Slashdot Mirror

I'd like to correct you on what Agnosticism is about.
It certainly isn't -as commonly believed- the middle ground between theism and atheism. Instead it's about the possibility of proof/true knowledge wrt to the existence of gods. An agnostic believes gods' existence/non-existence cannot be proven.

That's approximately what I've often seen referred to as the "strong agnostic" position (the way I've usually seen it articulated isn't in terms of proof -- which presupposes very particular epistemological framework which is orthogonal to agnosticism -- but in terms of "knowability", that is, the strong agnostic position is that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable rather than unproven -- the latter implies the former, of course, but not the other way around.)

There's also a "weak agnostic" position that holds that the existence or not of god(s) is unknown, but not necessarily unknowable (there are also at least two subcategories of this position, one which holds that the existence or not of god(s) is knowable but unknown, and one which doesn't claim any position on whether or not that existence is knowable but merely holds that it is unknown whether or not it is knowable. You could call the former "strong weak agnosticism" and the latter "weak weak agnosticism", but that's just cumbersome, and there are very few contexts where it is important to distinguish the two positions.)

I don't think its really accurate to characterize either the strong or (either) weak position as the one "real" agnostic position. At least, I've seen different people who themselves claim the "agnostic" label argue for each position, and neither seems to have any legitimate claim to priority over the term. Their all "agnostic", though they are distinct in important ways.

And, yes, my presentation of agnosticism as the absence of belief in a diety rather than the belief that the existence of a diety was either not known or not knowable in GP was soemthing of oversimplification. I thought it was a useful one for the point I was making (as the knowability issue requires an even longer explanation that didn't add much in context.)

And I agree that agnosticism isn't a middle ground position between atheism and theism (though there is a sense in which it is a middle ground between strong atheism -- the belief that the existence of any gods is knowable and known to be false -- and strong theism -- the belief that the existence of some god or gods is knowable and known to be true.)

It is compatible with weaker versions of both theism and atheism (in that its possible to believe either that God does or does not exist without believing that it is known or even knowable whether or not this is true), as well as with a absence of belief in either direction (the position I think of "pure agnosticism", not because its "better" than when it is mixed with theism or atheism, but simply because its not mixed with a belief on that axis at all.)

Do you mean someone who believes there is "probably" a god but isn't certain is an atheist ?
You can't equate agnosticism with atheism, you just can't. Just like you can't equate it with theism, it's just in the middle.

I'm an agnostic, and the possibility that there is a god doesn't sound any more silly that the opposite. I just don't worship any god because I don't even know if any of the current religions are right, and I don't feel like it is very smart to make that kind of bets. If I was raised by religious people I might have followed them in that religion, but I was raised by atheists, so I'll just follow not practicing any religion.

Besides, what we see as truth changes, and lots of current scientific "truths" are wrong or inaccurate, just like they were when we believed gravity was a constant acceleration. A model of the reality is just what it is, a model.

"The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)"

Far Eastern mysticism is all very well, but it never produced the Big Mac or Chuck Norris movies.

While you have given a good overview on what atheism is or isn't, I'd like to correct you on what Agnosticism is about.
It certainly isn't -as commonly believed- the middle ground between theism and atheism. Instead it's about the possibility of proof/true knowledge wrt to the existence of gods. An agnostic believes gods' existence/non-existence cannot be proven.

Therefore it it perfectly reasonable to be an agnostic atheist.

Moderate Christians like myself, who see no conflict between Christianity and science, and moderate atheists I know, who have nothing against religion and are simply unconvinced by the evidence for theism, get lumped in with the fundamentalists and their arguments and questions summarily dismissed by both sides.

Hmm, let's look at what you believe, shall we?

Christian fundamentalists, stop going full retard and cherry picking what science you like. Scripture deals with the things we could not figure out by ourselves, like the Trinity. Science rests its presupositions on Christian philosophy, that the universe is orderly, understandable, and can be understood mathematically. Remember the words of Robert Boyle, “From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him.”

No, that is not a "Christian" philosophy. You can trace the direct roots back the pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales. Try again.You are correct about the Trinity, though. Without the vague account of the Trinity in Scripture(and the church councils which actually defined the belief, and the murder of "heretics" who disagreed with the definition, and the schisms that last until today which rest on this definition[filique]), the world might have been spared that particular piece of nonsensical gibberish.

Atheists fundamentalists, deal with the fact that the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with. The "Monkeys typing Shakespeare Theorem" doesn't cut it and everyone knows it.

I'm afraid not. If you are referring to some strawman "theory of evolution," as evidenced by the fact that you are calling it "Darwinian," then sure. Darwin is not the end all and be all of the theory of evolution. And I can guarantee you that there is no need for any modern biologist to shoehorn your deity into their theoretical framework to provide any sort of explanation(not that some theists don't try to do just that anyway).
It does illustrate nicely how "Moderate Christians" can reconcile their religion and science: just find reasons to denigrate or ignore the parts that you don't like. The difference between that and the Fundamentalists is only a matter of degree.

Hand-waving and just-so stories don't convince either side and, if either side was so sure about their position, would not use them. My time is better spent discussing these things in person where both sides are far more sensible and civil.

Your time would be better spent studying biology before making unfounded statements.

Both are incredibly irritating and near impossible to talk with online.
Both deny well established scientific facts and evidence in order to fit their worldview.
Both try to make their existing worldview fit the facts, rather than admit that their interpretation was wrong and adapt their worldview accordingly.

Moderate Christians like myself, who see no conflict between Christianity and science, and moderate atheists I know, who have nothing against religion and are simply unconvinced by the evidence for theism, get lumped in with the fundamentalists and their arguments and questions summarily dismissed by both sides.

I blame the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Not every Atheist is Joseph Stalin and not every Christian is Eric Rudolph. Stop lumping everyone into those two camps.

Christian fundamentalists, stop going full retard and cherry picking what science you like. Scripture deals with the things we could not figure out by ourselves, like the Trinity. Science rests its presupositions on Christian philosophy, that the universe is orderly, understandable, and can be understood mathematically. Remember the words of Robert Boyle, “From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him.”
Atheists fundamentalists, deal with the fact that the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with. The "Monkeys typing Shakespeare Theorem" doesn't cut it and everyone knows it.

Hand-waving and just-so stories don't convince either side and, if either side was so sure about their position, would not use them. My time is better spent discussing these things in person where both sides are far more sensible and civil.

Good night.

Both are incredibly irritating and near impossible to talk with online.
Both deny well established scientific facts and evidence in order to fit their worldview.
Both try to make their existing worldview fit the facts, rather than admit that their interpretation was wrong and adapt their worldview accordingly.

Moderate Christians like myself, who see no conflict between Christianity and science, and moderate atheists I know, who have nothing against religion and are simply unconvinced by the evidence for theism, get lumped in with the fundamentalists and their arguments and questions summarily dismissed by both sides.

I blame the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Not every Atheist is Joseph Stalin and not every Christian is Eric Rudolph. Stop lumping everyone into those two camps.

Christian fundamentalists, stop going full retard and cherry picking what science you like. Scripture deals with the things we could not figure out by ourselves, like the Trinity. Science rests its presupositions on Christian philosophy, that the universe is orderly, understandable, and can be understood mathematically. Remember the words of Robert Boyle, “From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him.”
Atheists fundamentalists, deal with the fact that the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with. The "Monkeys typing Shakespeare Theorem" doesn't cut it and everyone knows it.

Hand-waving and just-so stories don't convince either side and, if either side was so sure about their position, would not use them. My time is better spent discussing these things in person where both sides are far more sensible and civil.

Good night.

> Agnosticism is not a creed but a method
The word 'Gnosticism' means knowledge. The prefix 'a' means "without or lacking."
Agnosticism = lack of knowledge.

> Why would you give a piss-poor definition of agnosticism and no definition of atheism or theism?
The definitions are fine. See:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937605&cid=40446815

> here are other definitions including some that say one CANNOT know whether or not their is a god
As a mystic that definition is total nonsense. Just because *you* don't have knowledge about God and how she works doesn't imply everyone else is as equally as ignorant.

> the exact opposite of wisdom.
I am NOT talking about wisdom. Wisdom is knowing HOW to apply Knowledge.

People don't understand God because they lack knowledge of who & what they truely are. To know God you _must_ first Know Thyself. It is impossible otherwise. i.e. Once you accept the fact that: "You are a spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience" then you can -begin- to understand God. Most people aren't willing to live the lifestyle necessary to come to understand how this is true. Technically all paths lead to this; some just take longer then others. :-)

> No, it means *you* don't fucking know what the answer is. Which apparently is something that plenty of people have trouble accepting.

Fixed that for you.

As a mystic there are 2 *dimensions*:

(has belief) Theism <-- Belief --> Atheism (does not have belief)

Agnostic (lacks knoweldge)
^
|
Knowledge
|
V
Gnostic / Mystic (has knowledge)

The Theists and Atheists are like blind men arguing over what sight is. Both are blind. The agnostic admits "I don't know if others can see. I *know* that I _can't_ see." The Mystic is the only one who can see, and sadly, can't tell anyone else about it, because no-one else doesn't have a valid frame of reference to understand.

--
"The Big Bang is our modern scientific creation myth. It comes from the same human need to solve the cosmological riddle [Where did the universe come from?]"
- Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode 10, "The Edge of Forever."

No, it means we don't fucking know what the answer is. Which apparently is something that plenty of people have trouble accepting.

I haven't yet met a self-described agnostic who was not a actually a theist or atheist in practice. This makes sense, if you consider agnosticism to be a different axis rather than a position in the middle of atheism and theism.

The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)

Sure, if you want to base your world view on fortune cookies, clichéd quotes from old kung fu movies, meaningless platitudes and pseudo-profundity! Agnosticism is a lack of belief, so it's really no different to atheism as you described it. Ask the simple question, "Do you believe in God?" An atheist will answer negatively, while the agnostic may try to claim that they simply cannot know. The agnostic is perhaps trying to reasonable, or attempting to claim the high ground, yet they are atheists as defined by you. Belief in god is a dichotomy. You can't half believe in a god or half disbelieve in it. Sure you can have varying levels of belief, but it ultimately comes down to a binary proposition. Do you or do you not believe in Me?

Religion is what people want it to be. It's ignorant to believe that wanting to build a big old pile of money is fake religion. I'm sure it feels real enough to its followers, as it probably did when the Solar Temple's members abandoned their physical forms to go hitch a ride on Halley's Comet. Is Ted Haggard irreligious because he enjoy(ed) meth and male hookers, while by day preaching damnation? No, he's just a dick. Is Benny Hinn a crook? Yes, but people believe in him. Is the Pope and a large part of the Catholic church a bunch of scheming control freaks who'd put the church above everything else - even the people for whom the church was originally intended to protect? Of course they are. They think that a god who incarnated himself to wander the world as an itinerant rabbi of modest means would wish that his church spend so much money on keeping his apostles in luxury robes and with well stocked wine cellars. Even still, a spark of Peter remains, and for billions of people this is very much their religion.
People would lead far better lives if they spent more time pondering real things that can make life more pleasant here. What do you think I value more - people who spend their lives navel gazing and spewing fortune cookie inspired trash like your post, or those who focus on the practical realities of trying to make this world a little more pleasant for themselves and their fellow man? I'm not looking for goats or gurus, just sheep.

ALL religion is arguably delusional because there is no evidence to support it.

Atheism isn't based on ignorance. Your asserted conclusion otherwise is part of your game and I'm calling it out. There being no evidence to support Theism, Atheism is logical.

"Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)"

Another asserted conclusion. "Evidence now" or fuck off.

"Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing."

That's NOT agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

There are other definitions including some that say one CANNOT know whether or not their is a god (which is an odd proposition as how do you know what you cannot know). Not all definitions of agnosticism are incompatible with atheism or even theism.

Why would you give a piss-poor definition of agnosticism and no definition of atheism or theism? Why capitalize certain words and pretend that it matters? "Religion" and "religion" are the same fucking thing. This is not like "Libertarian" and "libertarian" where the big-L is a reference to a specific orgnanization and the little-l is a reference to a philosophy.

You're redefining words and it's total bullshit - the exact opposite of wisdom.

"The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)"

"Agnostics" saying this more does not make it more true.

Courtesy of the scientific method and burden of proof, a positive claim is false until proven. That doesn't imply ignorance. God does not exist until god is proven to exist. Further, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so god is extremely unlikely until some sort of proof starts showing up.

Here's a test. When it comes to elves, do you say you are "agnostic?" Elves have just as much proof as god. In fact, both Icelandic and LOTR elves have the exact same proof; so you should be agnostic to them both coexisting. Yet no sane person would say "I am not sure" - they would say, "no, elves do not exist."

That's the problem with agnostics. The word means nothing. Atheists ARE agnostics in the strict sense: if god were proven, we would have to accept that god exists (even if that god is evil/incompetent). Until then, we do not say "well, god MIGHT exist, so we should use a special word to make it look like we're not against religion, just in cane," just like you do not say "hmm, well..." when asked if you believe Middle Earth is literally located in New Zealand. The difference that I see existing between atheists and self-proclaimed "agnostics" (most of whom are actually deists trying to sound more intelligent) is that one understands logical processes and probability, and one does not.

Please stop insulting people using your misunderstanding of common words.

Which breaks the classic theism definition of God being omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent, and thus no God at all.

Tho, I'd subscribe to the newsletter of a god that used the phrase 'little dingbats' in a regular basis.

"The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.)

Right because *believing* in something without knowledge or facts is based on ignorance. Check.

In the case of humans, not a single one has any particular knowledge that could possibly move them from the agnostic category. Technically everyone is agnostic.

The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.)

An absence of belief in god(s) is not the same as a belief in their absence.

> If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.

True religion (little r) is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs, aka, faith is putting your beliefs into practice. (If you never do anything with your beliefs, they are just that, beliefs.)

Fake Religion (big R) is the crap that passes for religion today. God _always_ needs more money somehow (with apologies to George Carlen). Oh, and you're not worthy. You need this special parent to kill their own son so that you can live. And "our path" is the only path.

Mythology is another man's religion long since dead.

The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)

Actually, if you read TFA, it makes it quite clear that in this case, there is a clear correlation between theism and your choice of stupidity or ignorance (or both). Smart, well educated people (as identified by scholastic accomplishment) are far more likely to be atheist than stupid, poorly educated people. The latter are also more likely to be Republicans. Go figure.

As for "too stupid to vote" -- I generally agree that most cures are worse than the disease, and it is also absolutely true that there are plenty of people who have little formal education who are smart enough not to be suckers, matching well educated people who lack common sense.

In any event, education is the antidote for religion. It isn't a perfect cure (because there are limits on what you can do with the human material at hand, and because a large part of the brainwash- I mean "education" of the young is in the hands of religious parents, but statistically it ups the odds. And atheism has steadily grown over the last 30 years, at the expense of religion in general, just as Christianity in general has lost ground.

rgb

To save time, I'm just going to copy and paste this from another reply, because you need to hear this too.

You are wrong. You've expressed a stunning misunderstanding of what atheism is.

Atheism is a religion like health is an illness.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

What atheism IS, is the absence of religion... a lack of "theism".

Atheism is not "a belief". It is the lack of a specific set of beliefs.

Atheism's symbol is not "nothingness" any more than the symbol fo those who don't believe Santa Claus is real is "nothingness".

Do you even understand how ridiculous and ignorant you sound when you say "atheism is a religion"?