PTL: There are the things that you believe. There are the things that are true (reflect reality). Knowledge is when a thing that you believe is also a thing that is true.
One of the problems that comes up when talking about belief vs knowledge is how to know if something is true (before you jump on that, I doubt anyone will want to get into a discussion with you about the fundamentals of epistemology if you won't listen to them about the definition of these words!!).
Another problem is when someone mistakes the strength of their belief for the truth. This is why I prefer to think of agnosticism in terms of "it can/cannot be known for God to exist" over "I know/don't know if God exists" so you can't just make bald assertions.
Also, I did go to the trouble of posting this for you earlier, re: the differences between these three positions:
believing |
not believing | believing not. I don't know if you find this thread frustrating, but for the most part people are trying to be constructive, but you don't want to listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
PTL, here is something that really helped me:
Imagine you are a juror deciding on a defendant's fate. The judge asks you to give a verdict:
If you find the evidence convincing, you would say guilty ("I believe X")
If you find the evidence unconvincing, you would say not guilty ("I do not believe X").
If you find them not guilty, you do not have to go so far as to find them innocent ("I believe not X").
Do you have a problem with insufficient evidence finding someone not guilty, without needing to resort to calling them innocent? In neither case have you sent the guy to jail.