Flannel wrote in message <3790a18d.128386919 at news.prodigy.net>...
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:20:01 -0500, "Dan Fake"
><danfake at worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.agnosticism:
>>>Agnostics, nature-loving nonreligionists, and contemplative meditation
>>types are, for the most part, the least passionate and least likely to
>>get passionate about their views as that runs counter to their efforts,
>>for the most part, to get along with everyone.
>>Yes, readers, when you want to know about agnostics, ask Dan. He read
>an article about Larry King and now knows all there is to know about
>agnostics. He has spent several seconds thinking about whether
>agnostics are passionate. He has probably spent several microseconds
>considering other things about agnostics and how those things came to
>be. So please give his insightful remarks all the consideration they
>deserve.
Actually, I've spent a lot of time considering agnosticism (most of my
43 years on the planet were spent in a pseudo-agnostic mode of suspended
belief/disbelief trying to accomodate the belief systems I was surrounded
by while at the same time doubting and questioning faith). A few recent
examples of my thoughts regarding the questionable aspects of agnosticism:
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499377417
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499373496
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499373501
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499375949
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499487297
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499373499
Re: Agnosticism
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499368005
. . . you were saying?
-Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
>>Flannel
>-----------
>I have a deep distrust of anyone who is not insecure.
> Roger A. Bird
