From: ChuckKuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Thu Apr 23 1998 - 19:12:03 MDT
At 17:07 4/23/98 EDT, you wrote:
>> I use "atheist" as one who believes that
>> belief in God is wrong, not that disbelief is necessary.
>
>> Lee Daniel Crocker
>
>Given that definition, your approach to theological questions sounds quite
>reasonable. But, I'm left wondering, where does that leave the distinction
>between atheism and agnostism? Cannot an agnostic hold, after all, that there
>exists no solid proof of gods and that believing in gods constitutes an utter
>waste of time? That is, cannot an agnostic agree with you that it is (for the
>practical reasons you described) "wrong" to believe in god?
>
>It makes more sense, I think, to hold that atheists believe that gods do not
>exist whereas agnostics shrug off such questions as beyond rational discourse.
>That is, atheists disbelieve in gods; agnostics do not believe in gods.
>
My personal definition of agnosticism is that I feel (not 'believe') that
there is some force behind the Universe, but that this force has not made
itself personally known to me. None of the religions I have seen make sense
to me, so I am still looking for some evidence to suit me. This search does
not occupy very much of my time at present.
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:58 MST