(May 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: When will you learn, diffidus, that simply waltzing in, posting a screed is not standard operating procedure for someone interested in discussion?
Also, there is a great debate over the terms and combinations of gnosticism and agnosticism, which relate to "knowledge" and atheism and theism, which are positions taken over there not being a god (like there isn't a giant shellfish-banana hybrid lording over all existence) and for their being at least one (1) god or gods.
Ergo, seeing an agnostic atheist is akin to seeing the ground state of a system - it is the bare minimum of a position: "I don't know if there is a god, so I don't even bother to believe." The preceeding would be considered "safe" as one who holds both labels withholds judgement and doesn't even go so far as to believe in something without evidence or rationale pertaining to thereof.
If you are interested in further discussion over the labels, their philosophical implications et al, I suggest that you introduce yourself.
If you are not, I suggest you clumsily antagonize our community base as you have done so.
I have never joined a forum before and so I appologise if I have accidently bypassed some standard protocol. However, my post is not really antagonistic. I have used only civil language and posted a relatively sound argument.
With regard to me arguing over labels, that was not my intention. I merely wished to point out that if you follow the logic of the argument it leads to the unsavoury conclusion that, in reality we cannot ascert, from, standpoint of knowledge, that God does not exist. It is not a safe choice it is the only choice that actually fits the facts.
