Subject:
|
Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:51:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1453 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
You summed up what I would have responded with very succinctly, Orion. I
agree with you assessment of atheists, and proper definition of agnostics.
|
I do too. It might make sense to keep it bookmarked!
|
And, of course, I had to look further into it and find all the variations on
a theme just to argue against myself (see immediately preceeding post on
scroll).
|
Saw that, well done.
Advantage of arguing against yourself... You always win.
Disadvantage of arguing against yourself... You always lose, too.
|
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want people to vote for
you in an election, you don’t want to undercut yourself. If you are merely
looking for enlightenment and better understanding then it is best to test
yourself a bit. I think David was hitting some gray areas in my understanding
of classical agnosticism (which was right so far as that goes), but the article
I quoted laid out the varying viewpoints fairly well. Some of them I had
figured out on my own already (weak and strong atheism and the confusion with
agnosticism), but the subtle variations and their implications on agnosticism
were enlightening, and certainly David was covering at least some aspects of
those.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
70 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
