Chuck, from the pov of an agnostic, yes it would appear to take a leap of faith.
As to it being "a theism"... in one sense you are quite correct; however, I mean to use the term in the ancient Greek sense of meaning simply "to know". So, in this sense, one not need to 'believe' as is done with theologies. And, yes, much of this can boil down to semantics and I don't feel the need to go there if you don't. On Apr 25, 2:20 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
