Fermionic
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:00:17 +0000
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Lukyo
Fermionic
Agnosticsm concerns itself with knowledge, atheism with the existence of a divine being.
Seeing as the notions of theism and atheism form a dichotomy (as one is the opposite of the other), it is not possible for a third alternative- agnosticsm.
Agnosticsm is used to specify what type of theist or atheist one is.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od exist.
Atheism, then, being the opposite, is NOT "believing that [a] (G/g)od exist" Modifying the inner function of the statement to "believing that NO (G/g)od exist" is wrong, as that is not the opposite statement, which the prefix "a" on "atheist" indicates.
Seeing as the notions of theism and atheism form a dichotomy (as one is the opposite of the other), it is not possible for a third alternative- agnosticsm.
Agnosticsm is used to specify what type of theist or atheist one is.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od exist.
Atheism, then, being the opposite, is NOT "believing that [a] (G/g)od exist" Modifying the inner function of the statement to "believing that NO (G/g)od exist" is wrong, as that is not the opposite statement, which the prefix "a" on "atheist" indicates.
That's just the point; Atheism makes no claims. It rejects theistic claims. My post was there to show you that your statements and attitude towards what atheism means were wrong.
Did I not phrase myself very well?
No it mustn't. I'll go through the main point again.
Theism= Believing that [a] (G/g)od exist.
Atheism is the opposite of Theism, as the "a" in the prefix -without- implies.
So, the opposite of "Believing that [a] (G/g)od exist." will be; NOT "Believing that [a] (G/g)od exist."
The original statement must still be there for it be a viable opposite. Which Atheism is to Theism. So atheism is "Not believing that [a] (G/g)od exist" , not "believing that no (G/g)od exist".
Obviously I disagree.