AJ, if I have implied anything that suggests I believe you to be any kind of buffoon, I absolutely withdraw it or accept such title on my own head. I have absolute respect.

Your proffered the link http://wiki.ironchariots.org which treats the topic based around two possible "claims" rather than two possible "questions" on belief, as I have put. The claims treatment allows you to maintain your position with judicious choices of definitions but you still have not addressed my challenge satisfactorily, as to how an atheist an take two positions in relation to the second question,.i.e. "I believe God does not exist" and "I believe God may exist".

My second point you refute on the basis of stringently defining agnosticism as the opposite of gnosticism, which is not entirely what Huxley did. Cognizant of "Agnosis" the unknown god, he said "..It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history". There is no "definition" as such by Huxley, but a lot more talk by him over both knowledge and belief that makes matters furry.

"suggestively antithetic" is not a definition and I do not retreat from what I have said, that the term "agnostic" straddles knowledge and belief, unless you apply some definition that came after Huxley's coining of the term. The Q2A3 position is agnostic in the broad sense that Huxley meant, and if you want something else then invent a new word and don't use Huxley's.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Thomas_Henry_Huxley Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown "or" unknowable. The "or" is important, because Huxley was uncertain about what was unknowable but certain about what he did not know

davidf,
institutional religions are decadent parodies of their original inspiration. Jesus was a radical who defended the poor, abominated the rich and preached passive revolution, yet today and long since he's the patron saint of the complacent middle classes and the well-to-do, and his simple teachings are lost in ritual or swamped by a low-tide of evangelism. The aspects of Buddhism you cite similarly reflect the patriarchal values of the dominant culture; rules for the laity rather than monks. The actual philosophy reflected in the suttas and the Abhidhamma is more akin to psychology and philosophy than religion--which is no more than official morality.
I agree with your second paragraph and am not trying to defend dogma of any kind. Yes, our concern should be with the here and now.

Luciferase,
in as much the agenda of the new atheists is to engage critically with the doctrines of theism (that is to say its politics. Divinity is a side issue), I support you. But what are your politics? What is the new-atheist line? Rationalism certainly, admirable and all that; but a purge on theism suggests a better way--an agenda you might say.
Just supposing we all become good little unbelievers, what is our reward? What is your philosophy? What is to be our our purpose? As individuals? As a society? We can't all attain to the celebrity (priest-like) status of Dawkins and Dennett, so how should we adapt the new-atheist philosophy (to be announced) to the hear and now--on the streets so to speak? Having ditched(kins) God once and for all, and designated the universe ultimately transparent to the withering human gaze (withal its neuroses), how do we turn our collective arcana coelestia to good account?
Having solved the riddle of the universe way back in 1859 (according to Dawkins), this should be child's play. I'm asking how society should be organised under the New Atheism? A makeover? Or just a changing of the guard?
I realise these are difficult questions that require math, so let's start with something simple; who do the New Atheists vote for, left or right?

Grim,

Thanks for the conciliatory tone in that last response.

<<I have yet to find however, any compelling arguments against the concept of an impersonal, pantheistic or “naturalistic” god...>>

Why are you waiting for compelling arguments against them when there have so far been no compelling arguments for them? Sure, we may have millions of years of learning and discovery ahead of us, but if these impersonal Gods are so inconsequential, then why should we pay them any more than a than a fleeting moment’s thought?

We rarely ever get any sort of construct to actually respond to from people who believe in these versions of god either (in a similar sense, we get the “sophisticated” Christians who’ll claim that God transcends evidence and reason, because they don’t know what they’re talking about and they sure as hell don’t want you to know what they’re talking about either), and even when we do get something from them, it’s usually along the lines of God is “love” or “energy” or “everything”.

We can disregard these versions of God because the “God” label is a needless redundancy.

As for “New Atheism” (I abhor and reject that label), it’s not so much about not tolerating or allowing for religions, but recognizing that they can be harmful and dangerous and that if we’re going to make such generous allowances for them, then their adherents have an obligation to demonstrate at least SOME truth behind them.

But I don’t think it’s appropriate or useful to compare Sagan and Einstein (or Spinoza) with today’s “New Atheists” for the same reason that I don’t think it’s appropriate for creationists to point to Newton as a great scientist who shared their views on creation.

Newton was a victim of his times as well.

The prevalence of religion - and the resulting socialization - of Sagan's time (and particularly Einstein’s) wouldn't exactly have inspired one to take that final step of blowing-off unfounded claims as "nonsense until demonstrated otherwise". They made allowances that would make their open-mindedness seem more like intellectual cowardice in these more enlightened times.

Continued...

...Continued

It's absurd, in my mind, to assume that Sagan and Einstein would still be so wishy-washy had they been in their prime now. There is not a doubt in my mind that both would be "New Atheists" today.

What Sagan said in your quote has me speechless.

I can look at a carving, revered as a God by some primitive tribe, and agree that their God exists. But that doesn’t mean I agree that the carving is a God. There is a crucial distinction there and the fact that Sagan apparently didn’t understand this (particularly if this has something to do with why he referred to himself as agnostic) has me gobsmacked.

I didn't know about that quote, but as someone who admires Sagan, a part of me died when I read it.

Unbelievable!

.

Luciferase,

Thank you for your conciliatory words.

For you to quote what you did in your last paragraph, as if it contradicts anything I’ve said, only shows just how futile this is. That's precisely what I’m talking about! It all deals with knowledge, not belief, and therefore, does not apply to Q2A3.

Is it that you think “unknowable” means that one cannot even form a belief? If so, then we disagree on the difference between knowledge and belief and therein lays the problem.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume that we all agreed on the difference?

<<...you still have not addressed my challenge satisfactorily, as to how an atheist an take two positions in relation to the second question,.i.e. "I believe God does not exist" and "I believe God may exist".>>

That was your question?!

No, one cannot possibly take both positions and I’m baffled as to how you could think I’ve suggested otherwise. But both positions are atheistic since they are not a positive claim to a belief in God/Gods.

<<My second point you refute on the basis of stringently defining agnosticism as the opposite of gnosticism, which is not entirely what Huxley did. Cognizant of "Agnosis" the unknown god, he said ">>

Yes, and it sits perfectly with everything I’ve said... http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnosis

Dear Mitchell,

You wrote, “Institutional religions are decadent parodies of their original inspiration. Jesus was …”

In the above I think you are implicitly incorporating the Platonic myth of the ideal forms of which reality exists as imperfect copies.

We don’t know what Jesus was nor even whether he existed. To say institutional religion is a parody of the original inspiration we would have to know what the original inspiration was. We do know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Gospels incorporate many of The Essene myths. We also know that many of the pagan myths surrounding Apollo, Mithra and other pagan deities (eg impregnating by a god, a last Eucharistic supper, the deity taking on the sins of others and resurrection after execution) were taken up in the Gospels.

I think it just as possible that Jesus, if he existed, was an unbalanced person who might today be put in a mental institution for thinking he was Jesus. I think it just as possible that institutional Christianity is far superior to anything Jesus, if he wasn’t completely myth, ever envisaged.

Question: Do you believe God exists?

Answer: "I believe God does not exist and I believe God may exist" full stop

Who thinks this answer to the question shows intellectual courage? That it is the answer of an atheist just demeans atheists.

I'll just leave it at that.

Mitchell, I love the free-spiritedness with which you now embrace new atheism. May I at first suggest that:

1 St Christopher's birthday (Hitchens that is) replace Christmas Day.
2 That a bill of rights giving primacy to secular rights be drawn up.
3 That the sabbath day be every day of the year to keep the unions happy.

Hitch, hitch, hooray.

Please add your own. However, I do not wish the religious to be denied their rituals and would oppose any move to deny the masses their opium.