(March 12, 2013 at 5:11 pm)jstrodel Wrote:(March 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Is this an example of a reasoned argument that you're presenting?
(March 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm)jstrodel Wrote: In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.
Naked assertion.
.....
Actually, you missed the argument that I made, so I will put it in another form. You are over simplifying, reading my words literalistically, and ignoring other posts which establish my arguments and responding with one sentence answers.
1. K = J T B ( Knowledge = justified true belief ) - an accepted model of epistemology
2. Negative claims that something are not so are knowledge claims (to know that something is not, is not epistemologically different from knowing what is) - (self evident)
3. Negative knowledge claims are based on Knowledge equals justified true belief or something similar (Knowledge is defined as justified true belief) - N = negative truth claims - if N = K then N = KTB
4. Atheist knowledge claims are negative knowledge claims (self evident)
5. N = KTB so atheist negative knowledge claims require justified truth belief
....
You're back on the sauce again, aren't you?
More proof, in case it was needed, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.