On 9 Sep 2006, at 1:55AM, David Hobby wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:
...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God
(s) exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.
They *could* mean that of course, and perhaps some do. That's
rather a difficult position to hew to consistently though and most
agnostics don't seem to.
Porridge Maru
--William T Goodall
William--
Difficult as it may be to think that whether or not god(s)
exist is unknown, I'd say that is what agnostics do. If
you want to be picky, they say they do not know personally.
If they don't "know personally" that would be weak atheism. The terms
have overlapping boundaries but in practise agnostics all seem to be
weak atheists.
There are three words covering at least five stances on the issue.
Knowable/true
Knowable/false
Unknowable/true
Unknowable/false
Unknowable/meaningless
Then you get into epistemology :->
For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.
Terminological inexactitude Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door
you're on.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
