In article <7mq558$miv$1 at bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Dan Fake" <danfake at worldnet.att.net>
did bestow the following nugget of wisdom:
>Drakmere wrote in message <7mq2o3$1go_008 at news.uscom.com>...
>>In article <7mpvjm$4o4$1 at bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Dan Fake"
> <danfake at worldnet.att.net>
>>did bestow the following nugget of wisdom:
<snip>
>>>must one believe based on blind faith? So, as for 6, while it's easy
>>>to take that position and defend it, it gets us no closer to the truth
>>>than does 2.
>>>>>You do not take into account the possibility that the truth is unknowable.
>>Well, if you consider that category 6 is close to that, considered and
>rejected as being ultimately untrue. After all, there is a god or there isn't;
>to accept the possibility is to accept the construct - what god construct
>is worthy of acceptance? Even Agnostics would be hard-pressed to
>accept Zeus or Mithras or Rain Gods or Sun Gods as worthy of
>acceptance as a possibility, eh? So, once you start rejecting 'em, why
>stop? (-:
That doesn't follow. You indicated that "the truth" exists and that
agnosticism is a sort of dead end on the path to it. I was telling you it
maybe that "the truth" is not knowable, through any path. I don't think any
agnostics can out rule the possibilty of an insensitive god or polytheism.
--
All spellings are not guaranteed accurate. ICQ: 8869737 Yahoo: Drakmere Aim: drakmere9
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world.
If anyone has an extra organs lieing around, pickle them in a jar and send them to me.
When in-laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.
If you can't say something nice, post it on Usenet.
This .sig in NO LONGER CONSTRUCTION any suggestions are disposed of ;)
