my conversion to a-religious agnosticism
I think I’m going to have do an uncool thing here. I’m going to have to declare myself a big old woolly agnostic. I don’t have a lack of belief in gods: I have a belief that gods don’t exist. But I can’t say I’m totally, totally sure I’m right because I don’t actually understand all (or any??) of the science that explains how the world came into existence and I can’t be sure that even if I did, I wouldn’t think there’s still a minuscule and weird possibility that some benign, benevolent or malevolent supernatural force exists outside my understood reality.
As a newly converted agnostic from atheism, I’m feeling rather isolated. And I’m wondering if the whiff of desperation not to be viewed as agnostic that I occasionally sense from atheists comes down to their utter rejection of Christianity and their desire not to be seen as generally a bit wobbly in their lack of belief. Maybe I’ll re-label myself a committed a-religious agnostic. Anyone with me?
Because one thing I am sure of, is that the various versions of the organised religion that dominates my society are both logically and morally flawed. I think I know a fair bit about it, but the more I read, the more I despair. Or laugh, depending on the angle the author takes. God Loves Killing Children was the detailed revelation of today. I’d be interested to hear the justification any Christians have for the word of their god on these delightful occasions. I can’t imagine how ‘oh, you’ve taken this out of context’ would quite do the trick here.
I think that the good work that atheists are doing to force Christians into considering their religion more carefully is invaluable. Most Christians nowadays don’t actually condone killing children (as far as I’m aware), but maybe highlighting things like this will help them realise they need to think more carefully about what’s going on in that holy book of theirs. Because if killing children really isn’t okay under any circumstances, maybe other things, or indeed EVERYTHING, needs to be re-evaluated too.
Do you want their to be a god?
LikeLike
Depends if it’s a nice one and there’s a perfectly valid reason for all this that I can’t comprehend. Do you?
LikeLike
(Actually, what do you mean by ‘god’?)
LikeLike
any old god 🙂
I don’t want their to be any god. I think we can say with reasonable certainty that god is either indifferent, cruel, powerless, judgmental or non-existent. And, it think it’s better for society to live free of supernatural goals.
If there is a god, and I need to “believe” in order to pass on — then passing on is not for me.
LikeLike
Chris. Off topic for a sec. Check you r damn spam folder.
LikeLike
Damn! Thanks! I wish I had gotten those earlier. I will have to keep an eye on that folder, because I had 3 in there from you.
LikeLike
Yeah, I am in so many spam folders…people just treat me like tin meat. I dunno.
LikeLike
I wonder what it is …
LikeLike
Totally, he’s such an affable chap!
LikeLike
You and your spam!
LikeLike
Oh, god…I detest agnosticism. Its like making love with a condom then stopping after a few minutes and taking it off, then stopping to put it back on again, then taking it off…etc etc ad nauseum.
You never know if you are coming or going.
LikeLike
You see that’s just what I was talking about! I think it unjustly has a bad name and most atheists are secret agnostics, but don’t want to admit it just in case someone says just that or something more intelligent to them. 🙂
LikeLike
What? Are you kidding?
After that ”God child-killing ”post you mention you are seriously gonna stand there and say “‘um..er..ah.. I am not sure.”
How can agnosticism unjustly have a bad name!
Besides, have you ever tried to stop half way through and put on a con….forget it…you’re nuts.
LikeLike
I don’t think you actually read the post. 🙂 I said there is no way Christianity or any other religion I know about is true. No hesitation, no confusion, no doubt. All I’m saying is that it’s impossible to rule out the supernatural completely. Think of all the cool superstitious science fiction possibilities! (Not scientology)
LikeLike
Of course I read the post.
If you don’t believe in religion, or at least believe they are all bonkers, how can you be agnostic?
”As a newly converted agnostic from atheism, I’m feeling rather isolated. And I’m wondering if the whiff of desperation not to be viewed as agnostic that I occasionally sense from atheists comes down to their utter rejection of Christianity and their desire not to be seen as generally a bit wobbly in their lack of belief. Maybe I’ll re-label myself a committed a-religious agnostic. Anyone with me?”:
Is there anything about this paragraph I misunderstood?
LikeLike
Well, I think now you’re just shaming my inability to express myself coherently. Sigh. That does kind of look like I’m a bit wobbly about Christianity. I think I missed a sentence or two before the next bit and I’ll have to go and edit the post. Or maybe I’ll delete it … hehe
LikeLike
Oh, Jesus H…now you are agnostic about blogging.
”Well, I think now you’re just shaming my inability to express myself coherently. ”
With this approach you would make a perfect candidate for any religion,
”Forgive them, dad, for they know not what they write…or do…or something.”‘
LikeLike
That’s really cheeky. But quite funny so I’ll not spam you yet. Anyway, I’ve sorted out the minor continuity error and added ‘Because’ to the third paragraph. I’m content it all makes perfect sense now. I think the problem with agnosticism as a label is that runs from ‘dipping your feet in Christianity’ right through to ‘there’s a 0.0000001% chance a deity in an unknown form and for reasons unknown may exist’. ‘Atheists’ are afraid people will assume the wrong end of the scale.
LikeLike
You’re missing the point.
You cannot separate religion from any god, because it was religion- no matter how prehistoric – that created them, thus your notion stems from cultural and religious upbringing.
LikeLike
I think you and John have a quite narrow interpretation of what a god can be. You both seem to base it on what humanity has created so far, which is, of course, a reasonable thing to do. The problem is that we’re talking about the possibility of undefined supernatural beings, and you can’t measure any part of that by what you actually know. And I am aware that this turns any discussion into detestable ‘pseudo-philosophical’ drivel. But the fact remains that I can’t completely, totally and utterly discount it because I can’t use any for form of logical argument against it. There’s no evidence and there’s not even a suggestion that, for instance, the deity competition I proposed in my previous post exists but I still can’t discount it as impossible. It wouldn’t make any sense but why would supernatural beings have to make sense by my standards?
I’m guessing part of your genuine sounding disgust is that you see all too clearly the horrible things that organised religion is responsible for and ‘games’ like this are a waste of time and making light of the obvious realities in life. I get that. But I still can’t label myself an atheist when I have no way of proving to myself that the existence of any deity is totally impossible.
LikeLike
You are still not getting it, and I don’t mean to be patronizing or pedantic
What came first, humans or gods?
If there are supernatural beings how do you think the notion about them/it started?
a) It/ they were real and showed themselves.
b) It/ they are not real and merely products of an over active ”Argentinian”'( fill in nationality of choice) resident’s imagination.
If we accept a) then by opening this can of worms we let out any number of gods/creators.
But let’s stick with the usual suspects for now.
Yahweh not good enough for you? How about Allah? And who are you to say either of these are not the real deal. Then what about Jesus?
Under these circumstances, b) now seems the more favorable choice.
As Mister Spock might say..”It’s only logical”
LikeLike
Logical to you and Mr Spock maybe. In my trillion to one notion that gods exist and came first, it makes no difference to my position if all of the ones you mention exist, or none of them do. The fact that you even pose these questions shows you don’t really get what I’m talking about. I’d say I’ll attempt to clarify it in my next post, but I have no idea how to express myself more clearly than I did in the last two.
LikeLike
Sigh….give it your best shot.
LikeLike
Job done. Fojap and David Yerle have sorted it out. See below. I guess I’m back to being an atheist. Just a cleverer one than you. 🙂
LikeLike
Sigh..even they are not spot on, David less so. An atheist does not believe in ANY gods and does not capitalize the g., which merely adds some sort of credence to monotheists and especially gives Christians a thrill.
”I guess I’m back to being an atheist. Just a cleverer one than you”
Better looking probably, but cleverer….lol..if you say so.
LikeLike
Wow, you’re right. That capitalisation is sloppy! You’ve missed the point again though – it’s the difference between not believing in a god, and thinking it’s not impossible one may exist.
LikeLike
You’re killing me!
”….it’s the difference between not believing in a god, and thinking it’s not impossible one may exist.”
If there was a possibility that they existed then there has to be some grain of truth in the documents that have recorded/made mention of such gods/supernatural beings. Otherwise where would the notion of such beings have come from.
If you choose to believe in the bible, Koran, Cornflakes Packet, then good for you. You would be a complete nutter, but this is choice. Now…prove it!
Think carefully before dashing off an answer. And none of that ding bat philosophy crap, either!
LikeLike
It’s a good point, Ark. The gods are new inventions. If you alloow for them then you must also give some credence to the sand manuals that conjured them in the first place.
LikeLike
“there has to be some grain of truth in the documents that have recorded/made mention of such gods/supernatural beings” There’s clearly a switch off function in your brain at anything that strays into dingbat philosophy crap territory. Which is fine. Read ‘realms of possibilty’ again and tell me why that scenario is impossible. It’s ridiculous and immensly improbably. And there are millions of possibilities like this that are compatible with everything that has ever happened. It doesn’t mean I believe them, it means I can’t think it’s impossible.
LikeLike
If you can’t think it is impossible then you can only think it is possible. Based on WHAT!
Evidence, Culture or Imagination?
realms of possibilty. Life on Mars..yes.
Elvis being alive. Maybe
Gods…pffft…reboot, doesn’t compute.
Evidence….there is none that is even plausible.
Culture……most definitely.
Imagination…Absolutely.
But if you would care to offer a description…however vague of these gods, then I would be more than happy to listen..or read.
If you hear the sound of an ambulance coming down your street just now…hide behind the sofa.
LikeLike
Oh, I can’t believe you are making me do this, just because you have a big void in your head that negates something not being impossible making it possible. Did you read ‘realms of possibiility’? Tell me why this is not possible. Is it lack of evidence? Can you only admit something is possible if there’s evidence? I won’t believe it without evidence but I can’t say it’s impossible. And in fact, there is more evidence for gods than pink unicorns in my chimney because millions, nay billions of people believe gods exist and no-one believes there are pink unicorns in my chimney. Now, I may be able to write off their belief based on my understanding of evolution and logic, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that some people with a better grasp than me of both evolution and logic continue to maintain they have ‘personal’ evidence for the existence of gods. I still don’t believe them: I think religion is generally harmful nonsense and gods don’t exist. But there is a teensy weensy possibility that deities, in some form, exist. Admit it. I know you want to. It’s not a slippery slope to taking communion and I won’t call you a woolly agnostic. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, you win, brow beaten me to death…I shall go to church on Sunday You never know, right, a god may turn up?
LikeLike
That’s the spirit! What’s the worst that could happen? I’ve already registered for a re-conversion at my local fundamentalist branch. (Think I’ll always see the fun and mental in there now.)
LikeLike
Excellent!
I shall be attending my first voluntary service since Boy Scout Parade ( weddings and baptisms don’t count…I went under duress) wearing a bright orange Sex Pistols T-Shirt with the epithet ‘Fuck Off’ emblazoned under an unwashed image of Johnny Rotten.
How many of those crackers can I munch and how much wine may I drink during mass before it is considered bad manners?
Your in faith..His Arkness
LikeLike
I don’t think we are that far off … in the immeasurably unlikely event that there is a god and there is some perfect explanation for everything … then, I will of course, be forgiving. But, in the meantime, I’m atheist. In my opinion, it’s the “working” conclusion which inspires the greatest sense of urgency and connection with other creatures.
LikeLike
“in the immeasurably unlikely event …” Oh, I don’t know, I think that might make you an (a-religious) agnostic.
LikeLike
Ehh … but, I feel like I’m betting my life on “no god”. We can always leave escape routes with words can’t we??
LikeLike
I despise this type of pseudo-philosophy. This is almost like the god of the gaps BS. Just because science can;t fill in all the blanks….yet… oh, well maybe there is a designer behind it all.
One has to be honest and ask where did the notion of a creator first come from?
Initially from the minds of people who thought thunder and lightening was ”god”’moving the furniture.
Later, humans just anthropomorphised this belief and stuck on a ”face” and added the capital ‘G”.
Then a bit later set about liquidating anyone who disagreed with their version of what god was.
Where is m y barf bag?
LikeLike
I’m confused, which is quite natural…. you’ve moved from atheist to woolly agnostic? It’s usually the other way around, but then again, you’re living in Argentina so i guess anything is possible.
LikeLike
It’s hanging out in those tango joints, that does it. As the tango is supposed to be the sexiest dance ever, it must be all those women saying, Oh, Christ ,Yes! Enough to make any woman be a bit agnostic I suppose.
This should bring on a tirade of feminist stuff and I’m dumped in spam again…
LikeLike
Spam spelt backwards is Maps… I think there’s something in that for everyone 🙂
LikeLike
I guess it’s not really a conversion. Just having conversations with atheists and their ‘absolutes’ about everything made me realise it’s odd to pretend there’s no possibility of anything else. As I said to my supportive buddy Ark further up this meandering mess of comments about his spamming habits:
“I think the problem with agnosticism as a label is that runs from ‘dipping your feet in Christianity’ right through to ‘there’s a 0.0000001% chance a deity in an unknown form and for reasons unknown may exist’. ‘Atheists’ are afraid people will assume the wrong end of the scale.”
LikeLike
Right, but i said it before, there’s no such thing as a 100% atheist position. There can’t be. It wouldn’t be logical. Agnosticism is no belief in religion but one in a god. On this i have to fully agree with our ex-patriot Pom, the Ark: it’s an incomplete position. I’d say you’re more a deist: there is a supernatural (with a hyper consciousness unidentifiable to us) but it doesn’t give a rats ass about us, or really anything. I’m perfectly happy with a deistic stand. I don’t share it (i can’t see how a consciousness can exist outside the laws of conservation of energy) but its logically acceptable to me because of the indifferent nature of, well, nature. That indifference is a truism.
Personally, i’m of the opinion that life is the universe trying to understand itself. We are, after all, a bunch of atoms studying atoms, looking for meaning. The one constant we observe in the universe is a movement from simplicity to complexity. Protons to atoms of hydrogen, hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon and oxygen… all the way to protein strands and cellular life. It certainly appears to be an on-going experiment in complexity. Now, what’s behind this “urge” to complexity? That’s the question, isn’t it 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not a deist! I don’t believe in anything. I just can’t categorically state there’s nothing else. But the two comments underneath have clarified it nicely for it me. I guess I’ll go back to calling myself an atheist, hehe. Jings, and I’ll leave you to comtemplate the urge to complexity. 🙂
LikeLike
🙂 OK, fair enough
LikeLike
I meant to ask you, did you see the link to the God Loves Killing Children post? I’m totally disappointed that no Christians came to give an ‘explanation’. Genuinely, as I have NO idea what they can say it. As you have a kind of outreach programme to keen commenting Christians, I was wondering if you would consider reblogging it or making a link to it inviting comments. ( I realise this sort of thing might have been done to death previously but as I’m a new blogger, I’ve never come across it before.)
LikeLike
I did see it, but i didn’t click. I have since clicked. From my experience Christians avoid these awkward moments like the plague. Catholics were smart in ignoring the OT a long time ago. Evangelicals are, well, pretty retarded and demand the OT is true. This, of course, get’s them in all sorts of trouble so they’ve adapted (shit, evolution is real!) and ignore the ugly parts. I don’t think they’d take the bait. A delusion wouldn’t be a delusion worth having if you didn’t have a sturdy set of blinkers on hand 🙂
LikeLike
Haha, well put! Oh well, it was worth a try.
LikeLike
There are a lot of comments and I haven’t read them, so I hope I’m not repeating what someone else has already said.
For a long time I called myself an agnostic for exactly the reason you’ve described. Partly, I started calling myself an atheist for practical reasons. Once, I was at a bar with a friend and his new girlfriend whom he met in church. (He’s an atheist now, but this was a long time ago.) His girlfriend asked what religion I was. My mother brought me up to believe asking that was rude, but apparently other people don’t think so. I said I was an agnostic. The girlfriend asked exactly what I meant by that. My friend put his hand on my shoulder and said, “She’s a searcher.” Immediately, I got an invite to church. I started saying, “No, no. I’m not searching for anything.” A lot of people, both atheists and religious people, seem to think agnostic means undecided. That wasn’t what I meant. I meant what you described in your post.
Dawkins has a phrase, if I recall correctly, to the effect that by atheist he means that he believes that the probability that there is a god approaches zero. I came to a similar was of seeing it before I read that way of putting it. After the conversation with my friend and his girlfriend, I realized that I believe that there was very, very little chance that anyone would prove to my satisfaction that there was, in fact, a god. That I lived my life and conceived of the world as if there was no god and that was unlikely to change. So, I started to call myself an atheist.
It’s like when you hear the comparison that the assertion that god exists is like your neighbor saying that he has an invisible pet unicorn. I guess it’s remotely possible in so far as anything is possible. But I’m pretty sure there’s no unicorn.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for taking the time to comment, as based on what I had got back so far, I was beginning to wonder if I was writing in Chinese! That makes perfect sense to me, I guess in terms of what anyone else would understand from my use of either word, I am an atheist after all. Some of it was a reaction to the total atheism that is often expressed in blogs that I really can’t relate to, expressing things in absolutes when there’s no way of absolutely knowing. I think the weirdest thing is that it’s a logic thing for me, even though the potential scenarios I’m able to consider are ridiculously fanciful and illogical.
LikeLike
I think there’s quite a confusion between agnosticism and atheism. And atheist does not categorically say “there is no God.” I don’t categorically say “there are no unicorns in the star B-52” but I don’t believe in them, even though I acknowledge the possibility they may exist. In the same way, I don’t believe in God. That doesn’t mean I don’t admit the possibility there is a God. All I’m saying is that, until I see proof, I will operate under the assumption there isn’t one.
Again, atheism is not the belief that there is no God. It is the lack of belief that there is one and, as such, it is susceptible to updating.
LikeLike
Thanks David, that makes total sense to me as well. I think you make a really good point about everything in life, not just gods – we just have to operate under the assumption that what we see is real. Don’t want any more paranoia than necessary creeping in!
LikeLike
I think you and I approach it from the same angle. I consider myself atheist as it relates to an anthropomorphic god, but agnostic about some sort of not-yet-completely defined higher power that somehow contributed to the whole kit and kaboodle of the creation of the universe and possibly the institution and/or early direction of the evolutionary process of life. Calling the latter “god,” though, is contrary to how the word is commonly used in our society, and thus am more comfortable self-identifying as atheist than agnostic.
LikeLike
Thanks, it’s good to hear how other people view this. I guess everyone who commented is right, it does make more sense to call myself an atheist. I should maybe do a follow up “my re-conversation to atheism from a-religious agnosticism” post. I’m sure it would be a thrilling read!! 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: understanding atheism | violetwisp