, then they think their beliefs do reflect reality; you just admitted this. There is simply no distinction here.

They think their beliefs reflect reality. They do not KNOW that they do. That is where the difference is. To use the bear suit example, if I was to see you in a bear suit, I would then KNOW that you were wearing a bear suit, confirming that my claim to knowledge(that you are wasting a bear suit) is indeed accurate to reality.

[Aporeia]

I Refute Berkeley Thus

False Dichotomy

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

You haven't. Read the rest.

Yes?

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It isn't about accuracy. It's about knowledge. For example:

Agnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), but do not claim knowledge that their beliefs are true.

Gnostic athiests are people who do not believe in the existence of a god(s), and claim that this is not just belief, but they KNOW this is true.

If you believe, you think you know, and vice-versa.

Belief is not knowledge. I believe I won't die of cancer. I don't know.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

I Refute Berkeley Thus

The Willow Of Darkness

The knowledge in the belief/knowledge split is not the claim to knowledge of the belief but rather knowledge of the confirmation that the claim to knowledge in the belief reflects reality.

Whether the belief is accurate is irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist, theist, etc.

It is irrelevant to that they exist as an atheist or theist.

However, whether they a gnostic or agnostic IS relevant to whether that belief reflects reality, so it is important for marking what belief have been shown to be accurate an what haven't. In addition, it can be relevant to the position of belief that someone takes. If you have evidence confirming a deity exists or does not exist, it can influence what position of belief you take.

Yes, but if they believe, then they think their beliefs do reflect reality; you just admitted this. There is simply no distinction here.

They think their beliefs reflect reality. They do not KNOW that they do. That is where the difference is. To use the bear suit example, if I was to see you in a bear suit, I would then KNOW that you were wearing a bear suit, confirming that my claim to knowledge(that you are wasting a bear suit) is indeed accurate to reality.

Yes, some beliefs are stronger than others. So what? If it's a matter of degree, this still exists on one axis.