The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

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.

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

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.

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

Which 2?

I was thinking at least 4 and the other being an opinion making the list tantamount to 5.

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.

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?

One pastor turned atheist vs. thousands in the other direction, and some decide the one has it right. smh

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.

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?

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.

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.

- 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.)

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.

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

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.

Trey:

I found our "discussion" interesting and, on a whim, googled this phrase: "degrees of atheism." This is from the 1st hit:

Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism

Dawkins' Formulation

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2 De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3 Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4 Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5 Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6 De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7 Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

So Dawkins, probably the world's best known atheist, by his own formulation, considers himself (in print) an agnostic/defacto atheist = Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

I am currently in the Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." camp.

I'm gonna take a guess on Cappster and put him at around 5.5.

The next hit led to this:

There are no weak or strong atheists. There are only atheists. If you are not an atheist you are a theist or an agnostic. These are the only three possibilities. All three positions are mutually exclusive. Anyone between 1 an 7 on Dawkins scale is an agnostic. Including Richard Dawkins who puts himself at 6.9 on his own scale. You know there is a god (1), you know there isn’t a god (7) or you don’t know (everything in between). If you know there is a god you are theist, if you know there isn’t a god you are an atheist and if you don’t know, don’t care you are an agnostic. It doesn’t matter how much you don’t know, you still don’t know.

This seems to be your position. I could be wrong.

The first reply included this:

I disagree.. but mainly on a level of definition. There are many definitions of ‘atheist’ and yours is clearly of the “I know for a fact that there is no god” .. but I define atheist in the classical sense of “I do not have a belief in a god” .. just as “asymmetrical” means a lack of symmetry, “atheist” means a lack of theism. The idea of the scale was more to show how many in the atheist community are willing to sit within the spectrum of knowledge vs. how many believers will jump to #1 and discount the possibility that they’re wrong. Most Christians will go straight to #1 (I know there is a god).. whereas, most non-believers have the sense to admit that there are levels of possibility and belief and that they may fit more in a #4 – #6 or #7. Dawkins says in The God Delusion, that very few atheists will actually identify as #7′s in stark contrast to the number of Christians that will immediately identify as #1′s. It’s a consciousness raising exercise.

This is my view.

You are correct... that is my position.
I also have great confidence in the "truth" of Occam's Razor...
"among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

Does God exist?
"Yes- Theist
Maybe- Agnostic
No- Atheist"

Choose one.
... sounds good to me!

Countertrey wrote:You are correct... that is my position.
I also have great confidence in the "truth" of Occam's Razor...
"among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

Does God exist?
"Yes - Theist
Maybe - Agnostic
No - Atheist"

Choose one ... sounds good to me!

simple and to the point ... as usual

I think SJ just called you simple, CT. You gonna take that?

Just as simple or perhaps simpler: Atheist = Not a theist.

I also go with the razor. But you don't simply go with the simpler hypothesis. The two competing hypotheses must do an equally good job of explaining things before the razor can be applied in any meaningful way. A simple hypothesis that does a poor job of explaining is worthless. I'm not saying that necessarily pertains to our current discussion but we must keep that in mind when applying the razor.

I certainly wouldn't call our differing definitions of atheism competing hypotheses. I think the competing hypotheses here are God exists and God does not exist.

God existing is surely the simpler explanation. Just sayin'.

I am definitely on the scale between 5 and 6. Anyone who is on scale #7 (or #1 for that matter) is not being intellectual honest with themselves. I don't religious beliefs would matter so much to of us who doubt that god exists if it weren't for religious beliefs affecting our lives and our society in a negative manner. The gypsy dancing on the corner is a relatively harmless person. The President of The United States of America having conversations with this questionable god being is rather alarming. And more so alarming when combined with congressmen who use religious beliefs to justify certain discriminatory legislation that is proposed.

Cappster wrote:

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?

I asked you to explain with common sense how the first living human came to be? That means the very first human being. Whether that be a cave man or monkey whatever.

You say we evolved from something? A monkey, caveman whatever.

I guess the better question is how did the very first living organism come to be. Before intelligent life? How did the Water in the ocean come to be? How did the Stars in the Universe come to be?

We can all agree that there was a beginning to it all. The question is what, when, how and why?

Take it back all the way before life. The questions remains how did it come to be?

Science cannot explain it sorry. While I do believe a greater being created the Universe and all living things on earth. I am not trying to convince anyone.

I am simply pointing out the holes that are in the scientific theories suggesting that intelligent life evolved from some amoeba in the ocean combining with the sands of the earth.

HEROHAMO wrote:
I asked you to explain with common sense how the first living human came to be? That means the very first human being. Whether that be a cave man or monkey whatever.

You say we evolved from something? A monkey, caveman whatever.

I guess the better question is how did the very first living organism come to be. Before intelligent life? How did the Water in the ocean come to be? How did the Stars in the Universe come to be?

We can all agree that there was a beginning to it all. The question is what, when, how and why?

Take it back all the way before life. The questions remains how did it come to be?

Science cannot explain it sorry. While I do believe a greater being created the Universe and all living things on earth. I am not trying to convince anyone.

I am simply pointing out the holes that are in the scientific theories suggesting that intelligent life evolved from some amoeba in the ocean combining with the sands of the earth.

I am not sure what you mean by common sense, but I stated that we come from a long evolutionary line of species. You can look up the Theory of Evolution yourself, but it seems that you already have your mind made up that "god did it." Where is the evidence for god if science so profoundly fails at its attempt to explain where we come from? Where are the holes that scientific theories have in explaining the origins of life on Earth?

Science is not perfect, but it is the best we have at trying to understand our origins. Unsubstantiated fairy tales about god speaking plants and animals into existence (then creating the light that will sustain them an unknown time afterwards) has zero evidence to support the claim of creation. If you want to see evolution in action, look at the yearly influenza virus and how it evolves from year to year.

For me and many others like me, I am not satisfied in attributing our existence on the notion of believing in bad evidence. Faith = personal feelings absent of evidence which is exactly what people do when the invoke terms god and creation.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, provides a rather simple and amusing synopsis on "intelligent" design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

I understand what Cappo and Hero are both saying here but just looking at the human anatomy and our insides and how things are done like urinating and pooping.. I find it hard to believe that it "just happened" and here we are. LOL.

There had to be a first, I mean you can't go past number one to get to the other numbers.. by that reasoning alone I believe in God. Am I right, hell if I know but TO ME it makes more sense to believe in that instead of we just popped up out of the blue. lol.