“You also seem to be ignoring those elusive things called Gettier problems, Damien.”

Why do people believe that, they have proof that one must not ever use JTB?

“Gettier problems” or cases are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. They function as challenges to the philosophical tradition of defining knowledge of a proposition as Justified True Belief  “JTB” in that proposition. Ref

My response, you mean that sometimes there may be a requirement to add further delineation to one’s JTB understanding of what constitutes knowledge. Yes, it’s not a problem it showed we must do more than hasty generalizations for our epistemological methodology, not a problem for me at all as a methodological rationalist. it only validates my thinking with the others around me once they get what I am doing with my conception of knowledge

 Justified True Beliefs?

 I follow the standard in philosophy JTB Justified True Beliefs.

“Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is “warrant”. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or logical deduction.” Ref

Justified / True / Beliefs
“Strangely, or not, Plato has been credited for the “Justified True Belief” theory of knowledge, even though Plato in the Theaetetus (dialogue) elegantly dismisses it, and even posits this argument of Socrates as a cause for his death penalty.” Ref
To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.
For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.
For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief..

I am a thinking revolutionary, I care to try and change the world. At the least I hope my thinking gets people to think. I once was very ignorant controlled by others words not grasping the true hidden ontology of words and how they control us. I am no longer confused and I wish to give this freedom to others. I don’t just think outside the box I hijack the box concept and reconceive it in such a way that I can actually use it to open the boxed thinking of others.I strive for thoughtful aserve pro-social behavioural interaction with others and for myself I esteem Self-Ownership, Self-Leadership, Self-Efficiency and Self-Mastery; a strong will bent to kindness by a compassionate heart. PS. self-efficacy, is one’s belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task. One’s sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges.

Words are largely emotional projections, with an intentionally attached “emotional biology” created to motivate “emotions” in yourself and others to regulate or deregulate emotions.

“I will show you the power of words in my hands or thinking.”

The Attack: 
*Damien, shut the fuck up…. Just cause your atheist doesn’t mean you need to advertise it! Have fun condemned after death. I must admit I don’t know how to explain god , but I also don’t know how to explain , gravity,dark matter,the universe,where it came from ? Closed minded piece of shit.
“Then I address this with kindness as well as valid and reliable reason and/or evidence. Which all can be read in the link provided.”
*Damien, great response. Okay, I now agree and respect what you do. Your not a non believer …., you are just a realist, needing proof to back theory. And I respect that good debate.
My style doesn’t try to make you think, rather it stops the errors in beliefs you didn’t think where there and that means some people are life changed only interacting with my style only one. My style demonstrates an alternative to the rabid confrontation of reason we see in many atheist interactions.I show you can be a firebrand Atheist and a kind Humanist at the same time. Here is the link to the full discussion if interested: Damien, shut the fuck up