slag@charm.UUCP (Peter Rosenthal) (04/04/84)
Offering to the bug. In response to arndt: In reply to your quoted definition of an agnostic, I say: I don't know if I am an agnostic. I don't know if a god exists. I don't know what a god is. I don't know if anyone else can know if god exists. I don't know if anyone else can know what a god is. I don't know if an agnostic can exist. Frankly, sometimes it surprises me that anything exists at all. ( I've said this before) But I know that the faith I do have is just as valid, just as irrational or rational, just as constructive as any other. It is a great source of strength and peace. It doesn't bother me if nobody else agrees with me. I don't need faith in god. I'm happy, my life has meaning and direction, and I have a passable set of morals. Don't judge me until you've seen Conan the Barbarian. mail is welcome.
dep@cosivax.UUCP (David E. Pugh) (04/04/84)
<>
In response to Ken Arndt's request for replies from agnostics,
I'm throwing my hat into the ring....
I consider myself to be an agnostic. This means, TO ME, that
I don't know if god exists. (By the way, MY dictionary (The American
Heritage Dictionary, 1969) defines an agnostic as 'A thinker who
disclaims any knowledge of God.') I DON'T believe that it is
impossible to prove that god exists (if, for example, a being
were to claim to be god, AND DEMONSTRATE god-like powers
(resurrection, universe creation, etc.) I would probably join the
ranks of the theists). I, however, have yet to find any evidence which
requires the existence of a god (stories in the Bible, for
example, could have 'grown in the telling,' turning explainable
events into 'miracles.').
I think part of the problem in the atheist/agnostic/theist
debate stems from a misunderstanding of the agnostic's position.
Since the definition of 'agnostic' seems to depend on the dictionary
that is used, perhaps all the agnostics should prefix their next
article with a description of what THEY think 'agnostic' means.
One of the reasons I consider myself to be an agnostic is
(aside from the question of the existence of god) that I wouldn't
know which religion to follow, given the existence of god. I have
seen nothing which convinces me that one form of worship is
better than another.
David Pugh (uofm-cv!cosivax!dep)rcd@opus.UUCP (04/05/84)
<> (I apologize if you're not getting my real name. Our postnews puts it in the header, but some software seems to ignore or delete it. -Dick Dunn) Still on the topic of the positions of atheist, agnostic, theist - Ken Arndt give a definition for agnostic: > "Someone who believes that there CAN BE (italics mine) no proof > (remember our argument, please read "evidence") of the existence > of God but does not deny the possibilty that God exists." >... >Therefore, it seems to me that we might simplify the argument as follows: > God is (theist) > God isn't (atheist) > No way to tell (agnostic) > >Again, "isn't" falls because it claims too much knowledge... >... >"No way for anyone to tell" falls for the same reason... But in each case, Ken misses a fundamental point: The positions of all three (if you go back to definitions) are BELIEFS, and a belief is not equivalent to knowledge. No claim of absolute knowledge is made in any case. Ken is right when he implies that there is a certain weakness in either the agnostic or atheist positions - they are unlikely to be able to "prove" their points, whereas a simple existence proof suffices for the theist's case. However, he errs in saying: >...there are evidences for the existence of God... simply because the evidence has not been found acceptable to either the agnostics or the atheists. (If it had, they would by definition have become theists, however grudgingly.) >We ALL live by faith in the last look. ...which is a fair statement. Even the atheist's position is based on a "belief" - a belief in certain principles of reasoning and deduction plus the belief that certain interpretations of evidence from the universe are valid. -- Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile. {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/16/84)
#R:decwrl:-669700:uiucdcs:33000035:000:750
uiucdcs!liberte Apr 16 01:06:00 1984
It doesnt matter what the dictionary definition of "Agnostic" is. It means
what people mean it to mean. And there are all sorts of Agnostics, one
of which is the lazy-fair (=> french) Agnostic who says or implicitly accepts:
"I dont care whether or not there is a God"
Agnosticism is now used in non-religious contexts to simply mean "dont know".
This is "correct" in that the root of the word (gnos?) is knowledge.
I have always considered myself an Agnostic-agnostic or and Agnostic to the
Nth Degree, meaning that I dont know whether I can know. But these days,
I am no longer sure.
Perhaps God is a cancerous growth.
Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (04/20/84)
+ > It doesnt matter what the dictionary definition of "Agnostic" is. It means > what people mean it to mean. And there are all sorts of Agnostics, one > of which is the lazy-fair (=> french) Agnostic who says or implicitly accepts: > "I dont care whether or not there is a God" > Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science First, the term is laissez-faire. Second, isn't the position of not caring whether God exists or not usually associated with Existentialists? --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle