Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

If the problem is truly so basic that you literally do not understand the "words that are coming out of my mouth" (so to speak), then honestly it might not be worth the effort to attempt to continue this all the way to its conclusion. For a while now -- shit, months? -- it's seemed as if we're trying to find each other through a fog by the sound of our voices, but the fog is playing tricks with the sound and we may be a hundred miles apart.

I'll use the main problem you refer to as a test case.
That is to say, why should you be asking what knowledge I think is neccessary to justify belief? I just don't get it. I think about how I've posed my position as stating that justification is meaningless, thus there can be no 'process' (justification) for turning belief to knowledge, and that knowledge must simply be given to an individual for him to have knowledge (this being the conclusion, of course, stating revelation as an answer to epistemology). I think about all that in relation what you're asking there and I just don't know what you could possibly mean in addressing it to my position (and in a way, I'm not necessarily sure I know what it means by itself).

It was my understanding that you asserted that justification was meaningless BECAUSE:

Your position is that in order to "justify" any belief as knowledge one would have to have knowledge with which to justify that belief.

So, in that case* it would follow that justification "begs the question" of knowledge and is meaningless if one is in the position of not having knowledge in the first place.

However, it is my position that in certain cases preexisting knowedge is NOT necessary for justification. (I've attempted to explain the reasoning for that position, but let's get to that later.)

So, in that case** your objection of meaninglessness (as described above) does not apply.

What is wrong so far? (Firstly, is there anything you don't understand of my statement of your position and its consequence; or, if you believe that you understand my statement of your position and its consequence but that I am mistaken about one or both (or have left out crucial parts), then how so? Secondly, if the first is OK, is there anything you don't understand of my position and its consequence?)

* IF YOU ARE CORRECT

** IF I AM CORRECT