On Dec 7, 2007 10:24 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .... > Agnosticism is NOT "there might be a God" as most people seem to think. > Rather it's "there is no possible way for man to determine and answer to > the > question so we're just going to stop thinking about it".
Ah, language, teh sweetest ambrosia, nectar of the gods! I have a healthy appreciation for good oration. Wish I was better at getting what I meant across. I'd thought it was more in line with the wiccapedia article, different flavors, but mainly meaning "open to the possibility". Perhaps unprovable to the masses, but possibly verifiable- hell, since I love the dictionary so much: 1*:* a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; *broadly* *:* one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2*:* a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political * agnostic**s*> "Probably unknowable" sounds a bit more optomistic than "there is no god", dont' you think? No higher power, vs., maybe there's no higher power, even? I mean worst case, that still sounds more open, to me. Course, I guess it depends on meaning- the words meaning, or the author's. Funny how many possibilities exist. Language is just ROCKING! For what it's worth a close belief is "Deism" which essentially states > "there is clearly an organizing force behind the universe but there is no > way for man to ever to understand it" Well, I have my doubts about understanding ALL of it, but personally, I've found out a few things that are pretty interesting, even from a purely scientific perspective. Course, that's why I love the good stuff- works no matter how you look at it. Or it's sorta escherian... heh... > Personally I think the argument that Atheists are "closed" a little > insulting > Oh, didn't mean to insult! Just how I interpret the "words" or meanings, or whatever- sheesh, I'm a mess! :) -- ( + I'm convincable, by the way.) The fundamental premise of atheism is that there is no evidence > for "God" and therefore there should be no belief in "God". The > implication, of course (and I don't know and atheist, including myself, > that > would argue here) is that if presented with conclusive evidence that God > existed then any good atheist would accept God. Well, you may be confusing those with dogmatic experience, with those that have had, lets call it "real world experience" - I might not be able to convince you (and I don't have to- I just love jiving, ya know?), but there are powerful reasons besides those of the "Law" kind, ya grok? My evidence is your, I don't know, some type of psychosis or mental trick, or, *gasp* coincidence. Have I mentioned how much I love the synchronicity um, whatnot? Approach? View on reality? Bah. Chalk it up to luck! Do you believe in luck, Jim? The Han Solo kind? Do some people have good luck, or is it easily explainable via statistics and whatnot? Just humans doing what humans do, making patterns, even when there are "really" none? God, I love patterns too. And self-organizing systems. And quantum stuff. And your video game reviews. Please keep them coming. On to the quantum! *shivers* Fun Stuff! :D -- Here I am, praying for this moment to last - Night Fever ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Check out the new features and enhancements in the latest product release - download the "What's New PDF" now http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/coldfusion/cf8_beta_whatsnew_052907.pdf Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:247934 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
