1559: Bang Your Head to This

[Zaumaum]

Originally Posted by lolaclare

Agnosticism is taking the position that the existence or otherwise of a higher power is unknowable or not known.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is all about knowledge, whereas Theism/Atheism is all about belief.

So you could be an agnostic theist if you believe in God but don't claim to know there is a God.

Or you could be an agnostic atheist if you have no belief in God but don't claim to have knowledge that there is no God.

So pretty much everyone is an agnostic by this measurement as very few people claim to know for a fact (apart from the unreasonable and the nutjobs).

However, a lot of people use agnostic to indicate they aren't sure or haven't decided one way or another. So colloquially it has begun to mean this to people as well.

The meaning of Atheism has pretty much always been ambiguous.. Here's an encyclopedia entry from century ago that shows this.

I respect the fact that most people who identify as atheist don't really believe that there is no God. They seem to almost always simply lack the belief, when it comes to their personal identity. They like arguing about it, though, and I think that's where their anti-god stance is created. The notion of there being no God is usually just a hypothetical to help the function of less-than-perfect debates spurred from disagreements about the belief in God.

Atheism has traditionally been villainized; lack-of-belief is much more dangerous for a religion than a nemesis belief that you can rally people against. I don't want to contribute to that villainization by disrespecting how the word is used in actual culture, which is how words are appropriately defined anyway. I wish I could use the word atheist to identify with, and where atheism been villainized agnosticism has been neutered. I call myself an 'aggressive agnostic' to imply that I believe the belief in God is destructive, but I'm thinking about just saying I'm an atheist, despite the stigma. Stigma from religious people, 'all beliefs are acceptable' people, and people like you restricting the word's meaning to your 'more correct' understanding.

[New here]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

I have no problem trying to change it. I encourage her to do so. Just don't be surprised that it's a certain way.

ok cool

[Black Bart]

Using a problem that crosses social studies & math is not racist in the 3/5'ths question.

Come on guys, you remember this from class, "The Three-Fifths Compromise" That is an actual piece of legislation that made it into our constitution and we reviewed this when we are young. It made sure the south had a balanced representation in the HOR agreeable to those both pro & con slavery based on the population.

If they were not studying the Constitution or the period around 1776 - 1787 in the social studies class, I may amend my opinion but even then the teacher brought forth a valid numerical answer.


The "orange" question and the "beatings" one were in poor taste. Can't recall if the "orange" on actually stated a race on that question or just the term slavery in general.


Remember, the Irish were defacto slaves to the English even through a large part of the 1800's.

Maybe if they said potatoes instead of oranges someone would have thought, "Who is the teacher talking about?"

[BrianAlt]

The question should have been worded differently.

"Because of the 3/5ths Compromise, how many votes would 100 slaves have had in 1790?"

Ask the question in it's historical context.

[Black Bart]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

The question should have been worded differently.

"Because of the 3/5ths Compromise, how many votes would 100 slaves have had in 1790?"

Ask the question in it's historical context.

Exactly. Great comment.
Agree 100%!

Lazy teacher. (My dad was a MS math & social studies teacher so I feel I can say this)

[Black Bart]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

"Because of the 3/5ths Compromise, how many votes would 100 slaves have had in 1790?"
.

And the answer to your question would be 0. (zero)

[Edward's Screen Name]

Probably already said (I didn't read the thread), but before you said this guy was related to Johnef, all I could think was "Gee golly, this guy sounds like a slightly less crazy version of Johnef! They should hang out!"

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by Black Bart

And the answer to your question would be 0. (zero)

Right. It wasn't about votes. Oops.

[DinosaurSr]

Thanks for reading my forum post on the air! ... though you guys said my name wrong... (Dinosaur Sr., not Jr.) ... but believe me, I was too excited to care! Just having a fan moment, pardon me

I really think some great points were made on this show, particularly when you guys were discussing the "Let them have what they want" argument for religion, and how, as Keith put it, they're acting up anyway, regardless of how nice they get treated. It's an excellent point. They already get coddled, and they still go nuts in violent and offensive ways. They can be like spoiled children, frankly.

Considering the kind of messages and outrageous things they support and believe, they're the ones who should be scrutinized- not atheists.

[Orange Hollow]

Omg, I'm laughing so hard! Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow are great QBs! Guys, it's your best joke EVER! Thank you, you made my day