They seem to confuse the issues of relative and absolute knowledge with belief in the article. Yes, to one degree you can argue that not believing in X is maintaining that there is no X, however this is a relative assertion. Just because there is no X for me, doesn't mean there is no X ultimately.
The point is, you can maintain that there is no X all you like, but if you cannot demonstrate via a proof that there is no X objectively, you have to admit agnosticism.
I'll have to read through the article a bit more later, but from first glances it seems that he mutilates definitions and thereby comes to a faulty conclusion.
The point is, you can maintain that there is no X all you like, but if you cannot demonstrate via a proof that there is no X objectively, you have to admit agnosticism.
I'll have to read through the article a bit more later, but from first glances it seems that he mutilates definitions and thereby comes to a faulty conclusion.
