RE: virus: Saints

rpc man (
Thu, 04 Dec 1997 08:22:49 PST

>> Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with
>> knowledge.
>Quoting dictionary definitions has been questioned
>around here, but there is no suggestion that there is
>either new evidence or redefinition required in this
>case, so I reckon it's valid.
>agnostic -n. person who believes that the existence of God is not
>provable. -adj. of agnosticism.  agnosticism n. [from *a-, *gnostic]

I stand by my statement. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge and
provability. I am an atheist/agnostic because I don't believe in god and
I have no knowledge of god being provable.

>> Atheism and theism have to do with belief.
>atheism n. belief that there is no God.  atheist n. atheistic adj.
>[Greek a- not, theos god]

I agree.

>> What
>> is the difference between a lack of belief in god and belief
>> there is no god?
>Well that's obvious, isn't it? In one case there's a belief
>about something, in the other there isn't. The believer in
>no god is an atheist, while an agnostic believes only that
>it can't be proven.

I disagree. A lack of belief in god is a belief there is no god. There
is no middle ground where one can both not-not believe and not believe.
If an affirmative opinion that god does exist has not been made by
someone then by default they don't believe in god.

>As for David's claim that all atheists are agnostics, I'm
>still thinking about that.

My opinion is that *all* people are agnostics since no one has proved
god in any empirical sense so we are all without knowledge of god. Those
that think they have 'felt' god may have feelings, but feelings do not
equal knowledge in my book.

Get Your Private, Free Email at