[QUOTE="Admiral_Dudeman"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Isn't that his entire point, though, that there's no objective way to be gnostic to some deities and agnostic to others? I dunno, haven't been following this part of the thread exactly, but I thought that was his argument.

theone86

Looking back at his earlier posts, I think his argument was more about content than definition, though he may have phrased it in a poor way. He wasn't so much saying you can't be gnostic to one god and agnostic to another, he was saying he sees no basis for doing so. If you affirm a disbelief in Zeus then what grounds do you have for being agnostic to Jaweh?

[QUOTE="Admiral_Dudeman"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Not an error, I'm not saying that one wrong action is justified based on another wrong action. I'm saying that when determining the moral worth of the action in question it is a contradiction to be dismissive of atrocities committed for the sake of spreading religion and yet outspoken about something as small as protesting a nativity scene on public grounds.

theone86

No, I'm not, you're conflating two seperate arguments that I made. I said that events from centuries ago were consequential, that was one argument. The other is the one that I made in the post you just quoted.

[QUOTE="Admiral_Dudeman"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

I honestly don't see the difference between the two statements. Maybe I am dim lol.

theone86

Isn't that his entire point, though, that there's no objective way to be gnostic to some deities and agnostic to others? I dunno, haven't been following this part of the thread exactly, but I thought that was his argument.

[QUOTE="Admiral_Dudeman"]theone86, you should be smart enough to avoid errors like this. Regardless of whether it is appropriate to bring up incidents from centuries ago (not inclined to agree in this context, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument) you could have easily avoided diverting the course of the discussion by using more contemporary issues. Gay marriage comes to mind. theone86

Not an error, I'm not saying that one wrong action is justified based on another wrong action. I'm saying that when determining the moral worth of the action in question it is a contradiction to be dismissive of atrocities committed for the sake of spreading religion and yet outspoken about something as small as protesting a nativity scene on public grounds.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

In other words, an agnostic theist?

Blue-Sky

No an agnostic that has ruled out the possibility of Zeus. Let it put me this way:

Accprding to you when you're opening mail, you either believe there is something inside or you dont, according to you there is no unknowing just a belief that the envelope is full or empty.....

I honestly don't see the difference between the two statements. Maybe I am dim lol.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Because I think people who claim to be "only" agnostic are hypocrites. That's what I don't understand. Why is the god of Abraham Synonymous with the term god? For example:

Q: Do you believe in Zeus?

Atheist: No.
Theist: No.
Agnostic: No.

Blue-Sky

They can be agnostic in relation to a monotheistic God but don't believe in Zeus. Agnostic just means don't know pretty much. So you could say "I am an Agnostic with regards to an eternal monotheistic God, but is ruling out the possibility of Zeus."

In other words, an agnostic theist?

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

ah of course 51-45 in favor of it.

that explains it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-usa-congress-taxes-vote-idUSBRE83F1AC20120416

-Sun_Tzu-