but as you have represented yourself as
1) having the same religion as me -and-
2) being agnostic...
it is rather bold of you to write...

Harv:
"The 'how' and 'when' are science questions, and generally we shouldn't see any difference in answers between an atheist and a theist. The 'why' is where an atheist and a theist tend to diverge. The theist believes that there is a 'mind' and 'purpose' to many of the events of the past, whereas an atheist generally regards the events as 'matters of fact' having no reason (i.e., no 'mind') for being this fact of matter versus another fact of matter."

Response:
1)
We SHOULD see major differences in "how and when" because their self-expressed versions are greatly different. Your desire to reconcile the two camps is nice but that's about all.

And...both camps may assert the importance of mind. Atheists may find the past purposeless, as you say, but will state it was by missing the opportunity to apply mind that this state of affairs occurred.

I don't know where you get your information, but maybe you should see if you can get your money back.

• Funny - harvey1 - May 28, 2002 - 18:06 UTC
  • not the correct answer - carefuluniverse - May 28, 2002 - 20:42 UTC
    • But it is - harvey1 - May 28, 2002 - 20:50 UTC
      • what you said is meaningless drivel if context is consulted - carefuluniverse - May 28, 2002 - 21:01 UTC
        • You want context? - harvey1 - May 28, 2002 - 21:21 UTC
          • by your definition, every joke can be a physical law - carefuluniverse - May 29, 2002 - 00:00 UTC
            • ? - harvey1 - May 29, 2002 - 00:36 UTC
              • that was all you said? - carefuluniverse - May 29, 2002 - 02:01 UTC