I've been an agnostic for as long as I can remember. As an agnostic, I refrain from making a determination with regards to a higher power. I don't think that humans have the wherewithal to know whether there is a God or gods.
I was making a comment on a newspaper site in response to some overly religious comment. I did a Google search to look up some information I was trying to remember. And I happened upon the Atheist Camel's website.
It seemed like a fascinating website that made keen observations about Christianity and organized religion. For the most part, I related to much of what the author says in his blog.
From his postings, I figured he would be the perfect person to delve into why someone is an atheist instead of an agnostic. I've had the misfortune of finding out that most atheists are simply passionately anti-religious. In other words, they make their determination and disbelief of God a personal thing. To me, whether there is a God is a scientific question. It isn't about who feels more passionately about their side; rather, it is about the truth. Is there a God or gods or isn't there?
To my dismay, the author of the Atheist Camel was just like all the other atheists that I've known. When faced with logic, they run with passion.
For example, the author of the Atheist Camel explained that his determination that God or gods doesn't exist derives from his experience, observations, science, and logic. When faced with the question of agnosticism, he asked how can I dismiss unicorns or vampires and not God or gods.
His logic told him that if you dismiss one myth you must dismiss them all. My response to his logic was simply that it begged the question. The question is whether God exists. In order for his logic to work, you must first presuppose that a God or gods are myths. If you dismiss God or gods by calling them a myth then you've answered the question before even processing the logic.
I also confronted him with the idea that it's not about what humans perceive. Rather, it's about the reality of the matter. If he disbelieves in a God or gods because his experience and reasoning tell him it's unlikely that they exist, it does not follow that in fact a God or gods do not exist. He failed to grasp the concept that atheism makes a determination about a deity's existence. Agnosticism, on the other hand, says that we do not have the wherewithal to make such a determination and remain neutral on it. It appeared as if he got offended when I whittled his premise to the following: "disbelief is proof of nonexistence."
He claimed that that wasn't what he said. I disagree. I think that is exactly what he was trying to say. He was saying that if you take all of science and study the history of religion you can come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. He further said that that conclusion should foreclose the possibility of leaving the possibility open that a God or gods may exist. To me, you may as well say that your disbelief (regardless of what means has provided you with that disbelief) is sufficient to prove the nonexistence of a God or gods. That's nonsense. We do not have the wherewithal to know whether or not a God or gods exist.
I'm posting a link to the discussion right here. I'd be interested to know what you think about it. Am I right? Or am I missing something?
