(JS) - its tiresome having to constantly deal with the whole agnostic atheism conversation that arises on this page day in and day out. So, heres an example using our beloved George the Wombat: Atheism and agnosticism deal with two totally different philosophical concepts. In fact, the people who suggest this isnt the case are the ones guilty of lacking comprehension. • Atheism is the lack of belief in god claims. • Agnosticism is the inability to know something based on a lack of information. As an example: if I told you that the Australian deity George the Wombat lives in the moon and controls the Universe, you probably wouldnt believe me. That makes you an atheist with regard to George the deity. If I then asked whether or not you could disprove the claim, and you said no as a result of not being able to verify it, but concede that it *could* be the case (however unlikely), youre maintaining a certain level of agnosticism about Georges existence. This would make you an atheist agnostic; you dont believe George exists because I havent presented any evidence, but as a result of a gap in knowledge you cannot entirely dismiss the possibility. When we use the phrase agnostic atheism - the above is what were saying. However, you can take any of the 2,000+ gods that have allegedly existed throughout history and replace them with George and it would be the same argument. I cannot emphatically know that a god does not exist, but I have no reason to believe it until evidence surfaces.
Posted on: Mon, 05 May 2014 14:37:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015