Gript-A source of misinformation. **Read OP before posting**

You omitted the word 'religious' before 'nutter'. Not sure if it was on purpose or not but it's a pretty important word given the context of the person you're quoting.

He is most definitely a 'religious nutter.'

He's clearly an 'agnostic theist', not 'agnostic' in the way normal people use the word (ie, an Agnostic Atheist)

Just look at the rest of that article, it's riddled with scripture and talking about 'god' as if it exists.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Book 239, states that God is called "Father", while his love for man may also be depicted as motherhood. However, God ultimately transcends the human concept of sex, and "is neither man nor woman: He is God."[14][15] ~~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God

It is funny that the article quotes the Male written bible as proof for gender, of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-physical_entity

Would not surprise me one bit if Declan Ganley was funding them too. He failed dismally when he tried to use his money to commandeer our politics directly, now it appears he's trying another angle.

McGurk is a former Ganley employee and until very recently was still using a Ganley company email address.

Been following Gript for a while now, and while they like other organisations may have agendas or an angle they want to peddle, one thing is for sure, they ask questions of the government that other news organisations aren't asking.

Its also interesting that the posters who want to discredit them are also the same who will defend government policies on other threads on boards.

The best recent examples fall under a topic banned in this thread and not impartially covered my MSM.

I don't see what isn't covered by msm, being covered by Gript. How many journalists do they have working for them? Do they do any actual investigations? All i see is a conservative right wing anti immigration slant to anything they write. Nothing original anyway

Incorrect.

I would consider myself an 'agnostic atheist' (as do most folks I meet who refer to themselves as 'agnostic')

John would be an 'agnostic theist'.

Both groups could refer to themselves as 'agnostic' but as you can see, they both come from a totally different base. Distinguishing between the two is actually quite important.

In general, an agnostic has been understood as a non-committal stance with regards to the existence or non-existence of a god or gods, following Huxley's primary definition of the term, the guy who coined it in the first place. The baseline conviction of the agnostic is that we cannot know because we don't have the ability to know, but we may have one day.

Your example follows Lesley Weatherhead's or George H. Smith's musings on the subject that one can be an agnostic and still believe in a god, while still not being fully committed or part of a given church. Smith seemed to want to have it every which way, while weatherhead was a Christian theologian, who appeared to be trying to claim that agnostics were really just uncommitted Christians which is where I suspect this idea of an Agnostic theist originally came from.

Huxley's stance was that we don't know, therefore to believe or disbelieve is unwarranted and illogical. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" to describe people like him, who were neither "theist" or "atheist", because he neither believed in a god or disbelieved in a god.

In terms of the basic philosophies of belief, one can either be a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist. Any deviation into whether one expressed a belief or disbelief makes that person step out of agnosticism and into one or the other states of mind and at a certain level of involvement.

Russell contended that "An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

The above would be what I (and I'd wager most other agnostics) take the term to mean and would be closer to Huxley's originally coined term than anyone else's expansions. To believe or disbelieve in a god means you are casting a judgement, at least in part, and therefore are not an agnostic, if we follow Russell's example.

Anyway, I'm way off topic here and there's no conclusion to this kind of philosophical debate anyway, so I'll leave it there.

I just realised it probably just literally means the word Grip in the past tense but why would he use that name.

I think it's Russian for propaganda.

Guirk

Really

Is

Piss

Taking