Dear AJ,

I have recently come back from Bangkok. In my hotel room was a copy of the New Testament and a copy of 'The Teaching of Buddha'. I took the 'The Teaching of Buddha' and am now reading it. I have found much the same flaws in it that I find in the Abrahamic religions. The unquestioning acceptance of dogma, the hierarchy of values that put belief in the enlightenment (Meaning the Buddhist dogma) on top and the denigration of women are all there. The western Buddhist propaganda that Buddhism incorporates doubt and questioning I did not find although I haven't read the whole book.

The book mentions seven kinds of wives. The ideal type is described on p. 448.

"...there is a wife who is like a maid-servant. She serves her husband well and with fidelity. She respects him, obeys his commands, has no wishes of her own, no ill-feeling, no resentment, and always tries to make him happy."

That is as male chauvinist as any western religion. It is not a philosophy compatible with any view of sexual equality.

Dear AJ,

Religions, I think all of them of any extent, have many sects and variations. Some of these sects may be presented as representing the entire religion. The Dalai Lama has made many public pronouncements. In none of them have I read anything conducive to conflict or violence. However, he only represents one Buddhist stream.

During WW2, the Japanese officer corps were almost entirely Buddhist. They were a most violent group of men who could employ the Buddhist idea that the phenomenal world we perceive through our senses is not reality. Thus they could dismiss atrocities. The Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka have supported the suppression of the Tamils. Buddhism is not just a philosophy. It is a religion which incorporates sects that are as fundamentalist as any of those in western religions.

Ah, where to begin...
I apologise if my pedantry annoys you AJ, but I assure you dogma, imprecise statements and logical inconsistencies annoy me just as much. For instance, I did not claim your entire post endorsed my position, merely the question of “Disbelief” and “Deny”. I was also of course annoyed by your dogmatic statement “Your definition of agnosticism is incorrect...” when it was cut and pasted from a dictionary; and even more by your logically false dichotomy "Theism means to hold a theological belief; atheism is everything else".
Your most recent exchange with David f. points to the innaccuracy of this dichotomy, and a logical inconsistency. If Atheism is a 'blanket' belief, then so must logically be theism; yet you acknowledge there are many “isms”-naturalism, animism, pantheism, deism... On the other side of the equation there are many counterarguments including various levels of Agnosticism and to which you have now added 'explicit' and 'implicit' atheism.
While your Atheism is all encompassing, your concept of -and argument against- theism has always been tightly focussed; addressing only what Einstein described as a “personal God” and ignoring the other possibilities.
As Sagan (and recently, Brian Holden similarly) said :
“Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.”

I also don't agree that Sagan “was a victim of his times”. On the contrary, I regard Sagan has having been the epitome of a truly open minded scientist, and I think he would have rejected the ever dogmatic Dawkins (and his infamous chapter 4 in the 'God Delusion) on that basis.
I also reject the statement that I regard “Agnosticism” and Atheism as (necessarily) “mutually exclusive”. There are, as you have pointed out, definite overlaps. This does not, however, mean that no distinction exists. I insist “on cling[ing] so strongly to the idea that there is a third (and fourth and fifth...) exclusive category” because one can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist.
I also believe you misinterpret the term 'de facto'. One can act as if married, without actually being married. I could just as easily describe myself as a “de facto Christian” for instance, as I live pretty much by the same (highly theoretical) code as modern Christians even though I don't share their beliefs in Divinity.
I also “can't stand when people molester (sic) the English language”.

AJ, I have read every word you've had to say as well as the references you've offered.

There IS a difference between agnosticism and atheism. That they are unable to be both be applied, one for the other, in the schema is by design in order to point out the difference. The schema contains the dichotomies you embrace, separating knowledge from belief, theism from atheism, gnosticism from agnosticism, and it canvasses all possible answers to the questions asked.

On the question of "Do you believe God exists", What answers are possible other than:

"Yes, I believe God exists"
"No, I believe God does not exist"
"I believe God may exist"

The agnostic can, with integrity, give the third answer.

Your agnostic-atheistic position, which is not to believe any deity exists, but not to deny it as a possibility, requires you to sit on the fence between the second and third answers. An answer to the question can not be "I am not convinced that God exists". That is the answer to a different question.

AJ, you have dragged out every nuance from any source that allows any distinction between agnosticism and atheism to fall through the cracks.

You are full-time equivocator. It's fine to be skeptical but it's high time to weigh things up. With the all the modern information out there in the world before you, it is not just metaphysical anymore. Either accept that you are just a common old garden variety agnostic, or join we atheists.

Your fence-sitting blend of agnosticism and atheism shows a lack of courage. Come out of the closet and into the full light, AJ rather than repressing your intellectual urge.

There's a piece missing, Luciferase.

>>On the question of "Do you believe God exists", What answers are possible other than:
"Yes, I believe God exists"
"No, I believe God does not exist"
"I believe God may exist"<<

You have not explained what you mean by 'God', so it remains a unique concept that exists only in your imagination.

To exacerbate the problem, no-one else has been able to arrive at a consistent definition either. Even those who purport to believe in the same "God" - Catholics, Protestants, Moslems etc. - have different views on the form it takes.

There is no skerrick of evidence that we were created by a supreme being, so until there is agreement that God is a) a bearded white man in the sky or b) "the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe", or c) any variant thereof, the question is essentially unanswerable.

Just out of curiosity, which image of God did you have in your head when you asked the question?