Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!unc!mcnc!akgua!sb1!mb2c!uofm-cv!cosivax!dep
From: dep@cosivax.UUCP (David E. Pugh)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Let's hear from OTHER agnostics!
Message-ID: <142@cosivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Apr-84 23:26:48 EST
Article-I.D.: cosivax.142
Posted: Tue Apr  3 23:26:48 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Apr-84 00:41:21 EST
Lines: 30

<>

    In response to Ken Arndt's request for replies from agnostics,
I'm throwing my hat into the ring....

    I consider myself to be an agnostic. This means, TO ME, that
I don't know if god exists. (By the way, MY dictionary (The American
Heritage Dictionary, 1969) defines an agnostic as 'A thinker who
disclaims any knowledge of God.') I DON'T believe that it is
impossible to prove that god exists (if, for example, a being
were to claim to be god, AND DEMONSTRATE god-like powers
(resurrection, universe creation, etc.) I would probably join the
ranks of the theists). I, however, have yet to find any evidence which
requires the existence of a god (stories in the Bible, for
example, could have 'grown in the telling,' turning explainable
events into 'miracles.').

    I think part of the problem in the atheist/agnostic/theist
debate stems from a misunderstanding of the agnostic's position.
Since the definition of 'agnostic' seems to depend on the dictionary
that is used, perhaps all the agnostics should prefix their next
article with a description of what THEY think 'agnostic' means.

    One of the reasons I consider myself to be an agnostic is
(aside from the question of the existence of god) that I wouldn't
know which religion to follow, given the existence of god. I have
seen nothing which convinces me that one form of worship is
better than another.

David Pugh (uofm-cv!cosivax!dep)