Jesus Christ (if you'll excuse the expression), dear audience of several! Do you even know how many bloggers there are who don't post things for ages, and then apologize for it? I feel so blood unoriginal because I was about to do more or less the same damn thing, but hell with that! And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sorry! I've been busy having a life (kinda) and I really don't feel compelled to post on this. Do I even have any followers? Oh well, that's rather moot. I really do this more for myself anyway. I find the best way to organize my thoughts and remain rational, is to write them down, and I really just do so online because it's kind of cool.
Anyway, now that you've all listened to me whine quite enough, let me get down to the actual topic of this post: Why Agnosticism is the shit. Before I go into this, I'll just throw out this little disclaimer, by no means do I feel that atheism or theism are completely bad. Theism is more so, but both serve a good purpose, and cause at least some good. What I am trying to say, however, is that while both atheists and theists have relatively defensible ethical and logical positions, (especially atheists) they are both wrong. And annoying. And the very concepts of both beliefs were embodied in physical humanly form they'd probably be ugly. And fat.
Meanwhile, sitting at my logical high ground, I am now speaking on behalf of the beautiful and slim Agnosticism. Now I've heard Agnosticism take a surprising amount of abuse. I've heard agnostics criticized for being fence-sitters, indecisive, afraid to decide, etc. by atheists. And theists, well, I don't think that most of them really know or care that we're any different from atheists, the ignorant shits! But back to the point, and I don't recall if I've said this before, but what the hell makes Agnosticism (And I do insist on capitalizing it, so long as spell check gives me the little red zig-zag every time I use a small "c" in Christianity) so bad? I really wouldn't expect to get criticism from atheists, considering we're more or less on the same side here.
I think the point that Agnosticism's critics are trying to make is that the mindset of agnosticism can be associated with cowardice. Sure, I can easily see how one might think this, especially because it's entirely possible for a timid, indecisive person to become agnostic. I'm honestly a little offended, though, because some people seem to have the idea that we are agnostics are like sheep, who decided to stray from the flock that is organized religion, but were just too afraid to go all out because we think we might wet ourselves if things get too unfamiliar. I'm not saying no one's Agnostic because they couldn't handle the notion of there being no god in the universe, but I'm sure as hell not Agnostic for that reason! If I felt so inclined, I'd shave off my delicate white wool and go join the wolves, (don't read into that metaphor, it's just arbitrary) but I don't feel so inclined; because I'm of the impression that while most of the sheeple from whom I've departed are total dipshits, the wolves on the other side of the spectrum are only lesser dipshits.
I'll explain exactly why those are all dipshits later, but in the meantime let's get back to the topic of Agnosticism. Another criticism it gets is that it's not really much of an opinion. It's been said that as an agnostic you can't really be that enthusiastic about your belief, because it's an "I don't know," as opposed to a yes or no. I think where they're coming from is that while theism is an affirmative statement, and atheism is a negative statement, agnosticism isn't really either, it's more of a shrug of the shoulders. Well let me clear something up for the people who don't understand. Going into disclaimer mode again, I may not be speaking for all or many agnostics when I say this, the following is only my view on it: Agnosticism is, indeed, a rather neutral position, a middle ground of sorts. But that doesn't mean that it isn't it's own belief, as much as theism or atheism is. To help the smaller minded people out there, let me give you a better image to go by: Instead of thinking of Agnostics as saying "I don't know, maybe." In a neutral tone, think of them shouting: "I don't know, you don't know, and neither does anybody! We can't prove whether a god exists or doesn't, so stop freaking pretending that you know for certain!" Does that give you a different idea of agnosticism?
Building off of the last paragraph, Agnosticism isn't so much a lack of knowledge, as it is a belief that knowledge is not currently possessed. I'm not so much saying "I don't know if there's a god," as I'm saying "humanity doesn't know if there's a god." Being an empirical agnostic, rather than a "strong" agnostic, I don't believe that we can never know. And can a single atheist tell me that I am not justified in saying this? Atheists have even said that they're, in a way, agnostic, because they don't really know if a god exists. Frankly, I'd call this small amount of uncertainty enough to justify calling oneself agnostic, but why not take it further.
Atheism is, by definition, the theory or belief that god doesn't exist. I would like to pose this argument to any atheist: How can you prove that there is no god? I would pose the same question to a theist, but really, why bother? For the rest of this post, in fact, I'm going to totally forget about theism, because I really can't bring myself to take them seriously at the moment. Anyway, as I was saying, it is clear that it cannot be proved that no god exists, because one would have to simultaneously search every part of the universe, with every conceivable sense. So, in response to this, an atheist will say that they still don't believe in a god because it seems improbable to them. The logic behind this, I believe, is that because no god acts in any perceivable way on humanity or earth, he probably doesn't exist.
Going off on a brief tangent, most atheists would say that someone shouldn't become an atheist simply because they encounter misfortune. Rationally speaking, any moderately intelligent theist can explain this away to fit into the religion they defend. Furthermore, an atheist would say, the case doesn't disprove the possibility that there is a god, only he's a total ass. Similarly, I don't find that a lack of "divine" interaction with Earth disproves that there is a god. What if there is, and he simply doesn't care about our planet? What if he only does things to an entirely different race, on an entirely different planet? I could go into the whole ordeal of aliens' existence, but I think any rational-minded atheist would agree that it's possible, if not likely, that life exists somewhere else. Anyway, does that not effectively cast enough doubt on the notion that not god whatsoever exists, to give logical cause to be agnostic?
This, my dear readers, is why I am Agnostic. Though I haven't the faintest clue of what lies beyond this world, I am at least well aware of it. If there are any atheists who happen to read this, I would be very happy to hear a different argument for atheism. Frankly, I just feel like there must be more to the belief than what I've said, and if you would explain to me other things that give you logical cause to be atheist, rather than agnostic, I would sincerely love to hear them. Oh, and also, just to clarify: I don't mean to disrespect atheists in any way. I actually have lots of respect for them, just for the fact that they have the beliefs that they do, despite that many are strongly encouraged not to. So though I disagree with you, atheists, please understand that I'm only poking fun at you, no insults intended! If anything I think of atheists as my friends, and fine, interesting people. But theists, though, I really can't stand. Seriously guys, pick up some common sense, or at least go breathe paint fumes, if you're that determined to drown out your better judgement in retardation.
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
