What's up

[Violet]

And just how is the process of knowing affected by what the data one knows is?

It isn't. Therefore distinction of true knowledge and untrue knowledge is not a question of knowledge, but of truth.

Knowledge is necessarily true. We can be mistaken about what we believe we know, but we cannot know something that is not true.

"Untrue knowledge" is an oxymoron.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

Hello arguments from establishment

'we believe we know'? How unnecessary indeed. That is saying I know I know. It's blue blue. Wheeeeeee! Redundancy ^_^

Such as the religious knowing some god is going to save them when they die

Believing some god is going to save them*

They know it.

---

Anyway, a denial requires first the existence of the denied. A state of denial is to suggest that the thing being denied is, but one will not accept this for whatever reason. It is necessarily an assertion, and requires defense.

So tired of hearing that one way argument; "To deny something is to acknowledge its existence".

Apparently Christians do not deny all of the other gods and goddesses in human history... it would be a "necesary assertion" do acknowledge that Zeus existed in order for you to deny him.

They do deny the other gods and goddesses. Zeus must exist, as it is a thing, and everything by tautology exists. Therefore it is a necessary assertion to deny a thing exists (as it must already do so before one could deny it).

How about this to clear things up for you - I ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of your MYTHOLOGY, and I DENY that the God it describes really exists outside of the imagination.

Not deny (that applies only to not accepting a thing which exists does, like a parent in denial of a child being gay). However, you might well have a positive belief that the only place a God exists is in the brain