Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[jstrodel]

[quote='jstrodel' pid='413727' dateline='1363122698']

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

I would figure this all so far would be completely self evident.


6. K=JTB requires an external ideology for its sense of justification, of truth, and nature of belief, as well as knowledge, and in the context of modernity, ideologies and science to support all the requisite labs, books, social freedom, everything that is required for K=JTB to exist in (self evident)
7. N=K=JTB and atheism is is N, so to know atheism is true you must have 6.

I would have thought that is all self evident...

6. is word salad. Can you clarify?

Sure. I love to argue, I don't like trading insults though.

1. People do not have an inherent sense of epistemic justification that is precisely defined and trans-cultural (self evident)
2. Where there is a lack of a requisite aspect of something, that lack must be met.
3. The lack of a sense of justification must be met. (MP 1,2)
4. Similar problems exist for concepts of truth and sources for belief (self evident)
5. The entire linguistic, social, economic, scientific, social processes required to allow the culturally constructed sense of knowledge to be justified true belief, must themselves be subject to K = JTB
============================================
K=JTB requires an external ideology for its sense of justification, of truth, and nature of belief, as well as knowledge, and in the context of modernity, ideologies and science to support all the requisite labs, books, social freedom, everything that is required for K=JTB to exist in (self evident)

All of this results in a very interesting process that is very, very different in different cultures. You don't find many people in ancient African culture talking about how the African word for "fool" refers to "someone who fails to understand the teachings of our father Karl Popper and accept his criterion for scientific knowledge".

There are just different methods for learning. Our methods today allow us to destroy the entire earth with nuclear weapons. Is there any problem to that?

It would be hard to for me to accept an argument that the modern approach to knowledge is the best and should be accepted unconditionally at all times, given the sort of epistemological fruit of the weapons of modernity.

People just have different approaches to thinking about the world.

I will grant you that "God exists" and "no gods exist" are truth claims that both require justification, and that some atheists make the claim that "no gods exist".

Agreed.

You are, however, ignoring an alternate atheist position, which is "I do not believe any gods exist". That position is not a knowledge claim.

If it is not a knowledge claim, than it is non-authoritative and should not be used to de facto argue for the non-existence of God while requiring a different sense of justification for God (sneaky). To argue for the non-existence of God requires knowledge that God does not exist, otherwise it is lying. If there is not a strong sense of justification attached to claims against God's existence it is immoral to advocate anything which dramatically affects peoples lives without a strong sense of clarity that it is acceptable. To start with the position "I do not believe any gods exist" and argue from that much weaker sense of belief which has no authority is to reject the epistemological norms which require more serious considerations to deserve a higher degree of certainty to attain to ethical justification (first do no harm - Hypocrites).

I would also argue that that statement "I do not believe any gods exist" is inconsistent and does not capture the rhetoric of the atheist movement which is almost always in actual practice saying "no gods exist". If a weaker sense of justification is understood, that sense should translate into the spirit of the words.



Regardless of what people describe about their actions, their words signify the sense of epistemic justification. The positions "I am not making a knowledge claim" and "I am making a knowledge claim are mutually exclusive". If a knowledge claim is being made, an argument can be made. If no knowledge claim is being made, no argument can be made, since it is morally wrong to lie (lying is sharing false beliefs and where there is no knowledge there could be false beliefs).