This is a barely tolerable essay. It is full of sweeping, wrong, statements issued as fact. Atheism is NOT a theism. Atheism says we don’t believe there is a god, not that we know or ever hope to prove that. And it proceeds from there.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What a MORON!!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ridiculous nonsense. He has obviously not studied this subject at depth.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Good grief!

Science has never claimed to have all the answers. That is the whole point.

If science did have all the answers it would simply stop.

It is a quest for answers, and ones which are verifiable, not simply made up because you can’t figure out what the answer is.

If science doesn’t know an answer it says so. It is not too afraid to admit that it doesn’t know.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The intellectual cowardice of the so called “agnostics” never ceases to amaze me (in the negative way of course!)!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Extremely ill-informed essay. Never mind the wrong-headed assumptions, there are so many holes in logic here, I want to scream.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sounds like a straw man: we atheists ARE agnostics… we lean so heavily away from a belief in supernatural intelligence that we are for PRACTICAL PURPOSES atheists.
I’m fine to believe that reality is an infinite arrangement of matter… a load of geometric shapes made of universes moving like water, swirling around… that isn’t fundamentalism!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hello. I’m really sorry to read that. I have a really opposite view. To me, agnostic people claim that God existence IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE a scientific question. They claim that this question CANNOT be answered.
Atheist, on the contrary, thinks that it could be (or not) answered by science one day, but most importantly, that God is a really unlikely hypothesis (that’s precisely what Dawkins says !). Consequently, atheists choose not to base their life on an hypothesis, and they live without (a- prefix) god.

Saying that there is no god is definitely not a scientific behaviour. Saying that there is a God isn’t scientific either. And saying that we will never be able to answer is completely un-scientific as well.

But, when atheists says God is an unconsistent hypothesis, that is is really unlikely, it seems the most rational behaviour one can have.

Cheers

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

All this spite and disgust yet no one poses a logical dissuasion. I mean, yes the man has some basic misunderstandings about theism and atheism, and he misplaces science entirely; but he does have one point I like throughly, the should be a more clearly defined “new” agnostic manifesto so that other morons, who refuse to do their research, can stop spouting intellectual cowardice because some one decides to say, “I Just Don’t Know”. If more of you did that, instead of spouting off like a broken fountain pretending to know,  this discussion might actually GO somewhere. For a change.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Oh dear. Agnosticism is now the nuncertainty of atheism. That’s a pretty neat twist, eh?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m ashamed of whoever wrote this, it makes agnostics seem like a bunch of idiots. My advice, as a fellow agnostic, is to never write another essay again! You’re not helping, not at all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agnostics are just cowardly atheists.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I want my five minutes back, please.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m just going to leave my favorite explanation of atheism, by John McCarthy: “An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

this is garbage.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Thoroughly disappointing.  With the approach suggested, how could any decisions be made.  That is, we’d be agnostic about absolutely everything and functionally paralyzed.  Science produces conclusions based on a concordance and corroboration of high-quality evidence from a diversity of sources and perspectives with a commitment to avoiding logical fallacies.  If you’re left with little or no support toward a supernatural element, then you’re left with little or no support for a supernatural element and can make the reasonable “shortcut” conclusion that it doesn’t exist; else you remain vigilant solely because we lack the capacity to prove non-existence.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I consider myself to be an atheist. I do not believe there is a god, it seems highly unlikely and illogical. However, if someone could show me evidence, or preferably proof of a god’s existance, then of course I would change my mind. There is no evidence that fairies or harpies or other mythical creatures exist, yet a rational person would deny their existance (and would thus be afairy or aharpy). Why aren’t people agnostic about fairies? Yes, there is no evidence that a god does not exist, as religion has conveniently made god so abstract, that its existence could not be proven or disproven. However, rationality and logic strongly implies that there is no god, and that is the viewpoint I will take, unless evidence appears that suggests otherwise.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s very obvious that he’s being intentionally inflammatory toward people who don’t believe in a god. He’s using tactics that lump people into categories, for one, and he particularly enjoys attacking the category of “New Atheist.”

Some of the text describes his own method of attack as unprincipled. Here is a quote used by the author: “Too much of the rhetoric and sociality is tribal: Us and Them.” The second is a quote from the author himself: “...the world has suffered enough from oversimplifications.”

Although most of the essay is itself filled with gross oversimplifications, here is one example found toward the beginning as a highlight: “And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas…”

There is considerable hypocrisy here.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

How did a story like this get on a blog called “Project Reason”?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You said: “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.”

Oh, gag.

You’re welcome to believe anything you want about atheists and atheism. But ... I’m always dismayed at people, such as you, who conflate the word “believe” with the word “faith.”

It’s a basic flaw in what you’re attempting to relate here, and has at its base something I notice as a foundational approach to religious views of atheism.

That base-level approach is to define words more and more fuzzily, more and more broadly, so that each word can take in as much territory as possible, rather than to define them more and more narrowly, so that each word zeroes in on as precise a meaning as possible.

I understand the impulse. I call my pickup truck a “car” in everyday home use – as in “Do you want to take the car today honey? I’m not going to need it.” We both understand I’m talking about the truck out in the driveway. It’s verbal shorthand between the two of us. But if I was talking to someone else, and wanted to refer to the “car” in more specific detail, I would never call it a car. I would speak of the metallic gray 2000 Chevy S-10 pickup truck with crew cab, and possibly – if I wanted to get REALLY precise – even go on to give the serial number.

The point is: To convey detailed information in conversation, you have to define words as narrowly and precisely as possible.

In this case, you’re asserting that “belief” equals “faith.” Which would mean that an appreciation of science is “faith.” That the acceptance of the fact that the far side of the barn is the same color as the near side is “faith” (even after you’d walked around and looked at it). That ANY understanding or belief or even accepted proven fact is “faith.”

If you want to use fuzzy words in your everyday speech and writing, and speak in metaphors and high-flying artsy-fartsy language, go for it.

But if you want to convey a detailed concept, you have to use sharp words. Anything else risks being misunderstood, or confusing your audience.

Of course, confusing the audience, making them unable to pin down concrete details, is the REASON lots of religious people use a linguistic set filled with fuzzy words. I doubt religion could even exist without fuzzy language. If you get your audience to buy into the fuzzy language, they will be totally unable to refute anything you say.

You CAN’T be wrong if you use fuzzy words in the right way.

But in real-world language “faith” is not the same thing as “belief.” It is not the same thing as “understanding.” It is not the same thing as “fact-based conviction.”

Of course you can’t accept anything I’ve said here. Because if you did, your entire premise, that atheism is faith-based, falls apart.

One last thing: Using the phrase “credulous and childlike faith,” that’s simply a deliberate insult, and a mean-spirited one at that. I have to conclude that you have some personal axe to grind.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What a dick!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is quite startling, coming from the author of The Shakespeare Wars and Explaining Hitler, both exhaustively researched books.  I would not have thought Mr. Rosenbaum would so easily venture into a topic about which he appears to know so little.  I hope we will hear more from him and that he will react to some of the comments on this essay.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The first 4 paragraphs suggest a fundamental mis-comprehension of the argument.  This problem alone voids the rest of the “manifesto”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think virtually anything I could have added to this has already be said. She doesn’t really have any idea what science is, what it does, what it says, or for that matter what atheists say and the fact that they simply reject the claim that a god exists. Utter stupidity.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Confusing atheism with theism is a bit like confusing “how to think” with “what to think”. science is a process not a dogma, a question not an answer.
It seems like he had his head filled with some classic Templeton nonsense regarding science and religion, managing to completely miss the point.
Finally, the seemingly solid rational regarding the agnostic stance falls apart if he follows through with this type of logic. He will simply have to say that he is similarly agnostic in regards to Santa clause, Peter Pan, the tooth fairy, and Donald Duck. This is the problem with the agnostic stance regarding things that can not be completely disproved.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Without even mentioning science, agnosticism is intellectually dishonest.  It completely ignores the epistemological standards which we apply in our lives to determine what is real, what is true and what isn’t.  Using a consistent epistemological approach, if we can say that there is no Santa Clause, no Easter Bunny, no Thor, no Apollo, then we can say that there is no god. 

There is no extra evidence required to disprove the existence of god beyond what already exists.  You can disprove it using consistent approaches.  You can inductively say there there is no god with the same certainty that you apply to other fictional creations (see above).

You can also deductively prove there is no god by citing the contradictions of the properties attributed to it.  Things like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence which clearly contradict each other, or contradict that which we experience in the real world. 

For the most part the agnostic “position” seems to merely be on of ignorance and of high ground where, by thinking that they are not being “extremist” or not simply choosing one side over the other, that they are somehow smarter or better.  One can only wonder if Mr. Rosenbaum is agnostic with respect to Santa Clause.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

A most articulate explanation of the distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism.  It said what I have always felt, but could not quite articulate myself.  And its concluding paragraph captured the essence of what binds all ‘critics of dogmatism’ together as a Family, namely, that the absolutist character of dogmatism is the component in atheism, religion, science,  politics, medicine and every other “belief system’ that makes them historically and potentially very dangerous and damaging.  It is the petrified, ossified nature of dogma that turns it into an albatross and a dead-weight that pulls its victims to the bottom of the pool for a suffocating death.  http://gbruce.com/reflect/has-religion-forsaken-spirituality-intro/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“If science did have all the answers it would simply stop.”

Uh… Wrong.  If science did have all the answers, it could apply for tax exempt status.  And then it could go on forever… you know…  like religion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What is religious about not believing unless it is proven to be true?  What is religious about gathering evidence and concluding an explanation based on results?  Oh right, because in the meanwhile we do sacrifice fetuses to science.  You got us.  Yes we are a big cult.  Don’t worry we are going to drink the Kool Aid soon.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is a ridiculous essay. I think I understand his motive. However, it’s ridiculous nonetheless.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sophistry at best; twisted, illogical, spiteful gibberish at worst. Perhaps he’d be better off grinding razors rather than axes.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Nonsense

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Parsing the words “atheist” and “agnostic” is not terribly interesting after a certain point.  The two words exert a similar political effect in our world.  They’re synonymous to most Christians, Jews, and Muslims, describing people who don’t attend temple or accept doctrine.  Seems to me, despite the differences, we’re more or less on the same team.

I don’t seek religious answers to scientific questions, and don’t acknowledge divine intervention.  Nor do I believe in sin or redemption.  Defining belief by rejecting belief seems at least partly a response to conservative religious politics, and is consistent with the a-prefix belief. 

I do like the idea of god in nature, a force that one follows rather than opposes.  While all spirituality and morality may ultimately be explained through science, it hasn’t happened yet.  At least as a starting point to many cosmic questions, the phrase “I don’t know” seems a reasonable response.  Agnos.

Most important in this discussion is honesty with thought and care, without invective.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor”

Asinine rhetoric.
Lets think of some examples of intolerance from “the most unbending religious inquisitors”
Now go find some equal behaviour from atheists. Now that you’ve failed, I suggest you rethink your essay.
I have nothing against agnostics, I do have something against someone accusing me of blind dogmatism and cruelty.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

First of all I think Rosenbaum doesnt know what:
a. Agnosticism
b. Atheism
c. Science
mean….

Agnosticism and atheism, replies different questions.
“Is there a god?”
“I dont know and more importantly I. KANT.”
“Do you believe in a god?”
“I dont believe”

Just simple as that.

Science is not the “ultimate answer” or “answer to all, universe and everything” (by the way it’s 42 for those who dont know the answer, yet.), it’s the methodoly of creating and building blocks of knowledge.

And by the way, anyone who knows Rosenbaum in person, please tell him that the argument “there is something instead of nothing” doesnt prove a god’s existence even if there is a deterministic answer. The answer doesnt necessarily mean “the first reason is god”...

Simply, it’s sad to see people who doesnt know how to think around.

PS: I’m both an agnostic atheist myself. I dont know if a god or gods exist but i reject living as if there is one.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Came here to say that the author is an idiot and hasn’t actually bothered to read any of the “new atheists”. But ya’ll beat me too it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

atheism = fuck that it is how it is and however it will be I don’t know- make the best of what you got or die and find out whether it shuts off or you get your ass measured for a pineapple based on naughtness level.

all other theisms and suffixes are clingyness to illusion. the junkies just one more fix - or I can just do this much a week.

if you want to get of the disillusional milk tit - stop spending all your time thinking about em. be a man and get something stronger,colder, and harsher. the here now reality.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

After his statement in the 4th paragraph claiming atheist hold faith in…...WHATEVER, the article became moot. Why can’t these people get it that after having a disbelief in a provable creator deity, We “Atheists” have little else to share as a belief in together. except laughing at the ridiculousness of the Abrahamic religions. Sorry Mr. ... See MoreRosenbaum, you do not speak for me in any way. I do not “have faith” that science will someday be able to explain the reason the universe exists. I do believe that science has a better chance of it than your ancient scribblings.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think this discussion is bogged down in semantics.  Rosenbaum doesn’t believe in god, prayer, heaven, hell,the torah, bible, khoran, etc. 

That makes his essay more palatable than 90% of what one reads in this country.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There really is no such thing as agnosticism. You either believe in a higher power or you don’t. If, as Mr. Rosenbaum and many so-called agnostics state, you choose to withhold or not have an opinion of the matter then you are, by default, an a-theist. In other words, you lack theism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Atheism is a religion like not collecting baseball cards is a hobby.” —original source unknown

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Agnosticism … is radical skepticism …”

No. Radical skepticism has a very specific meaning in philosophy. Agnosticism is not radical skepticism. It really is “weak tea”, and this article comes from a weak mind.

Note the connection to the Templeton Foundation: more evidence that Templeton is in the business of ruining the discussion—distorting, not clarifying, the issues.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

How was someone so ill-informed allowed to waste the time of so many?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agnosticism has been demonstrated to be almost invariably to be a deferential cop-out in the interests of non-confrontation. Atheism is as much of a fact as is the quantum phisics that bring you this very page to your screen.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think it is wrong to assume that we can’t say that god doesn’t exist because we don’t have a proof for it. I don’t have a proof that a four headed human doesn’t exist but I am really confident that it doesn’t. (I wanted to say two headed, but we have siamese twins.) If we are about to say that we can’t be sure if we don’t have a proof, than we can’t say that dinosaurs lived. We have only bones and stone prints, but we don’t have a living proof, so how can we say that they have lived? I am confident that god doesn’t exist, but I wouldn’t call that faith, I would call that a certainty.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So, you’re an agnostic. As is anyone who can’t disprove the existence of Santa Claus. But are you an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist or an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist? Do you believe in Santa Claus, or not?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

After reading through much of the comments, any sentiment I could add has been covered pretty well. I think it can’t be mentioned enough that Ron does not understand Atheism, I’d wear that “I don’t know” T-shirt if you weren’t the one making it. Anyone who says Atheism is a religion should be laughed out of the intellectual square.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If agnosticism is the claim that we can’t know for absolute certain, then we’re all agnostics. But this is a trite and banal claim to make. It should just literally going without saying that nothing is certain. So what’s the point of agnosticism? What’s the point of even having a label for it? Just taken it as a given and then move on to talk about whether we believe or don’t believe, i.e., theism or atheism. There is no middle ground. We can’t half-believe or half-disbelieve.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So, are we supposed to be overwhelmed by the underwhelming question, “why is there something rather than nothing?” Anyone who thinks that’s a question worth answering or even asking in lucid times is too much of a self-absorbed empty-suit to bother with.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Oh dear… a colleague of Hitchens? He must be shitting me. I can’t believe that any colleague of Hitchens is this stupid.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

PZ Myers replied to this nonsense. No need to say more: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/new_agnostics_or_same_old_inef.php

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This essay is ridiculous. An atheist is someone who is unable to credit the almighty-creator mythology. The term atheist does not imply belief or faith in anything else. We look to science as a methodology that is useful in distinguishing fact from fiction, nothing more. Some of us are beginning to explore the possibility that scientific techniques may be able to help identify human beings’ inate sense of ethical behavior. Ron Rosenbaum imputes all manner of fatuous thinking to other people and then attacks the ideas he has invented on their behalf. He vanquishes his own creation, a vapid exercise. The whole tempest in a teapot over agnosticism versus atheism is, in Macbeth’s words, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I must say, as much as I understand that this essay has falsely categorized atheists as theists, I’m a bit taken back by how passionate some of these comments are in damning Rosenbaum.  Some of these comments allude to the fact that atheists are in fact agnostics.  I think the destinction that must be illuminated, is that it’s ok to be agnostic and live your life like an atheist (as I do.)  The notion that agnostics are cowardly atheists is simply a dead horse that no longer needs to be beaten.  “toothfairy agnostics” as Dawkins refers to in his essay, “A Challenge to Atheists: Come Out of the Closet,” are friend to the atheist, not foe.  I understand atheists who say to agnostics, “just get on with it and call yourself an atheist!”  However, I would ask atheists to extend the same understanding to the point that, albeit a minute difference in philosophy, the leap from uncertainty to certainty is a big one.  I think the thing to remember is that the vast majority of agnostics live the same way, with the same mindest as atheists.  Agnostics are no threat to atheists, and energy could be better spent than it is in haste of an ally. 
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the position being taken here.  I am simply tired of being labeled a coward for saying “I don’t know.”  I believe the likelihood of god’s existance is virtually nonexistent, but I don’t claim to be certain of his nonexistence.  I think it takes more courage to say “I don’t know” than it does to take any position of certainty.  I realize that atheists don’t generally preach certainty, but please also realize that agnostics are not cowards.  In essence, we are all agnostics, because non of us know.  Religious people, atheists, and everyone between;  All are agnostic.  Perhaps we should spend energy sheding light on that reality to create bridges rather than spend so much energery drawing distinctions between philosophies.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ron Rosenbaum has written a essay so fallacious one consider that it must be some kind of hoax. However, when one here that he recently been to a Templeton meeting one considers that he may off been obliged to something nasty about atheists if not something nice about religion. This nonsense just requires a straightforward case of fisking.

http://www.slate.com/id/2258484

1. “It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.”

Firstly, Atheism - or the “new atheists” do not proclaim certainty in the denial of god or indeed the gods of Olympus. Name me one who does? If anyone does and I had any money I would give them every cent I had.

The second issue here, is that he himself takes up would could be construed as a dogmatic position. Similar to the scepticism seen in Sextus Empiricus. The problem here is that this form of radical scepticism is likely, if undefended, to be just as dogmatic as the positions he attempts to criticise unlike the radical Sceptics who did know a thing or two about arguments.

Thirdly. There are two kinds of agnosticism, that he neglects to mention. Permanent agnosticism in Principle( PAP). Or Temporary Agnosticism in Principle TAP. The second position is entirely reasonable, one that any inquirer should hold at the start of inquiry “I don’t know what to think as there is quite a bit of disagreement in this area - come back in a year and ill give you my view”.

The first position PAP. Is actually giving what can be called a no argument argument. Here he is (apparently) claiming that there is no argument, that could settle the issue either way, so therefore we must be agnostics. This position seems incoherent on its face with the assertion that he is a radical sceptic (does he doubt gravity as well?) furthermore this is a rather strong and extraordinary argument that needs a good deal of support? So, where is his evidence for such a claim?

2. “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.”

If they do then it would appear that they deserve the title the “new idiots”. Again, another canard, where is the holy book, the profession of faith, the church to be attended every day (or every other day) where is this religion then?

3. 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.)

I have disposed of the certainty and faith canard? Can he name a single scientist who claims, for absolute certainty that they know all the answers to the mysteries of the universe? While it is true that there are some scientist who do think we can, in the future will be able to answer most of our questions, none of them appear to offer certainty in their answers. However, many scientists and secular philosophers believe there are many answers we will never get, that gaps in our knowledge is something we will all have to live with. Hardly an orthodoxy then.

4.  Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Aquinas.

This is a mistake a school boy would not even make. He is conflating Atheism and science, and certain answers given by scientists to this question as representing some kind of atheist orthodoxy.

5. In fact, I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” I can’t wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.

PZ Meyers has given answers to what scientist think of this question. I suspect the question itself is incoherent. Well here is what I think: why does there have to be anything in the first place? Why not nothing rather than something? Any framing of the question will never lead a priori to the self-evident conclusion that there is a god, with a plan and a purpose.

Will you can read the rest for yourself - air headed nonsense - all of it. If I ever met this man I would ask him if he is agnostics about Zeus or about Witchcraft or about Creationism

Best

Mike.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I’m an agnostic in the quest for knowledge, but an atheist when it comes to belief in gods.”
Jack Carlson
http://frethink.com/2009/01/08/atheism-or-agnosticism/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well, the inclusion of the T-word is a big clue here. The guy’s obviously after the Templeton Prize, the pursuit of which seems to justify all kinds of bollocks in the minds of people who really should (and probably do) know better.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The fact that agnosticism exists is a testament to the strangle hold metaphysical thought has on us. Yet the fact that moderateness exists is a testament to the strength of reason.  The moderate and the agnostic are stuck in traffic on opposite sides of the highway.  The problem I think we are facing is the way that doubt, in these specific areas of human concern, can so easily be paralytic.  I wonder.  Does it all come down to fear?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Absolute tosh.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Geeeezzzz…..He clearly didn’t do his homework before writing this nonsense !!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

this idiot has obviously not heard a thing that sam has ever said.  no, wait….maybe he has…he’s just too stupid to understand it.  he’s just a typical lazy agnostic, not wanting to make a decision about anything and enjoys watching a tennis match while straddling the net.  what a tool.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What a bozo.

The world is full of people that are philosophically confused. That is fine.

Why people are impressed by “something and nothing, and nothing and something”, I’ll never know, but I’ve gotten used to that craziness.

But he could at least get his facts straight about what his “colleague Christopher Hitchen” believes.

At every debate, Hitchens states that he does not claim to know that no God exists, and indeed couldn’t know such a thing, but only claims that all arguments for the existence of God have been effectively refuted.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I laughed.  I laughed out loud, sir.  You really should have done a Google search on the term “atheism” before writing this.  You should at least have read the Wikipedia article.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

the comments from this article just prove that atheism is as much a religion as any religion.

even as hostile as most religions when someone disagrees with their religious beliefs.

none will understand my words as none in religion understand.

atheism and religion two sides of the same coin called closed minded.

one must stand between the two to have any chance of seeing the dogma of each.

that is what the article was stating but too deep for the religious on both sides of this coin.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“researcher” you have failed to do your research before commenting here. If you actually bothered to read all the comments you’d find that atheists are not closed minded, as given evidence of the existence of a god or gods they would be willing to change their minds. They just haven’t encountered any such evidence and thus do not believe in a god or gods.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

atheism being simply the lack of a belief in god, is also simply the act of not being a theist. Agnostics are not theists and are therefore atheists. You can add agnostic to the front if you really feel you need to, but to leave off the atheist off is simply intellectual cowardice or dishonesty.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

My niece asked me what an agnostic is and here is what I told her…
A’ means without and gnostic comes from the greek root knosos or ‘to know’, so the best way to say this another way is ‘I do not know’ or I guess ‘I am not certain’.

The practical application of the term against Theism and Atheism (from Deos meaning with god vs A’ Theos meaning without god) is best explained using the court room analogy.

You will define yourself as an atheist or a theist by sentencing your conviction to the charge of belief in god as guilty or not guilty, unfortunately there is no maybe…sorry.

Basically you can say you are guilty, which makes you a theist, and you may be convinced by the evidence provided the the theist attorney…with the sentence being community service and a perpeptual pledge of allegance to your creed;

Or perhaps you are unsure but only to the extent that you do not wish to commit your future to this sentence…so you say I do not have sufficient evidence to convince me and until I get that evidence I will have to say ‘not-guilty’, and keep searching;

But does that mean I cannot part-take in some of the sentence of allegance and subcription to a creed, well ‘No’ not if you have the intension of being sincere, afterall you are dealing with your maker in this instance, I would recommend utter sincerity;

Or perhaps you are quite sure that the theist attorneys are deluded or are trying to delude you and it is a no brainer…so not-guilty is no contest.

At no point are you saying god does not exist, the charge is do you believe in god…

Hope the analogy works…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You write:

“Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of “multiverses” and “vacuums filled with quantum potentialities,” none of which strikes me as persuasive.”

But you’re not a physicist—it’s well known that many fundamental principles in physics are counter-intuitive.  Why do you think that if the arguments for a “multiverse”, etc., were scientifically strong you’d find them persuasive?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This was a weakly written misunderstanding of every basic tenant of science. It was so wrong as almost to seem purposely ignorant and written by a theist.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It was hinted at above, but the real issue here is the Templeton Foundation.  The author of this post was given an all-expenses-paid trip to Cambridge so they could guilt him into writing articles like this.

Look it up.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I can understand what the author is trying to say without assaulting his intentions or declaring him to simply be wrong. A visit to any popular atheist page on Facebook demonstrates the militant atheists who literally preach their beliefs. One post I read just today said “Together we can destroy Creationism.” This is not the same as simply not believing in a creator god. This is behavior similar to religion. Perhaps even having an opinion on this article is evidence enough that there is more to it than just disbelief? Perhaps not? I’m just sayin’...

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t know if there is a god and I don’t care.  I call myself an atheist, because I’m not a theist ( a=not).  Why does it have to be harder than that?  what a douche.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“militant atheists” Kevin? What the heck are you talking about? Atheists aren’t burning heretics or flying planes into skyscrapers in the name of their beliefs (or rather the lack thereof). There is nothing even remotely “militant” about atheists!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@researcher
you need to “research” the fallacy of the argument to moderation (re: “...standing between…”)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This man is an atheist!! “Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.” You just denied the possible existence of God. Seems like you know where you stand. Welcome to the atheist league!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The author obviously has a gross misunderstanding of science and the issue at large. Is it really that easy to get published on Slate? Wow.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Atheists and scientists are constantly searching for answers. I believe that we typically stick to calling them theories not certainties.  I’ve never heard of Darwin’s Certainty, just Darwin’s theory.  Since his theory we have abandoned old theories, and gained new ones.  It is very childish to leave unknowns as unknowns, give the credit to some space alien, and not continue to search for answers.  We would be stuck in the dark ages perpetually if it weren’t for scientific inquiry into everything.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Manifesto! - more like confusion.
I wonder if Bertie Russell will roll in his grave if I write a reply and call it “Why I am not an Agnostic”
Of course he won’t - poor chap is dead.
There is no doubt - and I am not the least bit religious about it.

Lou J.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I prefer “There is no virtue in faith” on my t-shirt.

An agnostic who doesn’t think atheism is a theism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Utter gash. And that’s putting it mildly. Why is this even here? It reeks of misunderstanding and ignorance. As an atheist who knows that I can never prove the non-existance of a deity or deities, I find this essay an assault on logic and reason. What a price dope.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Even I found that disgraceful

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

He should be embarrassed by writting that non-sensical “essay”! People would be smart by ignoring that mediocre way of thinking… \m/^_^\m/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t consider myself agnostic, and I can’t help but take trivial offense at the projection of a religious institution onto the exact utter lack of one. Theists should feel lucky that atheists have never come anywhere near the level of intrusion and organization that they have, and that we only recently have begun to be at all assertive about the issue.

The inverse reaction to an action cannot be held to be the same as the original provocation; if I try to stab you because an assumed religion told me to, and you respond “WTF!?” and make every attempt to keep me from doing so, does that then make your recourse just as villainous as my attack?

This article really was inflammatory garbage written on the asking of some sensationalist agenda. I did enjoy & find worthwhile some of the comments, however.

To further explain my position, I’ve included below a note I wrote on the subject during Atheism Week, entitled “‘A’ Is For Atheist.”

...Not Anarchist. Not Anti-theist. And, most important to myself to distinguish, not Agnostic.

Here’s a brief snippet of my thoughts taken from a conversation between myself and a fellow who intrepidly declared “We’re all agnostic, really: no one really knows for sure.”

...Don’t ever call me an agnostic. But to momentarily espouse your point, why should anyone be so foolish as to conform to—or so arrogant as to proselytize over—any pre-established notion beyond their exclusive own about something that nobody could possibly know anything about? If one wanted to, one could overclock the scientific method and extend such an uncertainty concept as you proposed so as to inflate it to address everything, in the process claiming that nobody really irrefutably knows anything whatsoever; that all belief beyond 1+1=2 is technically based upon ‘empirical conjecture’. Such thinking is a slippery slope of nihilistic nonsense. And yet it is riotously fallacious methodology to employ such an assessment technique for theistic postulation while not also applying it to exactly everything else as well.

If you couldn’t already tell, I’m off the proverbial scale to the Atheist side.

My outlook is simply this: even if there was some higher super-human circle of consciousness orchestrating over us, it would still effectively be utterly irrelevant, as there is not a single trace of its existence in our perceptible reality and therefor not a single way to appropriately respond to it. Furthermore, it is sadistic divisive madness to expect to peaceably generate unanimousness in an entropic society under such a hypothetical being so wide-open to interpretation—this alone should truly be enough to dissuade any selfish impulses one might have to quantify and conflate their emotions and superstitions into something they mislabel and weaponize for the sake of the seeking of approval. We’d all do well for all to cease the insult toward the intelligence and intrinsic value of ourselves and others that is projecting our bald-faced guesses of what we presume this concocted entity to be onto any independent living sentient creature. That is aggressive anthropomorphizing, or “imagination”; organized religion, a “mutual delusion.”

It is nothing short of a diagnosable neurosis to worry or fawn over supposition that one cannot nor ever will be able to comprehend—let alone interface with.

So no: no we’re not “all agnostic.” Really.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m not sure what was more painful: reading this essay or the comments that followed.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Take on the New Atheists”?
  “Atheism has become a theism?”
 
  Wow, some pretty hefty statements here—enough to make me agree with many posters here. Do a bit more research before making such sweeping claims.
 
  First, the claim that Atheism is a new “religion.”  While I can see a bit of merit in this argument—some of the New Atheists and their heroes (Einstein, Jefferson, etc) have taken on the appearance of quasi-patron saints and one can find evidence of blind acceptance of facts.
  However, I would counter this assumption with a basic, stated principle: How many stupid atheists or agnostics are there? To me, to be an atheist requires reading, deep thinking and complex understanding of this world and what it really means. It’s easy to swallow the common trends of our time to believe in a magical sky fairy that listen to your (often) selfish prayers and demands strict obedience and awards pariah status to women, homosexuals and many so-called societal outcasts.
 
  But that’s beside the point because the author misunderstands what it means to call something a religion. Most dictionaries define atheism as the lack of belief in a deity or deities. No one has yet been able to convince me that somehow the LACK of belief in something constitutes a belief. An often-repeated, but quite valid, response to this is: I don’t believe in Santa Claus, so am I an ASantaist? The possibilities for defining someone for what they are not are endless.
 
  The author fails to acknowledge that Atheism and Agnosticism are not either-or scenarios but one can be both.
  Atheism poses a simple question: Do you believe in a god or gods? This is a yes or no question and does not ask, nor seek to ask, the possibilities. Agnosticism poses that very question. The Greek word “Gnostic” means knowledge, so the prefix “A” according to that ancient language means Lack of Knowledge. Which, in truth, is what Agnosticism is. The lack of knowledge whether or not god or deities exist. It is, in that sense, an expression of DOUBT.
 
  You can be a theist and have doubts about the existence of gods, you can be an atheist and question whether there might be something out there we haven’t encountered. Indeed, I think if you asked, I think you would find most Atheists are in fact Agnostics—they lack knowledge about whether or not god exists, but haven’t been presented proof to say that he does. With theists, they aren’t convinced by evidence to the exact opposite.
 
  My point is that Agnostics and Atheists are not mutually exclusive. We both ask the same questions, but some of us come to different conclusions. Saying it’s time to “take on the New Atheists” is counter productive. The real “war” as it were should be fought between ignorance, intolerance and superstition versus reason, knowledge, humanism and science. In other words, blind faith should be our target.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I can see by all your behavior that this author has a valid point. How many of you came here directly from the bastion of Sam Harris?

Atheism is not a theism, neither was Stalin’s regime.
Science is not in question, nor is the individual ideas you have about it. It’s the tone in general of being completely dismissive of things on a general scale that ties very passionate atheists to the behaviour of the radical right, although the divide isn’t quite to that point. I’m tired of being talked to like I’m stupid by people like Sam Harris because I can accept grays without signing up for bible camp.

Science doesn’t have all the answers and if you knew anything about the history of religion, you would know that it doesn’t either.

So just think before you attack, learn, and listen, and respond without dismissive hate.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Redefining “atheism” to mean “without belief in a God” seems like an act of desperation, as it serves no academic good towards advancing the philosophy.

Historically, the term has meant the position that the ontological proposition “God exists.” is not true (anyone who’s read ANY basic college level philosophy knows this). But now, it’s just the empty epistemological definition of being without the belief in a god. So, by definition, one could say (slightly tongue-in-cheek) that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are atheists- but so is/are : trees, babies, abstract objects, the sky, books about atheism, bushes, Yetis (maybe), midnight snacks, jet lag, overdue library fees, and wood.

Well, have it as you wish. I at least enjoyed atheism when it meant something.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Ron - great piece - ironic, I touched on a similar thread yesterday regarding the semantics of agnostic and atheist -
http://sapblatt.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/atheism-is-not-a-religion/
Enjoyed your piece

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Rarely have I seen such an ill-informed article posted with such conviction. One long straw man desperately shoving people into comfortable little pigeon-holes that completely fail to address the depth of thought people express on this subject. An embarrassment to this site.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agnosticism - aka “hedging your bets”

In any case this essay was drivel

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

this article is fucking absurd.  what a tornado of unnecessary labels.

here’s a tip: do not take solace in your ignorance.. that’s not what science is about.  take solace in your integrity to refuse filling in the gaps with faith-based nonsense.. always strive to learn and share.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.