>Agnosticism is the recognition of the FACT that the existence/nonexistence of god cannot be determined with certainty.
ie. Agnosticism is a decision not to vote.
That you don't know whether you, me or the universe exists doesn't prevent you from getting out of 'bed' or crossing rivers only using 'bridges'. You're reticence in deciding whether God exists is not especially admirable, although far superior to those who simply accept what they were taught at their parents knee.
>atheism is the belief that no god exists.
How very vague of you. God is better defined as "superior authority" since atheists refuse the advice of such figures as the Pope or Einstein also. In so saying, I am defining a subset, yes, but a subset that contains all proper members of the super-set.
Muslims are sons of Abraham, as are Jews. One son is claimed as legitimate heir by each side, and both worship the same God of War. Have you looked at their texts, their activities, their beliefs? There is no significant difference.
I admit, I was exposed to Hindusim at an extremely young age, my views are confined to what a child could comprehend. I am not mistaken in my conclusion however. There are dualistic powers which stem from a single neutral source, making this a monotheism at heart.
Scientologist do indeed worship a Science fiction author. Worse, he is a hack who stole all his best ideas from H.G. Wells. His lack of creativity and enlightenment are only matched by his sadistic sense of humour.
Belief in gravity and gravity's continued existance are logic-based. Since I don't assume the world is flat, I must have some argument to the contrary. Why? Becuse that's logical. At best, logic is a dogmatic and tired methodology. At best, a religious fanaticism takes hold and objectivism overwhelms reality.
>Buddhism is as "originally hindu" as christianity is "originally judaism".
Then we are in agreement! For Christianity has nothing to do with the beliefs of Judaism, just as Buddhism has nothing to do with the beliefs of Hinduism. Yet, each founder was indeed a member of the foundation religion. Buddhism teaches a way of living that is extremely beneficial to the human circumstance, the underlying reasons for those benefits are irrelevant. It is a system that works, first and foremost.
>you are obviously not familiar with the scientific method or its application.
Science has nothing whatever to do with the scientific method. Copernicous, Galileo, Einstein... all were men first, scientists second. That current Science raises them to the Godhead demonstrates a failure of Science to remain objective.
>you would do well to at least learn to include a disclaimer at the beginning of your post indicating that "these are definitions that i stole from someone who obviously is ignorant of the truth, and who is biased against the only rational belief set (agnosticism)."
You arrogant asshole. I stole my beliefs from no-one, they sprang fully formed from my head. You admit to being a rationalist, and as such I dismiss you as the theist you are. I will not tolerate accusations of plagiarism from you.
Your cowardly refusal to vote has betrayed itself, you are revealed and impotent before the world. I hope you're happy now.
> you have left out what some would consider major subsets, such as gnostic christians vs. catholics vs. orthodox vs. protestant
Very good, you noticed. These distinction are trivial, I leave them to those who care.
>you also failed to define the distinction between religion and philosophy and methodology.
You failed to ask. These are not hard and fast as you imply, just as pluto is a planet for historical reasons only, so too were many religions and philosophies misplaced over time.
All belief can be fit into the term philosophy.
Religion is belief about God exclusively. Other things (such as morality) are not part of religion, but are influenced by the human inability to distinguish disjoint.
Methodology is not belief at all, it is tools that change the human condition, irrelevant of the underlying belief system. Of course, such tools are seen as good or bad depending whether they move you closer to the ones philosophy. The scientific method is indeed a methodology, though Science is not.
The religions I listed are prevalent in western society. Their origins are irrelevant. Notice I did exclude such western protest religions such as wiccan and pegan, since they are merely counters to the common paradyme.
I'm pleased to have an agnostic such as yourself respond to me like this, and I'm even more pleased that you read this far. Agnosticism is a natural state that a healthy intellect will return to repeatedly. But, change is inevitable among a living belief system, so don't declare yourself locked into agnosticism forever. If you don't know, then you also can't know whether I know. And I do know.