Dear AJ Philips,

<<Epistemic: Relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.>>

And "Football" relates to balls or to the degree of kicking them accurately, yet it has stringent and restrictive rules and hardly covers all that one can do with a ball.

<<You are making a claim to knowledge>>

That's your mistake. You have repeated this several times in your last couple of posts, but I am simply telling others what I know. What could perhaps be of value are the contents of what I say/write, not whether I know it or not and I really don't care in the least whether you believe that I know or not, nor even whether you believe that I made it all up. You see, I am not playing your game of 'knowledge' of which I only heard yesterday.

<<You should be interested because disbelief in what you claim to be fact is justified until you support your claims>>

And did I ask you to believe me? What is it to me whether you believe me or not? If you consider what I say a waste of breath, then I wonder why you keep asking me.

(continued...)

(...continued)
<<Then why not present simple logical reasons not to instead?>>

You could be different, but most people who hate religion and want to persecute the religious, don't do so for logical reasons, hence a logical approach won't do much.

<<I’ve presented some pretty irrefutable ones in the past.>>

I'm sure you heard before about the wolf and the lamb - http://www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-wolf-and-the-lamb.htm
Anything can be refuted if one really wants to refute it. If you really made up your mind, then there is no way I could even prove to you that I'm not a camel! You assume that others play by the rules [of epistemology], but the reality is that very few do (and I for example didn't even hear about those rules till yesterday).

So I appeal not to those who have made up their mind to do harm: I only appeal to those who could be open to some education and seeing some new perspectives which they haven't considered before.

<<The problem is there is no possible way of *knowing* which way is right>>

Indeed, not according the rules of the "epistemic dispute" game and I understand that you perceive this as a problem (while I don't).
But other than a rational mind, would you not agree that you also have for example a conscience? I think that this conscience knows that beheading innocent people and raping their daughters is not right.

<<So the suicide bomber is entitled to it too, just not those who would speak disparagingly about religion; despite the fact that those who speak disparagingly about religion do so because of what those who have a rightful claim to the word do in its name.>>

I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious', that although they believe themselves to be religious - that their violent actions bring them closer to God, this is not in fact the case. However, they at least use the word correctly.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Bad analogy...

<<...yet it has stringent and restrictive rules and hardly covers all that one can do with a ball.>>

In this “game” there is only one rule, if you make a positive claim to knowledge, then you bear a burden of proof. Hardly an intricate game in which both parties must agree upon the fact, be knowledgeable of the fact, or be philosophers in epistemology.

<<You have repeated this several times in your last couple of posts, but I am simply telling others what I know.>>

And therein lies your claim to knowledge.

<<What could perhaps be of value are the contents of what I say/write, not whether I know it or not and I really don't care in the least whether you believe that I know or not, nor even whether you believe that I made it all up.>>

Then portraying what you say as opinion, instead of fact, shouldn’t be an issue for you, and yet it is. This is my point that you keep ignoring.

You wouldn’t be lying by portraying what you believe to be knowledge as opinion. It’s still an opinion either way.

The fact that you insist on conveying your ideas as knowledge suggests a desire to lend weight to your claims. So to then say that you don’t care, is disingenuous. And if you’re only ‘not going to care’ when someone requests support for your claims, then thats a cop-out and demonstrates a lack of earnesty on your part.

<<You see, I am not playing your game of 'knowledge' of which I only heard yesterday.>>

Apparently you are. And there was never any “game” either. I already explained this yesterday. Stop being so dishonest.

<<And did I ask you to believe me?>>

No. But given all that I’ve said above, that’s hardly the point.

<<What is it to me whether you believe me or not?>>

The fact that your main purpose, of defending religion, is all in vain if the default position of disbelief (regarding your claims) is justified.

This is not about 'me' specifically.

Continued…

...Continued

<<If you consider what I say a waste of breath, then I wonder why you keep asking me.>>

Because for years you’ve created the illusion of knocking the wind out of the perfectly reasonable arguments of others, by confusing them with your unsupported claims, since they’re not always sure how to respond despite the fact that they were still right to say what they did. I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond, so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense.

<<...but most people who hate religion and want to persecute the religious, don't do so for logical reasons, hence a logical approach won't do much.>>

So, instead, you're going to make claims for which the default position of disbelief is justified? Slick move.

<<So … I only appeal to those who could be open to some education and seeing some new perspectives which they haven't considered before.>>

So then they should be fine with logical arguments after all.

<<I think that this conscience knows that beheading innocent people and raping their daughters is not right.>>

Yes, but what’s to say there's even a wrong way? You have no way to know that. There are many assumptions that you claim to know, so this doesn't get you around the conundrum that I've been pointing out.

<<I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious', that although they believe themselves to be religious - that their violent actions bring them closer to God, this is not in fact the case. However, they at least use the word correctly.>>

So you're no longer sticking to the ‘intellectual property’ line so strictly anymore, and will go back to basing your claim, regarding the definition of religion, on the claims for which your inability to support the assumptions of lead you to the ‘intellectual property’ argument in the first place.

Ten points for persistence.

You started off well, at least, with the "I believe" but then slipped in the "in fact" later on.

Sneaky.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<In this “game” there is only one rule>>

So many cross-referenced Wikipedia pages, so many references, so much volume, so many assumptions, to describe just one rule?

Just like saying "There is only one rule: do as I tell you".

<<And therein lies your claim to knowledge.>>

What claim? I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know - the rest is your imagination. Or perhaps you meant that my "claim to knowledge" lies within your repeating that claim a sufficient number of times (Argumentum ad nauseam)?

<<You wouldn’t be lying by portraying what you believe to be knowledge as opinion>>

But I wouldn't be telling the whole truth either.

When asked for the time, answering "I think it's 5 o'clock" means less than "5 o'clock". Perhaps unlike yourself, the poor fellow wanted to know the time, not whether I know the time!

<<And if you’re only ‘not going to care’ when someone requests support for your claims, then thats a cop-out and demonstrates a lack of earnesty on your part.>>

If the 'someone' I'm talking with has already decided that I'm a camel no matter what I'll say (and perhaps even already betted $100000 on it with his friends), yet I still care to convince them, then that would be neurotic!

<<The fact that your main purpose, of defending religion, is all in vain if the default position of disbelief (regarding your claims) is justified.>>

Yes, on you it's all lost anyway, but you are not the only one who reads this.

<<Because for years you’ve created the illusion of knocking the wind out of the perfectly reasonable arguments of others, by confusing them with your unsupported claims>>

Are you accusing me of intentionally and systematically confusing others?

I then suggest that you take it with Graham Young - perhaps you could convince him to make a rule against unsupported claims on OLO (or claims that cannot be supported according to your particular own doctrine). If you succeed, then I can promise to go by the new rules.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond>>

You know how to harass, as taught in the manual-pages of atheism.about.com.

<<so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense.>>

As the forum's self-appointed epistemic police.
(it reminds me bit of Runner; fortunately we don't have a resident Shariah-policeman here)

So having admitted that you used me (unknowingly) as your guinea teaching-aid for your OLO students, I think you should compensate me for my time.

<<so this doesn't get you around the conundrum that I've been pointing out.>>

I see no conundrum in rejecting arbitrary beheadings and rapes as wrong, then fighting the perpetrators. If you see any conundrum there, please state it clearly.

<<So you're no longer sticking to the ‘intellectual property’ line so strictly anymore>>

Why? what's wrong with sharing intellectual property rights with others who do not agree with you about everything else?

Both religious people and those who consider themselves to be religious (probably also those who claim to be religious but know that they are not), agree on the ancient and correct use of the word 'religion'. I believe that there was a time when everyone used the word 'religion' this way - religious and irreligious alike, but what's more important is that until the so-called "enlightenment", 'religion' was used to describe a process rather than organisation(s).

This is so important because when someone claims: "Those Muslims kill/rape because of their religion", it implies that myself and my religious friends are also potential murderers/rapists.

[Certain] Muslims kill/rape due to their Arab culture and creed, not due to their religion!