As an agnostic I have to reject this argument. First, agnostics don't make any statements. They invite both theists and atheists to argue their views. Any real agnostic will allow himself to be swayed to one viewpoint or the other if the argument in favor is rational. So far, I have found no argument from either side that is sufficiently rational to sway my view.
The relevant views aren't theism vs. atheism. They are rationality vs. faith. On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems to me that of the three main competing stances, theism, > atheism > and agnostisism, that the first two must be based on faith because to > know > whether or not there is a god is such. Agnosticism is simply a > statement of what we all know and hence irrelevent and not at all > useful. > > It seems that theists and atheists spend a lot of time disputing the > autheticity of their equally untenable positions. > > Would it not be more useful to make rational comparisons > between theist gangs and secular gangs and then choose to join those > which are deemed to be the least damaging. This, of course, would > need to be a carefully defined study but perhaps worthwhile in that > it > would enable us to establish what is a useful or relevant gang and > whether or not it is likely to be > kept useful or relevant. You see, I am not sure how to keep democratic > gangs > useful. I LEAVE YOU TO DEFINE USEFUL OR RELEVANT. > > Happy Easter to you all. Here in New Zealand this Easter Monday > coincides with ANZAC day. > > Kind regards all. > > > >
