Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Neil deGrasse Tyson presentation about intelligent design and religion... [View all]Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)8. He can call himself whatever he wants and I'll respect his self labeling
And I think he is an awesome person.
BUT, words do have meaning and agnostic and atheist are not different points on a linear scale. They deal with different things. Too many people think that agnostic just means something less "certain" than atheist and that is not the case. Theism deals with believe and gnosticism with knowledge. He either believes in a god or he does not. He is either an atheist or a theist. Whether he claims knowledge about his belief will place him on the agnostic/gnostic scale.
And I agree with the person above that he probably doesn't want the atheist label because of the way society reacts to it. he probably doesn't want some of the regulars in this form telling him that he is like Stalin and Pol Pot.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Neil deGrasse Tyson presentation about intelligent design and religion... [View all]
rexcat
May 2012
OP
Oh, you mean the member who has so much dread of offending members of this group that
cbayer
May 2012
#13
You brought him up and even speculated as to why he didn't want to post it himself.
cbayer
May 2012
#21
BTW, the only PM I have ever sent you was the following (in response to one you sent me)
cbayer
May 2012
#33
I did, and nowhere do you recant what you just told me, that Websters includes evidence as part
cleanhippie
May 2012
#48