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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51441)	6/3/1999 10:25:00 AM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Very perceptive Bob. It may very well be that the agnostic position presents a truly formidable test of faith. G. W.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51441)	6/3/1999 12:54:00 PM
From: miraje	Respond to of 67261

BLT, Excellent! You've hit several nails square on the head. JB

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51441)	6/3/1999 1:03:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Bob, since you appeal to the thread: I only agreed with Johannes after you expressly said that you BELIEVED the universe to be matter in motion with no underlying meaning. That is not agnosticism. Then you came back with a cockamamie defense, that you might have set forth an Epicurean view (an indifferent God, who sets things in motion for no reason, then walks away). Since you had gone to great lengths not to make even a minimal concession that might be used to suggest the existence of God (such as denying the axiom that "nothing comes from nothing", and treating it as if it were an arbitrary assumption), there was no reason for me to suppose that you would have entertained such a view.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51441)	6/4/1999 8:00:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Further thoughts on the denial of agnosticism: I realized something earlier today that could help to explain the denial of agnosticism. As stated, the only reasonable justification I've been able to come up with for this demonstrated need for theists to deny agnosticism is that they perceive it as some sort of threat. I had merely thought that the threat was to their faith, but while that still seems credible, there is another type of threat in agnosticism. If I can be both agnostic and ethical, then it stands to reason that the government can be as well. This flies in the face of the theocratic view that a nation that is not grounded in religious dogma is doomed to destroy itself in an orgy of atheistic perversion. I'm beginning to think that simply being an agnostic is not enough. Apparently I am going to have to become a militant agnostic. It seems odd that one would have to fight for the right to believe only in that which is demonstrably true, but...