An Agnostic Manifesto

[ironbark]

At least we know what we don't know.
By Ron Rosenbaum

“Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.
Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.
I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.
Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)”
Article-
http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/pagenum/all/#b

[LAGC]

1. I'm an agnostic atheist, so where does that put me?

Have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? I used to consider myself solely an "agnostic", but after reading that I was convinced that I shouldn't be ashamed of the "atheist" label. Even Dawkins himself, when rating where he lies on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being "strong theist" and 7 being "strong atheist" says he considers himself a 6. There really aren't that many atheists who are absolutely sure there is no god, with the certainty of a believer. It's just very, very unlikely that there is a god.

For all "atheist" means, is that you don't believe. "Agnostic" means you don't believe we will ever know for sure one way or another. They are completely compatible concepts, I don't see why you see animosity between the two.

[whathehell]

2. You've given one definition of "agnostic"

The other is simply "I don't know". Period. Not.."I will never know".

[ironbark]

5. I'm with that. nt.

[ironbark]

3. Wherever you want to be put?

“Have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?”

Yes.

“I used to consider myself solely an "agnostic", but after reading that I was convinced that I shouldn't be ashamed of the "atheist" label.”

Ok.
Good.

“There really aren't that many atheists who are absolutely sure there is no god with the certainty of a believer,”

Based on? Statistics? Broad experience? Local experience?
? ;-)

“It's just very, very unlikely that there is a god.”

A calculation of probability I don’t share. Willing to hear how the conclusion was reached.

“For all "atheist" means, is that you don't believe. "Agnostic" means you don't believe we will ever know for sure one way or another. They are completely compatible concepts…”

Don’t share your definition of Agnostic.

“…I don't see why you see animosity between the two.”

I don’t see my expression of “animosity”…care to enlighten me?

[LAGC]

10. Atheist certainty.

Well, I guess most of my evidence for my notion that most atheists don't have the certainty of a believer is subjective, based on atheists I know, but even most prominent atheists I've read point out that there's still a lot we don't know about the universe, and that there could be Higher Powers at work out there that we just haven't observed yet. Dawkins himself points out that its entirely plausible that alien life seeded this planet. That doesn't mean it was the work of a god, or even a more sophisticated alien race that intentionally sent out its "seed" of life, but possibly it just developed (evolved) elsewhere in the universe before happening to land on Earth and sparking life here.

I think the strongest argument from the atheist perspective is: "If there is a god, where did it come from? How did it arise?" The idea of complexity being there from the beginning (if there was ever a beginning, assuming time isn't eternal in both directions) seems to me to be more implausible than the possibility that some sort of Higher Power (higher than us, anyways) developed from humble beginnings. Its entirely possible that there exist other universes that we cannot yet (and may never be able to) observe, that also developed conscious life, to the point that that life became so developed and complex and powerful that it was able to spring our universe forth into existence through some machination. But that doesn't explain how that life there developed in the first place. You're left with the chicken and the egg paradox. Which came first?

As for why I believe its very, very unlikely that there is a god, despite my sarcastic posting about the "fine-tuning" of the constants of our universe and how it must have been set by a Higher Power, the fact is everything that scientists have observed about our universe so far leads them to believe that there is no conscious interference by some conscious Higher Power. Despite the "magic" that happened at the beginning of the universe, the rest has developed quite naturally without any unexplained divine intervention interfering with the course of things. Indeed, our universe would look a lot different if there was an active hand of divine intervention, than the way it looks now.

My only point in all this is, if there is a Higher Power (from another universe) that once existed and we cannot see, what's the point in believing in it, let alone worshiping it? You might as well act as if there was none, for all it matters in our day-to-day lives. There's almost certainly nothing that happens on Earth that isn't explainable by some natural force, even if the cause isn't apparent right way.

[ironbark]

20. Lots of speculation....but no "certainty"

“… I guess most of my evidence for my notion that most atheists don't have the certainty of a believer is subjective, based on atheists I know…”

Yup, and my subjective reading (based on encounters with Strong/New Atheists on the Net) is that there is a great deal of certainty projected…and often projected with derisive/mocking certainty. Most of the atheists I know personally are inadvertent/weak atheists…they don’t know and/or don’t care about the god issue.

“…there could be Higher Powers at work out there that we just haven't observed yet.”

“could be” is an infinite speculation. “could be” anything “out there”.
Speculation on what “could be” ought be (in my book) based on evidence, logic and calculation of probability.
Those who project the certainty that god, aliens, Santa and unicorns are all on par as non existent are, in my view, not giving the evidence/probability full or fair consideration.

“I think the strongest argument from the atheist perspective is: "If there is a god, where did it come from? How did it arise?"…”

If it is the Abrahamaic god under consideration then the question is a non starter. The god of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Baha’i is (by definition) Alpha to Omega eternal without beginning or end. If it exists and if it has, as it apparently claims, provided Revelation at various points in history, then it did not “come from/arise” from anywhere or anything. The very notion/definition of the Abrahamaic god is that it is that it is the ‘first cause’ and all else “arose/came from” it.

“…the possibility that some sort of Higher Power (higher than us, anyways) developed from humble beginnings…”

If that is the thing in question/being sought…then it (by definition) is not god and needs another title.

“…the fact is everything that scientists have observed about our universe so far leads them to believe that there is no conscious interference by some conscious Higher Power.”

Not so.
Not at all so.
And not so by a long mile.
The list of Scientists who have concluded otherwise is extensive and significant.
A short list includes-
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
(Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists)

“Despite the "magic" that happened at the beginning of the universe, the rest has developed quite naturally without any unexplained divine intervention interfering with the course of things.”

That is a proposition that may or may not stand the test of scrutiny. I am suggesting that “unexplained divine intervention interfering with the course of things” may indeed have occurred….Are you willing to examine that possibility?

“Indeed, our universe would look a lot different if there was an active hand of divine intervention, than the way it looks now.”

How so? In what way/s?

“My only point in all this is, if there is a Higher Power (from another universe) that once existed and we cannot see, what's the point in believing in it, let alone worshiping it?”

I’m not sure how “from another universe” fits in…are we talking about god or aliens?
Not being a “believer” in either or a “worshiper” of either I can’t answer the question as to what “point” others find in believing/worshiping.

That is not to say that I do not recognise immense value in the scripture/ teachings of many religions nor that I fail to recognise the innumerable contributions of religion to civilization and human advancement (nor am I blinded to its faults).

“There's almost certainly nothing that happens on Earth that isn't explainable by some natural force, even if the cause isn't apparent right way.”

I am not convinced that is true. There are a number of historical events that strike me (and many others) as outside the realms of chance- statistical aberrations and anomalies in the course of history…things not “explainable by some natural force”. These events may be deemed mere coincidence by some…but for others they constitute sufficient evidence to prompt curiosity and further investigation.

[LAGC]

22. You're right, I'm not certain about anything.

But there's enough evidence to lead me to dis-believe. And that's all it takes to be an atheist, just mere dis-belief.

My knowledge of cosmology is largely limited to the interesting documentaries I've seen on the Science Channel. There was a recent series hosted by Stephen Hawking, another by Morgan Freeman. Do you ever watch any of them? It's just amazing how random the universe is. You'd think if there was a conscious hand of a Creator interfering with things, it would be more orderly and less chaotic. It just leads me to believe that if there was a Higher Power behind the formation of the universe, it did its "magic" at the beginning but has been hands-off ever since. A "god" who isn't there anymore. There are still forces we don't understand, such as dark energy -- a mysterious force that repels instead of attracts matter. But I do believe we WILL someday be able to understand some of these mysteries, I don't think that we will always be ignorant of them forever.

And I disagree with you that all (or even most) "New Atheists" are necessarily "strong" atheists. As I pointed out in my post up-thread, Richard Dawkins himself rates himself short of being a strong atheist. He still leaves room for doubt. Its just that the probability that God (a personal god, one that interferes with nature) exists is diminished with each and every new scientific advance that sheds light on some previous mystery. People once thought that volcanic eruptions were the work of a god, same with the sun's movements across the sky, or natural disasters (hell, some people STILL today think that natural disasters are the conscious work of God!) -- but the more we learn about science, the more we understand the natural causes of these phenomena, and our ignorance is replaced with knowledge of how nature works, and our place in it.

I am curious though, what "number of historical events" strike you (and many others) as outside the realms of chance?

[ironbark]

23. I share your uncertainty.

“recent series hosted by Stephen Hawking, another by Morgan Freeman.”

Have seen one with Freeman and a couple about (but not hosted by) Hawking….my favourite is Carl Sagan.

“You'd think if there was a conscious hand of a Creator interfering with things, it would be more orderly and less chaotic…”

Hmmm…maybe…I don’t know….there is chaos and disorder and order and balance of a most profound nature..… and perhaps a balance between the chaos and the order?
Leastwise the chaos and disorder is not of such a nature that it constantly threatens to eliminate us.
The fossil record (T rex, Raptors and Co) speak to me of a world in which I/we could not have survived and the human imagination projects equal or worse (Alien/Predator). I spent today by a moss covered waterfall with nothing more chaotic threatening than two toddlers and a Wallaby….a pretty balanced, orderly and benign universe ;-)

“…did its "magic" at the beginning but has been hands-off ever since….”

Yup, in regards the physical universe I’d go along with that possibility…can’t see any evidence of hands on interference with the physical world. Human history? Don’t know. Jury is still out on that one.

“But I do believe we WILL someday be able to understand some of these mysteries, I don't think that we will always be ignorant of them forever.”

I agree wholeheartedly. It is a long, slow, hard and exciting process….perhaps accidentally so…perhaps purposefully so. The notion of the atom (as I understand it) arose with the Greeks…it took thousands of years to develop the science to confirm the atom and split it.
Along the way (and long before the confirmation) a Persian poet wrote-
“Lo. Split the atoms heart and therein thou will find a Sun”.
Could be a lucky guess….could also be a concise insight into precise scientific truth.

“…forces we don't understand, such as dark energy….”

Ahhhhhhh! Anybody who has ever sat in a meeting with ‘Management’ understands those dark energy forces!
;-)

“And I disagree with you that all (or even most) "New Atheists" are necessarily "strong" atheists.”

That’s cool….because I wasn’t saying or suggesting that.
“…some people STILL today think that natural disasters are the conscious work of God…”

Yup, and the less such superstition the better. Though I’m not sure there will be an end to blaming god or themselves for random events. There is a book ‘Why do bad things happen to good people’ in which the author (a Rabbi) is shocked by the number of people (often parents) who take the responsibility for accidents/illness upon themselves. ie Daughter dies in car accident-parents conclude-“God is punishing us”. Not sensible, not healthy.

“I am curious though, what "number of historical events" strike you (and many others) as outside the realms of chance?”

Mind if I lead up to the ‘events’ by establishing what we both view as chance/random or suspicious statistical improbability? It might take two or three posts to get mutual agreement on what is random and what is suspicious.

Imagine you are a Track Steward at a Steeple Chase Carnival….your job is to spot race fixing/ interference. It is a ten race event with a dozen+ horses in each race. At the end of the first race all the horses except one fell at the hurdles.
On a scale of 1-10 (1 being not suspicious, 10 being extremely suspicious) how would you rate your interest or concern at only one horse finishing?
Just looking for a rough law of averages here…how common or unusual would a one horse finish in a steeplechase be?

[LAGC]

27. Horse races.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being not suspicious, 10 being extremely suspicious) how would you rate your interest or concern at only one horse finishing?

Well, I don't follow horse races much, but assuming most horses can handle hurdles without much fuss, if I had to harbor a guess, I'd say that is quite suspicious, only one horse finishing. What's your point though? That it was an Act of God? Don't you think that's quite a stretch? If anything, it might bring up the possibility that the other horses (who didn't finish) were drugged, or somehow hindered/disabled so that they couldn't jump the hurdles. If such an event really did happen, I would certainly be apt to look into human-causes first.

[ironbark]

30. Whoa Neddy…. “Act of God” is a hurdle too far and too high.

The “point”, as I said before, is to establish some rough mutual agreement on probability- events that are random/chance- events that are suspicious- events that are highly improbable/very suspicious.

“I'd say that is quite suspicious, only one horse finishing.”

So what does that give us? A 5? A 6?
I’d go along with that. Every horse falling in a steeplechase bar one is possible and within the realms of chance (it has happened before therefore not an isolated event). But as a Race Steward you would be right to be suspicious…you would be ‘invested’ in the event and have a responsibility to find out.

So what happens (in terms of probability/suspicion rating) if the same thing happens in the next race, and the one after…and all ten races in sucession?

Further, what happens if initial enquiries reveal that each of the winning horses came (if not from the same Stable) but all from the same State?

Pure coincidence? Chance? Random events within law of averages?...Or increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation?

If your curiosity is still alive let me know your assessment of probability.
If you would care for a supplemental (to tie the point/s together) then I invite you to pick an area of human endeavour (Art, Science, Music, Military, whatever you like) and nominate ten people of genius and/or ‘most influential’ in that field (or fields if you want).

[LAGC]

33. You've piqued my curiosity now.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'll play along.

So what happens (in terms of probability/suspicion rating) if the same thing happens in the next race, and the one after…and all ten races in sucession?

Further, what happens if initial enquiries reveal that each of the winning horses came (if not from the same Stable) but all from the same State?

Pure coincidence? Chance? Random events within law of averages?...Or increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation?

I'd say increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation.

If your curiosity is still alive let me know your assessment of probability.
If you would care for a supplemental (to tie the point/s together) then I invite you to pick an area of human endeavour (Art, Science, Music, Military, whatever you like) and nominate ten people of genius and/or ‘most influential’ in that field (or fields if you want).

Alright, I'll pick Science. My nominations would be (in no particular order):

- Charles Darwin (theory of evolution)
- Nicolaus Copernicus (theory that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that earth revolved around the sun)
- Galileo Galilei (improved the telescope and discovered many of the planets of the solar system)
- Louis Pasteur (researched the first vaccines devised for humans)
- Jonas Salk (developed vaccines for influenza and polio)
- Albert Einstein (theory of relativity)
- Isaac Newton (theorized gravitational force and the three laws of motion)
- Niels Bohr (theory that electrons orbit the atom's nucleus, that light could could have properties of both wave and particle)
- Thomas Edison (oversaw a team of inventors that produced such things as the light bulb, phonograph, and telegraph)
- Rene Descartes (father of analytical geometry)

So where are you going with all this?

[ironbark]

36. “..increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation”

Ok, that’s the standard of probability/suspicion I was seeking.

There is a great/global bedrock of animist and indigenous religion (the primeval religious breading stock herd if you like) that still thrives.
Beyond that-
Moses Lad began his run at about 1500-1350 BCE up against a heavy field of contenders (and State sponsored ‘favourites’) Resheph, Baal, Anath ,Astarte, Ashtoreth, Hadad, Nebo, Dagon, Melek, Yau, Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Ptah, Molech... but none of the contenders are still running. (Dead faiths, dead god/horses, fell at the historical hurdles, no adherents. (Here’s a list of 500 candidates…take your pick for this and subsequent time periods- http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/500-dead-gods-plus-1.html
)

It’s the same story with each of the successive Major Living Religious Traditions (horses ;-)-
Moses 1500-1350 BCE….Krishna 2000 BCE…. Zoroaster 628-527 BCE… Buddha 563-483 BCE…Jesus 1-33 CE… Mohammed 570-632 CE…. Baha'u'llah 1817-1892 CE

Questions-
1/ It’s a ten thousand+ year timeline. Not once do we get a Moses and Krishna contending in the same time frame, not once do we get a Jesus and Mohammed in the same period.
Why not?
There have been thousands of cults/religions starting in the same time frame as others…or starting in the context of existing/dominant faiths…..how come the contenders all fall at the hurdles and the horses that run on >never< started at the same time?
Why do we never see >two< major living religions starting up in the same time frame?

(Quite prepared to discuss ojections re Shito, Confucious and contemporary religious movements)

2/ Geography. It a big planet but if you open an atlas you can almost cover the geographical origins of the worlds major living religions with your thumb. No major living faith out of Africa…Europe…The Americas….why not? I understand colonialism and imperialism and the colonial and imperialist imposition of religion….but ten thousand+ years is a long time in which whole continents have the opportunity to breed a new major living faith…..but they haven’t and don’t. Why not? Why do all these major religion horses come from the same geographical area?
(The only exceptions are the indigenous bedrock and contemporary {too early to tell} religious/cult movements that may or may not leap the hurdles to survive. eg Scientology)

I’m not putting it forward as ‘proof’ or ‘conclusive evidence’…but the separation in time (as sole winning horses or stepping stones set at intervals through history) of the major living faiths strikes me as “..increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation”.

Further investigation may lead to the chance/probability anomalies of the Theosophists and their conclusions, William Miller (Millerites/Adventists) and his conclusions and the events in Persia which opened up the speculation now referred to as Progressive Revelation (The possibility that religion has been ‘dispensed’ at specific times and has progressively evolved).

The greats, genius/influential’s from your chosen realm of human endeavour reveal what would be expected and found selecting from any other realm (Art,Music ect)… the greatest figures standing both isolated in time (no major contenders in their lifetime) and figures in clusters sharing the same overlapping time period.

Isolated-
Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543)

Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642)

René Descartes ( 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650)

Cluster-
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)
Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931)
Albert Einstein ( 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955)
Niels Henrik David Bohr ( 7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962)
Jonas Edward Salk (October 28, 1914 – June 23, 1995)

Add to the list and you still get isolation and cluster...as would be expected.

Their geography (even though clearly drawn from a Western Science bias) is one that still reflects great geographical diversity.
If your designated great scientists (who were also surrounded by failed contenders- Caloric theory of heat, Mechanistic Universe- fallen/dead horse science) were laid out through history with a minimum of 200 years between them…would that not also be improbable/suspicious?

Copernicus… Galileo… Descartes… Darwin… Pasteur… Edison… Einstein… Bohr… Salk………….never two or more in the same timeframe.

And if so laid out separately in time and yet all came from the same geographic region? ”I'd say increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation.”

Hope the hypothesis merits your curiosity.

[LAGC]

41. You left out Mormonism.

Even though it was largely based off pre-existing Christianity, Joseph Smith did claim that his prophets visited North America (circa mid-19th century), and the true Israelites were really Americans. Very ethnocentric, just like most religions when starting out. Makes it more attractive to the natives. No surprise there.

I'm not sure I share your bewilderment at the fact that the Big 3 religions all originated from the Middle East though. Could it not just be the fact that the Middle East is the cradle of civilization and the many new philosophies sprang forth from there? In Judea in particular, prophets were a dime a dozen. Everyone was claiming to have visions from God, there were probably thousands of new religions that started up, most only garnering maybe a dozen followers at most, before dying off like the cult phenomena that they were.

As to what it was about the Big 3 religions that survived that made them survive and not any of the others, obviously the various authors of the holy books involved fine-tuned their stories over many generations to the point where they were believe-able, they did make people wonder, and they gave a plausible explanation for the world at the time. There's no denying that the stories in the Talmud, the Bible, and the Koran, are incredible stories. Before modern science arose, why would you not you believe in one of them? Unless you were truly a Doubting Thomas and needed to see the miracles with your own eyes in order to believe...

I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to be an atheist/agnostic back in earlier times, before the Enlightenment. We think we have it tough now... boy.

[ironbark]

46. Mormon? sect/schism of Christianity. There are some 28- 30,000 of them.

Big and small. Mormonism is not a living faith but a subset/schism within a living faith. The Mormon church is Christian…by their definition and that of Comparative Religion.

“I'm not sure I share your bewilderment at the fact that the Big 3 religions all originated from the Middle East though.”

I’m a bit bewildered at the scaling down of what I was referring to…There are seven living faiths referred to (not 3) and the narrow (by global standards) geographical area would be a Mid East-India- Persia triangle.

So the question remains… why (at least) seven in a row over ten thousand years- no pairs, all isolated inception (eventually overlapping) while all other contenders fall away dead?

“Could it not just be the fact that the Middle East is the cradle of civilization and the many new philosophies sprang forth from there? In Judea in particular, prophets were a dime a dozen.”

But “new philosophies” and new religions spring forth all over the world all the time throughout history…a dime a dozen in Judea, Europe, US, Africa, the Pacific…the horse race is always on. But the only ‘stayers’ the only living ‘finishers’ are those that >never< start running in the same time frame.

Your selected great and influential scientists demonstrate what is found in any such timeline for any field of human endeavour…figures of genius isolated in history, others in pairs, others in clusters….a random spread in time and geography.
Why should religion be so starkly different? What is the rational explanation for the most influential figures in religion being spread like stepping stones through history?

The big three? They successively claim a ‘lineage’- The People of The Book…now there is a fourth (Baha’i) that claims the lineage includes all the major faiths.

“…the stories in the Talmud, the Bible, and the Koran, are incredible stories..”

Ah Huh. But I’m (at the moment) only interested in “the stories” inasmuch as they are internally consistent, compatible with each other and reflect on what can be historically verified-

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” Mathew

That looks to me like the author is asserting that no good comes from false prophets and that fruitless false religions are “hewn down, and cast into the fire”.

That proposition looks to accord with and potentially explain the statistical anomaly in the historical timeline of major faiths.

Remain wide open to alternative rational explanations for the anomaly.

[LAGC]

55. You have to consider the technology available at the time.

So the question remains… why (at least) seven in a row over ten thousand years- no pairs, all isolated inception (eventually overlapping) while all other contenders fall away dead?

Keep in mind, there was no Internet back then. No global T.V. networks. No telephone. Ideas took a LONG time to spread by word of mouth to other areas by lone travelers who simply told stories, it took many such travelers before a foreign culture might actually believe and accept such stories, before they could reliably learn from them and co-opt those ideas for their own uses. The Chinese, for example, developed gun-powder by the 9th century. But it took several hundred years before the first western cannons and firearms were ever produced, helping bring an end to fortified castles, armored knights, and feudalism.

And so many of the world religions are built on PREVIOUS religions, they aren't original. Christianity builds on Judaism, Islam builds on Christianity, and I don't much about Baha'i, but if I was to hazard a guess, I'd say it was based on prior traditions as well. So its no surprise that the more developed religions survived, while all the other contenders fell away dead.

But “new philosophies” and new religions spring forth all over the world all the time throughout history…a dime a dozen in Judea, Europe, US, Africa, the Pacific…the horse race is always on. But the only ‘stayers’ the only living ‘finishers’ are those that >never< start running in the same time frame.

Well, as you pointed out right there, religions were a dime a dozen all over the place. But for a really good religion to take hold, it needs to be developed and refined and believe-able. For example, in the case of Islam, it was likely not until the Arabs saw how successful Christianity had become, that they decided to craft a similar monotheistic religion around some of its tenets, acknowledging Jesus, while introducing their own prophet. Great ideas (even myths and fables) take time to disseminate around the globe.

Your selected great and influential scientists demonstrate what is found in any such timeline for any field of human endeavour…figures of genius isolated in history, others in pairs, others in clusters….a random spread in time and geography.
Why should religion be so starkly different? What is the rational explanation for the most influential figures in religion being spread like stepping stones through history?

I think I already answered that question. By the time that modern science was around, we had the printing press, and in the latter scientists' case, the telephone and telegraph. I'd suggest that that's why you see so many more new ideas in rapid succession in modern times, whereas new ideas took a LONG time to spread and take hold in the pre-Renaissance days.

[ironbark]

68. The absence of technology?

If I understand correctly we have reached a point at which the historical anomaly (sequence of isolated ‘stayer’ religions) is not in question but are now seeking feasible explanations for the anomaly?

“…there was no Internet back then. No global T.V. networks. No telephone. Ideas took a LONG time to spread by word of mouth to other areas by lone travelers who simply told stories, it took many such travelers before a foreign culture might actually believe and accept such stories, before they could reliably learn from them and co-opt those ideas for their own uses.”

A thoughtful response and I appreciate it. Couple of problems as I see it.
The anomaly begins at ‘inception’.
Each religion starts local…among friends, family, acquaintances. The Moses, Jesus or Mohammed has to convince those directly around him that the voices he is hearing aren’t madness but Divine. Those family and peers may not have had the DSM, TV, or Net…but there is no reason to believe their communities were not fully familiar with the effects of mental illness (even if they thought it was possession).

In my estimation (and I’m open to alternatives) someone claiming to hear the voice of god raises 2-3 possibilities-

1/ Mentally ill/unstable with messianic delusions.
2/ Con artist, doesn’t believe it for a second but is out to scam others.
2b/ Con artist, does believe it, has scammed himself and is scamming others (otherwise sane).
3/ Possibly is receiving revelation from god.

All of these possibilities come immediately up against- Convincing those around you your not a mad scammer….and, if by charisma and cunning, you develop a following your up against the State, ruling faction, dominant religion…all out to pin you to a tree and crush your movement. All (?) messianic cults charismatically led by unstable individuals either internally self destruct (Manson, Jonestown) or are crushed by the State (Waco)…and that’s the end of them.

I can see how the existence or absence of communication technology can influence the spread (and longevity) of a religious movement. But the ‘inception’ is down to convincing people who can see and hear the claimant. The absence of communication technology doesn’t explain why the claimants are unusually suspiciously spread through history.

“And so many of the world religions are built on PREVIOUS religions, they aren't original. Christianity builds on Judaism, Islam builds on Christianity…”

Ah huh. That’s plausible….in fact it is perfectly reflective of the situation we have “the world religions are built on PREVIOUS religions”…it is so commonplace obvious we don’t think about it or question it.

I am. Why, over ten thousand years of ungoverned, no god, random history are the “the world religions are built on PREVIOUS religions”?....Buddhism out of a Hindu context…Christianity out of Judaism…Islam claiming lineage to the two prior?

And while all this is going on it is impossible for any of the 500 previously listed religions to get up, run the course, gain a following and survive? The absence of communication technology and geographical isolation should have >facilitated< the emergence and survival of other religions.

“I don't much about Baha'i, but if I was to hazard a guess, I'd say it was based on prior traditions as well”.

I can’t tell if it is “based on prior traditions” (i.e. the founder deliberately drew on preceding religions) but it is, as far as I know, the first to enunciate the proposition that all the “prior traditions” reflect ‘One Faith’- Progressive Revelation. (There are now some 30+ cults/sects/religious movements who have taken up/pinched this idea and run with it).

If the founder of Baha’i was deliberately drawing and basing on prior traditions he made things pretty difficult for himself by claiming to be the ‘return’ expected of each one…the 5th Buddha, the Christian second coming and the Islamic Mahdi (?)…………If it is a conscious/chosen ploy rather than revelation >THAT’S< looking for trouble… and he got it ;-)

“For example, in the case of Islam, it was likely not until the Arabs saw how successful Christianity had become, that they decided to craft a similar monotheistic religion around some of its tenets, acknowledging Jesus, while introducing their own prophet.”

Let me get this straight…an unknown group/number of Arabs (“they”) “saw how successful Christianity had become, that they decided to craft a similar monotheistic religion”….and ‘they’ put up this scam completely oblivious or simply not caring that it would be so offensive to the ruling faction (and their gods) that they would have to spend decades running and hiding in the wilderness on the off chance they might survive and be successful?
I don’t know much about horse racing either…but if I was sitting in a tent in Arabia in 600ad and someone proposed we “craft a religion like Christianity” ….that’s as good as an invitation to cut your own throat and flog a dead horse with your jugular vein.

“I'd suggest that that's why you see so many more new ideas in rapid succession in modern times, whereas new ideas took a LONG time to spread and take hold in the pre-Renaissance days.”

It’s a fair hypothesis but I don’t think it holds up. Great and influential artists and architects popped up singular, in pairs and clusters, throughout that pre-Renaissance period. They drew on prior achievements and they built new forms and movements still alive and influential (running) today.

Likewise Philosophy and Philosophers.
If the timeline for Philosophers ran with similar isolated blips through history I would be equally suspicious.
If they turned up-
Cicero….Plato…Aristotle…Socrates…Averroes… Hobbes…Descartes…Locke…Spinoza… Rousseau…and never two or more together in time……?!

No, the absence communication technology and slow building on previous achievements doesn’t explain it for me.

But I appreciate the effort and enjoy the exchange.

[LAGC]

72. I think you summed it up quite well when you said...

In my estimation (and I’m open to alternatives) someone claiming to hear the voice of god raises 2-3 possibilities-

1/ Mentally ill/unstable with messianic delusions.
2/ Con artist, doesn’t believe it for a second but is out to scam others.
2b/ Con artist, does believe it, has scammed himself and is scamming others (otherwise sane).
3/ Possibly is receiving revelation from god.

I'd say possibility 1 is very likely, possibility 2 slightly less likely, possibility 2b a little less likely than that, and possibility 3 the least likely of all. We've only come to grasp the power of delusion that schizophrenia can have on an individual mind in the past 100 years or so. I think its very plausible that some of the great emissaries of religion (Moses, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc.) really were schizophrenic and really did experience what seemed to them to be a revelation from God at the time. Its entirely possible that they were hearing voices in their head which they interpreted to be the "voice of God" which they used as a basis of their religious proclamations. But I wouldn't put it past any of them to have scammed others either, especially if people weren't buying their initial bullshit.

And while all this is going on it is impossible for any of the 500 previously listed religions to get up, run the course, gain a following and survive? The absence of communication technology and geographical isolation should have >facilitated< the emergence and survival of other religions.

Well, does it really surprise you that only the monotheistic religions thrived? I mean, you have all these isolated cultures each with their own plethora of gods and goddesses, many of whom probably were only communicated by word of mouth, or if they were written down were destroyed by later monotheistic tribes wanting to censor records of prior pagan beliefs. But surely you can see from a logistical stand-point the advantages of having one omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, instead of a bunch of demi-gods and minor gods that only ruled over certain aspects of life? It's just a lot more believable that there is one all-powerful God that can do everything, than a bunch of lesser gods that can only perform a few functions. It makes that religion that much more powerful.

[skepticscott]

73. I would add a couple of other possibilities

4. Victim of a con artist who had induced self-delusion
5. Pressured by the religious subculture to which they belong to believe that some of what is going on in their own head is coming from god.

[ironbark]

75. On being "crafty".

“. We've only come to grasp the power of delusion that schizophrenia can have on an individual mind in the past 100 years or so”

No, people have recognised illness/madness/delusion throughout recorded history. Sure we have a better idea of what is going on and why someone is ill…but that doesn’t make people in 600AD stupid or incapable of recognising when family/community member is delusional (even if they put it down to Posession).

“I think its very plausible that some of the great emissaries of religion (Moses, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc.) really were schizophrenic and really did experience what seemed to them to be a revelation from God at the time.


I am generally dismissive of argument founded on personal experience but it was having spent ten years working with adolescent schizophrenics that sparked my interest in religion and community.
While the individual suffering bouts of psychosis may be completely convinced they are hearing god I would strongly suggest that the chances of friends, family or even other ill individuals >believing and following them< is next to zero. People, even the most uneducated, recognise such illness and are averse to it/repelled from it. (A charismatic sociopath is a different matter).

In your prior post some unknown/unumbered “Arabs saw how successful Christianity had become, that they decided to craft a similar monotheistic religion around some of its tenets”….am I now to assume that having concocted the scam they picked a schizophrenic goatherd as a front man? ;-)

My problem with such speculations (scam/mental illness) is that in the case of Mohammed it is 1/ pure speculation 2/ does not accord with the historical record or the ‘revelation’ revealed.

“ Muhammad recommended that the faithful learn the Qur'an by heart. They did this for a part if not all of the text recited during prayers. Thus there were Hafizun who knew the whole of the Qur'an by heart and spread it abroad. The method of doubly preserving the text both in writing and by memorization proved to be extremely precious.” The Bible, The Qur'an and Science

There were some 300 Hafizun alive at the time of Mohamed, all capable of reciting it in its entirety.
Mentally ill people/schizophrenics cannot reveal/recite verse of such quality, clarity and volume…maintain its internal consistency…have the entire thing recited back by the Hafizun and correct errors in their recitation.
These are not the hallmarks of mental illness. Nor could the Quran itself be considered the product of mental illness.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm


“…does it really surprise you that only the monotheistic religions thrived? I mean, you have all these isolated cultures each with their own plethora of gods and goddesses,…”

Sure it surprises me and makes me suspicious/curious…but “that only the monotheistic religions thrived” is the lesser portion of the question.
If these monotheistic religions arose (as you suggest) from mental illness in combination with deliberate building/borrowing scam >why< is this strictly confined to isolated incidents in time within a narrow geography? In ten thousand years you never get >two< delusional individuals sparking a living religion? Why the hell not? In all that time across all the great continents…>nobody else< heard voces and managed to convince others it was god? Couldn’t even get a start up monotheist religion in Europe, Asia, the Americas that ran for a few hundred- thousand years then hit a hurdle/died?
There is no trace of such.
The “isolated cultures each with their own plethora of gods and goddesses” are prime breading ground for any new arising religion {polytheistic or monotheistic}…no dominant monotheism to suppress the newcomer…and certainly (just like today) no shortage of wannabies, scammers and Gurus hearing voices.

“But surely you can see from a logistical stand-point the advantages of having one omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, instead of a bunch of demi-gods and minor gods that only ruled over certain aspects of life?”

Sure, an obvious logistical/tactical advantage. So why, from the time this monotheistic concept reached Europe (2nd, 3rd ? centaury) has >no one< been able to replicate it? It is certainly not for lack of delusional people, scammers or trying…there has always been a plethora of cults and religious movements. Why can’t any of them get up and run any significant distance?
If the Arabs “decided to craft a similar monotheistic religion around some of its tenets” but no one in Europe, Asia or the Americas could do likewise? In all these thousands of years no one outside of Arabia has had the motive, means, intelligence and schizophrenic front man to “craft a similar monotheistic religion” that would last even a couple of hundred years?
Those “crafting” Arabs must be dammed crafty….or have vastly superior schizophrenics ;-)

“It's just a lot more believable that there is one all-powerful God that can do everything,…”

Sure, I have no argument against people finding that more believable ….. I just find it unbelievable that in ten thousand years you don’t get two monotheistic religions starting up in the same time frame….or even close. When intelligent, crafty, scamming humans get their hands on the “more believable” monotheism there ought be dozens to hundreds of examples of simultaneous start up attempts at “crafting” a new religion. That there are no such examples is well and truly against the odds.

[skepticscott]

76. So what exactly is your argument?

That because you had three major monotheistic religions starting up over a 1500 year time span in a limited geographic area that this is evidence that the god who is the object of those religions actually exists? And that he is preventing other, competing religions from arising?

Sometimes clusters happen. Consider the cluster of master luthiers (Amati, Guarneri, Stradivari) in one Italian city, never duplicated before or since. Or the cluster of great symphonists (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner) in central Europe within a 150 year span. Both very much against the odds, but so what?

[ironbark]

79. See from #30 down for my question..

You have entered mid discussion and as a consequence missed and misrepresented what is being said.

“That because you had three major monotheistic religions starting up over a 1500 year time span in a limited geographic area that this is evidence that the god who is the object of those religions actually exists? And that he is preventing other, competing religions from arising?”

No, that does not paraphrase or reflect what has been established over 3-4 posts…nor does your conclusion reflect anything I have claimed.

“Sometimes clusters happen. Consider the cluster of master luthiers (Amati, Guarneri, Stradivari) in one Italian city, never duplicated before or since. Or the cluster of great symphonists (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner) in central Europe within a 150 year span. Both very much against the odds, but so what?”

What you are presenting here- “clusters happen” goes to the core of my curiosity and suspicion and supports the question being discussed. Pairs and clusters of great/genius/ influential figures are to be found in >any field< of human endeavour….>that pairing and clustering is to be expected especially over protracted periods<
Joseph Haydn (March 31, 1732 – May 31, 1809)
Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart<1> (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791),
Ludwig van Beethoven ( 17 December 1770<1> – 26 March 1827)
Robert Schumann,<2> (8 June 1810 – 29 July 1856)
Johannes Brahms (7 May 1833 – 3 April 1897),
Gustav Mahler ( 7 July 1860 – 18 May 1911)
Anton Bruckner (4 September 1824 – 11 October 1896)

Your list is of great/influential musicians, though they are dead their music lives and influences others, their music is alive because it has followers/fans who keep it alive.
There are thousands and thousand of dead, forgotten, non influential musicians from the same time frame.

As would be/should be expected from an ungoverned/random throw of the dice great/influential musicians appear in history isolated, in pairs and in clusters in time.

How would we explain/rationalize it if your musical greats appeared in history like this and >only like this< -

Haydn 1500-1350 BCE…. Mozart 2000 BCE…. Beethoven 628-527 BCE… Schumann 563-483 BCE… Brahms 1-33 CE… Mahler 570-632 CE…. Bruckner 1817-1892 CE

???
Never as pairs, never as clusters, all spread out over ten thousand years and never two greats/giants in the same time frame, never within two hundred years of each other (See post 36 for transposition of names).

[skepticscott]

80. So you've asked a question

and have a "suspicion". Again, so what? If you don't think that what you've pointed out has any implications or causes that can be investigated further, of what use is it in understanding or explaining anything? Pointing out that something goes "against the odds" simply shows that it is like countless other things throughout history that have gone against the odds.

And btw, if you're going to be pretentious about names, Mozart's given name was Johannes.

[ironbark]

82. So you have nothing to contribute to the question. Not even accuracy.

Fascinating that you not only cut, ignore, omit the question you feel obliged to falsify my approach to it-
“If you don't think that what you've pointed out has any implications or causes that can be investigated further,…”

LAGC and I have been in the process of investigating it further (without animosity, rancour, misrepresentation or snark) for a dozen+ posts…and your intervention contributes nothing to the question other than those useless and unmissed elements.

Why bother?

“… of what use is it in understanding or explaining anything?”

Only the process of further investigation and consideration of implications will determine potential “use”, “understanding” or “explanation”.

As per usual you demonstrate no interest in the question, process, or investigation other than falsely projecting your doubt about the merit of investigation onto me.

So your minds made up and closed, good for you, it must be warm and cosy.

“Pointing out that something goes "against the odds" simply shows that it is like countless other things throughout history that have gone against the odds.”

What a stunning insight, understanding and explanation regarding the question at hand….do you think it might be distilled down to “Shit happens”?

“And btw, if you're going to be pretentious about names…”

??? “Pretentious about names”?....they are all cut’n’paste from Wiki to demonstrate the pair and cluster dates….I don’t give a fat rats arse about the names.

But if falsification and snark is all you’ve got…

[skepticscott]

84. Who's projecting now?

"So your minds made up and closed, good for you, it must be warm and cosy."

Please show me where I said that my mind was made up about anything. You've cited the fact that the appearance of the major surviving religions was spread out over time and not clustered as "highly suspicious" and "outside the realm of chance" (and hence not explainable by natural causes, according to you) , but you have yet to present any evidence for that other that your own incredulity. Your horse race analogy fails miserably. We have a sample set of thousands of steeplechase races to give us a reasonable idea what the chances are of only one horse finishing, or two, or three, or four, or any number we choose. For historical timelines of the appearance of major religions on Earth, you have a sample set of exactly one, making any assessment of the likelihood or probability of how things went in the extant case unsupportable in any objective sense, and utterly unconvincing.

“Pointing out that something goes "against the odds" simply shows that it is like countless other things throughout history that have gone against the odds.”

What a stunning insight, understanding and explanation regarding the question at hand….do you think it might be distilled down to “Shit happens”?

No less stunning than some of yours, so I wouldn't cast stones. And yes, sometimes things happen which may appear non-random, but which simply aren't. It's a simple concept.

[ironbark]

85. You……..still…..again….as usual..

You cannot even begin to attempt to communicate without projecting false pov.

Here is your first (now abandoned) false projection-
“If you don't think that what you've pointed out has any implications or causes that can be investigated further, of what use is it in understanding or explaining anything?”

And here is your new follow up false projection-
“…and hence not explainable by natural causes, according to you”

You don't need me to continue arguing with your own pov.

Me
"So your minds made up and closed, good for you, it must be warm and cosy."

“Please show me where I said that my mind was made up about anything”

Did I present it as a quote? Did I suggest it was something you had said? Did I infer you had said it?

Obviously not.

Taken with your ongoing false projection, snark, inability to add anything to the discussion and confused state over who said what and why…..
I don’t need you to say your minds made up and closed…..that is perfectly apparent.

Now if you'll excuse me...I'll continue discussing the question with some one who is not compelled to falsify what has been said at every turn.

[skepticscott]

86. Complete and utter bullshit

You want dishonesty?

And here is your new follow up false projection-
“…and hence not explainable by natural causes, according to you”

You don't need me to continue arguing with your own pov.

Here's YOUR quote and YOUR pov:

I am not convinced that is true. There are a number of historical events that strike me (and many others) as outside the realms of chance- statistical aberrations and anomalies in the course of history…things not “explainable by some natural force”. These events may be deemed mere coincidence by some…but for others they constitute sufficient evidence to prompt curiosity and further investigation.

When asked "what 'number of historical events' strike you (and many others) as outside the realms of chance?" YOU (not me) offered up the following as your example (after trying to establish a level of unlikelihood that would suffice to make an event "increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation"):

Why not?
There have been thousands of cults/religions starting in the same time frame as others…or starting in the context of existing/dominant faiths…..how come the contenders all fall at the hurdles and the horses that run on >never< started at the same time?
Why do we never see >two< major living religions starting up in the same time frame?

2/ Geography. It a big planet but if you open an atlas you can almost cover the geographical origins of the worlds major living religions with your thumb. No major living faith out of Africa…Europe…The Americas….why not? I understand colonialism and imperialism and the colonial and imperialist imposition of religion….but ten thousand+ years is a long time in which whole continents have the opportunity to breed a new major living faith…..but they haven’t and don’t. Why not? Why do all these major religion horses come from the same geographical area?
(The only exceptions are the indigenous bedrock and contemporary {too early to tell} religious/cult movements that may or may not leap the hurdles to survive. eg Scientology)

I’m not putting it forward as ‘proof’ or ‘conclusive evidence’…but the separation in time (as sole winning horses or stepping stones set at intervals through history) of the major living faiths strikes me as “..increasingly highly suspicious and warranting further investigation”.

by your own words, qualifying it as one of the 'historical events that strike me (and many others) as outside the realms of chance- statistical aberrations and anomalies in the course of history…things not “explainable by some natural force”'

And yes, since you are apparently either incapable of comprehending your own argument, or of presenting it honestly when your claims are challenged, we are done here. But I'm sure you'll let us all know when you discover the non-natural force that explains your personal conundrum.

[ironbark]

88. Your advertising at least matches your content.

“You want dishonesty?”

No, but your going to continue to give it to us anyway.
Here’s you presenting “not explainable by natural causes” as “according to” me.

#84
"highly suspicious" and "outside the realm of chance" (and hence not explainable by natural causes, according to you)

As if you are quoting and/or directly representing my stated pov.

Turns out (after being obliged to search for the uncited quote) that “explainable by some natural force” was LAGC’s line and I was quoting and responding to it.
(That’s what quotation marks are for and designate…try using them the next time you set out to falsify anothers pov)

I responded to LAGC-
“aberrations and anomalies in the course of history…things not “explainable by some natural force”. These events may be deemed mere coincidence by some…but for others they constitute sufficient evidence to prompt curiosity and further investigation.”

So we have skepticscott , dishonestly attributing to Ironbark what was said by LAGC.
You want honesty?
I should have seen it coming, I should have changed and elaborated and defined what LAGC said until it crossed every ‘t’ and dotted every ‘i’ and precisely reflected my pov as a three page legal document beginning- “Not as yet explained by some natural force” incorporating definitions of “natural force” and elaborations on the concept being “explained”.

I didn’t bother because I was talking to someone not obsessed with puerile pedantic semantic snark and the clear and persistent objectives of falsification, disingenuous extrapolation and painfully boring obfuscation of the question/issue under discussion.

“prompting curiosity and further investigation” was the stated and achieved objective, seeking explanation …not shutting down and locking off in some closed minded legalese certainty that explanation should not be sought or could not be investigated.

[LAGC]

81. Re; schizophrenia.

While the individual suffering bouts of psychosis may be completely convinced they are hearing god I would strongly suggest that the chances of friends, family or even other ill individuals >believing and following them< is next to zero. People, even the most uneducated, recognise such illness and are averse to it/repelled from it. (A charismatic sociopath is a different matter).

Well, that's easy for us to say now in our more skeptical modern society, but 2000 years ago if someone says they heard the voice of God and the voices had a few coherent ideas (the Ten Commandments, for example) that seemed to make sense, surely they could get a few people to believe in them and follow them. If these followers were charismatic, certainly its not out of the realm of possibility that they could spread the word to many others, and a religion is born.

In your prior post some unknown/unumbered “Arabs saw how successful Christianity had become, that they decided to craft a similar monotheistic religion around some of its tenets”….am I now to assume that having concocted the scam they picked a schizophrenic goatherd as a front man? ;-)

Again, they didn't know what schizophrenia was back then. If someone was rambling that they heard the voice of God, and had a few coherent ideas to support their accusation, certainly its not implausible that those ramblings would be assimilated into the new religion, with the subject as "prophet." They needed SOMEONE to be a prophet, with an ear to God, after all...

There were some 300 Hafizun alive at the time of Mohamed, all capable of reciting it in its entirety.
Mentally ill people/schizophrenics cannot reveal/recite verse of such quality, clarity and volume…maintain its internal consistency…have the entire thing recited back by the Hafizun and correct errors in their recitation.
These are not the hallmarks of mental illness. Nor could the Quran itself be considered the product of mental illness.

There are varying intensities of schizophrenia. Many schizophrenics are high-functioning and can still operate in society, even without anti-psychotic medications. I think you might be surprised at what some of them can do.

In ten thousand years you never get >two< delusional individuals sparking a living religion? Why the hell not? In all that time across all the great continents…>nobody else< heard voces and managed to convince others it was god? Couldn’t even get a start up monotheist religion in Europe, Asia, the Americas that ran for a few hundred- thousand years then hit a hurdle/died?

For all we know, there were others, but the dominant religions destroyed all historical records of such cults before they could get off the ground. Keep in mind that during most of the Middle Ages, about the only people who could read were the clergy. They figured no one else really needed to be taught, that all revelation should be interpreted by the "experts", that the common folk had no reason to learn to read and write. This made it very hard for new ideas to take root, as the Church controlled the only libraries of historical record! Indeed, it wasn't until one of the clergy himself (Martin Luther) rebelled against the Church, that a new sect (Protestantism) was finally born.

And sometimes societies just aren't ready for new ideas and philosophies. Entrenched superstitions (take the beliefs of the natives of the Americas before Catholicism was introduced to the continent by the Spanish conquistadors) that don't tolerate rival theories of the divine, where blood sacrifice "worked" for many generations, there just wasn't the hospitable environment (fertile ground) necessary for new ideas to take root. The Middle East was just ready for those new ideas at the time. The reason Judaism was so successful is that it foretold of a coming messiah, a god on Earth. That allowed successive religions to build on that and fulfill the prophecy and provide the messiah! Is it really that surprising that they all happened in the same geographical vicinity?

As for why monotheism never sprang up simultaneously in the Americas or in Asia, you might as well ask why the Renaissance and Enlightenment happened in the west, with the blossoming development of inquiry and science, and why the east dragged behind. Some cultures are just ready for new ideas, while others are happy with the old. We see it today in so many regions of the world where societies are steeped in tradition, that they are closed to outside ideas or even new internal ones.

So I fail to see the frequency of religious advent to be anything other than mere coincidence, based on sociological factors on the ground at the time.

[ironbark]

83. Anthropological Psychiatry and "providing the messiah"

We get a good insight into how the ancients responded to mental illness by studying agrarian and indigenous communities and cultures. The benign eccentric, the wacky, the loopy…the ones ‘Touched by the Great Spirit’, the ‘Contraire’- Those who wear winter clothes in summer and ride their horses backwards…can all find themselves accepted and even honoured within the tribe/community. So can those who see visions and hear voices in the controlled context of ritual trance/drug taking.

But individuals suffering full blown psychosis? No, when the tribe is discussing food gathering and your screaming about the voices in your head it doesn’t attract a following. Not among Australian aboriginals, Native Americans, New Guinea highlanders……and doubtless not in first century Judea.

“Again, they didn't know what schizophrenia was back then”

They didn’t have to know what it was…they only had to be aware of the volatile and unpredictable (sometimes dangerous) symptoms to know the individual was ‘not right’ and should not be followed into a hut let alone followed into the future. Even by the early stages of Islam Hospice’s had been established for the mentally ill…these were not ‘Bedlams’…in many respects they surpassed contemporary psych institutions. The ancients weren’t so stupid that they could not identify the profoundly unwell. (Google ‘Sinan’, Architect who built the Hospice in Istanbul)

“…certainly its not implausible that those ramblings would be assimilated into the new religion,…”

Not implausible at all. We have Scientology and Urantia and a host of others in the modern era to confirm the plausibility of any nutty notion getting a start up.
What we >don’t have< is any indication that such product can survive…or that the surviving monotheist religions >are< such product.

“For all we know, there were others, but the dominant religions destroyed all historical records of such cults before they could get off the ground.”

At their inception they (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are not the “dominant religions”…they are the rank outsiders with no chance of surviving against the State sponsored favourite. Recorded history has many gaps…but not so many in a ten thousand year history that every single early runner with Judaism, Christianity, Islam would be obliterated from the record.

“This made it very hard for new ideas to take root, as the Church controlled the only libraries of historical record!”

True, during the control imposed by the Christian church in the Middle Ages any emerging idea would be stomped on. But prior to that was the whole chaotic fertile period of the Dark Ages in which anyone could start up a new faith, the Germanic tribes, the Romans themselves. If it is as easy/simple as you describe the Arabs “crafting” a new religion…it never occurred to anyone else? Even when the opportunity, motive and need existed….in thousands of years….just the Jews and the Arabs had madmen to “craft”?

“The reason Judaism was so successful is that it foretold of a coming messiah, a god on Earth. That allowed successive religions to build on that and fulfill the prophecy and provide the messiah!”

That’s a feasible scenario. Do you want to put it to the test or are you bored and want a rest? ;-)
I’m offering to examine a couple of historically recent attempts at “crafting” a religion and attempting to “fulfill the prophecy and provide the messiah”. Here’s the trailer-

In the late 1800’s the Theosophist had been diligently burrowing into the worlds religious traditions under their motto/creed- “There is no religion higher than truth”. I’m going to dare propose that a large portion of their interest was Spiritualism, Ectoplasm, Astral Projection and all the shite that became the very beginning/foundation of the ‘New Age’ movement. (Yes, they have a lot to answer for ;-). Along the way some serious souls did some serious comparative religion research.
Long story short….They found that >all< the worlds major living faiths have prophecy regarding the ‘return’ of founder and/or messiah. (Perhaps this is a central/vital selling point for a successful religion?)
So what do you do with this knowledge that all the great faiths expect a ‘return/second coming/ messiah?
Just what you propose “fulfill the prophecy and provide the messiah”!

The Theosophist leaders (George Leadbeater and Annie Bessant) went through a convoluted process of (disembodied) meetings on the 7th level of the freaking Astral Plain with Lord Shiva Howsyaundies
to select the Great World Teacher. (It’s fascinating/funny reading and they had either conned themselves into believing it all or were putting together a ripping yarn for posterity).
In the end they selected a 12yo Indian boy called Jiddu Krishnamurti and raised him to lead The Order of The Star….the religious movement to usher in The New Age.

With a clear plan/objective, vast material resources, the prior faiths to build and craft on, a centrefigure/messia (admittedly not a Schizophrenic ;-) and a following in the tens of thousands… everything was going great.

Until Jiddu reached 21, stood before a vast congregation of ‘The Order’ and announced “I’m not the one”.

All over.
Another dead horse religion…”hewn down and thrown on the fire”.

That leaves-
The comparative religion research that found that >all< the worlds major living faiths have prophecy regarding the ‘return’ of founder and/or messiah.

And the “fulfill the prophecy and provide the messiah” effort that preceded the Theosophists failed effort.

[Goblinmonger]

26. How would you distinguish the difference

between the evidence for god, aliens, Santa and unicorns? Seems to me that there is equally no proof for them all. I know that makes a lot of believers angry, but how are they different? Not trying to be snarky, just wondering what you think the difference is given that you want to base your decision on evidence, logic and calculation of probability. (FWIW, I, personally, would probably take aliens out of the mix based on the probability standard though not the aliens of sci-fi but aliens of the "life form on an other planet" option.)

[ironbark]

31. First by establishing (even broadly) an understanding of probability.

You leap from a question regarding distinguishing evidence {and presuming there is none} to conclude “no proof for them all”.

To say that there is “no proof’ is not to concede that there is “no evidence”…to presume ‘no evidence’ and conclude ‘no proof’ is premature presumption.

“ how are they different”

There is no evidence that I am aware of for any historical interplay between “aliens, Santa and unicorns” and humanity (Von Daniken not withstanding scrutiny).
There is however evidence of historical anomalies (in relation to religion) that fall outside the realms of mere chance that merit investigation.
See #23 this thread if you are willing/interested in establishing agreed parameters of ‘probability’.

“…would probably take aliens out of the mix based on the probability standard…”

If by that you mean that in a universe this big the probability of alien life is high…then I agree. But if it comes to evidence of interaction/encounter between aliens/humanity I have not seen anything I would rate as beyond a ‘curiosity’.
Of all such curiosities the Dogon’s knowledge of Sirius B is the most curious…but not compelling.
Critique-
http://www.skepdic.com/dogon.html
Further links-
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/dogon.htm

[Goblinmonger]

39. I don't even know what you are talking about in the first part.

I am saying that there is no evidence or proof of any of those things that you list. I am not talking about proof linking them together. Why is there more proof of a god than of Santa?

And, yes, I am talking about the probability that in a universe this large, there is a good probability of some life on some other planet (not saying that they are advanced enough to have intergalaxy travel and anally probe us whilst we sleep).

[ironbark]

48. Yes, I can see that. And your inability to distinguish between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’

(among other things) renders further dialogue problematic.

“(not saying that they are advanced enough to have intergalaxy travel and anally probe us whilst we sleep).”

But living in hope?
;-)

[Goblinmonger]

51. Way to ignore the point and toss in a homophobic comment to boot

Congrats.

Please, do provide definitions of proof and evidence that illuminates the difference. I'll go with whichever word you wish.

How is there a different level of proof or evidence for god than there is for Santa or unicorns or aliens?

[ironbark]

57. Distinguishing between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’.

When you state an opinion “X is crap music” your opinion requires no evidence or proof.
When you make an allegation regarding some one having portrayed a group of people as ‘evil’ or an allegation of ‘homophobia’ your opinion has now entered the realm of attack and slander of another’s character. (This has been explained to you before to no avail).
Such allegations (as a matter of common decency/natural justice) require >evidence< (cite, quote, substantiation, justification...that which you call "a game") that (if supporting the allegation) would constitute >proof<.

Case in point- Your allegation that I have made “a homophobic comment”.

You-
“(not saying that they are advanced enough to have intergalaxy travel and anally probe us whilst we sleep).”

Me-
“But living in hope?
;-)”

For that exchange to even begin to constitute ‘homophobia” would require that you can show that I know your gender and the gender of your “intergalaxy” travelling anal probing aliens.

At best a joke.
At worst a bad taste question.
'Homophobia'?....Not by any stretch of the imagination (even yours most fertile).

As with all your prior allegations-No evidence, no proof, no case, no credibility.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Perhaps you missed the part

where I asked for some definitions of the words. Because when I look them up, the definition of evidence uses the word proof and the definition of proof uses the word evidence. Got anything that will clear up that little conundrum before you continue to act like those are two completely different things.

Valid points on the anal probing.

[ironbark]

67. Perhaps you missed the part where I asked you for evidence

that “I’ve ever said or suggested anything like- “…atheists are evil and trying to take over the world”

And you treated that request with ongoing contempt and continue, to this day, to pretend I expect/demand to see those exact words.

You asked “for some definitions of the words” evidence and proof?
Get a grip on common usage and stop being a pedant.

Evidence- That which police/authorities gather >prior< to a charge and examined prior to a charge being considered proven. Innocence is assumed unless and until the charge is proven on the evidence.

Evidence- That which science seeks in support of a hypothesis. The hypothesis is not considered proven until the evidence is conclusive.

As flexible civilised human beings we don’t exchange information by rigid dictionary definitions nor do we make allegations devoid of any evidence and consider our opinion to be sufficient proof.

But you carry on with your alternative “game” of guilt without evidence.

“Got anything that will clear up that little conundrum before you continue to act like those are two completely different things.”

Yup…I’ve got me waiting for you to explain how a case Legal, Scientific or interpersonal (ours/here and now) can be ‘proven’ without the prior provision and examination of the ‘evidence’.

One, of necessity, preceeds the other, only when the evidence is in/examined can the proof be concluded. The proof is the evidence examined and found to be true.

“Valid points on the anal probing”.

I have no information or evidence on what the occupants of the planet Valid might do to put a points on a probe…..but in this instance I will take your word for it.

[Goblinmonger]

87. But what's the definition of proof.

I know you have either forgot or are trying to use a red herring, but this started upthread a bit with you deriding me for not being able to differentiate between evidence and proof. Something which you have been unable to do. So I ask again, please tell me the difference.

[ironbark]

89. Substantial substantiated and incontrovertible examined evidence.

“So I ask again, please tell me the difference.”

Again?
(How old are you Goblinmonger? I have 12yo students who don’t need the distinction between evidence and proof explained to them….and certainly not three times).


The evidence is that which precedes and (if on examination is found to be substantiated) constitutes the body of the proof.

As the embryo precedes the adult and the seed precedes the tree so too the evidence precedes the proof…in each instance the latter contains and is drawn from the former…they are in some respects the same thing…and yet obviously distinctly different.

Evidence may prove to be true/proven or false/misleading…a false determination may be made on true or false evidence but I doubt you can have a ‘false proof’ any more than you can have a ‘false truth’.(You may wrestle with that quandary…I’m not interested).

You might need to consider the evidence to be akin to the ingredients that make up the cake (proof). No ingredients, no cake. No evidence, no proof.
Are the ingredients the cake? No, not untill baked.
Is the evidence the proof? No, not untill examined/tested/proven.

This is no more than a re statement/elaboration of what has already been said-
“One, of necessity, precedes the other, only when the evidence is in/examined can the proof be concluded. The proof is the evidence examined and found to be true.”

Any dictionary will give you much the same thing- “Proof- evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.”


If you cannot comprehend the distinction I cannot help you any further.

[Goblinmonger]

92. So, going back to what you said earlier:

"Those who project the certainty that god, aliens, Santa and unicorns are all on par as non existent are, in my view, not giving the evidence/probability full or fair consideration."

What, in your opinion, is the difference between the evidence for "god" and for "Santa" (of you can pick "unicorns" if you wish)? I don't believe there is any substantial difference between the evidence for either. Both are based on mythology. More people may firmly believe that there is a god, but that is not evidence.

[PanoramaIsland]

44. Exactly. Agnosticism and atheism are compatible, and best swallowed together.

[ironbark]

60. Eat your peas with your mashed potatoes they’re completely compatible?

Do I >have to< ?

If I’m over 18 and I’ve decided I don’t wish to consume/take in one or the other am I obliged to eat both?

Is it about what is definitionaly/nutritionally good for me…so shut up and consume both….or does one get to choose an independent self identification?

When given the self identification choice-

Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition

2001>..........................................................2008>
Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%)................... 34,169,000 (15%)

Religious 167,254,000 (80%)........................ 182,198,000 (80%)

Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%).......................... 1,985,000 (0.9%)

Atheists 902,000 (0.4%)....................... .... 1,621,000 (0.7%)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/ar...
…………………………………………………

Is there a definitional/nutritional obligation to choose otherwise?

[PanoramaIsland]

65. The agnostic-atheist split in that survey is a false one; I'm both. Which do I pick? n/t

[ironbark]

66. Not a false split at all. Reflective of peoples self identification.

As supported by-
# "A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds
# that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's
# population, and atheists about 2.3%."
# - "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas,
# Mid-2005". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005.
# http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620 .
#
# " * 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism,
# disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly
# antireligious (opposed to all religion).
#
# * 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion,
# nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested,
# or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion
# but not militantly so."

When people are given the self identification option that's the way it splits and statistically breaks down.

"I'm both. Which do I pick?"

Tick both or fill in the box that says 'Other'.

[PanoramaIsland]

71. "Agnostic" and "atheist" are not just identities, they are technical identifiers.

I am an "agnostic," insofar as I do not claim to know answers for enormous cosmic questions regarding which I possess no evidence. I am "atheist" insofar as I believe that "God(s) exists" is an affirmative proposition, and requires so evidence; therefore, I refrain from believing in god(s). Thus, I am an agnostic atheist - I am atheist -because- I am agnostic.

I see having to choose between identifying as "agnostic" and "atheist" as being like having to choose between identifying as "gay" and as "black." Plenty of people are both gay -and- black; just because they're both considered minority groups does not mean they're mutually exclusive.

[skepticscott]

74. Too much overlap, redundancy and lack of specificity

in those identifiers for that to be a really useful poll. For example:

What specifically does "skepticism" mean with regard to religion? Some persons "professing skepticism" may regard themselves as agnostic, not atheist.

"Militantly antireligious" is more a descriptor of anti-theism (a different thing than atheism). And what exactly does "opposed to all religion" mean? That someone is advocating that all religion be banned? Or just opposed to it for themselves? Or thinking it should be allowed to exist, but that we'd just be better off without it?

Persons "professing no religion" may in fact be believers of some sort. Their religion may be a personal matter and not part of any organized sect.

"Nonbelievers" could just as easily be classified as atheists, and "freethinkers" may also be atheists.

And how someone could be "militantly" indifferent to all religion (or to anything, for that matter) is a mystery. Indifferent means that you just don't give a shit one way or the other. Hard to be "militant" about anything you don't care about in the first place.

[ironbark]

77. The ‘American Religious Identification Survey’ and ‘Encyclopædia Britannica’ survey

give the same ‘self identification’ options and arrive at similar statistical result-

American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:

"Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition

2001>..........................................................2008>
Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%)................... 34,169,000 (15%)

Religious 167,254,000 (80%)........................ 182,198,000 (80%)

Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%).......................... 1,985,000 (0.9%)

Atheists 902,000 (0.4%)....................... .... 1,621,000 (0.7%)
------------------------

“lack of specificity in those identifiers for that to be a really useful poll”

Sure, you could break it down and specify until each and every individual proclivity was covered.
But the bottom line (from both surveys) is that the vast majority of those who identify as Nonreligious choose not to identify as atheists.

“What specifically does "skepticism" mean with regard to religion?”

Sceptical as to the merits of religion in general? Sceptical as to organised religion in particular?
It’s a survey/poll….you don’t get a dictionary definition of each term or an essay on what it means.
It seeks individuals broad identification and achieves and reveals same.


“…"Militantly antireligious" is more a descriptor of anti-theism (a different thing than atheism)...”

That is an opinion not supported by the evidence of this board and not reflected in (either) poll result.

“And what exactly does "opposed to all religion" mean?”

I would hazard a guess that it means the individual is “"opposed to all religion".
Such opposition would be revealed in expressions such as- “Fuck religion” and “No good ever came of religion” discussed and substantiated previously on the board.

“Persons "professing no religion" may in fact be believers of some sort. Their religion may be a personal matter and not part of any organized sect.”

In that case their self identification remains accurate "professing no religion".

Methinks thou protests too much.
Methinks the protestation arises from survey outcome rather than parameters/methodology.

[skepticscott]

78. If that were really my agenda

I would hardly haver argued that some people classified as atheists might more properly belong in the nonreligious category, or that some people classified as nonreligious might actually be religious believers, now would I? In the end, how people think and act matter more to the way the world operates than the labels they choose to apply yo themselves, especially since the labels do not have the same meaning to everyone, and also carry social connotations that some wish to avoid.

And perhaps you'd care to enlighten everyone as to how a lack of belief can be "militant". My point was that the people compiling the data for that polls didn't even understand that there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism (as apparently you don't either). The fact that many atheists (not all) also have an anti-theistic viewpoint does not make those two viewpoints the same, any more than the fact that many blonde people have blue eyes (and that blonde hair and blue eyes have a connected genetic basis) makes blonde hair and blue eyes the same.

If you think that "opposed to all religion" has a single and unambiguous meaning, you're dead wrong, as the examples I provided make clear. "Opposed" can mean any of a number of things in this context.

And if people identifying as "professing no religion" actually believe in a personal god and have a personal religion, but are classified as "non-religious", the question is whether that classification within the results of the poll is accurate, not (obviously) whether their self-identification is accurate.

[Zadoc]

90. The Poverty of Agnosticism

Dawkins has a great chapter in his book called "The Poverty of Agnosticism." I strongly encourage you to read it. No one can ever know one way for the other how life came to be, how the universe came to be, et cetera, (at least not in out lifetime). But there are varying degrees of non-belief. For example, if one believed that there was probably a god but wasn't sure, that would make him a de facto theist. If someone wasn't sure if there was a god, but believes that there probably isn't one, then they're a de facto atheist, as I suspect you are. True agnostics probably don't exists. That's a scenario where a person believes that god's existence and non-existence have equal probability.

[ironbark]

91. The wealth of Thomas Henry Huxley ;-)

“When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.”

[skepticscott]

4. Hogwash

The writer doesn't even grasp the fundamental distinction between atheism and anti-theism, so it's hard to take anything they say seriously. And no, we don't have "faith" that science will eventually explain everything about about how the universe came into being. We simply see no reason to invent unsupported supernatural explanations (which don't even solve the quandry he posed anyway) while we're investigating the possibilities.

If the author would stop to consider why he's not an agnostic about Santa Claus, then he might just begin to grasp why atheism is a perfectly rational position to take on God.

[Goblinmonger]

6. When the person can't even grasp that you can be an agnostic atheist

and instead makes this an atheist vs agnostic pissing match, it becomes pretty clear this person doesn't understand what they hell they are talking about and, instead, are probably mad at some mean ol' atheist for telling them just that.

Not surprised you would bring that in here.

[ironbark]

17. There is a huge distinction between what can be “grasped”

and what one wishes to take and hold as an identification.
Clearly the author does not wish to identify as an “agnostic atheist”…and why should he be obliged to do so?

“…makes this an atheist vs agnostic pissing match…”

By articulating the distinction between agnosticism and atheism/theism? By choosing the former instead of either of the latter?
Who has the right to deny the distinction or begrudge him the choice?

If such distinction and choice is a “pissing match” then it is no contest…the majority of those who chose a non religious pov choose agnosticism over atheism.

# "A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds
# that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's
# population, and atheists about 2.3%."
# - "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas,
# Mid-2005". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005.
# http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620 . Retrieved on 2007-04-15.
#
# " * 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism,
# disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly
# antireligious (opposed to all religion).
#
# * 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion,
# nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested,
# or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion
# but not militantly so."

Perhaps someone needs to speak to Marketing to find out why this is so?

“this person doesn't understand what they hell they are talking about”

Sure he does and states it clearly- “it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.”

So you and others don’t like it and want agnosticism as a subset of atheism…the author (and the clear majority of non religious) reject that identification.

“…probably mad at some mean ol' atheist….”

It is noted that baseless speculation about things unsaid and not in evidence has gone from “evil atheists” to “mean ol atheists”….that is a marginal improvement that may alleviate the concerns of Marketing…..but is not likely to impress the critical thinking punter.

“Not surprised you would bring that in here.”

Its nose was clean, its feet was wiped….it clearly articulated the distinction between agnosticism and theism/atheism and why the distinction was necessary…apart from the fact that you don’t like it…why shouldn’t it come in here?

[Goblinmonger]

19. I think that people identify

as agnostic because they think it is the "nicer" option and they know that atheists are the least respected minority in the US as per the U of Minn study.

To put agnostic and atheist as mutually exclusive shows a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of the words. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Nice strawman, but I don't want agnosticism as a subset of atheism. I want people to use the words based on what they mean. Gnostic is about knowledge and theism is about belief.

For future rants on your part, please don't quote me as saying that you were mad at some mean ol' atheist. I was talking about the author quoted in the OP.

I don't really care if it comes in here, just not surprised that it was you dun' brung it.

[ironbark]

21. Agnosticism is a “nicer option” than atheism?

Now now Goblinmonger…are you referring to cosmological perspective…or comparative behaviours? ;-)

Either way you could definitely be onto something.

“…they know that atheists are the least respected minority in the US…”

I can’t imagine why. The open minded curiosity, the warmth and generosity, the respect displayed to the integrity of the others pov, the deep critical thinking and the preparedness to respond to pertinent questions ought endear them to all.
Shouldn’t it? ;-)

“To put agnostic and atheist as mutually exclusive shows a complete lack of understanding….”

Speaking of integrity of pov….who said, suggested or put “agnostic and atheist as mutually exclusive” ???

“What is so hard for you to understand about that?”

It’s hard to understand because no one said or suggested “agnostic and atheist as mutually exclusive”…nor anything like it.
To distinguish one from the other and to identify as one rather than the other says >nothing< about being “mutually exclusive”.
What is so hard for you to understand about that?

“…. I don't want agnosticism as a subset of atheism”.

Then you have embraced an almost unique outlook among your peers ;-)
Congrats.

“I want people to use the words based on what they mean.”

A fair desire that needs to be tempered by the understanding that language is living, organic, evolutionary and sometimes revolutionary- in flux.
Significantly more people have come to identify as agnostic than as atheist…that can be blithely put down to “nicer option” or alternately viewed as a more accurate, truthfull and appropriate reflection of how they view the world and the god question.

I for one did not identify as an agnostic because it is a “nicer option”…that realization did not strike until I witnessed and experienced the manifest behaviours.

;-)

"I don't really care if it comes in here..."

Clearly you cared enough to raise it as an issue...folk who don't care generally don't bother complaining.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Obviously referring to the way society perceives it.

It you say you are an agnostic you will get a much different reaction than saying you are an atheist. And it has nothing to do with your little grudge with people on here. Based on discussions I have had with my fellow evil atheists, we rarely talk about our atheism in public much less engage people like we do on here.

Don't start your little exact quotation game with me, OK. Here is what you said:
"By articulating the distinction between agnosticism and atheism/theism? By choosing the former instead of either of the latter?
Who has the right to deny the distinction or begrudge him the choice?"

You didn't use the words "mutually exclusive" but you are clearly making it binary. "choosing the former instead of either of the latter?" That clearly means in your opinion that they are mutually exclusive.

Any chance you can show me where my "peers" have said that agnostic is a subset of atheism. Seems to me that every one that posts in here regularly understands what gnostic and theism mean. But please do enlighten. And whatever you give me best include the word "subset" unless you have agreed above to give up the quotation game.

[ironbark]

32. Obviously there are reasons for how/why something is perceived

The critical thinking tricky bit is to be able to provide evidence that backs the ‘reasons’ and affirms the ‘perception’.

“It {if?} you say you are an agnostic you will get a much different reaction than saying you are an atheist.”

That is just a re statement of your prior “people identify as agnostic because they think it is the "nicer" {socially acceptable} option”
It has been questioned and answered and you ignore both…perhaps contributing to why people might react differently?

“And it has nothing to do with your little grudge with people on here.”

As previously advised- The critical thinking tricky bit is to be able to provide evidence that backs the ‘reasons’ and affirms the ‘perception’.
You think in terms of “grudge” and vendetta, you imagine others/groups to be “evil”…you project your pov/beliefs onto me because you cannot conceptualise anyone operating from motives/principles other than your own.
I cannot curb or stop you from doing so…I can only continue to point out your assumptions/projections are baseless, without evidence….and all yours.

“Based on discussions I have had with my fellow evil atheists…”

Your designation. Past and present. All yours.

“…we rarely talk about our atheism in public much less engage people like we do on here.”

That sounds like a safe way to avoid the natural consequences of aberrant behaviour ;-)

“Don't start your little exact quotation game with me.”

You mean requesting substantiation so that a stated pov is not blatantly falsified?
Why would I bother? You have already clearly demonstrated that you think substantiation is a “game” and that falsification is your entitlement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x255244#255318

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x255244#255327

“You didn't use the words "mutually exclusive" but you are clearly making it binary. "choosing the former instead of either of the latter?" That clearly means in your opinion that they are mutually exclusive.”

An impeccably illogical extrapolation.
"choosing the former instead of either of the latter?" is >three choices< and that aint “binary”. Beyond that, having chosen, the options remain open and nothing is excluded.
But once more the issue gets bogged down and lost in semantic dead end in pursuit of something I didn’t say…but you projected.
What’s the point?

“Any chance you can show me where my "peers" have said that agnostic is a subset of atheism.”

Oh…..the substantiation “game”?....The one you refuse to play?
Sure, there are three threads with (at least) four individuals declaring that agnosticism must (by definition) be viewed as an aspect, subset and element of atheism…further, that if you are an agnostic you are automatically an atheist.
This has definitional grounds…but is broadly rejected when it comes to peoples self identification and the evolution in understanding of the terms.

You want links?....See the links above and have a think about it ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

38. You use the little winky emoticon like it changes what you say.

1. It is binary. Here is what you said before the "either of the latter" part in case you forgot: "articulating the distinction between agnosticism and atheism/theism" See the little slashy thing you put in there. That indicates that they are one. The distinction you want to make is between agnosticism and the group that you designate atheism/theism. There are only two options (in case you aren't following along, the options are 1. agnosticism and 2. atheism/theism). Hence, binary. QED.

2. So I imagine since you haven't given me a link that says agnosticism is a "subset" of atheism, it never happened. Apply your whole snarky bullshit stuff you said above to this point. Provide the link or admit you lied. You seem to like this method of argument so I will, once again, see if you can live up to your standards (my money is on that you will obfuscate like a mad man and not provide the evidence you so vehemently demand from others). The only disappointing part is how easy it is to catch you in your own tack.

3. You haven't addressed the U of Minn study as a reason why people see agnosticism as a better option to self-report and to not talk about your atheism in public. And I'm pissed about the "aberrant behaviour" comment even with the winky, but I resisted the urge to rant so as to not divert from your double standard.

[PanoramaIsland]

45. Yes, there are reasons; the reasons are not always justified. See popular perception of gays for ex.

[ironbark]

47. As was stated- "critical thinking tricky bit is to be able to provide evidence

that backs the ‘reasons’ and affirms the ‘perception’."

"popular perception" of >any group< or >any individual< just doesn't cut it.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Wow, you completely ignored my three points above.

Telling.

[ironbark]

58. Wow. Your expecting me to answer you in a post to someone else.

"Telling"

[Goblinmonger]

93. No, but the fact that you STILL haven't addressed those points

is very interesting.

[rrneck]

7. Interesting.

But when it's all said and done the fat kids and the nerds will still get picked last for the softball game.

[qb]

8. a-theism: without belief in deities.

The definition implies nothing about certainty or faith.
Further generalizations about atheists are pointless.

[ellenfl]

9. theists have never had to prove the existence of any gods, why

do i have to prove there are none? prove gods' existence and i will be happy to consider it. however, that does not mean i will accept her/their governance over me nor that i will join any organized worship of her/them.

ellen fl

[laconicsax]

11. I admit, I am a faith-based atheist.

I have faith that theists will never prove their deity. After all, the burden of proof is on the side saying, "god exists," not the side replying, "I don't believe you." Theists haven't even bothered to try for thousands of years, why should I expect them to suddenly work at it just because there are more vocal people who don't buy their bullshit?

Oh, wait...that isn't faith, since it's based on evidence.

Never mind, I guess I'm not a faith-based atheist.

[dimbear]

12. Uh uh.

I didn't escape from the toils and coils of religion just to voluntarily walk into another set of them.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. Hoo boy, that's a whole pile of strawmen

And Mr. Rosenbaum just lit the pile with a match. Ole' Ron needs to take a Freshman level critical-thinking class and get back to us.

[Realityhack]

28. +1

[vixengrl]

14. Please imput meaning of "god" to determine rational response--

Waiting....

Error: meaningful definition of God not found. Please adjust search parameters.

Searching.

Your search has delivered 0 references--continue?

>your search includes these related keywords: Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Baal, Satan, Marduk.......

Please narrow research parameters.

Your current search has 5 trillion responses. Perhaps you meant:

God is great

God is not great

God is creator of everything

god is enigma

god is love

god is dead

god is imaginary

Your search has been terminated: new search?

>your search for truth has 5 trillion responses. Perhaps you meant:


And so on. I think the problem with "God" is that it's a set of all sets--a concept that invites paradoxes like "creating an object too heavy for it to move" or "infinitely good yet permits evil" and so on--which makes it likely that it's just another irrational concept dreamed up by Primitive Humans, Inc, a subsidiary of Evolutionary Chain Enterprises. Instead of dealing with an inherently flawed postulate, why not concentrate on observation and try to derive a theory of existence, or whatever else you'd like to theorize about, from actual loci? Agnosticism is valid by acknowledging that theism rests on tautologies whereby the definition of "god" fits the observations--and fills in the "gaps" when observations change the conditions in which a "god" od some sort could exist.

Atheism just chucks out the concept of a thing that doesn't have a basis in observations under the assumption that any definition of a such an entity would be clearly premature, and as yet irrelevant to our speculations about any other thing we humanly deal with. As in: 'I can ascertain no relationship of your concept of "God" to the reality of my eventual metabolic decline and ultimate decay--therefore I represent a laporidae with a thin quickbread adorning its cranium!'

[Silent3]

15. "a laporidae with a thin quickbread adorning its cranium"

+1!

Yes, this is what I shall worship, the Being to which I shall devote my existence! Praise be the LwTQAIC!

[vixengrl]

29. An icon is made--

[ironbark]

34. That’s great guys, you’ve invented a new god…

What’s your next trick…..rabbit out of a hat?

[Silent3]

70. +1! n/t

[cleanhippie]

16. When I see the term "New Atheists", I know that there is agenda behind it.....

perhaps if lower case N and A's were used, I would be less skeptical.

[ironbark]

18. Does that include when the New Atheists identify as New Atheists? nt.

[cleanhippie]

40. Maybe.

Some people like having labels given to them and that is their business, but I can be skeptical when other try and pin a label on me.

[ironbark]

43. So, does an agnostic get to self identify as an agnostic?...

Or are they obliged to have the atheist label pinned on them?

[cleanhippie]

50. How do I know?

As I said above, I only know how I feel about it.

[ironbark]

59. It’s called- Putting yourself in another’s shoes.

You are “sceptical” of the “agenda” when others “try and pin a label” on you

The question/invitation is to consider the same label pinning when done to others-

“…does an agnostic get to self identify as an agnostic… Or are they obliged to have the atheist label pinned on them?”

So far there seems to be division among atheists on the question….Some going with strict dictionary definition and insisting that all agnostics are atheists and/or agnosticism is a sub set of atheism…and others are taking a more open/liberal view that permits self identification as agnostic that is independent from any “try and pin a label” atheism.

"I only know how I feel about it."

Do you think that others, in the same (being labelled) circumstance as you, might feel the same?

[davidinalameda]

25. wouldn't it be one sentence long

"we're not sure"

[Cleobulus]

35. Right from the start the article gets things wrong.

how are we supposed to take the rest of it seriously?

Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. This is correct. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer. OK, this is just wrong, not the first part, but the second, Atheism doesn't offer certainty, its disbelief for crying out loud! An agnostic claiming that they don't know if God exists or not donk't believe in that god either, do they? That makes them an atheist.

In addition this article shows an outright contempt of scientific pursuits and calls it faith! That's just stupid and offensive.

[ironbark]

37. Just to clarify

“An agnostic claiming that they don't know if God exists or not donk't believe in that god either, do they? That makes them an atheist.”

That, by definition, makes agnosticism a sub set of atheism?

ie. By definition- All agnostics are atheists….but not all atheists are agnostics?

That is a sub set, is it not?

[LAGC]

42. You bring up a good point.

Isn't "doubt" by definition "dis-belief?" (Belief meaning "certainty" that there IS something.) Therefore, is agnosticism NOT a subset of atheism if you use that definition?

[Goblinmonger]

52. We are all atheists to some extent.

Unless you can show me someone that believes in all gods that have been believed in throughout history.

That aside, I don't think this definition you are latching on to is representative of the majority of atheists here on DU. Though I do think you are twisting what they are saying--this person is talking about the attitudes of the person calling themself an agnostic is actually displaying characteristics of atheism; they are not making a definitional argument, IMHO.

[ironbark]

56. You have just made agnosticism a sub set of atheism

And you didn’t and don’t need to use the term ‘sub set’ to do so.

If it is true that-“We are all atheists to some extent.” then all agnostics are a sub set of atheism (and strangely “to some extent” are theists)….and once more we’re in the Twilight Zone.

“That aside, I don't think this definition you are latching on to is representative of the majority of atheists here on DU”

Ah huh. And what “definition” have I “latched on to”?....The agnosticism as ‘sub set’ of atheism definition that you have just affirmed?


“Though I do think you are twisting what they are saying”

How on earth is asking three pertinent questions that seek clarification of anothers pov “twisting what they are saying”?

[Goblinmonger]

64. I have said nor implied no such thing.

My comment that we are all atheists to some extent indicates that nobody believes in all gods.

I, as well as all the other regulars in this forum, have been consistent that atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. As well, you can be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist. That DOES NOT indicate it is a subset but that it deals with completely different things. To say that one is an agnostic which means they are not an atheist misses the point of what the two words mean. AGAIN, not a subset but a distinction about something different.

[ironbark]

69. You are five posts down from the declaration-

“An agnostic claiming that they don't know if God exists or not don't believe in that god either, do they? That makes them an atheist.”

Pretty dam clear and unambiguous "don't believe in that god either...That makes them an atheist"

And following on from four years here of identical- all agnostics are atheists povs.

And your still trying to claim “all the other regulars in this forum, have been consistent that atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge.”
Bollocks.
The evidence refutes your assertion.Your assertion is disproven by the evidence.



From Rosenbaum’s Manifesto-
“In fact, the term agnostic was coined in 1869 by one of Darwin's most fervent followers, Thomas Henry Huxley, famously known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his defense of evolutionary theory. Here's how he defined his agnosticism:
This principle may be stated in various ways but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
Huxley originally defined his agnosticism against the claims of religion, but it also applies to the claims of science in its know-it-all mode. I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don't believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything. Agnosticism doesn't contend there are no certainties; it simply resists unwarranted untested or untestable certainties.”

And when given the choice of self identification the clear majority of non believers reject the certainties (and no doubt the "militantly antireligious" nature) of atheism-

# "A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds
# that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's
# population, and atheists about 2.3%."
# - "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas,
# Mid-2005". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005.
# http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620 .
#
# " * 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism,
# disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly
# antireligious (opposed to all religion).
#
# * 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion,
# nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested,
# or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion
# but not militantly so."

[Jim__]

49. Kent Hayden: There is no poetry in the accumulation of answers.

From his column The Case for Christian Agnosticism

There is no poetry in the accumulation of answers. Poetry, and truth along with it, comes from an encounter with those corners of life which have not yet been filled with language. It comes from entering into our ignorance with the honest courage to question. It comes from a willingness to shake up the mental sediment in which we have hidden our secrets.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Atheism and agnosticism are two different subjects.

The author of the OP does seem to grasp the definitions.

[Old Troop]

61. Bravo! Well said.

[ironbark]

62. As an agnostic I thought it was an interesting pov/manifesto…

that’s why I put it up.

For me the authors argument weakened at this point-
“Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence.”

That may be reflective of encounters the author has had with some atheists but I don’t see/hear atheists expressing absolute certainty that they (and/or science) “can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence.”
Certainty in the scientific method? Yes. Certainty that there is no god? Yes. Such certainties are commonly expressed.
But I put the ‘certainty’ regarding the origin of the universe down to hyperbole in an otherwise interesting manifesto.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

94. Yawn.

The tread on those tires wore out a long time ago.

edit: spelling