Recent Comments
RSS feed
A Climte Change Conference with an actual debate of the science
May 9, 2012 — xanthippa‘The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) will take place in Chicago, Illinois from Monday, May 21 to Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, 720 South Michigan Avenue. The event will follow the NATO Summit taking place in Chicago on May 19–21.’
This is one Climate Conference which promises to actually address the science and not just the politically correct rhetoric. It is also likely to address the issues arising from faulty or downright fraudulent science on the topic of Anthropogenic Climate Change:
‘On November 22, 2011, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. “Climategate II” revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements. ‘
Did I mention that Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, will deliver the first dinner speech, on Monday, May 21st?
Of course, not everyone is planning to be there. Donna Laframboise of NoFrakkingConsensus, for one, has distanced herself from this event over concerns about Heartland’s ethics.
Abortion And Education: the logical flaws in the positions held by the ‘religious right’
March 26, 2012 — xanthippaOK – this is a very contentious topic. Please, read my disclaimer first:
In this post, I do not wish to debate the morality of abortion or if it ought to be legal or illegal and anything else related to abortion itself. Let’s leave that for a later post focused specifically on that topic.
This post is about the inconsistencies in the ‘principled positions’ presently proposed (held) by many people who consider themselves as part of the ‘religious right’ and/or (because they do differ at times, but not always) ‘social conservatives’.
No, I am not taking the position that they are correct or incorrect, right or wrong. I am simply stating that they are inconsistent in their reasoning. As in, ‘if A, then you cannot logically argue for B; if B, then you cannot logically argue for A’!
Now that I have presented the disclaimer at such great length, let me present the two positions, as I understand them to be argued by the aforementioned factions within the conservative movement.
Position A:
A person’s a person, no matter how small – or within a womb he/she is. Since the genetic material is set at conception, from zygote on, this is defined as a human being with full human rights and freedoms. Abortion is immoral and should be illegal because by intentionally killing this entity, one is killing a human being and thus violating his/her civil liberties.
In other words, ‘Position A’ holds that killing a fetus is murder because civil liberties and full human rights kick in at conception. The right of the child to his/her civil liberties is inviolable, regardless of what the parents’ views are.
Position B:
Parents have a right to raise their child as they wish, without interference from the government.
In other words, parents should have the right to exclude information from their child’s education which they don’t like or agree with, they may discipline their child in any way they see fit, and so on. They could even subject them to plastic surgery for the hell of it, if they wanted to…
Please, don’t get me wrong – I do not know where the proper balance between the civil liberties of the child versus the civil liberties of the parents lies!
All I am saying is that if you think that the government has the right to interfere in in parental decisions from the very beginning – before the child is even born, it is logically inconsistent to then claim that the government has no right to interfere from that point on, whether it is sex ed in school or teaching children from a very young age that there are multiple religious beliefs (as well as disbeliefs).
After all, we do know from multiple, well documented studies that most children who receive religious indoctrination from their earliest childhood can never fully shake the effects of this early brainwashing. We also understand quite well how this works and that early childhood religious indoctrination actually changes the physiology of a child’s brain.
This clearly interferes not just with the civil liberty of freedom of religion, it actually interferes with the right to bodily integrity: the same right which is being violated by abortion if one were to extend civil liberties to the point of conception.
It seems to me that if one is arguing from a principled position, one can either argue that the parents have the exclusive right to make decision on behalf of their children or that children have their own civil liberties which nobody, not even the parent, can violate.
Both positions make very valid points. But, they are irreconcillable with each other because each stems from a set of principles which abrogates the other.
Either the civil libertis of the child – especially the right to bodily integrity – start at conception, as argued in ‘Position 1’: if this is so, the parents do not have the right to violate this bodily integrity, ever. Not to circumcize their children (of either sex), nor to corporally punish them, nor to rewire their brain through early childhood religious indoctrination!
Or the parents, as guardians, have the right to treat their children as they wish, as expressed in ‘Position 2’: they may subject them to non-medically necessary surgical procedures (religiously motivated or otherwise), they may spank them, they may deny them education and they may alter the natural structure of the brain through childhood religious indoctrination.
The problem comes in when the ‘religious right’/’social conservatives’ attempt to take both positions at once: abortion is murder and government must step in to stop it – and the government has no right to ban childhood circumcision, ban corporal punishment and to over-ride the parent’s interference with healthy brain development and education….
Again, I am not passing judgment on either set of principles.
All I am saying is that people need to choose one set of principles and stick with it, or they will not only open themselves to justified ridicule, they will continue to taint the ‘c’onservative movement as a whole.
Learning the wrong lesson from a tragedy
December 6, 2011 — xanthippaToday marks a dark anniversary: the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
A truly dark day in history.
Many people marked it by attending memorials, including on Parliament Hill.
No, I will not go into a rant about the fact that we were not told back then, nor are any current mainstream news coverages of the anniversary even mentioning that Mark Lepin’s murderous rampage was inspired by his Islamic beliefs – if I do, I’ll get stuck on this and never get to my main point:
All those protesters on Parliament Hill, all those propagandists who are continuously politicizing this massacre (without accurately and honestly describing it) for their own advantage – all the media whipping up the anti-gun hysterics – are drawing the wrong conclusion from this horrible tragedy!
This must be challenged!
Some of these protesters are saying that if another woman gets shot ever again, their blood will be on the hands of those who scrapped the long gun registry.
WRONG!
Guns are the great equalizers!!!
Even a small, frail woman can protect herself from a large attacker with a gun and a bit of training.
Would 14 women really have been massacred at Ecole Polytechnique if each and every one of them had been armed at the time of Lepin’s attack?
And, please, consider the following: during the attack, Lepin’s gun jammed and he had to clear it. Yet, while his gun was not functional, nobody tackled him – though they could have. If they had, many lives would have been saved.
So, why didn’t anyone tackle him?
Because we have been inculcated with an irrational fear of guns.
I am not saying that fearing guns is irrational in and of itself – rather, that the level of fear with which we, urbanites, treat guns is irrational.
There is a remedy: each and every adult should be taught basic gun use and safety. It should be part of every person’s education, just like learning to drive is. (Remember, in Canada, cars ‘kill’ way more people than guns do!)
And while I am not advocating that each and every person should be legally mandated to always carry a loaded weapon in public, ready to use at all times, I think it is reasonable that we demand that each and every educator do so. After all, we entrust them with the care of our children – they ought to have the means and ability to protect them.
Even with the best police response times, a gunman who enters a school will have ample time to massacre students. What is the current mandated response? Lock students in their classrooms, turning them into sitting ducks and ensuring that it is easier for the villain to find her/his intended target.
Consider how much safer our children – all students – would be if every teacher would be able and ready to offer armed resistance!!!
So, let’s demand of ourpoliticians that they pass a law making it mandatory for each and every teacher to be trained in the use of firearms and to be fully armed at all times while at work! It’s the only logical lesson to be learned from this horrible, horrible tragedy.
CodeSlinger speaks out!
October 16, 2011 — xanthippaCodeSlinger had left a comment on a post about the ‘Occupy Toronto’ demonstration which I think deserves a post of its own:
Xanthippa:
By contrast, I found the crowd at Occupy Victoria very receptive to my libertarian message.
I didn’t go there to speak. I went to find out, first hand, what these people want. And what I discovered was… they haven’t got a clue.
I heard a lot of crowing about coming together, and a lot of whining about being oppressed, but no one had any idea what to do about it.
I didn’t go there to speak. But I couldn’t help myself.
So I spoke to the crowd about the importance of individual rights and freedoms.
The kind of rights that have nothing to do with what’s written on some piece of paper.
The rights we are born with. The rights nobody can take away from us.
The crowd applauded enthusiastically.
I remarked that we had heard a lot about tyranny and abuses of wealth and power.
But none of these abuses would be possible if we lived in a place that respects the inalienable rights and freedoms of every individual.
The crowd cheered wildly.
I said that we had heard a lot about collective action and direct democracy.
But a collective is made of individuals, and democracy is nothing but mob rule unless it respects the inalienable rights and freedoms of every individual.
The crowd roared its approbation.
I told them that this is the underlying cause and cure for all the diverse concerns of the assembled people.
This is what unites us.
This is the one thing we all need. We need to take back our –
Inalienable. Individual. Rights and freedoms!
And to do that we must set our government one simple task:
Protect the equal rights of every individual equally!
And beyond that – leave us the hell alone!
The crowd thundered unanimous agreement.
I didn’t go there to speak. But I’m glad I did.
Because it proved that these people are not as stupid as they are made out to be. They know truth and sense when they hear it. They just don’t hear it very often.
I went there to find out what this movement is all about.
I came away absolutely certain that now is the time to clearly and forcefully bring the libertarian message to the people of Canada.
The people of Canada are more than ready to hear it.
Free Dominion wins the Baglow case!
August 30, 2011 — xanthippaYES!!!
This is most excellent news! And – most enjoyable reading…
Last month, I reported my observations and opinions (strictly personal ones) of the hearing for summary judgment in the ‘Baglow case’: here are part 1 and part 2.
Quick recap: John Baglow and ‘Peter O’Donnel’ got into a heated debate online which spanned several blogs and the Free Dominion discussion forum on the topic of Omar Khadr, his trial and whether or not supporting Omar Khadr constitutes ‘supporting the Taliban’.
John Baglow then tried to sue ‘Peter O’Donnel’ and Free Dominion for defamation: ‘Peter O’Donnel’ for what he said and Free Dominion for being the forum in which he said it. (‘Published it’ would be a more accurate term – but ‘said’ just rolls off the keyboard so much more easily!)
Today, the ruling in the case came in: the case has been dismissed.
Here are a few quotes from the ruling which I found most interesting:
[70] Bringing an action on the comment in mid-debate runs contrary to the rules and has the
effect of chilling discussion. If allowed, it places the opposing party in a defensive mode, rather
than an offensive one, strategically putting that party at a disadvantage.[71] This was all the more so where the blog is used to aggressively berate the other side,
score points employing colourful derogatory characterizations, e.g. the plaintiff calling the
defendant Comrie Fournier the “Free Dominatrix” or referring to the opposition as “yokels with
pitchforks”, or to undermine their logic and indeed their standing by superior debating skills.* * *
[84] In any event, the plaintiff largely contradicts his view of the evidentiary basis that the
Court should use to judge this matter. He describes the foundation for his own contemptuous
views towards the defendants as follows:With respect to paragraph 7, I do not deny that the Defendants and I are
ideological adversaries and opponents in the blogosphere. I do not know the
defendants personally, and so my derision, scorn and contempt for them. can only
be for their opinions and actions as evidenced by their postings.[85] I am in agreement with the plaintiffs statement, which should have mutual application to
all parties engaged in this political debate. There is nothing in the blogging threads which would
suggest that there was any personal or inherent express malice on the part of the defendants
directed at the plaintiff, as opposed to the mutual contempt of the parties for each other’s
opinions and actions as evidenced by their postings.[86] The defendants would be entitled to rely upon the defence of fair comment should their
statement be found to be defamatory.
The way I understand these words, the judge is saying that when one starts to loose in an online debate, running to the courts to sue the other side is not an appropriate course of action. And, if it is OK for YOU to call somebody names, it is OK for THEM to call you bad names as well…
OK – I that was the sweetest bit in the ruling – in my personal opinion.
Here are some other bits that caught my eye:
- The statement by ‘Peter O’Donnel’ were statement of opinion during an ongoing debate
[40] Instead, I conclude that the opinion expressed by the defendant lies at the heart of the
debate between the factions represented by the. parties and whether the underlying facts are true
or not, readers following the blog would understand the comment as being one side of the debate.
- Just because somebody calls you a name does not mean people believe it
[54] The fact that the parties are engaged in ongoing debate over what it means to support the
Taliban is recognized in the plaintiffs attempt to explain the distinction between his situation and
that when the late Jack Layton, former leader of the NDP) was described as “Taliban Jack”.
Secondly, the handle “Taliban Jack” does not necessarily imply conscious
support, but rather suggests giving an unintentional and unplanned advantage to
the Taliban. I respectfully submit the words spoken by Mr. Smith cannot be given
such an interpretation and imply conscious support for a political group at war
with Canadian Forces. [Emphasis added]
[55] I frankly fail to see the distinction in not implying “conscious support” when applied to
“Taliban Jack” giving an advantage to the Taliban and to the statement that the plaintiff is a
vocal supporter of the Taliban.
[56] But more importantly, the plaintiff’s comment is understood as being part of the ongoing
debate between the two factions represented by the parties’ views. No reasonably informed
Canadian would conclude that Mr. Layton was defamed by being called Taliban Jack,
understanding that this was simply a catchy label attached to him by conservatives to showcase
what they consider the weakness of the liberal argument in this political debate.
[57] Reasonably informed readers of these blogs would understand labelling the plaintiff a
supporter of the Taliban as performing the same function and would not consider the comro.ent
capable of lessening the reputation of the plaintiff.
- Here is a bit that refes specifically to blogging
[59] nternet blogging is a fonn of public conversation. By the back and forth character it
provides an opportunity for each party to respond to disparaging comments before the same
audience in ‘an immediate or a relatively contemporaneous time frame.
[60] This distinguishes the context of blogging from other forms of publication of defamatory
statements. One exception couId be the live debate, of which blogging constitutes the modem
written form.
[61] I am not suggesting that defamation can never occur in a live debate. I do say however,
that the live debate forum should be considered as a contextual factor 10 determine whether the
statement is defamatory in so far as whether it is complete.
[62] An example that does not in any manner reflect the Court’s views on these issues, but
wbich might serve to explain how derogatory, even defamatory remarks are expected to be
parried in a live debate so as to remove the “sting of the libel” and attenuate any threats of
diminution of reputation might be as follows:
Mr. Smith knows full well that I abhor what the Taliban stand for. His calling me
one of their supporters because I think they should be entitled to due process in
accordance with lntemationallaw would be like me calling him (some derogatory
descriptor, e.g. “a Nazi fascist”) because he wants to trample the rights that’
Canadians cherish, etc. [Example provided by the Court]
[63] Given that the plaintiff pleads his belief that “there is a reasonable likelihood of damage
to my repumtion if it became generally believed that I supported the enemies of the
Canadian Forces”, it seems that the tendency of the comment to lower his :reputation, particularly
when arising in the form of a comment in a debate, could have been quickly nipped in the bud by
a simple rejoinder in the fashjon described above. This would have had the additional benefit of
allowing him. to score some points of bis own.
There are other really interesting bits – read the full ruling for yourself!
GoogleTechTalks: ‘Copyright Regimve vs. Civil Liberties’
April 28, 2011 — xanthippaAn excellent explanation of the origins of our copyright laws – and how they have evolved over time. Plus – a strategy on dealing with the problems they create.
BlazingCatFur chats with an Islamic leader…
April 26, 2011 — xanthippaOttawa’s ‘green-bin’ program and Orgaworld: an open letter to journalist Rob Snow
December 23, 2010 — xanthippaHi Mr. Snow!
There are some very important questions we need to learn about Orgaworld – how they got awarded the contract and what type of due diligence was or was not done leading up to this. Forensic audit should only be one step in this process.
I wonder if there is a clause in the Ottawa ‘deal’ with Orgaworld which would permit us to cancel the contract without penalties (to us):
- IF Orgaworld fails to produce ‘usable’ compost?
As per The Toronto Star, the compost Orgaworld produces from the Toronto ‘diversion program’ is so toxic, it would kill any plants growing from the soil it was used to ‘enrich’.
The sole reason for the green-bin program is to produce compost that can be used as fertilizer.
If independent tests show that the compost Orgaworld produces is so toxic that it cannot be used as fertilizer, would this constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’ by Orgaworld?
- IF Orgaworld is caught shipping some of the materials from the green-bins to be disposed of as garbage?
In Toronto, whose program is admittedly different from ours, they estimate that up to 22% of the materials Orgaworld accepts is not composted, but burned or dumped in landfills.
Is this standard practice here?
What percentage of the ‘Ottawa green-bin materials’ we think is being composted does Orgaworld dispose of as ‘garbage’?
We are paying much more for ‘composting’ than we would be for ‘garbage disposal’: if Orgaworld does not actually compost a certain percentage of the material, should they not refund us that percentage of the fees we pay them?
Would ‘not-composting’ materials we pay them to ‘compost’ constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’ by Orgaworld?
- IF any of the materials (finished or not) Orgaworld releases from their plant is found to contain active pathogens which should have been rendered inert in ‘properly produced compost’?
The Toronto Star had found that some of the compost produced from the Toronto program which had been sold as ‘finished product’ actually still contained some live germs which should have been killed in a ‘proper’ composting process. (To be fair – it does not specify if it was Orgaworld’s product or another manufacturer’s.)
In an separate incident, it was found that Orgaworld had dumped tons of semi-processed bio-matter – ‘unfinished’ and in various stages of decomposition in places like gravel pits, farm fields and city-owned land without preparing these places to accept bio-waste.
This is an active threat to public health!
Rotting food contains bacteria and other micro-organisms which are toxic to us, humans. The composting process kills these infectious agents, so that by the time the finished compost is spread on land, the deadly pathogens are neutralized and cannot enter the drinking water system and/or cling to the produce grown in that soil (like, say, e-coli contamination of spinach…). Some pathogens can become airborne, causing people who inhale them to become ill.
The ‘accelerated’ processes in use in the modern ‘composting factories’ rely on a highly controlled and regulated environment to achieve the composting process which kills these deadly germs. (In the natural, non-accelerated composting process, this takes years and this is why our ancestors had exact composting practices instead of just dumping rotting food on their fields.)
If the bio-matter is dumped outside of this controlled environment before it is completely turned into compost, these pathogens will still be active and pose a serious danger.
(In addition to the ‘leaching’ and ‘airborn pathogen’ dangers, this could lead to a type of decompostion during which Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is released: this ‘greenhouse gas’ is 240 times ‘stronger’ than Carbon Dioxide (CO2)!) 😉
Would endangering public health through disposal of only partially-neutralized bio-waste constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’?
Which brings me to some questions:
What is the quality of the compost Orgaworld produces from the Ottawa ‘Green-bin program’?
Has anyone tested it?
If so, who?
And where?
How independent are the testing facilities?
The Orgaworld’s Ottawa composting factory had a fire a few months ago. Fire/smoke is an indicator of ‘improper composting practices’. Has there ever been an investigation to ascertain which ‘best practices’ were breached in the composting process and caused the fire and how the resultant product will be impacted?
What are the provisions in the Ottawa-Orgaworld contract for non-compliance/breech of contract? What are the penalties specified?
Are these provisions/penalties ‘similar’ to the ‘industry standard’?
How does this compare to the ‘standard’ for other ‘City contracts’?
How does this compare to the ‘standard contracts’ in the private sector?
Who is responsible for the oversight? What are the terms and conditions? Are they being fulfilled?
Who is responsible for any action should there be non-compliance/breech of contract?
Where/how can citizens (especially taxpayers) monitor this process?
Mr. Snow: you are an excellent journalist who often interviews our City Officials as well as all kinds of other interesting people. Would you, please, find the answers to these questions?
If you do find any answers to these questions – or any other relevant information – I would be very happy to publish all of it on my blog.
Sincerely yours,
Alexandra,
blogging as Xanthippa
References (in case the links get stripped out from the text):
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/article/660864
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/660862
http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/orgaworld/
http://www.ehow.com/list_7313994_hazards-composting.html
http://www.pma.com/resources/issues-monitoring/food-safety/key-learnings-real-world-terms
http://www.extension.org/article/28585
http://www.owma.org/committees/members.asp?mode=d&org=244
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Smouldering+compost+sends+firefighters+Orgaworld+plant/3427666/story.html
‘Agnostic’ – what the term actually means
October 5, 2010 — xanthippaToday, I got an interesting and thought-provoking comment from JR (as a response to my reaction to a comment where I declined to participate in celebrating ‘Agnostic Month’ on the grounds that I found ‘agnosticism’ illogical and arrogant).
JR managed to ‘hit’ one of my really, really ‘big buttons’. So, I thought I’d best answer him in a full-fledged post of its own…..because I suspect that philosophically, we are close. It’s those danged ‘labels’ that are all over the place.
Which, of course, is the above-mentioned ‘button’ of mine….
JR’s comment was:
Have to disagree, Xanthippa. Of all the philosophical positions one can hold on religion agnosticism is the most rational. Based on what an agnostic rationally ‘knows’ about the world s/he forms an opinion that the objective evidence available to date does not conclusively prove the existence of a supreme being who consciously and deliberately created the universe as we know it and now, in some fashion or other, watches over and/or guides its existence. That last part would be my definition of “God” which I think covers most others’ definition also (if you can propose a more satisfactory one, please do).
Those who worship God, or just “believe” in God’s existence, do so based on their own objective knowledge of the world plus subjective internal “feelings” which are not directly accessible to anyone else. Their subjectively formed convictions are, by definition, unconvincing to non-“believers” who, clearly, have no similar “feelings”. A weak agnostic is one who is not convinced yet, but who thinks it possible that some time in the future, through new knowledge or, who knows?, even a religious experience or revelation, God’s existence will be satisfactorily proven (to him/her). A strong agnostic, on the other hand, believes that knowledge of the existence of God is forever beyond the human mind to grasp – it can never be objectively “proven”. Neither form of agnosticism constitutes atheism which I understand to require an absolute conviction or “belief “ in the non-existence of God – no “maybe” about it. The atheist requires an extremely strong faith – because there can never be any objective proof of a negative.
Your notion of a “militant agnostic” is interesting. I’ve never encountered one of those. It sounds oxymoronic. Is there an on-line example?
The problem, of course, is the disconnect between the popular use of these terms and their actual meaning.
THAT is my ‘big button’ that JR managed to really ‘push’!
Luckily, most of the terms to describe forms of belief or non-belief in all kinds of ‘thingies’ regarding God(s) have been artificially created, so we have their actual (i.e. correct) definitions and need not rely on the inaccuracies of their vulgar use…
Aside: ‘vulgar’, of course, means ‘common’ or ‘as popularly used by ‘common’ people’.
Another aside: Wikipedia used to actually have the correct definitions of these terms. However, a few years ago, they changed them to reflect the vulgar usage of them rather than their accurate meanings. Disappointing!
Refocusing:
The terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ do not refer to the same aspect of belief: one addresses ‘BELIEF’ while the other addresses ‘KNOWLEDGE’. Perhaps I should go back to the beginning….
First, there was the term ‘ATHEIST’. It was specifically designed to express NON-BELIEF or NEGATIVE BELIEF regarding the existence of God(s). Literally, ‘ATHEIST’ = ‘apart from the belief in the existence of God(s).
By definition, an ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist.
The term was ‘coined’ with specifically THAT meaning: it expressly did not address the PRESENCE of ANY specific belief – only the absence of belief in the existence of God. Of course, the term became misused almost as soon as it was engineered…
The second term to have been ‘coined’ was the term ‘THEIST’ = someone who holds the POSITIVE BELIEF that God(s) DO exist. It was designed specifically to be the opposite of the term ‘ATHEIST’.
‘Theist’ describes someone with the presence of belief in the existence of God(s), ‘atheist’ describes someone with the absence of belief in the existence of God(s).
The term which properly describes a person who holds the positive belief in the non-existence of God(s) is ‘ANTITHEIST’: though, naturally, this term, too, became misused shortly after it was invented. Currently, the most popular usage of the term ‘antitheist’ is to describe a person who is opposed to all forms of organized religion.
It appears to me that JR has mistakenly used the term ‘atheist’ to label the positive belief system of the ‘antitheist’. Common, if frustrating, mistake.
To recap: we have visited the core definitions of three terms, two of which describe holding ‘positive beliefs’ and one which describes the absence of a particular positive belief:
- ‘theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) exist
- ‘anti-theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) do not exist
Thus, the ‘theist’ and ‘antitheist’ both hold positive beliefs as to the existence of God(s) – just opposite positive beliefs.
- ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist
In this way, ‘theist‘ and ‘atheist’ are opposite: one is the presence of a positive belief in the existence of God(s), the other is the absence of such a belief. However, the term ‘atheist’ does not address the presence or absence of any other belief regarding the existence of God(s). Thus, antitheists are one of the many sub-groups of atheists.
All these terms are focused on the belief in the EXISTENCE of deities – exclusively.
It would be ‘an error of omission’ it it were not mentioned at this point that ‘monotheism’ is actually a special case of ‘antitheism/theism’, as it is a positive belief that ALL BUT ONE Gods and Goddesses do NOT exist. As such, it is a positive belief in the non-existence of so many deities, the belief in the existence of one last remaining one of them is so illogical as to defy comprehension. That is why so many professionals in the field think that ‘monotheism’ can only be achieved through serious brainwashing during early childhood or through mental illness. I am not a professional in the field, so I merely report this, without commenting on the validity of such an opinion. (Note: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all forms of monolatry, not monotheism, and thus do not fall into this category if practiced according to their scriptures.)
In contrast, the term ‘agnostic’ addresses something quite different.
‘A‘ means ‘apart from’.
‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’.
Aside: It is important to stress that the Greek term ‘gnosis’ means ‘personal knowledge’ and has, throughout the millenia, been used to also denote ‘mystical knowledge’ when it has been used in the context of religion or religious experiences. ‘Gnostic Christians’, for example, were a sect of Christianity which rejected imposition of the structure of The Church in favour of ‘personal knowledge’ or ‘gnosis’ of the divine. Until the ‘Conversion of Constantine’, ‘Gnostic Christianity’ was the ‘norm’. Several Crusades were authorized by various Catholic Popes to suppress Gnostic Christianity: ‘the Albigensian Heresy’ (Cathars), ‘Bogomils’ and Hussites, to name just a few. (Reformations introduced by Martin Luther were a watered-down bastardization of the teachings of the Hussites, a century or so after the Hussite teachings went ‘underground’. But, that is a different ‘button’…)
The term ‘AGNOSTIC’ refers to a person who holds the positive belief that it is impossible for us, puny humans, to ever achieve KNOWLEDGE whether or not God(s) exist. It thus corresponds to what JR identified as ‘strong agnosticism’: there is, by definition, no such thing as ‘weak agnosticism’ (according to JR’s description thereof).
In other words, an ‘agnostic’ believes it is UNKNOWABLE whether God(s) exist.
This positive belief does not address the actual existence of deities: just our ability to ever KNOW – for sure, one way or the other.
As such, a person who believes s/he can never know if God(s) exist can still hold positive beliefs as to their existence itself! After all, these are beliefs regarding completely different aspects: one is ‘belief’, the other is ‘knowledge’.
Thus, an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist (of the antitheist type or otherwise)!
As for the ‘militant agnostics’ I have encountered – I am sorry, but it was in ‘real life’, not online. However, the vast majority (though not all) of them fit into the logical fallacy of ‘Pascal’s Wager’: “we cannot KNOW if GOD exists, but I am safer/can’t loose if I believe in God, so I do!”
When I would point out to these people that this does not constitute actual ‘belief’ and is both a moral and logical hypocrisy (if I chose to use kind terms), these militant agnostics got downright crotchety!
.
…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 