That is not what you need to deal with, that is merely an upshoot; again you ignore the meat and potatoes by wanting to argue irrelevant things to the meat and potatoes. You assume that is my motive, but it is not, the motive is cogency of knowledge, truth, belief and opinion in more accordance with human nature, then building a more in depth epistemological framework from that.
The preposterously non-rigorous and borderline nonsensicle way you define ‘belief’ isn’t part of meat and potatoes of your assertion that knowledge isn’t a type of belief? Fascinating.
“Hindu” isn’t a belief. “Religion” isn’t a belief. You’re simply used to talking that way because of the New Atheist media you consume. Contuining to attempt to shoe-horn that cavalier vernacular into a serious field is going to continue to earn you the reception you’ve gotten so far.
Besides, I already addressed your alleged argument in detail multiple times. Any time you feel ready to actually martial a reply, those posts are still available.
Yes, I was following …
Good question. … Hmmm … Should one just ignore him? … Probably … However: It sucks very much.
Sorry, I didn’t define belief, I pulled it out the dictionary. So go ahead and complain to Merriam Webster about their definition, not mine, which I happen to use their definition in my vocabulary as do others.
If you want me to call those religions belief systems fine, it doesn’t matter to me. You should have understood that without having me to explain it. It seems you’re hung up more again on something that doesn’t matter to my M.O. nor the main topic of the post. But being a Christian accepts Christianity as true, at least some form of it, through belief, not knowledge, and that was my point.
Besides you didn’t address my argument in any manner that negated it, you didn’t give me a reason that was compelling to ditch this framework I am providing.
Well, epistemology is one of my favorite subjects and it doesn’t come up often. So yeah, it sucks a lot. One thing I noticed is when you said "knowledge is a type of information’ you were using it in a slightly different way. There ‘knowledge’ which means something like ‘facts’. and then there’s knowledge that means something like ‘being aware of (certain of?) a fact.’. Maybe a slightly more precise way to have worded the OP would be ‘Is knowing also a belief?’.
Anything you post on the internet, someone will always be annoyed with it. Someone somewhere, will find it annoying, no matter what.
“The credit belongs to the man, who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” - Theodore Roosevelt
How is anybody supposed to be able to distinguish the sloppy, imprecise wording that we can ignore from the sloppy, imprecise wording you rely upon to make your case? “Religion is a belief” is no more or less silly than “Gettier showed disproved that knowledge is JTB” or “Belief is never justified” or half the other things you say that are actually key to your position.
I don’t care if you ditch it or not. Feel free to talk in funny ways that nobody else will understand all you want. What needs to happen is you need to provide reasons why other people should adopt your framework, and yes I did give you plenty of reasons why that won’t be happening.
Such heart-felt self-applause. You are truly a hero in your own eyes.
Sorry the words I used were defined not by me. If you have a superior grasp on English compared to the sources I cited perhaps you should create your own dictionary. I’m sure it’ll be reflective of how English speaking users everywhere utilize it.
Do you believe that or do you know it? I know better 
Oh, you were presenting a survey of how English speakers use words? My mistake, I thought you were doing philosophy. Anyway, this is all been addressed time and again, and you’ve ignored it.
Yes. Or: Do belief and knowledge have the same root(s)?
Yes your mistake, it was both.
Yeah that works. In any event, it’s too easy of a question to answer for somebody that doesn’t have some nonrational motivation to make it complex. The whole ‘Belief is what religious people do, good people don’t have beliefs’ angle he took it is what cinched it for me. So far as I am aware, there is no intellectual space outside of Dawkins’ cult of personality in which statements like “I don’t have any beliefs” aren’t nonsense.
Obviously knowing is a type of belief as belief is defined, if the question is does knowing become something so quantitatively different from a belief that it should no longer be considered a belief is just semantic.
You could just as well say it the other way around (but you just do not want to):
We easily say that “it might be 10th street” when we actually mean “I believe it is 10th street”.
People throw around the word “might” too loosely.
Your enemies are the words “belief” and “believe”, probably also the words “religion”, “theism”, “God”.
You opened your thread because you believed that you can easily kill certain words or at least their meanings.
There is nothing that proves your statements. Again: Your statements are ridiculous. So they are not suitable for changing anything of the epistemology or anything else.
If I say I believe it’s 10th street, I would generally not mean, it might be.
Might means possiblity. I am not saying what I think is the case if I say might be.
If I say I believe it is tenth street, I think it is, but I am not sure. Or I am English and I know damn well it is but I am correcting someone gently, though perhaps more cruelly.
People USE the word belief loosely precisely because it means a wide range of things. In everyday language. This is mirrored in philosophy by taking it to mean what someone considers to be true, however they arrived at that belief.
If you want to argue that you KNOW certain things and that this is different from belief, this leads to all sorts of philosophical problems. For one, it means your belief in that case cannot be revised. It is final. You cannot possibly be deluded, whatever scientific research it is based on will never be revised or superceded, you are not in a simulation, you are not remembering incorrectly and so on.
I think most people who disagree with you here fully understand that belief can be used to refer specifically to religious type beliefs or what gets called superstition.
But 1) that is not the limit of everyday usage. 2) this is a philosophy forum and in philosophy you are quite incorrect 3) IT DOES NOT FUCKING ENTAIL THAT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE THE SAME AS BELIEFS ARRIVED AT VIA SCIENCE 4) there are very good practical and logical reasons that the philosophical community had decided to refer to knowledge as a specific rigorously arrived at subset of beliefs. They do this, and miraculously, this does not mean that atheist philosophers must suddenly consider old testement assertions as the same as your doctor’s or the latest nobel prize winner when she is talking about her research findings.
You are used to using Beliefs in a certain way, but I will bet that you don’t challenge people IRL when they use believe broadly. In any case there is no reason to.
You are triggered by the word. It makes you feel like you are conceding something, conflating two categories WHEN IT SIMPLY DOES NOT DO THIS.
If you have a club where you decide that belief believe will only mean X, fine have that club. You would not be wrong. You would have an agreed upon use, clear in context. But in a philosophy forum to go on and on claiming that it is wrong to consider knowledge a specific kind of belief when there are good reasons to do this and these have been explained to you and further THIS IS A CLUB, the philosophical community, and they have decided to use the terms in a way they find useful.
NOT A DAMN THING IS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU.
In fact you are being offered a different was of using terms that you might use WHEN IN PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXTS, just as we speak and write differently in different contexts all the time . Or you can decide you will never ever do this thing that makes you so uncomfortable. That’s fine. Language is for us. I for one do not care how you use the words, unless we get into a discussion of epistemology and even then I can work with you as long as we define terms.
But you seem not to be able to live with other people using the terms this way.
And I believe that is ridiculous.
Moreno nailed it.
too long to read the whole thread:
Knowledge is perception since it is infinite. One never should trust completely a perception. Reality is ever changing since thought is projection. But right, what I am saying is a belief in itself. LOL
Allow the illusion to serve you, not being a victim of it.
I don’t think that’s the case. Saying “I believe it is 10th street” to someone usually means " I don’t know it’s 10th street, I think its 10th street though", does it not? Otherwise, someone who knows it’s 10th street would say “It’s 10th street”. Very confidently. The good thing about this example is, there is usually no cognitive biases wrapped up around this issue of finding something, usually. So its pretty simple. I don’t think people throw the word “might” around too loosely. Seems you’re just being contrarian to engage in sophistry