Citat:
În prealabil postat de Imogene
Multumesc pentru explicatii, stereox. Ai explicat pe intelesul meu. :) Ma uitam in wikipedia si am vazut ca explica tipurile de agnosticism. Tu unde te situezi?
Ignosticism
the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth"
|
HA! Ma bucur ca ai adus in discutie idea de "ignosticism". Adevarul este ca eu ma consider in primul rand ignostic si apoi ateu, dar accept eticheta de "ateu" din convenienta. Eu sunt un ignostic, dar am observat ca atunci cand spun asta, lumea are dificultati in a intelege termenul si mai ales in a-l deosebi de ateism.
Pe scurt, un ignostic este o persoana de genul:
- Crezi in Dumnezeu?
- Ce inseamna Dumnezeu? Defineste cuvantul te rog.
- Dumnezeu este creatorul universului. Este o fiinta omnipotenta, omniprezenta etc...
- Definitia ta este absurda, nu are nicio coerenta.
Daca ceva nu poate fi definit coerent, atunci acel ceva nici macar nu poate fi luat in discutie ca existent. In momentul in care declar ca ceva ilogic nu poate exista, ignosticismul meu se suprapune peste ateism.