Rick Castello wrote: > Scott Raun said: >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:05:36PM -0500, Peter H. Granzeau wrote: >>> I went hunting once for a word to describe lack of belief in any >>> Deity (including active non-belief in a Deith) and failed >>> miserably. I always wondered if "infidel" fit? It's got a lot of >>> baggage, unfortunately. We need something that not only says >>> "there is no God", but says, "and I don't care if there is one or >>> not". >> >> How about agnostic? >> >> Trimming from the www.dictionary.com definition: >> >>> One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a : God. >>> >>> One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not >>> profess : true atheism. >> >> My favorite definition of agnostic is 'I don't know and I don't >> care'. > > These are two different meanings, and do not track. > > One is a merely logical statement: > I do not and cannot with existing evidence know if there is > a being matching current agreed-upon definitions of God. > > The other is making a value judgement: > If there were a being matching God, I would not care about it. > > Not the same, and though the second may be an opinion of SOME > agnostics, it is NOT part of the definition of agnostic. > > > I am agnostic, but I'll tell you now that if the available > evidence DID change, and it could be PROVEN that there is a > being matching one of the many descriptions of God, I would > be VERY interested to learn more about it, and ask a hell of > a lot of questions. > > I might get squashed for my impudence, but I'd certainly TRY > to get some answers to some interesting questions. :) > > I don't know many well-balanced atheists that wouldn't swallow > their pride and assess new evidence, not to mention at least > be curious about such a being... even if only to attempt to > disprove it. > > To not care, in my opinion, is something I'd call childish, > but that'd be incorrect. Even a child would be curious. > > -Rick I think the word imprudent fits.