Just a small difference, I think

The basis of this philosophy is that we are unable to KNOW (determine) whether God (the Truth, Reality, etc...) exists or not. That it is beyond our comprehension to know. PERIOD.

I agree with that. The only difference -- and it might not really even be one, because you haven't expressed an opinion on this -- is that I believe that there is such a thing as objective reality/truth (take your pick).

Like I said, I agree that we are unable to know, although we may feel "certain." (Certain != right.)

On my scale, it was enough to feel that I wished he resigned. Ashton and Khasim didn't feel it was enough for them. Am I right or are they?

You are right that that is what you wished. You can be certain of the truth, "This is what I believe." I can not be certain of the truth, "This is what he believes."

As for questions of moral rightness/wrongness, these words specifically mean: whether something is or is not in accordance with a given value system. So to say, "What he did was wrong," is the same as saying, "I believe that what he did is in opposition to my moral standards." That's just what the words right/wrong mean in that context.

Wait, does that mean that I am professing a belief in moral relativism despite previously expressing a belief in the possibility of absolute truth? Sure. Morality and reality are different things.

When Nick was here and expressed a belief in moral absolutism, I was one of the ones (don't remember if I bothered saying so to him) that this was not a position one could ever demonstrate. His position fell squarely into the category I defined of things that can not ever be demonstrated, and are therefor not worth the effort to argue about.

I do "believe" that anything is possible (including the "existence" of God, objective truth, objective reality, honest Republicans) in the same way that I "believe" that it is possible that none of these exists... I do believe that the probability of certain things are higher or lower, but I don't usually don't discuss them because I think they typical end up circular arguments and frustrating to all.

I have been tempted in this discussion to reply to Brandioch, "are you sure that the tooth fairy's house really doesn't exist? - that dude must have enough change stashed there to keep us all in Dews and Butterfingers for eternity but this discussion is getting obtuse enough :-)

We have been discussing on and off the dichotomy/duelty of how we portray folks in the media in terms of left bias and right bias. I have been critical of both (at least I'm sort of consistent?)... But I guess the reason I keep posting is because I can't figure out my own internal inconsistencies.

These types of discussions can get silly too because we're all not using the same jargon. I am confident that if I use the phrase "he was appealling to the bathos or pathos or ethos or mythos or logos (nah, that'll never happen!), that certain members of these fora will know this Philosophical shorthand for not just De Rhetorica (Aristotle or some other old dead Greek dude), but what they mean and - imply.

Language is supposed to clarify and the use of jargon is just one more perceptual filter. I've said this before. I'm here to learn and I learn from just about everyone, Marlowe included. Hell, just last week I quoted Adlai Stevenson! As well, I think these types of debate are good every once in a while.

There you have it... Thanks for being patient with me.

Welcome to IWETHEY!