I would argue that one Chuk. Faith can be rational and ones ratioanlity can be grounded in faith.
I find it very hard to accept this or that mentalty. Nothing is ever as simple as A, if not A then B. what of C,D,E,F and G? I reiterate that none of us are wholey rational and devoid of faith. On Apr 25, 4:48 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
