From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:38:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov09.184038.31392@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>Joe Mullally (rocky@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
>: I do have a qualm with your claim that that an atheist
>: doesn't deny the existence of the Christian God, though. It would seem
>: he/she has but three choices: to believe, to deny, or to not know.

>Why do you never hear of Santa Claus agnostics or Easter Bunny agnostics, or
>pink and purple polka dotted unicorn agnostics?  

Because those aren't gods?

>Agnostics tend to give 
>special credence to the Christian deity as a concept that is worth reserving
>judgement on (some say they take this position just in case "God" is listening).

Well, only because we happen to live in this society.  Agnostics in
polytheistic societies reserve special judgement on a somewhat
different set of gods (as their primary reservation).  After all,
what's the point of saying, "We just can't know about the existence of
Zeus," when nobody around you is trying to tell you that Zeus exists
in the first place?

>Atheists tend to put the Christian god in the same bucket as the thousands of
>other gods and Santa Claus and everything else which has no evidence.  You
>are correct in pointing out that people who call themselves atheists may take
>the "Christian God does not exist" position.  I think that's a position of
>faith, and I would challenge them to justify it.  The problem with all
>descriptive labels is that you have to be careful not to assume too much into
>them.

So do agnostics.  Only the final conclusion is different (and hence
the difference in names -- more on that in a bit).

>: 	And, I do think atheists have faith that their religious
>: convictions are correct, or they'd be agnostics. Break down the word
>: atheist. Perhaps I should recant allowing atheists self-definition.

>A-theism:  without theism

>A-gnosticism: without gnosticism (ie. without knowledge)

Quite right.  Let's look at that for a moment.  Both the atheist and
the agnostic state that they do not have sufficient evidence to know
whether God (or gods) exist.  The difference comes in their final
conclusion.  The Agnostic says that since he doesn't have any evidence
one way or the other, there is no reason to have an opinion one way or
the other -- "I don't know."  The Atheist says that since he doesn't
have any evidence for the existence of God (gods), there is no such
thing until proof otherwise exists.

>Many agnostics will tell you that it is unknowable whether YHWH exists or not.

Unknowable on currently known knowledge.  If you know people
professing to be agnostics who claim that the existence of God (gods)
is forever and always unknowable, no matter what happens, they would
seem to have abandoned the idea that the evidence of their senses is
to be believed and elevated their lack of knowledge to the level of a
religious scruple.  They are no longer agnostics, because they claim
to have knowldge that they will NEVER be able to 'know', no matter
what the evidence.

>Many atheists will tell you that it is possible to know that YHWH exists, if
>he would unambiguously make his presence known.  Atheists don't devote much
>effort to find such evidence, but would certainly consider it if such evidence
>were available.

This sounds more like the agnostic position, as I understand it.  The
same position can, of course, be applied to atheists, however, since
the only discernable difference between the two is that one group says
that without further evidence they have insufficient data to make a
determination and the other group says that without further evidence
there is no reason to believe in God (gods).

Note that NEITHER of these positions constitutes a religion, since
both are subject to change if EVIDENCE can be provided.  In other
words, the belief isn't an article of faith; it is a product of
evidenciary logical reasoning.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics