Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/23/2011 12:09:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello, Zonie. "This is wrong" - "Ok". Then ok. To enter in the rest of your sentences would make the discussion grow exponentially. "such a statement would NOT imply" - Correct. "means that the person IS making an assertion about absolute eternal truth" - Not correct. "The primary difference that I can see here" ... see above, trying to limit this discussion. "If there's any degree of uncertainty in an Atheist's mind, then I would say that comes closer to Agnosticism than Atheism. " Can you prove it? Firmly prove, that in English this is the case, for ANY degree of uncertainity? Unless you can, I leave that point also here. It's your opinion. We do not need to agree on that for the game. "If this was true, then there shouldn't be any problem with adding a few qualifying word" - and some have no problem with this, while some positive Atheist do have. Whetever they have or not, is their problem. If they say "there is no God", with or without qualifiers, they are Atheist in Spain (and if not positive Atheists in English, please prove it or we can let that be, see above). "In terms of logic, I would still regard these statements as claims requiring proof" FUnny enough, proof does not prove what you pretend it to prove. I have no absolute certainity that 2+2=4. That does not make me doubt or say something like "In all likehood, 2+2=4". Not because I do not think it - because it is not necessary. "why I stated that, for all intents and purposes, I generally follow the rule ..." Please play the game in the game thread. Thanks. I am sorry - my time is over, I must let it here and stop analysing here. If you can prove that, in English, positive Atheism means absolute certainity that the unexistence of God is an aethernal truth, then you can publish it, because it refutes Dawkins, for example (he does not speak English?). And post it here. If not, it is your opinion, and irrelevant to the game for me. If you still think that we have something important to handle besides the game, ok, answer here and ask me, but be short and concrete, please. Your messages are far too big for me. Sorry. Okay, well, setting aside issues of language, I was using it in the context of the same language you were using, such as "there is no cup on the table." Now, you're comparing "There is no God" with "2+2=4," which imply that you view both statements as comparable to each other. This is where we seem to disagree. The proof of what I'm saying is implied in the comparison that you yourself are making here. Even given that there might be some minuscule degree of "uncertainty" in everything we do, you're as much as implying that you can state "there is no god" with the exact same degree of certainty as "2+2=4" or "there is no cup on the table." The implication is pretty clear to me, at least as far as how you've stated it. You've stated that you were using "pure logic" in the game, so I have to take your statements at face value. As far as the English language is concerned, I'm not aware of any hidden meanings behind the phrase "there is no god." I just take it for what it literally says, just like you compare it with "2+2=4" and "There is no cup on the table." There's no rewriting of the language here that I can see, so I honestly don't see where you're getting all this. It doesn't matter to me if you'd rather not discuss the game that you tried to start, but I was initially taken in by your suggestion that agnostics could be "converted" to positive atheism. I wanted to see what possible arguments might be raised, hopefully one that I had not previously considered. I was hoping to learn something, too.
|
|
|
|