Revision as of 17:47, 16 November 2009
There are four positions based on a higher level question about epistemological context:
Agnosticism vs Conclusiveness X Atheism vs Theism
- Agnostic Atheist: The answer to the question cannot be deduced or empirically demonstrated. I choose to believe in no deities.
- Conclusive Atheist: There is proof that there are no deities.
- Agnostic Theist: The answer cannot be deduced or empirically demonstrated. I have faith in (insert deity(s) here).
- Conclusive Atheist: There is proof that the deity(deities) ________ exist.
Within the Conclusive qualifier is also Gnosticism = inspired personal knowledge, or enlightenment.
This debate needs to be broken down into such categories.
- Can we conclusively demonstrate whether or not deities exist?
- Assuming we can: are there no deities?
- Assuming we cannot: should we reject belief in deities as opposed to having faith in them?
I'm too new here to attempt such a major restructuring yet.
jambaugh 11:47, 16 November 2009 (CST)