Yes it is

Post #246,161 by ben_tilly 2/25/06 2:19:13 PM Reply	Yes it is An atheist is one who lacks all belief in God or gods. That is, if the Christian God (and every other deity you've heard of) is on par for you with the Easter Bunny, then you're an atheist. This does not deny the possibility that there is a deity. But you just lack belief in one. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #246,175 by Arkadiy 2/25/06 7:08:50 PM Reply	Possibly misquoted Pratchett: "Oh, I know there is gods. But there is no call to go believe in them. It just encourages the buggers" - Granny Weatherwax. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #246,179 by Ashton 2/25/06 7:44:03 PM Reply	Well, if a one lacks all life-experience of the ineffable - that one shall be an easy convert to the religion of a-theism. Clearly, and as so many sages have observed - the sane interpretation, that of agnosticism (we may spare ourselves the re- redefinitions, I trust) - is the default locus for those who have grokked that there 'IS' more than the (maya) world-of-appearances and of boring old F=MA. There are many orthogonal Dilbert-spaces and others not at all Dilbertian, reachable from that locus; meanwhile the Declared 'a-theist' has sent them all --> dev null, for perhaps.. a laziness of mentation? a curious inCuriosity? ..or maybe merely, an inhumanly mechanical set of base habits. And then there's - -
Post #246,193 by JayMehaffey 2/25/06 11:17:38 PM Reply	Re: Well, if a one lacks all life-experience of the ineffabl There are many orthogonal Dilbert-spaces and others not at all Dilbertian, reachable from that locus; meanwhile the Declared 'a-theist' has sent them all --> dev null, for perhaps.. a laziness of mentation? a curious inCuriosity? ..or maybe merely, an inhumanly mechanical set of base habits. There is more to existance then mankind knows or can know. But I refuse to spend much time thinking about the part that mankind can't know. There is more in the part we can then I will be able to understand in my life anyway. Jay Notice that I didn't say none. There can be some benefit in such musing, to learn better the process of learning or to use the study of the unknowable as a mirror to one's own mind. But the study of the unknowable is pointless as an endevor unto itself.
Post #246,200 by a6l6e6x 2/25/06 11:45:56 PM Reply	You're begining to sound like Donald Rumsfeld! :) Via [link\|http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/\|Slate]: The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know. \ufffdFeb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing Alex When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
Post #246,201 by Another Scott 2/25/06 11:50:36 PM Reply	I actually like that bit from Don.
Post #246,202 by Ashton 2/25/06 11:58:45 PM Reply	Speaking of tautologies But the study of the unknowable is pointless as an endevor unto itself. 'The Unknowable' is a predigested supposition. There are words like 'apperception', whose near-synonyms describe possible means of transcending learned habits of not Seeing very much around us. But only experiment ever takes these beyond mere word games, natch. (Still, poetry has a better chance than prose, in such matters.) Summing up for the precious few who have gone before, rather than accepting that the Sound Barrier cannot be broken - Always choose the difficult. -- Rainer Maria Rilke A Glimpse.. will tantalize - Two Glimpses? usually galvanize. YMMV

Welcome to IWETHEY!