"Rick Castello" <rick at 404.978.org> writes: > 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. In fact, given that the definition of god normally in play when agnosticism is under discussion is the great sky-father, I'd go so far as to say it's *insane* to not care if there were a being matching those characteristics. Those characteristics include "his slightest whim defines moral rightness" and "he'll torment you forever in hell if you don't do things his way" and "he's omniscient, so you can't fool him or hide from him". Anybody who chooses to ignore that is completely nutso. > 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. That's the way it feels to me, yes. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info