Dear friend,
I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion we had on your live radio show last night, although there was one thing which left a sour taste in my mouth. This was your assertion that I am an agnostic and not an atheist. I know you meant this as a polite gesture, since in your view agnosticism is more palatable. In my view, it is just the opposite. Here is why I say this:
Agnosticism is a position concerning KNOWLEDGE.
a = not or absence of
gnostic (gnosis) = Greek for “knowledge”
An agnostic posits that a god does not exist in the context of human knowledge. What agnostics are doing by taking this position is to attempt to escape the stigma associated with admitting they don’t believe in a god by asserting that there is a “god” which is unknowable. This is worse than saying there is no god because it implies that even proof of a god cannot be admissible because there is no way of knowing of a god and, therefore, no way of knowing of proof of a god. God is completely shut out by the agnostic under the guise of acknowledging a god concept. As such, not a single attribute applied to a god by any religion can be postulated to an agnostic. The agnostic enjoys the benefit of the church having decided that any acknowledgment of a god is better than outright denial. But the agnostic has cleverly denied the existence of a god for GOOD!
Atheism is a position concerning THEOLOGY.
a = not or absence of
theism = belief in a deity or deities
Unlike the agnostic who cannot know of a god which is unknowable, the atheist is open-minded enough to accept demonstrable proof and upon such proof will know of – which is to say believe in – such god or gods. Historically, agnostics are considered more acceptable than atheists because of the false appearance in the acceptance that there is a god. But a god which is impossible to know of is much further away than a god which may be knowable given the proof that an atheist is willing to accept. An atheist who posits the absence of a god and furthers this assertion with the denial of the possibility of there being a god is just as close-minded as the theist in which they oppose. Dogma is dogma no matter which pole the attraction. I am not such an atheist. I am an atheist who does not believe in a god and who seriously doubts that there will ever be proof of the existence of any of the thousands of gods proposed by the human race. Monotheists have also since abandoned the thousands of other gods in exchange for one god. I’ve simply gone one god further than monotheism. This is called atheism. And given acceptable proof, I reserve the right to acknowledge a god or gods.
Atheists need proof
The types of proof an atheist will accept are based purely upon the assertions made by any particular religion concerning their god or gods. Remember, atheism is about THEISM, not about scientific wonders of some unexplainable force which you might conveniently label as a “god.” Your Abrahamic god is already clearly defined in scriptures which are claimed to be the word of this very god. So, it’s indisputable. And based upon these characterizations of the Abrahamic god, here are three examples of proof an atheist would accept:
It is written that your god answers prayers. I want statistics that show results of prayer are more probable than a coin toss.
It is written that your god loves everyone. I want all poverty and sickness and hunger cured absent any conditions imposed on the people being cured. Conditional love is a vice – not a virtue.
It is written that your god performs miracles. I want a demonstration. I don’t want naturally occurring phenomenon to be described as miracles performed by your god because they’re not. Nor is our emergence. Hard to conceive? Yes -much is. Miracle? No. An acceptable miracle would be for your god to simply reveal itself at once to a crowd of people of all different religions (I would like to be there too).
So far, the only “proof” anyone has ever been able to put forward concerning a god or gods is personal feelings or thoughts. By definition, a god is a supernatural being which is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Remove any of those attributes and you get something less than a god.
An omnipotent god has the strength and energy to manipulate anything in the physical realm. It was this god-force which was long ago (and still is today if you ask Pat Robertson) attributed to earthquakes and storms and fire and flood. We know that the forces of nature require no god to remain in full force.
An omniscient god knows all. Past, present, and future. This means that the idea of putting living creatures through a test while already knowing the outcome is nothing short of cruel and sadistic. All the prayers and worship and sacrifice made for this god by anyone – or the denial of this god by anyone – will not change their own outcome nor that of the universe. This means there is no free will. No choice. No chance to “change history” or “control our own destiny” for any of us.
An omnipresent god is a god who is everywhere all the time. Under the premise of this intrusive imposition, we are all being watched every moment of our lives. Even in our sleep. And including our most private thoughts. We cannot escape the surveillance of this god and therefore have absolutely no privacy. Our “free will” is threatened as we make decisions to appease this supernatural “peeping Tom” over ourselves and others.
An omnibenevolent god is one who loves and cares for everything. Although this all-loving god did not care enough about animals or plants to give them a soul and thus denying them the rights of passage to its “kingdom.” Although this all-loving god does not love those who don’t love it. Although this all-loving god does not love children enough to prevent their being molested or starved or becoming the unintended target of bullets or poison or still birth. Although this all-loving god does not love me enough to have placed the knowledge of its existence in my brain from birth and, instead, makes itself impossible for me to justify or acknowledge. And as if this weren’t enough, this planet, this universe, and everything in it, is subjected to the cruelty of chaos and extreme external and internal forces and does not reconcile with omnibenevolence.
But I get it. All of these god traits are obviously based upon a human desire to build a sense of security through ultimate control of everything. It is impossible for man to control everything and so having a “big buddy” who can is a clear advantage. A way to frighten enemies and rest easy at night. Although some of us are content with the absenceof an imaginary big buddy. We realize that by working together human kind can find REAL security and that collectively, WE are the “big buddy.” But through arguments that his god is the real one and her god is not, the “big buddy” remains only an elusive force of separatism among the faithful, affecting all of us.
In the atheistic view, the time for gods has passed. Mankind is entering a point where important decisions for our survival must be made using sound evidence and lesson’s learned, placing superstitions and dogma aside. We have great power over our environment and our future and unless we decide the world is in OUR hands and not at the mercy of some antiquated man-made myth, we just may bring forth the mass destruction which our oppressed desert-dwelling religious pioneers saw as the only way to wipe out their hell-bound enslavers while ending their own horribly miserable mortal lives in exchange for an imagined eternal bliss. They have planted the seeds of destruction by claiming their god wants this to happen. And we are cursed with this self-fulfilling prophecy as long as we continue to cling to these ancient superstitions.
In closing, I want you to know that aside from not having been presented with any proof for a god, I am an atheist because I don’t agree that the life we have now should be cheapened by the false promise of a better life after death. I think it’s extremely irresponsible to believe there needs to be a “final act” which amounts to suicide at a global scale. I don’t agree that our purpose is to serve a supernatural dictator that commands that we love it. And I loathe the idea of encouraging people, especially children, to pretend they love a mythical being using the “motivation” of eternal damnation. The human race can do much better than that.
Sincerely yours,
Sean Rowland
SupportAtheism.com
No comments:
Post a Comment