Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

That's irrelevant. Whether people are right or wrong about their knowledge or belief doesn't change the fact that they believe or claim to know.You're still hung up on comparing the beliefs/knowledge to reality and ignoring that the terms in question are used to describe mental states and not objective truths. But we aren't talking about whether the knowledge is true or not. We are talking about whether people think they know; whether they claim to have knowledge. And there really are people who fall into those categories. And we should have ways of talking about them and their opinions regarding belief in deities.

You bet your life I am. That's because knowledge and beliefs are different states. Knowledge is held in a box we call objective reality. It has evidence to back it up and concerns itself with rational thought and logical decision making. This is Huxley's entire point. Without knowledge of something - a-gnosis - we can't form a rational opinion.Belief allows us to make decisions without perfect knowledge. A very necessary emotion, without which we'd be incapacitated. Me and Huxley and the dictionary are. If it's not true, it ain't knowledge. People who claim knowledge that is not actually knowledge are called delusional. Those who claim to have knowledge but can't demonstrate it to others objectively are delusional. Except in the special case of the supernatural where we call it faith or belief. Hence our claims of special pleading. Yes there are, billions of them And we can talk of them. That's why I should be called an atheist not an agnostic - I have a positive belief that god does not exist. (If you must call me anything at all). People with no opinion are also atheists because they too do not believe - but this is a passive, default atheism.

No. It's held in a box we call the skull.And this is the essence of your error.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

As RAZD would say, curiously, it isn't. Because I - like Huxley - seperate objective knowldge from subjective belief, I am allowing for the human condition which deals routinely with both situations.Wereas your position is actually pre-Huxley, just a jumbled mess of mixed up ideas were all are equally valid. Whatever someone thinks or believes becomes knowledge. No.

Taking someone like Faith as an example....How does one distinguish between what Faith actually knows and that which she merely believes she knows?

Watch your own lips: You claim to understand that knowledge and belief are two different things, so why do you ask for an explanation that conflates them into one?You do not believe in god, gods, God, Gods BUT you do not know whether they exist or not. Your belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. Are you hoping that belief and knowledge will magically become the same and different at the same time?

Well, I'm ready to throw in the towel.I've tried but can try no more. You're in a hopelessly confused Huxley love affair with responses that have devolved into little more than telling people they are wrong because Huxley disagrees.Since you have nothing fresh to offer, I won't be wasting my time offering anything fresh to you.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Who cares? It's a distinction without a difference. The debate you want to have is interesting only to highschool seniors who think philosophy begins and ends at Socrates.

Gosh, you might try trusting me once in a while not to be the total idiot who would say I know something when I really only believe I know it. How else would anyone learn something about intangibles like God except by considering that maybe something you don't yourself know IS known by someone else? That in fact is how I got to belief: I believed what a couple of Hindu gurus were saying about having personally experienced "God." Something I had no experience of myself but I had the charity to believe they could know something I don't know -- something to do with more than one person saying pretty much the same thing: "two or more witnesses...". Turned out in the end that I no longer believe that what they had experienced was God but it was certainly something supernatural and I hadn't had that experience either. But it launched me on a quest for God and ultimately I found Him and I KNOW I found Him. Instead of dismissing what other people have to say about their personal experiences, just try considering they must be talking about SOMETHING they experience that you haven't. It's called humility. To get from that to knowing something yourself requires some work of course, but it starts with simple charitable trust in other human beings.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Who cares? Well anyone discussing the difference between knowledge and belief may want to give it some consideration.... If that is your approach to knowledge and belief then it is little wonder you are so hopelessly lost here.

I think you have rather proved the point being made.

I guess you have to think that.

That's not my approach to knowledge and belief. That's my approach to someone trying to claim there is a difference between "actually knowing" and "believing to know".

How does one acquire knowledge? Does simply believing something with enough conviction transform belief into knowledge? If not then there must be a difference between actually knowing and believing to know.You really need to consider how knowledge is acquired and then ask yourself whether Faith's knowledge that she has found God meets that criteria. I would suggest that it doesn't. I would suggest that with a little thought it is clear that she is conflating strength of belief, conviction, with knowledge.

We've been through this before, Straggler.There's no sense turning another thread into a tiring attempt to update your juvenile understanding of philosophy.