ATHEISM Explained

Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknowable.

 

Omfg did you even bother to read your own source?

You say yourself you doubt the existence of gods... You are skeptical.. Regardless of what an atheist may be, you are clearly an agnostic.

 

AGNOSTICISM says it is Unknowable.

 

Are you illiterate or something? Please go back an read the bold part of my quote. That is your source, so surely you must agree with it, otherwise what validity does any of your argument have?

 

Unknowable by the very etymological definition. Period.

 

But what of all your etymology nonsense? Or is that only correct when you spew it forth? Does not it more correctly mean without knowledge?

 

And your saying "Period." makes it no more definite.

 

ETYMOLOGY NONSENSE?

BWahahahahahaha!!!!

Now, c'mon...you have to be fucking around now.

Gk. agnostos "unknown (due to the subject being unknowable)"

 

Talk about arrogance...

The "eye roll" for EVERY SENTENCE YOU SAY?

 

It's quite simple.. A - without, gnostic from gnosis - knowledge.. What does that equal? without + knowledge != unknowable.

 

ok... let's put an end to this

you see now? either your confused, you like to argue, or your saying that agnosticism deals with knowlege because the only thing we can know is that we know nothing...

I think omewhere along the line you quit being athiest and became agnostic...a possibility, however I don't really know

in this case:
atheism=fighting
theism=fighting
agnosticism=peace
I bet your really comfortable...

 

You can't be THAT stupid.

Say something is "unknowable" is dealing with knowledge.

Saying it cannot be "known". Hello?

 

wow, don't go getting so hot, calm down dude. It's not that big of a deal.

I know, & it still sounds like what I said...
I am not "stupid", & in this case if I was you'd have to be too.

and what was that last thing you said about anyway? ..................^ was it a statement, a question, or something else?

at this current state I don't think you could fathom the feeling/idea that someone could have an answer you don't. It's makes me feel sad.

 

You're saying that saying something is "unknowable" is not dealing with "knowledge" (the promotion or lack thereof)?

 

As I have went back over this thread, it is apparent that all three of us have been "right" (myself, Hikaru, and Soulless). However, most of the disagreement is based on the definitions of these words and our sources.

Obviously, my sources tell me one thing and their sources tell them something a bit different. Thus, until we can agree on a single source on which to base our arguments, I see no progress coming from this debate.

 

no matter how many times you write it this: "the lack" does not = impossible. unknowable means that you can not know it and that = impossible. lack of knowlege means you just do not know it yet.

qoute me directly if you wish to refer to my words in accuracy.

umm... duh you are a proud atheist, which means it's attached to your pride, and you are entitled because all we really have is to controll is what is in our minds. what kind of progress exactly were you hoping for?

? bible pushers aren't the only annoying ones, just belief pushers in gereral. They're alway out to make someone see life as they do.

 

First off, you previously refuted dictionary definitions and said that the etymology is what counts. So, if you won't settle for a dictionary entry, you could actually do some research (like I did) and look up that "privative a", and read the description of it, which I will state for you here:

That a in atheism expresses negation. It goes on further to give a perfect example: anarchy, and I'm sure you know what that is.

Just as various -archys (monarchys, oligarchys) are a state of rule, anarchy is a state of no rule.

And similarly, just as theism is a belief in gods, atheism is a belief in no gods!

-----

Let me explain to you what is flawed about your thinking.

A.

Assume that there is some variable "A" which represents a concept, in this case, theism.

You are viewing atheism as this expression:

!A

Which means, "not A." However, the privative a is defined as NEGATION, and not INVERSION, which means the correct expression for atheism is this:

-A

Which means "negative A" or "the opposite of A."

Thus, !A is non-theism, and -A is atheism.

Does that put it in plainer terms for you?

If we were dealing with boolean logic (true and false only), THEN and ONLY then would !A be the same as -A. However, the real world is not boolean, it's "real," such as used in real numbers.

Set A equal to 10.

Saying "not 10" is far different from saying "negative 10." You're calling atheism "not theism" but that is far from the truth. That would be called "non-theism."

Atheism is to theism as negative 10 is to 10. And THAT is by the specific etymology of the word. Refute that, if you can, or accept it, and let this argument come to an end.

 

By the same "privative a" usage,

gnosis is knowledge.

agnosis is no knowledge (ignorance).

You are right in that agnosticism is a position of NO KNOWLEDGE. But you are wrong in that agnosticism is ALWAYS a position of the impossibility of knowledge.

Agnosticism, as a doctrine (proper noun), may be a belief that something is unknowable, but agnosticism as a word is unrelated to that doctrine.

 

And for that purpose I went by your very own source, but thanks for basically repeated what I said a few posts back.

 

it can't get much simpler than that