Uh, has anyone heard from Zakath?
- Thread starter Brother Vinny
- Start date
- Status
temple2006
New member
Zak..
Well, I wonder why you would think I do not care. I respect you and we have had some good conversations. Maybe you are going back further than I care to remember?
Well, I wonder why you would think I do not care. I respect you and we have had some good conversations. Maybe you are going back further than I care to remember?
Actually, I thought the root words of agnostic are "a", or no, and "gnosis", or knowledge, and that they believe that our perceptions cannot adequately reflect reality. I also thought the root words of atheist are "a", no again, and "theos", or god. Thus an agnostic may say there may be a god but you'll never convince me one way or the other and the atheist would simply say there is no god.
correct me if I'm wrong. I've never been much good at understanding philosophy.
taoist
New member
You're nearly right, there, Zimfan, but you went too far moving all the way back to the roots. Theist is not theos. But in either case, "a" in atheist would naturally be translated as "without," making an "a-theos" one who is without god, and an "a-theist" one who is without a belief in god.
While the origins of the word atheist are shrouded in the veil of time, we know the actual origin of the word agnostic.
agnostic
Ya know, I read where you'd pulled your handle from, but somehow I can't disassociate with the famous Sergeant Zim from Heinlein's original Starship Troopers. And I don't mean that double-expurgated-expletive of a movie. I mean the book.
While the origins of the word atheist are shrouded in the veil of time, we know the actual origin of the word agnostic.
agnostic
Ya know, I read where you'd pulled your handle from, but somehow I can't disassociate with the famous Sergeant Zim from Heinlein's original Starship Troopers. And I don't mean that double-expurgated-expletive of a movie. I mean the book.
Last edited:
I'm guessing the second definition of agnostic on that site describes more people than the first. That same site describes an atheist as
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
or
2. A Godless person.
Anyone falling under category one has a definite belief in there being no God and can't be an atheist. I'm not quite sure what they mean by a Godless person. However, if they mean a non-christian(as the majority of christians would use the term) then of course an agnostic is also an atheist.
P.S. I've never seen the movie or the book. I take it the latter is better?
P.P.S. Is Thomas Huxley a relative of that other famous agnostic, Aldous Huxley?
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
or
2. A Godless person.
Anyone falling under category one has a definite belief in there being no God and can't be an atheist. I'm not quite sure what they mean by a Godless person. However, if they mean a non-christian(as the majority of christians would use the term) then of course an agnostic is also an atheist.
P.S. I've never seen the movie or the book. I take it the latter is better?
P.P.S. Is Thomas Huxley a relative of that other famous agnostic, Aldous Huxley?
taoist
New member
Zimfan
The movie is cartoonish at best and distorts both the characters and the themes of Heinlein. It's no accident that it was made only after his death. The book is a serious investigation of the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a free republic, couched as a science fiction novel by the author generally regarded as the greatest science fiction writer of his time.
Aldous Huxley was Thomas's grandson. (I had to look it up.)
Thomas, I'm sure you know, was also an ardent proponent of evolution, famous for his debate with Archbishop Wilberforce, who was soundly trounced by all accounts after his unfortunate question as to whether Thomas was descended from an ape on his grandmother's or his grandfather's side.
Huxley's concluding rejoinder
Opes, Zimfan, yer eye skipped over something. "Disbelieves or denies" ... is how that first definition is given. While you're right as far as one who denies god having a definite negative belief, the first verb is disbelieves, which relates to a lesser certainty than denial.
The movie is cartoonish at best and distorts both the characters and the themes of Heinlein. It's no accident that it was made only after his death. The book is a serious investigation of the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a free republic, couched as a science fiction novel by the author generally regarded as the greatest science fiction writer of his time.
Aldous Huxley was Thomas's grandson. (I had to look it up.)
Thomas, I'm sure you know, was also an ardent proponent of evolution, famous for his debate with Archbishop Wilberforce, who was soundly trounced by all accounts after his unfortunate question as to whether Thomas was descended from an ape on his grandmother's or his grandfather's side.
Huxley's concluding rejoinder
Well, I concede this debate. The definition does indeed say “disbelieves or denies”. Moreover, one of the definitions on that website for disbelief states it as “withholding belief”, which would allow for revision of one’s disbelief after further accumulation of facts. I’ll have to pay more attention (and do more homework) next time. Or just keep my big yap shut :shut:
(Fat chance of that happening).
I think it was very clever of Thomas Huxley to suggest evolution could involve “leaps”. That is a very good argument to creationists using the spotty fossil record as proof evolution never occurred. Being somewhat ambiguous about that particular issue and being a Christian, I suppose I’ll just have to ask God if he was being literal or not in Genesis when I meet him.
They messed up “A Brave New World” when they made it into a movie, too. Lucky for us purists noone's messed up the books. I'll have to look for that one next time I need something to read. For my part, I'd highly recommend "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller.
Anyhoo, I've got to go eat now. Hopefully our paths will cross again. Any debate where I learn something is one won (even if it ends so quickly) seeya later.
(Fat chance of that happening).
I think it was very clever of Thomas Huxley to suggest evolution could involve “leaps”. That is a very good argument to creationists using the spotty fossil record as proof evolution never occurred. Being somewhat ambiguous about that particular issue and being a Christian, I suppose I’ll just have to ask God if he was being literal or not in Genesis when I meet him.
They messed up “A Brave New World” when they made it into a movie, too.
Lucky for us purists noone's messed up the books. I'll have to look for that one next time I need something to read. For my part, I'd highly recommend "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller.Anyhoo, I've got to go eat now. Hopefully our paths will cross again. Any debate where I learn something is one won (even if it ends so quickly) seeya later.
taoist
New member
"Yossarian? What kind of name is Yossarian?" —— "It's Yossarian's name, sir."
Definitely one of the classics, and one of my personal favorites too.
"You can't demote Major Major Major, sir, the army's only got one and they'd hate to give him up." —— "No sir, you can't promote him either."
As you'll have a noticed, I'm an atheist, Zimfan; a disbeliever, not a denier. If God ever does tell me He was the one responsible for the origins of species, I'll take His word for it. But I don't think it'll happen. St. Thomas is one of my heroes, someone who refused to take fundamental truth on faith, instead demanding incontrovertible evidence. I've asked any god willing to step up to the plate to give me the same proof, but so far, I'm still waiting.
Evolution gets forced into religious discussions where it doesn't really belong, in my own humble opinion. It's nothing more, and nothing less, than a search for natural explanations. It doesn't so much deny the existence of a creator, it just looks to see what can be seen. If the supernatural doesn't wish to sit still and be measured, we can't blame scientists for not taking notes. Nor am I going to demand that a supernatural being obey our commands.
Thank you for your polite and graceful concession. But understand it wasn't meant personally, but more to correct a common misconception. Here's hoping you'll return the favor and correct one of my own misconceptions sometime.
I generally avoid any movie that's been made from a book I've read. It's an exercise in frustration and disappointment, I've found over and over again.
In peace.
Definitely one of the classics, and one of my personal favorites too.
"You can't demote Major Major Major, sir, the army's only got one and they'd hate to give him up." —— "No sir, you can't promote him either."
As you'll have a noticed, I'm an atheist, Zimfan; a disbeliever, not a denier. If God ever does tell me He was the one responsible for the origins of species, I'll take His word for it. But I don't think it'll happen. St. Thomas is one of my heroes, someone who refused to take fundamental truth on faith, instead demanding incontrovertible evidence. I've asked any god willing to step up to the plate to give me the same proof, but so far, I'm still waiting.
Evolution gets forced into religious discussions where it doesn't really belong, in my own humble opinion. It's nothing more, and nothing less, than a search for natural explanations. It doesn't so much deny the existence of a creator, it just looks to see what can be seen. If the supernatural doesn't wish to sit still and be measured, we can't blame scientists for not taking notes. Nor am I going to demand that a supernatural being obey our commands.
Thank you for your polite and graceful concession. But understand it wasn't meant personally, but more to correct a common misconception. Here's hoping you'll return the favor and correct one of my own misconceptions sometime.
I generally avoid any movie that's been made from a book I've read. It's an exercise in frustration and disappointment, I've found over and over again.
In peace.
- Status