none of the above

Whatever works for you, dude. I can't take credit - it's your choice. You may not thank me when something bad happens to you, and you find little consolation in a pitiless universe...But if you find agnosticism makes more sense, then by all means, go for it. I personally still don't see the difference between agnosticism and scientific atheism.

Hey Crash! I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "scientific atheism" used - at least in the context of a juxtaposition with agnosticism. Could you define it for me? If you've already done so somewhere, a link to the post would be fine. I personally think there's a fine, but real, semantic difference between atheism and agnosticism, but would be interested in hearing/discussing it with you. I'm pretty sure moose will beat me up again about OT posting, so perhaps we could open a different thread (new or resurrected)?

Sure. I was trying to coin a phrase to suggest a thought I had, comparing agnosticism and atheism.From a lay standpoint, the common explanation is that atheists are sure there's no god, but agnostics aren't that sure. The point I had was that, technically, if one is of scientific mind, one can't be totally sure there is no god - tentativity must be maintained.So, from that perspective you can't be both scientifically tentative and truly atheist; that would require being more sure about something than tentativity would allow. But I don't feel agnostic, I feel atheist - I'm as sure as I can be there's no god.So, that's what I meant by "scientific atheist" - that I'm as sure there is no god as scientific tentativity will allow. If that makes me agnostic instead then I don't really think there's a difference.It's probably a misleading phrase. Hopefully my explanation makes some sense. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, as well as the thoughts of other atheists or agnostics. I'm actually pretty new to atheism - at least, in terms of being "out of the closet" with it - so I haven't ironed out all the nomenclature yet. Since the topic is "None of the above", perhaps we're in the right thread after all. My explanation has a kind of "none of the above" feel to it, don't you think? [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-18-2003]

Excellent! Thanks for the explanation - I'd sort of thought it was something like that. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. I'd say more likely it depends on how each individual assesses the "confidence level" of their epistemology or worldview.I'm a pretty solid atheist, all things considered. From my standpoint religions have had literally thousands of years and literally millions of adherents searching for or at least interested in uncovering factual evidence of the existence of God or gods. In spite of all that effort, to date no such evidence has been unearthed. It is therefore quite reasonable to assume no evidence exists - and therefore god(s) doesn't/don't exist. Is it an assumption? Yes, of course. Is it unwarranted? No.This is quite different from a "belief" that abiogenesis has occurred, for instance. While there hasn't been any objective "proof" uncovered yet that it did, there are multiply-converging lines of evidence that give clues that it could have occurred. It certainly doesn't appear to violate any known natural laws or processes and can be reasonably postulated from known phenomena. Unlike, for example, an invisible, undetectable, unknowable super-entity.So whereas the statement "there are no gods" may be unsupported at the most fundamental logical level, it isn't unreasonable considering the vast amount of time and resources that have been unsuccessfully sunk into trying to find evidence for their existence. Could there be gods? I suppose anything is possible - just like quantum physics leaves open the possibility that my car might translate overnight from the garage to the street. However, the probability of this occurring is so vanishingly small that it is effectively zero. I'm not gonna hold my breath...I've gotta head to a meeting. I'll try and post more later on this.

I take it a step further than that.I will go so far as to assert that not only have the above millions of adherents over thousands of years failed to produce any convincing evidence, but also that a resonable counter-theory can be advanced to explain the APPARENT existence of god (or at least, perception of the existence of god).To whit: that religion is a form, a mechanism, of social dominance and redistribution. This, to my mind, is a superior explanation of the observed "religion" phenomenon than speculation as to the existence of God or otherwise.Therefore, I'm quite hard on agnostics; I claim that they want to have their cake and eat it too. Due to the weakness of the evidence advanced by theists, I am not convinced that the very question of the existence of god is one we have a duty to explore, even for our own satisfaction. All we really need to explain is the occurrence of CLAIMS of the existence of god. Thus to me the agnostic is allowing their skepticism to prevent a commitment to one theistic position, but not allowing their skepticism to propose and alternative answer to the problem. The agnostic is thus to me a "crypto-theist" or something to that effect.

I've never seen any definition of "atheist" from any respectable source that required absolute belief that there was no God.

Schraf, I wonder if this is really a justifiable statement.Let's start with: I don't think you can say "in the Bible" here. It is true that in most of the Tanach (OT), women were more or less owned. It is also true that this was the way in the Middle East for that time period and long after. You can tell the improvement even under Roman rule in the early centuries A.D. The Middle East progressed somewhat, and "the Bible" with it, which is not really one book, anyway.This is evidenced even by Jesus' changes to the divorce laws. You may not like his, either, but they're definitely different, and surely better in your eyes, than the ones in the Torah. I don't think this is fair and accurate, either. Much of Judeo-Christianity has developed with culture. I believe in roles for men and women that are different and important, so you probably wouldn't like my views much, but even my views are progressive compared to the New Testament writings of 2000 (okay, some 1900) years ago. Some of Christianity is so progressive that even NOW wouldn't object to their views on women.I understand your being offended with the past. I understand your disagreement with a relatively small segment of modern Christianity, but it's just not true that "the Bible and Judeo/Christianity...simply use God to justify male dominance and superiority."The Bible and most of Judeo/Christianity reflect the times. They are not propagating male superiority. Even most of the strong emphasis on wifely or womanly submission is in the South, where the culture leans that way, anyway. It's also emphasized in very literalist churches (but only very literalist), but that can't be changed.

Like I said, I'm new to atheism. Thanks for everybody's thoughts on the matter.The definition of atheism I related, the one that implied absolute certainty, is the definition I tend to get from the majority of my agnostic friends; if atheism doesn't imply absolute certainty then I don't see the difference between atheism and agnosticism, except perhaps an unwillingness for agnostics to totally turn their backs on god or something. (Still playing Pascal's Wager. )

I am sad about it, just like I am sad that my mother was expected to give up her career and stay home with four kids.It is all socialization, religious or secular, meant to keep women as less than fully adult and compliant. It certainly easier to always get your way if your wife thinks she is going against God's wishes if she thinks her opinion has as much importance and clout in the marriage as her husband's.What is a wife that is submissive to her husband other than a sexualized child?

Usually the only time agnostics use that argument is when they want to claim that they are intellectually superior. They never come up with any basis other than their own opinion which seems rather too obviously self-serving.Of course it may be that they tend to the view that God doesn't exist but aren't happy with the idea of calling themselves atheists. So far as I am concerned I don't mind what they call themselves but that doesn't give them the right to dictate English usage.

I understand all that you are saying, and I understand that times change and religions do too.I do see, however, all around the world, the places where women are treated the worst is often where Christianity or another "God is male"-type religion, such as Islam, are practiced. Hindus are not much better, despite having strong goddess figures.

quote:

---

Even most of the strong emphasis on wifely or womanly submission is in the South, where the culture leans that way, anyway.

---

Well, why do you think the culture leans that way? Because it's the Bible belt, of course!Some of the most horrible things people do to one another wouldn't be possible without religion. In this light, I think it can safely be said that much of the sexism and woman-hating in the world can be traced to people believing that God chooses males as special and females secondary in importance to males.It all comes back to power. Male-centered religions teach males to expect and feel deserving of power over others, just as they teach women to reject and feel undeserving of power over others.Someone to submits to another is giving over their power to another.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-18-2003]

Well, if that's what it comes to, so be it. I promise I won't scream "Crashfroggggg!!!" I don't know about that, but you are far more certain of your belief in God than I am. The only thing keeping you from saying that there is no God is scientific uncertainty. My beliefs are vastly more unresolved.

A lot of what you say is true, Schraf. I was really just trying to tone down your previous post.The only thing I want to pointedly disagree with is: I don't think that's always true. In fact, I believe there is a great deal of power in a proper submission, and it can overthrow a bad authority without force.I'll leave it at that. I doubt I could make you agree, and I'm pretty sure you can't make me agree. We've obviously had very different experiences.

This sounds to me like atheism says: "no gods".

Where did this def. come from?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com