Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

It is. The word simply means "without knowledge."

Some people consider that to mean that God is simply unknown.. some consider it to mean that he's unknowable. Both definitions of the word are essentially correct.

Though I am just about afraid to post here anymore for fear of offending, well, someone, anyone... I would add one last thing, in the most constructive manner possible.

I am one who sits on the fence, truly, with the argument raging on both sides within me. For me it is thus:

1) I don't firmly believe there is a god or gods.
2) I don't firmly believe there is not.

Is this a correct application of scientific method? Probably not, I'm simply... not sure. I don't feel qualified on the subject; I feel I lack even the basic philosophic concepts to make a call.

I lack *any* surety on the matter, and it may seem nonsensical - but it's where I'm at. I make no claim to complete rationality, either.

A simple example: does one disbelieve that rocks on the planet Pluto are squishy? There is no proof of it, but one could apply disbelief to either state, soft or hard. It is, at least for me... an open question.

The only thing that sways it one way or the other might be Occam's Razor, but that has been wrong before - consider what the purveyors of atomic earth, air, fire and water would say, if we presented modern chemistry to them. Modern chemistry fails the simplicity test and Occam's Razor, too, depending upon where you are coming from.

- Desmond Shang

I understand where people are coming from with their use of the term "agnostic." Truly I do. But in your statements above, only the first sentence is relevant to determining wether you are a theist or an atheist, and the qualifier (firlmy) is immaterial. The second point is also. You are an agnostic atheist. If you said you think there probably is a god, but your belief isn't firm, you would be an agnostic theist. (and yes, I know I drive people insane when I rant about these issues of terminology).

There is a problem with this by definition.

An agnostic is a person who belives that the nature of god is probably unknowable. This makes a huge difference in the definition.

As websters states: broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Another thing to consider is what it means to "know" God.

Because, honestly, if there is indeed a God (some infinite, omnipotent being) then he's pretty much defacto unknowable. The infinite cannot be contained within the finite, which means that you cannot ever fully understand God.

However, you could know whether or not God existed... maybe. You could possibly know for sure that he does exist, although I don't know how exactly you'd ever be sure that he doesn't exist.

The bottom line though is that people who are convinced that they know the answer, either way, are essentially just following some kind of faith, rather than any kind of rational thought process.

If you noticed in several other posts, I spelled it correctly, so it was clearly a typo. I fixed that typo before it even registered as an edit.

Why must we pick at typos/spelling/grammar when the meaning is clear?

Is it a way to debase the argument of the one posting?

Just wondering...

It's called trying to lighten the mood with humor, Commander Data.

This is a rather rough situation isn't it? One word used by different people for vastly different viewpoints? "Not-know" and "Can't-know" are worlds apart. One is the beginning of knowledge, the other is the ending of it in failure.

We need another word!

I think you didn't read the whole of my post

I am puzzled by so many people getting worked up about word definitions, when the worlds dictionaries, and its etymology, are at everyones net fingertips.

Gnostic is nothing to do with god. The word originally referred to knowledge, any knowledge. It became biassed toward mystical knowledge, but not necessarily of god. Must we all start posting definitions ? In terms of both common and informed usage of the words agnostic and atheist, it seems that Chip's strong assertions are, quite simply, wrong. Sorry.

I'll apologise if someone posts impeccable sources to the contrary, but is it really worth the effort ?

I agree with the above completely. The important thing to remember is it doesn't describe the vast majority of atheists. It only describes gnostic atheists (aka "strong" atheism). The far more common position is agnostic atheism (aka "weak" atheism) which does not assert specific knowledge of the non-existence of god. It asserts only being unconvinced.

Well, since Huxley was the guy who actually invented the word, it would be wise to use his definition:

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

So, you can see that he did not mean that God was unknowable. He meant that he simply didn't know.

Agnosticism means that unless you can logically justify a position, you should not take that position.

Saying there is a God cannot be logically justified.
Saying that there is NOT a God cannot be logically justified.

So, Agnosticism means that we simply do not make a decision as to the existence of God, until we have more evidence in support of one or the other possibilities.

Sorry Zuzu, I did miss that... I read it, but I missed. Again, I'm sorry.

The whole point I was trying to make is that we all need to be sure that were are talking about the same words in the same light.

Darn it, you know that using gnostic/agnostic as qualifiers muddies the waters because those terms have a lot of baggage with them. Go back to your definitions of weak/strong.

I was a bit hasty with my definition post, though. It would be better to say:

theist - person who belives the existance of god(s)
atheist - person who is not a theist

gnostic - person who believes that understanding of god can be found through (usually spirtual) knowlege
agnostic - person who is not a gnostic

again, I note that the common use of agnostic is different than its original formulation.

Yes, I realize all that What I'm saying is that Huxley invented the word based on the same mischaracterization of what atheism actually is.

Bingo! I agree the gnostic/agnostic bit is problematic and muddy, which is why it's usually dropped. Your first definitions for theist and atheist are exactly on the mark. People who call themselves agnostics are not theists, and if you're not a theist, you're an atheist. I think Huxley was a genius, but I'd dearly love to smack him upside the head for the whole agnostic silliness.

I like that quote from Huxley, as it points out clearly how a person can be neither a theist nor an atheist. Both of these would be conclusion-points, whereas without evidence for or against, one would logically still be at the beginning-point.

Sorry Chip, after looking this over further I'd have to say both theists and atheists are operating on faith. I can understand the motivation to claim more adherents to your side, but that doesn't make it true for them.

1) I believe there is a god or gods (theist)
2) I am not convinced there is a god or gods (atheist)

Pick one. Any claim that neither answer applies to you is intellectually dishonest.

This does sum it up for me, on average.

With regard to grammar, semantics and the like - I am not always capable of expressing my meaning.

I would agree that under the cold light of day, in an academic setting, I'm an agnostic atheist.

However, when afraid for my life, as I have been a few times - I instantly become an agnostic theist. Funny, that. Perhaps it's weakness to admit it, but it's true.

I shall hold these terms in my head throughout the course of the day, and make a little mark on a piece of paper if and when my state changes.

I see no reason to operate by definitions that are peculiar to you.

Well, in fairness, Huxley actually invented the term based on the "gnostism" of the church. There really weren't many atheists back then.

In terms of weak atheism... weak atheism as you describe it is not atheism at all. It's agnosticism.

Atheism is by definition a belief in the opposite of theism. Theism means that you believe in the existence of God, and thus atheism is the belief that there is no god.

So, Atheism is not simply "not believing in god". It's actually a belief structure of its own, namely the belief in the absence of God.

If you're simply unconvinced, then the best word for describing such a belief structure would be agnostic. Although, at this point it's really just semantics. It doesn't really matter what word you use to describe your beliefs, especially beliefs that are as personal as these.


However, it's worth noting that the atheists thaare really gung-ho about removing all aspects of religion from our society tend to be what you would call strong atheists. They are essentially opposed to other people believing in God, because they believe it to be stupid and wrong.

I think most agnostics don't really take such a zealous position on such things. I know I don't.

I don't really care about seeing a nativity scene in town. I simply don't see how that could be offensive. It's nice looking, and makes me think of christmas. I don't see it, and feel compelled to go to church or something. When I see, "In God We Trust" on my money, I don't really care about it. I don't think it has some important deep meaning, or is pushing some belief structure on me. When I said the pledge to the flag in school when I was a kid, I honestly didn't really give a crap about saying "under God".

It's odd.. I think that arguments about such things tend to be dominated by the lunatics on the frings of both sides. Because most of us really don't give a crap.

So you have the nutso religious zealots and the nutso anti-religious zealots duking it out and hogging the spotlight of our culture. This gives the impression that there's some great polarization going on, and that this crap is important... but it's really not.

Such things are only imporant to people who don't have anything better to think about.

And yes, I realize that I've done litttle but add shallow and snarky comments or say the equivalent of "Go, Chip, go!" But shallow or not, flattering or not, those posts were all sincere and have kept me from attempting to engage the more obvious asshats in this forum directly. Which lack of direct engagement is necessary. Otherwise, having neither Chip's seemingly endless ability to suffer fools (whether gladly or not, I do not know), nor Ulrika's sharp and spiky armor of reason and bile, nor Ellie's calm perserverance ... otherwise, I daresay, I would likely pop a few major arteries and cack right here on the keyboard.

But please, if you would, use all of y'all's taxonomic faculties to appoint an appropriate label to this position of mine? Because I've never known quite what to call it, succinctly, and I'm very serious about it:

If there is a God or if there isn't a God? I don't give a damn either way. My response is: Who fucking cares?

And if there isn't a God, no problem. And if there is a God, and it's got a problem with my not caring? Then, in the first place, it must not be much of a "god" to be so concerned with such petty, co-dependent shit as that. And, in the second place, He or She can kiss my ass. Or send me to Hell to burn for all eternity. Or whatever. Because I'm all like: "Are you there, God? It's me, Memory. Now fuck off, hoser."

The existence of any god is quite irrelevant to our lives. This infinite and infinitely fascinating universe of ours is so filled with observable, empirically verifiable miracles and wonders that it's foolish to take time away from it to pay heed – due to whatever deepseated feelings of lack or misplaced gratitude – to some potential invisible superhero in the sky.

(Of course, if what Jesus was saying about God was something he meant literally --- which is arguable, since that sweet Jew loved him a good metaphor --- but if he did mean his words literally? Then it just goes to show that a person can be a complete fool and be simultaneously filled with a wisdom we'd all be better off to heed much of.)

(I mean, just to differentiate, here, between the particular God under consideration, and that wack diety's putative spokesperson.)

(I mean, just so's you know.)

(Not to put too fine a point on it or anything.)

(Is it time for pie now?)

Great, Roland. Go ahead, post this while I'm busy yammering on like a motormouth in my last comments. Color me redundant, render me obsolete and looking like an ... an ... like an idjit, for chrissakes!

Steal my thunder, rain on my parade. You consarn, mangy, razza frazzin long-eared galoot!

True enough.


"It's lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened."

-Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

That is completely and entirely incorrect Sorry.