On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:45:01PM -0800, Chris Olson - SunPS wrote: > I have to agree. Atheism does get quite a bit of flak. > The only reason I'm not one myself, is that it's still > taking a firm stand on something that I can't see as On the schoolbus in 7th or 8th grade religion came up. I thought of myself as atheist, but said I was agnostic. "What's that?" my gifted peers asked. "An agnostic is just an atheist who's chicken", or words to that effect, came >from a better-read peer. Since being a chicken was exactly why I'd just called myself agnostic, this left a scar of shame... > being proven, one way or the other. But that's just me. I mentioned my friend and I arguing over atheist/agnostic. I think part of the issue is different sense of 'belief'. My friend wants to emphasize the lack of proof, so goes for agnostic. I have a scientific sense of belief in general and don't feel a need to emphasize it for the case of religion. E.g. I don't believe there are penguins on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Can I prove there aren't? No; the aliens I don't believe in either could have snagged some for zoo samples. But if you live like a scientist you don't worry about _proving_ your beliefs; you roll with the preponderance of evidence (as interpreted by theory, usually.) If you turn out to be wrong, well, la. So I don't believe there's a god. Can I prove it? No. It just seems like an absurd hypothesis for me to hold. (Actually I could live with _a_ god. Believing in a specific and detailed religion, now that's absurd.) -xx- Damien X-)