In article <68ao60l3birjpbkkpmb526ntha48n91ll0@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On 29 Mar 2004 09:50:29 -0800,

So often the entire argument revolves around the definition of the
belief structure, and of course no one agrees on the definitions
either. Looking into each group's position on certain claims has lead
me to the determination that I must be agnostic, but I could be wrong
about myself. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Let's look at
some specifics and see where exactly we fall.

(snip)

The problem has
always been settling on a definition.

Your thoughts?

I don't use the subsets (weak/strong) as, imo, they confuse the issue.
All an atheist is is a person who is not a theist. Christians, for
instance, are atheist with regard to all but one deity construct. An
atheist merely includes that one, as well.

I don't define myself via the facets I lack. If I were to I would
qualify as; aparachutist, asanta clausist, adownhill skiierist, and much
more.

Generally, gnosis, deals with knowledge. Agnostic then, generally is
'without knowledge' concerning 'concept.'

I've never had an answer to the question concerning the g--o-d letter
string;

Q: "What is there to *know?*

Usual event sequence is:

A: Wether there is a g-o-d or not?


Q: What is a g-o-d?

A: Silence.

*
"Man made God in his own image."

Marvin 3:16