What i meant was that there is no single definition of God - you're right, we can't disprove the tooth fairy, and I agre
-
Redfoxx1 — 14 years ago(September 11, 2011 03:04 PM)
Mr. Welles misrepresented Theists, Atheist, and Agnostics with that quote. Gnostic deals with knowledge, Theism deals with belief.
You can be an Atheist/Gnostic, which means you don't believe in a god and you know their isn't one. You can be an Atheist/Agnostic, which means you don't believe in a god but you can't say for sure there isn't a god. Most Atheist are Atheist/Agnostic.
The converse is also true. You can be a theist/gnostic, which means you believe in a god and you know one exist or you can be a theist/agnostic which means you believe in a god but you can't say for sure you know one exist.
Orson Welles seems to have a black and white view on this subject and it's not that simple.
"Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." -
Goldberryiswaiting — 14 years ago(November 11, 2011 06:36 PM)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/madalyn_ohair/agnostic.html
The above link has the best discussion of the meaning of the term "agnostic". Goes into the history, and talks of who created the word. Check it out! -
Daffy-Duck-19 — 14 years ago(February 24, 2012 09:38 AM)
I dont claim to know and I honestly dont care. It really does not affect my day-to-day life. Welles was a great director, actor, writer, and magician, and insightful regarding many things (he was one of the first people to support the civil rights movement), but I thoroughly disagree with him on this one.
-
stricon2 — 13 years ago(May 12, 2012 11:05 AM)
Like everything in life the discussion here can be solved with the undisputable resolve of mathmatics. I answer the question of god to myself as thus
If there is a god, then I have nothing to worry about. If there is no god, then I have nothing to worry about. Bottom line is, I have nothing to worry about.
Believers and non believers can get the hell out of my face and keep thier thoughts to themselves.
The greatest invention of man is the number 0 (zero) It is a mathmatical concept. The fork in the road and diverging point of religion and science. Without the creation of the 0, you would not be reading this on a computer. You might not even exist, along with most things after the creation of the concept of 0.
Think about it. Now go and do something productive or show a kindness to someone. Best if to a total stranger.
Bless you all. (not god bless you all)
This is my kindness to you strangers, all. -
johnnywalrus — 12 years ago(November 12, 2013 09:22 AM)
Actually, I think this is great, makes me respect him even more. I agree with him, take a side I say. Agnostics are basically atheists who lack the balls to say religion is bullsht, which it so clearly is.
-
metalman091 — 10 years ago(June 08, 2015 12:05 AM)
I've read this interview. Orson Welles, a genius, was a complex and contradictory person, so who knows if he even believed the things he said here.
I disagree with him in any case. I prefer agnostics or moderates over HARDCORE [extremist, strict, joyless and hateful] believers. When was the last time an agnostic [or an atheist] knocked on your door to spread "their word." How many wars are started by agnostics and atheists over their beliefs? Where are the shrines devoted to agnostics and atheists? What pisses me off about christians today [to be specific] is their insistence that they are somehow persecuted because someone ridicules them and their beliefs. That's not persecution. I'm focusing on christians but this goes for ALL religions who persist in the same manner.
Persecution is having your rights violated and that's something that HARDCORE christians are good at doing to other people. They just don't like it when people call them on it.
They are also the majority in the United States and have a lot of influence. If that's persecution then sign me up.
Christians are being persecuted overseas with be headings. THAT'S PERSECUTION! Sorry, but religion is a sore topic with me. I don't give a damn what people believe as long as they don't use it to push fear, bigotry and hatred on anyone else and let others believe what they want. I have a strong dislike for extremist, bible-thumping religious nuts who don't live in the real world and who use religion as an excuse for their ignorance and bigotry. I prefer those with a more moderate outlook on life. I have no time or patience for those who try to frighten the rest of us with tales of damnation because their god is too insecure to understand something he supposedly created.
Agnostics have decided that they would not be arrogant on this issue. It's not a stand to be put down like Welles did. As much as I love him as an actor and director I find him to be a very perplexing man. I'll never understand how a genius like Welles can be as contradictory and full of tall stories like he was. You would think that his life would be interesting by itself.
There are four labels,
The Believer: The arrogant one who does not question the Bible but still ignore what the Bible says. This is a believer with a capital B. They are cruel, self-serving, hypocritical, narrow minded and hateful. They arrogantly believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They cherry pick what they want to believe and follow and think that the rest somehow doesn't apply to them. Somehow, they have this idea that they have never done anything wrong. I don't think it has occurred to them somewhere along the line that maybe they screwed up and won't get into heaven [they won't because it isn't real]. They cannot think for themselves.
The Moderate: He or she believes in god, but are really no different than the believer because they too cherry pick what they want to believe. The big difference is that the Moderate is often more open minded, sympathetic and thoughtful and do not hold extremist views. They are more grounded and likely to be more intelligent than the extremist believer. They are able to think for themselves.
The Agnostic: Doesn't know or care one way or the other. They do not have the audacity to claim knowledge on something they know nothing about. They are able to think for themselves.
The Atheist: Some can be arrogant. Some can be insulting and condescending. But they base this on SOMETHING. They actually have good, solid reasons for being the way they do. Their minds are not warped by brainwashing and fear from others who try to scare them into believing in god. Their reasons for being an Atheist are intelligent. They are trying to seek out the truth for themselves instead of relying on a contradictory and outdated piece of fiction. They are able to think for themselves.
My point on this? Despite what Welles claimed, there is nothing wrong with being an agnostic. It's better to be undecided than to make an arrogant claim over something you know nothing about. -
metalman091 — 10 years ago(July 07, 2015 03:48 AM)
Going back over my post, I feel that maybe I left some things out particularly about Orson Welles. Religion is a hot button issue with me. If it were so perfect then why the need for all the different interpretations even from those within the same faith? I make no claim that religion has done some good in this world and that there are many good religious people. But it has often played a part in chaos. It's hard to keep faith when religion has been the cause of war, bigotry and hatred. Even now we are divided on the issue of sexual abuse in the church. How can those with little faith be encouraged to support something they see as evil and unnecessary?
What bugs me about Welles is his feeling about agnostics. I've met many arrogant know-it-alls who hold pre-conceived ideas about movies they have never seen and places they have never [and will never] visit because they already think they know all about it. My problem lies with the men and women who "live" by the bible [the bible thumpers], but how many of them actually live by it? According to some investigations the answer is very few. Very few of them have even read the book for a start and many of them are not even all that familiar with certain quotations from the book. In fact you could quote Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin or Nostradamus and pass them off as bible quotes and the bible-thumpers always fall for it. I think ALL religious people cherry pick and self-serve to a degree [they all have their own interpretations], but would we need different interpretations if the bible is infallible?
So why is Welles so hard on a group that doesn't accept things on blind faith? The answer may lie in Welles himself. Welles was a contradictory man who liked to hear himself talk. He was an intelligent man on many subjects, but did not always display the wisdom that makes an5b4 intelligent man EXCEPTIONAL and that's because he was always inconsistent and didn't always think before he spoke. He was like the guy who thinks he knows everything about everything when in fact he knows enough to get by and may be amusing at parlor games. Combine that with his talent, charm, charisma, eg, and arrogance and you get someone [like Artie Shaw and Joseph L. Mankiewicz] who comes across smarter than what they really are. In short, Welles was intelligent, but he was also a know-it-all. I've had some painful interactions with people like this. They are intelligent, but they rarely apply themselves to further their knowledge and they are rarely consistent with their ideas. They may take a stand on and issue and change their opinion within an hour. I don't think Welles really thought much about a lot of things he said.
The only answer I can think of is that even Welles probably didn't believe what he said about agnostics. The only evidence I have for this is one interview where he claimed that he wasn't a believer, but he was religious. The interviewer asked him if he believed in god, but Welles did not give him a direct answer because he was uncertain. Does that make Welles an agnostic?
But Welles did make a habit of being inconsistent in his answers about favorite directors and films. Charles Chaplin would be praised one week and then dismissed on another [even as he cited CITY LIGHTS as his favorite film]1c84. He once praised Kenzi Mizoguchi as a great director and then told Peter Bogdanovich that he had never seen any of Mizoguchi's films and only mentioned him to impress people [I'm really impressed] and because he was bored. Here is a quote about the very issue;
No, you really want to break me, dont you? You want
me to admit Ive given out some pretty large opinions
on films which I have never seen. I got hooked on the
habit at those film festivals. All those endless interviews with dim aesthetes from Albania.
Welles was a great actor and a great director, but he was a complex person. I love hearing him talk, but I am constantly on guard with many of his assertions. It's perhaps better to think of him as a great actor and director. He was acting when he gave interviews. He was being an entertainer. People were asking him deep questions about things that he was probably not all that familiar with. Sometimes the so-called deep thinkers are no more intelligent than Brian Griffin.
Welles was a magician and a magician is good at parlor games. -
TonTon — 3 years ago(July 15, 2022 09:50 AM)
Welles was known to say things to create controversary, but he was right on agnostics. They can be wishy washy when it comes to the existence of god. They deny other gods like Thor and Odin exist and they deny leprechauns exist, but they resort to special pleading for the "possible" existence of a god that they're familiar with. I suspect most of them do this to seem less hostile to christians.
-
TonTon — 3 years ago(August 29, 2022 08:23 AM)
"I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose."
I'm thinking Welles might have been truthful on his comments concerning religion. He certainly did treat the bible like a piece of literature. I'm not sure I can point out anything here that would indicate that he was choosing his words carefully as to not offend any believers because you'd also have to assume he was doing this to atheists as well.