Welcome to Gaia! ::

False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
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 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.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
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 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.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
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.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
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.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.
I believe in God. I am not certain god exists.

I believe I am not in the matrix. I do not know for sure the matrix does not exist. Belief has little to do with knowledge, only that things you claim to know you usually believe. It is not strictly true in the reverse direction.
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.


This isn't a matter degrees. Different degrees of belief doesn't make sense: a belief is by definition the holding that a particular positions is true. This cannot be done be degrees. Something cannot be "half true" or any fraction of truth. When it appears that it is, an entirely different proposition is present and a different belief is being held.

The difference in between the two positions is actually being created by the introduction of knowledge that confirms that a belief is accurate to reality. The change in the state of the knowledge axis is the difference between the two situations of belief.
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
Belief is not knowledge. I believe I won't die of cancer. I don't know.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.
I believe in God. I am not certain god exists.

I believe I am not in the matrix. I do not know for sure the matrix does not exist. Belief has little to do with knowledge, only that things you claim to know you usually believe. It is not strictly true in the reverse direction.


How does this show that there are two axes? Being certain would just move you farther along the axis towards theism. You seem to be treating "knowledge" as a state of certainty, which would make it the endpoint of one axis.
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness


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.


This isn't a matter degrees. Different degrees of belief doesn't make sense: a belief is by definition the holding that a particular positions is true. This cannot be done be degrees. Something cannot be "half true" or any fraction of truth. When it appears that it is, an entirely different proposition is present and a different belief is being held.

The difference in between the two positions is actually being created by the introduction of knowledge that confirms that a belief is accurate to reality. The change in the state of the knowledge axis is the difference between the two situations of belief.


Quote:
Different degrees of belief doesn't make sense


confused
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Twin Axes of Atheism/Theism-Gnostic/Agnostic Are Fake

I wouldn't say "fake," but... perhaps "misguided" would be the right word.

I'm not really going to say there's one axis, either. I always consider religious opinions to be like a cloud, or various clouds blending together. Think about it like clusters of lights. Stars, or something. And each one burns a different color depending on their opinions.

Now, some burn brightly, and very solid colors of particular sorts. These are the ones with the most conviction, the most certainty that what they believe is right. Then there are others, who burn faintly, and perhaps shift from color to color. They're uncertain, wavering, unable to hold down a conviction, because they honestly don't know what to believe.

You cannot state that these faint, multicolor stars are blue, or green, or red, or yellow, or white, or any other color. They're vague and impossible to classify. These are agnostics.

Meanwhile, we may have people who burn brightly, but still shift colors. Or people who burn faintly, but stick to their colors. Again, it's all very difficult to pin down, and you can't simply make two or four extremes and plot them out between them.

There's a human urge to see patterns and divide things into categories, or define rules for the way things go or should go. But we can't deny that there will always be exceptions.
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
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.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.


That means there must be two axes to actually produce a difference in the nature of beliefs.

If uncertainty is a lack of belief, there cannot be any degrees of belief. Belief is either held(the belief is present) or not held(the belief is not present): you can't have "this belief is stronger than this other one," as both are that something is 100% true. This collapses any difference between a non-confirmed belief and a confirmed belief. Your own reasoning about the nature of belief is in contradiction with there being degrees of it.
Xiam
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Twin Axes of Atheism/Theism-Gnostic/Agnostic Are Fake

I wouldn't say "fake," but... perhaps "misguided" would be the right word.

I'm not really going to say there's one axis, either. I always consider religious opinions to be like a cloud, or various clouds blending together. Think about it like clusters of lights. Stars, or something. And each one burns a different color depending on their opinions.

Now, some burn brightly, and very solid colors of particular sorts. These are the ones with the most conviction, the most certainty that what they believe is right. Then there are others, who burn faintly, and perhaps shift from color to color. They're uncertain, wavering, unable to hold down a conviction, because they honestly don't know what to believe.

You cannot state that these faint, multicolor stars are blue, or green, or red, or yellow, or white, or any other color. They're vague and impossible to classify. These are agnostics.

Meanwhile, we may have people who burn brightly, but still shift colors. Or people who burn faintly, but stick to their colors. Again, it's all very difficult to pin down, and you can't simply make two or four extremes and plot them out between them.

There's a human urge to see patterns and divide things into categories, or define rules for the way things go or should go. But we can't deny that there will always be exceptions.


It's...better. I'll take it. confused
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
Belief is not knowledge. I believe I won't die of cancer. I don't know.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.


That means there must be two axes to actually produce a difference in the nature of beliefs.

If uncertainty is a lack of belief, there cannot be any degrees of belief. Belief is either held(the belief is present) or not held(the belief is not present): you can't have "this belief is stronger than this other one," as both are that something is 100% true. This collapses any difference between a non-confirmed belief and a confirmed belief. Your own reasoning about the nature of belief is in contradiction with there being degrees of it.


No, if belief admits of degrees, then you can lack a degree belief without utterly lacking any sort of belief whatsoever.

This seems to be the way beliefs work - some are stronger than others.
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus


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.


This isn't a matter degrees. Different degrees of belief doesn't make sense: a belief is by definition the holding that a particular positions is true. This cannot be done be degrees. Something cannot be "half true" or any fraction of truth. When it appears that it is, an entirely different proposition is present and a different belief is being held.

The difference in between the two positions is actually being created by the introduction of knowledge that confirms that a belief is accurate to reality. The change in the state of the knowledge axis is the difference between the two situations of belief.


Quote:
Different degrees of belief doesn't make sense


confused


Yes. If you are talking about whether someone believes X is true, the following make no sense:

"I believe X 150% true". Either one is just adding feeling to the fact they believe it, most likely for an effect of achieving an ethical goal(i.e. "THIS IS SUPER TRUE. YOU REALLY SHOULD BELIEVE IT) or they are expressing belief for the position X+1/2X is true instead of X.

"I believe X is 50% true." Either one is expressing a stance of uncertainty about X being true(in which case the belief is X is true 50% of the time and not actually X) or they are expressing that 1/2X is true(in which case that have a brief in 1/2 X and not X).



Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
Belief is not knowledge. I believe I won't die of cancer. I don't know.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.
I believe in God. I am not certain god exists.

I believe I am not in the matrix. I do not know for sure the matrix does not exist. Belief has little to do with knowledge, only that things you claim to know you usually believe. It is not strictly true in the reverse direction.


How does this show that there are two axes? Being certain would just move you farther along the axis towards theism. You seem to be treating "knowledge" as a state of certainty, which would make it the endpoint of one axis.
Let's assume the situation applies to unicorns here.

You can assume 4 things:

Unicorns are real, and it can be/has been proven.
Unicorns are real, but it cannot be proven.
Unicorns are fake, but it cannot be proven.
Unicorns are fake, and it can be/has been proven.

Now, here, belief in unicorns has nothing to do with belief that unicorns can be proven. Disbelief in unicorns has even less to do with whether or not you think it can be proven.

Why should you make what is two distinct beliefs one scale? The truth of the matter is that you can believe four things, but they aren't the same:

Unicorns are real
Unicorns are fake
Unicorns can be proven to exist/~exist
Unicorns cannot be proven to exist/~exist
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
I Refute Berkeley Thus
False Dichotomy
Belief is not knowledge. I believe I won't die of cancer. I don't know.


To believe is not to know, but it is to think that one knows. And considering the positions of atheist, theist, etc. only take what one thinks or claims into account, this is all that is relevant.
If you think you know, you're a gnostic, not an agnostic. An agnostic does not know, and does not claim to know.

Uncertainty exists, deal with it.


Uncertainty is equally a lack of belief as it is a lack of a claim to knowledge. Thus, there is still only one axis, not two.


That means there must be two axes to actually produce a difference in the nature of beliefs.

If uncertainty is a lack of belief, there cannot be any degrees of belief. Belief is either held(the belief is present) or not held(the belief is not present): you can't have "this belief is stronger than this other one," as both are that something is 100% true. This collapses any difference between a non-confirmed belief and a confirmed belief. Your own reasoning about the nature of belief is in contradiction with there being degrees of it.


No, if belief admits of degrees, then you can lack a degree belief without utterly lacking any sort of belief whatsoever.

This seems to be the way beliefs work - some are stronger than others.


That would amount to uncertainty in the truth of the belief though. The strongest stance is X is definitely true. Anything less is some level of uncertainty about the object of the belief, which according to you, would mean the belief is no longer present.

And since there is nothing stronger than: "X is definitely true," higher degrees of belief are not possible.

Yes, that is quite correct. That is either a function of the knowledge axis(confirming a belief reflects reality), an ethical consideration(e.g. "I can live properly with or without X, so I don't mind if it is lost." in comparison to "I can't live properly without X; I must have it" ) or simply why someone feels(e.g. it is simply the case that they feel X is more likely to be the case than Y).
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Xiam
I Refute Berkeley Thus
The Twin Axes of Atheism/Theism-Gnostic/Agnostic Are Fake

I wouldn't say "fake," but... perhaps "misguided" would be the right word.

I'm not really going to say there's one axis, either. I always consider religious opinions to be like a cloud, or various clouds blending together. Think about it like clusters of lights. Stars, or something. And each one burns a different color depending on their opinions.

Now, some burn brightly, and very solid colors of particular sorts. These are the ones with the most conviction, the most certainty that what they believe is right. Then there are others, who burn faintly, and perhaps shift from color to color. They're uncertain, wavering, unable to hold down a conviction, because they honestly don't know what to believe.

You cannot state that these faint, multicolor stars are blue, or green, or red, or yellow, or white, or any other color. They're vague and impossible to classify. These are agnostics.

Meanwhile, we may have people who burn brightly, but still shift colors. Or people who burn faintly, but stick to their colors. Again, it's all very difficult to pin down, and you can't simply make two or four extremes and plot them out between them.

There's a human urge to see patterns and divide things into categories, or define rules for the way things go or should go. But we can't deny that there will always be exceptions.
Congratulations for being the first here to say this. I'll just stick to a simple "Yea, he's right" and end it here.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games