davidf,

your description of Buddhism has all the accretions of two and a half millenia attached to a tradition that was passed down by word of mouth for the first 500 hundred years. The essence of Theravada Buddhism is parable and is much closer to modern philosophy and psychology that it is to the kind of theistic religion that dominates today. There are supernatural elements, as in the concept of rebirth, but for me this is more in the nature of rationale than metaphysics. The only really important goal in Buddhism is to end suffering (including ignorance--which is content rather than vacuity), but upon it has been built a system of ethics and renunciation of worldly things that would make for a wholesome change from the shallow materialism that now dominates. The sexism you cite in Thailand has nothing to do with the Buddha's teachings, but is part of the same cultural/traditional accretion of norms that has twisted and literally reversed the value-system that Jesus allegedly preached. And as offensive as that kind of chauvinism sounds to our "enlightened" ears, the day will come when our era of decadence, gross inequality and inhumanity will be looked back upon as far more barbarous.
Also, naturalism relies on the belief that physical reality is all there is; a rationalist dogma since we have no way of knowing. The highlight of the Lawrence Krauss talk for me is when he says near the end that cosmologists of the future will develop a wholly different cosmology due to their drastically different perspective.

Luciferase,
To be an assertive atheist is to insist on the fidelity of one tiny, narrow and limited perspective, what's more a perspective utterly distorted by the accretions and blind prejudices of the day. I take a more modest view of my powers to fathom the universe. I'm an atheist in that I have no evidence of a God and no need of a paternal one-- traditionally evoked so as to condition and control and maintain the benighted masses and the status quo.
I'm an agnostic in that I lack the temerity to do away with possibilities in a universe about which I "know" almost nothing.
To be doctrinaire about materialism/naturalism/atheism is to banish ignorance by fiat and see a theory of everything as achievable--ceteris paribus. But all things are not equal! We are not objective and laboratory conditions don't obtain. What's more, the idealistic side of our lives is as real and compelling as the materialistic, and to deny it is literally to deny a dimension of reality within the phenomenal universe; a dimension whose extent we know nothing of beyond our enthralment to it.
Finally, since we are in no position to dictate what's possible and what's not (arguably only what's relevant and what's not), I'm suspicious of the agenda of atheists who proselytise that "there is no God".
If I read AJ and Grim aright, they're not fence-sitting at all but looking to dispel illusion cautiously (respectively), rather than arbitrate hastily, which I think is wholly admirable.

Grim,

Why do you need to resort to emotive language like “dogma”? Like I said, if you don’t like this, then take it up with philosophers and linguists.

And you don’t get to accuse me of inconsistencies when you take the moral high-ground by saying that you would not be so patronising as to accuse me of being “confused” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036#225981) then, in your very next post to me, claim that telling me I was confused is exactly what you did (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036#226220)

In regards your definition of agnostic, I’ve already addressed that. If you still have a problem with it, why don’t you actually address my reply instead of bringing it up as though I hadn’t?

<<Your most recent exchange with David f. points to the innaccuracy of this dichotomy, and a logical inconsistency.>>

Um... no, it doesn’t. Read it again.

The point I made, that shows that it doesn’t, appears to be the fundamental aspect of this that you’re missing.

<<If Atheism is a 'blanket' belief, then so must logically be theism...>>

No, it doesn’t necessitate that that theism be a “blanket belief”, but it just so happens that theism is to the extent that you mention.

The difference, however, is that atheism encompasses both belief and absence-of-belief. And I have given you enough definitions of atheism to demonstrate this.

And how does this contradict what I’ve been saying anyway?

<<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.>>

Not necessarily. And even if it was, that still wouldn’t change anything I’ve said here.

As for your Sagan quote, I have no idea what the relevance is in it and nor do I see how it contradicts anything I’ve been saying.

<<This does not, however, mean that no distinction exists [between atheism and agnosticism].>>

I never said there was no distinction.

<<one can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist.>>

Okay, then explain to me where I am wrong and why. You've not yet successfully done that.

Luciferase,

There is nothing about the “atheist-agnostic” position that could warrant to accusation of “fence-sitting”. All I mean by that (and from what I can tell, you fit the category too) is that I don’t believe in any Gods, but I can’t actually KNOW that no Gods exist.

Note too that I did say “strictly speaking”. For all intents and purposes, I’m a gnostic-atheist.

I’d bet there’s a few reading this who’d be chuckling at your accusation of fence-sitting and being a “full-time equivocator” on where I stand. I would unequivocally hold the position of OLO’s staunchest, most strident atheist. So much so, that I have even been attacked by my fellow atheists on the odd occasion. But it’s a position I hold with pride.

<<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.>>

What part of “not mutually exclusive” do you not understand? I’m not going to go through it again. If you want to argue the point, then explain why anything I have said is wrong and we’ll go from there. So far, both you and Grim have failed to do that.

<<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.>>

I’m not talking about verbal “answers”. I’m talking about where one may lay on the spectrum.

<<An answer to the question can not be "I am not convinced that God exists". That is the answer to a different question.>>

I know, which is why I didn’t give you that as an answer.

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

On the contrary, I have embraced the differences and tried to point them out to you. The main one being that they both answer different questions.

aj/quote..""The difference,however,..is
that atheism encompasses both belief and absence-of-belief.""

searching belief..in a diction airy
belief...:..
..''a feeling''
''that something egsists''
''or is true''[[especially oner held without proof''

2/..'a firmly held opinion''
3/''[belief in]..or trust..or confidence in''

so clearly belief...
is held by thiest or athiest[theoist or atheoist]

[agnostic or gnostic..naturally excluded
[these must hold proofs truths self evidential..!]
sources...naming names giving reasons..able to rationalise their KNOWING*

lucifer quote..."">>On the question of>>[trick question]..

"""Do you believe* God exists",""

no
i know
he doth egsist

""What answers..are possible..other than:""
"Yes,..I believe*..God exists"
"No,..I believe*..God does not exist"
"I believe*..God may exist"<<"""

gnostics..[a/gnostics]..have proofs
specific to their inheritaded creed
[or converts away..from SPECIFIC gnosis][rejecting or accepting CERTAIN truths as proofs..[specific not generalisations]

not all religeons are the same
like with christ it varies betwen he is the son of the father
to him BEING the fat-her..[the joke that a woman..let alone unworldly woman could be the father of god..[is insane]

bnot all gnosis is equal
but as its ALL ABOUT BELIEF*
belief as you will[whatever proofs ;..gnosis
you think you got..for or a-gainst..its all just what you believe]

wether you agree with them
opposing your thesis..[gbnosis]..or anti-thesis..or anti-gnosus\
calling your sure gnosis..for or against [or not]..its fruits are what you believe..

yet the spirits fruits are what we then did
with our belief..based on evolving gnosis

aj/""And I have given you enough
definitions of atheism..to demonstrate this.""

athiest defines the belief
not..the being

athiest-isms..belie
thiesisms...mostly based in gnostisms

be they via thiestic..or agnostic belial..
they are sans real values..beyond the frail mortal flesh delusions

AJ. You are not dealing with the challenge put to you by the schema other than to reassert an unclear distinction between knowledge and belief in relation to agnosticism. If you think perhaps construing a nuanced case for Q2A3 as being an atheistic position, it won't wash with true atheists.

Mitchell writes: "I'm suspicious of the agenda of atheists who proselytise that "there is no God"."

I am seduced by science in the direction of certainty, no agenda. Metaphysics is not the only game in town now and even if it were I'd still take issue with fence-sitters relying of empty nuances of language to define themselves as atheists. You're agnostic until you show the balls to be otherwise.

and "...they're not fence-sitting at all but looking to dispel illusion cautiously (respectively), rather than arbitrate hastily, which I think is wholly admirable."

So, only when science proves itself capable of producing a universe will agnostic-atheists stop believing God may exist?

As Pericles muses, God is possibly "the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe". Can they reproduce themselves, i.e can God reproduce Himself.

If that happens will we all become theists, atheists, or just believers?

Watch out for a hadron collider near you.