Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: Earle Jones <earle.jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:19:02 -0700
In article <46bc7f7c$0$90268$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Martin Andersen <dur@xxxxxxx> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:05:36 +1000, in article
<1i2mk0a.sg4x9e1iqx4uwN%j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx>, John Wilkins stated..."
Raving <raving.loonie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:If we define "agnostic" by a negation, is that a proper definition?
Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same...Etymology of "agnostic" - "A-" prefix denying, "gnosis" knowledge...
They are all motived by what they DO KNOW, about what they consider
to be correct.
.. That which is unknown, that of which they hold no vested
interest is irrelevant.
"Incorrect" is meaningless or worse to them ...
They are all looking in the same direction. ....
... the subjective, "me".
I believe so. An agnostic is (WRT some issue) privatively defined as one
who has no knowledge of that issue.
(butting in)
I realize that's probably the most common usage of it, but I prefer the
version
that positively states that something (usually the existence of the
supernatural) is unknowable. When the difference matters, people can expect
from
me that I'll point out what definition I operate with.
I for one don't consider myself an agnostic car mechanic, though I have no
knowledge on how to repair cars.
*
It is exactly this ambiguity that prevents me from calling myself an
agnostic. The ideas of 'unknowing' and 'unknowable' are very different.
I am not willing to claim that the existence of some all-powerful 'God'
is unknowable. True, it is unknown today, but who knows what
breakthroughs in thinking can occur in the next thousand years?
earle
*
"None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods
of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a
logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them
did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such
proof.
"Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely
philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But
speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to
those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I
should, I think, take exactly the same line."
--Bertrand Russell "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? A Plea For
Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas (1947)
--
_
_/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: Raving
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- References:
- Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: Raving
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: TomS
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- From: Martin Andersen
- Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- Next by Date: Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- Next by thread: Re: Evolutionists, agnostics and creationist are all the same
- Index(es):