| GameOver22 said: 1. Yeah, I'm just not buying these definitions. They seem lazy and poorly constructed. The problem is that if someone knows something, they have a belief, however, if they do not know something, this does not mean they don't have a belief. Someone can actually belief something without knowing it to be true...something the video actually got right. : ) 2. I just think it would be easier to use agnosticism for belief and skepticism for knowledge. 3. The problem with definitions is that they are always simplifications of reality. There are so many different "dimensions" to words, but you have to simplify them so you can actually communicate.....kind of the problem with creating your own definitions.....nobody knows what you're talking about. : ) |
1. Exactly, which is why there are two different terms used to describe beliefs and knowledge.
2. It may be easier, but it doesn't make it true. Also, why should agnosticism define belief? We already have terms that define beliefs/lack of beliefs (theism/atheism).
3. True, no simple word is going to be enough to completely describe anyone. That's why we have general terms, with more specific terms as a subset within those general terms. Atheism is a general term (those who lack belief). It can be broken down into two subsets - implicit atheism and explicit atheism. But really, they are still just 2-3 letter terms. The point is: it's best to not assume to much of a person just because of a term. If a person admits that he's an atheist, do not assume too much about him other than he lacks a belief in God. You could be mislabeling a lot of people that consider themselves atheists.
