iaamoac wrote:
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
> > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
>
> But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
> one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
> agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
"Agnostic" means "not knowing", right? I don't really
see that there is much to DISAGREE with there. You might personally
KNOW, but should be open to the possibility that others don't.
If you aren't, there really isn't much to say, is there? (Which is
why I usually stay out of religious discussions.)
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
