ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

It's just that what you claim about theism to be goes a bit contrary to what I've always thought as a common consensus (theism - god, atheism - no god, agnostism - oh dunno give it a break). Of course, anyone who can claim the gray area has a far better argumentative position...

I define it precisely. If atheism denies God, the opposite is something that allows God. The opposite is NOT something that requires God. That is logically flawed.

Defining theism as an opposite of atheism is, however, a bit weird. Like defining Unholy first (something bad, wicked, evil) and then defining Holy as its opposite. I at least would like to define Holy first and then Unholy as its anathema.

Which is how it arose. Except that, at the time it arose, holy meant 'good'. With people denying that, it was necessary to show that 'unholy' still meant 'evil', and then work from there.

I define atheism first because it is the more extreme position (no possibility of God). From there, the opposing viewpoint is defined, logically, by the way I did above.

Same goes for theism ("there is god") and atheism ("oh yeah, prove it"), but that of course serves just to make my personal position (agnostic with a firm belief in smallness of probablity of some god's existence) better in these argumentations.

Heh.

Lim Agnostic -> Atheist
belief->0

But discussing that is arguing about semantics, and in a forum this wide the consensus might be hard to be found.

You might be surprised... heretic! </joking>

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

Thank you. A Happy Easter to you, too.