Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:Agnostic

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Maybe any agnostics amongst us could come up with a more generous definition.--Bob_M (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, I see that our resident Christian has given it his shot.--Bob_M (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Thats all I'll give. I say this probably belongs in the ACD namespace, at least the way it is now. Bohdan
I don't know, Bohdan. I lol'ed at it.--Offeep 14:21, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for fixing my typos Bob. Duh. Resident Christian? Ha!DogP 10:32, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Something strange here.[edit]

I made an edit to this page but a large part of it doesn't display. The text is there but it doesn't show up on the main page. Any ideas?--Bob_M (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

It has to do with the references. I will fix it. Bohdan2
It looks like someone else fixed it. Bohdan2
Thanks.--Bob_M (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...[edit]

"A secondary opinion is that since an agnostic is prepared to believe in any gods anyway, they are, well, a theist."

My brain doesn't exactly agree with that, considering a theist is someone who thinks they're god is a personal god that actually exist and an agnostic, well, doesn't exactly think that (hence the term agnostic, I guess?). I don't exactly think being "prepared" to believe in any gods makes you like a theist, since a theist actually does believe, you know? I always figured an agnostic is more like an atheist than a theist since agnostics and atheist lack the belief of supernatural deity and don't follow any rules of a personal deity or pray to them or any of that whatnot. I'm just trying to get a second opinion, my logic could be distorted. Jsonasarav 23:07, 19, July 2008 (EDT)

I believe that there's more a continuous spectrum from hard atheist to hook line & sinker believer. Divisions within are somewhat arbitrary & open to debate. SusanG  ContribsTalk
What I see at the article right now is clearly an amusement by parallel structure... I agree with Jsonasarav, but in context it's just funny. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 19 July 2008 (EDT)