MARK L. BAKKE'S
Night Owl Mk. II




Return to "Religion" essay


Back to Philosophy page




Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!



Please report any problems with this page to the Webmaster!



Boulder Games
Bowling
Entrance Page
Exit/Links Page
Night Owl Mk. II
Special Features
Personal Pages
Philosophy of Life
Site Map
Wargaming
What's New on this Site?
REPLY #14 TO
"RELIGION"



Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.

Italicized/emphasized comments
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.

My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).


My point that the positive belief ("X" exists) must be demonstrated or else the negative belief ("X" doesn't exist) is the most intellectually valid is more to the crux of the issue.
(R) precisely the reason i'm an atheist. you obviously understand the logic involved, so why do you adhere to the agnostic's position? do you think the question of an ultimate creator (or creators) is so different from any other preposterous notion (such as the Sex-Goddess and her pleasure saucers)that we cannot apply the same logic? without any evidence for the positive, disbelief is the more philosophically and sound position.
(MB) I'm agnostic because I understand that the issues of belief in or existence of supernatural beings goes beyond questions about the God of the Bible. For me to declare myself to be an atheist, I would have to be able to state definitively that no such beings of any kind exist. Since the range of possibilities for such beings is essentially infinite, I can't make such a declaration. I can say that I am extremely doubtful of their existence to the point where I wouldn't give the possibility much consideration. To some, that may be enough to be atheistic. To me, I must remain agnostic -- for now.


(R) i've always thought the agnostic was just a spineless atheist....;-) not quite willing follow the path of reason to its philosophical conclusion...
(MB) Actually, I'm agnostic because I *have* followed the reasoning all the way through. In any case, it's the conclusions one reaches that are important and not some arbitrary word that might be used to define them.



Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 04 Jun 98
E-mail: mlbakke1@earthlink.net


Earthlink Network Home Page


Go to next reply

Return to "Religion" essay

Back to Philosophy page