Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
Not really. The technical definitions are as follows:
Agnosticism — is unknown or inherently unknowable. Some agnostics take a stronger view that the concept of a deity is incoherent, thus meaningless and irrelevant to life. is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities The term is used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion.
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A narrower definition includes only those who believe that deities do not exist, and excludes those who hold no position on the question (see agnostics and other non-theists). In other words, an "atheist" can be defined as either: - A person who does not believe the proposition "At least one god exists"; or
- A person who believes the proposition "No god or gods exist".
|
This is the post in question, Bobblehead. You neglected to include the other part of the Wikipedia entry. So, in this case, Wikipedia was not the problem...you were. I merely assumed you would have copied the other part too when trying to give a "technical definition"
You're right. In this case, Wikipedia appears not to have been the problem. However, that was merely an example. It does NOT mean Wikipedia is to be trusted or used as fact. The website itself even states that.
It's also true that any article may possibly be wrong. That possibility is greatly reduced when the article is written by someone with credentials, who has been edited. Nobody's going to get fired or lose the respect of others in their profession for a false wikipedia entry. Wikipedia can be right. Scholarly references can be wrong. Generally speaking, though, it is FAR more likely for the reverse to be true. Wikipedia is not a valid source for fact.