[trying to walk the small road between being rude to some convictions
and being so general that nothing usefull is said]

> Agnostic maybe (even though agnosticism is not a stable position).

As a convinced agnost I am not so sure about that :)

IMHO agnostic means that I see no reasonable way (scientific or other)
to decide whether (a) god(s) exist. Hence I will happily oppose both
- religious guys who claim to have proof that god exists
- anti-religious guys who claim to have proof that god does not exists

In both cases 'proof' does not include internal / personal proof. There
is no way I can comment on someone else's internal certainties.

The only guys I can agree with are the ones who say that the 'does god
exist?' question has no scientific meaning. Note: this does not imply
that the question has no meaning at all, just no scientific meaning (in
Popper's interpretation).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.