Changes

:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a [[philosopher]], if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the [[Greek mythology|Homeric gods]].<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a [[philosopher]], if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the [[Greek mythology|Homeric gods]].<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

== Norman Geisler on Complete Agnosticism ==

 

=== Norman Geisler on Complete Agnosticism ===

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete agnosticism:  

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete agnosticism:  

{{cquote|Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about [[reality]] in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative,  that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler,  Apologetics, p. 20).<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref>}}

{{cquote|Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about [[reality]] in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative,  that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler,  Apologetics, p. 20).<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref>}}