Posted: Oct 01, 2010 1:15 am
by hotshoe
So we can safely suggest that among the other things Maryann refuses to admit into her worldview, she won't admit a simple wikipedia entry:

wiki wrote:Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"

wiki wrote:Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.
Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.

Therefore, some THEISTS are AGNOSTIC, in that they believe in the existence of at least one deity, but in that they also philosophically conclude that such deity is inherently unknown/unknowable. Some THEISTS are GNOSTIC, in that they believe in the existence of at least one deity, and they conclude that the truth of such deity is knowable. This is not necessarily a justified stance - but probably describes the unthinking faith of most christians, who believe that they "know".

And, therefore, some ATHEISTS are AGNOSTIC, in that they don't have a belief in at least one deity, but in that they have also concluded that it is not possible to know. Some ATHEISTS are GNOSTIC, in that they state that it is certainly knowable whether or not such deity exists.

It is not possible to simplify this four-way logical division any further without losing a critical dimension of the truth.

But why bother with the real meanings of the words, when a deliberate distortion of them allows Maryann to write her smug tripe mocking the atheists for "not knowing" just after she writes lies about atheists having the same kind of unjustified faith she does, only in a different direction. Good one, Maryann, yet another master example.