Originally posted by @suzianneThat's why you "believe" your god figure exists and you don’t "know" it. You have faith, yes, you think evidence is meaningless, yes. An atheist who says she "knows" god doesn't exist is using the word "know" in the same way as you are.
When speaking of faith, evidence is meaningless.
Originally posted by @leilI think I have been clear actually. It's alright by me if you don't understand or if you're not sure quite what I meant in my last post.
I don’t understand. If a psychologist or a coach says, “In this context, when I use the word know (or believe), I am using it to convey this…” And the philosopher says, “Well, when I use the word know (or believe), in the context of defining knowledge for philosophical inquiry, I am using to mean something else…” And the scientist says… And then somebody el ...[text shortened]... we’re not disagreeing, so I tried to spell out better what I meant. Maybe I’m not doing it well.
Originally posted by @leilNo one has suggested that you should insist anything of anyone or dissuade anyone from anything, so don't worry about that.
I'm not going to insist on how someone else must use the word, or try to dissuade the athlete for example. I might argue about context for awhile if that seems appropriate, but then I'll just walk away
I simply asked a question of a believer who claims to know their god figure exists (and who also claims that evidence is meaningless in this matter), which was:
'Surely his (the non-believer's) use of the word "know" is no different ~ no more or less legitimate ~ than your use of the word "know"?'
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfYou're entirely missing the point yet again.
That's why you "believe" your god figure exists and you don’t "know" it. You have faith, yes, you think evidence is meaningless, yes. An atheist who says she "knows" god doesn't exist is using the word "know" in the same way as you are.
But I'm not surprised, because faith is required, not "evidence".
But you keep chopping off my posts in your quote so that you don't have to respond to the parts which you don't understand so that you can continue with your charade that you're being "clear".
Originally posted by @suzianneCan't an atheist just claim something similar, for similar reasons, about their belief?
My evidence is not your evidence, and so what I know, you can't logically know, simply based on the concept that I know it. There's much more to it than that.
What additional information - beyond what you say are your faith and beliefs - do you think the word "know" appends to your claims?
And does it append the same additional information to an atheist's claims relating to the non-existence of your god figure?
Originally posted by @suzianneI have answered your post in two installments without misrepresenting what you said. It would be interesting to hear your responses instead of stuff about charades etc.
You're entirely missing the point yet again.
But I'm not surprised, because faith is required, not "evidence".
But you keep chopping off my posts in your quote so that you don't have to respond to the parts which you don't understand so that you can continue with your charade that you're being "clear".
Originally posted by @suzianneDoes an atheist's faith-without-evidence mean he "knows" god does not exist in the same way as your faith-without-evidence means you "know" god does exist? Or is your use of "know" different from his use of "know"?
You're entirely missing the point yet again.
But I'm not surprised, because faith is required, not "evidence".
Originally posted by @fmfAnd here, your claims of equivalence are thin and insubstantial.
Can't an atheist just claim something similar, for similar reasons, about their belief?
What additional information - beyond what you say are your faith and beliefs - do you think the word "know" appends to your claims?
And does it append the same additional information to an atheist's claims relating to the non-existence of your god figure?
There is substance, and non-substance, and they are not equivalent.
But you're continuing to miss this because of your claims of equivalence.
But like atheists, you'll never accept this because you don't want to accept it because then your agenda, like their life, would have to change. And neither of you can have that.
Originally posted by @fmfYour newly found use of hyphens does nothing to make you more clear, nor does it make me even wish you were more clear.
Does an atheist's faith-without-evidence mean he "knows" god does not exist in the same way as your faith-without-evidence means you "know" god does exist? Or is your use of "know" different from his use of "know"?
1 edit
Originally posted by @suzianneThere have been several posts that you have simply sidestepped with little quip-like comments like this. Look back. This page. The previous page. What does the use of the word "know" add to a believer's claims that it doesn't also add to a non-believer's claims?
More insubstantial claims.
1 edit
Originally posted by @suzianneSo people who have different beliefs from you with regard to supernatural things, for which you concede evidence is meaningless, are not "equivalent" to you in some way?
And here, your claims of equivalence are thin and insubstantial.
There is substance, and non-substance, and they are not equivalent.
But you're continuing to miss this because of your claims of equivalence.
And how can you insist both that evidence is meaningless with regard to your beliefs AND you have "substance" at the same time?
-Removed-I'm an open book. Perhaps ask better questions.
I have thoughts and opinions, and am happy to share. I cannot demonstrate that you have mental existence, so I wonder what sort of evidence you look for.
Does your mind's eye conjure up sky-daddies? Entities that hop around solar systems and galaxies and work great magic? That is what you deal with, isn't it.