On Agnosticism

By definition, an Agnostic knows nothing.

Are you searching Dictionary.com to prove me wrong?  The word agnostic, and many other words in the wonderfully corrupted language we call English, has had its definition warped by colloquial and idiomatic influences.  I, being a lexical purist, vehemently eschew such distracting cultural movements and adhere to the true definition of agnostic.  And by this true definition, an Agnostic does not know anything.

Let's take agnostic back to its roots to ascertain its true meaning.  We see it has the prefix a-, which means "without", and also the Greek gnosis, which means "knowledge".  With this we see that agnostic means "without knowledge", so an Agnostic truly does know nothing.  More specifically, an Agnostic makes no claims to having knowledge.

Take a look at this wonderful chart I found laying around on Wikipedia (do not worry.  I referenced the article from which I took this image, and that article is indeed accurate, despite Wikipedia's infamous reputation):

At the right side of the image, we see a bar which represents one's claim to knowledge.  At the bottom, there is a bar representing one's strength of belief.  The top of the Knowledge bar indicates no claim to knowledge, and the far right of the Belief bar indicates no belief.  Thus, you can infer from this diagram that an Atheist has no belief in a god, but the amount of knowledge the Atheist claims to have in this regard can vary greatly.  A Theist has belief in a god, but again, the amount of knowledge claimed could vary.

This is where Gnosticism and Agnosticism come in to play.  These two philosophical methods determine certainty.  For example, and Agnostic Atheist (which is what most people think of when someone says they are "an Agnostic") has no belief in a god, but does not claim with any certainty to know whether any sort of deity does or does not exist.  Contrariwise, a Gnostic Theist has a belief in a god, and claims to know for certain that there is one.

Whether or not the person's beliefs are justified and indeed factual are another story entirely.  I shall save that for another blog post.  For now, let's remove the theology from Agnosticism and focus on the philosophy.

"I don't know and I can't know."

That statement, dear reader, is Agnosticism.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the existence of a deity.  It is instead a question of whether or not anything can be known.  I find this interesting, because if Agnosticism is justifiable, then by the logic of agnostic thinking, an Agnostic is by definition incapable of knowing that they are agnostic.  Therefore, anyone who calls themselves an Agnostic is either mistaken or lying!  With the understanding that agnosticism has had its meaning corrupted over the years, we find that most who identify themselves as "agnostic" are simply mistaken.

Everyone has doubts, naturally.  In this way, everyone at some point has a measure of agnosticism.  We can know some things for certain—as René Descartes deduced: "I think; therefore, I am."  Other things are rather uncertain, such as the origin of the Universe.

If you believe something, you must declare at least some agnosticism.  One does not know beliefs; one believes beliefs.  That is exactly why beliefs are called "beliefs": they are not factual!  For this reason, we see Agnostic Theists, who say that while they believe that there is at least one deity, they cannot say this with any certainty, and so they simply have faith that their belief is justified.  I personally do not have any doubt that there is a god (at least, not now!), but I do acknowledge that I could easily be wrong, so I must be an Agnostic Theist.

In conclusion, if a person identifies as an "Agnostic", it is safe to say that they probably mean "Agnostic Atheist".  Do you see why definitions are important?

The Illusion of Equality

Black History Month discriminates colored people.

It is also hypocritical, ridiculous, and creates an illusion of equality.  The finger of Modern Culture is now pointing at me, stabbing the air, crying, "He is a racist!"  No I am not.  I can prove what I am saying.

Black History Month, the month of February, is the shortest month of the year, having a mere 28 days (an occasionally 29 every four years).  It relegates the history of an entire people group to one month out of the year.  It discriminates the black people by separating them from the rest of the human population and focusing your attention on them.  That separation is called segregation, which is what the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s so vehemently opposed.  Any sort of separation for special treatment, be that treatment good or bad, is segregation.  Black History Month segregates and discriminates in the name of equality and tolerance.

The government really should rename it "American Hypocrisy Month".  If Blacks are equal to every other "racial group" (which is a discriminating notion in itself), then they do not deserve their own History Month, unless you also have a White History Month (even though not all Caucasians are white, and vice versa), Yellow History Month (which fails to discriminate between any of the Oriental ethnic groups because it has to fit the color-history-month theme, but is only understood to be the Chinese), Indian History Month (which really should be a part of Black History Month, but isn't because Indians aren't from Africa), Brown History Month (which could describe people from almost every ethnicity) and even Jewish History Month (even though the Jews aren't a race, but it is a religious group, and groups need their own months of history for some political-correctness reason).

I have pale skin.  I am not proud to be white, nor am I ashamed to be white.  Any sense of pride or shame based on skin color is the very zenith of human stupidity and ignorance.  In fact, I disagree with even calling myself "white".  My skin is not white.  It is clearly skin-colored.  I do not look like a vampire.  Why am I "white"?  By definition, I am not even Caucasian!  I have never even set foot in Caucasus!

The very idea of "races" is completely illogical, backwards, and dangerous.  America is not at all interested in putting a stop to racial prejudice.  If America truly was, then every American would condemn the very idea that there are different races.  If America genuinely wanted to end racism once and for all, then every American would come to terms with the staggeringly simple fact that there is only one race: the human race.

I passionately forbid the government to define things, because they are absolutely stupid when it comes to definitions.  I wholeheartedly oppose the idea of different races because all races do is create labels, and anything that can be labeled can be hated.  There is no equality between colored people.  Those with lighter skin are still favored by popular culture even today.  Those with darker skin are paid less and punished more harshly than those with lighter skin.  This is a national statistic.

The entire country is rank with hypocrisy and double-standards.  It is tolerant and acceptable to have a Black History Month, but it is evil, repugnant, and racist to even think of having a White History Month.  How is that equality?  That is a double-standard which lobbies for white guilt.  Apologize for being white. Be sorry that you were born with light skin, you oppressive scum.

I am exaggerating, of course, but these hypothetical sentiments may not be so hypothetical.

Equality is an illusion.

No, not everyone is equal.  No, not everyone has to be equal.  No, equality does not have to be a social priority.  However, one's skin color should never have any affect on one's inequality either.

Michael Phelps and I are not equals.  I am a high school student, and he is an Olympic Gold Medalist.  His prestige and athleticism are both vastly superior to mine.  In this sense, we are vastly unequal.  I would address him as a superior out of respect, rather than as an equal.  Equality means nothing.  It is a subjective and personal judgment.

The cure for racism and inequality is this: stop comparing people to other people.  You are so incredibly unique, you could not possibly hope to effectively compare yourself to another human being.  Even identical twins are extremely different from each other—and I know this because I am dear friends with a pair of twins!  The issue is not equality.  The issue is respect.  People disrespect people.  It happens.  It hurts when it happens and it hurts to see it happen.  Equality has nothing to do with it.

Want to stop racial prejudice?  You can start by regarding others as superior—unequal—to yourself.