But isn't it also the case that everyone under the sun can be called a freethinker? I don't think that was the point of the man's message... and I am not unfamiliar with his work. The quote you cited seems to say that he identified with none of those groups except the last... how can you suscribe to a belief in a higher power and still claim agnosticism? According to everything I have learned that seems to go against the standard accepted uses of the term. I mean, I don't care one way or another, a person can call themselves whatever they want. Just my two cents - which doesn't seem popular in this thread. But I've done my fair share of study in this subject, so I will speak it up even when it's rejected.
I don't know what kind of hairs I am splitting here but I had always heard that an agnostic was just someone that didn't care about the question of whether or not God existed. That reminds me of a joke. Question: What do you get when you cross a Unitarian, a Jehovah Witness, and a dyslexic? Answer: A person that sits around all day thinking about knocking on doors to discuss the meaning of Dog. I love that one.
Well, I guess agnostic is really a broad term that covers a lot of ground. I suppose I can accept that a person can have faith in a higher power and still claim to be agnostic in that they don't proclaim knowledge of what that higher power might be... Personally, and this is just me, I think it's a little bit of a stretch - but I guess that's just my opinion here. I mean, my thoughts would be that you can be a theist (or deist), and still not subscribe to an organized religion, since the core element of a theist is faith in a higher power - whether or not you can define it, really isn't the point. That you acknowledge a higher power's existance, in my opinion, makes one a believer. As far as not questioning or lack of caring, I don't know it that is really a defining point of the agnostic either. I've always viewed the term in a temporary state of terms. I think that most people who claim to be agnostic are so because they don't see enough evidence to accept the existance of a higher power, but also not enough evidence to support the lack thereof. If that ain't agnostic, I don't know what we call those people anymore. I view that as a temporary state because there is always room for evidence being discovered in their personal search - I mean, I don't see how you can be a static agnostic, is what I'm getting at. In terms of logical positivism, without knowledge gives existance of knowledge, and your lack of having it - if AJ Ayer has anything to say about it, anyway.
Aha! And there it is! That's what I've been saying, as per my previous post: "Agnosticism is a belief that there is a higher power, but we have no knowledge as to how that power operates or in what way one should worship/believe in it." People are obviously going to have an opinion one way or the other whether it's the side that there's a lack of evidence to accept or deny existance of a high power. I have chosen the side of acceptance. But I still consider myself agnostic, because there's enough of a doubt in my mind that a higher power could also be nonexistant. Huh?
Yeah that was my bad - I made those posts after pulling an all nighter and getting very little sleep! I just wasn't reading them right! I apologize again!
Well, sort of... See, Agnosticism is just that, rejection of opinion - either way. I believe that was what the term 'freethinker' is at core, a rejection of opinion, and the search for truth without bias. The way I have explained it in the past is as such: You wake up in a dark room... The Theist says - There's a door here somewhere. The Atheist says - there's no door, I might as well sit here and do nothing. The Agnostic says - I don't know where I am, I don't know if there's a way out, so I'm going to get up and investigate a little further. Anyone can side one way or the other - but without knowledge, everything is faith. Tsu said: 'That which is one is one, and that which is not one is one also.' Through reason, I believe it is accurate to say that atheists carry as much faith as theists - I have been blasted for that opinion many times, however I still believe it to be accurate. A belief in a non - is one also. A non-belief, however is the lack of faith. That, by reason alone, only the secular can be proven. Atheism is still embracing the non-secular, because it grants opinions to that which cannot be known through physical proof. AJ Ayer and Bertrand Russell sort of founded a school of thought referred to as logical positivism, which is sort of like logic for communication. AJ Ayer said it is technically incorrect to say that something does not exist, because by nature if you are giving it meaning, it does exist... that's not explaining it very well - I know he would call me an idiot for that simplified of explination. He did good work with morality through reason, which I thought was pretty ground breaking - he never gained the name he deserved.
Ajm229, if you are dropping the issue does that mean you do not believe that you are having a debate on this issue but instead just having a yelling contest. Therefore if you do not believe does that make you a non-believer, henceforth an atheist on this thread so to speak? Ah-ha
First off, as an English minor: commas are a nice part of our language and ought to be used to make the sentance come across clearer; I had to read it three times to get what you were saying! Just messin'! Second off, this is simply a contest between people arguing about semantics: where does the Latin meaning applied to the modern contextual meaning applied to the IMPLIED meaning define the word "agnostic"? Who cares? I believe what I believe, and we've gotten so far off the point of the thread that I can't even see it anymore!
Hey I was born and raised in Brooklyn so you can take your comma's and..... well I also lived in Manhattan so I will not state the unstateable and I did go back to see where the commas should go but it is Sunday so what the hay I figure it out another day.
New York, huh? So you'll be watching the Yankees game tonight, right? See if they can come back to tie the ALDS? (No offense, but I'm rooting against them!)
As stated, I was born and raised in Brooklyn, which meant I was a Met fan. Sad isn't it. Also a Jet fan. Even sadder. Now I just watch college football on the TV and High School live. Am interested thru to see how far the White Sox go but can't name a single player.
weird, I would call this thread the closest thing I have seen to a real debate since all the anti-muslim threads that infested this area of the forum for the past few months.
You are absolutely right Rick, guess I will look around and see if I can find something just as interesting to "get started". As they say in Arizona.."Happy trails" u'all!
You just never watched the same movies as I have with the posse down at the O.K. corral. It's what they say when the sheriff rides out of town.
Lol... must have been before my time. The closest thing I know to that is when Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus are fighting the machines in the Matrix!
