Editing Talk:Number One/Archive 1
Discussion page of Number One/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
Could be either, but I'm leaning towards atheist. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 22:53, 27 June 2006 (CDT) | Could be either, but I'm leaning towards atheist. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 22:53, 27 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
Strictly speaking, a 'true' atheist denies the existence of a god or gods and does not concede the possibility that "we just don't know or can't prove it." An agnostic takes the position that we do not know or cannot prove it (presently), but often actually does have a basically atheistic outlook on the universe. My opinion is that, from a purely logical standpoint, Cavil's statements make him an agnostic with an atheistic outlook. Or, in other words, he would concede that he can't REALLY prove it one way or another, but would be willing to lay a substantial wager on the non-existence of god. --[[User:Felix Culpa|Felix Culpa]] 13:15, 18 October 2006 (CDT) | Strictly speaking, a 'true' atheist denies the existence of a god or gods and does not concede the possibility that "we just don't know or can't prove it." An agnostic takes the position that we do not know or cannot prove it (presently), but often actually does have a basically atheistic outlook on the universe. My opinion is that, from a purely logical standpoint, Cavil's statements make him an agnostic with an atheistic outlook. Or, in other words, he would concede that he can't REALLY prove it one way or another, but would be willing to lay a substantial wager on the non-existence of god. --[[User:Felix Culpa|Felix Culpa]] 13:15, 18 October 2006 (CDT) | ||