I have never been angry at any god, spirit, or other deity. Yet, I’ve known many adults who were and clearly said so.
A nun once looked at me shortly after some horrific but preventable tragedy and said, “I cannot imagine how God could allow that.” She was as angry with God, I suppose, as a nun can be, but she continued to hold to her religious beliefs and vows. I did not respond. She did not, thankfully, ask my opinion.
A friend once told me she was mad at God because her first marriage ended when her husband ran off with another woman and her second husband was an alcoholic who had recently died due to the consequences of his affliction. She blamed God but held to her religious beliefs and religion.
When I taught a class on “The Problem of Evil,” I closely followed the church-sanctioned teaching materials and lesson plan. I was surprised at the number of people bewildered or even mortified by the labeling of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, famine, or plagues as evil, but who were undaunted with calling human behavior evil (murder, rape, sexual deviancy, war, or genocide). It’s understandable but who or what gets the blame for earthquakes? How do you define evil?
Even when I tribed around within Christian communities, I still believed in coincidence, luck, consequences, free will to a degree, and the two sides of human nature. Shit happened; ya know. While I “accepted” (as in “whatever”) what was said about divine will, God’s plan, and intercessory prayer; I was almost deist in most of my opinions. Yet, I often prayed, asking for things to be well. I even prayed for the salvation of dead people (it’s a Catholic thing). I recall being impressed when a church full of folks prayed for a terminally ill old lady to recover. It was miraculous when she fully recovered but then, in short order, she died anyway.
While I am atheist; even now, when people ask me to pray for some sort of well-being, I consider my thoughts, hopes, and best wishes to be equal to anyone’s prayers to a deity. None of that “Thy will be done” nonsense. If I do something or send money, I consider that better than prayers.
I can still hear my father’s or mother’s voice dismissively telling me for the umpteenth time: “God helps those that help themselves.” Conversely, I’ve also often heard, “I’d rather be lucky than good any day.”
That last idiom crosses my mind every time I see a football player score a touchdown (or anyone do something well) and then less than humbly points to the sky as if to share credit with some deity. Moreso, when the event was caused by a fuckup on the part of the opposing team/player: that pissed off God. “Dropped the ball” is a cliché, after all.
I find it somewhat ironic that while atheists are often accused of harboring negative emotions toward a god (that we do not believe exists), when only believers seem locked onto the idea that a supreme being with a plan plays favorites or burdens them with shit sandwiches as life goes on. Religion is another topic altogether.
As a child, although I have heard this said to me as an adult, I was usually advised to “offer it up,” whatever the hell that meant. I’d prefer suck it up or get over it. They are less insulting.
Atheists do not, essentially cannot, get mad at God. Believers do. Deal with it!
I realize how difficult it is for people who are not atheist or agnostic to understand and accept what either term means. Yet, a reasonable dictionary like Merriam-Webster is a good start. The more religious a person is, the harder it may be to grasp the concept of either, as simple as it may be. This is because so much of their belief is based on religion and nothing else.
Conversely, I never will understand why so many people continue to believe that people who do not believe in any god automatically lack both a moral compass and common sense. Maybe it is too difficult, too simple, or maybe they prefer what they have been told (not usually by a member of any nonbelieving entity) for most of their lives.
I cannot recall a time in my life when I thought less of someone because they did not believe in God. More often, it was some believers who troubled me. I’ve had friends and acquaintances from most large religious groups and even some wiccans and druids.
A theist believes in the existence of a god or gods; specifically, one believes in the existence of a God viewed as the creative source of humans, a god who transcends yet is immanent in the world. A person who lacks that belief is an atheist. Morality and trustworthiness must be discerned separately.
Agnostics claim that an ultimate reality such as God is unknown and probably unknowable. It’s not a halfway point between theist and atheist. This is something theists are more likely to get wrong than are atheists. Many folks are hyphenated agnostics: agnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist. I lean toward the former.
I found this PsyPost article regarding research that had been previously reported on in Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. It was about a published report that claimed to be “new” research. The PsyPost piece is dated May 9, 2022. It is bylined Patricia Y. Sanchez.
According to their webpage, “PsyPost is a psychology and neuroscience news website dedicated to reporting the latest research on human behavior, cognition, and society.” It is funded by advertising and claims to have three million readers.
PsyPost further claims, “We are not interested in over-generalizing or mischaracterizing research to get more clicks. We are not interested in confirming or disproving ideological beliefs. We are only interested in accurately reporting research about how humans think and behave.”
Overall, the subject research proports to investigate stereotype opinions held by various groups about atheists, religious (oddly, they chose protestants as a category), and, mainly, agnostics. The sample size was neither random nor sufficiently large to be statistically reliable. However, investigation of the obvious (my opinion) requires little serious statistical effort.
I thought everyone already knew, at least as far as stereotypes are concerned, that religious people generally favored their own ilk in terms of trust and general morality. But that is not my point.
The first sentence in the PsyPost article said this: “Agnosticism and atheism are often categorized into one “nonreligious” group in research despite these being distinct belief systems.”
It is safe to say that agnosticism and atheism do not compete with each other. One person may be both. It would also be right to say they should not be placed into the same religious category. However, it is wrong to categorize, state, or even to imply that either agnosticism or atheism is (or has) a belief system. Such a bogus first sentence places doubt upon either PsyPost or the researcher’s reporting and makes me question the peer review process of Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.
Sometimes it may seem like hair splitting, but this is how atheists.org said it, and I agree: “Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”
To do research on stereotyping it would seem appropriate to me that one must first stop one’s own stereotyping.
One more important thing. Cher, (Cherilyn Sarkisian) was born on this day (May 20) in 1946.
While many religious people credit divinity instead of nature, luck, science, biology, or sex for our being; we can all pretty much agree that life is like a story. It has a beginning, middle, and an end.
We may disagree about when the beginning is, perhaps the middle too. But we all pretty much agree that death is the end of a physical life, at least temporarily. However, there is little consensus about what goes on after we are dead.
Whether or not dying is a new beginning, a continuation of some kind, a simple end, or a mish mash of various afterlife claims; ghostly proposals are a hodge podge of anything goes hypotheses.
There are also a good number of secular concepts of what happens after death. Each is as valid as any of the religious ideas. Add the entertainment category to the list, and anything goes. While anything goes is not a listed concept, it might as well be.
I don’t know what death entails. I have no evidence for any of the life after death hypotheses. Therefore, while I accept that there may be something after death, I don’t know. I am a when you’re dead, you are flat-ass, completely dead and gone kind of guy. Some folks call that disappointing. I call it reasonable reality. I’m not disappointed.
Dan Dennett has said regarding Brights (nonbelievers), “…We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics, and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.”
If a form of consciousness or conscious life exists after physical and mental (as in brain) death, I’ll find out when everyone else does and in the same way. However, I want to kibitz on the 30 afterlife ideas I read about: 30 theories about what happens when you die (msn.com)
I’m loath to say theories because most don’t rise to that level of assurance.
There are not really 30 different after death concepts proposed. Some are essentially the same or overlap. Others are fictional afterlife stories from television shows. I made three categories: Religious, Secular/Universal, and Entertaining.
Secular or Universal Categories:
The cosmic hypothesis claims consciousness belongs to the universe, not to individual bodies. When we die, our consciousness returns to the cosmos. I’m not sure what that means or where it goes. I like the dream thing. It claims that when we die, we will just wake up from a very confusing, vivid, and long dream. It reminds me of Poe’s poem, A Dream Within a Dream.
I fall in among what is called the nothingness concepts. One suggests at death everything turns black, and we’re gone forever. There is also the uncertain idea, which is also me, suggests that all that we know about death is what happens to the physical body. That uncertainty suggestion addresses death as a cold reality leaving other ideas for consideration
Nihilism deems that all values are meaningless and baseless. It’s a dark philosophy. A true nihilist way of approaching death and the afterlife is that there is nothing at all afterwards because life also had nothing. It’s a bit cold, but afterlife it is one thing nihilism may have right.
The solipsism suggestion is new to me. It is valid in both life and death. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure. It is a philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. Perhaps, when one dies, everything else dies as well. I don’t understand this one.
Those who believe in the paranormal claim that after death our souls remain among the living on Earth. Many also believe communication with these souls is possible through mediums. I don’t buy any of this. This suggestion also fits under entertainment. If I talked about charlatans, this would be their heyday category.
Religious Categories:
Buddhists hypothesize reincarnation after death. There are different realms into which you may be reborn after your good and dead. You could be a god, demi-god, human, animal, or a ghost.
LDS folks believe good and righteous Mormons become gods when they die. Alternatively, non-believers are condemned in the afterlife. Heaven is apparently not good enough for them. Seems narcissistic to me.
Hinduism also holds the belief of reincarnation. A person’s status or form in the next life is determined by their actions during this current life. No news there.
Christians believe in both Heaven and Hell. Good and righteous Christians will enter Heaven. If they lead a life of sin and wrongdoings, it’s Hell after life. However, it is essential to believe in God and Jesus. Do-gooder agnostics, atheists, Jews, and Muslims are doomed (especially the first two, as the last two also want to believe they’re special and thus semi-saved).
Entertainment Categories:
Sci-fi explanations abound. One is the parallel universe idea that when we die, we will be living in the same universe as we were before, just in a different portion of space and time.
Stranger Things followers know what the Upside Down is. The show claims that there is an alternate dimension to our universe that a person can become trapped in, being neither alive nor dead. Not sure you even must die for this one.
The illusion idea claims that the world is created more in our minds than in a literal sense, meaning that it is all an illusion. Following this understanding, death is a human-constructed concept, and when we die, we remain.
The excretion dump is kind of shitty. It claims that the universe is a giant brain in a human body, and individuals are merely cells. When a cell dies in a human body it gets excreted, so perhaps that is what happens to people in the end.
The many worlds claim is that when we die, we are only dying in this world and current universe. There are other universes out there where we can move. See how this idea overlaps others?
There should be no problem with these. Folks should be free to believe as they wish. But not so fast. There appears to be a heavenly problem.
Some believers, mostly Christians, seem eager to participate in bringing on what they believe to be the inevitable end times when all life ends. It’s kind of like in the book of Revelation. Armageddon. They are willing to destroy all life and just get things over with. They see themselves as God’s little helpers. Not good.
Another thing I’ve read about is the killing of children being justified because they are without sin and go directly to Paradise/Heaven. Islamic terrorists have used this logic to justify some of their murderous deeds.
It should not matter what anyone thinks about what happens after we are dead. But it does.
Bill
PS: This list could be molded into parodistic lyrics to the Paul Simon song. Maybe someday.
I had nothing, then this mic dropped. It’s an email FFRF posted today. I need to send them some dinero for helping me out.
Now, it is out of “love” that this Gary person sent this. (CAPS, spacing, spelling, and punctuation are all GARY’s). He removed all our excuses (what a jerk).
“I WANT YOU PEOPLE SAVED AND NOT GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY . SO PLEASE LISTEN TO ME BEFORE ITS TO LATE FOR YOU . YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY DEPENDS ON IT . I MUST WARN YOU PEOPLE – JESUS IS VERY REAL . YOU ARE LOST WITHOUT HIM AND WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS . HELL IS A REAL PLACE – SO IS HEAVEN . DON’T BE A FOOL AND REJECT CHRIST . I PLEAD WITH YOU OUT OF LOVE . HELL IS A PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT WHERE THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS WILL ALL BE . YOU WILL GO TO THIS MOST TERRIFYING PLACE IF YOU DON’T REPENT . I GUARANTEE YOU WILL HAVE A RUDE AWAKENING IF YOU DON’T LISTEN TO THIS MESSAGE . ONCE AGAIN DON’T BE A FOOL ! THIS IS REAL AND GOD DOESN’T MESS AROUND . YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE NOW – ALL OF YOU . — Gary”
God doesn’t mess around, and Jesus IS VERY REAL: Gary guarantees it. There we have it, right?
Okay, let’s say I repent (for what I’m not sure). I get my Irish ass saved (from Hell I guess). Presumably after I die, I will not have a rude awakening (but I will remain doornail dead).
I am sitting here reading the Ten Commandments wondering which of them Gary thinks I’m going to Hell for. Jesus is not mentioned. I believe in No Gods, so with one exception, I am good for the first one. No false gods and all that. But, the graven image shit may doom us all.
I’m not sure I know what #2 means, but when I swear, I seldom involve deities. Now I am a fan of the late George Carlin, who, presumably, has experienced his rude awakening. In persona, I’ve been compared to him, but I’m not even close to that funny. Anyways, when I cuss, I use four of George’s seven dirty words: shit, fuck, cocksucker, and motherfucker. I don’t consider cunt, tits, or piss swearing when used on their own. Back to Commandments.
I’m good with Mom & Dad. Lately, I’ve not killed anyone without repenting. I have not adulteried (made-up word), stole, false witnessed, or lusted for or with any of the neighbors. I like my stuff better than theirs, so I’m non-coveting. I am not sure what I could do to fuck up a Sabbath anyway, or which day it actually is.
So here’s the thing. I’ll be going to Hell for ETERNITY, according to Gary and his fellow (loving) pacemakers (that was a 1960s band) because I acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the 5,000 or so gods man has created ever existed. Anything else? Nope.
By what process do we make most important decisions? How do most of us select a religion or denomination to follow?
The who
What do Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical Christianity have in common? With each other, about as much as they share with Judaism or Islam, and little more than those last two have in common with each other.
Within and between many religious or Christian groups the divisions are astounding, even to a cynical skeptic like me. They’ve pretty much all killed one another in the name of the god they claim to believe in. The god who knows and is responsible for everything, including them.
One thing they do share is the opinion that all atheists are immoral, criminal crackpots and meanies. Most recently I’ve been accosted for not thinking like a true American. Wowzer. Me?
Six of seven sacraments, a Boy Scout, several US Department of Defense careers (two honorably in uniform), Christian education and Bible Study teacher, Parish Council President; a father, and grandfather to about a dozen; and some right-wing crack-pot thinks it’s his job to enlighten me!?
Buddhism is a religious exception. There may be others. Many followers of this path are not a good fit as I define a religion (you need a god). I see Buddhism as more of a philosophical tradition. However, much of that philosophy and tradition can be woven with other religious beliefs. While Buddhists don’t believe in any gods, there are things that can help (or hinder) such people toward enlightenment. Meanwhile, back at the Reality Ranch…
The how
The rest of us, mostly Christians in America, have several methods for choosing a tribe or religion to follow.
We’re born or adopted into it by our parents or guardians.
We convert into it for any number of reasons.
We are forced into it in various ways.
For community and social reasons. Like, we want a church home for our family, and we find something that seems to work okay.
We discover it through careful analytical thought and examination of all religious beliefs, practices, philosophies, dogma, and whatever else belongs to the trappings of a religion. (Yeah, right.)
For example
My wife, Yolonda, and her three siblings were raised in The Church of Christ. They grew up in Texas. The entire family of kids moved on to other Christian denominations in adulthood because of their displeasure with the denomination of their parents.
Yolonda converted into the Catholic Church about twenty years ago (I was born Catholic), at least in part because I was giving the denomination a final attempt.
One day she said to me, “What I like about being Catholic is that you can be a normal human being and still go to Heaven.” If you know much about the Church of Christ, you know why she said that. Her decision to join me in that, and our eventual decision to leave it twelve years later, is another story. But we gave the faith lots of pray, pay, and obey for as long as we could.
Looking around
While I piddled with eastern religion and philosophies prior to the making one last run at the faith of my birth, neither of us ever took any path other than Christian and Catholic, until we both gave that up.
Looking back. the religious trek in our long marriage may seem chaotic, but that is what real searching looks like in hindsight. It’s called street cred. You must jump into the pool to feel the water. It is kind of like watching a pinball bounce around inside the machine. It seems chaotic, but the player knows what he or she is doing until the ball passes the flippers and is lost. To the ball, it is all random.
My truth
I was not born into atheism. I cannot name one atheist person I knew prior to age 21. Even after that, I’m not 100% sure I knew any names until I staked my claim. Atheism was never suggested to me as an option, nor was I forced into it. I resisted for socio-cultural reasons even as I slowly and continually moved toward it. There was no community satisfaction or social attraction similar to having a church home to being atheist.
If anything, it was the opposite as I noticed a few folks moving away from me socially. However, I did get to hear other friends confess their somewhat closeted atheism to me later. That still happens, although seldom.
My choice
I simply decided that I do not believe any god exists (as in is real), and I should be true to myself (see #5 above).
This is from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, not the Bible, where Polonius says to Laertes, “This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” I enthusiastically, atheistically, and poetically agree.
Atheists are often asked what evidence would be sufficient to enlighten us enough to agree that a god exists. Most of us can’t answer because what we need is irrefutable, repeatable, and clear proof. I would say “God” (or one of them), but how do I know if an entity is a god? One lady suggested that if Jesus appeared in my car next to me, I would believe. That can be hallucination. Since I have no way to validate the real Jesus, I must disagree with her.
I am more likely to confront an extra-terrestrial alien than any real god. And religion is a different matter altogether. Separating God and religion seems impossible for most basic believers because that is where they were led into the delusion.
When I used to say that I believed in a god (it was more like a something), that was not because I had any evidence. As I matured along with my beliefs, God went from what I was told to something downright obfuscated. If anything, I hung on to belief despite a complete lack of evidence.
I moved on to admitting that I did not believe any god existed. That was not because there was no evidence, but because such existence became permanently illogical to me. Of course, while a deity made no sense, there was supporting evidence in the form of no evidence of existence. That’s were I am on this.
When I commented on Nan’s blog that the existence of gods can be neither proved nor disproved, I was challenged by another atheist (RaPaR) with the argument that the lack of evidence supporting a god is evidence that no god exists. Well, I decided to check out this lack ofevidence is evidence of absence argument (a rabbit hole). Apparently, I walked in on years of debate and discussion by scientists and philosophers. It’s nothing new, and it’s not a shallow idea. It deserves more than cursory consideration.
Two distinct concepts are absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Their relationship and distinction get rolled up in the aphoristic antimetabole, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree. It isn’t. However, we cannot logically simply dismiss real evidence nor thousands of years of none.
This discussion works best for real world things like medical efficacy, drug testing, and vaccine research. However, as Paul Simon wrote in The Boxer, “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.” Why let silly things like evidence, lack of it, or proof and facts get in the way?
Here’s my argument. If the monotheistic Abrahamic God exists, why not any of the other five thousand or so gods as well? The amount of evidence for any of them is virtually the same. Only the number of gods differ. Monotheists are currently at bat, but polytheists have a bigger bull pen.
Important words that relate to evidence and proof are often used by believers. They are outward sign, testimony, bearing witness, and of course that old troublemaker, faith. Who needs it when you have proof? And which of those words provides evidence of a god?
A key defense of my hypothesis is knowledge or knowing. Many people claim not only to know that a god exists, but they further claim to know what God wants. They claim to know God’s mind. That is nuts. What does it mean to know something? The word is epistemology, but why go there?
Obviously, while I may have believed a god existed, I never knew such a thing. If I ever made such a claim, it was bullshit. I will let you go here or decide what knowing means on your own.
The unarguable logic fallacy is claiming existence of a god or supporting such a claim based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. If no one can provide evidence of non-existence, that does not make it so.
You can fill a library with the published books that claim to prove a god exists. Ten proofs, nine, six, however many you want. Why are we skeptics still unconvinced? It’s because religious books sell well, even when they are crap.
Until Christmas, Yule, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, and New Year’s Day; Happy Human Rights Day, Dewey Decimal System Day, Animal Rights Day, and Nobel Prize Day.
When I say or write that I do not believe there are any gods (or God), I try to keep the subject of religion at least in the margin, if not totally separate. Without belief in a god, the concept of religion becomes moot. Besides, religions are all over the place in what they claim. While related, god and religion are not the same topics to me. There is no chicken or the egg mystery. God first.
However, in philosophical beliefs like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and in new age, nature-based belief systems like Wiccan, Pagan, or Druidism, attitudes and practices could continue because their god concept does not have the same core personification and monotheistic faith requirements.
Merriam-Webster claims that religion is “the service and worship of God or the supernatural,” or “a commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.” Religion can also be “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” So, godless religion is conceivable. But their status as religions is arguable. Christians, Muslims, and Jews need God. Wiccans, not so much.
Some atheists say religion is the reason why they don’t believe. They may point to (or blame) people who are religious hypocrites for their atheism. Even the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church claims that the way many people practice Christianity is responsible for the rise of atheism.
Indeed, the weaknesses, silliness, and irrationality of religions, many who practice them, and the associated beliefs, serve to reinforce my conclusion that there are no gods. That includes the Catholic Church. But they did not cause it.
When believers present their case for why they believe in God, and why they think I should, they always use religion to support their rationale. They may quote scripture to me, or they’ll tell me I’ll die and go to hell, or that some god will punish me because I decline to agree with them. Health and wealth believers think they get that way because of what they believe. That is religion. Beyond all that, religious believers only have our existence as proof of God.
World views and philosophy aside, for religion to be valid there must be a god. I will discuss the existence of a deity, or some supernatural supreme being, or nature, or the universe. But when someone injects that discussion with religious beliefs, it moves the goal posts and changes the subject. It’s not even the same playing field. They become the home team and that’s not fair to me and my views.
Just yesterday, I stopped at a traffic light behind a Lexus SUV with three stickers on the painted portion of the rear hatch. One was an image of a US flag with the word pray in the blue field where the stars go. The second said something about prayer and the USA, but I forget exactly what it said. But the third pressed my ponder button.
The sticker said, “I am Christian, and I vote.” My first thought was I am not and so do I. I like stickers, but I seldom put them on my car. When I do, they get peeled off when the election or whatever reason for them has passed. But my laptop and iPad are covered with them (nonpolitical).
I cannot consider the …I Vote sticker as anything other than a political threat or intimidation intended to state the owner’s political and governmental priority. That would be the Christian religion. I could not determine if they were Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, or Catholic. But I suspect one of the first two since while papists consider themselves the original Christians, they usually use Catholic.
Another bumper sticker I saw about 10 years ago said, “You cannot be both Catholic and Pro-Choice.” It was about then that I took my money and left the Catholic Church (the religion). It had nothing to do with the bumper sticker. But how’d that work for them?
So, the person in the Lexus likely opposes any separation of church and state (as long the church side is Christian). They claim to be one of 215-million US citizens identifying as Christian (now 65%, down from 75% in 2015, according to PEW Research), and one of the 16-million Texans (53% says ASARB) who identify as such.
I must assume the Lexus Christian has no qualms forcing his or her religious beliefs onto non-Christians. What a strange way to wring out freedom of religion (so long as it’s Christian) from the US Constitution. And they are downright proud of it, in a much holier than thou sort of way.
Then I pondered on with ideas for I’m (something), and I vote stickers. My ideas:
I’m old and I vote. I’m (single, married, divorced) and I vote. I eat bacon and I vote (hello CA).
I’m bald and I vote. I’m non-denominational and I vote. I’m an Aggie and I vote.
I drink and I vote (but not at the same time). I’m (Irish, German, Mexican, Swedish, Mediterranean, Apache, or ???) and I vote.
I’m atheist and I vote. I worship Satan and I vote. I’m (rich, poor, middle income) and I vote (and hopefully pay taxes). I’m antigovernment and I vote anyway.
I read and I vote. I’m a writer, artist, creative person, and I vote. I’m a teacher and I vote. I’m a flat Earther and I vote. I’m an old yellow dog and I vote.
I’m a (vegetarian, vegan, meat eater, vampire) and I vote. I’m a nudist and I vote. I’m a pluviophile and I vote. I am apathetic and I vote (I just don’t care).
I’m snarkastic and I vote. I like rock and roll, and I vote. I (do or don’t) own a gun or play golf, and I vote. I drink coffee and I vote. I can dance and I vote.
How about you? Do you vote? Do you have any stickers on your car, bike, computer, or whatever?
Got my Indian Buddha statue
the next day
after some Catholic Answers lecture guy
told us it was a mortal sin to have one.
First Commandment (Catholic version), no less.
My graven image now sits with my Dragon Chalice,
lion statue, and cowboy with horse bronze art,
family photos, among other things.
He’s been lotus sitting around my house,
mostly in my room, for more than 20 years.
The best years of my life
have been with Siddhartha.
My family has concurred many demons.
I’ve beaten cancer (for now), completed 15 marathons,
written hundreds of poems, cheated death
and heart disease (also temporarily),
lost twenty pounds (several times),
and today I mark 75 years since I squeezed
through Mom’s birth canal. Sorry, Mom.
My mother claimed I was a contrarian.
Dad said I was only half-Irish and my sibs
considered me a spoiled brat (that’s still true).
The (younger then I) lecturer from the diocesan chancery
died two years afterwards.
Wrong statue or just superstition, I guess.
According to the Merriam-Webster.com on-line Dictionary, the word agnostic shares part of its history with words such as prognosticate and prognosis, words which have something to do with knowledge or knowing.
The word atheist shares roots with words such as theology and theism, which have to do with god or gods, not knowledge thereof. There is a difference.
Being an agnostic is not, as many assume, halfway between being a believer or a nonbeliever. One has to do with knowledge, or the ability of humans to have knowing, while the other identifies a proclaimed conclusion regarding the existence of a god. Halfway could be either unconvinced atheists or unconvinced believers. I’ve probably fit both unconvinced categories at different times of my life.
According to me (I made this up), there are three types of agnostics. First are all the people who say they are agnostic. Second are all the people who do not believe in any gods but cannot prove that none exist (atheists). The third group are those who do believe in any number of gods (usually one), but likewise cannot prove the existence of even one god.
If you add groups one, two, and three; that equals everybody. Therefore, claiming to be agnostic is akin to staking a claim to be one of everyone (sarcastic eye roll). In the end, we’re all agnostic.
I don’t care if god talks to any of us, shoots lightning into our brains, or saves one of us from a hungry wolf (apologies to Duran Duran), we don’t know if such events are true and no one knows if god exists. We simply choose to claim such a belief, usually because that is what someone taught us.
We were not born with that belief. We may want there to be a god. Okay. It may make us feel good to think god exists. Also, fine. We may claim faith. Wonderful. But none of us knows. Not one person.
In my opinion, people who claim to be agnostic are essentially atheist because they do not hold to the belief or conclusion that a god exists. Knowing or not knowing is immaterial to belief. Either we believe in god, or we don’t.
We may have doubts. Maybe we want to believe but can’t. Maybe we have some other rationale for our position. All good. Someone may say they believe in god and be lying. That’s fine by me. But staking a claim to middle ground by hiding behind the claim of agnosticism seems disingenuous, in my (not so) humble opinion.
If we say we are agnostic, as we all should because we don’t know, that takes us back to why people believe: faith and preference, not knowledge.
That’s just how it works. It should be clear, but it’s not. I think it’s fair to ask someone why they do or do not believe in a god. If the answer sounds like I am agnostic, then I must assume they do not believe, unless they say otherwise.
Dispassionate Doubt 