On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 17:38:35 GMT,
mattrol at DON'TCCRESPONSESTOMEuscom.com (Drakmere) wrote:
>In article <7mq558$miv$1 at bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Dan Fake" <danfake at worldnet.att.net>
>did bestow the following nugget of wisdom:
>>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.
It sort of begs the question, "What is truth?" I personally don't know
if there is anything that actually amounts to what I understand
"truth" to allude to. If there is such a thing as "truth," I would
assume that it would be objective. Now maybe I am making a mistake
right there, but if truth is objective, how can an individual possess
it. Wouldn't every viewpoint by any individual be subjecive? Now if
a person is ambitious and intelligent and energetic, he/she might be
able to add various bits of information from other people's
viewpoints, but he would still be stuck with a limited subjective
viewpoint, howbeit, a more encompassing one. That is, while he might
have a more objective viewpoint, it still wouldn't be a fully
objective viewpoint.
Agnosticism is mererly the recoginition of ignorance. Agnostics
recognize that they are not fully objective. Perhaps the "truth"
exists, but agnostics haven't found it yet.
Flannel
-----------
I have a deep distrust of anyone who is not insecure.
Roger A. Bird
