Atheism

[ted_bloody_maul]

Another issue I have with the current atheist approach is that they do not take religion seriously. If they did then they could far better promote the cause of logic and reason.

For example; why not go through the Bible step by step and prove it's falsity (as the inerrant word of God rather than a historical document) by listing its contradictions, falsities and historical inaccuracies? Why not do this instead of mere polemic in the Dawkins-Hitchens mould?

For the same reason I suspect that Creationists don't try to disprove Darwin page by page: so much easier to just write from a position of opinion rather than logic.

Of course in the above comparison, Darwin would not be disproved and the Bible would but that makes it all the more difficult to understand why atheists are using the same approach as the Creationists in this example - they at least have nothing to lose but they still don't do it.

Perhaps it's because they are so sure they are right they don't see it as being worth the trouble.

I have to disagree. Atheists frequently take apart claims of the unerring and literal truth of the Bible. In any argument it would be difficult to come out on the side of those who believe in a world younger than the earliest human artifacts unless we abandon all trust in the scientists whose theories and inventions we are happy to take for granted in everyday.

Where there is difficulty is with those who maintain that the Bible is the word of God but who don't accept the most obvious readings. Many Christians seem to believe - rightly - that the Bible, whilst in their opinion being absolutely devine, requires interpretation and contextual understanding. I'd agree that was the case with any historical document. However, that very process of interpretation by definition renders it as something less than the word of God.

I frequently find when debating the issue that those believers with any smarts will offer some such plausible sounding explanation of how some particular passage is meant to be read symbolically or that Jesus 'meant' some such thing not directly referenced and so on. Again that may very well be the case but when even modern authors, lyricists and journalists have interpretations they don't recognise foisted upon their work it's difficult to see how claims of the Bible's divinity can be accepted.

Of course, this just applies to one area of one particular religion but across the board a similar truth seems to be evident regarding religious knowledge. In an ironic sense it proves, to my mind at least, the applicability of Darwin ideas to religious thought - those religions which make palpably absurd claims with little scope for explaining away contradictions or falsifiable evidence will go the way of the physically weak whilst those with the capacity to evolve to new environments and new data will survive.

In the case of Christianity it strikes me that it has had 2000 years to get its story straight before presenting its final case to the jury but has some explaining to do given the way its stories have altered over the years and its provision of false alibis and memories. It makes it very difficult to argue against when you suspect that had the same conversation taken place at some other remote point in history (or even the future) a different retelling of the story would unfold but would still be told with the same conviction.

In the end its immaterial anyway since I've never met an intelligent person who derived their faith from reading a holy book although I've met plenty who will defend it as though they have. Debunking the documentary 'evidence' supposedly at the heart of a religion is no more worthwhile than trying to make someone who doesn't like red wine enjoy claret by calling it champagne.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Segovius,

I'll have to try and ask you to a) address my points and b)not use word-salad to try and make your arguments, because the whole of your last response makes no sense whatsoever to me.

It's like reading typical theist apologist ramblings that attempt to hide their lack of meaning beneath verbose language, kind of like trying to listen to Alister McGrath.

I have made clear concise points. Would you mind returning the favour? Or, perhaps you can't because you don't have a real argument?

Mine is really very simple.

Atheism is refusal to accept the positive ontological claims of theists, because their arguments are unpersuasive. Please feel free to give me a convincing argument to actually "believe" there is a god, rather than consider such a thing merely possible.

Agnosticism is the acknowledgement that god's existence can't be known. As this is part of the definition put forward by theists , this should be everyon'e default position.

I am threfore an agnostic atheist, and I would argue that this is a rational position.

I'll ignore your "no true Scotsman" arguments about fundies, as they are just as much adherents of their religions as moderates. They've arrived in their position through the same repugnant process called religious faith.

 

[monster_magnet]

I actually think the liberation of thought that comes with atheism leads to a happier mind set than I see in many theists. Most of my friends are atheists and interestingly, they tend to be the happier ones.

This statement surprises me Fats. You suggested that Atheism is merely a reaction to theism and NOT a separate creed. But, it has liberating 'mindset' and a philosophy that tends to encourage a happier demeanor.

As I've already pointed out, atheism is a reactionary stance to theism

In my opinion what you are subscribing to isn't just a reactionary stance. From how you describe Athiesm it is a seperate ideaology.

 

[colpepper1]

It's like reading typical theist apologist ramblings that attempt to hide their lack of meaning beneath verbose language,

That is not, if I may say so, a neutral sentence. It is angry, adversarial and loaded and it's not just you FT. Militant atheists - who I separate out from conscience atheists or those splendid types who couldn't care less either way - use language as a weapon. They claim objectivity but decide the ground on which the battle is to be fought.

Since the reformation, though in all likelihood for some time before 'the word' has been paramount with the iconic the indexical and the symbolic reduced to baubles. In fact anyone with a superficial knowledge of linguistics or narrative will tell you that language is a fairly blunt tool to reveal the nuances of thought and fairly useless on instinct.

I'm arging for baubles and against totalitarianism wherever it's found. Literalism will kill us all. You can't legislate for good humour and kindness.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I actually think the liberation of thought that comes with atheism leads to a happier mind set than I see in many theists. Most of my friends are atheists and interestingly, they tend to be the happier ones.

This statement surprises me Fats. You suggested that Atheism is merely a reaction to theism and NOT a separate creed. But, it has liberating 'mindset' and a philosophy that tends to encourage a happier demeanor.

As I've already pointed out, atheism is a reactionary stance to theism

In my opinion what you are subscribing to isn't just a reactionary stance. From how you describe Athiesm it is a seperate ideaology.

Monster, defining a lack of ideology as an ideology comes across as crazy.

If there weren't theists, there would be no atheists. It's really that simple.

A neutral position has to be an assumption of non-existence - a special case assumption that is, not an assertion. Otherwise, you need to consider every one of an infinite possible number of entities in descriptions of everything.

Let's take a description of a field.

In my description, I would describe only what could be detected, so I would describe soil, grass, hedgerow, sheep, rabbits. I could even drill down into the bilogical processes we have detected at work and the physical properties of the materials involved, providing a useful description without redundancy.

Now, if we take the approach of allowing all things that could possibly exist, so our description of the field would be soil, grass, hedgerow, sheep, rabbits, the giant invisible, undetectable badgers in the corner of the field, the redundant particles of Drax lying in a pile in the centre (that are undetectable to man) and any of an infinite number of undetectable entities that can be conceived of in to our description.

This last course doesn't make for a useful description. It's why we apply Occam's razor. This is also why those making positive ontological claims, e.g. theists have complete burden of proof, meaning postulated undetectable beings will never, ever have any descriptive value. Yes, they could exist, but unless detectable, we can say absolutely nothing about them.

To atheists, describing a universe with god(s) is exactly the same as the above on a larger scale. It's redundant. What is unknown is simply unknown. Labelling it "god" adds no descriptive value.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

It's like reading typical theist apologist ramblings that attempt to hide their lack of meaning beneath verbose language,

That is not, if I may say so, a neutral sentence. It is angry, adversarial and loaded and it's not just you FT. Militant atheists - who I separate out from conscience atheists or those splendid types who couldn't care less either way - use language as a weapon. They claim objectivity but decide the ground on which the battle is to be fought.

Since the reformation, though in all likelihood for some time before 'the word' has been paramount with the iconic the indexical and the symbolic reduced to baubles. In fact anyone with a superficial knowledge of linguistics or narrative will tell you that language is a fairly blunt tool to reveal the nuances of thought and fairly useless on instinct.

I'm arging for baubles and against totalitarianism wherever it's found. Literalism will kill us all. You can't legislate for good humour and kindness.

"Militant" is a ridiculously loaded word, so please don't preach. I don't know any atheists - not one - who advocates any form of violence against religious people. I just want free debate on the issues - how is debate and argument totalitarian or militant?

Of course my language is loaded. I'm a person with political opinions. I think the religious apologist writing style is intellectually shoddy at best, and a particularly sinister tool of the religious conversion process at worst.

What do you want me to say? Using verbose language to try and befuddle people, trying to bully them to agree through embarrassed ignorance, rather than making clear, concise points backed by evidence is a good thing? Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think this is the case.

I'm certainly a politically active person, who feels he is fighting against one of the great wrongs of the world in the form of religion; not a violent fight, as your pathetic use of the word "militant" implies, but one fought through the wonderful tools of free debate we have available to us. What is your problem with this?

Politically, I would like to see a world without religion, but only if this was reached through people genuinely coming to the rational conclusion that religion is wrong. I would support no form of legislation against religion and my goal may be unreachable, but if I didn't argue against it and just stayed silent, I would be a hypocrite.

I fully support anyone's rights to hold whatever beliefs they want and would defend that right with my life if anyone tried to outlaw them, but if they want to debate those beliefs or make legislation that affects my life based on them, I will express my opinion that they are wrong, when that is my opinion.

If I think someone's beliefs are ridiculous, I will express my opinion that they are ridiculous, especially when they are advocating that I should subscribe to those beliefs, as is certainly true of many Christians.

I would, as I have stated, not even be debating these issues if people from religious groups didn't try to impose their beliefs on me, be that through terror campaigns or dodgy legislation.

Would you call someone who follows socialist ideals a militant, just because they act on their principles politically and debate issues in a free, democratic parliament?

 

[segovius]

You see, militancy is the problem. It is a disease which can be caught by religionists and by atheists.

But the fact is, to be religious does not mean by definition to be militant.
To be an atheist does not mean by definition to be militant.

And yet....there are religionists who insist it does and use only this tool. And there are atheists who insist it does and use only this tool.

And when you question such a religionist they will say: ALL not of my belief are sinners.

And when you question such an atheist they will say: ALL not of my belief are wrong.

And they both will want to pass this mindset to other people. That's how the disease spreads.

Meanwhile there are millions of religious believers, atheists, agnostics and people who don't give a damn either way, all going about their everyday lives, just trying to survive and living with those who differ from them with tolerance and respect.

 

[Analis]

Are atheism and agnoticism mutually exclusive ? The answer lies partly on the meaning of those words ; according to their usual, more widespread definitions, they are. Their approaches are unreconcilable. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It relies on the assertion that there is no god of any kind. This assertion being unproven and unprovable, it is a belief.

Agnosticism takes a very different stance : it dismisses any approach based on belief. An agnostic only states that he doesn't know what lies at the core of the universe. Agnoticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism either. Agnostic atheism is an oxymoron (as an agnostic theist). An atheist is a believer, in the non-existence of any god(s). An agnostic is a man who holds no belief.

 

[colpepper1]

"Militant" is a ridiculously loaded word, so please don't preach.

Militant precisely describes your position. You said you wanted everyone to agree with you and the world would be fine. If it isn't militancy it's madness. It's the world through a narrow political prism that sees coercion everywhere, even where none exists.

I'm suggesting you are putting up a straw man and working yourself into juju over something over which you have no control - the religious, spiritual impulse call it what you will. To attempt to argue it away with words is barmy, it's an instinctive feeling. You're saying because you don't have it it can't exist, like saying you don't like a painting or poem therefor it must be rubbish. That's totalitarianism.
As segovius suggested, the trick is not getting things but still getting on and leaving options open. I'm not arguing against doubt, I'm rejecting certainty whatever hat it wears.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Are atheism and agnoticism mutually exclusive ? The answer lies partly on the meaning of those words ; according to their usual, more widespread definitions, they are. Their approaches are unreconcilable. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It relies on the assertion that there is no god of any kind. This assertion being unproven and unprovable, it is a belief.

Agnosticism takes a very different stance : it dismisses any approach based on belief. An agnostic only states that he doesn't know what lies at the core of the universe. Agnoticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism either. Agnostic atheism is an oxymoron (as an agnostic theist). An atheist is a believer, in the non-existence of any god(s). An agnostic is a man who holds no belief.

No, they are in no way exclusive. Agnosticism says nothing about belief and atheism says nothing about knowledge.

a - theism = without theism
a - gnostic = without gnosticism

I fall in to both categories.

Most god theories define god as undetectable and requiring faith, therefore, I am by default agnostic about the proposed entity.

At the same time, I have to ask myself "do I believe this proposed entity exists?" and the answer is "no", so I'm an atheist.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

You see, militancy is the problem. It is a disease which can be caught by religionists and by atheists.

But the fact is, to be religious does not mean by definition to be militant.
To be an atheist does not mean by definition to be militant.

And yet....there are religionists who insist it does and use only this tool. And there are atheists who insist it does and use only this tool.

And when you question such a religionist they will say: ALL not of my belief are sinners.

And when you question such an atheist they will say: ALL not of my belief are wrong.

And they both will want to pass this mindset to other people. That's how the disease spreads.

Meanwhile there are millions of religious believers, atheists, agnostics and people who don't give a damn either way, all going about their everyday lives, just trying to survive and living with those who differ from them with tolerance and respect.

How do you perceive arguing against beliefs as intolerant or militant?

Do you follow a political ideology? Do you argue against the ideas of people of opposing ideologies?

If we didn't share our ideas, interact, agree, disagree and debate, life would be pretty awful.

Atheism itself is not an ideology. I, as a human, have a political reactionary ideology, that wants to prevent theists actually imposing their beliefs on me through legislation or terror campaigns. I want to see undemocratic bishops removed from the house of Lords. If the elements of theism that want to impinge upon my life go away, so do I, back to quiet atheism.

Just beacuse I'm an atheist, doesn't mean I don't have political beliefs.

 

[monster_magnet]

At the same time, I have to ask myself "do I believe this proposed entity exists?" and the answer is "no", so I'm an atheist.

Your belief is that god doesn't exist. Therefore, You are not agnostic.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

At the same time, I have to ask myself "do I believe this proposed entity exists?" and the answer is "no", so I'm an atheist.

Your belief is that god doesn't exist. Therefore, You are not agnostic.

Wrong again - if we take the most basic definitions of god (rather than Yahweh, for which the evidence of lack of existence is damning), I don't believe god doesn't exist any more than I don't believe aliens don't exist.

Until evidence comes in, holding belief is an irrelevant stance.

Consider these two statements that mean entirely different things.

I believe there is no god
I don't believe there is a god

If you think they mean the same thing - you are missing the crux of the atheist position.

I believe there are no aliens
I don't believe in aliens

The first is not true for me - I don't have enough evidence to make the assessment.

The second statement however is true for me, for the very same reason.

The key to this is an understanding of ontology. Witholding belief works both ways. Until I have enough evidence to make a call, I don't believe something does exist and I don't believe it doesn't exist.

You may argue that the above is an agnostic stance, and much of it is, but it still comes down to the fundamental question - do I subscribe to theism? And the answer is no, so I'm an atheist.

You could just as easily be a theistic agnostic, who admits that god's existence can't be known, but believes gods exist any way.

 

[segovius]

How do you perceive arguing against beliefs as intolerant or militant?

Depends on the manner, purpose and tone of the argument being conducted.

If one proceeds from a belief that one is right then any debate be of a totally different nature than if one proceeds from a desire to learn something.

I would say that there are two approaches to debate:

1) An exchange of views to possible mutual benefit and learning.
2) A debate whose purpose is to change the other person's view to your own or defend one's position with no possibility of change to your own.

#2 is 'militant' for want of a better term though I would prefer 'fundamentalist' so as to distinguish fundie atheists and religionists from their more tolerant counterparts.

Do you follow a political ideology? Do you argue against the ideas of people of opposing ideologies?

No, I do not follow any such ideology. I sometimes have discussions with people who do and have learnt some interesting things and observed some ridiculous views - but that is learning too....about how people form opinions and general psychology.

If we didn't share our ideas, interact, agree, disagree and debate, life would be pretty awful.

I agree - my point is that fundie atheists and fundie religionists never share each other's views. they merely try to convert or impose their own.

Atheism itself is not an ideology. I, as a human, have a political reactionary ideology, that wants to prevent theists actually imposing their beliefs on me through legislation or terror campaigns. I want to see undemocratic bishops removed from the house of Lords. If those fringe elements of theists go away, so do I, back to quiet atheism.

Yes, I believe those conducting the terror campaigns you mention want to see certain things removed and stop others imposing their beliefs.

This is the logic that arose post 911 when it was decided that the best way to combat the 'bad guys' was to use the 'bad guys' methods.

So, they are 'evil' because they torture and kill - so we need to torture and kill to stop them being 'evil'. That's the point at which they won....because their cancer spread to people who were previously immune.

And here we all are.......

Just beacuse I'm an atheist, doesn't mean I don't have political beliefs.

Err...??

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Segovius, militant is a loaded word which implies a certain level of violence, so you'll have to drop it, I'm afraid.

If William Wilberforce had taken your sharing ideas approach when dealing with the pro-slavery lobby, who knows? We may have still had slaves to do our housework to this day.

I think your view of debate is naive.

There will always be people at opposing ends of a debate, then many in the middle. The idea for those at the ends is to sway those in the middle.

On some issues, I am in the middle, and listening to those who are trying to persuade me. On others, I have weighed the multitude of evidence already in and made a decision. With religion, I'm in the latter camp.

 

[colpepper1]

I think your view of debate is naive.

Ahem.. :shock:

 

[monster_magnet]

You may argue that the above is an agnostic stance, and much of it is, but it still comes down to the fundamental question - do I subscribe to theism? And the answer is no, so I'm an atheist .

No. If you are not a Theist then you can be Agnostic or Athiest. By definition it is not black and white.

I don't believe in god.
I do believe in god.

Both are beliefs. Athiesm is not merely a reaction.

Agnostics believe that both of those positions are unprovable and essential the same as they require belief or faith.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Monster,

Read back what you've just written to see what nonsense it is.

You'e just defined a statement that contains the words "I don't believe" as a belief.

 

[segovius]

Segovius, militant is a loaded word which implies a certain level of violence, so you'll have to drop it, I'm afraid.

If William Wilberforce had taken your sharing ideas approach when dealing with the pro-slavery lobby, who knows? We may have still had slaves to do our housework to this day.

I think your view of debate is naive.

There will always be people at opposing ends of a debate, then many in the middle. The idea for those at the ends is to sway those in the middle.

On some issues, I am in the middle, and listening to those who are trying to persuade me. On others, I have weighed the multitude of evidence already in and made a decision. With religion, I'm in the latter camp.

Yes, I agree about the term militant - we'll use Fundie from now on. As I said, it has the advantage of drawing a distinction between the tolerant and intolerant wings of either belief system.

Wasn't Wilberforce motivated by his Christian beliefs btw?

Anyway, let's broaden this a little: as an atheist, what do you see as being the root of humanity's need to 'create God'?

When did this first occur historically and what in your view were the factors that led to it?

 

[monster_magnet]

Fats,

Taking your field with giant badgers idea:
For instance,
Person A believes the badgers are sat in the corner of the field.
Person B believes the badgers are not sat in the corner of the field.

Both people have belief in something that neither can prove.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Fundie is loaded as well. It implies I could never shift my position, even if provided with contrary evidence, so that'll have to go as well. The requirements for me to change my stance on belief in gods are pretty basic really. Evidence.

I'd say god-belief probably arose as we developed our self awareness, due to a combination of fear of mortality and a need for an at least primitive and superstitious explanation of the unknown.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Fats,

Taking your field with giant badgers idea:
For instance,
Person A believes the badgers are sat in the corner of the field.
Person B believes the badgers are not sat in the corner of the field.

Both people have belief in something that neither can prove.

Person C neither believes they do exist nor believes they don't exist, as they have insufficient evidence to believe either proposition.

"I believe X does not exist" is not the same position as "I don't believe X exists"

I've clearly demonstrated this in my posts above. Why are you unable to take it in?

The first is a statement of belief. The second is a statement of witheld belief.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I think your view of debate is naive.

Ahem.. :shock:

So, Colpepper, do you think all parties should be aiming for a middle ground in all debates?

I have very strong opinions against the policies of the BNP, for example. I'm not looking to share ideas with them and find a "middle ground", as I don't see that there is one. I have a strong opinion that they are wrong, so I will argue strongly against their ideas, hoping to sway those in the middle to see that the BNP are wrong as well.

Does this make me a fundamentalist, militant, anti-racist, or just someone who stands up for their political beliefs through the democratic process?

 

[segovius]

Fundie is loaded as well. It implies I could never shift my position, even if provided with contrary evidence, so that'll have to go as well. The requirements for me to change my stance on belief in gods are pretty basic really. Evidence.

I'd say god-belief probably arose as we developed our self awareness, due to a combination of fear of mortality and a need for an at least primitive and superstitious explanation of the unknown.

Fraid not, Fundie will have to stay. At least for now, until we find a more fitting term. A Xian Fundie will say they do have evidence: the Bible.

An atheist will say they have no evidence.

Both are insisting on evidence as they define it and then they claim that it is an objective universal that applies to all whereas it may only apply within their own belief system. That's Fundie-ism as opposed to Science or religion.

Could you expand on your last answer: what led to the arising of a "need for an at least primitive and superstitious explanation of the unknown"?

Which historical point are you thinking of here? First cities? In the caves? What was at that time "the unknown"? Could you give some concrete examples?

Do you know for sure that God-belief was tied to thoughts of an afterlife as surely it must be if you are advancing fear of mortality as a reason. Examples?

Many of the early God-systems had no conception of an afterlife - even Judaism had no such belief and an afterlife is actively denied in certain passages in the Old Testament.

I don't think the Babylonian mythos held such a view either....

I'm also not sure of the validity of lumping all conceptions of God or religion together - this is another common Fundie atheist mistake imo, a pretty unforgiveable one, intellectually speaking - there are many differing conceptions of God and they all have widely differing causes of origin. The Greek Gods for example have no point of linkage with the Judeo-Christian idea either in form or function. Similarly in religion, the psychological underpinning of non-western religions has a very different animus than the common forms we in the west are familiar with....

All this needs addressing in any serious assessment by an atheist or anyone else who aspires to make serious points...of course it goes without saying it almost never is addressed, it being much simpler to get out the broad paintbrush and the catch-all waste-basket.....

 

[colpepper1]

More straw men I'm afraid FT. You're eliding religious belief with the BNP, it's that political prism that's stopping me buying your argument. Like saying communist and fascist states ban religion therefore all atheists are one or the other - an argument going nowhere.

Until you stop conflating belief and proof the argument will move in ever decreasing circles. If your world denies instinct and nuance I don't find it a viable one, no matter how 'logical'.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

More straw men I'm afraid FT. You're eliding religious belief with the BNP, it's that political prism that's stopping me buying your argument. Like saying communist and fascist states ban religion therefore all atheists are one or the other - an argument going nowhere.

Until you stop conflating belief and proof the argument will move in ever decreasing circles. If your world denies instinct and nuance I don't find it a viable one, no matter how 'logical'.

I've already explained why my world denies instinct - it's too fallable. If you're happy living on instinct - go for it. If I did, I'd die young of a heart attack, as Imy instinct tells me to eat lots of fatty food.

Where is my straw man?

I'm not in any way comparing the two ideologies. I'm talking about the nature of debate, not the nature of religious or racist beliefs.

 

[monster_magnet]

Person C neither believes they do exist nor believes they don't exist, as they have insufficient evidence to believe either proposition.

Indeed, the Agnostic.

Athiesm and Theism are opposing players in the same game of poker where they are not allowed to see what cards they have. The only rational position is Agnosticism.

The first is a statement of belief. The second is a statement of witheld belief.

You're going to have to enlighten me Fats. What is withheld belief?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I don't really see why it's neccessary for an atheist to explain why beliefs came into being before making any serious assessment of the validity of religious/theistic thinking. This seems to me to be rather symptomatic of the religious mindset - an explanation must exist. It appears difficult for such a mind to conceive of imperfect knowledge.

Ironically enough this is probably the best evidence of why such belief exists - it is an attempt to impose order upon apparent chaos since the benefits of doing so are deeply rewarding to the security of the individual. It also seems to be why many theists and religionists have difficulty in understanding the atheistic position. Its alleged fundamentalism and militancy are rarely held with the same vigour as those of the theists and religionists since dealing with uncertainty is a neccessary part of the atheistic mindset.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Person C neither believes they do exist nor believes they don't exist, as they have insufficient evidence to believe either proposition.

Indeed, the Agnostic.

Athiesm and Theism are opposing players in the same game of poker where they are not allowed to see what cards they have. The only rational position is Agnosticism.

The first is a statement of belief. The second is a statement of witheld belief.

You're going to have to enlighten me Fats. What is withheld belief?

I've just explained it very, very clearly. If you don't understand, I can help no more.

Agnosticism says nothing about belief.

With aliens, for example, we have no evidence that they do exist and no evidence that they don't. Their existence is certainly possible, indeed probable.

Until the evidence comes in, I don't believe that they do exist and I don't believe that they do not exist.

This still means I'm not a believer in aliens, but I don't believe that they do not exist.

Why do you feel belief needs to be invested in a proposition for its consideration?

 

[colpepper1]

I've already explained why my world denies instinct - it's too fallable.

Human beings are. They kid themselves they've taken all the instinct out but tear into one another and call it politics. It's just fighting with a fatuous underlying logic. Everyone is instinctive, all the time. Atheists haven't solved the issue of self and ego, they've just gone round the issue or pretend it doesn't exist.
At least religion has a crack at the problem, Christianity is full of it and its dangers.