>From the little I scanned from wiki it appears that gnosticism still requires a leap of faith. It is still a theism.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > In addition, only presenting 3 of the 4 groups (theism, atheism, > agnosticism) leaves out gnosticism...which itself brings up > interesting notions. > > On Apr 24, 11:17 pm, 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. >
