On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:52:57 GMT, flannel at mindless.com (Flannel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:21:00 -0500, "Dan Fake"
><danfake at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Flannel wrote in message <37910484.153725452 at news.prodigy.net>...
>>How did you get into my head? You must have read the links
>>I provided. Aside from the coward and crap words, you came
>>close. Care to share with us what your views on agnosticism
>>are? Please don't tell me you're of the opinion that agnosticism is
>>the superior intellectual and logical position over believers and
>>disbelievers but if that's your position, so be it.
>>Well the crap was my word, but the "coward" came from one of your
>posts. One of the urls you gave read "agnosticism = coward". It
>appeared to be a spin on the "agnostics are gutless atheists" that we
>get in alt.agnosticism from time to time.
It is always surprising how many people who say that don't come even
close to understanding what some people mean by the term agnostic. We
all mean different things and all.
>As far as agnosticism being intellectually superior, how would I know?
>I'm an agnostic. Agnostics are ignorant. For myself, I choose the
>terms agnostic and agnosticism because they appear to be the most
>accurate terms to describe me and my outlook.
For the record since my last splurge at this NG I have changed
classification albeit not changed that much philosopohically. I now
class myself as a Philosophical Taoist. Most people don't know what
the hell that means in relation to anything (well AFAIK) so not as
many preconceived notions. But a Phil. Taoist is inherently agnostic
anyways..
>Agnostic and atheist can be overlapping terms. I know weak atheist
>that state that they are also technically agnostic and agnostics that
>state that they are technically weak atheist. Their viewpoints seem
>to be nearly identical with the main difference being the label they
>choose to call themselves. I'm not going to quibble over labels.
Come on, it is usually the backbone of all atheist/agnostic NG
posts... that and theist trolls.
>Personally, I don't know if there is a god or not. As to whether it
>is likely there is a god, that depends on what kind of god you are
>talking about. Are you talking about the old gods that were numerous
>and fallible, or the western version of god that is singular,
>omnipotent, etc; or one of those fairly new definitions of god such as
>"god is the sum total of the universe" or "god is collective of
>physical laws that determine the universe?" God is a vague term and
>agnostic is flexible enough term to answer it. I use it because it
>is a useful term that addresses more than just god. I use the term to
>mean that I don't see the big picture. Is there a big picture?
>Soliphicism could be correct as far as I know.
I used to know what that mean, now I am clueless.
<Okamura browses a dictionary>
Oh, I see. But going by this overly generalised definition you would
believe only in yourself.. Have you changed your belief in this
regard? Like last time I talked to you you had doubts over your own
existence (IIRC).
> I don't use agnostic to portray some logical superiority, I use it to
>attempt an accurate portrayal of ignorance. I don't have the big
>answers. I don't trust anyone who claims to have the big answers. I
>live in ignorance, not because of choice, but IMHO, ignorance is our
>inherent state. Any thing and possibly everything that I might think
>could be wrong. That, to me, is agnosticism.
Just out of curiousity do you use agnostic more widely as an adjective
for anything which your agnosticism lends its uncertainty upon?
Like, "Do you think that we have a soul?", "Well, I am kinda agnostic
on that point."
>I have a deep distrust of anyone who is not insecure.
> Roger A. Bird
Still?? Ahhh well.
Okamura
