I disagree. But it depends on what justify is, justify as knowledge? Keep in mind that knowledge is only true until it is not true, but can be justified. As all knowledge is justified subjectively, ultimately. I already explained this previously. Thus, why I don’t agree or accept how knowledge is necessarily truth.
Sure, no problem there
I am not sure what you’re referring to. Having doubt of precepts is not denying them. Deny is a harsh word.
At the end of the day, when ANGRY says “belief” he means “unjustified certainty”. He claims not to have any unjustified certainties, he claims knowledge is not an unjustified certainty. I told him a month ago that using the term in that way to say things like “I don’t have any beliefs” would lead to endless confusion and people thinking he’s out of his mind. It has been explained to him all the various reasons why his obtuse way of using the word isn’t going to catch on outside the anti-theist circles where he picked it up.
He jumps from non-knowing to knowing without an in-between state. That’s how I would describe it.
He would probably say that there are only the two states of knowing or non-knowing.
Yet he manages to act in that non-knowing state as though he has reasonable knowledge or belief of what to do. How does he manage that? Will.
What’s will in that situation? And how does will act without selecting between options?
You’re getting closer, you are now reasonable - but not fully accurate. Somewhat of a half truth. Keep in mind my definition 1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real - in that acceptance is also a state of certainty, but not so much in that it is related to knowledge as one of the central points of this thesis, in that knowledge is understood, not “accepted” through justification. In that a state of knowing becomes, not a state of “belief” as defined in the OP and here.
Jumping from Non knowing to knowing without an in between state? Isn’t uncertainty and doubt an inbetween state? As opposed to your in between state, of belief, apparently?
I don’t have an idea of what your second sentence means though.
Again the word ‘understood’. 
Yeah, that’s one of the problems I pointed out a month ago. If ‘belief’ means ‘unjustified certainty’, it leaves us with a word vacuum for all those things we used to call beliefs that are neither unjustified, nor certain, nor knowledge.
Putting ‘belief’ on special reserve as a term to bash religious people with simply isn’t sufficient motivation to overhaul epistemological vernacular, and he has no non-vernacular argument.
So you are just substituting uncertainty and doubt for belief.
So then knowledge is true justified doubt?
Lets revisit what it is to understand. Knowing that 1+1=2 is a matter of understanding what 1+1=2 represents, how numbers and math function conceptually and what it represents. Perhaps I’m not clear enough here…
Please don’t put your assumptions of how I define words in my mouth and use it as a claim of me having “no non-vernacular argument”
I suppose you can say I’m substituting uncertainty and doubt for belief, not exactly what you said.
Now, I am also separating the acceptance of belief to the understanding and state of knowing in knowledge, which would lead us that knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
The atomic level of things is also called microphysics. So there is macrophysics too. And Newton’s physics is not true in both microphysics and macrophysics, but it is true in mesophysics.
That is a rhetorical question with a rehetorical answer, because James already said: "If you are greatly confident, you say that you ‘know’. If not so confident, you say that you ‘believe’. The problem is where to draw the line. James is right. There is nothing to add, and there is especially nothing to change by using rhetorical questions and answers.
Where?
Sources?
Links?
Rhetoric! Otherwise he would have given evidence, sources or at least links to that post.
I guess that you mean the laws of mseophysics, thus not those of microphysics and macrophysics. But even then, if you mean the mesophysical laws, it is not possible to be 100% sure. Knowledge about mesophysical laws has a likelihood of about 98-99% truth. The primary task of our senses and brains is not to know complicated laws but to support our surviving.
Yes, that is true, but one should also not completely mistrust a perception. 
phyllo
ANGRY WROTE:
phyllo wrote:
Perhaps ANGRY might have said AUTOMATICALLY believe things.
Why does this have to be a rationalization on his part, phyllo?
If the man does in fact use this method to weed out automatic belief, to examine things and not to automatically accept things based on faith and on the belief of others, how is that rationalizing and satisfying his ego?
That’s the way of the agnostic, the skeptic.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Skepticism ^
Think about it. People tell you things all day long. Friends, spouse, children, the news media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines). You don’t verify most of that stuff. It’s not knowledge. Can you imagine being agnostic about it? How would you function and make decisions?
A lot of it isn’t knowledge, mostly bull crap. I see your point, my view so far from being on Earth 22 years is that true knowledge is rare when it just comes to you randomly, but not as rare when you seek it, it is still rare though. That’s why knowledge is power, if everyone had it I would imagine power would not exist or just wouldn’t be considered power anymore.
We’re not speaking of everyday mundane things here, phyllo. We’re speaking of things which are more meaningful to discuss let’s say, like in a philosophy forum 
; namely, religious beliefs, scientific theories, et cetera. or to simply muse about while withholding any kind of judgment. For instance, when I look up at the sky, in daylight or darkness, I sometimes muse and wonder about the concept of god. How can one not? (That’s kind of a bias there - or is it?) but that doesn’t mean that I accept the belief systems[s] of many.
We don’t need to clutter our minds with everything.
At the same time, I am agnostic of much which I hear about in the media or even of the tales of my friends - but I don’t delve into it. We choose our meaning.
Artimas,
Look at ILP. Could you use another word for the so-called power which stems from the knowledge in here?