From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 22:29:18 MST
On 24 Jan 2002 at 9:40, Steele, Kirk A wrote:
An agnostic is generally considered to be a person who does not know
whether or not a deity exists, and considers the question important and
critical. A friend of mine observes that whether or not a deity exists, we
must still existentially act as if we were in at least partially control of our
own fates and futures, and therefore he describes himself as a retired
agnostic, i. e., one who does not know, and furthermore, does not give
a damn anymore.
>
> no. search for Pascal' wager to understand agnosticism
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Johns [mailto:nialjo@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:27 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
>
>
>
> > Have you ever heard a pro god argument that forwards evidence?
> > probably not - but the first time they do, and the data is verified by the
> same
> > scientific method that we use to "prove" other things, then I will be will
> to
> > concede that perhpas there is a god
>
> This is agnosticism, is it not?
> At least, you share the same viewpoint as me, and I do not consider myself
> an atheist. Rather, those that would not concede this point in the face of
> scientific evidence I see as atheist (and dogmatic). I agree that this may
> seem like a slightly harsh outlook. :-)
>
> Like statistics, dictionaries can be used to back up any viewpoint:
>
> Agnostic (n)
> a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown
> and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in
> either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> (Webster)
>
> Or try this one: http://www.bartleby.com/81/328.html
>
>
> Nic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT