--- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.)
>
Yea, the word "religious" is now commonly used to describe topics where one
or either side will not listen to reason. For Aithiests and agnotstics it is
easy to -adopt- an agnostic view for the sake of arguement, But for a
religious person even considering accepting an agnostic view would be
sinfull, and they would want to avoid it.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
