(This is the fifth in a series that showcases apps the staff at MacNN and Electronista use and recommend. The first installment, discussing media streaming and playback apps, is here. The second covered photo-editing apps, the third looked at music apps, and the fourth focused on board game conversions.)

One of the biggest perks of being a technology writer is getting to play with a bunch of the latest toys from lots of companies, sometimes before they come out. At any given moment, my house holds maybe four tablets, three to five smartphones, and two or three notebooks and desktops, including my own personally-owned tech, of course. In order to work across these multiple devices, I've had to develop a healthy agnosticism when it comes to platforms. This article on My Five Apps, then, will be an attempt to convert you to that view: The One True Tech Faith of No True Tech Faiths.

The Platform Agnostic Path isn't a lonely one -- you'll largely find yourself using many of the same apps as others -- but it is one without brand fervor and instead works toward finding things that will help us, well, work. The key to that is locating what exactly it is that you want to do and then finding those third-party apps that make that possible. What I tend to want to do is to write and to remember and to occasionally entertain myself. To that end:

Evernote

Evernote has gone from a relatively simple cloud-based note-taking app to an app powerhouse with a presence on every major platform. The Green Elephant is just about indispensable, as it has a presence on OS X, Windows 8, iOS, Fire OS, Android, Windows RT, BlackBerry, and just about every other platform you or I will wind up working on. On top of that, it's got an ever-capable web-portal, so you always still have access through the browser.

I use Evernote largely to save assorted brain-droppings: poem snippets, article ideas, script drafts, and so forth. The Evernote Web Clipper allows for quick storage of anything that tickles your fancy or floats your boat in your endless web crawling. It's the sort of thing that really helps one keep track of potential inspirations, so long as one is willing to do the legwork of tagging and minimally organizing things.

Pocket

Here you may be thinking, "But, Kevin, isn't the inclusion of Pocket directly after Evernote somewhat redundant?" To which I respond, "Quiet, you. Who's the one proselytizing the Platform Agnostic Path here?"

Pocket makes it onto my list because it helps compartmentalize assorted web clippings. Text things go into Evernote, visual things get tucked into the Pocket. Sure, it would be easy to simply tag things within Evernote and sort the visuals into a visual folder, but having a (mostly) separate app that's devoted almost entirely to cool pictures, drawing inspirations, and so forth is pleasant.

Read more here:
My Five Apps: Kevin's (Platform) Agnostic Life

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claimsare unknown.[1][2][3] Agnosticism sometimes indicates doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] Philosopher William L. Rowe states that in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist.[2]

Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.[4] However, earlier thinkers have written works that promoted agnostic points of view. These thinkers include Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife,[5]Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher who was agnostic about the gods,[6] and the Nasadiya Sukta in the Rig Veda which is agnostic about the origin of the universe.[7]

Since the time that Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have extensively written about agnosticism.

According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively; but that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.[2]

Thomas Henry Huxley said:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[8]

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek - (a-), meaning "without", and (gnsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[9] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[10] Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[11]

In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[12] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" often has a meaning close to "independent"for example, "platform agnostic"[13] or "hardware agnostic"[14]

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[15] He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three corners"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy", one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the clock or its alarm mechanism might break, or one might die before the alarm goes off).

Agnosticism has, more recently, been subdivided into several categories, some of which may be disputed. Variations include:

Original post:

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question: If atheism is just disbelief in gods, then what is the difference between that and agnosticism?

Response: Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more reasonable position while atheism is more dogmatic, ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.

Agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas agnostic is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a third way between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is better than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

More here:

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism ...

A philosophical theory of the limitations of knowledge, professing doubt of or disbelief in some or all of the powers of knowing possessed by the human mind .

(1) The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostiks "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas. As first employed by Huxley, the new term suggested the contrast between his own unpretentious ignorance and the vain knowledge which the Gnostics of the second and third century claimed to possess. This antithesis served to discredit the conclusions of natural theology, or theistic reasoning, by classing them with the idle vapourings of Gnosticism. The classification was unfair, the attempted antithesis overdrawn. It is rather the Gnostic and the Agnostic who are the real extremists; the former extending the bounds of knowledge, and the latter narrowing them, unduly. Natural theology, or theism, occupies the middle ground between these extremes, and should have been disassociated both from the Gnostic position, that the mind can know everything, and from the Agnostic position, that it can know nothing concerning the truths of religion. (See GNOSTICISM.)

(2) Agnosticism, as a general term in philosophy, is frequently employed to express any conscious attitude of doubt, denial, or disbelief, towards some, or even all, of man's powers of knowing or objects of knowledge. The meaning of the term may accordingly vary, like that of the other word "Scepticism", which it has largely replaced, from partial to complete Agnosticism; it may be our knowledge of the world, of the self, or of God, that is questioned; or it may be the knowableness of all three, and the validity of any knowledge, whether of sense or intellect, science or philosophy, history, ethics, religion. The variable element in the term is the group of objects, or propositions, to which it refers; the invariable element, the attitude of learned ignorance it always implies towards the possibility of acquiring knowledge.

(3) Agnosticism, as a term of modern philosophy, is used to describe those theories of the limitations of human knowledge which deny the constitutional ability of the mind to know reality and conclude with the recognition of an intrinsically Unknowable. The existence of "absolute reality" is usually affirmed while, at the same time, its knowableness is denied. Kant, Hamilton, Mansel, and Spencer make this affirmation an integral part of their philosophic systems. The Phenomenalists , however, deny the assertion outright, while the Positivists , Comte and Mill, suspend judgment concerning the existence of "something beyond phenomena". (See POSITIVISM.)

(4) Modern Agnosticism differs from its ancient prototype. Its genesis is not due to a reactionary spirit of protest, and a collection of sceptical arguments, against "dogmatic systems" of philosophy in vogue, so much as to an adverse criticism of man's knowing-powers in answer to the fundamental question: What can we know? Kant, who was the first to raise this question, in his memorable reply to Hume, answered it by a distinction between "knowable phenomena" and "unknowable things-in-themselves". Hamilton soon followed with his doctrine that "we know only the relations of things". Modern Agnosticism is thus closely associated with Kant's distinction and Hamilton's principle of relativity. It asserts our inability to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, or religious ideas.

(5) Agnosticism, with special reference to theology, is a name for any theory which denies that it is possible for man to acquire knowledge of God. It may assume either a religious or an anti-religious form, according as it is confined to a criticism of rational knowledge or extended to a criticism of belief. De Bonald (1754-1840), in his theory that language is of divine origin, containing, preserving, and transmitting the primitive revelation of Good to man; De Lammenais (1782-1854), in his theory that individual reason is powerless, and social reason alone competent; Bonetty (1798-1879), in his advocacy of faith in God, the Scriptures, and the Church, afford instances of Catholic theologians attempting to combine belief in moral and religious truths with the denial that valid knowledge of the same is attainable by reason apart from revelation and tradition. To these systems of Fideism and Traditionalism should be added the theory of Mansel (1820-71), which Spencer regarded as a confession of Agnosticism, that the very inability of reason to know the being and attributes of God proves that revelation is necessary to supplement the mind's shortcomings. This attitude of criticising knowledge, but not faith, was also a feature of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy. (See FIDEISM and TRADITIONALISM.)

(6) The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious Agnosticism. The new theory regards religion and science as two distinct and separate accounts of experience, and seeks to combine an agnostic intellect with a believing heart. It has been aptly called "mental book-keeping by double entry". Ritschl, reviving Kant's separatist distinction of theoretical from practical reason , proclaims that the idea of God contains not so much as a grain of reasoned knowledge; it is merely "an attractive ideal", having moral and religious, but no objective, scientific, value for the believer who accepts it. Harnack locates the essence of Christianity in a filial relation felt towards an unknowable God the Father. Sabatier considers the words God, Father, as symbols which register the feelings of the human heart towards the Great Unknowable of the intellect.

(7) Recent Agnosticism is also to a great extent anti-religious, criticizing adversely not only the knowledge we have of God, but the grounds of belief in Him as well. A combination of Agnosticism with Atheism, rather than with sentimental irrational belief, is the course adopted by many. The idea of God is eliminated both from the systematic and personal view which is taken of the world and of life. The attitude of "solemnly suspended judgment" shades off first into indifference towards religion, as an inscrutable affair at best, and next into disbelief. The Agnostic does not always merely abstain from either affirming or denying the existence of God, but crosses over to the old position of theoretic Atheism and, on the plea of insufficient evidence, ceases even to believe that God exists. While, therefore, not to be identified with Atheism, Agnosticism is often found in combination with it. (See ATHEISM.)

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume , while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished.

Kant's idea of "a world of things apart from the world we know" furnished the starting-point of the modern movement towards constructing a philosophy of the Unknowable. With the laudable intention of silencing the sceptic Hume, he showed that the latter's analysis of human experience into particular sense-impressions was faulty and incomplete, inasmuch as it failed to recognize the universal and necessary elements present in human thought. Kant accordingly proceeded to construct a theory of knowledge which should emphasize the features of human thought neglected by Hume. He assumed that universality, necessity, causality, space, and time were merely the mind's constitutional way of looking at things, and in no sense derived from experience. The result was that he had to admit the mind's incapacity for knowing the reality of the world, the soul, or God, and was forced to take refuge against Hume's scepticism in the categorical imperative "Thou shalt" of the "moral reason". He had made "pure reason" powerless by his transfer of causality and necessity from the objects of thought to the thinking subject.

View post:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Agnosticism - New Advent

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that it is unknown (or even, unknowable) whether any deities (god or gods) exist or not. Some people who call themselves "agnostic" say that it is not possible for anyone ever to know if there are any deities or not. Other agnostics, though, say only that they themselves currently do not know if there are any deities.

There are several different kinds of agnosticism:

People often have difficulty telling agnosticism and atheism apart. Atheists do not believe in the existence of deities, and some say that they are sure that no deity exists. Some (perhaps most) atheists, though, say that it is up to theists (people who believe in a deity) to give the evidence for a god or to show why someone should believe in a god. They state that there is neither enough evidence nor a strong enough argument to believe any gods exist, and so they reject belief that any exist. While agnostics think we cannot know for sure whether any deities exist, some agnostics do believe at least one deity exists. These people are both agnostic and theisticthey believe at least one deity exists, but do not claim to know that to be true. Some people are both atheist and agnosticthey reject belief in any deities without claiming to know that deities do not exist. Some agnostics just cannot themselves decide whether to believe any deities exist or not.

Original post:

Agnosticism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Pearce has a background that is quite unlike any of his peers in academia; indeed, his life story sounds like a tale of fiction that the public can scarcely believe. For Joseph Pearce, born and raised in the old England, once belonged to an organization called the National Front (NF), a neo-fascist group of jackbooted thugs who terrorized London and other English cities for decades, with the aim of destabilizing the United Kingdoms multicultural society.

Intransigently opposed to the immigration of nonwhites into Britain, the NF founded in 1967 -- waged a campaign of violence and intimidation not only against immigrants (primarily Asians from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and blacks from the Caribbean), but also against Jews, socialists, Marxists and others they viewed as a threat to traditional white British culture and society. In fact, the NF advocated for the compulsory repatriation of all nonwhites out of Britain.

And Joseph Pearce was right in the middle of it all, during the NFs heyday in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As the leader of the National Front Youth branch, he published inflammatory articles in a magazine called Bulldog and even served two jail terms for inciting racial hatred.The National Front essentially collapsed by the late 1980s. Currently the dominant far-right political party in the United Kingdom is the British National Party.

Pearce credits Roman Catholicism, to which he converted in 1989 from Protestant-based agnosticism, with helping to profoundly transform his life and his views.He moved to the United States in 2001 and has written and edited more than a dozen books, including his own autobiography, entitled Race With the Devil: My Journey From Racial Hatred to Rational Love.

Mr. Pearce kindly agreed to speak to International Business Times to discuss his life with NF and his transformation into a bestselling author and academic.

IB TIMES: Where did you grow up and when did you join the National Front?

PEARCE: I was born in East London and grew up in the borough of Barking and Dagenham [an area of heavy Asian immigration at that time]. I joined the National Front in 1976 when I was 15 years old and soon I was publishing our propaganda sheet, Bulldog. I later edited a publication called Nationalism Today.

IB TIMES: You went to prison for activities related to these publications?

PEARCE: Yes, I served two terms in jail in the 1980s after convictions under the Race Relations Act.

IB TIMES: The National Front had its peak in the 1970s and early 1980s. Does it exist in any form today, or has it been swallowed up by the British National Party (BNP)?

More here:

Memories Of A Former British Far-Right Extremist: The Transformation Of Joseph Pearce

THE seemingly offensive title of this article induces a sense of shock. It appears unbefitting for a column of a (largely) religious persuasion. While there is no one who has the moral right or qualification to call another a fool, it becomes imperative to provide this classic definition somewhere along this article for the benefit of the reader and its good that you read on. The English Dictionary defines a fool or idiot as, A person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal four year old.

Many associate the terms fool and idiot with insult. Unknown to most, this is the proper term for describing people who suffer from a defect of the mind. An idiot is not a crazy person but the victim of a disease of the mind. Even the law recognizes the psycho-medical elements of this definition and in turn removes criminal capacity from people who suffer from idiocy because they are considered to have a disease of the mind which renders them incapable of committing a crime.

Now, I have often discovered that the truth has never been popular. Whether in religion, politics or business- the truth has few takers. The reason for the truths lack of popularity is its apparent inconvenient nature. The truth is harsh, unfeeling and often devoid of emotion. It is independent of public opinion. The truth becomes unpalatable especially when another person is trying to ram it down our throat. Such is the nature of truth and consequently those who try and identify with it become the subjects of back lashes. My last installment which demystified the dead has been the subject of attack from the atheist, the traditionalist and the necromancer.

Some went on a blasphemous campaign against religion and others went into overdrive even questioning the existence of God. They cast a dark shadow on religion arguing or more appropriately declaring that it is for people who are brain dead. The authenticity of the Bible was brought into question. In fact, they did not come short of calling the Bible a tool which was used to subjugate the natives.

Its important to realize that there are only three ways to explain our existence here on earth, one is to believe in God, another is agnosticism which notes that there may be a God but I do not have proof. Atheism is the last which states that there is no God. Personally, I do not deny that there are many around the globe who do not subscribe to the Bible neither do I profess ignorance of the existence of other religions. It is almost impossible for people to agree if they have different points of reference. While I fully appreciate the differences in the points of references, I find it on the extreme side to claim that religion is for the brain dead. I find it extreme to stupefy the religious especially when I look at all that surrounds us.

We may be unable to point at a physical being but indeed God has left fingerprints.All designs have a designer, and the universe has proven to be incredibly designed. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rom 1:20). Check how the sun faithfully comes out each morning to warm and give light to the earth with the moon taking over at night. I find it extreme to curse religion especially when natural science proves that the distance between the earth and the sun is precisely calculated to sustain life and any movement would render life impossible on earth.

I find the religion is for the brain dead assertion extreme especially when biological science proves that the males ability to reproduce is dependent upon the female and vice versa. I even find it extreme when there are nine planets in the galaxy yet only a single planet is made to sustain life. Indeed, it is extreme when one has to discover how life is sustained through an ecosystem. It becomes even more extreme when medical science fails to explain or reverse the process of aging. I could go on and on but the point is this: even if one were not a religious person they would still not fail to realize that someone setup this world. The evidence is overflowing. I have no doubt whether I am from Indonesia, Poland, Greece or Zimbabwe that a supernatural entity exists who designed systems and we owe it to Him.

Fortunately, God recognizes the atheist but the atheist does not recognize God. God recognizes the atheist and in his response defines a fool as a person who has said in his heart that there is no God The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God (Psalms 14:1, 2). My dear friend, a fool is not what the English dictionary tells us (a person with the mental age of a three year old).The fool is he who despises religion and the existence of a Deity.

What the dictionary defines as a fool or idiot are in essence victims of a mental disease who actually require our sympathy just like any other patient. The fool classically, is the one who despises the Supernatural. Nothing can be further from the truth-Religion is not for the brain dead. It is in fact for the extremely wise who have the sense to understand that an upper Person set up systems. That Robert Gumbura formed a cult and abused women does not make religion for the brain dead. That thousands of men of God are exploiting the poor today does not render religion invalid.

Beyond this carnal world there is a Supernatural Being who deserves worship. Remember this is the last hour. Take heed that no one deceives you. As usual, questions are very welcome. Take heed that no one deceives you.

Read more from the original source:

The classic definition of a fool