Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Perhaps a better scheme would be divided between strength of
> conviction, perceived evidence and theistic view. The irrational
> people are those who hold strong convictions in the absence of
> evidence, regardless of what they believe in.
>
> (then we can get Bayesian about it and start to think about what
> priors to use and so on...)
>
I tend to agree with Anders that the continuum Spike(?) described sounds more like it's a function of one's flexibility when it comes to belief systems. I try to work, play, think, and live under the assumption that there is no god, but I'm very open to emprical evidence to the contrary. I haven't thought of myself as an agnostic, because I don't say that "I haven't decided." or "I'm not sure." Instead, I say, "I currently don't see any rational way I can accept the notion of god." So what am I?
BTW, I had a few years of church teachings (Wesleyan Methodist) but was never strongly religious. Ultimately, the whole idea just didn't hold water, IMO.
Scott