Pastor Turned Atheist

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
DarthMonk
Online
Posts: 4449
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Pastor Turned Atheist

Postby DarthMonk » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:24 pm

Jerry DeWitt

Don't know much about this guy but bumped into an interview on CNN while I was on vacation and found this interesting. He's a pastor turned atheist. When they asked him to clarify about agnosticism he said this and I liked it:

Skepticism is my nature.
Free Thought is my methodology.
Agnosticism is my conclusion.
Atheism is my opinion.
Humanitarianism is my motivation.
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

08 Champ
Posts: 13401
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:23 pm

2 out of 5 is not a bad thing - it's just a little below 50% ... :twisted:
Getting our QB back will help a lot but we still have a lot of issues to address

Players and coaches need to believe that they can be successful - they are not playing with that attitude - big changes are coming

HAIL


Currently 50-41

cappster
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:56 am

Once he finally started listening to logic and reasoning, he realized that what he was spewing was nonsense. I do like his little analogy as well and is pretty much how I feel about things. One of the things I do not agree with him about is how he is trying to basically make a "religion" out of atheism. He's held a "church" service recently and he still preaches like a preacher. Other than that, I am glad he s finally free from the mental prison that he was in for the majority of his life.
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 280x, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

DarthMonk
Online
Posts: 4449
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:13 pm

SkinsJock wrote:2 out of 5 is not a bad thing - it's just a little below 50% ... :twisted:


Which 2?

I was thinking at least 4 and the other being an opinion making the list tantamount to 5.
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14640
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:33 pm

My understanding of the foundation of Agnostic and Atheistic belief says that they are mutually exclusive.

Agnostic: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. They do not conclude that there is no God... but do believe that the existence of one is not provable. I consider myself agnostic.

Atheist: 1.unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities. They have concluded that God does not exist. I do not know ANY declared atheists who are willing to entertain God as a possibility... therefore, by definition, they are NOT agnostic.

Conversely, because I am at least willing to concede the possibility of the existence of a "God", I cannot be considered atheist.


Jerry Dewitt, it appears to me, is a very confused man who spews much nonsense.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

|||
Posts: 4319
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:34 am
Location: SANTA ANA,CA

Postby HEROHAMO » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:54 pm

Cappster wrote:Once he finally started listening to logic and reasoning, he realized that what he was spewing was nonsense. I do like his little analogy as well and is pretty much how I feel about things. One of the things I do not agree with him about is how he is trying to basically make a "religion" out of atheism. He's held a "church" service recently and he still preaches like a preacher. Other than that, I am glad he s finally free from the mental prison that he was in for the majority of his life.


I have a question for you. Can you tell me with logic and reasoning. Heck throw in science as well.

How did the first human beings come to be? Why is the human being so complex and possess such things as feelings and common sense?


Lets say you have two alien scientists from another planet visit earth before humans existed. Lets say they wanted to create a living breathing human? How would they go about doing it? With all the materials living oragnisms on the earth that existed during the pre human times?
Sean Taylor starting free safety Heavens team!

21 Forever

"The show must go on."

JSPB22
Online
User avatar
Posts: 16163
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:54 pm

One pastor turned atheist vs. thousands in the other direction, and some decide the one has it right. smh
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

DarthMonk
Online
Posts: 4449
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:00 pm

Countertrey wrote:My understanding of the foundation of Agnostic and Atheistic belief says that they are mutually exclusive.

Agnostic: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. They do not conclude that there is no God... but do believe that the existence of one is not provable. I consider myself agnostic.

Atheist: 1.unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities. They have concluded that God does not exist. I do not know ANY declared atheists who are willing to entertain God as a possibility... therefore, by definition, they are NOT agnostic.

Conversely, because I am at least willing to concede the possibility of the existence of a "God", I cannot be considered atheist.


Jerry Dewitt, it appears to me, is a very confused man who spews much nonsense.


I can't say I agree with him in totality but the words he chose are perfect -

"Agnosticism is my conclusion.
Atheism is my opinion."

This agrees with your "Agnostic: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. They do not conclude that there is no God..."

as his athesism is not his conclusion ... it's his current opinion.

Inspite of your "I do not know ANY declared atheists who are willing to entertain God as a possibility..." you now know of one. You might know of two. Ask Cappster.

I think he chose his words very carefully. He acknowledges unknowability but has and voices an opinion. I totally agree with his agnostic conclusion and am on the fence with his current opinion.

I smell an argument.
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

cappster
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:56 am

HEROHAMO wrote:
I have a question for you. Can you tell me with logic and reasoning. Heck throw in science as well.

How did the first human beings come to be? Why is the human being so complex and possess such things as feelings and common sense?


Lets say you have two alien scientists from another planet visit earth before humans existed. Lets say they wanted to create a living breathing human? How would they go about doing it? With all the materials living oragnisms on the earth that existed during the pre human times?


We come from a long evolutionary line of species that adapted to their environment through natural selection. If you do your research on Evolution and become somewhat scientifically literate on the subject, you may find that all of the pieces of the puzzle fit together. If we were created, what is the point of our appendix? It serves relatively no function, but to act as an organ that might one day kill us. Is it more plausible that we evolved from a very long and slow process or is it more plausible that a god created us for the purpose of making us love it?

The whole premise of the Atheist/Agnostic argument is that we want evidence of such a deity existing. Just because something cannot fully be explained yet doesn't mean that god did it. Science is seemingly peeling back everything that was previously unknown or unexplainable. Those who believe in god do so based on faith or personal feelings without having a shred of evidence to back up their claims.

Also, if we use the Abrahamic god, Yahweh, as an example of creation, how does the human race live on past Adam and Eve if they only had sons?
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 280x, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

cappster
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:03 am

Darthmonk wrote:Inspite of your "I do not know ANY declared atheists who are willing to entertain God as a possibility..." you now know of one. You might know of two. Ask Cappster.


You are correct in your assessment, DM. I am not opposed to believing in god. All I am asking for is evidence for some god to exist and up to this point in my life, all I've been presented with are faith based claims. I've said this before and I'll say it again: God could make it so much easier to believe if he/she/it would make it unquestionably known to everyone that he/she/it does exist.
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 280x, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

the 'mudge
Posts: 14640
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:57 am

DarthMonk wrote:
Countertrey wrote:My understanding of the foundation of Agnostic and Atheistic belief says that they are mutually exclusive.

Agnostic: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. They do not conclude that there is no God... but do believe that the existence of one is not provable. I consider myself agnostic.

Atheist: 1.unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities. They have concluded that God does not exist. I do not know ANY declared atheists who are willing to entertain God as a possibility... therefore, by definition, they are NOT agnostic.

Conversely, because I am at least willing to concede the possibility of the existence of a "God", I cannot be considered atheist.


Jerry Dewitt, it appears to me, is a very confused man who spews much nonsense.


I can't say I agree with him in totality but the words he chose are perfect -

"Agnosticism is my conclusion.
Atheism is my opinion."

This agrees with your "Agnostic: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. They do not conclude that there is no God..."

as his athesism is not his conclusion ... it's his current opinion.

Inspite of your "I do not know ANY declared atheists who are willing to entertain God as a possibility..." you now know of one. You might know of two. Ask Cappster.

I think he chose his words very carefully. He acknowledges unknowability but has and voices an opinion. I totally agree with his agnostic conclusion and am on the fence with his current opinion.

I smell an argument.
Yes, you do. You are agnostic... NOT atheist. As long as you have doubt... in either direction... you cannot be atheist.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

Skins History Buff
Posts: 4874
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby welch » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:04 pm

- Why is there something rather than nothing? That's a question that goes beyond science, but it sits inside religion. "I don't know, and neither do you", said Borden Parker Bowne, approximately, in his book on "Metaphysics" from the 1890s. Bowne, who was head of graduates studies and taught the philosphy of religion at Boston University, explained that the question could not be answered within a science of experiment, observation, evidence, reflection.

- "What happens when we die?" Again, we cannot run that experiment.

- Bowne's answers were, roughly, "I believe" . I don't believe because of the miracles reported in the Bible, and I don't believe that Genesis is anything more scientific than a cosmological story passed down and around the campfires of primitive peoples.

- Around 1905, Bowne was acused of heresy: might be the only Methodist minister ever tried for heresy. The bishops found him innocent; concluded that you need not believe in miracles; agreed with Bowne that scientific method is compatible with religious beliefs as long as you don't mistake one for the other; told the accuser to stop bothering good and smart people with crazy accusations.

- (I happen to have read some Bowne lately because he taught ES Brightman and Harold DeWolf, who taught Martin Luther King. If you read Kings sermon collection, "Strength to Love", you will see references to "persons of sacred worth" and "persons in community". All that has much serious thinking behind it, begun by Bowne and his students at Boston U.)

DarthMonk
Online
Posts: 4449
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:13 pm

welch wrote:- Why is there something rather than nothing? That's a question that goes beyond science, but it sits inside religion. "I don't know, and neither do you", said Borden Parker Bowne, approximately, in his book on "Metaphysics" from the 1890s. Bowne, who was head of graduates studies and taught the philosphy of religion at Boston University, explained that the question could not be answered within a science of experiment, observation, evidence, reflection.

- "What happens when we die?" Again, we cannot run that experiment.

- Bowne's answers were, roughly, "I believe" . I don't believe because of the miracles reported in the Bible, and I don't believe that Genesis is anything more scientific than a cosmological story passed down and around the campfires of primitive peoples.

- Around 1905, Bowne was acused of heresy: might be the only Methodist minister ever tried for heresy. The bishops found him innocent; concluded that you need not believe in miracles; agreed with Bowne that scientific method is compatible with religious beliefs as long as you don't mistake one for the other; told the accuser to stop bothering good and smart people with crazy accusations.


Makes sense to me. Kinda sounds like an agnostic (acknowledger of unknowability) who believes ... to me.
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

DarthMonk
Online
Posts: 4449
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:16 pm

Countertrey wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:
I smell an argument.
Yes, you do. You are agnostic... NOT atheist. As long as you have doubt... in either direction... you cannot be atheist.


I'll assume you are talking about me here when you say "you." Really doesn't matter but it will make things easier.

I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. I am a totally on-the-fence agnostic. Some might say that simply makes me a pussy who lacks the courage of any conviction on the issue. That's fine with me if people want to look at it that way.

Can I be an agnostic (acknowledge unknowability on the issue) yet say "I think it is more likely there is a God than not?"

I have used the phrase "intellectual honesty" on this issue concerning thesits who say they know God exists. I also use it for atheists who say they know God does not exist.

I say DeWitt is simply displaying intellectual honesty. He is acknowledging unknowability (agnosticism is his conclusion) but says he currently believes it is more likely that no God exists than it is that a God does exist (atheism is his opinion).

It's quite simple.

Do you currently acknowledge unknowability for yourself? If not then I do not believe you wholeheartedly. Of course, I could be wrong.

If you do currently acknowledge unknowability for yourself I then ask, which way do you lean?

If you understand all this (and I'm pretty sure you do) then we are simply down to something like syntax and which dictionary we are using. If you are saying an agnostic can't lean either way then we simply have and unresolveable disagreement on the use of the words involved. #shrug
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14640
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:22 pm

Frankly, I think Dewitt is playing both sides... trying to maximize his "base", so to speak... in which case, he is intellectually DIShonest...

Of course, I have no evidence, but, my OPINION on him is that there is a high possibility that he not what he claims... that there is another agenda... Something about him screams "I am not what I appear."

What is wrong with saying "I am agnostic, but I lean to the existence of a god", or the inverse?

Why the need to dress atheism in the clothing of religion?

As for me... I just find the origins of existence to be an enigma that I will never hope to understand... as a result, my curiousity is very limited.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

Return to The Lounge