From: yohan@mercury.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:42:48 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.ksu.ksu.edu


In all honesty, I think there is truly little or no difference between atheists
and agnostics in a practical arena.  Still though, atheists (at least those in
the poster's category) atheists insist that a conclusion must be drawn about
god(s).  I simply ask why?  Must a person always draw a conclusion about 
everything?  Of course not.  Do to lack of evidence, one way or another, the
agnostic chooses not to draw a conclusion.  Why is this so incredible?  Everyone
has done the same about some subject.  To draw a conclusion without proper 
evidence is stupid, whether you are a christian or an "atheist" <-- please note
quotes before you start a pointless arguement about everyone's personal definition
of an atheist.

A far more important question, is how will I live my life.  The only answer is
to act as if god(s) doesn't exist.  Pascal's Wager is crap, and I think that's
been established in pervious posts (and on the FAQ I do believe).  Furthermore,
if you can't be sure about god(s) existence, how can you know how to live your
life in a way that pleases it (them) - assuming they care about humanity.

As for particular religions, it is still very possible for agnostics to hold it
as completely false.

Now the Ayn Rand Quotes:
[Rand paraphrased & quoted]
As far as agnosticism is concerned, it is essentially saying that
since "we can't prove the claim is true, and we can't prove the claim
is false, the only conclusion must be: we don't know, and we may
never know."  Unfortunately, this is "the enshrinement of ignorance...
the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as matters properly open to
consideration, discussion, evaluation...[the agnostic] believes that
he has avoided taking any controversial position and is thus safe from
attack. In fact, he is taking a profoundly irrational position."
(from "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff)
Since there is no evidence that God exists, I MUST be an atheist.

Rand is one to talk about being irrational.
1)  Coming to the conclusions held by an agnostic is not a trivial task and can
hardly be called "enshrinement in ignorance".
2)  It seems Rand is assuming that agnostics lead intellectually static lives. 
It seems she's saying, "oh, agnostics might casually question, but they really
just dismiss it all as unanswerable.  it's quite safe."  It is totally absurd to
say that by not not drawing a conclusion, agnostics are not open to new evidence,
OR MOST IMPORTANTLY that they have given up the quest for truth.
3)  If anyone is "enshrined in ignorance", it is the atheist.  Since atheists have
drawn their conclusion, why delve any deeper into such questions as god?  Since
I've never seen an atheist with any proof against the possibility of god(s), they
are still in ignorance (despite drawing their conclusion).  What is so terrible 
is since they have their "answers" there is no need to even try to remedy their
ignorance.
4)  If anyone should be accused of being irrational, it is the atheist.  Since
when has it been rational to draw a conclusion when we have absolutely no
evidence or reasoning to support it.  To say otherwise is to say that Christians
are rational too!
5)  As for "comfortable positions", the atheist has a lazy-boy for his throne. 
He simply throws his hands up in the air, since he can't disprove the possibility
of god, and says there can't be (don't ask me why, though).  Only the agnostic is
up to the daunting and maybe impossible challenge of trying to find an answer. 
He refuses to play the fool and quitter and simply ASSUME.


If my interpretation of Rand's comments are correct, her work sounds like a waste
of time.



Jon Newton - junior in biochemistry
Newsgroups: alt.atheism