What's up

[Violet]

No, they believed it. For them to have known it would require that it be true.

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.

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

I am NOT going down this road again.

That's fine. Everything remains in existence whether is be nothing or recognized.

[theVOID]

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/

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

Believing some god is going to save them*

[fr0d0]

Faith is an unjustified belief, doesn't come close to knowledge.

You let yourself down badly there VOID

Christian Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Faith is not required for belief in God. Belief in God is required for faith (i.e., assensus is a predicate of faith, not vice versa)—because faith without assensus leaves just notitia and fiducia, and is therefore "not faith." Remove any of the three predicates and it is no longer faith, becoming instead untrusting belief or blind trust and the like. Remember, faith is the sum, the right-hand side of the equal sign (N + A + F = faith)

[reverendjeremiah]

Your interjection Rev was a snipe I felt, which didn't present anything to be refuted. I found that mildly irritating. No offense intended. I'd be glad to take up the forgiveness thread, as Tack hasn't responded.

Feel free to take up tacks place on the forgiveness thread if you like..and by the way, I wasnt sniping you..I was actually being easy going and nice.

[fr0d0]

by the way, I wasnt sniping you..I was actually being easy going and nice.

kk then I apologise.

[reverendjeremiah]

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" to acknowledge that Zeus existed in order for you to deny him.

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.

[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

[Napoléon]

I genuinely feel sorry for the guy who's thread this was.

And frodo stop having a go at me 'answer your own questions' blah blah blah.
All this started because you misunderstood why i used the term deny. I told you why, then you start challenging everything i say, fuck off this isn't really the thread for it and i am not obliged to answer every one of your dumbass 'points'.

[fr0d0]

Point dodger huh?

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit your mistake?

Threads morph Nap and you're free to discuss what you like within reason.

[Napoléon]

I didn't make a mistake frods. You tried picking out a term which you thought i used incorrectly. I proved to you i didn't. Yet you carry on.

And i'm not a point dodger when i feel the points are relevant, seems to me you are just arguing with me for the sake of it because you think i'm an easy target.