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

this entry was. I enjoyed reading it, I like your style.

I'm also very impressed with the number of entries you've written in a relatively short time.

Joanna

Thanks, Joanna.

Hmm, we have an approved entry on atheism/agnosticism already (called "Atheism")- I wonder what they'll do about that...

I suppose the editors could theoretically combine the two entries. I would prefer they didn't, since there are notable differences. You would not, for instance, use the same entry for both cats and dogs even though they are pets that have traits in common.

While the Atheism entry does briefly define agnosticism, it does so primarily to show how the two are different. It understandably sticks to the atheist point-of-view on life. Thus, agnosticism is not fully explored or understood there.

I do think the entries should reference each other, since they are often mentioned together and there is some confusion about what the differences are. (Of course, both sides have their own opinions on those differences)

Now I think this is a pitty, as there are many more things to be said about both. I´ve been calling myself an agnostic, as I do not believe in God any more (that paragraph about former religious ist the one that hit me) but wouldn´t want to believe in the not-existance of god on the other hand.

One day I might be able just to ignore this question and go on having fun (i say is this a prayer???)

Nice article Fragilis.

Just remember Englander: it's all in the mind.

-jb

The Atheism article addressed the difference between agnosticism and atheism because it is a murky area, and defining the difference is important to defining the one you're trying to discuss. This article does the same thing. Both do it from the perspective of their subject... my Atheism article pokes fun at agnosticism, and this Agnosticism article harpoons atheism. I think they'll be fine as seperate entries. Good job, dude... I was wondering when someone would get around to writing this!

Thanks, Colonel Sellers!

I must admit I felt challenged to write an entry on agnosticism after reading your Atheism article. While the two groups have never engaged in anything so outre as war, the good-natured ribbing back and forth seems to be a common factor everywhere I go. But it isn't as funny when only one side is presented!

Very illuminating. I've suspected that my beliefs could be defined as agnostic for quite some time now, but began to doubt when so many people don't know what agnosticism is. I was trying to explain it to some people in Germany a couple of years ago and they couldn't understand it at all - although my limited German vocabulary probably didn't help, even though I used the German word for agnostic, (Agnostiker, glaub' ich).
This is a very worthwhile Entry indeed.

Thanks, MaW. It is difficult to explain what agnosticism is. It is easier to explain what it isn't.

Indeed, probably because agnostics don't really know what they believe anyway. Well, some of them don't, and that includes me.

I find it easy to explain what agnosticism is. When asked "Is there a God?", if you say "Yes", then you're a theist. If you say "no", then you're an atheist. If you say "I don't know that!", then you're an agnostic!

This can still get tricky if you answer, "well, I *believe* there is/isn't one, but I guess I don't *know* for sure." (very careful, eh?) I guess that would make you an agnostic with theistic/atheistic leanings. Would you like fries and a drink with that?

Nice entry, BTW.

GTB

Thanks, GTBacchus. I guess the problem is that theists and atheists have a framework for their beliefs, so they expect agnostics to have one as well. Of course, many can't supply one. Hence the confusion.

But yes, you're right. People really are overcomplicating the issue!

My version of agnosticism is really rather vague and ill-defined, but that's just how it suits me, so I see no problem with it.