h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I dispute this statement as an agnostic myself. How can it be a wasteland of disbeilf?
Agnostic comes form the word "Not knowing" in latin and the genral beilf of it is of course that no person can fully beive in any religion. It is of course a religion in itself determining on the definition religion to mean a system of belif. However it does seem hypocritical that I say this, beucase it must also be true that if I belive in the statement that it is impossible to belive in anything fully that belif in itself cannot be held fully :P.
Anyway I really would like you guys to remove the statement that agnostics are in a state of disbelif becuase, as all agnostics would say if got down and done some reserch it is impossible to belive in nothing at all, and thus we cannot be in a wasteland of disbelif. So there.

I wrote the entry and don't believe the statement should be removed.

I did not say that *all* agnostics are in a wasteland of disbelief. You've taken a single phrase from a sentence out of context. I said that a wasteland of disbelief is one of several possible conditions an agnostic who was previously atheistic or religious might be in. There are obviously several other states they might be in, none of which is more 'correct' than any other in my view. I wasn't even referring to lifetime agnostics, for heaven's sake, when I wrote that sentence.

Please see the works of Elie Wiesel for an example of an originally religious (Jewish) person who later identified himself as agnostic and (due in his case to reflections on his experience during the Holocaust) described his outlook on the afterlife as a wasteland of disbelief. He didn't use the exact words, I don't believe. He rather went on in his books and articles at some length about his philosophical position. He spoke at my university about a decade ago, and I'm fairly certain he would bristle at anybody telling him that he doesn't believe or feel what he has written and said he does.

I also feel it is perfectly possible to believe in nothing via the afterlife. I believe in zero, a lack of numerical value. I believe in a vacuum, a lack of atmosphere. I believe in emotional castration by surgery, resulting in a lack of emotion. Believing in nothing whatsoever regarding the afterlife is simply taking the concept of nothingness as having mental substance to its predicable extreme.

I find that the phrase "all agnostics would say" tends not to apply.

The arterlife has nothing to do with this. Its belief in nothing at all that the entire argument is about. Since one belives in "the nothing" you don't actuly belive in nothing. If that makes any sence at all. One still belives in nothing and that thig is the "void" if you will. Thats the entire point. You can't belive nothing becuase that in itself is a belief.

Hmm. darakat, you do have a point as it regards to nothing at all. This wasn't intended to reference in my article, since I was confining myself to a smaller scope. But it's certainly a good question for debate.

I'm afraid I feel unqualified to debate this larger issue. But there are a number of people who would probably love to. Many of them are a part of the Freedom From Faith Foundation, a loose organization of various non-Christians who debate things constantly here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A665101

I know from experience that they welcome questions from non-members.

Just to warn you, I have politely pointed the group members to this discussion thread. I hope this is okay with you. My goal was to provide you with an answer, or at least someone to debate with further.

So the question is, how can someone possibly believe in nothing? And your point is, that is a belief in itself?

I hate to be a pedant (well, actually I don't ) but there's a difference between believing *in* nothing, and believing nothing - and neither is even remotely possible as a general state of mind. Agnostics do, of course, have myriads of beliefs about myriads of things - they just don't have any definite beliefs about the existence of God, except perhaps the belief that there's no way of knowing.

The phrase in dispute - "a wasteland of disbelief" does carry implications which probably don't apply to a majority of agnostics, but in the context it was written it is just one of a range of possibilities.

Noggin

Just change it to, "Just like many, no, every other group of people on this planet, Agnostics hold a wide range of beliefs, some of which they cannot admit to even themselves".

Well as the belief that you can't believe anything to its fullest extent must be a belief that can't be held to its fullest... Anyway the point is that by believing in "no things" you believe in "nothing" but because of this you must also believe that it is indeed possible to believe in "nothing" and thus have a belief. I hope that makes more sense... but I do tend to confuse people with my rather strange ability to understand things that are understanding of things that understand, if you understand....

no it looks like you don't

There's a difference between not understanding and not replying, darakat. It was an interesting conversation anyway.

Was, always with the past tence. It still could be! but no you had to let it die, like so many little conversations sittingthere lonely in the damp world outside. Did you think of theconversations? did you?

Ok that was probebly going to far, but the point still stands.