(July 15, 2017 at 2:48 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: I understand and agree with what you are saying. Sometimes I do use the two interchangeably (leftover thinking from being a theist my whole life I guess), and I will try to be careful not to do that in the futureWell it's not like belief and knowledge don't overlap and influence each other, and normally, in everyday casual conversation, even I use the terms somewhat interchangeably / sloppily at times. Semantic shortcuts are appropriate outside of a debate.But GC (and many other theists) do equate belief with knowledge. The point of my post to him was that I "knew" god the same way that he "knows" god now. In other words, not at all.
Within a debate however we have to be more careful or we'll start talking past each other. Exact definitions matter in a debate / discussion context.
I have encountered a minority of other unbelievers who just say, "fuck it, I'm tired of arguing semantics, there's nothing wrong with saying 'there is no god' and so I'm saying it." I understand the frustration because some theists simply refuse to use any labels or definitions or usages other than what they are accustomed to, because their chosen understanding and usage seem less threatened within that framework. Also, there's no FUNCTIONAL difference between believing there's only a 0.00001% chance that there could be some kind of deity out there, and knowing that deity isn't there. You don't order your life differently one way vs the other. You don't make different decisions one way vs the other. In fact, this even makes theist conflation of the terms somewhat understandable.
Still, it's a distinction I'll take the effort to make in a debate, if for no other reason than that theists so often accuse atheists of being "arrogant" by making an unsupportable knowledge claim that there is no god. This is so bass-ackwards it's not even funny. The truly humble epistemology is the one that says, "I don't know everything and haven't been everywhere and everywhen so I can't stake a knowledge claim on this. However, I have looked at all evidence and the vast preponderance of it is against the proposed deity, therefore, I have no reason to afford belief to it and in fact am incapable of affording belief to it. Not because I'm an atheist, but because I'm a person who does not afford belief to the unsubstantiated. My atheism is just one side effect of my requiring substantiation for my beliefs." Whereas it's the theist who is "arrogant" enough to assert, without evidence, that he "knows" his god exists and in fact he has a "personal relationship" with this deity. To know all about the inherently unknowable -- what could be MORE arrogant than that?
This cuts theists to the quick ... they really don't like the implication that there's no valid basis for their beliefs. Understandably. I didn't like it either, but eventually had to admit it was the true situation. But until I came to that realization, I, too, fought it tooth and nail. I had tremendous ego investment in my "personal knowledge" of my god.
