Nope, once your shirt is proven to be red, it's knowledge, not belief. You are interchanging the two now.
1. No, it is still a belief. If I accept that the shirt is red then I believe it is red. You must believe something to consider it to be knowledge. What you don't seem to understand is that you will always "believe" regardless of whether the things you believe are factual or not.
The most clearly I can explain this is as follows:
While it is a
fact that my shirt is red, and it is now within what I consider my "knowledge" that my shirt is factually red, it is not discounted that these are beliefs. You can only determine that something is factual by believing it, something being factual is only relative to the perception of the observer. Despite the proof behind a fact, if I truly do not believe in the fact, than to me it is not factual.
So, every "fact" is constructed by the "belief" that something is factual. A "fact" is not the proven form of a belief, a fact is the product of ones belief of something being indisputable.
The term "fact" is a part of a belief, it describes your belief of a certain phenomenon, but your own belief that something is factual will always be a belief. Every thought you have is composed of beliefs, your acceptance of what you perceive to be true or not. If you believe that something is true, then it does not simply become a fact, it becomes something that you believe is factual.
Regardless of it being a fact, you still "believe it is a fact" therefore it is your "belief" that something is factual. It remains a belief until you cease to believe it, then another belief is formed in relation to your disbelief of it, which is where your belief of something factual turns into your belief that something is fictional.
Fact and fiction apply to the object or phenomenon. Your belief is your acceptance of the object or phenomenon being factual or fictional. Fact or fiction do not apply directly to the act of believing something, they are in different spheres, and are not interchangeable.
This shit is actually really hard to explain in depth.
Bald part: I can also mean the belief in god or whatever. The statement is applicable. But for beliefs only!
You were using A=B=C logic.
Yes you are right according to formal logic. But that's not always applicable.
A) Cows have 4 legs
B) A table has 4 leg
C) The table is a cow
Did I prove it? Yes I did. Can you refute it? No.
So I said:
A) A belief is wrong if it's used for harming others
You said:
B) A tree can be used for harming others
C) Trees are inherently bad
If you cant see the difference, I cant help it
First, this is not the same example, as we were both aware that you were referring to Christianity, or any deist system. Therefor "system of beliefs" is still applicable.
I didn't use A=B=C logic I used basic inference. Then I stated that regardless they are all comparable to one another despite the event that you would claim that you were not referring to what I thought you were referring to. I was not stating that A was comparable to B because A was comparable to C and C was comparable to B, I simply listed that they are all indeed comparable to each other, not one of the of these principles is proved by the other.
Additionally, that is not A=B=C logic that you just displayed, that is A = B logic with no proof applied, as your "C" is a statement of the conclusion to your theory.
Secondly, the reasoning behind my statement is as follows.
A type belief can be manipulated by someone to be used for bad, so this type of belief is bad.
Then a sarcastically stated: A tree can be manipulated by someone to be used for bad, so a tree is bad.
The example implies that because something is used for wrong doing doesn't mean that the phenomenon itself is bad. A tree is not a bad thing simply because humans can manipulate it to do bad.
