Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15208)	6/1/2001 1:20:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I guess I did not speak clearly enough. I do not think that anyone who has a firmly held opinion, even making an admission that he cannot be 100% sure, should be called an agnostic. I don't think Christopher is an agnostic. I suspect you are not either......

To: Lane3 who wrote (15208)	6/1/2001 3:28:16 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 82486

An agnostic claims that they can't, or don't know. I rather suspect that it's more like they won't know. How sure does one have to be before they commit to something. Sure enough to risk your life? Not in most cases, yet we constantly do. Every time you step on the brakes of your car, you take the word of a mechanic that they will preform their function. Is that a credible and reasonable expectation? That would depend on the character of the mechanic. As far as the reliability of the Biblical accounts go, The authors (mechanics) all died claiming that Jesus rose physically from the dead. That speaks to their character and commitment to what they wrote. These claims are historic and evidential in nature. All that would have been necessary to disprove the disciples claims was to produce the body, and this was never done. How sure am I that Jesus rose from the dead? I would say I'm sure enough to entrust my own life to it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15208)	6/4/2001 11:25:08 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, here's another definition of atheism - emphases mine. To begin, let us establish a definition for atheism because it is so poorly understood generally. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief, belief in a god, a higher power, a supreme being, etc. It is a state of mind in which the supernatural plays no part. For that reason atheism has no agenda, pursues no goals, and practices no principles. Although the atheist may deny the validity of any one or all of the theistic arguments, he or she does not deny the existence of a god. The existence of such a being remains unproved. Let it be understood that the atheist does not close the door on the possibility that a god exists. Realizing that the failure of theistic arguments does not absolutely prove that there is no god, and that supposing as much would make one guilty of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, the atheist remains open to further evidence. Until such proof is forthcoming, however, the atheist remains justified in rejecting theism as a valid concept. home.inu.net I'd suppose that an agnostic accepts the existence of the divine - i.e., s/he believes - but is unsure about how, or if, to worship; certainly an agnostic does not follow any established religion. Which I think rules Greg out. <edit> and do read down the link... I think we've seen all these arguments used here in the last few weeks!