I quoted but argued against the common definition of agnosticism as "the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not". David has followed this up with the statement that "agnostics will not choose atheism or theism unless there is absolute proof and that is impossible. Agnosticism is therefore an emotional choice, recognizing that since there are no absolutes, they will stay content with never knowing."-In my post, I tried to explain why I rejected the common definition. No-one can "know" such a thing, and so everyone would have to be agnostic. All of us ... theists, atheists and agnostics ... recognize that there can be no absolute proof, and my point was that our choices are therefore dependent on subjective factors (judgement of the evidence, personal experiences, inner convictions, upbringing etc.). These will vary just as much in agnostics as they do in theists and atheists, and David's comment seems to me to be far too generalized. He claims that he and George both follow belief systems that are "reasonable, in the view that proof is impossible." In my own case, there is an intellectual conflict between two irreconcilable factors: 1) the complexity of life is so great that I find it unreasonable to believe that it came about by chance; 2) I find it equally unreasonable to believe in a universal intelligence / designer that sprang from nothing or has existed for ever. "Unreasonable" does not mean that I require absolute proof either way, and there is nothing "emotional" in this conflict. However, other factors also play a part in my indecisiveness: I do not have an emotional conviction that there is a divine being watching over us; I do have an emotional and intellectual open-mindedness towards inexplicable mental phenomena which could indicate a form of life as yet unknown to us. And so in the same way that belief in God or Chance takes on different forms according to the individual's subjective judgement of probability, or personal experiences and convictions, these factors will vary in degree and kind from one agnostic to another. Matt, for instance, is far more sceptical than I am about the design theory. I would therefore reject the "absolute proof" argument, the restrictive tag of "emotional choice", and also the claim that agnostics "stay content with never knowing", since there are certainly some agnostics who are not content with their ignorance and continue to search for enlightenment. -In my post, I suggested a different definition of agnosticism: "an inability to believe that God exists or does not exist." On reflection, I think maybe "inability" could be taken as a criticism ... though there's nothing wrong with a bit of self-criticism! How about: "neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of a god or gods"? Any other definitions would be welcome, or suggestions for a new term to denote the form of non-belief that I have described.

He challenges any atheist to send him their answer to the question: 
> "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Well I would ask him to 
> clarify what he means by these terms. Does "something" mean a material 
> something having mass? Is "nothing" something?-George's review of the Manifesto is quite thorough and complete from his point of view. However I consider the above comment as rather offhand. Proposed by Leibnitz over three centuries ago, it lies at the philosophic core of our discussion on this website. We've discussed Stenger's weird interpretation of 'nothing' before. The underlying question does not need word definition.
> 
> He asks for "Humility in the face of mystery". But I would ask for 
> humility in the face of lack of evidence. If there is a mystery we 
> should try our darndest to solve it, seek out the evidence with a 
> forceful determined attitude.-Yes, we should go as far as far as science will take us. But then there the wall of Godel's Uncertainty Principle. We can never know 'everything'. There is therefore a choice, a 'leap of faith' or no leap. Each of us chooses.
> 
> He mentions "the problem of consciousness" and allies himself with 
> the "Mysterians" who argue that we cannot know the nature of 
> consciousness while being within consciousness. As you will be aware 
> I consider this "problem of consciousness" to be overblown, but that 
> is a question we have discussed elsewhere.-Quite right. I am miles apart from George here.

I asked George how far he would endorse Ron Rosenbaum's Agnostic Manifesto, and he has posted an interesting critique, much of which I agree with. There are, though, a number of points that I would like to comment on.-Rosenbaum considers atheism to be "as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety", but George doubts if such atheists "exist in any force worth bothering about." The word "faith" seems to be anathema to many atheists, but to utterly discount the design theory, you have to believe that the mechanisms of life and heredity fashioned themselves by chance, and that requires faith in the unconscious forces of Nature to create something that still defies the conscious intelligence of our most brilliant scientists. -In Rosenbaum's eyes, another form of faith is atheists' "certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence." I have criticized this claim myself, as I don't think atheism requires any such certainty, but to my surprise your response is quite different: "This assumes an enormous amount. That 'universe' has a clear meaning. That 'coming into existence' means something." We have been discussing the origin of the universe for months, under The Big Bang and other threads ...most recently in relation to the new Shu theory and the chameleon theory. You didn't seem to have any problem understanding the terms then. What's the problem now?-GEORGE: He accepts "most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself". So that surely makes him an atheist.-Of course it doesn't. Even religious bodies have criticized their own bad behaviour over the centuries, and theological controversy rarely takes a break. At the moment the church itself is split over issues like homosexuality and the ordination of women. If the Archbishop of Canterbury criticizes religious crimes from the Inquisition through to modern fundamentalist terrorism, does that make him an atheist? -Rosenbaum maintains, quite rightly, that agnostics "aren't disguised creationists".
GEORGE: Well, it was because of the creationist tendencies that I noticed in dhw's tract that brought me here in the first place.
 
I'm delighted that your misunderstanding of my text brought you here, and even more delighted that you have stayed. However, it is a very common ploy among atheists to attack those who question their faith in Chance by tainting the questioner with creationism. That is a useful cover for the weakness of their own position.-Rosenbaum quotes Huxley on the subject of certainty.
GEORGE: [...] absolute certainty is impossible. However reasonable certainty can be obtained, and as Huxley says it depends on providing adequate evidence, and I would add clear definitions.-"Adequate" in whose eyes? How reasonable is "reasonable"? Who provides the criteria? I agree with you about clear definitions, but the very fact that there is absolutely no consensus on the existence or non-existence of God suggests to me that reasonable certainty cannot be obtained.-GEORGE: I would ask for humility in the face of lack of evidence.-So would I. Until the mysteries have been solved, why should anyone insist that there is/isn't a God, that other people's explanations are nonsense, and those who disagree with one's own subjective opinions are stupid/ ignorant/ to be ridiculed/ to be assassinated?-GEORGE: I consider this "problem of consciousness" to be overblown, but that is a question we have discussed elsewhere.-We have indeed, and you believe that consciousness can be attributed entirely to material sources within the brain. Despite the present lack of evidence, you have faith that science will eventually provide a complete explanation of how these materials work. You may be right. But until we have that evidence, you can hardly dispute Rosenbaum's claim that atheism is faith-based.